EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. BOA

Similar documents
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION FENCE BY-LAW BY-LAW NUMBER By-Law Number Date Passed Section Amended

ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:


Sec Alcoholic Beverage Establishments. a) Intent

Zoning Board of Appeals 2919 Delaware Avenue, RM 14 Kenmore, NY (716) Zoning Board of Appeals

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Buckhannon historically has been

ARTICLE 15 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND ENFORCEMENT

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM

Appendix A: Draft Billboard Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO. 91. The Town Council of the Town of Yucca Valley, California, does ordain as follows:

TOWNSHIP OF CLARK Ordinance No. Adopted. Introduced: January 20, 2015 Public Hearing: February 17, Motion: O Connor Motion:

Now, therefore be it and it is hereby ordained chapter 152 Outdoor Advertising shall read as follows:

Fences and Walls Handout Excerpts from MBMC

: FENCE STANDARDS:

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WAINFLEET BYLAW NO

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

FREMONT COUNTY MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION (Revised 2017)

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WATERLOO

Article 14: Nonconformities

ORDINANCE NO. 867 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE DACONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SITE PLANS AND USES IN THE C-1 COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NUMBER S

- CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 14 - PLANNING ARTICLE II. - RESIDENTIAL FENCE REGULATIONS

ORDINANCE # NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of American Canyon as follows:

9:30. Ward 12 Anthony Brancatelli. Collection Appeal

NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES OR LOTS

City of Hemet PLANNING DIVISION 445 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet, CA (951)

Staff Report Bronwyn Rittner Conditional Use Permit Mobile Vending Carts or Stands New Castle Town Council Meeting July 19, 2016

BOARD OF APPEALS. January 6, 2016 AGENDA

DRAFT. City of Falls Church. Meeting Date:

Executive Summary Planning Code Text Amendment Initiation INITIATION HEARING DATE: MAY 24, 2018

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Attachment 2. Planning Commission Resolution No Recommending a Zone Text Amendment

CALVERT COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS ORDER

SECTION 873 USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

ROBERT W. WOJCIK AND DEBORAH A. WOJCIK

CITY OF MODESTO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF FIELD TRIP THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, :00 AM 1010 TENTH STREET LOBBY (MAIN LEVEL/NEAR STAIRS)

N O T I C E O F A D M I N I S T R A T I V E D E C I S I O N 1431 CURTIS STREET. Administrative Use Permit #

(JULY 2000 EDITION, Pub. by City of LA) Rev. 9/13/

CITY OF SNOHOMISH Snohomish, Washington ORDINANCE 2325

Fence By-law. PS-6 Consolidated May 14, As Amended by: PS March 20, 2012 PS May 14, 2013

ROCKY RIVER BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING APPEALS

BOROUGH OF INTERLAKEN MINUTES- PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 22, :30 P.M. BOROUGH HALL, 100 GRASSMERE AVENUE

ORDINANCE NO

REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OR APPEAL. Applicant: Name(s): Address: City: State: Telephone: Fax:

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

City CQ)f WesiwCQ)Jrth Village 31]1 Bm ' ~o:n JHljl1 IRo 'Il '~ VVest-wodh Village, T :g: ]Pax ll7.7jlo.2501

F. Elliot Goldman. November 28, 2011 SENT BY AND HAND DELIVERY

THE CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF NEWBURY BY-LAW A By-law to Prescribe the Height and Type of Fences

ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Peoria, Arizona as follows:

Division Eight - Procedures CONTENTS

ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHICKEN HEN AND RABBIT PERMITS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS

ARTICLE 7 AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes. Wednesday, January 16, :00 PM

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

ARTICLE XIV ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

GEORGE DAVID FULLER AND DAWN LOUSIE FULLER

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. Chapter 438 FENCES - HEIGHT - REGULATION

BOARD OF APPEALS January 10, 2018 AGENDA

ROCKY RIVER BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING APPEALS

AGENDA CLAYTON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M AY 20, :00 P.M. CLAYTON TOWN HALL 111 East Second Street, Clayton NC

1. Appellant(s)/Owner(s) Name: 2. Address: Phone #:

ORDINANCE NUMBER 1255

CITY OF PALMDALE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ORDINANCE NO. 1423

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Building Code TITLE 15. City Uniform Dwelling Code Reserved for Future Use

Administrative Procedures

REZONING (MAP AMENDMENT) Pre-Application Meeting

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN BY-LAW NO

(JULY 2000 EDITION, Pub. by City of LA) Rev. 9/13/

CITY OF SURREY BY-LAW NO A by-law to amend Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No , as amended....

