Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/18I City of WheatP,idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA December 14, 2017 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on December 14, 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM (TMs is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA -17-16: An application filed by Fred Zietz Jr. for approval of a 456 sq. ft. (76%) variance from the 600 sq. ft. maximum for a major accessory building in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district for a garage addition located at 4485 Independence Street. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS S. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes— October 26, 2017 9. ADJOURNMENT Individuals with disahilities are encouraged to participate in all puhlie meetings sponsored by the City of WheatRidge. Call Sara Spaulding, Puhlie Information feud, at 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in partieipating and need inclusion assistance. ♦�'a4 TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: Wh6atRjLd e g CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment DATE: December 7, 2017 Scott Cutler WA -17-16 / Zietz ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings, allowing a garage addition to be constructed on property located at 4485 Independence Street and zoned Residential -Three (R-3). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4485 Independence Street APPLICANT/OWNER: APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Fred Zietz 20,707 Square Feet (0.475 Acres) Residential -Three (R-3) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the homeowner to complete construction of a 384 -square foot addition on an existing oversized (672 -square foot) detached garage in the backyard, which results in a 1,056 - square foot accessory building. II. CASE ANALYSIS The variance is being requested so the property owners may construct a storage room addition to an existing detached garage in the western portion of the lot. The property is located on Independence Street north of W. 441i Avenue in the Juchem Garden Place Subdivision of Wheat Ridge. The existing house sits on a 20,707 -square foot parcel and was originally constructed in 1912, and reconstructed in 1958, per the Jefferson County Assessor (Exhibit 1). The property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3), as is the property immediately to the north, and a property two lots to the south (Exhibit 2). Properties to the north and east are zoned Residential -Two (R-2) and contain a mix of duplexes and single-family homes. The properties immediately to the south and east on Independence Street are zoned Agricultural -One (A-1). Commercial zones, primarily Commercial -One (C-1), are located further to the south along W. 441i Avenue. Pennington Elementary School is located behind the subject property to the west. The R-3 zone district provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable medium to high-density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the medium to high-density residential character. In the R-3 zone district, a major accessory structure is limited to 600 square feet per dwelling unit. The proposed addition on the existing accessory structure will further exceed that limit, prompting the request for a 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum. The site plan (Exhibit 3) shows the proposed location for the storage addition, attached to the existing detached garage. The detached garage is located in the backyard behind the existing one-story house. A smaller brick outbuilding is also located in the backyard. The existing garage is 672 square feet, which exceeds the current R-3 zone district standards by 72 square feet. There are no records indicating when the existing garage was constructed. The elevations (Exhibit 4) and floor plan (Exhibit 5) show a custom-designed structure with a roof matching the existing garage, windows, and two 9 -foot door bays. The structure would be 10 feet tall at mid -roof, topping out at 12 feet at the peak. The site photos provided (Exhibit 6) show that the addition is partially constructed. After receiving a stop work order from the City's Building Division, plans were submitted August 31, 2017 for the proposed accessory structure addition. The plans cannot be approved as drawn unless and until a variance is approved. The applicant received a courtesy inspection from the Building Division on Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -17-161 Zietz October 16, 2017, re -confirming the need to apply for a variance, and the Building Division provided comments on the construction that has been completed to date. The parcel meets minimum standards for the R-3 zone district, but the proposed addition will make the accessory structure further exceed the building size allowance. The following table compares the required R-3 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R-3 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area(one-family dwelling) 7,500 square feet min 20,707 square feet Lot Width 60 feet (min) 110 feet Building Coverage 40% (max) —16.1% (with garage) Major AccessorBuilding: Required Proposed Buildin Building Size 600 square feet (max) 1,056 square feet* Height 15 feet (max) 10 feet (at mid -roof) *The addition will add 384 square feet onto an existing 672 square foot building, which already exceeds the building coverage requirements (600 square feet) by 72 square feet Public Comment As of the date of distribution of this staff report, December 8, 2017, the City has not received letters from surrounding property owners. Staff received one call from a neighbor asking for information on the variance request. If letters arrive between the delivery of this staff report and the Board of Adjustment hearing, they will be entered into the record and provided to the Board members during the hearing. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 7, Written Requests). