Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/2006 ORIGINAL 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 Howard Larry Linker Davis Reinhart Members Absent: Paul Drda Staff Present: Travis Crane, Planner Jerry Dahl, City Attorney Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of July 27,2006. A set ofthese minutes is retained both in the office ofthe City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There were 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 yard 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 documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 - 1 - 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 ofthe houses in the neighborhood have attached garages; however, there are other detached structures in the neighborhood. Board Member REINHART asked if staff believed the applicant could meet his goals ifthe garage were in another 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 impact on the existing structure. Turning the garage would leave a small yard area between the garage 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 heard 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 garage 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 garage 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. W A-06-09 (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 Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 -2- 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. W A-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 officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-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. W A-06-09 (B) be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 - 3 - 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. W A-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 I-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 hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with a condition, outlined in the staff report. Board Member REINHART asked ifthis 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. Board Member BELL commented that the sign would not be out of alignment with other signs down the block. Mr. Crane stated that no right-of-way was dedicated on this property for the 38th Avenue capital improvement 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 ofthe sign is in conformance with the city code. Board Member BLAIR asked if the city had received any comments from adjacent property 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 ifthe variance is not granted, the sign would block the sign to the east. The business presently has a visibility Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 -4- issue with customers trying 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. Board Member HOVLAND expressed concern that the height to the bottom ofthe 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 39th Avenue Ms. West and her brother own property nearby on 39th Avenue and asked for clarification as to which sign was going to be removed and which one would be replaced. Mr. 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. 39th Avenue Mr. West expressed support for the application because it would be a net improvement for the city and enhance the streetscape. There were no other individuals who wished to speak. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Crane explained that the sign would have two faces. Board 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 07-27-06 - 5 - Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-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. W A-06-10 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The hardship has uot 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 38th 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 location would eliminate at least 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 the city's streetscape design plan and certainly will significantly improve the public perspective ofthe property. 7. One neighbor spoke in favor ofthe variance. 8. Staff recommended approval of the variance. With one condition: Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 - 6- 1. The property 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. W A-06-11: An application filed by William Packard for approval of (A) a 5- foot side yard setback variance from the 10- foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5- foot side yard setback and (B) a 5-foot rear yard setback variance from the lO-foot rear yard setback requirement resulting 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 staffreport and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staffreport. 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 maximum lot coverage. Board Member REINHART suggested that a garage shorter than 30 feet might allow for better turning movements. William Packard 3065 Reed Street Mr. Packard stated that he would like to build a 30-foot garage to accommodate 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 have 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 garage 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 ofthe 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 07-27-06 - 7 - Mr. Packard commented that there is a garage with 5-foot side and rear setbacks at 3025 Quay Street. There were no other individuals who wished to address this matter. Board 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 garage 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, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-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 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 (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 ofthe 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. Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 - 8 - 4. Staff recommended approval 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 fac;ade. The motion carried 6-1 with Linker voting no. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the garage 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 functional 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. W A-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. W A-06-11 (B) be, and hereby is denied. For the following reason: Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 - 9 - 1. A two-car garage could be built and function effectively without a variance. Board Member BELL commented that, with approval ofthe side yard variance, denial of the rear 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 ifhe 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 turning the garage 90 degrees 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. W A-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. W A- 06-11 (A) to read: Existing sheds shall be removed and/or relocated to an ordinance compliant location. The motion carried 7-0. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing portion ofthe meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS Chair BELL reported that no applications have been received for alternates to the Board of Adjustment. She encouraged Board members to recruit individuals to serve as alternates 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - June 22, 2006 Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 - 10- 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 9:30 p.m. r./...../ ! #~'/ ~~f:.:'-<::'- IR t:L~j Ann Lazzeri, ReCOr~ary Board of Adjustment 07-27-06 - 11 -