Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2009~ 4 ( City of W heat P,idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA July 23, 2009 Notice is hereby given of a public meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on July 23, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-09-04 (continued from June 25, 2009): An application filed by Robert Sherman for approval of up to a 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3305 Moore Street. B. Case No. WA-09-05: An application filed by Catherine Snyder for approval of a 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback AND a 25 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential-One A (R- 1 A) and located at 2995 Webster Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - June 25, 2009 8. ADJOURNMENT 11 .1 City of W BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting June 25, 2009 1. 2. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair BUCKNAM at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Oran R„0lrnam tty Jo Page b Howard, Alternate Board Members Larry Linker Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Adam Tietz, Planner Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-09-03: An application filed by Taco Bell for approval of (A) a 28 square foot size variance from the maximum allowable 30 square feet for a menu board, resulting in a 58 square foot menu board and (B) a request for a 2'8" height variance from the maximum allowable 6 foot menu board height resulting in a 8'8" high menu board for property zoned Commercial-One and located at 4795 Kipling Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 1 - June 25, 2009 The case was presented by Adam Tietz. He entered all pertinent documents into the record. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff found that variance criteria had been met and recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, as contained in the staff report. Gene Summers Near Design and Planning Mr. Summers, representing Taco Bell, was sworn in by Chair Bucknam. He agreed with the staff report. He stated there was an error in his submittal. The proposed menu board is 54 square feet rather than 58. The menu board would be three inches higher than the existing menu board. He had no objection to only having one menu board. In fact, Taco Bell's prototype is to have only one menu board. In response to a question from Board Member PAGE regarding the fence on the northern edge of the property, Mr. Summers stated that he didn't know who owns the fence, but was confident Taco Bell would look into it and remove it if possible. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the landscaping wall was attractive. Mr. Summers showed an architectural rendering of the proposed menu board to the Board. Promotional banners were discussed. Meredith Reckert explained that businesses have the option of having one promotional banner. UCKNAM asked if there were members of the public who wished to this matter. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-09-03(A) is an appeal to the 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 Board of Adjustment Minutes -2- June 25, 2009 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. WA-09-03(A) be, and hereby is APPROVED. For the following reasons: 1. The request would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 3. The variance would result in the sign having a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. 4. The request results from part of a major investment in the property which helps to accomplish goals in the ASDM and NRS. 5. The existing sign is 56 square feet. With the following condition: 1. No additional side or top panels will be added to the menu board. All special promotions and temporary menu items must be displayed within the menu board. 2. Only one menu board will be allowed. Board Member BELL offered a friendly amendment to delete the portion of the condition that reads: All special promotions and temporary menu items must be displayed within the menu board. The amendment was accepted by Board Member ABBOTT. The motion carried 8-0. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-09-03(B) is an appeal to the 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 Board of Adjustment Minutes -3- June 25, 2009 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. WA-09-03(B) be, and hereby is APPROVED. For the following reasons: 1. The request would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. 3. The variance would result in the sign having a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. 4. The request results from part of which helps to accomplish goals 5. The existing sign is 5 inches lows 6. Lowering the sign is impractical major investment in the property the ASDM and NRS. depths in the winter obscuring the signage. 7. As to the likely intent of the height restriction, the sign is not noticeable or readable from the street but is on an interior drive with a freestanding landscaped area and backdrop wall and, therefore the sign will not be obtrusive to passersby. With the following condition: 1. No additional side or ton panels will be added to the menu board. The motion carried 8-0. B. Case No. WA-09-04: An application filed by Robert Sherman for approval of up to a 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback on Dropertv zoned Residential-One and located at 3305 Moore Street. Meredith Reckert informed the Board that the applicant is out of town and missed a flight to return for this hearing. Therefore the applicant has requested that the hearing be continued. It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member BUCKNAM to continue Case No. WA-09-04 to July 23, 2009. The motion carried 8-0. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BUCKNAM closed the public hearing. Board of Adjustment Minutes -4- June 25, 2009 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - May 28, 2009 It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member FISHER to approve the minutes of May 28, 2009. The motion passed unanimously. B. Policy for the use of alternate members Suggestions included: • Anyone who accepts the position of alternate be strongly encouraged to attend a Board meeting as a means of orientation. • If roll has been taken with the alternate seated and the regular member shows up, the alternate would sit through the entire case and vote on the case. The regular member would then be seated for additional cases. It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member FISHER to direct staff to incorporate the above suggestions into the proposed policy and bring them back for the Board's consideration. The motion carried 8-0. C. Carnation Festival Board Member PAGE suggested that members of the Board support the Carnation Festival by making contributions to purchase a banner that would have wording similar to "Best Wishes from the Board of Adjustment." There was consensus to support this suggestion. Board Member PAGE will arrange all details. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Alan Bucknam Chair Ann Lazzeri Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes -5- June 25, 2009 lot wHe4T CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~~m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ORP'O TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-09-04/Sherman DATE: June 25, 2009 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a variance of up to 10 feet from the required 15 foot side yard setback for an addition to the principal structure resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback on property located at 3302 Moore Street and zoned Residential One (R-1). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3305 Moore Street APPLICANT (S): Robert Sherman OWNER (S): Robert Sherman APPROXIMATE AREA: 12,590 square feet (.28 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential One (R-1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS O DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE O SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Location Map Adm Case JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this request. 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance of up to 10 feet from the required 15 foot side yard setback for an addition to the principal structure resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The purpose of the variance is to allow for the construction of an approximately 70 square foot addition (7'2" X 9'8") (Exhibit 2, Site Plan and Improvement Location Certificate). Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANALYSIS Robert Sherman is requesting this variance as the property owner. The subject property is 115.5 feet wide by 109 feet deep and 12,590 square feet in total area. There is an existing approximately 2,500 square foot single family residence on the property (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The applicant wishes to construct an approximately 70 square foot addition to serve the single family residence. The applicant has also expressed that the addition will be done in a manner to match the existing house relative to roof and wall materials. The property is zoned Residential One (R-1), which carries with it a set of development standards that include the following for the principal structure: • Front Setback: 30' • Side Setback: 15' • Rear Setback: 15' It is important to note that the existing structure on the south side sits slightly less than the required 15' side setback at 14.8' so it already encroaches into the required setback. Staff did not find any evidence of variances granted in the immediate vicinity. All surrounding properties are single family residential and are zoned Residential One (R-1). The applicant has collected three signatures from adjacent property owners indicating their support of the application, including the property owner most impacted by the proposed variance (Exhibit 4, Letters of Support). Property owners the immediate south and west, as well as directly across the street have signed letters in support of the application. It is also noteworthy that there is existing mature vegetation that obscures the view of the addition from the street and from adjacent property. Administrative Variance 2 Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to authorize 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. 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 may still yield a reasonable return in use. The property would still function as a single family residence without the need for the variance. Alternative placement options are available for additions to the house. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The addition would be small enough and not visible from the street and with minimal visibility from adjacent property. Staff finds that 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 that may not be possible without the variance. The applicant has expressed that the intent of the variance request is to serve the master bedroom of the house, and this area cannot be added to without a variance. 