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria 1. The property in question would not 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 were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The surrounding zoning is a mix of R-2, R-3, and A-1. Each of these zone districts has different limitations on the size of major accessory structures. The R-2 zone allows accessory buildings up to 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and the A-1 zone does not limit the size of individual accessory buildings, but limits overall building coverage to 25% of the lot. The subject property Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -17-161 Zietz is almost entirely surrounded by the R-2 and A-1 zones, which allow for accessory buildings with footprints closer to the proposed size. Multiple properties in the immediate vicinity have detached garages and accessory buildings, although most fall within the range of 400-900 square feet. The building is set back approximately 20 feet from the northern property line and is partially screened by a fence and row of trees. The neighbor to the west is Pennington Elementary School. It is unlikely that the addition will make a visual impact on surrounding properties because of its location at the rear of the lot and behind the existing structure. The oversized lot further dilutes the impact the addition would have on its surroundings. With the addition, the building coverage on the subject property would be approximately 16%, well under the 40% limit. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. The applicant has noted they are removing some dilapidated small sheds on the property and consolidating the items stored in sheds and in the backyard, into the garage addition. While the addition in its current arrangement requires a variance, the applicant has an option that would not require a variance. Because the existing smaller shed (a minor accessory structure) is 192 square feet, the applicant is able to construct a second shed up to 208 square feet on the property, which would be the maximum allowed square footage for minor accessory structures. Alternatively, the applicant could remove all minor accessory structures and construct a new minor accessory building up to 400 square feet. Despite these alternatives, there is merit to the applicant's proposal to consolidate storage into one structure instead of several smaller outbuildings. Additionally, the existing home has no basement and limited storage capacity. Due to the position of the home, the driveway, and other structures on the lot, adding a storage room directly onto the home is not feasible. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The lot is large and flat, with a rectangular shape. Staff finds no unique physical hardship. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -17-161 Zietz The applicant has created their own hardship by starting construction on the garage addition without obtaining a building permit and by proposing a design which does not comply with the applicable zoning standards. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The addition would not impede the sight distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The garage addition helps to provide much-needed storage for the applicant, including enclosing large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and are visible from Independence Street. Staff finds this criterion has been met. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The condition in the neighborhood which may support this request is the prevalence of other zoning designations (A-1 and R-2). As noted above, only two properties are zoned R-3, while the majority of the street is A-1 or R-2. This unusual zoning pattern was inherited from Jefferson County when the City incorporated. The proposed garage addition could be built under the A-1 zoning without the need for a variance. Under R-2 zoning, the proposed structure would require only a 5.6% variance request, which could be processed administratively. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -17-161 Zietz Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings in the R-3 zone district. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. With the following conditions: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed addition shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit, and subject to afinal zoning inspection. 2. The structure shall not be permitted or used as a dwelling unit. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -17-161 Zietz EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-17-16/Zietz EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-17-16/Zietz EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN 5 INCORUOR,gTED Archltecture, Engineedng 3 Surveying I pGILEA 8471 Turnpike Driw. Sulw 200 Weri Il ter, CO 80030 (303) 426-1731 `43 l`Yl l 1 124 Main Street, Suite 21 I Dlllan• CO 80435 (970)Z62-6795 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE �IO�00 1 H a *I *r 151DAY pR�Ctc oer pLt4. Is 19° 201 ZN= dQ�Ct � FRAmE Z CA2 h GARAGE H a ZN g v. M S AC 54y ' N Kl I SWZY RAmE ` HovsE -*tigo5 e1 2z N I_ n CAR 5Y- ypo. /� 6Yy GAAAecAnt CoY I\ � ��� Fft5ME AV Ww0 h � n h I . I oeao° gE •ts>�� cv tJ Iro,oa 29043 INDEF'ENDeAXC ST-, i SHEET Z. of z (R0w . _ . ca0 VZ TS B ti NEZ5,-98 DATE Board of-4djustment 9 Case No. W-4-17-16/Zietz EXHIBIT 4: ELEVATIONS ON SITE PLANS 4x 13 Glue lam MUST BE ON SITE FOR INSPECTION Midge A_ I B _,_ SuNot M Field I AS I Spaced l9 "ac. t \\ 12 3.33 I I 1 2 x4 Fire ��/kaeat��e APPROVED Ree'ewed fr, cow_ 4 x6 header frocking at S" 4 xfi header corrugated corrugated metal siding I I 4S 36 window �' tenor 4Sx36 window plywood I 1 I B Feet 12 Feet I i I I I 1 1 I I I 1/2"x6"anchor Wholbolt 1/2"x6" anchold do 1 1/2"xon 9V hold do 1/Tx6'anchorbok Simp»n 90hold down Simpson 90hold down 1 Simpson 99°hold down Simpson 901hold down Westelesreatim salelrz•=r Board ofAdjustment 10 CaseNo. WA-17-16/2rietz 3Mstprds Wbeet Rle9e emMr �erNso EXHIBIT 5: FLOOR PLAN I P 7 !Z „8b Existing structure uv R Board of-4djustment 11 Case No. WA-17-16/Zietz w EXHIBIT 6: SITE PHOTOS View of the addition looking north. The existing detached garage is located on the right, and the roof line would be extended to match the pitch and style. The garage is partially constructed, including a poured foundation and framing work. (photo provided by applicant) Board ofAdjwtment 12 CareNo. WA-17-16/Zietz Another view of the addition looking