Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 10 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A G E N D A DECEMBER 10, 2020 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on December 10, 2020, at 7:00 p.m., This meeting will be conducted as a VIRTUAL MEETING. No members of the Board or City Staff will be physically present at the municipal building for this meeting. The public may not attend in person; however, the public may participate in this way: 1. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone: • Click here to join and provide public comment (create a Zoom account to join) • Or call 1-669-900-6833 with Meeting ID 932 9265 8300 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING* A. Case No. WA-20-05: An application filed by Carl Maes for approval of two variances: A) a 20-foot (80%) variance from the 25-foot rear yard setback requirement for a rear yard which abuts a public street, and B) an 11-foot (45.8%) variance from the maximum allowed curb cut width of 24 feet for a detached garage to be constructed on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3655 Holland Court. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS (continued on next page) BOA Agenda – December 10, 2020 Page 2 Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Sara Spaulding, Public Information Official, at 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes – October 24, 2019 B. Waiver of Bylaws – Election of Officers 9. ADJOURNMENT * Public comment is welcome during any public hearing item. For reference for the public, the standard procedure for a public hearing is as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant presentation – if applicable c. Questions from the Board to staff/applicant d. Public comment – time may be limited at the discretion of the Chair, often to 3 minutes e. Staff/applicant response f. Close public hearing g. Commission discussion and decision CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: December 10, 2020 CASE MANAGER: Zareen Tasneem CASE NO. & NAME: WA-20-05 / Maes ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of two variance requests: A) a 20-foot (80%) variance from the 25- foot rear yard setback requirement for a rear yard which abuts a public street, and B) an 11-foot (45.8%) variance from the maximum allowed curb cut width of 24 feet for a detached garage to be constructed on property located at 3655 Holland Court and zoned Residential-Two (R-2). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3655 Holland Court APPLICANT (S): Carl Maes OWNER (S): Carl and Celina Maes APPROXIMATE AREA: 9,470 Square Feet (0.217 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 Board of Adjustment 2 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of two variances on property located in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district in order to construct a new detached garage in the rear yard: • Request A: a 20-foot (80%) variance from the minimum 25-foot rear yard setback requirement for a rear yard which abuts a public street, resulting in a 5-foot setback • Request B: an 11-foot (45.8%) variance from the maximum allowed curb cut of 24 feet, resulting in a 35-foot curb cut. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hold public hearings to hear and decide upon variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. While the curb cut variance is less than 50 percent, which is potentially reviewed and approved administratively, the rear setback variance exceeds administrative thresholds. The requests are related and are being presented together, and therefore collectively are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANALYSIS The site is located on the west side of Holland Court between W. 37th Avenue and W. 36th Avenue. It is, by definition, a “through lot” with the front yard fronting Holland Court and the rear yard fronting Hoyt Street (Aerial, Exhibit 1). The site is zoned Residential-Two (R-2). Surrounding properties are also zoned R-2 to the north, east, and immediate west. Further to the west and south, properties are zoned Residential-One (R-1) (Zoning Map, Exhibit 2). The property is surrounded by almost all residential uses. Wheat Ridge High School is further to the south. The R-2 zone district provides high quality, safe, quiet and stable low- to moderate-density residential neighborhoods. In the R-2 zone district, rear yards that abut public streets have a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for all structures and accessory structures over 10 feet tall have a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet. Per the Improvement Location Certificate (Exhibit 3), the lot measures 9,472.5 square feet and is 75 feet wide. It currently contains a one-story house and an approximately 500-square foot detached garage that encroaches into the southern side setback and western rear setback. According to the Jefferson County Assessor, the existing structures were originally constructed in 1955, prior to the City’s incorporation. The applicant is looking to improve their property by demolishing the existing substandard detached garage and by building a new one (Written Request, Exhibit 4). The new garage would be a 910-square foot, three-car garage, with the garage doors facing Hoyt Street (see Site Plan, Exhibit 5 and Elevations, Exhibit 6). Sec. 26-625.C.3.a.i.a states, “Where the garage door or main vehicular access is located parallel to the street, the setback cannot be between five (5) feet and eighteen (18) feet.” The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a driveway is either long enough to accommodate a car or short enough to discourage parking altogether; anything in between would result in a vehicle Board of Adjustment 3 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes overhanging the right-of-way, and in many cases effectively blocking a sidewalk. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard setback so that the resulting setback is 5 feet from the rear property line. In addition, because of the garage’s proximity to the street, the applicant is requesting a 35-foot curb cut to correspond to the width of the proposed garage. This is a variance to Sec. 26-501.F.3., which states, “In all residential districts, curb cuts for property access shall be not less than ten (10) feet and not more than twenty-four (24) feet in width.” This provision functions in most cases, whereby a driveway can be narrow at the street and widen through the setback to accommodate the full width of a garage; it does not work in this case with the reduced setback that is proposed. Hoyt Street is a substandard right of way (ROW); it appears and functions as an alley instead of a street. In looking at the portion of Hoyt Street between W. 37th Avenue and W. 36th Avenue, most of the lots have their rear yards facing the street (see Site Photos, Exhibit 7). This includes both 3660 Hoyt Court and 3620 Hoyt Court which were approved for rear yard setback variances for new detached garages (Case No. WA-15-04 and WA-97-19, respectively). The subject property and 3660 Hoyt Court are across the street from each other with both their rear yards facing Hoyt Street; and 3620 Hoyt Court also requested for a 5-foot rear yard setback that was ultimately approved by the Board of Adjustment. Because the proposed garage measures more than 400 sq. ft. in area, it is classified as a “major accessory structure.” The following table compares the required R-2 development standards for major accessory structures with the actual and proposed conditions relative to the proposal. R-2 Major Accessory Structure Development Standards: Required Proposed Building Coverage 1000 sq. ft. (max.) 910 sq. ft. Height 15 feet (max.) 11.5 feet (midroof) Side Setback (north) 5 feet (min.) 34.8 feet Side Setback (south) 5 feet (min.) 5.2 feet Rear Setback (west) 25 feet (min. when abutting public ROW) 5 feet Alternative Design In analyzing the lot, there are no options to build a detached garage of this size on the lot without a variance of the rear yard setback and/or a variance for the driveway. Even if the proposed garage were placed closer to the house in the northern portion of the rear yard, accounting for the existing house, proposed addition, and building code separation requirements between structures, the proposed garage would have a 16.6-foot setback from the rear property line. Not only does this not meet the rear yard setback requirement, it also does not meet the 18-foot driveway length requirement. If the garage were to be attached to the house at that location instead, the rear setback would be 21.6 feet, meeting the driveway length requirement but still requiring a rear yard setback variance. Public Comment As of the date of this staff report, December 4, 2020, the City has received two emails from neighbors regarding the case (Public Comments, Exhibit 8). If additional comments 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. Board of Adjustment 4 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes 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. Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Because they are related and the analysis is similar, Requests A and B are discussed together in the criteria analysis below. 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 requests were 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. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. As seen in the aerial (Exhibit 1) and site photos (Exhibit 7), most of the lots have their rear yards facing the street. Both 3660 Hoyt Court and 3620 Hoyt Court were approved for rear yard setback variances for new detached garages (Case No. WA-15-04 and WA-97-19, respectively). The subject property and 3660 Hoyt Court are across the street from each other with both their rear yards facing Hoyt Street; and 3620 Hoyt Court also requested for a 5-foot rear yard setback. The character of Hoyt Court has already been clearly established as an alley- like environment and this request would not alter that character. 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. The proposed new detached garage is a substantial investment in the property. As described in the alternatives analysis above, it would not be possible to build on the property without variances to the rear yard setback and/or driveway. 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. Because the lot is a through lot with street frontages on both the front and rear yards, a significant portion of the lot is undevelopable; an area of 3,750 square feet (40% of the lot) is devoted to the required 25-foot front and rear setbacks. Current subdivision regulations prohibit through lots with new development, unless essential to provide separation from major arterials. Board of Adjustment 5 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes The rationale for this provision is to avoid new lots like this one which have to meet greater setbacks on both the front and rear yards. 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. The current owner neither platted the lot as a through lot nor constructed the existing house or garage in their current location on the property. 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. 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 on the subject property or adjacent properties, and it would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Hoyt Street currently functions more like an alley than a street. Both 3660 Hoyt Court and 3620 Hoyt Court which were approved for rear yard setback variances for new detached garages. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Board of Adjustment 6 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 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 Request A) a 20-foot (80%) variance from the 25-foot rear yard setback requirement for a rear yard which abuts a public street and Request B) an 11-foot (45.8%) variance from the maximum allowed curb cut of 24 feet for a garage to be constructed on property zoned Residential- Two (R-2) located at 3655 Holland Court. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment which would not be possible without the variances. 3. The lot being a through lot presents a particular and unique physical hardship for the property. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by persons presently having an interest in the property. 5. The granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 6. Unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating a variance request are present in the neighborhood. With the following conditions: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Board of Adjustment 7 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board of Adjustment 8 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Board of Adjustment 9 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 3: IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE The lot measures 9,472.5 square feet and is 75 feet wide. It currently contains a one-story house and an approximately 500-square foot detached garage that encroaches into southern side setback and western rear setback. According to the Jefferson County Assessor, the existing structures were originally constructed in 1955. Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 4: WRITTEN REQUEST Board of Adjustment 11 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 5: SITE PLAN The applicant is proposing a new 910-square foot detached garage located 5 feet from the eastern rear property line (encroaching into the required minimum 25 feet rear yard setback). Because of the proximity of the garage doors to the street, the applicant is also requesting a 35-foot curb cut. Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 6: ELEVATIONS Board of Adjustment 13 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 7: SITE PHOTOS Above: View of Hoyt Street looking south from W. 37th Avenue. Below: View of Hoyt Street looking north from W. 36th Avenue. All the houses along this stretch of the street have their rear yards facing Hoyt Street, including garages that already encroach into the required 25-foot rear yard setback. Image source: Google Maps Board of Adjustment 14 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes Above: View of the existing garage and rear yard looking east from Hoyt Street. Below: View of the existing garage looking south. Image source: Applicant Board of Adjustment 15 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 8: PUBLIC COMMENTS Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes Board of Adjustment 17 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes EXHIBIT 9: VARIANCE CRITERIA RESPONSE Board of Adjustment 18 Case No. WA-20-05 / Maes Board of Adjustment Minutes October 24, 2019 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting October 24, 2019 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair HOVLAND at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Thomas Abbott Janet Bell Dan Bradford Michael Griffeth Paul Hovland David Kuntz Larry Richmond Betty Jo Page Alternates Present: None Board Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Stephanie Stevens, Senior Planner Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No.WA-19-06 The case was presented by Stephanie Stevens. 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, King of Wings, LLC, is requesting approval of 100% variance from Section 26-625 on property zoned Commercial-One(C-1) located at 7741 West 44th Board of Adjustment Minutes October 24, 2019 2 Avenue. The purpose of this variance is to allow an accessory structure within the front yard. Staff recommends approval of this variance. There are unique circumstances attributed to this request that warrant approval. Member BELL inquired about the drive access to the east of the proposed structure and wondered if the utility boxes will block any sight triangles once the structure is built. Ms. Stevens said the utility boxes are within a utility easement which the City does not have control over and the structure will be set back further than the boxes. Member KUNTZ asked if the utility boxes are outside the sight distance triangle and thinks the structure will definitely be outside the sight distance triangle as well. Ms. Stevens agreed that the utility boxes and the proposed structure are and will be outside the sight distance triangle. Member GRIFFETH asked why the variance is 100% and wondered why this was the only spot available for the structure on the property and if the applicants looked at attaching it to the existing building. Ms. Stevens explained that there is no threshold for buildings in a front yard which makes the variance 100%. She added that the applicant did look at other locations. There is an easement on the east and the parking lot on the west could not be reduced if a structure was put there because they need it to meet parking requirements. She also mentioned that the applicant does not want to block the flow of the rolling door to the patio which is the only location that an addition could work, and for that reason they did not further explore a possible addition. Member GRIFFETH also asked if the City’s Site Design Manual addresses safety with regards to the patio being so close to 44th Avenue. Ms. Stevens said the Site Design Manual is primarily for architecture and added the applicant will be installing a fence around the patio. Member GRIFFETH inquired if there is a letter from an engineer regarding the structural integrity of the roof. Ms. Stevens said staff is trusting the applicant on their word and know the cost of reinforcing a roof can be very costly and is not an option at this time. Member ABBOTT asked how far back the structure will be from the sidewalk. He also asked if the service window on the south side of the building will block the sight triangle. