Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 11 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 4 of 16 Staff Recommendations: Staff finds criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6 in Section 17.48.110 of the LMC have not been met and therefore recommends denial of the variance request. Commission Questions of Staff: Malmquist says if the Board agrees with the Staff's determination that no unusual condition exists, then this criterion would not be met. Robinson says because Staff finds that the first criterion is not met, then Staff finds that the second criterion is not met. Staff has not identified a unique physical circumstance. Campbell asks what is an "after -the -fact" variance? Robinson says in this situation as seen from the photos, the pergola has been built and constructed without a permit. The applicant received a stop -work order from the City's Building Safety division and the applicant came in to apply for a permit. The City determined that the pergola did not comply with the setback requirements. The applicant then applied for a variance to allow for permitting of the already constructed pergola structure after -the -fact. Malmquist says after doing the site visit a while ago, I am trying to remember what the structure on the left is. It looks separate from the pergola. Robinson says it is another pergola that does comply with the setback requirements. It is permitted. Malmquist clarifies that the pergola is currently 2.5' from the fence and it needs to be 10'. The BOA is looking at a 7' variance. Applicant Presentation: Greg Godec, 749 Wildrose Way, Louisville, CO I am able to provide the requested information that the BOA asked for at the last meeting, showing Xcel Energy's current policy in regard to vegetation directly under the power lines. In the space directly under, they are limiting property owners to low growing shrubs. The power lines there when I moved into the house were a different size. Xcel has upgraded the power lines since I moved in, and since the property was built. Regarding criterion 1, the physical circumstances are defined as anything relating to the boundaries or physical attributes of the property. In my research regarding the space above the property, not only do I own the property but I own or have a right to do things in the space above the property. The limitation that exists is created by the easement and one that prevents me from using the full property. That is my argument. I believe that Staff has taken a very narrow view of the policy and that in this circumstance, clearly we have a physical limitation on what can be done at the back of this property. If that is the case, I think that criterion 1 and criterion 2 should be clearly yes, and I do meet both of them. I think the BOA should see the wisdom in that and vote to say yes. The second part is regarding the setback itself of 10'. If you look at the property, the back of my property line is already 10' plus from the sidewalk and the curb. In essence, you are asking me to build a structure to protect my yard from the street almost 20' away from the street. This is another situation unique to this property. There are other circumstances that are like this, but I have a situation where I believe the limitation of 10' back from that property line is not reasonable. To put the pergola into the middle of my yard is not a reasonable request and does not solve the problem that has been created by the situation. I wrote this up in another letter to Staff and I hope everyone has had a chance to read it. I hope that criteria 1 and 2 are clear. The location of the pergola as built will clearly be a benefit to the neighborhood once it has vines and plants on it. It will enhance the look of the