south. The room is meant to contain materials currently stored outside and in smaller sheds, which have been decommissioned. (photo provided by applicant) Board ofAdjwtment 13 CareNo. WA-17-16/Zietz View of the property looking west. The garage addition would be located behind the existing house. The framing is slightly visible from this angle (behind the lower portion of the house), but is mostly obscured. Another view of the property looking west. The single-family home on the subject property is located at the right of the image, and the minor accessory building (shed) is located at the center, behind the parked truck. The property to the south, 4483 Independence Street, is located on the left and has a 576 square foot detached garage in the backyard. The garage addition is not visible from this angle. Board of-4djustment 14 Case No. WA-17-16/Zietz EXHIBIT 7: WRITTEN REQUEST Here are my updated answers to the criteria questions. Let me know what you think. Thanks? 1. The properly in lowlion would not yield a reasonable retum 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. The property would continue to function as a single-fmnily residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A building coverage variance will not alter the character of the locality. The lot size is over 21k sq. ft.. The existing structure is 672 sq. ft. The proposed structure size is 384 sq. ft. for a total of 1,056 sq. ft. this translates to a 1.8% increase of building coverage on the subject property which will likely be imperceptible.' 1' he proposed structure is within existing setback and height requirements and the impact to neighbors is expected to be minimal. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which would not be possible without the variance. The existing home has no basement and little storage, and the existing garage is just large enough for two cars with minimal storage. It is typical for the contemporary homeowner to desire storage space and off- street covered parking and the proposed structure will serve these needs and add value to the property. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific properly involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The unique condition that affects this property relates to the cmrout zoning of the lot (R-3). The surrounding properties are zoned A-1 and R-2 which both allow for larger (1,000 sq. ft.) scenndary structures. The proposed structure will only exceed the A-1, R-1, and R-2 square foot limit by 56 sq. ft.. Building coverage with the proposed structure will be at 11.4% which is less than half the R-1 limit of 25% and well below the R-2 and R-3 limits of 40% coverage. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having m interest in the property. Board ofAdjustment 15 CareNo. WA-17-16/Zierz The alleged diffrcrdty relates to the size of the proposed structure with respect to the existing zoning regulations. Because the current owner neither platted the lot, nor constructed the existing home and garage in their current locations, the difficulties have not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. he neighbors to the immediate north and south of the property were consulted about the project and voiced no objections. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. It is unlikely that the rearrest would impair property values in the neighborhood. The structure will actually have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered storage of large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the public right-of-way. 7. The musual cirwunstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Not sure how to answer this... S. N/A 9. N/A Board ofAdjustmenr 16 CareNo. WA-17-16/Zierz WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA -17-16 APPLICANT NAME: Fred Zietz LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4485 Independence Street WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -17-16 was not eligible for review by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were/were not protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may/mav 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. WA - 17 -16 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for Approval of a 456 -square foot variance (76%) from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings in the Residential -Three zone district. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. With the following conditions: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed carport shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit, and subject to a final zoning inspection. 2. The structure shall not be permitted or used as a dwelling unit. I City of WheatRi c BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting October 26, 2017 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair KUNTZ at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Alternates Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: 3. PUBLIC FORUM\ No one wished to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No.WA-17-13 Thomas Abbott Sally Banghart Janet Bell Dan Bradford 140 David Kuntz Betty Jo Page Larry Richmond Rocco Germano Lily Griego Paul Hovland Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Scott Cutler, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary The case was presented by Scott Cutler. He entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. He stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the presentation and staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of a 10 -foot (67%) variance from the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 -feet located at 4080 Independence Court. The Board of Adjustment Minutes October 26, 2017 purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a one -car carport with a 5 - foot setback on property zoned Residential -One (R-1). The proposed carport would meet all other development standards including height and maximum size. Staff recommends approval of this variance. There are unique circumstances attributed to this request that warrant approval. Member ABBOTT referred to the staff report and asked if the reference to a garage on page 4, criteria 2, paragraph 4 was meant to say carport