WILLIAM M. HUGEL AND ANNAMARIE HUGEL

CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH Request for City Commission Agenda

CITY OF NORTH RIDGEVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS Procedure for filing an Appeal, Conditional Use, Variances or Home Occupation Approvals

APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION

Port Huron Charter Township Section Fences Ordinance # 233

Plan and Zoning Commission City of Richmond Heights, Missouri

Use Permit ( CUP) for a restaurant ( Hult' s) to construct and operate an outdoor dining patio with

WHEREAS WHEREAS WHEREAS WHEREAS WHEREAS, WHEREAS

STATE OF IOWA BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIVISION

209/213 South Seventh Street Substandard Lot Variance

ORDINANCE NO

WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER

CITY OF TYLER CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

ARTICLE F. Fences Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO Ordinance No Page 1 of 7. Language to be added is underlined. Language to be deleted is struck through.

Reading Month Day Year. 1st. Znd. 3rd. Related Documents:

ORDINANCE NO L %

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL As modified by the City Planning Commission on May 25, 2017

Chapter 9 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES

ORDINANCE NO

CITY OF EDGEWATER ORDINANCE NO SERIES OF 2015

Department of Planning and Development

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROVIDING FOR LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS.

CITY OF MENTOR APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Board of Building and Zoning Appeals

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TOWNSHIP OF ROSS COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO, STATE OF MICHIGAN ROSS TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE NO. 209 ADOPTED: JANUARY 9, 2018

ARTICLE 9. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NUMBER V RONALD M. KLINE AND RACHEL A. KLINE SECOND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND ORDINANCE NO. 02C-09

Transcription:

EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. BOA 2015 02 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM REAR YARD FENCE HEIGHT OF SIX FEET (6 ), IMPOSED BY EDGEWATER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 16-20-50, TO CONSTRUCT A TEN FOOT (10 ) FENCE IN THE C-1 ZONE DISTRICT AT 2501 SHERIDAN BOULEVARD, EDGEWATER, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Edgewater Board of Adjustment (the Board ) has received a variance application and related documents (collectively, the Application ) from GDB Holdings LLC, dba Joyride Brewing Company (the Applicant ), with the consent of property owner Atlas Real Estate Group, for the property located at 2501 Sheridan Boulevard, Edgewater, Colorado (the Property ); WHEREAS, the Property is located in the Commercial 1 (C-1) zone district; WHEREAS, the Applicant currently uses the Property in conformance with a previouslyapproved site development plan (SDP); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed an application to amend its current SDP to permit, among other things, the construction of a fence in the rear yard and the relocation of certain parking and loading spaces; and WHEREAS, said SDP amendment application proposes a ten foot (10 ) fence in the rear yard, in excess of the six foot (6 ) maximum rear yard fence height permitted Edgewater Municipal Code ( Code ) Section 16-20-50; and WHEREAS, after due and proper notice, the Board conducted a public hearing on the Application on March 18, 2015, at which time the Applicant and all other interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, as reflected in the record of those proceedings; WHEREAS, Code Section 16-24-60(b) sets forth variance approval criteria; and WHEREAS, based upon all of the testimony and evidence received at the March 18, 2015 public hearing, the Board finds that the Application meets each of the variance approval criteria set forth in Code Section 16-24-60(b) upon the imposition of certain conditions, as further described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Findings: The Board makes the following findings concerning the application filed by GDB Holdings LLC, dba Joyride Brewing Company, with the consent of property owner Atlas Real Estate Group, for the property located at 2501 Sheridan Boulevard,