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 24, 2019 3 Ms. Stevens said the structure will be set back 5 ½ feet and mentioned the applicant can answer the service window question. Member KUNTZ asked if a fence is allowed to be in the City’s right-of-way. Ms. Mikulak mentioned there is a revocable license used for these instances and will be allowed. Evan Pierce, applicant 7545 Newland Street Mr. Pierce mentioned that the window on the south side of the building is only for air flow and people will place their orders on the west side of the building so the sight triangle will not be blocked. He then gave a brief history of The King of Wings and how they started as a food truck and have been successful for the past four years. Mr. Pierce added that wings and beer are a good combination and the thought of opening a tap house, pairing it with food at this location is perfect. Member PAGE asked how the prepared food will get to the structure. Mr. Pierce said it will come from the doors on the east side of the existing building and will be walked to the proposed structure where there will be an oven and a refrigerator. Member HOVLAND asked if the applicant will be operating the tap room as well. Mr. Pierce said yes it will be under one umbrella and confirmed it will not be a brewery. Member PAGE asked where the dumpsters will be located. Mr. Pierce said it will be on the north side of the building. Member PAGE also inquired about the letter of opposition and the drive to the east of the proposed structure. Mr. Pierce said they addressed this issue with staff and the building will be set outside of the sight triangle and because the building will sit on the west side of the drive there is less concern due to the oncoming traffic coming from the east. Member GRIFFETH asked if a structural engineer looked at the roof. Mr. Pierce explained that their contractor mentioned there are two roofs on the existing structure and he was not comfortable with the way it was done and it would cost a lot of money to reinforce. He said they like the food truck charm and the patio presence and would be asking for a variance no matter what. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 24, 2019 4 Member GRIFFETH then asked if the applicant would be willing to put bollards in place of the fence for safety of the patrons along 44th Avenue. Mr. Pierce mentioned there will be a fence around the patio. Member BRADFORD does not feel the structure will be an issue to the sight triangle driving out onto 44th Avenue and the utility boxes do not impede the sight triangle as well. Ms. Stevens added the utility boxes are 36 inches or less which meets the City’s Code. Member GRIFFETH thinks there should be a condition added for the safety along 44th Avenue. Member KUNTZ added that there is a 6 inch barrier curb and with the speeds that are posted it is a typical urban street scape and will keep automobiles in their lane and does not think there needs to be a specially engineered fence or wall built. There was then more discussion about the fence around the patio. A motion for approval was made by Member KUNTZ and seconded by Member PAGE. A friendly amendment by Member HOVLAND added reason 6. An addition condition was proposed by Member GRIFFETH related to the patio was not seconded. The following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA-19-06 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 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-19-06 be, and hereby is, APPROVED TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 100% variance to Section 26- 625 to allow an accessory building in the front yard on property located at 7741 West 44th Avenue and zoned Commercial-One (C-1). 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. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 24, 2019 5 3. The existing conditions, physical surrounding, and shape of the property involved present a particular and unique hardship. 4. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. 5. The application complies with applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. 6. The sight distance concern raised in the letter of opposition was acknowledged and analyzed, and the proposed accessory structure will not interfere per the codified sight distance requirements. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design and architecture of the accessory structure shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. 2. The fence noted on sheet A-1 be installed as noted: welded painted steel fencing at outdoor patio. Motion passed 7-1 with Member GRIFFETH voting against. 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair ABBOTT closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes – April 25, 2019 It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member BELL to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Board Member BRADFORD abstaining. 8. ADJOURNMENT Chair ABBOTT adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m. __________________________ _____________________________ Thomas ABBOTT, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager DATE: December 3, 2020 (for December 10, 2020 meeting) SUBJECT: Motion to Waive Bylaws Regarding Election of Officers BACKGROUND The Board of Adjustment (BOA) bylaws stipulate two elected position: Chair and Vice Chair. Tom Abbot was the BOA Chair, but he was not reappointed to the Board last March. Betty Jo Page is currently the Vice Chair. The role of these positions is to preside over the meeting. The bylaws stipulate that in the absence of both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, the next most senior member of the Board shall preside. The BOA bylaws further stipulate that the Chair and Vice Chair positions should be elected at the November meeting or the first business meeting thereafter. Historically, the Board has cast their votes by secret ballot, and we have not yet adapted that process to the virtual format. Virtual meetings are new and in an effort to minimize other changes, Staff is recommending a motion to suspend the Board’s rules for the time being. We can revisit this issue in 2021 through a virtual election or when in person meetings commence again. RECOMMENDED MOTION “I move to suspend the Board’s bylaws as it relates to Election of Officers until such time the topic is revisited in 2021 and to retain Betty Jo Page as Vice Chair.”