instead. Mr. Cutler confirmed that it should say carport. Member ABBOTT also wanted to confirm that the adjacent property to the south of 4080 Independence has a nonconforming setback of approximately 7 feet, instead of the required 15 feet. Mr. Cutler confirmed this to be true also. Member ABBOTT and Member BELL asked if staff has interpreted the letter, from the pastor across the street from 4080 Independence Court, to be a neutral position with regards to the carport setbacks. Mr. Cutler agreed. John Yanello, applicant 4080 Independence Court Mr. Yanello gave a little background on the house that he and his wife bought in 1989. He has worked on the property for 25 years to make it look nice for the neighborhood. He explained he would like to build a carport for his truck, because he and his wife already have two cars in the garage. He would like to protect it from storms and to have a dry surface which will make it easier for his wife to get into the truck. He has built a drainage system to divert water away from the driveway which comes from the garage. He will do the same with the carport. Chair KUNTZ asked Mr. Yanello if he has had a conversation with his neighbor to the south. Mr. Yanello responded yes and said the only thing Mr. Campbell has requested is the same shingles on the garage and carport roofs. Mr. Yanello was surprised there was an opposition letter from the property. Chair KUNTZ said the letter was from Ms. Minkler, the wife of Mr. Campbell. Mr. Yanello mentioned that he had asked Mr. Campbell to trim one of the trees that hung over the property line and Ms. Minkler was not happy with this and it may have caused a little friction. He thinks Mr. Campbell is still all right with having the carport constructed. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 26, 2017 Member BANGHART and member PAGE asked Mr. Yanello to explain the fence location in relation to the front of the garage and referred to the the pictures on page 13 of the staff report. Mr. Yanello said the fence is attached to the front corner of the garage and has a gate that will swing open so the truck can drive in and out of the carport. Member BANGHART asked if the gate will cover the carport. Mr. Yanello explained it will cover most of the truck and only the top of the carport will be visible. Chair KUNTZ asked if the shingles will match the singles on the garage. Mr. Yanello said yes. Member PAGE asked if the neighbor's property to the south is elevated compared to the subject property and how high the fence is that will be in front of the truck. Mr. Yanello said the next door property is elevated and the fence height will be 6 feet tall. Member ABBOTT asked where the measurement of the carport will be taken from for the side yard setback. Ms. Mikulak explained the measurement will be taken from the vertical support and the eaves are allowed to encroach on the setback. Member PAGE asked if there has ever been any flooding on the property, because part of it is in the flood zone. Mr. Yanello said there has been some pooling on the driveway, but there has never been any flood damage to the house and no insurance claims. He believes the drainage he has set up has helped. Chair KUNTZ added he felt a neighbor would rather look at a carport instead of a truck. Member RICHMOND pointed out that in Exhibit 7 (the applicant's written request) it is noted the carport will help Mr. Yanello's wife. She is disabled and the cover of the carport will keep the elements off the truck and she will not have to clear snow and ice from it. Chair KUNTZ added it would be nice to have the new truck under cover if Wheat Ridge has any more extreme hail storms. Member ABBOTT asked if the carport can be enclosed in the future. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 26, 2017 Mr. Cutler said no because the property is in a flood zone. He added this can be a condition if the Board wants it to be. Ms. Mikulak concurred that this can be added as a condition. Upon a motion by Member ABBOTT and seconded by Member PAGE, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -17-13 was not eligible for administrative review; 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; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -17-13 be, and hereby is, APPROVED TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 10 -foot (67%) variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement for accessory structures. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 3. Existing conditions on the property present a particular and unique hardship. 4. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. 5. The conditions necessitating the variance request are present upon several properties within the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 6. The carport, by its open design, mitigates much of the obtrusiveness that can be caused by a setback variance. 7. The properties on both the north and the south of 4080 Independence Court have structures encroaching into the required 15 -foot setback. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed carport shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall apply for a Class I Floodplain Permit through the Public Works Department. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 26, 2017 5. 6. A Motion carried 8-0. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair KUNTZ closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — July 27, 2017 It was moved by Board Member PAGE and seconded by Board Member BELL to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 5-0-2 with Board Members ABBOTT, BANGHART and GERMANO abstaining. B. There was discussion about concerns of a Board Member who has been absent for over two years and the Members asked if he/she is still allowed to be on the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Mikulak said this is duly noted and said she will have a discussion with the new Chair of the Board and contact will be made with the absentee Board Member. C. Election of Officers Member BANGHART was elected hair Member ABBOTT was elected as Vi hair ADJOURNMENT Chair KUNTZ adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Sally Banghart, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes October 26, 2017