Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/2006CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTIVIENT AGENDA August 24, 2006 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on August 24, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 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 HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-06-12: An application filed by Gary DiGiorgio for approval of a 19 square foot variance from the 9,000 square foot minimum lot azea requirement and a 9 foot variance from the 75 foot minnnuxn lot width requirement to allow a two-fanuly dweliing unit on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 3825 Chase Stxeet. B. Case No. TUP-06-02: An application filed by L& H Auto Body & Glass for approvai of a one-yeaz Temporaty Shucture Permit on property zoned Industrial (n and located at 4790 Independence Street. - 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - July 27, 2006 8. ADJOLTRNMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLAIVNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF iVIEETIPIG: August 24, 2006 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert CASE NO. & NAME: Case No. WA-06-12/DiGiorgio ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a lot area and lot width variance in an R-3 zone LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3825 Chase Street NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Gary and Audrey DiGiorgio APPROYIMATE AREA: 8981 square feet PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Three (R-3) PRESENT LAND USE: Two-family residence ENTER INTO THE RECORD: (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) CASE FILE AND PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION JURISDICTION: $oard of Adjnstrnent Case No. WA-06-12/DiGiorgio SITE 1 JDRISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have beet. met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. REQUEST The property in question is located at 3825 Chase Street and is zoned Residential-Three (R-3). It is currently being utiGzed as a two-fattiily dwelling with tenants in both the main floor and basement. In the R-3 zone disirict, a legal two-family dwelling lot requires 9000 square feet of ]ot area with 75' of lot width. The property is substandard to these requirements with only 66' of lot width (resulting in a 9' required lot width variance) and 8981 square feet of lot area (resulting in a 19 square foot required lot size variance). An administrative variance cannot be granted because it results in an additional dwelling unit. The properry owner purchased the proper[y two years ago and it had two units at that time. The house was built in 1942. It is unclear at wliat point it was converted into a duplex. There is no evidence in the building department records that tbis was a legal conversion. The Jefferson County Assessor's office indicates that there is only one recognized imiY on the property. Staff became aware of the nonconformity because the lower unit was in need of a high speed intemet wnnection. Comcast needs a separate address to service the lower cmit as both units are currently under the same address. The vaiiances are needed to legitimize the two units on the property. (Exhibit 1, applicant letter). The property is surrounded on the north and west by R-lA zoned single family residences. The property to the south is zoned R-3 utilized as a single family residence. To the east is a commercial strip center zoned C-1. Because each of the vanances is dependent on the other, they will be considered simultaneously IL SITE PLAN The property owner has submitted an improvement location certifcate which shows the location of the structure on the property. (Exhibit 2, Tmprovement locarion certificate). It is a one-story lap-sided home with a detached double car garage. Additional parking for the home is located in the driveway to the east of the garage. The driveway is around 70' in length and could accommodate an additional three cars. Pursuant to the off-street parking regulations in the Zoning and Development code, single and two family dwellings are required to have two spaces per dwelling unit with on-street parking and four spaces per dwelling unit without on-street parking. The property is 66.67' wide and could accommodate another two vehicles. A total of eight parking spaces (both on and off street spaces) are required for the duplex where only seven spaces are available (five on the property and two on the street). Board of Adjustrnent Case No. WA-06-12/DiGiorgio The property is relatively flat and is consistent with the "look° ofhouses in the area. The first floor tenant enters through the front door. The basement tenant enters from the south side which goes iinmediately downstairs. There is no connection between the two units. By recognizing this as a legal duplex, the building inspector has advised that the basement must be brought up "to code". lf the variance is denied, the stnichire must be converted to single family dwelling. Staff has received an objection to the variances from an adjacent property owner at 3820 Depew Street (directly to the west of the subject property). III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate avariance request: 1. Can the properTy in question 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 request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property is currently approved for single-family use. