Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/1998Minutes of Meeting July 23, 1998 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Person MAURO at 7:30 p.m. on July 2' ), 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Members Present: Tom Abbott Members Absent: Bob Howard Susan Junker Staff Present: Sean McCartney, Planner Ann Lazzeri, Minutes Specialist The following is the official set • Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of July 23, • • these minutes is retained both in the office ♦ the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development • the City of Wheat Ridge. Sean McCartney advised the Commission that Case No. 98-22 (Agenda Item 4-C) had been improperly published and posted and staff was therefore requesting the case to • continued to the August 27, 1998 Board of Adjustment meeting. It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded • Board Member ECHELMEYER to approve the order of the alglenda with the exce tion of Case No. •8- 22. The motion carried 6-0, with Board Members WALKER and JUNKER absent. 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. Board of Adjustment Page 1 07/23/98 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-98-20: An application by Jon Bradbury for approval of an I I -foot front yard setback variance to the 330 setback requirement to construct a garage. Said property is zoned R-2 and located at 4 Newland Street. Following discussion regarding claritication ot setbacK requirements ant e IrreguM shape of the lot, the applicant appeared before the Board. Jon Bradbury 4380 Newland Street Board Member ECHELMEYER suggested the possibility of extending the present garage out 20 feet to be in line with the front of the house which would still accommodate a garage and a workshop, Mr. Bradbury replied that lie had considered this option, however it would not allow the square footage he desired. Board Member HOVLAND suggested the possibility of extending into the existing garage • make a two car garage with access from Newland. Mr. Bradbury replied that the new structure would be approximately 1 -1 /2 feet taller than the older structure. He explained that he wants the roof of the new structure to be higher than the present garage in order to alleviate flooding during heavy rains. He stated that he planned to integrate the roof lines. Board MemberABBOTT referred to the flooding and expressed concern that adding onto the existing structure ,vould result in a somewhat flawed drainage plan and a crooked driveway-when there seem to be alternative locations. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the separation between the house and the garage met fire code. Mr. Bradbury replied that a fire rated panel would be used for the wall between the garage and the house and that the north wall • the garage would meet fire code. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member THIESSEN the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98-20 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Type of Variance: A request for approval of an I I -foot front yard setback variance to the 30-f► ot front yard setback requirement to construct a garage. Board of Adjustment Page 3 07/23/98 For the Following Reasons: I There are other development alternatives on the site which would allow compliance with the ordinance. 2. Approval of this request would alter the essential character of the locality as no structure of this design, layout on the lot, or visual effect upon the neighborhood or the-primary structure itself, occur within the vicinity. There are no demonstrable hardships. Xoard MemFeTEU?;ECR1 I s a e nat ne wou vote in ravor a 1 • denial because he felt that more effort could be spent in redesigning the structure to meet code requirements. Board Member THIESSEN stated that she is not in favor of granting a variance of this percentage and that is not visually appealing to the neighborhood. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0 with Board Members WALKER and JUNKER absent. Chair MAURO advised the applicant that his request had been denied. B. Case No. No. WA- 94 -21. . An application by Landmark for approval of a 10 -foot side yard setback to the 15-foot side yard setback requirement to construct a detached garage, Said property is zoned R- I and located at 6710 West 28th Avenue, Following questions concerning clarification of setback requirements and location of the proposed garage, the applicant appeared before the Board. Board of Adjustment Page 4 07/23/98 Lester E. (Gene) Hartley 6710 West 28th Avenue Mr. Hartley was sworn in by Chair MAURO. He stated that, since an attached garage would be cost prohibitive, he planned to build a detached garage. He felt that his proposed location would look best and Would be more serviceable. He explained that moving the garage back would entail additional expense for fill to make land level . Board Member ABBOTT asked for clarification on the need for fill. Mr. Hartley replied that the yard slopes considerably behind the present driveway and if he were to move the proposed garage back another ten feet, it would require considerable fill in order to make the ground level with the rest of the property. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and a second by Board Member ECHELMEYER, the following Resolution was stated: Whereas, the a2j2licant was denied 12ermission by an Administrative Officer; and Whereas, Board • Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-98-2 1, is an appeal to th Board from the decision of an Administrative Officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and 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. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 98-21 be and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: Request for approval of a I 0-foot side yard setback variance to the 15-foot side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a detached two-car garage. For the following reasons: There are other structures in the immediate neighborhood which have nonconforming setbacks of this nature, 2' The proposed garage would be located on the southwest corner of the properli approximately 73 feet from West 28th Avenue. Board of Adjustment Page 5 07/23/98 3. - ucture would allow for adequate separation The proposed location of this str between the adjacent habitable structure and therefore would not impair the adequate supply of light or air, nor increase the danger of fire. 4. Currently accepted community standards would expect a two-car garage in a dwelling of this type. 5. Alternative locations would seem impractical and significantly detrimental to the livability of the primary structure and its rear-yard area. Board Member THIESSEN stated that she would vote against the motion because, while she understood the owner's plight, she felt the situation presented more of an inconvenience than a hardship to the applicant, She indicated that she would vote for something less than the two-thirds setback variance requested. Board Member ECHELMEYER commented that the request concerns the back comer of a piece of property that has normally bordered horse property and the neighbor to the west has a very large truck garden. He also stated that he believed the necessity of filling in the slope would present a hardship to the applicant. Board Member ABBOTT asked the