HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/18I
City of
WheatP,idge
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
October 25, 2015
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on October 25, 2015, 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC FORUM (TMs is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on
the agenda.)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WA -18-14: An application filed by Michael Claugus for approval of a 4 -
foot (80%) variance to the east side setback and a 2 -foot 8 -inch (53%) variance to
the west side setback for a detached garage for property zoned Residential -One C
(R -1Q, located at 5572 West 27a Avenue. The City Attorney has deterndned the
care needs to be confinued
B. Case No. WA -1S-16: An application filed by Mala Sandoval for approval of a 20 -
foot (80%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement for yards which
abut a public street in the Residential -(R-2) zone district to construct an attached
carport, located at 6001 West 32" Avenue.
6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
7. OLD BUSINESS
S. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes — June 28, 2018
9. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by
the City of WheatRidge. Call Sara Spaulding, Public Information feud, at 303-235-2377 at
least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in participating and need inclusion
assistance.
TO:
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME:
City of
Wh6atP,iLd
�ge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment DATE: October 25, 2018
Scott Cutler
WA -18-16 / Sandoval
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of 20 -foot (80%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback
requirement for yards which abut a public street in the Residential -Two (R-2)
zone district to construct an attached carport.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6001 W. 32nd Avenue
APPLICANT/OWNER: Mala G. Sandoval
APPROXIMATE AREA: 9,321 Square Feet (0.214 Acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Two (R-2)
PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Site
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this
case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of 20 -foot (80%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback
requirement for yards which abut a public street in the Residential -Two (R-2) zone district. The
purpose of this variance is to build an attached carport allowing for covered parking on the property.
Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws empowers the Board of
Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district
development standards. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standards are required to
be heard at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The variance is being requested so the property owner may construct an attached carport on the east
side of the existing house. The property is located on the northwest corner of W. 32nd Avenue and
Harlan Street and is part of the Supernor Minor Subdivision. The existing house sits on a 9,321 -square
foot parcel and was originally constructed in 1922, per the Jefferson County Assessor (Exhibit 1,
Aerial). The property is zoned Residential -Two (R-2), as are the properties to the west along W. 32nd
Avenue and north along Harlan Street (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). Properties to the southeast are zoned
Residential -Three (R-3). Across Harlan Street to the east is the Sons of Italy building, which is zoned
Residential -One C (R -1C), as are the residential properties to the north and east. Most properties in the
area consist of single-family homes, though there are some duplexes along W. 32nd Avenue and south
on Harlan Street.
Case History
At the April 26, 2018 Board of Adjustment hearing, the applicant was denied two variances to keep a
240 -square foot metal structure on the property with a 1 -foot side setback (a 24 -foot variance from the
25 -foot side yard setback requirement) (Case No. WA -18-02).
Staff followed up with the applicant on May 30, 2018 and determined that the building must be
removed because it could not be converted into a legal structure, and that because the variances were
denied it could not remain in its current location. The applicant has since engaged with a contractor,
who determined that an attached carport would be appropriate for the property.
In subsequent conversations, staff notified the applicant that any new variance applications must be
"substantially different" than the previous application, per City Code (Section 26-108.C). Staff has
determined that this application is substantially different because the carport is proposed to be
attached, the requested setback variance is different, and the proposed location of the carport is
changed.
Because this is a new application, staff and the Board of Adjustment shall review this application for
compliance with the review criteria independent of the previous application.
Board ofAdfustment
CaseNo. WA-18-16/Sandoval
Application
The site plan (Exhibit 3) shows the location of the proposed 18 -foot by 18 -foot carport, which would
be attached to the existing house. It would be located towards the northeast of the property, partially
over the existing driveway. Both the site plan and the elevation/example (Exhibit 4) show the location
of the support posts. The posts would be placed so that the carport is accessed from the south rather
than the side, which prevents vehicles from backing directly into Harlan Street which is the current
condition. The carport would start at a height of approximately 10-12 feet against the house (depending
on the location and final design), and slope down to approximately 8 feet on the side closest to Harlan
Street. The carport would be wood framed with a composite shed -style roof to match the existing home
as much as possible.
The site photos provided (Exhibit 5) show some of the improvements on the property, which include a
one-story single family home, the existing green metal structure which must be removed, and two
sheds.