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The variance could potentially alter the essential character of the locality by legitimizing a duplex in a neighbarhood which is composed of single family residences. However, the structure has been used as a duplex since the time of purchase two years ago. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the speciiic property invoived resait in a particu➢ar aud unique nardsnip (upon ine owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? No, the 3ot is question has a typical rectangular shape and is relatively flat 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The illegal nature of the second unit has not been created by the present owner. The hardship stems from the conversion of the structure to two units by a previous owner. The current owner relied on this rental income when lie purcliased the property. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimentai to the public welfare or injurioas to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or Board of Adjushnent Case No. WA-06-12/DiGiorgio increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious [o other properties or improvements in the neighborhood. The current duplex does not impact the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, does not increase the chance of fire or endanger the public safery. There could be an impact on Chase Street because of inadequate parking available on-site. 6. lf criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or wouid grauting of the variance result in a reasouable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The requested variance would result in an individual benefit for the property owner and would not produce a benefit for the neighborhood or the community. Approval of lhe variance would not result in the accommodation of a person with disabilities. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the request, staff concludes that the above criteria are not supportive of the variance requests. Therefore, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: 1. There are no unique circumstances. 2. The proposed duplex is out of character with the neighborhood which is comprised of single family dwellings. 3. The property cannot meet the required parking for a two-unit dwell ing. If the variances are approved, staff recommends the following condirions: 1. The property owner must Uring the basement into conformance with the appurtenant fire and building codes. 2. The City wil] assign an additional address, thereby notify9ng the Jefferson County Assessor's office of the second unit. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-12/DiGiorgio 3~ ICIOR O &WO Eipca a FJ:n:q~~ E~~me 40 From Gary DiGiorgio TO :Atlen White F AX: 303 235 2857 R.E: 3825 Chase St, Wheat Ridge, Co. Tora1 Copies including cover ; 2 Alien, THe oipoRUo G~uv sosesecwar omecT W94226200 OFFlL[ 3034670211 PPX 90.35 WADsw4frtN PKwr. SuttE 2000 Wf,'MINSrEP, CO 80021 ~`MRIODIDETI`IEFREAI"R'.CAM Thanks fot allowing me m visit with you today on the subject property. We have had people living in the uppex and lower units. Thc lower unit is in need of a high speed connechon and Comcast has requested a separate address for lower...or A.up and B..down.?? The II,C shows 89$1.78 SF w}uch is onty short 15.21 SF of the city specified two dwelling lot size. I appreciate your considerarion and vrould furdier appceciate any assutance in getting this done as soon as possible m accommodate the need. inanKs G 303 9 (direct ) Remarks: 'ME fNFORMATION CoM'A111iM M lHI5 Fac51MRFi MFSGAOE 79 CONFIDENr1nL(1IFORTIATiON Dc1DiDm ioR'f7iE WbMpUqI- NNAIDABOVE_ IFl7C RFwOEROFTMSMESSAGE iSNOT7NEM'fETIDEUREC1Po-77I'.Yd1AiE liFRE91'NOT7FlEDTHATANY U3E. DISiEM1NAl70P7. D6TTtlBIRidd. Wi COPYIN a OFTHE COMMU'NGAIIOH 15 SRtIG71.Y PFiOHOITFD. NOM: SOM6 FA% DOGUMIEMS ARE Nm' LEmBLE WmiVN TWO (?)VE~ OBTwm bRl(AtJAI oo(xPdENIS oR CoPYlVR PERAAPQ~T1'Y RECORW^. EXHIBIT 1 l ~ 9~9C~N lNdbt: b 9 001 ~ K~ GFTE 07/21/20~E 125.O905F 83-605 CUr~.i NE'Ri0 8R01(ER9 (14a99.) L A N D 5 U R V E Y I N G ~DD~-sS =`-25 c[us£ 5:. 