Lafayette Board of Adjustment Meeting – May 14, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Lafayette Board of Adjustment Meeting – May 14, 2025
The Lafayette Board of Adjustment met on May 14, 2025, to hear a request for three variances for a property at 104 West Cleveland Street. The applicant sought variances to build a front‑facing garage, reduce the side yard setback, and allow a second‑story addition that did not appear secondary to the original house. After extensive discussion, the board denied all three variances. The meeting also included committee reports and updates on city planning matters.
Discussion Items – Variance Request for 104 West Cleveland Street
The property, located in the Old Town Residential District, already has a house, a garage with an ADU above it, and a carport. The applicant proposed: 1) moving the garage to the front of the lot with access from West Cleveland Street (instead of the alley), 2) allowing a nine‑inch encroachment into the five‑foot side yard setback, and 3) constructing a second‑story addition that, in staff’s view, did not appear secondary to the principal building. The applicant cited medical conditions, the desire to age in place, and the need for an accessible route from the garage to the house as the basis for the variances.
Staff Presentation (Andrea Minnow, Senior Planner): Staff recommended denial of all three variances. They found that the property did not meet the variance criteria: it was a standard rectangular, flat lot with no exceptional narrowness or topographic conditions. They argued that the hardship was self‑created because the owner built the ADU/garage at the rear, and that the proposed garage location would not be the minimum necessary encroachment. They also noted that the applicant had not provided documentation of a current disability under the Fair Housing Act, so the medical condition did not satisfy the code’s hardship requirement.
Applicant Presentation (property owner Van Wilvis and his architect): Mr. Wilvis described his medical conditions (degenerative and progressive) and his need for a direct, enclosed, accessible route from a garage to the house. He argued that the property’s location – across from a parking lot and next to an eight‑plex – was unique. He contended that the existing driveway and front‑facing garages in the neighborhood set a precedent. He also asserted that the second‑story addition preserved the front porch and dormer and was set back nine feet from the front of the house, and that the code’s language on “secondary” was subjective.
Board Discussion: Board members questioned staff and the applicant extensively. Topics included whether the medical condition could be considered a property hardship, whether alternative designs (such as connecting the rear garage via a covered walkway) were feasible, and whether the code’s illustrations for additions (all showing rear locations) were directive. The city attorney clarified that the medical condition, without a documented disability under the Fair Housing Act, did not change the variance analysis and that the variance criteria only consider property‑related circumstances. Board members expressed sympathy but concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional property conditions, that the hardship was not created by the property itself, and that approving the variances would undermine the Old Town design standards.
Key Outcomes
- Variance 1 (garage location): Motion to deny – passed unanimously.
- Variance 2 (side yard setback): Motion to deny – passed unanimously.
- Variance 3 (secondary addition): Motion to deny – passed unanimously.
- The board noted that the applicant could reapply with a different design or explore an administrative reasonable accommodation process if a disability is documented.
Committee Reports and Other Business
- VZAP Update (Commissioner): Boulder County’s Vision Zero Action Plan is nearly finalized. The commissioner expressed concern that the City of Lafayette has not committed to specific intersection improvements and has only stated support for general policy updates. He requested a presentation from staff on the city’s implementation plans.
- Historic Preservation Board (Commissioner): The board awarded $10,000 in grants to three projects. The commissioner also reported on a tour of Northern Water facilities, noting concerns about water law complexity, wildfire contamination, and federal staffing layoffs affecting dam maintenance. He noted that Colorado‑Big Thompson water shares are now valued at approximately $160,000.
- Personal Update (Commissioner): One board member announced their engagement and a recent vacation to Buenos Aires.
- Upcoming Meetings: The next Land Use Code Workshop is scheduled for June 11, 2025. The board does not meet on May 28. City Council will hear an appeal of a planning commission decision on June 3.
Meeting Transcript
104 West Cleveland Street. Um this was noticed in the Daily Camera on May 2nd, 2025. Setting Board of Adjustment Adjustment will be deciding whether the proposed resolution and application should be recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Um board will consider the record, which includes city planning staff's report and presentations by the city's planning staff. Applicant and any members of the public who wish to speak. The board will evaluate this proposal based solely upon the record and the applicable criteria established under the municipal code, which are highlighted in the staff report. It is important that each board member remain objective and capable of considering information offered into the record. A couple of questions for you all. Does each board member, does any board member believe that he or she is incapable of evaluating and voting on the application consistent with due process requirements? If so, please describe the situation and recuse yourself from further participation on this agenda item. Does any board member have a conflict of interest or any other matter here she would like to disclose prior to proceeding on this item? Memory serves me correct. Okay, so I just wanted to throw that out there. Thank you. All right. Uh board will not hear from city planning staff. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Andrea Minnow. I'm senior planner with the Department of Planning and Building. And the agenda for tonight includes the presentations by staff and applicant, staff analysis, and it'd be an opportunity for questions to both staff and the applicant. And then the public hearing will be held, followed by discussion among the board members, and finally with a motion. Before we get started with agenda, our deputy city attorney, Alan Poe, has the information to share. And at first, I wanted to direct your attention to the packet of materials that is on the dais this evening. Staff will not refer to it and will defer to the applicant to discuss in the extent that he chooses to do so. And then we also have a site plan of what is existing. And so you can see on that site plan the existing house towards the front of lot facing Cleveland Street. And so, what you can see on that site plan the existing house towards the front of lot facing Cleveland Street, and then there's also a garage with an ADU on top at the alley. That garage is accessed off the alley, and that was built not too long ago by the property owner. In the introduction, I'll present the three variances and also staff's recommendations on their compliance with the criteria. And I want to say that the staff analysis is quite detailed, and I'll do my best to give a good overview, but there are always be time, there will be an opportunity for you to ask questions, and we could go into further detail on anything that you'd wish to discuss further. The property is located within the old town residential district, and you can see the two sections of the OTR district. They're on the map, both on the left side and the right side of public road. The arrow pointing is generally located in the location where 104 West Cleveland is located. There are design standards that were placed in the code by city council. And the purpose of those is to provide an enhanced set of tools to guide new construction in old town and to help preserve its historic character and historic development pattern. All variances do require to meet the variance criteria set forth in the zoning code. So the applicant has requested the variances, telling us that he has medical conditions. The applicant will make a case that the variances are necessary based on an extraordinary and exceptional situation based on a unique and exceptional undue hardship upon the property owner. I'd like to point out that the Federal Fair Housing Act addresses disability. But because the applicant has not provided proof to staff of medical disability, the applicant may apply then for a variance that is heard by the city's board of adjustment. So with that, here are the three variances that are requested. The first, and you see that their number here on the illustrations to the right. The first is for a variance from the old town design standards that requires garages to be located at the rear of the lot and take access from an alley when an alley exists. We established that an alley does exist here. But in this case, there is an ADU with a garage underneath, and there is not a lot of room for additional access down there. And the applicant, I think, had a number of reasons really for designing it up at the front of the house. He proposes to maintain the existing access onto West Cleveland Street and be able to access the house directly from the garage. The second variance is to allow attached garage to encroach into the five-foot side yard setback for the zone district. And this variance is really related to the first one.
openpublica.com