The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/26/201211 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Lauren Mikulak, Planner I Ann Lazzeri, Recordiag .1WL= PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one wished to speak at this time. A. Case No. WA-12-07: An application filed by Ezara, Sauter for approval of a 2- foot variance from the 4-foot maximum fence height standard within a front yard resulting in a 6-foot fence on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 4755 Simms Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 1 — April 26, 2012 at 4755 Simms Street. The purpose of the variance request is to allow the 6-foot fence to remain in its current configuration within the front yard. Having found that the application is not in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommended denial. Ezarus Sauter Ms. Reckert explained that an anonymous complaint was made to a council person and then Code Enforcement and Planning were notified. Ms. Sauter stated that she was told her front yard was out the front door. Board Member BELL asked if the fence would be allowed if a portion of the fence were placed at an angle closer to the house. Ms. Reckert replied that it would still be considered a front yard. Lauren Mikulak commented that the previous fence was in line with the wall of the house and the six-foot fence was allowable. However, the applicant said the yard space was too small. Ms. Baca stated that safety concern is another reason they want a six-foot fence citing a vehicle theft, vehicle break-ins and house burglaries in the area. In response to a comment from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Mikulak stated that the only way the fenced portion could be considered a side yard is if the driveway were a public street which it is not. Meredith Reckert stated about a year and a half ago a task force looked at certain situations that wouldn't require a building permit including residential fences. This has resulted in some fence height violations in certain cases as no city review is required to verify code compliance. Board Member BANGHART commented that while this is a good idea, the city should make planning rules clearly understandable to the citizens. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2 — April 26, 2012 Ms. Sauter stated that they are looking at having children in the near future and the lower fence would be a security issue for them. Linda Lauff 32 "d Avenue, Wheat Ridge Ms. Lauff was sworn in by Chair ABBOTT. She stated that she is a Wheat Ridge resident with similar issues and is supportive of the applicants. Moving the fence back would present the same view as it is now. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA-12-07 was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-12-07 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 was one protest registered via an anonymous complaint, and a letter submitted to the City in support of the fence as it stands now as long as it is not enlarged any further; 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 Case No. WA- 12-07 be, and hereby, is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Two -foot variance from the four-foot maximum height standard for a fence within a residential front yard resulting in a six-foot fence in Board of Adjustment Minutes -3— April 26, 2012 #I tog, 1#4 111# tm If ti-A r k I . I I I Board Member BELL responded that the neighborhood extends well beyond Sim Street which is one street out of the entire neighborhood. I 1�111��11111 11 'I IIIIIIIIIIIII � 111 11 Iowa- a-= iIIIIIII I Imill • - - - - - 6 I'li; full length of the property. There was also confusion about what is allowed and, therefore, after this case is decided, she suggested that steps be taken by staff to avoid such confusion in the future. Board Member HEDDON agreed that changes need to be made. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 4 — April 26, 2012 Board Member GRIFFITH commented that the applicant performed due diligence by contacting the City and the City thought they gave a good answer. The applicant tried to do what was right and, due to confusion, the situation exists. Based upon the information the applicant received, he believed the fence should stand. He was in favor of placing a condition that the fence may not be extended, KrOMMOkm- M q I AW-V • JT9NOMOW 1 11 1 the code as it was explained to her. Even to people who live on the street, the front yard seems to be the side of the house and only % of that yard is affected. A four-foot fence could have been built with no need for a variance. He further commented that the Board's decisions should be based on the effect on the entire neighborhood, Board Member BELL commented that an anonymous complaint was received, however, a letter of support was received as long as the fence is not extended. No other complaints were received from the neighborhood. Board member GRIFFITH stated that a previous six-foot fence existed. Although it was further back on the property it was still visible. He also pointed out that a newer fence will initially stand out more but will not be as noticeable as it eventually weathers. Board Member BANGHART drove the neighborhood and did not find the fence to be obtrusive. This is not a typical neighborhood, and although the address is on Simms Street, the front of the house faces the driveway that almost looks like a street. Therefore, the fence appears to be in the side yard. Board member GRIFFITH offered a friendly amendment to add a reason for approval that a six-foot fence previously existed although placed further back on the property, it was still visible. Further, a new fence stands out more but will eventually weather and will not be as noticeable. 11111 ;Ip! 111111111p;�11 , I! i : gi 1 1 WTURMUM initially during the posting period, no letters of opposition were received. Board Member PAGE commented that 80% of residents in this neighborhood are tenants. Ms. Mikulak stated that property owners were notified of this application by certified letter. building on the lot. Since there were no official protests registered and as long as there is a condition prohibiting extension of the fence, he stated he would support the motion. set a precedent, however, a variance does go with the land. Board of Adjustment Minutes -5— April 26, 2.012 Board Member HEDDON stated that he appreciated staff s input and the Board's discussion. Because no one came forward to object to this application and because approval of the request would not set a precedent for other cases, he stated that he would vote for approval. A vote was taken on the amended motion and carried 8-0. 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair ABBOTT closed the public hearing at 8:27 pm. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. W�0 A&Z • A. Approval of minutes — March 22, 2012 It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member GRIFFITH to approve the minutes of March 22,2012 as written. Motion carried 8-0. 33MEM83ME= Board Member BELL suggested that when a phone inquiry is made, staff could check the address against the subdivision layout or drive by to ascertain the orientation of the building to the street, etc. Meredith Reckert stated that staff has been discussing a no-fee planning permit that would provide an extra layer of review to verify code compliance. Board Member ABBOTT commended staff for making a correct appraisal in recommending denial and apprising the Board of the logic involved. The Board was able to come to a conclusion that staff would not be able to do because of the way the ordinance is written. k # 1TQFflT%TQLLM- Thomas Abbott, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secriia� Board of Adjustment Minutes - 6 — April 26, 2012