7660 WR4G 4040 • SvrtE 16G AqV4o4, COLOPwpO BOOOC Nq1Jc (303) 42P4789 IMFPGVEMENT LOCPTION C~R:IFIC..'E ' " " "c GhL3ESCR:FT .C, nccn: crar STe4mx~ Gi.FtpENS RESOeciv:g:ON OF ELOCK 15-17, - :'PACT A, LGT 49, fOf.m`TY OF JEFFERSOF, L AT' OF COIAPADC. II J N Scale: 1"=?A' . LOT 50 S~Jfj~ /~-f) (ls E 3 d c 0 0 .o u b b V: mN N U N W On Ihe basis of my knowletlge, information ane belief, I hereby ceriitythet ihis Imp[wecentlp on certifiwte waE Drepared for Lentl $urcey a21 or Improvemen: Survey Plai, antl :hat it is not m be reli Gon fvr Ihe esteb' eni of re , o i g, or otner fumre improvement Iinei I funher cartity ;hai the improv ems oa Lhe abov eserlbed parcel on this e, excepi utifty connecilons, are entirely wi;bin the bcuntlaries of t parcel, excepi as owq mat thare ere no encma n•s upon ihe describetl premises by improvemenis on any utljom g premises, except inaicated, and that ihere is ne a aren vitlence or sign ot any essement cro5sing o1 burdening am p rt ei said pamel, ex ept as notetl. `NOTCB AcmNing iaCcblatlo law yoi, must rA, sny Iscjyactrn peu.ry v(~q t bl"rF.:s s ey witAln Miea ye, rs ener ypu first d:s~pvyi suchde(ecL In no eve~4 meY ~Y actlm 0.q upon snY aetect i Nis .vr~)~.f4 . f/ran (gn Yggrs 1 Ihe tlefe ol DIB Cd/I~fiGfb/i S~IOw/1 /19/ea^.." . . _0 JJ'~ xOiE: hM[i c MCLL90N er~io~wowexaoxs z ; ec~t ,N EXHIBIT 2 Naa;~, 9~oi oi L-j( I S T 1 rS 6`A't2-4 &-65 ~OFWH~t9~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE pLANN1\'G DIV7SION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: TUP-06-02/L&H Auto Body DATE OF DIEETING: August24, 2006 ACT10N 12EQUESTED: Request for approval of a temporary structure for property zoned Industrial. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4790 Independence Street APPLICAIVT (S): L&H Auto Body OWIVER (S): Same 4790Independence St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIVIATE AREA: 86,971 sq. ft (1.99 ac.) PRESENT ZONIIVG: Industria] (1) E_VTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKE'f MATERIALS (X) llIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Locat Site All notificatio,n and posting requirements have been met; tberefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Board of Adjustment TUl'-06-02/L&H Auto Body I. REQUEST The applicant is requestind approval of a one-year temporary structure (EXhibit 1, Letter of Request).The structure would be a 60 x 75 foot tent for the purpose of storing and reviewing the condition of vehicles during inclimate weather. The temporary structure would provide for a future building expansion. The temporary structure would be removed once a building expansion is complete within the next year. The Code of Laws empowers tlie Board of Adjustment to decide upon requests for temporary buildings. II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 86,971 square feet in size, has a fairly rectangular shape, and is relatively flat The applicairt wishes to construct the temporary structure attached to the southeast comer of the building (E~11 Site Plan). This temporary structure would be enc]osed on all sides with a concrete pad below. The Code of Laws requires a minimum 5-foot per story side yard setback in the Industnal zone district. A] 0-foot rear yard setback is also required. The temporary structure will be located at least 140 feet from the nearest property line, the southem properiy line. The temporary structure will not increase ]ot coverage, as there is an existing concrete pad under which the structure will be placed. The structwe will have the same roofline as the existing building, and will be between 16 aaid 18 feet tall. All other development standards will be met. The structure will meet all applicable building codes in respect to snow and wind load. III. TEMPORARY USE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a temporary use permit The proposed temporary building or sign: Will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use; and The temporary bui]ding should not have a detrimenta] effect upon the health, safety or welfare of persons in the surrounding area. The building will be ]ocated at the southeast comer of the existing building, screened from view by a fence. There will be no auto body work performed in this new temporary building. 2. Wi11 not adversely affect the adequate light and air, nor cause significant air, water or noise pollution, or cause drainage problems for the general area; and Board of Adjustment TUP-06-02/L&H Auto Body The request should not adversely affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The structure will be enclosed; however, the structure will be located at least 140 feet from the closest property line, so the supply of light and air to adjacent properties should no[ be affected. There should be no increase to noise, air or water pollution as a result of this request. There will be no increase of impervious sur£aces on the property, so the request should not impact drainage on the property or surrounding properties. Will not result in ondue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to the detriment of persons rvhether on or off the site; and The request will not result in traffic congestion or traf5c hazards. There will be no iinpact to parking or loading areas either on or off site. The temporary structure w-ill be located in the storage yard, away from parking areas and drive aisles. 