The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/22/151* ► 4 ;( 11 I City of h6atf), �cc AGENDA January 22, 2015 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on January 22, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encoura to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City cif 4"heat Ridge, Call I Geyer, Public Information qfficer at 303-235-2826 at least one iveek in advance cif a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2, ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. ' Case No. WA-14-16: An application filed by James and Georganne Zeiger for approval of a lot coverage variance and a 10-foot side setback variance (100%) from the 10-foot standard resulting in a 0-foot side setback for an existing attached carport, 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — September 25, 2014 B. Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meetings 8. ADJOURNMENT City of Wheat i e CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE: January 14, 2015 CASE MANAGER: Sara White CASE NO. & NAME: WA -14 -16 / Zeiger ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of an 8.6% lot coverage variance and a 10 -foot variance from the 10- foot side yard setback requirement for property located at 3932 Simms Street and zoned Residential -One A (R -1 A). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3932 Simms St. APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: James and Georganne Zeiger James and Georganne Zeiger 9,471 Square Feet (0.22 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential -One A PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) Digital presentation (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met: therefore. there is jurisdiction for the Board to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval of a 8.6% (28.6 %) lot coverage variance from the 30% lot coverage maximum and a 10 -foot (100 %) variance from the 10 -foot side yard setback requirement, resulting in a 0 -foot side setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the applicants to keep a carport that was constructed without a permit. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicants, James and Georganne Zeiger, are requesting the variance as the owners and residents at 3932 Simms Street. The variance is being requested so that the owners may keep a carport that was constructed on the north side of their home Lxhibit 1,_� The property is zoned Residential -One A, a zone district that is established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low- density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low- density residential character txhi2, Zoning Map). The subject lot is 9,471 square feet in size and has a single family home with attached garage. The parcel is on Simms Street, north of 38` Avenue, and is part of the McLaughlin's Applewood Subdivision. By definition, the front lot line of the subject property is the western property line, which is parallel with Simms St., and the side property line for which the variance is being requested is the north property line that runs perpendicular to Simms St. The applicants constructed the carport on the north side of their house to provide protection from the elements for the RV parking that was already there. The carport extends nearly all the way to the north property line from the house and is roughly 25.5 feet in length ffx t 3, 14(j It is roughly 9 feet tall and is constructed of aluminum. (Exhibit 4, Elevations A wooden locking gate conceals the majority of the carport from view from the street. Dense vegetation exists along the north property line that may help to conceal the carport from view of the neighbor to the north ?iibit 5, Photos)l The R- I A zone district allows lot coverage up to 30 %. Based on data from the Jefferson County Assessor, current lot coverage is 35.9 %, which is over the allowed amount. The addition of the carport would bring the total to 38.6 %. Development standards for the R -1A district along with existing conditions are as follows: Variance WA -l4 -16 Zeiger Required Existing (pre-carport) Existing with carport Max Building Coverage 30% 35.9% 38.6% Min Lot Area 9,000 sq ft 9,471 sq ft 9,471 sq ft Front Setback 25' 24.6' 24.6' Side Setbacks North South 10' 1 10' 11.5' 10.9' <1' 10.9' Rear Setback 1 15' 1 24.7' 24.7' Variance WA -l4 -16 Zeiger The carport extends nearly all the way to the fence line, essentially creating a 0 foot side setback on the north property line. During the public notification . d obj' cti were received regarding the variance request. One letter of support was received iAia 111. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not after the essential character of the locality. The variances are not likely to alter the character of the locality, as the requests would allow an accessory to a single family home to remain. It is largely hidden from view by a wooden gate and mature vegetation. 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. While the applicant did invest several thousand dollars into the construction of the carport, it is not considered substantial in relation to the value of the property as a whole. Variance IVA-14-16 Zeiger 3 Staff finds this criterion has not 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. 'File larger size of the house on a relatively small parcel is requiring the applicant to request the variances. However, it is only an inconvenience as the lot would not be undevelopable without the variances. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The alleged hardship was created by the applicants when they constructed the cat-port without obtaining zoning and building approval. Therefore, the applicants were party in creating the alleged hardship. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. The requests would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements as the carport is largely shielded from view by the existing wooden fence. They 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 requests. Tile requests would not increase congestion on the streets. nor would they increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. They are unlikely to diminish or impair property values within 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. The hardship described is in relation to the size and placement of larger house on relatively smaller lots. There are many houses in the immediate neighborhood with similar conditions and would likely necessitate a request for either a setback or lot coverage variance, or both, if they want to construct accessory structures, Nearly 20% of the homes in the surrounding development already exceed the maximum lot coverage. Variance 4 Staff finds that 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. 