Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/2006 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting August 24, 2006 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair BELL at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers ofthe Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Commission Members Absent: Tom Abbott Davis Reinhart Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Travis Crane, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to address the Board at this time 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Prior to presentation of cases, all individuals who wished to testify during the hearings stood and were sworn in by Chair Bell. A. Case No. W A-06-12: An application filed by Gary DiGiorgio for approval of a 19-square foot variance from the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement and a 9-foot variance from the 75-foot minimum lot width requirement to allow a two-family dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 3825 Chase Street. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She revi.ewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board of Adjustment August 24, 2006 - 1 - Board Member DRDA asked how the city became aware that the property was being used as a duplex. Meredith Reckert explained that a person living in the basement of the residence applied for high speed internet service and, upon contact from the internet provider, the city found that there were not two addresses for this property. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Meredith Reckert stated that she didn't see any evidence of multi-family units in the area. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Meredith Reckert stated that the one objection to the application received by the city concerned noisy tenants and that a duplex is inconsistent with the single family neighborhood. Gary DiGiorgio 9461 West 63rd Place, Arvada Mr. Digiorgio submitted a letter signed by area residents that they were in agreement with his application. This letter was entered into the record. He also submitted copies of various photographs of his property for the Board's review. These were also entered into the record. He stated that he purchased the subject property two years ago with the understanding that it was a duplex property. The house was built in 1942 before the incorporation of Wheat Ridge. The downstairs unit is completely separate from the upstairs unit. There is no interior connection. The downstairs unit has an outside entrance. He stated that he would install a large window in the downstairs portion ofthe dwelling to meet egress requirements. He stated the property has adequate parking including on-street parking. The property is surrounded by R-3 and commercial zoning. He believed a duplex should be allowed because the property is also zoned R-3. A duplex would not be harmful to the neighborhood and would provide affordable housing for the city. A hardship exists due to loss of income and inability to rent the property as a duplex. There is also a physical hardship due to the location of the garage. He commented that he is within only 1 % of required square footage for a duplex. In response to a comment from Board Member HOWARD concerning the width of the driveway, Mr. DiGiorgio stated that he could widen the driveway to allow another parking space. He also stated he could install a "pullout" to allow more parking. In addition, there is about two feet of vegetation along the south side of the driveway that could be removed. In response to a question from Board Member LINKER, the applicant stated that the unit was occupied as a duplex when he purchased it. Board Member DRDA asked the applicant ifhe had any documentation indicating the property was a duplex. Mr. DiGiorgio replied that he assumed it could be used as a duplex because ofthe R-3 zoning. Board of Adjustment August 24, 2006 - 2- Pat Zanol 3835 Depew Ms. Zanol spoke in opposition to the application due to the run-down condition of the property and there are no other rental properties in the neighborhood. There were no other individuals who wished to speak at this time. Chair BELL closed public testimony. Board Member HOVLAND commented that he didn't believe approval of the request would have a great impact; however, he had difficulty finding a hardship in the case. Board Member BLAIR commented that maintenance of the property should not be a factor in the case. The applicant requested to address the Board. There was a consensus of the Board to reopen public testimony to give the applicant an opportunity to make additional statements. Gary DiGiorgio returned to the podium. He stated that a hardship exists in that he purchased a duplex and is not allowed to use it as such in R-3 zoning. The location of the structure does not allow the parking it would normally have. It would be very difficult to rent the property as a single family unit. He commented that he is only I % short of the square footage requirement. He stated that he would make every attempt to improve the maintenance of the property. He disagreed with an earlier statement that there were no other multi-family uses in the area because there was a nearby lot with two dwellings on it. No one else wished to address the Board. Chair BELL closed the public testimony. Upon a motion by Board Member DRDA and second by Board Member LINKER, 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-06-12 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 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. Board of Adjustment August 24, 2006 - 3 - Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. W A-06-12 be, and hereby is denied. For the following reasons: 1. The hardships found have been self imposed. 2. Meeting the required parking capacity is highly questionable. 3. Staff recommended denial. 4. The proposed use does not conform with surrounding residential properties. The motion for denial carried 4-2 with Board Members BLAIR and LINKER voting no. B. Case No. TUP-06-02: An application filed by L&H Auto Body & Glass for approval of a one-year Temporary Structure Permit on property zoned Industrial (I) and located at 4790 Independence 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 presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with one condition, outlined in the staff report. Randy Massey 4790 Independence Mr. Massey, the applicant, stated that he was requesting a variance to allow a temporary structure until a permanent structure can be built. There are two mobile structures on the property that will be removed when the temporary structure is installed. The temporary building would be used for vehicle damage estimation, disassembly, cleaning and washing. Even though the temporary structure is fire-rated, there would be no painting or repairs taking place within the structure. He stated that he has worked closely with the Arvada Fire Department in planning uses for the temporary structure. The Fire Department will also monitor uses. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Travis Crane stated that the city has not received any feedback from neighbors concerning the application. Board Member HOWARD asked how long it would take to erect the temporary structure. Mr. Massey estimated it would take three to four days and would probably be erected mid-September. Footings for the new structure would probably not be poured before spring. Board Member DRDA asked if it would be necessary to specify usage restrictions on the temporary structure. Travis Crane replied that usage and/or restrictions Board of Adjustment August 24, 2006 -4- would be governed by the zone district and therefore there would be no need to apply conditions. Upon a motion by Board Member BLAIR 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. TUP-06-02 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. TUP-06-02 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. Approval of the temporary building would not alter the essential character of the locality. The structure will be located so as not to be visible from the right-of-way. Additionally, the structure will be at least 140 feet from the nearest property line. 2. Approval ofthe request would not impair the adequate light and air to adjacent properties. 3. Approval of the temporary structure would not be injurious to other properties in the neighborhood. 4. Staff recommended approval. With the following condition: 1. The temporary structure shall be allowed for a period of one year. The one-year time period shall begin with issuance of a building permit for the temporary structure. Board Member DRDA offered a friendly amendment to add a condition to require that no repairs are to take place in the building. The amendment was accepted by Board Member BLAIR but not accepted by Board Member HOVLAND because he did not feel it was necessary. Therefore, the request for amendment failed. Board Member DRDA stated that he could not support the request without his amendment. Board of Adjustment August 24, 2006 - 5 - The motion passed 5-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair Bell closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS . In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Meredith Reckert stated that the city had not yet received any applications for alternates to the Board. Chair BELL encouraged members to continue looking for alternates. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - July 27, 2006 It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member DRDA to approve the minutes of July 27, 2006. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. . f).~W J e B~ll, Chair ~~~j Ann Lazzeri, Recording cretary Board of Adjustment August 24, 2006 - 6-