Development Standards
The parcel meets minimum standards for the R-2 zone district. The following table compares the
required R-2 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions:
R-2 Development Standards:
Required
Actual
Lot Area(one-family dwelling)
9,000 square feet min
9,321 square feet
Lot Width (corner lots)
80 feet (min)
80.7 feet x 115.5 feet
Building Coverage
40% (max)
—21% (with carport)
Setback (side adjacent to a
public street)
25 feet (min)
5 feet
Moving the carport to the west side of the property (side yard) is possible but likely not practical due to
the lack of driveway and access to the rear yard. Alternative placement in the rear (north) yard is likely
not feasible due to the position of the house, fence, and shed, as it may be difficult to drive a vehicle
into this space. This area of the yard is also sloped so grading may be difficult.
Public Comment
As of the date of distribution of this staff report, October 19, 2018, the City has not received letters
from surrounding property owners. If letters arrive between the delivery of this staff report and the
Board of Adjustment hearing, they will be entered into the record and provided to the Board members
during the hearing.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve a variance, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the majority of the
"criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has
provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria, which also includes a
note from their doctor (Exhibit 6, Written Request). Staff provides the following review and analysis of
the variance criteria
Board ofAdfustment
CaseNo. WA-18-16/Sandoval
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 is 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. However, if the variance is denied, the property would not have useable
protected car storage, which is a common expectation of homeowners in Wheat Ridge.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The small shed at the northeast corner of the property has a smaller side setback at
approximately 1 -foot and has been on the property since at least 2004, according to aerial
imagery. The home at 3190 Harlan Street (directly southeast from the subject property) is set
back approximately 8 feet from the property line, and has a similar perceived setback of 15 feet
from the edge of pavement because the right-of-way is not fully constructed (Exhibit 3, Site
Plan).
A one-story carport will not have a substantial visual impact on the surrounding area as it will
be shorter than the existing house which has a raised first story. Much of the carport will not be
visible to southbound Harlan Street as it will be obscured by the existing shed and 6 -foot fence.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
This investment meets historical thresholds for what constitutes a substantial investment which
includes a full-sized garage, attached wood -framed carport, or home addition. The applicant
has involved a contractor to build the structure and submit for a building permit, ensuring it
will meet code requirements.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out.
While the lot meets all of the requirements for properties in the R-2 zone district, the location
of the right-of-way line relative to the property improvements presents a unique hardship. A
portion of the existing home encroaches into the required side setback of 25 feet and is
positioned such that there are few feasible locations for a garage or carport on either side of the
home. Potential other carport locations may require other setback variances, or a petition for an
additional driveway location, which could be cost/time prohibitive. Currently, no driveway
access points or curb cuts are located on W. 32°d Avenue, and adding an additional driveway
Board ofAdfustment
CaseNo. WA-18-16/Sandoval
would be expensive. Much of the existing horseshoe driveway is located in City right-of-way,
as well as the split rail fence and landscaping area along Harlan Street (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). As
a corner lot, the property is subject to a 25 -foot side setback because it is adjacent to a public
street. A typical non -corner lot in R-2 only requires a 5 -foot side setback. Because of this
requirement, the overall buildable area is greatly reduced on a similarly -sized corner lot.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
While staff determined in the previous variance application that the applicant created their own
hardship by constructing a metal building without obtaining a building permit, staff does not
find the current application to be related. The applicant did not plat the lot or determine the
location of the existing improvements on the property relative to existing lot lines.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located,
by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or
impairing property values within the neighborhood.
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. While the carport would be fairly close to the property line, the roofline is
low and is partially screened by landscaping and fencing, so the adequate supply of air and
light would not be compromised as a result of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The addition would not impede the sight distance triangle
and would not increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the carport would impact property values because of its low profile, and the
fact that its approval would allow the existing metal building to be removed. The rear fence
will also partially obscure the carport from view of Harlan Street.
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.
As with many older properties in Wheat Ridge, the existing primary structure does not meet
current setback standards for its zone district, as a small portion of the home is within 23 feet of
the property line. Several properties in the immediate vicinity, including the properties across
Board ofAdfustment
CaseNo. WA-18-16/Sandoval
the intersection to the southeast (3190 Harlan Street and 3195 Gray Street), would require
variances in order to construct accessory buildings, or to be rebuilt altogether as viable homes.
It is common in the area for the right-of-way line to encroach into a driveway or parking area
for the property, particularly when there are no sidewalks. Many times homeowners are not
aware of where their true property line is located because the right-of-way line is significantly
behind the edge of street or sidewalk.
Staff finds that this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
The applicant has provided a physician's note (Exhibit 6) indicating that covered parking would
be medically beneficial because of the applicant's medical needs.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
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.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 20 -foot (80%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement for yards
which abut a public street in the Residential -Two (R-2) zone district. Staff has found that there are
unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore,
staff recommends denial for the following reasons:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property.
