BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS CITY OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2012 Regular Meeting:
The regular meeting of the City of Greenwood Village Board of Adjustments and Appeals
convened at 6:33 p.m. on February 23, 2012 at City Hall, 6060 South Quebec Street, Greenwood
Village, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Allan Stone with a quorum of six
members. Mr. Stone informed the audience members that five affirmative votes were necessary
for a motion to pass. Staff was entitled to 15 minutes to present each case, the applicant and
their representatives a total of 15 minutes, and other members of the public five minutes per
household. These times did not include time spent in answering questions from the Board.
Pledge of Allegiance: Mr. Rielly led the Board and the public in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members Present: Tom Dougherty, Anna Fugier, Steve Moran, Martha Paine, Mark Rielly and
Allan Stone
Members Absent: Michael Doyle and Craig Fowler
Staff Present: George Weaver, Community Development Director; Joy McGee, Planning
Manager; Judy Panton, Planning Technician, and Donna Veatch, Administrative Assistant
Election of Officers:
Mr. Dougherty moved to postpone the election of officers until the March 22, 2012 meeting.
Mr. Rielly seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Acceptance of the Minutes:
The December 8, 2011 and January 26,2012 minutes were approved as presented.
New Business:
Case #12-04-VAR, H. W. Nelson, 2500 E. Belleview Avenue; Request to Retain a Fence
Built without a Permit that Exceeds the Maximum Allowed Height and Opacity
Judy Panton presented the applicant's request to retain a wood fence that exceeds the maximum
allowed height and opacity. She described the property location and fence standards for the R­
2.5 zone district. Ms. Panton said the applicant stated the fence was necessary to help mitigate
the strobe lights from the photo red light at the intersection of University Boulevard and
Belleview Avenue.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23,2012
PAGE 2
Ms. Panton presented a site plan showing the existing conditions. She explained that a brick wall
ran along the applicant's north property line on Belleview A venue, and an earthen berm
encompassed the northwest comer of the site. She said both the berm and brick wall were used
for noise attenuation. Ms. Panton presented a vicinity map to show the property location in
relation to the intersection at University and Belleview.
Ms. Panton said that in mid 2011, staff received an inquiry regarding the wood fence. Research
revealed the fence was built without a permit and was not in compliance with the R- 2.5 fence
standards. She explained that the fence was constructed on the berm with a combined maximum
height of 12 feet and had been painted to match and blend in with the existing brick wall. Ms.
Panton presented photos of the fence from various locations on University and Belleview. She
further presented photos of the photo red light poles taken from the applicant's front porch.
Ms. Panton presented an aerial map showing the locations of the photo red light poles. She
stated that all of the photo red light equipment was owned and managed by the City of Cherry
Hills Village.
Ms. Panton said staff recommended denial of the variance request. She said staff recognized the
hardship that the photo red light and strobe lights had caused the applicant. Ms. Panton said the
fence as constructed, however, did not mitigate nor block the view of the lights from the house
and that the intent of the zoning code was to preserve the open feeling and rural character of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Panton said if the Board was inclined to grant the variance, staff recommended the Board
add a condition that the materials could be upgraded in the future to masonry to match the
existing wall.
Ms. Panton answered questions regarding noise attenuating walls and fence standards for the R­
2.5 zone district. She responded to additional questions regarding the history of the berm. There
was additional discussion regarding the elevation of the house compared to the University and
Belleview intersection.
H. W. Nelson, 2500 E. Belleview Avenue, applicant, described the floor plan of his house and
the location of the bedrooms. He said he felt the fence protected the bedrooms from the strobe
lights and helped mitigate some of the noise. Mr. Nelson explained when the University and
Belleview intersection was being rebuilt, he had requested that the intersection be moved to the
north to protect his house from traffic lights. He said the realignment was limited due to
University'S rapid descent from the north. He further explained that his house was open to the
traffic lights heading east on Belleview due to a curve that prevented the lights from following
the street. Mr. Nelson said he felt the existing berm should be allowed to be higher to protect his
property from the lights and noise from the intersection and surrounding areas.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23,2012
PAGE 3
Mr. Nelson explained the fence was a temporary measure to provide some protection from the
lights until a brick wall could be constructed. He said he intended to extend the existing
brick/noise wall along the perimeter of his property. Mr. Nelson explained the wall would be
built in stages due to the high construction cost. He said he felt the fence was an attractive
alternative to the hay bales had been stacked in that location.