4. Will be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk, buffering, screeniag aud landscaping, so as to be in harmony and compatible with character of surrounding areas and neighborhood, especially with adjacent properties; and The temporary building will have same roof line of the existing building (approximately 16-18 feet) and will be at least 140 feet froin the nearest (southern) property line. The temporary sWcture will be located behind an existing fence, thereby screening the structure from adjacent properties. 5. Will uot overburden the capacities of existing streets, utilities, parks, schools and oCher public facilities and services. The request nas no impact on the capacities of streets, utilities, parks, schools or other public facilities. 1V. ST.aFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the temporary structure request There should be no impact to surrounding properties. Therefore, staff recominends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. Approval of the temporary building would not alter the essential chazacter of the locality. The structure will be located so as not to be visible from the nght- of-way. Addirionally, the structure will be at ]east 140 feet from the nearest property line. 2. Approval of the request would not impair the adequate light and air to adjacent properties. 3. Approval of the temporary structure would not be injunous to other properties in the neighborhood. Board of.Adjushnent TUP-06-0211,&H Auto Body With the following condition: The temporary structure shall be allowed for a period of one year. The one year time period shall begin with the issuance of the building pennit for the temporary structure. Board of Adjustment TUP-06-02/L&H Auto Body West Store North Store Mountain Store Toll Free 47907ndependence 8123 West[-25 147 Nottingliam 566-424-2565 Wheatridge, CO 8003 Erie, CO 80516 Avon, CO 51620 303-424-2565 303-702-9010 970-845-6059 Fae 303-431-5202 Fax 303-702-9011 F~ 970-845-7278 ATTACHMENT TO LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Due to the workload and expansion and diversification of the business, L 8s H Auto Body has determined that the present building configuration cannot support present nor expected workload for the future. L 8v H Auto Body has, as a result of this condition, engaged an Architectural Engineer to establish a method to expand its building capabilities in accordance with the laws and rules of the City of Wheat Ridge. We believe that our useable working space can be doubled, and our plan is to follow that course. Because this process is expected to take approximately one year L 8s H finds that to support this addiUonal business we need to make temporary arrangements to support our business while this process goes through its channels. We are requesting that we be allowed to put up a tent measuring 60 X 75 feet to support our operations while we go through the process for the expansion of our facilities. We see this as only a temporary step but it will allow us to increase the flow of business to the level necessary to support this expansion. Without this request we will have to turn away business that might be difficult to recapture later. We respectfully request that you consider this temporary structure for what it will be used for. We will do estimating in inclement weather, vehicle delivery, and storage of partially disassembled vehicles. There will not be any painting or repairs done in these structures. EXHIBIT 1 69' bi 45' i~ ' CHAINLINK ' FENCE ~ ~ OO ~ ~ ~ 5.332. 4 , ~ 0 50.0, 5352. - 'r - - - - - 14L l PARKING ~ ~-.5352.2 IQ SHUT ' ~ OFF CONC. RAMP h I 94 - -w- _ ` ' - . _ _~i - - - 5352.6 ~ 'ONC PAD AND , 0 X7Q; WO00 D~C`K L 76. 0 " 0 ro ~ 1 5352.35>, , to \I I ~ S35' 2V ~ 5352.09' : , 76. 0" 535J. 48' ONE S IOR Y BU20/NG 14,288 S F. F. F. EL = 5354.19' EXHIBIT 2 SPHAc r j RAMr`P ~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 27, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Bell at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howazd Larry Linker Davis Reinhart Members Absent: Paul Drda Staff Present: Travis Crane, Planner Jerry Dahl, City Attomey Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Boazd of Adjushnent minutes for the public hearing of July 27, 2006. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office. of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There tivere no individuals present who wished to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING All individuals wishing to testify regarding the following cases were sworn in by Chair BELL A. Case No. WA-06-09: An application for approval of (A) a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 10-foot side yazd setback requirement resulting in a 5-foot side yard (northwest) setback and (B) a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 10-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5-foot side yard (west) setback for property zoned Residential Two and located at 3895 Allison Street. