Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/2000I JUNE 22, 2000 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on June 22, 2000, at 7:30 pm., in the City Council chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject n appearing on the agenda.) i A. ' Case No. WA-00-04: An application filed by Michael H. Milby for approval of a one-foot rear yard setback variance from the five-foot rear yard setback requirement for tit purpose of building a detached garage for property located at 5506-5520 West 28 1h Aven and zoned Residential-Three. A. Approval of Minutes: May 2 5, 2000 t", C.\1brbara\B0A\000622,wpd ACTION REQUESTED: 5' height variance to allow a 55' high CMRS tower LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4056 Youngfield Street NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Ralph Walker for Airtouch Cellular 7354 S. Eagle Street NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Lee Kunz Youngfield .Plaza, LLC 4056 Youngfield Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE EA: N/A PRESENT ZONING: Planned Commercial Development PRESENT LAND USE: Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING; N: PCD; S: R -1; E, W: A -1 SURROUNDING LAND USE: : RV Service; S: Church; E: Open. Space; : 1 -70 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Parrs and Open Space /Small Office, Business Center DATE PUBLISHED: June 2, 2000 DATE POSTED: June 8, 2000 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 6, 2000 ENTER INTO CO () COMPREHENSIVE PLAID (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE 0 SLIDES Q SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS 0 OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and Posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is ,jurisdiction to Bear this cases The applicant requests approval of a 5' height variance in accordance with Section 5.10.1.(e) of the City Charter. This case is being requested in conjunction with Case No. WZ-00-03 which is a request for approval of an amendment to a Planned Commercial Development final development plan to allow a Commercial Mobile Radio Service tower and ancillary equipment cabinet at 4056 Youngfield Street. Pursuant • Section 26-30(S) of the Wheat Ridge Code • Laws, freestanding CMRS facilities are allowed in planned development districts only if specifically listed under the allowed uses of the regulating planned development. CMR,S facilities not specifically listed require an amendment to the underlying final development plan. The requested tower is not specifically listed or shown on the development plan. The development plan on the property, known as Youngfield Plaza, was approved in 1980. Lot I of the Youngfield Plaza PCD has on it two office/warehouse buildings containing roughly 130,000 square feet. See attached Exhibit 'A'. The applicant is proposing the 55' high tower at the southwest comer of the property where there is a substantial slope to get the tower as high in the air as possible. The applicant has pursued other locations in this 1-70/Youngfield corridor to no avail. The tower and accessory cabinet box will result in a small reduction in the amount of landscaping on the property. A public hearing for Case No. WZ-00-03, the request for final development plan amendment, was held before Planning Commission on June 15, 2000 A recommendation of denial was given, The applicant intends on appealing the denial recommendation to City Council, Staff does not object to the Board of Adjustment taking action on the height variance. If the plan amendment is denied by City council, the variance approval will be repealed. Attached as Exhibit 'B' is a copy of the proposed development plan to be reviewed by City Council. commen I � I'll, - S VVYININX M4V"V'T* - F#1 V ra 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? - I tie property can suit De useG as an *1 T However, according to the applicant, the variance is required to allow line of sight visibility from adjacent cell towers. Denial of the variance would result in the tower not being built. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Circumstances are not unique. The City's height restrictions are applied uniformly throughout the City. There are other options for the installation of CNIRS facilitates including structure-mounts and roof-top mounts. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The tower is proposed to be built on the slope between the office park and the adjacent church and residential development to the south. There appears to be roughly 20' of grade difference between the proposed tower location and the church parking lot at the top of the slope. The slope is heavily wooded which creates. a natural buffer for the adjacent uses to the south. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The topography of the office park property has a variation of about 40' from the parking lot in front of the,building to the south property line. The site was chosen due to the grade change to get the tower higher into the air. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property If the variance isn't granted then the tower will not be built. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? There could • visual impacts from the residential development on the bluff looking down the slope. The existing mature trees will provide a natural buffer. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, 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 would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? Approval of the variance will not result in an accommodation of a person with disabilities, HOW If the variance is granted, Staff recommends a condition be added that it will be repealed if the development plan amendment is not approved by City Council. MISMMM�� i I I n-2 -W 42MV AVE I Pt"A5Z If L.,Vr' NZ "M ;.4z_4f_S M� - I ii f ......... A-1 5 r VA `I A tu x 4 I � CASE NO. & NAME: WA-00-04/Milby CASE MANAGER: Mary Austin ACTION REQUESTED: Request for a F rear yard setback variance from the 5' rear yard setback requirement in an R-3 zone, reducing the setback to 4' for the purpose of constructing a detached garage. