Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2002 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 25, 2002 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair MONTOYA at 7:30 p.m. on July 25,2002 in the city council chambers of the municipal building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Bob Blair Paul Drda Bob Howard Jerry Montoya Kent Young Members Absent: Bill Echelmeyer Paul Hovland Staff Present: Alan White, Planning Director Travis Crane, Planner Mike Pesicka, Planning Tech Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of July 25,2002. A set ofthese 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. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. W A-02-04 (continued from June 27. 2002): An application filed by Victor Olson for approval of (A) a 16.5' side yard setback variance from the required 30' side yard setback when adjacent to a public street, resulting in a 13.5' side yard setback and (B) a 10' front yard setback variance from the required 30' front yard setback resulting in a 20' front yard setback for the purpose of constructing a garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 2620 Upham Street. This case was introduced by Mike Pesicka. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the Page 1 Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 staff report and presented photos and site layout pertaining to the application. Staff recommended denial of the application as outlined in the staff report. The applicant appeared before the Board. Victor Olson 2620 Upham Mr. Olson was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. He entered a drawing depicting the layout of the application into the record. He stated that he planned to park his RV in the proposed garage in order to protect the RV. If the variance is not granted, he would park the RV on the existing concrete slab. He also offered several books on the RV industry for Board members to review. Chair MONTOYA asked staff if these exhibits would affect staffs recommendation. Mr. White replied they would not. Mr. Olson also stated that he would be willing to accept a ten-foot front yard setback. He also stated that he was not trying to "sneak something in" on the city. Board Member ABBOTT asked Mr. Olson if he had considered an alternative location to the east of his house. Mr. Olson replied that this location would necessitate the removal of a large tree and the loss of one space in his garage. It would also block light and air to his house as well as his neighbor's house to the east. Board Member YOUNG asked if there had been any opposition expressed by the neighbor to the west. Mr. Olson stated these neighbors had submitted a letter of opposition but withdrew it after Mr. Olson discussed the application with him. Mike Pesicka confirmed that the letter of opposition had been withdrawn. Mr. Olson stated that his neighbors had indicated they preferred a garage rather than having the RV parked outside the home. He also stated that the garage would match the house. Board Member HOWARD questioned the plan for a 50-foot garage when the motor home is 34 feet long. Robert Erickson 4145 Lipan Mr. Erickson, contractor for the garage, was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. He explained that a 50 X 16-foot garage would accommodate the motor home whichhas doors that open on the sides, the front and back. It would also accommodate a larger motor home if the applicant chose to purchase one. Victor Olson returned to the podium and stated that it would present a hardship for him to park his R V out in the open. He disagreed with the staff report that stated he created this hardship. He did not believe the garage would have a negative impact on his neighbors. He stated that he was trying to do something for the community in that his motor home can hold 100 gallons of water that could be used by several people in case of an emergency. He stated his belief that owning an RV is a good emergency measure. Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 Page 2 Chair MONTOYA asked if there were others present who wished to address the application. Hearing no response, Chair MONTOYA declared the public hearing closed. Hearing no further discussion, Chair MONTOYA stated that a motion on part A of the applicant's request was in order. Upon a motiou 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-02-04(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 NOT be granted 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 Application Case No. W A- 02-04(A) be, and hereby is, DENIED. Type of Variance: A request for approval of a 16.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 30 foot side yard setback when adjacent to a public street. For the following reasons: 1. In the context of the Wheat Ridge Codes of Law and, in recognition that a variance runs with the property, the Board is of the opinion that, again in the context ofthe intent ofthe code, there are no generally recognized unusual circumstances attributed to this variance request. 2. It would seem likely that the approval of this variance would facilitate construction of a structure, which although designed to be architecturally compatible with the primary structure, is likely, in the opinion of the Board, to result in a negative impact to adjacent properties related to the essential character of the neighborhood and possibly their property values to a significant degree. 3. On balance, although there may be some tangible benefit to the neighborhood as a result of enclosing the motor home, it would seem that the granting of this variance would not result in a significant enough benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or community. Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 Page 3 Chair MONTOYA informed those present that a motion for denial requires a simple majority vote. The motion passed 6-0 with Board Members ECHELMEYER and HOVLAND absent. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that part A of his application had been denied. Hearing no further discussion, Chair MONTOYA stated that. a motion was in order for part B of the applicant's request. 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-02-04(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 substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 02-04(B) be, and hereby is, DENIED. Type of Variance: A 10 foot front yard setback variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback requirement. For the following reasons: 1. In the context of the Wheat Ridge Codes of Law and, in recognition that a variance runs with the property, the Board is ofthe opinion that, again in the context of the intent of the code, there are no generally recognized unusual circumstances attributed to this variance request. 2. It would seem likely that the approval of this variance would facilitate construction of a structure, which although designed to be architecturally compatible with the primary structure, is likely, in the opinion of the Board, to result in a negative impact to adjacent properties related to the essential character of the neighborhood and possibly their property values to a Page 4 Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 significant degree. 3. On balance, although there may be some tangible benefit to the neighborhood as a result of enclosing the motor home, it would seem that the granting of this variance would not result in a significant enough benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or community. The motion passed 6-0 with Board Members ECHELMEYER and HOVLAND absent. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that part B of his application had also been denied. B. Case No. W A-02-06: An application filed by William Luce for approval of a 10'4" side yard setback variance from the required 15' side yard setback resulting in a 4' 8" side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a garage on property zoned Residential-One (R-l) and located at 11481 West 39th Place. This case was introduced by Mike Pesicka. 