Edgewater, Colorado, for a variance from the requirements of Code Section 16-20-50, to permit the construction of a ten foot (10 ) fence in the rear yard of said property, in relation to the variance criteria set forth in Code Section 16-24-60(b): Code Section 16-24-60(b): 1. The property has extraordinary or exceptional physical conditions that do not generally exist in nearby properties in the same zoning district. Finding: The Property has the extraordinary physical conditions of being bounded on 2 sides by major commercial thoroughfares (25 th Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard) and on 1 other side by residential properties; and housing its commercial activity in a previously-existing rehabilitated building. This Property therefore has a unique set of considerations in regards to compatibility with surrounding land uses and available indoor and outdoor space to put to use. 2. The extraordinary or exceptional physical condition of the property will not allow reasonable use of the property in its current zone district in the absence of relief. Finding: The extraordinary physical condition of the Property does not allow reasonable use of the Property in the C-1 zone district, for commercial purposes, in the absence of relief from the strict application of the Code in this instance. The Property has limited available area to locate any outdoor activities; due to site configuration and the location of the existing building, those activities cannot be located adjacent to other commercial uses. Reasonable use of the Property may include some outdoor use, given the Property s limited options to locate varying uses. The granting of a variance, in this instance, may be the only way to allow outdoor use of the Property in a manner that adequately protects the area residential uses and the neighborhood as a whole. 3. The granting of the variance will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties, the neighborhood or the community as a whole. Finding: If the SDP amendment is approved in a manner that permits the location of a rear yard patio area where patrons can gather on the Property, the ten foot fence will mitigate the potential adverse impacts (sight and sound) that such a patio may have on surrounding residential properties. Public testimony from a neighboring residential property owner indicated that a fence previously located on the Property without City approval, since removed, offered effective noise and sight mitigation. Written comment, via email, from another neighboring residential property owner was in favor of the variance, indicating a lack of adverse impacts on surrounding properties. If the SDP amendment is not approved in a manner that permits the location of a rear yard patio area, the benefit that the fence provides to surrounding properties is no longer present and the ten foot fence may simply present a visual obstruction and anomaly that is inconsistent with the community as a whole.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the variance will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties or community as a whole on the CONDITION that the Applicant obtains City approval of an SDP amendment that permits the location of a rear yard patio in the area proposed to be bounded by the ten foot fence. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to surrounding property values and neighborhood character. Finding: A fence ten feet in height will provide a sight and sound-mitigating barrier between the Property and surrounding residential properties. As such, it will not injure surrounding property values or neighborhood character. The owners of the two residential properties directly across the alley from the proposed fence offered testimony (oral and written) in favor of the variance, expressing no concern of injury to their property value or the neighborhood character. Another member of the public testified that, because the fence is not visible unless one drives down the alleyway, the fence would not affect the general character of the neighborhood. The fence will comply with all building and safety codes and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. As mentioned under # 3 above, the benefit of the fence is only provided if it shields neighboring properties from the proposed rear yard patio. Therefore, the Commission finds that this criteria is met only upon the imposition of the same CONDITION set forth under # 3 above. 5. The granting of the variance shall not be substantially inconsistent with any plans adopted by the City. Finding: Aside from the issue of height, the fence will not be substantially inconsistent with any plans adopted by the City. The fence will be of approved materials and construction. 6. The granting of the variance shall not materially weaken the general purpose of this Chapter 16 or any other zoning regulations of the City. Finding: A rear yard fence ten feet in height, abutting an alley, designed to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of commercial patrols on neighboring residential properties, does not weaken the general purpose of Chapter 16 of the Code: to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the City. The fence is designed and intended to serve the convenience and welfare of present and future residents of area residential properties. The benefit of the fence is only provided if it shields neighboring properties from the proposed rear yard patio. Therefore, the Commission finds that this criteria is met only

upon the imposition of the same CONDITION set forth under # 3 above. 7. The variance, if granted, shall only be to the extent necessary to afford a reasonable use of the property. Finding: A ten foot fence is the lowest in height that would adequately and effectively screen all patrons and associated structures in the patio area. The benefit of the fence is only provided if it shields neighboring properties from the proposed rear yard patio. Therefore, the Commission finds that this criteria is met only upon the imposition of the same CONDITION set forth under # 3 above. 8. The unique conditions of the property under which the variance is sought were not created by the owner of the property or his or her agent. Finding: The Applicant did not create the proximity of the existing commercial use to neighboring residential uses, a unique condition that requires the sound and sight mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant. Section 2. Decision: Based on the foregoing findings, the Application filed by GDB Holdings LLC, dba Joyride Brewing Company, with the consent of property owner Atlas Real Estate Group, for the property located at 2501 Sheridan Boulevard, Edgewater, Colorado, for a variance from the requirements of Code Section 16-20-50, to permit the construction of a ten foot (10 ) fence in the rear yard of said property, is HEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVED. The applicant has met his burden of demonstrating that each of the criteria set forth in Code Section 16-24-60(b) are met upon the imposition of the following condition: That the Applicant, within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of this decision, obtain City approval of an SDP amendment that permits the location of a rear yard patio in the area proposed to be bounded by the ten foot fence. Failure to satisfy this condition shall render the conditional approval granted hereby null and void without further formal action of the Board. Section 3. Pursuant to Code Section 16-24-60(c), the variance authorized hereby is transferable and shall run with the land unless expired for lack of action pursuant to Code Section 16-24-60(d). DONE and ORDERED by a vote of 5 to 0 on March 18, 2015. ATTEST: /s/ Nelson McNulty, Chair /s/ Beth A. Hedberg, MMC City Clerk and Clerk to the Board

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I hereby certify that on the 19th day of March, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing RESOLUTION NO. BOA 2015-02 was delivered to the Applicant by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, addressed to the Applicant s current address on file: Grant Babb Joy Ride Brewing Co. 2095 Newland Street Edgewater, CO 80214 /s/ Beth A. Hedberg, MMC City Clerk and Clerk to the Board