Mr. Nelson addressed questions regarding landscaping the berm. He explained that a previous
Board had rejected a landscape plan for the berm. Mr. Nelson said a neighbor had opposed the
plan because it would have obstructed his mountain views. He said he was currently focused on
completing the brick wall before landscaping the berm.
Ms. Panton clarified that if the variance was approved with the condition of a future upgrade to
brick, only a permit would be required. She said that when Mr. Nelson applied to extend the
noise wall along the property perimeter, he would be required to submit a noise study before a
pennit could be issued.
Henri Ann Nelson, 2500 E. Belleview Avenue, applicant's wife, said they had lived at the
property for 42 years. She described several instances of trespassers on their property. Mrs.
Nelson said people used the path between the berm and noise wall to enter the property and that
the fence added a small amount of security by blocking the path. She stated the flashing lights
from the photo red light system had ruined their quality of life. Mrs. Nelson said they had tried
very hard to maintain the property and would appreciate the Board's consideration.
Mr. Jay McGee, 2700 E. Belleview Avenue, neighbor, spoke in favor of the variance request.
He said he felt the property was more agricultural and did not fit the current zoning. Mr. McGee
described the topography of the property and surrounding area. He described how he felt traffic
and the photo red lights affected the property. Mr. McGee further said the traffic noise in the
area was extreme. He said he recognized that there were zoning standards, but felt there should
be an exception for this property.
Mr. Stone closed the public portion of the hearing.
All members acknowledged the challenges that light and noise from the surrounding areas
created for the property. Several members said they could support the variance as requested;
however, they felt landscaping the benn would help screen the fence and mitigate some of the
noise and light issues from the Belleview and University intersection.
Several members said they could not support the variance. They said the wood fence was a
temporary solution and felt there were other alternatives that would help mitigate the light and
noise issues. They felt continuing the noise wall would be a better solution. They further
discussed approving the fence in the present location with the condition that it be replaced with
the extension of the existing noise wall or changed into a brick wall within a defined timeframe.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23,2012
PAGE 4
Mr. Dougherty asked staff if the Board had the latitude to approve the variance contingent upon
the construction of a noise wall within an established time period.
Joy McGee informed the Board that Mr. Nelson would be required to have a certified engineer's
study completed to determine whether the property qualified for a noise attenuation wall. She
said the Board could request the modification of fencing materials on the variance within a
stipulated time frame. Ms. McGee explained that the Board only had to find in the affirmative
on one of the criteria to approve the variance.
George Weaver clarified that the ordinance stated that the Board should consider all three criteria
factors. He said, however, if the Board could come to a consensus on only one of the criteria,
that could be used as the basis of approval.
Mr. Moran said he would like to see a long term solution to the issue. He said he was concerned
that the wood fence would need repairs over time. He also inquired about landscaping for the
berm.
Mr. Weaver informed that Board that the City'S Neighborhood Services Program would help
ensure that the quality of the wood fence would be maintained over time. He said when made
aware of a deteriorating fence, the City works with property owner to correct the issue.
Ms. McGee read and described the City code regarding the landscaping standards for berms in
the R-2.S zone district.
Mr. Stone re-opened the public hearing.
Mr. McGee said he felt the area would meet the requirements for a noise wall. He also expressed
his ideas for a solution to the fence/noise wall issue.
Mr. Stone closed the public hearing.
After additional discussion, the Board could not reach an agreement on a finding for the variance
request.
Mr. Stone informed the applicant that there was not enough support to approve the variance
request as presented. He informed the applicant he had the option to withdraw the application
and come back at a later date with an alterative or modified plan. Mr. Stone further explained
that if the variance was voted on and did not pass; he would have to wait one year before
resubmitting the same or similar proposal. He explained that the applicant also had the option of
continuing the case until the next meeting to address the Board's concerns.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2012
PAGES
Mr. Weaver said it was the City's preference to come to a solution that was acceptable to both
the Board and Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Nelson requested a continuance to the April 26, 2012 meeting.
Mr. Moran moved to continue Case #12-04-VAR, 2500 E. Belleview Avenue to the April 26,
2012 meeting to allow the applicant additional time to modify the application.
Mr. Rielly seconded the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Allan Stone,
dv
Vice Chair