3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
4. The unusual conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and
are not unique to the property.
5. The variance would ensure that a legal structure replaces an existing illegal building.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and architecture of the proposed carport shall be consistent with representations
depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a
building permit.
2. The existing metal carport structure, previously denied by the Board of Adjustment, shall be
removed prior to final inspections for the new carport. If no building permit is received for the
Board ofAdfustment
CaseNo. WA-18-16/Sandoval
new carport within 180 days of variance approval, the metal carport must be removed or Code
Enforcement citation action will be initiated.
3. The carport may not be enclosed in the future along the side facing Harlan Street.
Board ofAdfustment
CaseNo. WA-18-16/Sandoval
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
Wheat 1111:09c
Geographic'O
Information Systems
Legend
O Subject Property
Residential -One C (R-1 C)
(� Residential -Two (R-2)
J Residential -Three (R-3)
>r_
r11
A49
Fe
1
32ND AVE
j
J� v
Ki. Iss
12
Sure Pane Coomuau POfe=non ,. N
C 1.. aCe "I Zone
Daum: NHne3
Board ofAdjustment 9
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN
Note: Site plan is not to scale. The applicant also provided a site plan but it did not scan well, the
above site plan is an annotated aerial view created by staff based on the site plan provided by the
applicant, which is below.
The support posts will be located on the east side. The carport would be accessed from the south,
not the east. This may require additional pavement adjacent to the house.
Board ofAdjustment 10
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
6 o 0i l/-) 3 ,. 14,-(
5 -foot setback
Board ofAdjuvtment
CareNo. WA-18-161S�doval
N
4
11
EXHIBIT 4: SIDE VIEWS
This elevation drawing shows the posts described above; this is a view looking west from Harlan
Street. The existing house would be behind the carport, and the carport's roof would slope down
from the side of the house (approximately 10 to 12 feet in height), down to approximately 8 feet in
height closest to the street.
Board ofAdjwtment 12
CareNo. WA-18-16/Sandoval
push¢. Carport Plans
s
�\ a
2
l
\
t
Game room PintereslI
Ca,rl itlea
cerpon eI.Ihad house
pla-;arporl Allacbe4 Carport.v nous
Houma LA Hon
s
�\ a
2
l
\
t
564 - 332 -Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
Attached car
Pintere.t
AttacheO caryons I At
bold prtlen
F7,,-
F_-_ -
The above example provided by the applicant shows the shed -style roof with composite roofing that
is proposed for the carport. It would be a simple carport design sloping away from the house.
Board ofAdjustment 13
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
EXHIBIT 5: SITE PHOTOS
View of the property looking south down Harlan Street towards W. 32' Avenue. The existing
metal structure can be seen in the center of the photo, painted green and partially obscured by the
landscape buffer. The small shed in the northeast corner of the property is to the right. The carport
would be partially obscured from view from this angle. (Photo from April 2018, but conditions have
notchanged)
Board ofAdfusbnent 14
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
A view of the property looking north from W. 32nd Avenue. The structure is behind the trees and
white vehicle parked in the driveway. (Photo from April 2018)
A view of the property looking west from Harlan Street. The carport would be attached to the
existing house with a roof sloping down. (Source: Google Street View, October 2014)
Board ofAdjustment 15
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
EXHIBIT 6: WRITTEN REQUEST
Board of-4djustment 16
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
1
PII
/ I . •1
t �
r -
ro
I• t L ., .__ .. i
P
Board of-4djustment 16
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
04. KAISER PERMANENTE.,
8/9/2018
To whom it may concern,
I am the treating physician for Mala Sandoval. Ms. Sandoval has been diagnosed with cerebral
palsy since birth. It is my opinion as her treating physician that her condition is not conducive to
clearing snow from her car, and that it can be dangerous as it poses an increased risk of falling due to
her condition. Accordingly, she is advised to park her car in a snow -free structure in case of
snowstorms.
Thank you for ^understanding,
Lindsey Ward, DO
Family Medicine
KP Wheat Ridge Office
303-338-4545
Board of-4djustment 17
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
QVCJ INW
O
V`
w
04. KAISER PERMANENTE.,
8/9/2018
To whom it may concern,
I am the treating physician for Mala Sandoval. Ms. Sandoval has been diagnosed with cerebral
palsy since birth. It is my opinion as her treating physician that her condition is not conducive to
clearing snow from her car, and that it can be dangerous as it poses an increased risk of falling due to
her condition. Accordingly, she is advised to park her car in a snow -free structure in case of
snowstorms.