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 not in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends DENIAL of an 8.6% lot coverage variance from the 30% maximum coverage requirement and a 10 -foot (100 %) variance from the 10 -foot side yard setback requirement. Staff has not found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of the variances. Therefore, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: I . The property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use without the variances. 2. The investment allowed by the variances would not be substantial. 3. The physical surroundings and situation of the property result in an inconvenience, but not a hardship. 4. The alleged hardship was created by a person presently having interest in the property. If the variance is denied, Staff recommends a two -week window for removal of the structure. Variance WA -14 -16 Zeiger EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL A Variance WA -14 -16 Zeiger EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Variance WA -14 -16 Zeiger EXHIBIT 3: ILC DATE —j0ZZQa,n# RAJIM - CUENT ADDRESS A412 RTMUR RT22" LAND S RV E I N NAME J1 5460 WARD ROAD + SUITE 160 ARVADA. COLORADO 80002 (303) 420-4786 LEGAL DESCRIPTION IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CEFMFICATE F-s. ATTACKED (PER CUE" Note: LEGAL DESCRITPION Certificate is Based on Control as Shown, An improvement Survey Plat is Recommended for precise Location of Improvements. Note: Location of Fence Lines if Shown are Approximate. Fence Line Pad Bev. 99.66' Pad Elev. 99.W LOT 43 RoorEkr. Rrmm. 108.9c Pad Buy. "M Fond 5/3* I Roaftiay. 309.46 105.00 'a / Car Pon t AC It E=tpftd PWm (Fa L"W) S89*49'22"W ---41.4--- Pad Ekv. 99 99 Rnxufn�kv 1093? LOT 44 S89*49'22'W Concrete I I 6 3. 0 ON. too.W Ekvadw. C aa C Slab Ekv. "311! 4.5 @ Ceswrhw of Door 16.0 E One Story 00 00 I Brick & Frame E 6 Fig Floor Ekv. 102A4 Cc @ Fit Door 12.5 39.8 LOT 44 S89*49'22'W Concrete I I 6 3. 0 ON. 4.5 E 00 I I LOT 16 eo En LOT 15 00 z LOT 45 Fartance If',4-14-16 leiger Scale: 1"=21Y EXHIBIT 4: ELEVATIONS North Elevation 4. Carport ariachment to hoax at 9 fret elevanan aba e c ete pad S. t foot drop from carport attachment at roof to support posts for Rutter m -u draH of water 6. Carportroofma"Mad Is 0.025'th¢kness.Aluminum Alloy 300; -H36, enamel painted (almond & white color). Carport Is anchored to house bride wall with half mrh, galvanized ASTM A325 Bolts with epoxy filled halt- hales.. 7. Pasts are 3 by 3 inch. Extruded Aluminum Alloy b005 -T5 posts, secured to carport roof with structure rated to withstand a minimum of 90 mph, 3 second gust of wind as required per ASCE7-05 National Standard 8. Post will be retrofitted (per app—1 of variance by the r.....r avh_.. and hn West Elevation aG1lE t' • 7' f— npT t WwN /Depth W rarportu la ltet 2 Nnxhr d earpmt V 9 (rrt at NtacTmmt m haeY Variance JFA -14 -16 Zeiger EXHIBIT 5: PHOTOS View facing East inside of gate Variance WA -14 -16 Zeiger 10 Variance WA -14 -16 Zeiger Vegetation at north property line EXHIBIT 6: COVERAGE MAP Legend Lot Coverage {variance WA -14 -16 Zeiger , EXHIBIT 7: APPLICANT RESPONSE 3, The applicant is proposing a aikst" i nvesoneot in the Prop" with tft which would . be possible application, wind and rain. SMWI w '" :16 w ... a hYSiCS! Sur r oun dingshape or"rophicat a 14 l a:. a m: s PrWettY resuft in 0 particular and unique hardship (upon the owtw) as diStihguistted from a Community Devebment De t • t j 235-2 a .0 MA -14 -1C eii,,,e:r 1 M-= The granting of the variance will not be injurious to other property or Improvements in the neighborhood. Review by the HOA was performed and in a letter dated July W, 2014 the HOA raised no concerns with the carport structure for aesthetics or negative impact on neighborhood, The HOA did ask that we seek a variance from the city for the HOA's records. Other than the variance, the HOA expressed no concern for any substantial or minor impairment of adjacent property use or value. Variance 14 WA-14-115 Zeiger EXHIBIT SUPPOR WHEAT RIDGES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA-14-16 APPLICANT NAME: James and Geor Yanne LOCATION OF REQUEST: UE:ST: 2 ? Simms St WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -14 -16 was not eligible for administrative review and WHEREAS. the property has been pasted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there /were / were no] protests registered against it; and WHEREAS SAS the relief applied for jnrrry /ntiry notj be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose ofthe regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjjustrnent application Case No. W'A- 14 -16 be, and hereby is, /APPROVEDIDEt"VIEPI. "TYPE: OF VARIANCEµ. 8.6% lot coverage variance and I oft (100 %) side yard setback variance FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. 2 3. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: To: Sara White Re. Public Hearing for 3932 Simms Street Hello, I am unable to attend this public meeting due to mobility issues. I live at 3925 Simms Street, which is one house to the south. I have seen the Zeiger's carport and find no issue or concerns with it. It is on the side of their home and was erected to protect their vehicle from hail. Many homes in the McLaughlin neighborhood have large sheds (including mine) which are directly up against adjoining fences. I would ask that this carport be approved by the city. Thank you, Mary Allison 1/10/15 �.F 11 9 0 H The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 We 7:01 p.m. in the City Council ic, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, WReckert, Sr. planner a Y oner. RecordinY . evretnry Case No. WA-1'4' 14: An application filed by Dye Enterl,-Jrises for approval of a sign setback variance for a freestanding sign exceeding 15-feet in height on property located at 4855 Miller Street in the C -1 zone district. 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 digital presentation. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 25, 2014 CALL MEETING TO ORDER Board Member PAGE asked for clarification of the sign leading edge for setbacks. Ms. Reckert started the setback is measured to the leading edge of the sign, not the Pale. Board Member HOVLAND asked if the existing sign could remain if the variance is not approved and if the setback is measured from the property line. Ms. Reckelt replied the existing sign could remain if the variance is not approved, it is non- conforming and the setback should be measured from the property line which is coincident with CDOT right-of-way for the Frontage Rd. Vice Chair GRIEGO reiterated the existing sign sign could remain if the variance is denied. Ms. Reckert concurred and , "'I"" t" "d - 11, ap the applicant agreed to remove both signs if the variance was approved. Board Member KUNTZ questioned w1i th , tr the applicithtcould add another 50-foot s Reek l ing as it meets tile sign if the variance was not approv, . . ... . Reckert stated Ip Adnm, setbacks. She stated the applicant - d s not want to utilize pn" area on the lot and a 43 square foot sign on a 50-ft,,,pc)le wq look awk�", Vice Chair GRIEGO asked what the maxim ura. gn area square footage is for the property. Ms. Reckert stated 87 square feet ford, single sign with combined square footage and stated there are many non-conforiniftoigns in the area. Board Member ABBOTT commented on the criteria latiguage. fie suggested replacing the word "possible" with "practical", There was a discussion about the sign pole location within the 30-foot setback. a smaller sign on a 50-foot pole would be request. Vice Chair GRIEGO asked if the variance was approved would the sign remain if the applicant vacated the property. Ms. Reckert replied yes. In response to Board Member PAGE's inquiry, Ms. Reckert replied the trees appear to be Ash trees and which get quite tall. She stated there is a requirement for the number of" street trees based on the street frontage and that the requirements are the same for all commercial properties. Vice Chair GRIEGO inquired about the balloons and Bronco signs visible on the site in the photos shown. Ms. Reckert stated balloons ot regulated and the Bronco pennant signs are allowed temporarily only. Vice Chair GRIEGO asked if a condition advertising devices if the variance were g Discussion about sign placement Vice Chair GRIEGO opened the David Dye 4855 Miller St. Mr. Dye stated he has en year lease. He chose the would like to-i the Im restricting these types of 'kert replied yes. D property owner for a 15- )n 1-70. The reason lie c sight distance at the many improvements sign if the business left the property. the L Mr le y replied Mil the c would b emov the corner.'" Discussion continued. sign placement next to the entrance with -ild be challenge because of the high volume of traffic on andscaping cut way it opens the intersection and the old signs e least amount of clutter and traffic will not have to negotiate t of semi-truck traffic. He stated the expense of the is a factor as well. Vice Chair GRIEGO stated the municipal code is in place for a reason and zoning provides many things, 'Why would the board continue to allow the lack of non- conforinity. Board Member KUNTZ opined that from his perspective, the best solution is to redesign the landscaping to install a sign consistent with city code. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 25, 2014 3 Vice Chair GRIEGO stated she is struggling with this decision and she concurs with Board Member Kuntz. She asked if the economics of the case are part of the review. Ms. Reckert stated typically not, but this is a recurring issue. Board Member ABBOTT stated the board deals with practicality and encouraged staff to consider a language change in the criteria. Upon a motion by Board Member PAGE and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated* WHEREAS, application Case No. WA-14-14 was denied by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-14-14 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer-, and flm 1. The off-site sign copy will be removed. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-1 with Board Member KUNTZ voting no. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 2 5, 2014 4 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — June 26, 2014 It was moved by Board Member PAGE to approve the minutes as written. TbS There was discussion about the vote and t'tlon passed 7"�" language of the B. Ms. Reckert infornied the board that working with the board. C. Ms. Reckett inforined the board that moved to Washington. Lauren Mikulak f A at Iza have been "'h Jrvd and will be Range planner, resigned and o her positon. audience and greeted the 1.1111 VY499"ner, necoromg,-)ecretary Board of A.4justment Minutes September 25, 2014 5 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 01 Series of 2015 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DESIGNATED PUBLIC PLACE FOR THE POSTING OF MEETING NOTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE COLORADO OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, deems it in the public interest to provide full and timely notice of all of its meetings; and WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws, Section 24 -6 -401, et seq., C.R.S. to require all "local public bodies" subject to the requirements of the law to annually designate at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year, the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting; and WHEREAS, "local public body" is defined by Section 24-6-402(l)(a) to include "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof., has delegated a governmental decision- making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that: I The lobby of the Municipal Building and the City's website shall constitute the designated public place for the posting of meeting notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. 2. The Community Development Director or his designee shall be responsible for posting the required notices no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the holding of the meeting. 3. All meeting notices shall include specific agenda information, where possible. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of -2015. Chair, Board of Adjustment Secretary to the Board of Adjustment