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 presented photos and site layout pertaining to the application. Staff recommended denial of the application as outlined in the staff report. The applicant appeared before the Board. William Luce 11481 West 39th Place Mr. Luce was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. He stated he wanted to build an additional garage because the current double garage is inadequate. In order to build the garage in another location, several mature trees would have to be removed and it would be necessary to install a 100-foot driveway. He entered several photographs into the record showing various views of the yard and existing driveway. He felt there was a hardship in that the proposed location was the only feasible location for a garage. He believed the addition would enhance his residence as well as the entire neighborhood. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the applicant had considered moving the garage to the rear. Mr. Luce explained this would not be possible because of living area in the back. Putting it further in front would detract from the aesthetic value of the house. He planned to have a 15 X 20 garage that is wider than most single car garages to accommodate woodworking equipment, etc. He stated he had spoken with five or six neighbors regarding the application and had received no complaints. Chair MONTOYA asked to hear from members of the public. Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 Page 5 Jack Zeiler 11461 West 39th PI. Mr. Zeiler was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. His residence is located next door to the applicant and he spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that, although he had asked the applicant for drawings and elevations of the proposed addition, he has seen nothing to date. He entered six photographs into the record showing the proximity of his neighbor's house to his residence and stated that there would only be 2.8 feet between the eaves of his house and the eaves of the proposed garage. He stated his belief that the proposed garage would decrease the value of his property as well as the entire neighborhood. He expressed concern about fire protection with the proposed structure being so close to his home. He didn't believe the applicant would approve of such a structure being built next to his property. He asked the Board to deny the application. Mr. Luce stated that he was waiting to have architectural drawings and elevations done until he knew whether or not the variance would be approved. In response to a question from the Board, Alan White replied that Section 26.611 of the Code states that eaves may project into a front, side or rear yard no more than 30 inches. In response to a question from Board Member YOUNG, the applicant stated that there is no other feasible location for the garage on his property. He stated he was willing to decrease the size of the garage by two feet. Chair MONTOYA asked ifthere were others present who wished to address the matter. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Board Member DRDA 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-02-06 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 a protest was registered against it; 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 Application Case No. W A- 02-06 be, and hereby is, DENIED. Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 Page 6 Type of Variance: A 10 foot 4 inch side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4 foot 8 inch side yard setback. For the following reasons: 1. The hardship has been created solely by the applicant. 2. The requested variance will result in a benefit solely for the applicant. 3. The garage can be located elsewhere on the property without a variance. 4. Opposition was expressed by the neighbor who would be most affected by the variance. Board Member ABBOTT stated he would vote for denial because, while he recognized the need for additional garage space, there was not a level of uniqueness or general benefit to the neighborhood to justify this degree of variance. The motion passed 5-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no and Board Members HOVLAND and ECHELMEYER absent. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that the request for variance had been denied. C. Case No. TUP-02-03: An application filed by TCCH Management, LLC for approval of a one-year Temporary Structure Permit to allow an office trailer on property zoned Industrial (I) and located at 12000 West 52nd Avenue. This case was introduced 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. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Mr. Crane stated a letter of objection from Bob and Barbara Hance, 11818 West 52nd Avenue, was recently received. He provided copies of the letter to the Board and entered the letter into the record. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Travis Crane explained that after the previous owner placed the trailer on the property, his building permit fell through and he sold the property to the current owners. Lisa Humphrey 10321 Mica Way, Parker Ms. Humphrey, manager for TCCH Management, was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She originally asked for four months to complete construction but expressed concern that the permitting process may take longer than four months and therefore requested a month's extension to December 2. She stated that they were anxious to get the trailer off the property and would remove it as soon as their building renovation was complete. She also entered a copy of the interior renovation plans into the record. Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 Page 7 Chair MONTOYA asked if there were others present who wished to address the matter. Hearing no response, he read the following letter dated July 22, 2002 (submitted earlier by Travis Crane) into the record: We protest the "1-year temporary permit "for the office (trailer) since the temporary trailer has been on the property for almost 3 years already. Signed by Bob and Barbara Hance, 11818 West 52nd Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Upon a motion by Board Member DRDA 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. TUP-02-03 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 was a protest 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 Application Case No. TUP- 02-03 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Temporary Use Permit: A temporary structure permit no longer than December 15, 2002. For the following reasons: 1. The temporary use will not alter the essential character ofthe locality. 2. The request will not impair adequate light and air to adjacent properties. 3. Approval of the temporary structure will not be injurious to other properties in the neighborhood. Board Member HOWARD asked the applicant if the date of December 15 was acceptable. Ms. Humphrey replied that she would be comfortable with two weeks after a certificate of occupancy is issued. Board Member DRDA was not comfortable with tying the date to a certificate of occupancy but was willing to extend the time period to February 28, 2003. This was acceptable to Board Member ABBOTT. Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 Page 8 The motion passed 6-0 with Board Members ECHELMEYER and HOVLAND absent. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that the request for a temporary use permit had been approved. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair MONTOYA declared the public hearing closed. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Minutes of June 27. 2002 - It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member YOUNG to approve the minutes of June 27, 2002 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT {L,~ Ann Lazzeri, cretary Board of Adjustment Chair MONTOYA declared the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Board of Adjustment 07/25/02 Page 9