Thank you for ^understanding,
Lindsey Ward, DO
Family Medicine
KP Wheat Ridge Office
303-338-4545
Board of-4djustment 17
Case No. WA-18-16/Sandoval
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE)
CASE NO: WA -18-16
APPLICANT NAME: Mala Sandoval
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6001 W. 32nd Avenue
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -18-16 was not eligible for review by an
administrative officer; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that
there were/were not protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS the relief applied for may/mav not 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 -
18 -16 be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE:
Request for Approval of a 20 -foot (80%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback
requirement for yards which abut a public street in the Residential -Two (R-2) zone district.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application.
3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
4. The unusual conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood
and are not unique to the property.
5. The variance would ensure that a legal structure replaces an existing illegal building.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and architecture of the proposed carport shall be consistent with
representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval
through review of a building permit.
2. The existing metal carport structure, previously denied by the Board of Adjustment, shall
be removed prior to final inspections for the new carport. If no building permit is
received for the new carport within 180 days of variance approval, the metal carport must
be removed or Code Enforcement citation action will be initiated.
3. The carport may not be enclosed in the future along the side facing Harlan Street.
♦SII
City Of
c�7�IheatR�dge
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO:
Board of Adjustment
FROM:
Zack Wallace Mendez, Planner II
DATE:
October 19, 2018
SUBJECT:
Continuation of Case No. WA -18-14
On Wednesday, October 17, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) of the subject
property was provided to Staff. This ILC indicated the property was actually 1.5 feet narrower
than originally measured.
Due to the narrowness of the lot (25 feet in total), this 1.5 -foot difference impacts the variance
request, and results in a greater variance needed. Since the updated request is for a greater
variance than was published and posted to the public, the Board of Adjustment cannot hear the
case, as it would impact the property rights of adjacent property owners. The case must be
republished and reposted with the updated request in order for the Board of Adjustment to hear
the case.
Recommended Motion:
"I move to postpone the public hearing for Case Number WA -18-14 until December 13,
2018, so that it may be properly published and posted with the updated variance request."
I
City of
WheatRi c
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
June 28, 2015
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
Alternates Present:
Board Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
3. PUBLIC FORUM
No one wished to speak at this time.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No.WA-1S-0S
Thomas Abbott
Janet Bell
Paul Hovland
Betty Jo Page
Larry Richmond
Michael Griffeth
Dan Bradford
David Kuntz
Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager
Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. 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 waiver to section 26-502.C.8 of the
Municipal Code to allow artificial turf instead of live landscaping at 4020 Estes
Street. Staff recommends denial of this variance.
Board of Adjustment Minutes June 28, 2018 1
Member PAGE asked if there is a requirement for grass in the code for new
construction.
Ms. Reckert confirmed there is not.
Member Page also wanted to know why artificial turf would be allowed in the back
and not the front.
Ms. Reckert said the artificial turf is less impactful in the rear yard because it is not
visible from the street.
Member RICHMOND asked if there are emulsifiers included in the product being
discussed because emulsifiers can be carcinogenic.
Ms. Mikulak said that question will be reserved for the applicant.
Member BELL has concerns of water shortage in the future and would like to see a
drainage system created for runoff to be more efficient.
Member GRIFFETH asked if this project could have been permitted as a remodel and
would the same landscaping requirements be upheld.
Ms. Reckert said no this house was a total scrape and could not be considered a
remodel. Ms. Mikulak added that even if it was a remodel and the landscaping was
disturbed then it would need to be restored. Ak
Member PAGE asked if there is a limitation as to how much concrete can be on a lot.
Ms. Reckert said not in low density areas. k
Member ABBOTT asked if the waiver for this case is for the property or the product
because the products of choice can have different permeability's.
Ms. Reckert agreed the waiver is for the property address.
Member PAGE asked if the lot is flat and if the cement will drain to the adjacent lots.
Ms. Reckert explained the lot is mostly flat and has been engineered to have swales
so the impact to the neighbor's will be les impactful.
Martha Mortell, applicant
4020 Estes Street
Ms. Mortell gave a brief description of why her family has applied for a waiver to
have artificial turf on their property. She explained the main reason is for their kids,
because they have allergies to grass, their daughter's being very extreme. She also
mentioned the durability of artificial turf is great and it is low maintenance.
Board of Adjustment Minutes June 28, 2018
Member PAGE expressed a concern that the world is much bigger than just the yard
and there is grass everywhere.
Ms. Mortell agreed, but explained that a portion of her daughter's school has artificial
turf and she will experience other areas in the community where there will be grass
and she has to be careful, but if we can keep a safe environment at home then that is
our goal.
Member GRIFFETH asked if any of the neighbors have complained about having
artificial turf in the neighborhood.