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent docuxnents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He Board of Adjustment - 1 - 07-27-06 reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Travis Crane stated that the lot meets the minimum lot size standard for R-2 zoning and far exceeds requirements for a single family dwelling. Most of the houses in the neighborhood haue attached garages; however, there are other detached structures in the neighborhood. Board Member REINHART asked if staff believed the applicant could meet his goals if the gazage were in ariother location. Mr. Crane stated that the garage would have to be turned which would take up the entire back yard and would possibly have some nnpact on the existing structure. Turning the gazage would leave a small yard area between the gazage and the house, but staff felt it would not be a functional piece of open space for the applicants. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Travis Crane stated that the city had not heazd from the adjacent property owner. Larry Muehe 3895 Allison Street Mr. Muehe stated that the garage, as planned, would enhance the back yard. Turning the garage would create a lot of concrete and little grass. The garage would back up to the gazage belonging to the neighbor to the north and would not be visible to the neighbor to the west because it would back up to the fence. He stated the gazage is planned to be 22 by 30 feet and designed to match the house with lifetime vertical siding because it was impossible to match the brick. He stated that this house was inherited from a family member and they plan to move into it when remodeling is complete. There were no other individuals who wished to address this case. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-09 (A) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fdteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Board of Adjusiment - 2 - 07-27-06 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 Case No. WA-06-09 (A) be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The lot has an irregular shape and has frontage on two public streets. This hardship was not created by the applicant. 2. The location and orientation of the house would impede vehicular access to a code complying garage. 3. The lot is large at 15,703 square feet; therefore, the request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties nor would this variance appear to cause negative impacts as related to variance criteria number five. 4. Letters of support were received from immediately adjacent neighbors. 5. There appears to be no alternative practical location for the garage. The motion carried 6-1, with Board Member Linker voting no. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative of£cer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-09 (B) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no 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 Case No. WA-06-09 (B) be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: Board of Adjustment - 3 - 07-27-06 1. The lot has an irregular shape and has frontage on two public streets. This hardship was not created by the applicant. 2. The location and orientation of the house would impede vehicular access to a code complying garage. 3. The lot is large at 15,703 square feet; therefore, the request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties nor would this variance appear to cause negative impacts as related to variance criteria number five. 4. Letters of support were received From immediately adjacent neighbors. 5. There appears to be no alternative practical location for the garage. The motion carried 6-1, with Board Member Linker voting no. B. Case No. WA-06-10: An application filed by Lewis Candy Company for approval of a 9-foot setback variance from the required 10-foot setback for a freestanding sign, resulting in a 1-foot setback for property zoned Commercial One and located at 6140 West 38th Avenue. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with a condirion, outlined in the staff report. Boazd Member REINHART asked if this would be the most protruding sign on the block. Mr. Crane stated that it would be the northernmost freestanding sign on the block. If the sign were in a conforming location, it would interfere with parking. Boazd Member BELL commented that the sign wouid noi be out oi aiignment with other signs down the block. Mr. Crane stated that no right-of-way was dedicated on this property for the 38th Avenue capital nnprovement project. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, the code requires that a freestanding sign not block other signs within twenty feet from an adjacent property. The size of the sign is in conformance with the city code. Board Member BLAIR asked if the city had received any comments from adjacent properiy owners. Mr. Crane stated that no comments, either positive or negative, had been received. Myron Lewis 6140 West 38th Avenue Mr. Lewis, owner of Lewis Fine Candies, stated that if the variance is not granted, the sign would block the sign to the east. The business presently has a visibility Boazd of Adjustrnent - 4 - 07-27-06 issue with customers hying to locate the store. The present sign is an eyesore and sign companies have refused to attempt to place a sign on posts built in 1958. Boazd Member HOVLAND expressed concern that the height to the bottom of the sign is 6.5 feet and could present a danger to a tall individual walking under the sign. Mr. Crane explained that the only time sign height comes into play is when it relates to sight distance triangles and this sign does not present an impact. Board Member LINKER also expressed concern about the height that could endanger a bicyclist. