Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/1999CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT C i1 i J I N AL Minutes of Meeting June 24, 1999 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair HOWARD at 7:30 p.m. on June 24, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Michelle Brown Bill Echelmeyer Bob Howard Paul Hovland Karen Thiessen Members Absent: Susan Junker Linda Mauro Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Chris Cramer, Summer Intern, Planning Department Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of June 24, 1999. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Chair HOWARD announced that Case No. WA-99-16 (item 4B on the agenda) had been withdrawn by the applicant. 4. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There was no one signed up to speak. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-99-15: Application by Ben Bandimere for approval of a 953 square foot lot area variance from the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement and a 15 foot lot width variance from the 75 foot minimum lot width requirement to allow the construction of a duplex at 4470 Lee Street. Said property is zoned R-2A. Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 1 06/24/99 This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She distributed excerpts from the minutes of the December 11, 1997 and January 22, 1998 hearings which pertain to this case. After Board members had an opportunity to read these documents, she reviewed the staff report, presented slides and overheads of the subject property and answered the ten criteria involved in granting a variance. All pertinent documents were entered into the record. She stated staffs conclusion that the criteria does not support the request to allow for development of a duplex. Although staff felt approval of the request would not alter the essential character of the locality or increase traffic congestion, the property is large enough and wide enough to allow for the development of a single-family structure as a use by right. Staff s recommendation is for denial. She also noted that staff received three phone calls in opposition to this application. In response to a question from Board Member BROWN as to the nature of the opposition, Mr. Cramer replied that he received one phone call from a citizen who did not give a reason but just wanted her opposition to be a matter of record. Meredith Reckert clarified the lot lines on the subject property at the request of Board Member ABBOTT. Ben Bandimere 13831 West 54th Avenue, Arvada Mr. Bandimere, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair HOWARD. He stated that he bought the subject property in 1992 and was required to dedicate 20 feet of the land for right-of-way to widen Lee Street which reduced the size of his lot considerably. He has considered building a single family home on the lot, but has had the property for sale for the past nine months and no one has expressed any interest. However, he stated that there has been a lot of interest in the duplex built on the first lot. He immediately sold each unit and one has been resold. He did not believe this location was suitable for a single family residence. In response to a question from Board Member BROWN, Mr. Bandimere presented a elevation of proposed duplex. Board Member THIESSEN asked the applicant if he was made aware of the 20-foot land dedication requirement at the time of his subdivision application. Mr. Bandimere replied that he knew he would have to dedicate some land, but didn't realize at the time how much land would actually be involved. In response to another question from Board Member THIESSEN, Mr. Bandimere stated that he was aware that he could have built a four-plex structure on the land but felt a duplex was more desirable. A four-plex would require rental of the units, whereas the duplex units could be sold to individual owners. Mr. Bandimere stated that he has attempted to purchase a portion of the property to the north to expand the lot area, but the owner is not interested in selling at this time. He felt that construction of duplexes in this area would actually improve the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 2 06/24/99 Board Member HOVLAND asked if the applicant could consolidate his two lots into one. Ms. Reckert explained that this would be impossible because he no longer has ownership of the duplex. Board Member ABBOTT commented that this piece of property appears to be an island in the middle of mismatched zoning and asked if R-3 zoning would allow a duplex to built on this lot. Ms. Reckert replied that a zoning change would make no difference as far as density requirements are concerned. She also commented that there are also physical limitations presented by the irrigation ditch on this piece of property. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by BROWN, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-99-15 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were three protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted 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-99-15 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A request for a 953 square-foot lot area and 15 foot lot width variance for property located at 4470 Lee Street. For the following reasons: The property is located in an area surrounded by several apartment structures and adjacent to an existing church. The applicant will be required to comply with existing setbacks established for this specific zone district; therefore, approval of this request should not substantially alter the essential character of the locality. 2. Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood as approval of this variation will only permit a change in density. The granting of this request will result in minimum density impact as it will enable the increase of only one additional family. Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3 06/24/99 3. The ownership of the existing duplex on the adjacent lot has been short-term which points to the less than desirable location for long-term single family occupancy. The single family occupancy would exist completely surrounded by multi-family or commercial. 4. The subdivision of this parcel by City Council created one standard and one substandard lot related to the allowable size for construction of two duplexes. As a legal duplex has been constructed on lot 2 since the previous time the Board heard this request and for the above stated reasons, it would now seem economically unfeasible to build a single-family occupancy on this lot. Board Member THIESSEN stated that she would vote against the motion because City Council approved the subdivision for single family use on the subject lot and, therefore, a substandard lot was not created. Although she understands the owner's dilemma, she does not feel the criteria substantiate a unique situation requiring a variance. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that he would vote against the motion because he felt a single family unit is be feasible for the lot. Board Member requested an amendment to his motion to modify reason no. 4 as follows: As a legal duplex has been constructed on Lot 2 since the previous time the Board heard this request and, for the above stated reasons (No. 1, 2 and 3) it would seem that Lot I is truly undesirable as a single family occupancy lot and it would seem unfeasible to build a single family home on said lot. Board Member BROWN, who seconded the motion, agreed to this amendment. Chair HOWARD announced that five affirmative votes would be required to approve the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 3 to 3 with Board Members THIESSEN, HOVLAND and ECHELMEYER voting no. Chair HOWARD informed the applicant that his request for variance had been denied. B. Case No. WA-99-18: An application by Thomas Little for approval of a freestanding sign variance to allow an additional freestanding sign. Said property is zoned C-1 and located at 7605 West 44th Avenue. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report, presented slides and overhead projections of the subject area. She answered the ten criteria used in considering a variance and entered all pertinent documents into the record. Staff concluded that, although there wasn't a hardship attributed to this case and there were no unique circumstances found that would warrant this request, approval would not alter the essential Board of Adjustment Minutes 06/24/99 character of the locality. This sign has been a cornerstone of the identity of the area for many years and approval of this request would allow placement of a historical sign in a new location. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the request with a condition that an outstanding fee in the amount of $400, owed by the applicant's contractor relating to damaged public improvements, be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Chair HOWARD noted that the site plans shows a monument sign which would constitute another freestanding sign on the property. Ms. Reckert explained that, although this sign was shown on the plans, it was never erected. Vern Vohaska 1779 Deframe Street, Lakewood Mr. Vohaska, the owner, was sworn in by Chair HOWARD. He stated that the City Council approved keeping the "Vem's" sign and the "Liquor Store" signs as antique signs. However, because Walgreen's (owner of the center) changed the design for the new Vem's location, it was no longer feasible to incorporate the "Vein's" sign on the building and, therefore, he is requesting to incorporate it as a freestanding pole sign. This would be in addition to the freestanding "Liquor Store" sign which is already in place on the property. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Vohaska stated that the sign would remain exactly the same (a two-sided sign) as it was when it was on the roof of the old building. The only difference is that it would now be placed on a freestanding pole because city codes prohibit utilizing it as a roof sign. Board Member HOVLAND asked if the City Council was indeed referring to both signs or were they just interested in preserving the "Vern's" sign. Ms. Reckert replied that they were especially interested in the "Vern's" sign. She stated that the inclusion of a monument sign was an apparent oversight. Chair HOWARD asked if the sign would be illuminated on both sides. Mr. Vohaska stated that there were lights on the perimeter of the sign, but it had been illuminated by spotlights in its former location. Chair HOWARD asked if he planned to put a spotlight on the back side of the sign in its proposed new location. Mr. Vohaska replied that he could see no reason to illuminate the back side of the sign; however, he would like to check with the sign company. Ms. Reckert commented that Chair HOWARD was apparently concerned about the residences adjacent to the shopping center. Board Member ABBOTT suggested placing a planter at the base of the pole with a plaque, or something similar, to denote the historical significance of this sign. There was discussion about historical designations. Ms. Reckert explained that there is a historical preservation ordinance which has been in place for about a year which provides for application for historical designation to be made by City Council, staff or citizens. The Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 5 06/24/99 application is submitted to the Wheat Ridge Historical Society who, in turn, makes a recommendation to City Council for a final decision. She felt that it would be appropriate to pursue a historical designation status for the sign. Mr. Vohaska indicated that he has spent a great deal of money to relocate this sign and does not prefer to go through any additional expense for planters, etc. Upon amotion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-99-18 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without 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-99-18 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A request for approval of a freestanding sign variance to allow an additional freestanding sign. For the Following Reasons: Because the proposed sign will be located approximately 120 feet from West 44th Avenue and there is at least 84 inches of clearance from the bottom of the sign and the parking lot surface, approval of this request should not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other properties nor should it impair the adequate supply of light and air nor increase the danger of fire to adjacent properties. 2. The proposed sign is actually the roof sign (the old classic martini glass sign) that was previously located on the roof of the old Vem's Tavern. It can be argued that there is community benefit in preserving historical commercial edifices as a link to a community's past. The alternative of a historical roof location is seen by the City's codes as a safety hazard and as having detrimental effect upon the public view plane. Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 6 06/24/99 4. The owner, Mr. Vohaska, testified at the Board of Adjustment meeting that the issue of inclusion of this existing "Vein's" sign was discussed during City Council meetings and his memory was that City Council expressed a desire to retain the "Vern's" sign in the new building location. With the following conditions: All fees in arrears to the City relating to this address will be paid. 2. The back side of the sign shall not be illuminated. Historical designation shall be sought through the City process and, if given, signage and landscaping as recommended by the designation process shall be incorporated. 4. Approval of this request is for the historical "Vern's" sign only and cannot continue as a freestanding sign location for any other establishment or any other sign. Meredith Reckert asked for clarification regarding the illumination of the sign. Board Member ABBOTT replied that it is his intent that the northwest facing side of the sign cannot be illuminated. Following further discussion, it was clarified by Ms. Reckert that the sign can remain exactly as it is (with "Vein's" on both sides) but cannot be illuminated on the back (or northwest facing) side of the sign. Mr. Vohaska expressed concern about a requirement to build a planter around the sign. Board Member ABBOTT explained to Mr. Vohaska that the Board was not requiring him to install a planter at this time, but was only recommending that historical designation be pursued by the City. Ms. Reckert commented that the only reason for staff's support of the variance is that it involves the old sign. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Board Members JUNKER and MAURO absent. Chair HOWARD advised the applicant that his request for variance had been granted. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair HOWARD declared the public hearing to be closed. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to discuss. Board of Adjustment Minutes 06/24/99 NEW BUSINESS A. July Board of Adjustment Meeting Meredith Reckert stated that, at this time, there are no cases to come before the Board in July; however, that situation could change in the next two weeks. Board Member THIESSEN advised the Board that she would be out of town for the July meeting. B. Joint Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Study Meredith Reckert advised the Board members that Planning Commission has expressed an interest in having a joint study session with the Board of Adjustment to discuss their respective "scope of authorities." C. Approval of Minutes of May 27, 1999 - It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member BROWN to approve the minutes of the May 27, 1999 Board of Adjustment meeting as presented. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Board Members JUNKER and MAURO absent. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member ECHELMEYER and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Board Members JUNKER and MAURO absent. BOBO HOWARD, Chairman Board of Adjustment C:\Ba b.a\BOA\1999minsO90624.wpd Ann Lazzeri, Secretat Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 8 06/24/99