HomeMy WebLinkAbout20153305.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
A regular meeting of the Weld County Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, September 15, 2015, in
the Hearing Room of the Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. The
meeting was called to order by Chair Jason Maxey at 10:02 a.m.
Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford, Jason Maxey, Michael Wailes, William Hedberg.
Absent: Gary Cyr, Jim Rohn, Jordan Jemiola.
Also Present: Ryder Reddick, Department of Planning; Bruce Barker, County Attorney; and Kristine
Ranslem, Secretary.
Benjamin Hansford moved to approve the September 1, 2015 Weld County Board of Adjustment minutes,
seconded by Michael Wailes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: BOA15-0002
APPLICANT: RICK KVASNICKA
PLANNER: RYDER REDDICK
REQUEST: VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE OFFSET REQUIREMENT IN THE E
(ESTATE)ZONE DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART SW4SE4 SECTION 32, T1 N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 2 & 0.62 MILES EAST OF
NORTH 9TH AVENUE.
Ryder Reddick, Planning Services, presented BOA15-0002 reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends denial of this application. Should the
Board of Adjustment approve this variance request, the Department of Planning Services recommends
the following condition:
1. The applicant shall obtain all the required permits through the Weld County Building Department.
Rick Kvasnicka and Tammy Guinn, 13595 CR 2, Brighton, Colorado. Mr. Kvasnicka stated that they are
requesting the variance because if the garage is moved further into the back of the property or to the east
it will encroach into the leach field. If it is directly behind the house as suggested by staff, it will then have
a 90 degree angle turn to get into the garage and make it difficult to use. Ms. Guinn presented
photographs of the existing site and the hardships of moving the garage to a different location.
Benjamin Hansford asked to clarify if there is an existing garage attached to the home. Ms. Guinn stated
that there is an existing attached garage. Mr. Kvasnicka said that the existing garage is currently 16 feet
away from the property line and not the required 20 foot setback. Mr. Hansford asked when the garage
was built. Mr. Reddick stated that they do not have information on the garage; however the house was
built in 1966. Mr. Hansford suggested extending the existing garage and make it bigger rather than
building a new garage that doesn't meet the setbacks at all. Ms. Guinn stated that by extending the
existing garage it would be more costly with the brick and wood exterior to match the existing home
Michael Wailes asked about the existing shed in the back yard. Ms. Guinn stated that this shed will be
moved to another location on the property.
Jason Maxey referred to the overhead power lines and asked if the applicants have talked to the power
provider regarding the required setback from utilities. Mr. Kvasnicka stated that he believes the setback
is 8 feet away. Mr. Maxey noted that he would be encroaching those setbacks as well. Mr. Kvasnicka
stated that he can move the garage further back north but moving it further east would require more
concrete, etc. and there would be additional costs.
OJMINILLaied1WAA 1
2015-3305
Mr. Maxey asked the applicants if they have talked with the neighbor to the west. Mr. Kvasnicka said that
he has mentioned it to both of his neighbors and indicated that they had no problem with what he wants
to do. He added that he didn't provide details to them, however.
William Hedberg asked if there are any fire code regulations with buildings that close together. Mr.
Reddick said that the fire code would be considered at the time of building permits.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David Smith, 13575 CR 2, lives to the west of the applicant. He said that if the applicant spoke to anyone
in his household he didn't know about it. If there was any contact with his father-in-law he would have
forgotten it as he has Alzheimer's. Mr. Smith wished to have the following questions answered: 1) what
noise will be created when refurbishing the vintage cars, including any painting. 2) Would there be a
paint booth with proper fire protection in place? 3) How the drainage will be handled with the elevation
difference between his property and the applicant's property. 4) He asked if there will be an increase in
traffic to the property. 5) During construction will it have an effect on the existing fencing?
Mr. Maxey asked Mr. Smith if there was any concern with a metal garage along the property line. Mr.
Smith said that with all of the buildings on his own property he doesn't feel it would be a problem;
however he is concerned with drainage and fire protection.
Mr. Kvasnicka said that during construction there may be noise, but after construction there will not be
any noise since they are not doing anything different than what is currently being done in their existing
garage. He said that no heavy mechanic work or painting will be done on the property. Mr. Kvasnicka
said that it will only be used for storage and only minor maintenance to the vehicles. Nothing would be
any different than it has been used presently.
Mr. Maxey stated that there is a drainage concern with the 30 by 50 building and asked how they propose
to alleviate that concern. Mr. Kvasnicka said that they are planning to bring in dirt to level it out so the
drainage will not be so severe towards Mr. Smith's property.
Mr. Kvasnicka said that there will be no additional traffic. He added that the proposed garage will only be
used to store their classic cars.
Mr. Kvasnicka said that if they would damage the fencing during construction he would repair it.
However, they do not intend or anticipate any damage to the fence.
Mr. Hedberg asked if the property has been surveyed. Mr. Kvasnicka replied no and added that they just
went by the existing fence lines.
Mr. Maxey asked staff to craft language to consider regarding the requirement of a survey.
Mr. Maxey said that this is a small lot and if it were his property and he wanted extra garage space and
with the restrictions here he would be doing the same thing as long as it doesn't encumber health, safety
or welfare of the neighbors. He cautioned the applicants to be sensitive with the drainage issue for Mr.
Smith. He doesn't see other options with the leach field and septic and the size of the lot.
Bruce Barker recommended adding the proposed language for the new Condition of Approval 2 to read
"The applicant shall obtain a land survey of the property prior to the issuance of building permits for the
structure. The applicant shall require the surveyor to place survey pins in accordance with said survey to
identify the location of all property boundaries".
Motion: Add Condition of Approval 2 to include the proposed language as stated by staff, Moved by
Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by William Hedberg. Motion carried.
2
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Conditions of Approval and if they
are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Approve BOA15-0002 along with the Conditions of Approval as proposed, Moved by Michael
Wailes, Seconded by William Hedberg.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 4).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Jason Maxey, Michael Wailes, William Hedberg.
Mr. Hedberg recommended that the applicants maximize the distance as feasible in their construction.
Meeting adjourned at 11:08 am.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
3
Hello