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): 6 Michael Milby 551 West 28' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80214 Hope & Helen Milby 1 &10 Wide Acre Road Golden, CO 80401 APPROXIMATE AREA: 18,200 sq. ft. PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: R-3, Residential-Three ammumma�� R-3, Residential-Three S: R- I C, Residential-One C N: E. S: and W: Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Single Family Residential (6 dwellings/acre) DATE PUBLISHED: June 2, 2000 DATE POSTED: June 7, 2000 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 8, 2000 jERISDICTION: The property is within the Ciqr of Wheat Ridge— and all notification and %o - iture therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The property, in question is located at 5506-5520 West 28 `h Ave and is currently being used for multi- family residential. The property is zoned R-3, Residential-Three. (Exhibit 1, Zoning Map). t - i - W vara. hp_w4 -.9-ttw-hed, It -and an elevation sketch (Exhibit 4, Site Plan and Exhibit 5, Elevation). The property fronts on West 28 Ih Ave, Alleys surround the property on the other three sides. The new garage is proposed for the back of the property (south side). 4-unit building, This 3 foot separation is the minimum required by building code, This required separation from the existing structure causes an encroachment into the required setback. 111�iip pill NAG&! ' Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if Board of Adjustment Page 2 WA-00-04/Milby 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 yield a reasonable return in use. The prof ! f as multi-family and can continue to be used as such, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? cause a hardship. The difficulty is related to the age of the development and the inadequate parking situation, 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? TOMer f Toperty 77MUT Trie s2rne zoning 71 may req ar variance. E application is reviewed • a case by case basis and evaluated based on the circumstances pertaining to each request. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property The purpose of the request is not based on a desire to make money out of the property. The request is based on the desire to provide additional parking for tenants and guests. Board of Adjustment Page 3 WA-00-04/Milby The welfare of the public would not be impacted by granting of the variation nor would it be injurious to other property or improvements in the area. The requested setback variance is adjacent to the alley on the south side of the property. All other setbacks, height, and building coverage requirements will be met. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed detached garage structure will not impair the adequate light and air to adjacent properties, nor endanger public safety. The structure will be located near the right-of-way for the alley. The requested variance does not involve additional housing units therefore will not increase traffic. The proposed garage will augment the parking situation. disabilities. cl Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this Board of Adjustment Page 4 WA-00-04/Milby ille(I -,3 !)v VAN I I m NI Retooled at 23 Reception No. .......... .. ............ n# r'l h ve' ,,,W a promissory note bearing ease date herewith. for the principal sum of AND WHEREAS, The said parties of the first part are desirous of securing payment of th principal and interest of said promissory note in whose hands soevor the said note or any of them may be. NOW. THEREFORE, The said part iesof the first part, In consideration of the premises and for the purpose aforesaid. do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said Party of the second part In trust forever, the following described property, *trust* In the County of Jefferson State of Colorado, to wits Lots 29 to 33, Block 11, PRINCE'S RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 11 and 12, LAKESIDE, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. ft Milli Iiiii iiil,:',Illiill P I i 11111i Iiii I 11'.061MR IF M � C111 C. 4-- M3 Q — 552a cJ- Z Avt 29 1- Ave k r k Ft. +iC r {) Rm 4 J T x (0f L L EY CLOSED 1 ■® m i l_ Z -5 1 ,17 i 9 .. E J F Rm 4 J T x (0f L L EY CLOSED 1 ■® m i l_ 3 71 ME LA CITY A1 1 41GE j&*ARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting May 25,2000 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair HOWARD at 7:30 pm. on May 25, 2000 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott 1501MIN, 0,21#1 19 MV =-MRM Bob Howard Linda Mauro Jerry Montoya Members Absent: Paul Hovland Staff Present: Alan White, Planning Director Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of May 25, 2000. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. There was no one signed up to speak. Board of Adjustment Page 1 05,125/00 This matter was introduced by Gerald Dahl. Upon questioning by Gerald Dahl, Board Member ABBOTT, who was not present during the March 23 hearing, testified that he listened twice to the tapes of the March 23 hearing and also thoroughly reviewed the written documents presented at that hearing. He further testified that he would be able to render an impartial decision on this matter. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Scheurer stated that the city manager was present at the neighborhood meeting in addition to several neighbors. The neighbors indicated they were unsure whether to support the rezoning or the Board of Adjustment's interpretation until it is known what is going to happen with the southern parcel of land. Chair HOWARD questioned whether a thirty-day continuance would allow enough time for a rezoning application process to take place. Board Member MONTOYA suggested that it might be more appropriate to table the matter rather than grant a thirty-day continuance. Mr. Dahl and Mr. Scheerer concurred that this would be a more appropriate action. It was moved by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board Member ,at tvis wat BROWN t]Vat tlriswwat Board of Adjustment Page 2 05/25/00 request reconsideration of the interpretation based on the following reasons: 1. This procedure has been advised by both the city staff and the city attorney. 2. Tabling the matter would seem to be in the best interest of all parties at this time. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair HOWARD declared the public hearing closed. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS It was moved by Board Member BROWN and seconded by Board Member MAURO to approve the minutes of April 27, 2000. The motion carried 6-0 with Board Member HOVLAND absent. It was moved by Board Member MONTOYA and seconded by Board Member ECHELMEYER to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Board Member HOVLAND absent. Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment 05/25/00 01 WER Em