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Jerry Dahl stated that since the sign would not be on city right-of-way there would be no liability to the city. Sherry West 39te Avenue Ms. West and her brother own property nearby on 39"' Avenue and asked for clarification as to which sign was going to be removed and which one would be replaced. NIr. Crane explained which sign would be removed and replaced. Heidi Lewis 6140 West 38th Avenue Ms. Lewis stated that the A-frame sign would be removed. Truel West 6150 W. 39`h Avenue Mr. West expressed support for the application because it would be a net unprovement for the city and enhance the streetscape. There were no other individuals who wished to speak. In response to a question from Boud Member HOWARD, Mr. Crane explained that the sign would have two faces. Boazd Member HOVLAND commented that the sign has a good design, is in keeping with the neighborhood and will present an overall improvement to the neighborhood. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas; the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment - 5 - 07-27-06 Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-10 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no 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 Case No. WA-06-10 be, and hereby is approved. For the folTowing reasons: 1. The hardship has not been caused by the applicant. The hardship arises from the original site design and location of parking spaces. A conforming freestanding sign could not be located on the property without compromising existing parking spaces. A conforming freestanding sign would create a traffic hazard. 2. While located one foot from the front property line, the sign will actually be 11 feet from the edge of the existing asphalt of 38tn Avenue thereby giving the appearance to passersby that the 10-foot setback is being met. 3. The applicant will be removing two antiquated nonconforming signs, one of which is a parking hazard and 22 feet tall and a small sandwich board sign and replacing them with one consolidated sign. This will be an improvement to the property and the West 38th Avenue corridor. 4. A ten-foot tall sign in a conforming iocaiion would euminaie ai ieasi one parking space. The site does not meet the current parking standards for a retail use and a further reduction in parking would be a detriment to the site. 5. The request will not be detrimental or injurious to the public welfare, will not impact the adequate supply of light or air, nor increase congestion in the streets. 6. The sign design has a"retro" appearance and would generally appear to be in keeping with tbe city's streetscape design plan and certainly will significantly improve the public perspective of the property. 7. One neighbor spoke in favor of the variance. 8. Staff recommended approval of the variance. With one condition: Board of Adjushnent - 6 - 07-27-06 1. The proper.ty shall have only one freestanding sign. Both existing nonconforming signs shall be removed and replaced with a singular freestanding sign. The motion carried 7-0. (The meeting was recess from 8:23 p.m. to 8:32 p.m.) C. Case No. WA-06-11: An application filed by William Packazd for approval of (A) a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 10-foot side yazd setback requirement resulting in a 5-foot side yard setback and (B) a 5-foot rear yard setback variance from the 10-foot rear yazd setback requirement resuking in a 5-foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential Two and located at 3065 Reed Street. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentarion. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the applicant could put a shed back onto the lot. Mr. Crane replied that the applicant could place a shed on the property as long as it doesn't exceed masimum lot coverage. Board Member REINI3ART suggested that a garage shorter than 30 feet might allow for better turning movements. William Packard 3065 Reed Street Mr. Packard stated that he wouid iike to ouild a 30-foot garage to accomtnouaie his vehicles that include a boat and motorcycles. He stated that he would remove two existing storage sheds. He has considered other locations, but he found that turning would be difficult or he would haue to remove landscaping. He has talked with all of his neighbors and they are in favor of his plans. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mr. Packard stated that he plans to use the existing garage as a garage for one car. Board Member LINKER asked if the gazage door could be shifted to the left to make it more accessible. Mr. Packard replied that he wasn't sure that moving the door to the left would meet code. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Packard stated that the east face of the garage would be matching brick and the remainder of the garage would be covered with siding. It would match the house and conform to the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment - 7 - 07-27-06 Mr. Packard commented that there is a garage with 5-foot side and rear setbacks at 3025 Quay Street. There were no other individuais who wished to address this matter. Boazd Member HOVLAND stated that he could see the need for a variance on the south property line; however he had difficulty with the 10-foot variance on the back property line. Board Member BELL commented that it appeared there were structures fairly close to the property line at 3030 Saulsbury. She expressed concern about how the five feet between the gazage and property line would be used. She suggested that vegetative screening could be used to decrease the visual impact to the neighbors. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND, tLe following resolut'ion was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an adtninistrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-11 (A) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the pubifc weifare and wituoui supsianiiaiiy impairing tbe inteni and purpose ot the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-11 (A) be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The location of the house, patio and landscape area would impede vehicular access to a garage if it were in a conforming location. A practical alternative location is not apparent to the Board. 2. There are multiple structures in the neighborhood that encroach into the required side or rear yard setback area. Therefore, the general character of the neighborhood should not be altered. 3. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties or cause other negative effects related to criteria number five. Boazd ofAdjushnent - 8 - 07-27-06 4. Staff recommended approvai of the variance. With the following conditions: 1. Two existing sheds must be removed. 2. As described by the applicant, brick veneer should be used on eastern fagade. The motion carried 6-1 with Linker voting no. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the gazage could be shortened and the applicant could build another shed on the property. Board Member HOVLAND also had concern that the gap between the lots would create a storage area. He found it difficult to fmd a hardship to support the rear yard setback. Board Member REINHART stated that the applicant could build a fixnctional garage without encroaching on the rear yard setback. He did not believe that a hardship had been demonstrated. Board Member HOWARD stated that the applicant could rotate the garage 90 degrees. Upon a motion by Board Member REINHART and second by Board Member ABBOTT the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-11 (B) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not 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 Case No. WA-06-11 (B) be, and hereby is denied. For the following reason: Board of Adjushnent - 9 - 07-27-06 A two-car garage could be built and function effectively without a variance. Board Member BELL commented that, with approval of the side yard variance, denial of the reaz yard variance would mean he could still build a garage and maybe reduce the size to 25 feet. Therefore, she was inclined to go along with denial. Board Member ABBOTT asked if it would be necessary for the applicant to pay another filing fee if he decided to reorient the garage. Mr. Crane explained that if the change were substantial enough to come back before the Board there would be a fee. He did not believe that tunung the garage 90 degees would be a substantial change. The motion for denial carried 5-2 with Board Members BLAIR and HOWARD voting no. Board Member ABBOTT commented that two sheds must be removed from their current locations but could be relocated as long as they meet code. It was moved by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to reconsider the motion on Case No. WA-06-11 (A). The motion carried 6-1 with Board Member BLAIR voting no. It was moved by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to change the language in the first condition for Case No. WA- 06-11 (A) to read: Existing sheds shall be removed andlor relocated to an ordinance compliant location. lhe motion carried 7-0. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINE5S Chair BELL reported that no applications have been received for altemates to the Board of Adjushnent. She encouraged Board members to recruit individuals to serve as altemates 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - June 22, 2006 Boazd of Adjushnent - 10 - 07-27-06 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes of June 22, 2006 as presented. The motion carried 7-0. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 930 p.m. Janet Bell, CHAIR Aiuz Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment - 11 - 07-27-06