Ms. Mortell said she is not aware of any neighbors complaining and she has received
letters in support.
Member GRIFFETH asked if Ms. Mortell would considered installing the artificial
turf in the back yard only.
Ms. Mortell said yes, but the quality of the product is so impressive it looks very real
from the street, even when standing on it. Ms Mortell said there are standards that
need to be met and if installed professionally there is an 8 year warranty.
Member PAGE asked how the artificial turf is maintained, is it vacuumed.
Ms. Mortell says it will be swept to remove leaves and the rain keeps it clean.
Member ABBOTT asked if other jurisdiction's standards can be used in a waiver
situation like this.
Ms. Reckert said not at this point, only if City Council asks staff to do research in the
use of artificial turf.
Member BELL said this might be a good opportunity to do this research.
Ms. Mikulak added that research and a code amendment could take 6-12 months to
pass and we are not in a position tonight to recommend installation codes from
another jurisdiction.
Member HOVLAND stated that as a Board we can't make or change the rules; we
can look at this case, we can warrant a waiver in the rule if the situation for the case
doesn't fit the rule. He thought it would help their decision if the Board could see
letters from neighbors. He also thought maybe in the backyard for artificial turf, but
not sure about the front yard.
Ms. Mortell entered into the record some letters from her neighbors. She also added
the extensive research she and her husband have done into the different products on
the market and want to make sure there is no environmental pollution. The artificial
Board of Adjustment Minutes June 28, 2018
turf significantly helps her daughter and they would like it in both front and back
yards.
There was then some discussion about what other jurisdiction's artificial turf
standards are in other cities and states.
Member PAGE asked about kids playing on artificial turf and developing cancer.
Joseph Downs, Plush Grass, contractor
6051 Washington Street, Ste. B, Denver
Mr. Downs gave some background on Plush Grass and their installations of artificial
turf. He added there is a two yearlong study that the industry is waiting for results on
with regards to rubber infill to athletic field turf and if it leads to lung conditions or
cancer. He also explained the products that Plush Grass uses, called Envirofil, does
not use emulsifiers. The product they use is 100% polyethylene and is anti -bacterial.
He added it is not made from recyclable products, but is recyclable.
Member RICHMOND said he is still concerned about material in the product even if
it does not contain emulsifiers.
Mr. Downs said research has been done and there is research still being done on all
their products and he does not believe there is anything to fear.
There was more discussion on the Envirofil product.
Beverly Sparks, neighbor
4010 Estes Street, Wheat Ridge
Ms. Sparks said she has no problem with the Mortell's installing artificial turf.
Member Bell asked if live landscaping means grass.
Ms. Mikulak read that the definition of landscaping from the Municipal Code and it is
a combination of live plants, grasses, rocks and mulch.
Upon a motion by Member Page and seconded by Member BELL, the following
motion was stated:
WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -18-08 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 the City of Wheat Ridge; and
Board of Adjustment Minutes June 28, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application
Case No. WA -18-08 be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Waiver to Section 26-502 to allow artificial turf in the
landscaping at 4020 Estes Street.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. Artificial turf will be allowed due to the owner's daughter's allergies to
grass and her disability.
2. It does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
3. It is a substantial investment in the property.
4. It is not detrimental to the public welfare.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The product should be consistent with the representations that have been
made in the application.
Motion carried 5-1 with Member RICHMOND voting against.
Member GRIFFETH agreed with the motion and thinks that the health of our children is
important, the sustainability of the product might be in question, but it will look good and
he fills a homeowner should be able to do what they want to their yard.
5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair ABBOTT closed the public hearing.
6. OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes — April 26, 2018
It was moved by Member HOVLAND and seconded by Member PAGE to approve
the minutes as written. The motion passed 5-0-1 with Board Member GRIFFETH
abstaining.
B. Election of Vice Chair
Ms. Mikulak explained that Vice Chair ABBOTT is moving into the Chair position
because Chair BANGHART resigned from the Board of Adjustment. Do to these
events a Vice Chair needs to be elected. She then explained that the alternates present
at the meeting can vote, but an alternate cannot be elected.
Member PAGE was elected as Vice Chair.
Board of Adjustment Minutes June 28, 2018
C. Member Griffeth would like to seethe numbers for the super majority vote to be
included in the packet every time, it was helpful.
D. Member BELL would like more training from the City Attorney.
Ms. Mikulak said staff will look into scheduling a dinner/training with Gerald Dahl,
the City Attorney.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair ABBOTT adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m.
Thomas Abbott, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
Board of Adjustment Minutes June 28, 2018