Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-28-16►�N. 41 City of l Wheat Widge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 28, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: 3 4 5. Alternates Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING Thomas Abbott Janet Bell Dan Bradford Paul Hovland Betty Jo Page Larry Richmond Michael Griffeth Sally Banghart David Kuntz Lily Griego Lisa Ritchie, Planner I1 Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary A. Case No. WA -16-08: An application filed by Gray Properties for approval of Request A: a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street and approval of Request B: a 5 -foot (100%) variance to the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story located on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at the Northeast corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 The case was presented by Zack Wallace. He entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. He stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the digital presentation. Request A: Mr. Wallace explained the side setback for the southern end of the property is 25 -feet and the applicants have proposed a 15 -foot setback. The applicant did a property analysis along 33`d Ave and concluded the average setback from the property lines is approximately 13 -feet; so the proposed 15 -foot setback is in line with what is present in the neighborhood. Along with the 15 -foot setback there will be an added amenity zone so the building will sit about 20 -feet away from 33rd Avenue. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if numbers in Exhibit 7 were provided by a surveyor or the applicant. Mr. Wallace explained it was provided by the applicant because surveys are not kept by the City. Based on a visual inspection by aerial photography this looks to be accurate to staff, but there is no way to verify the accuracy without a survey. Board Member GRIFFETH asked who deemed the property developable as stated on page 3 of the staff report. Mr. Wallace stated it was the City Attorney. Board Member GRIFFITH asked about the two calls in opposition and if any letters were submitted. Mr. Wallace said there were no formal written objections. Board Member BELL commented about the setbacks being created before the City was incorporated in 1969 and asked if the building to the north came in to existence when under County planning laws. Mr. Wallace agreed. Board Member BRADFORD asked if there has been any analysis done from the Building Division regarding codes; for example - property distance. Mr. Wallace stated that the Building Division has not looked at anything yet. Todd Briney 4070 N. Albion Street, Denver 80216 Mr. Briney explained he works for Gray Properties and he performed the measurements manually for the property lines on 33`d Avenue; finding on average the Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 2 setback were 13 -feet. He stated that it will be difficult to make this development work if there is not a 10 -foot variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback. The fourth unit makes this development profitable. Chair ABBOTT asked about the square footage of each unit, being a total of three stories. Mr. Briney stated 2,289 sq. ft. is the total. He also stated there was a lot line adjustment done to take the two lots and make it one so from an investment standpoint it is better to get 4 units on one lot than a duplex and single family on 2 lots. Board Member PAGE asked how wide the units are. Mr. Wallace said the units are 24 -feet wide. Chair ABBOTT asked about what is meant by the perceived setback. Mr. Wallace explained the 15 -foot setback will look larger because added to it will be the 5 -feet of ROW and amenity zone, making the setback look approximately 20 -feet. The City's property will be the ROW and amenity zone. Ms. Ritchie added that what is called for in the Streetscape Manual will be done. She believes a 5 -foot attached sidewalk will be created and the ADA ramps at the corners will have to be reconstructed. Board Member GRIFFETH asked the applicant if their civil engineer is licensed with the state. Mr. Briney replied yes, they have PE and PLS licenses. Board Member GRIFFETH asked why the variance would not result in any additional accommodation of a person with disabilities. Mr. Wallace stated that there is nothing on the site that will prevent the building from being built without the ADA requirement. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member GRIFFITH, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -16-08 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing and City of Wheat Ridge; and Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 3 NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request A of Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16- 08 be, and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The lot has two street frontages which require increased setbacks, which have not been adhered to along the same 33rd Avenue corridor. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not unique to the property. 6. The perceived setback is greater than the actual measurement thereby negating the impact on the distance from the street. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Site Plan be in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Request B: Mr. Wallace explained the 5 -foot variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for the third story of a multifamily principal structure. Chari ABBOTT asked if the variance affects the entire north side of the building or just the third story. Mr. Wallace stated this variance affect only the third story of the northern portion of the building. Board Member GRIFFETH asked why the code asks for the 5 -foot setback. Mr. Wallace explained it is to act as a bulk plane and is required for multifamily buildings to scale back the massing of structures. Chair ABBOTT asked for bulk plane to be explained. Mr. Wallace explained bulk planes typically extend above a property line then angle 45 degrees into property. This code section acts more like a `step back,' but is similar to a bulk plane. The R-3 code asks that the third story be stepped back 5 -feet for multi -family structures. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 4 Ms. Ritchie added that depending on the development, a step back allows more light into the neighboring property. Board Member BELL commented that the architecture over the last 10 years has changed and feels this building is in line with all the new construction and like the additional 5 -feet on the northern end of the building because it makes the building look symmetrical. Board Member HOVLAND added that the 5 -foot step back would reduce the tunnel affect but in this case the adjacent building is going to be 50 -feet away so it is not a problem. Chair ABBOTT and Board Member GRIFFETH agree with Board Member HOVELAND. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if the variance doesn't pass, will the 3`d floor be designable. Mr. Briney stated it would depend on the units on the southern end, but we would like to maximize the amount of square footage and make it flow with other rectangular buildings in the area. Board Member HOVLAND asked if the 5 -feet that would be stepped back and cut out is living space or covering for the stairwell. Mr. Briney explained it is both and would take out a skylight to the stairwell. The floor plan would have to be adjusted and the laundry room would have to be adjusted or put somewhere else. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member PAGE, the following motion was stated: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request B of Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16-08 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The 55 -foot separation between the buildings will not cause any impact or reduction on air, light or sunshine to either property. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 4. 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. 5. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0 B. Case No. WA -16-09: An application filed by Designs by Sundown for approval of two variances. The first is a request for a variance to the maximum size permitted for an accessory structure in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district. The second is a request for a variance to permit a metal accessory structure for the property located at 3390 Oak Street. 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 digital presentation. Ms. Ritchie explained the area of the property is 25,600, sq. ft., just a little over half an acre with an existing single family home on the property. The intent of this request is to build a retractable pool enclosure. It would be 500 sq. ft. larger than the 1000 sq. ft. permitted in the R-1 zone district. The pool enclosure will be an anodized aluminum frame with a polycarbonate sheeting, kind of like a green house. The back portion will be fixed and then part of it can retract or keep the pool covered during the colder months. The structure will only be 13 -feet in height which is 2 -feet under the allowable height. There were no neighborhood objections. One of the conditions would be to have the owner replace any trees on the property if they should die from becoming damaged or diseased. Board Member PAGE stated she found a typo in the staff report and the model for approval. Number three under For the Following Reasons should not be included in the approval. Board Member GRIFFETH asked who came up with the condition of replacement of trees and if that will transfer to later owners of the property. Ms. Ritchie stated that staff came up with this condition as long as the structure is in place and the property owner agreed with it. Also, it will transfer to the next owners. Chair ABBOTT asked about how staff came up with the tree replacement condition because he has never heard of this being done before. Ms. Ritchie explained she discussed it with the director and the structure won't be visible to the neighbors because of the vegetation and because they are getting a benefit above and beyond what the zoning code will allow so staff determined it was reasonable to make the request. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 6 Board Member HOVLAND wondered if the tree replacement is in perpetuity or during construction and feels it is far reaching if it is in perpetuity. Ms. Ritchie state it is in perpetuity, but the Board can state how they would like it in the motion. Board Member BELL feels it is important to maintain vegetation. Roy Martin, Owner 3390 Oak Street, Wheat Ridge Jeremiah Lord 8562 Ingalls Circle, Arvada Mr. Martin explained he wanted to create an oasis in the backyard that is private and the trees were mature when we placed them in the yard and this was by design. He stated he has no problem replacing the trees and has done so in the past when he lost four trees to a devastating storm in 2009. A few trees will be removed right up against the house to install the pool, but this will not affect the neighbors view. Chair ABBOTT asked why does the owner need such a large structure and why metal. Mr. Martin explained he would like some walking room around the pool when the structure is closed during the winter months and aluminum is the only material that satisfies the requirement to look good over a long period of time. Mr. Lord added that when the structure is closed the owners want the pool to be functional and safe to walk around. It will be also be non -impactful to the neighborhood and will increase the property value. Board Member PAGE asked if the structure was attached to the house if the variance would be needed. Ms. Ritchie said no, not if it is attached to the house. Bruce Waring, neighbor 3370 Oak Street, Wheat Ridge Mr. Waring says he is in favor of the variance. We live in a great neighborhood and nobody disapproves, the view will not be obstructed and there will be no other impacts. The tree requirement is a nice idea as part of the construction, but in perpetuity if far reaching and shouldn't be required. Board Member PAGE asked what the requirement is about fencing pools. Mr. Lord explained that because there is already a 6 -foot fence around the backyard then the requirements have been met. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 Upon a motion by Board Member GRIFFETH and second by Board Member HOVLAND, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -16-09 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may not be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing and City of Wheat Ridge NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16- 09 be, and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: a variance to the maximum permitted size for an accessory structure, and a request for approval of a variance to permit a metal accessory structure. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The proposed pool cover 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 request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. No objections were received regarding the variance request. 5. The building is only 13 -feet tall. 6. There is no variance request for setbacks or maximum lot coverage. 7. The building is primarily transparent with less than 10% metal. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed enclosure shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. 2. If any existing perimeter tree is removed or becomes damaged during construction, it shall be replaced with a minimum 2" caliper tree or 6 -foot tall evergreen tree. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 6. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair ABBOTT closed the public hearing. 7. OLD BUSINESS Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 8 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — January 28, 2016 It was moved by Board Member PAGE and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 7-0. C. Board Member PAGE encouraged the Board to attend the Mayor's Reception for the Carnation Festival on Wednesday, August 10. D. Board Member BELL thought there were some good discussions at the meeting tonight. She would like to suggest having a session with the City Attorney and discussions with the Board in general about the changes going on in the City. Chair ABBOTT added it would be nice to include the Planning Commission. Ms. Ritchie added that the Planning Commission has update discussions at least once a year and the same could be done for the Board of Adjustment. E. ADJOURNMENT Chair ABBOTT adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m. David Kuntz, Chair Tammy O n, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 9