applicant if he would consider a 5-foot variance rather than a I0 -foot variance. MEM= Mr. Hartley returned to the podium and agreed to accept 5-foot variance. He expressed frustration with the fact that there are other nonconforming situations in the City of Wheat Ridge. Board Member ECHELMEYER assured Mr. Hartley that the Board was not trying t* make things difficult for him, but rather was attempting to keep the neighborhood within theconfines of the City of Wheat Ridge rules and regulations. Board Member ABBOTT offered an amendment to his motion to change the variance from a I 0-foot to a 5-foot side yard variance. This amendment was acceptable to Board Member ECHELMEYER. The motion carried by a vote of 5-1, with Board Member HOVLAND voting no and Board Members WALKER and JUNKER absent. Chair MAURO advised the applicant that the variance was granted. C. Case No. WA-98-22: An application by Linda Christensen for approval of a I 0-foot side yard setback variance to the 15- ' • • foot setback requirement an a 15-foot frnt yard setback variance to the _ )O-foot front yard setba ' ek requirement to allow a private storage shed. Said property is zoned R-2 and located at 2790 Vance Street. This case was continued to the August 27, 1998 Board of Adjustment meeting due to improper posting and publication of the application. D. Case No. WA-98-2�: An application by Sandra Hutchcroft for approval • a 9.5-foot yard setback to the 15-yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a storage shed. Said property is zoned R- I and located at 3 )26") Taft Court. Sandra Hutchcroft 3263 Taft Court Ms. Hutchcroft was sworn in by Chair MAURO. Board of Adjustment Page 7 07/23/98 In an attempt to establish hardship, Board Member THIESSEN asked why the applicant purchased a home with insufficient storage. Mrs Hutchcroft replied that she looked for two years before finding, this particular house that would'meet her husband's home business requirements • be able to park his vehicle and have room for an office in the basement. She pointed out that there is presently • use for the proposed area because there is no grass there and it is not visible from her residence or the neighbor's residence. Board Member ABBOTT asked for clarification regarding setbacks in the neighborhood. Mr. McCartney replied that all the structures in the neighborhood seemed to have similar setbacks of 13.5 feet. Board Member HOWARD asked why there was a change on the original application from an 8x2O-foot structure to a I Ox2O-foot structure. Mrs. Hutchcroft replied that this change was made when they considered that they were presently renting a I 1 x21 -foot storage area and would need that same amount • space to meet their needs. Board Member HOWARD asked what kind • roof was planned for the addition. M Hutchcroft replied that it would match the existing roof, but would be a bit lower. I Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member ECHELMEYER, the following resolution was stated: MMME•�� Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-98-23 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of Administrative Officer; and Board of Adjustment Page 8 07/23/98 Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and there were Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 98-23 be and hereby is APPROVED. I=. 140M WWI aim= I WIN-- L11C I 0-POUL SlItC yztr* SU FacK rEquircif IVIR I a—Ulf WY a if"If-toof afta storage structure. With the Following Conditions: 2. The highest point of the roof of the variance structure shall not exceed nine feet above grade. Board Member HOVLAND referred to the 6-foot utility easement and noted that a 9. variance would encroach into the easement. He asked if there would • a problem wi the Board granting a variance which might encroach into the utility easement. Mr. McCartney replied that if a 9.5-foot variance is granted, the applicant can always buil less if the utility company disapproved. 1 0 Board of Adjustnietit Page 9 07/23/98 Condition No. 3. If the utility owning the easement impacted by this variance denies encroachment upon their easement, then this variance will drop back to the maximum size so as not to encroach upon the utility's walk easement. Mr. McCartney stated that the applicant had just informed him that all the utilities were flagged and found, to be on the east side of the property. The amendment was accepted by Board Member ECHELMEYER. Board Member THIESSEN expressed her concern with a 63% variance. Board Member ABBOTT indicated that he would • willing to change his motion to decrease the variance in order allow less encroachment into the easement. Board Member THIESSEN stated that she would support the motion if a condition is placed to satisfy her concern that no future additions along the building line granted by the variance be allowed. Board Member ABBOTT offered the following amendment to the motion: Condition No. 4: That approval be given fior a 7.5-foot side yard setback to the 15-foot side yard setback requirement which would provide that no addition to this variance structure may be made, any portion • which encroaches into tile 15-foot side yard setback. Chair MAURO advised the applicant that the variance was granted. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING I Board of Adjustment Page 10 07/23/98 7. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to discuss, 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Board Member HOVLAND referred to a previous variance request for a fence height on 3 32nd Avenuejust -west of Robb Street where the applicant was not allowed anything over four feet in the front. He recently noticed that the homeowner had since added lattice work to the top of the four-foot fence. Mr. McCartney stated that he would have code enforcement investigate the situation B. Sean McCartney advised the Board members that there had been a restructuring of the Planning Department. There are now two divisions: Planning Division including planning and zoning and the Codes Division which includes building and code enforcement, He stated that instead of a chief building official, there is now a code administrator who will act as code enforcement supervisor and building official. Board Member ABBOTT moved and Board Member HOVLAND seconded to amend the minutes as follows: Page 18, fifth paragraph, should read as follows: "Board Members ABBOTT and HOVLAND expressed their opinions that this matter is not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment and should be taken before the Planning Commission because the matter concerns a developer, and an entire development plan approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and not a homeowner." The motion carried by a vote • 5-0, with Board Member THIESSEN abstaining, and Board Members WALKER and JUNKER absent. It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded • Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes as amended. Board of Adjustment 07/23/98 UM The motion carried by a vote of 5-0, with Board Member THIESSEN abstaining, and Board Members WALKER and JUNKER absent. It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member THIESSEN to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. LINDA MAURO, Chairperson Board of Adjustment C:Tarbaral,B0A\ 1998MlNSk980723.44`pd Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Page 12 07/23,198