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. There are not any particular or unique hardships on the property that would restrict the applicant's ability to construct an addition on other sides of the house. The applicant is requesting this variance because the proposed addition is adjacent to a master bedroom it is intended to serve, which incidentally is on the side yard with no available space to build on to without a variance. Staff does not consider this a particular and unique hardship. It should be noted however that 15 foot setbacks on both side and rear lot lines does present a significantly smaller buildable area of the property than most other zone districts. Staff finds that 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. The applicant has created their own hardship by requesting the variance. There are alternative locations available for additions to the house within the setback requirements. Staff finds that 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 Administrative Variance Case No. WA-09-041Sherman 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 property. The adequate supply of air and light would be slightly compromised with the property to the south as a result of this request. This property owner however has expressed approval of the proposed addition. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it increase the danger of fire. The request will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the subject property. All surrounding properties are zoned Residential One (R-1) and have the same setback requirements, which presents a significantly smaller buildable area relative to other zone districts. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. Single family dwellings are not subject to accessibility requirements. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable as the variance request involves a detached garage for a single family dwelling. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the variance request. 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 locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. 4. The conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the subject property. Administrative Variance 4 Case No. WA-09-041Sherman EXHIBIT 1: LETTER OF REQUEST Cily of Nuleat Izidge Board ot`Adjustrnen! To whom it may C.oncem: We are making this rc qurst 1',r a Vwiancc From the guidciincs on the property located at 3305 N-loore St. Pursuant to thmt request the following exigent Lirc.uinsc,ulees %:xjst: a. This is aft old farmhouse. My wife is required to dress in a fashion that is ccimrncnsurate. 4vith the twenty first century. The closet space in this particular house was built with the ft um hand mentality; namely one Sunday outfit, In order for her to perform at her highest lc vcl she must constantly r(ttate her wardrobe from closet to clowt with the season. CrranEing this variance would allow her to locate most of her clothing in one locat]im. b. The granting of the variance wciula not alter the cSscritiZA CIIHMLter ol'tlrc locality, it would be barely visible from the front of the pronerty. C. If the variance were granted, the spat:c in qucsri{)n Nvould be ilsed to its fullest extent. Thc proposed location is the only place this addition «ill work, d. The surrounding topography lends itself to a sirnplc additMa. Were tYte addition to be addeJ to the west side of 'he house it duesn't work from a fwictional point of view. e. The alleged hardship is that the pTupcrty is xnnol R-1. My wife or myself slid not cause this aining. f. The granting of this variance would increase the value of the subiect property and cane gUently the entire neighborhood. g, The unusual circumstances necessitating the variance request are present in the nrigihborhood by it'.5 zoning of R-1. h. Granting this variance would result in an accommodation of a person with disabiiities. Present .,y the rotation of wardrobe requires the use of the stainvay, which a disablM peen could not use- i. It is my belief that granting this variance is in compl a.nce with the ,-Vchitectural oral Site D",igm I'Vanual. Wc. hope that this letter cloam up any quesbarm Resp; ciful'y, Robert V Shcmlan Elizabeth T. Sherman Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman EXHIBIT 2: SITE PLAN A N CT ~ 1. R v c: V I M 14 t'9(I': ~ NY h- 1 ^f aTlgrl :=Gy 11 • iC'a,Tr r, ;•I 1 I'.-Tt. !pwe 14L I I_ w M ,f 9i r : Y 1 } (f •Ih 1 It ull I x r, X113 uti''•r 7- 1 - Qljit'bolmt I 1 k hereO a 11 Ihwf y j' h+ U'YS i'14Yi'~•li•Itwl trv" C91jf& Mw vJra pr wrw•M Irr rr hiL1:1-1104 S.T• V PL},'., OvU Lhul IV.! r_;1 lu bw t:.-t •IGU' Iu uwlNw~lOr--o"I't "0 Iwrrn, If -C. C:w,, u.1 uw rnm:,Yr-Nt Ir.wy. I lurit- ~n•-ry I• r'wr -tie 'rr : r i r- - ~ r c I :-rt„tc_a'.•w - yet Y' Irctl vnlhl~ :'w ndtlrf53 d Ih ' . rdrA 3 ]n r~. YL~cT•V iM7CrbQQ 1:w,1 arl Ihlry note. C:.rs"{dl LAr.. P;-i:wrCel. 0..CuCt ail •/-rr,.n• lhal Ire"A w•w m r•trr•»=hrgpla Lp:~ t JC`.Lr1'rTF~°r!~4r1'f'„J 1:. J1nY il1•a'try J~ }I,rr trCne ° / nww_r-~jt(: G>t1:wJ1~ •_1' CL~:IY fl bll}~ ( •bl !J '~•nml!~d, PVuYI:l ,tY i•IiCJ1t,!'!1 S',:l 1TIY.II•rrf lw m.•1:~'TA'r•r'L'~•tti:l~~r Jl t IIYT Nr~t'/ ~ ^ •L '1 ' . . r . . . YL JIN , .T Ai A~{:1br}~ f5' I.j,. kr wf~ u1. r.?•,yY~e FaTt-e: 'i 11 4°' LMIt2 ~I : it AsX'!. ~T:f! A'~^ty l•J1""'JWP.~ y' Y': IrT1 ' + [V a•r/ wµal la:t•,,•..-;.~1'_' cM1` Ott! 1M? ,1 Y.4 A+°yf N~ST• I~K :+11 a1'Jt AIYN Hn~ i Lit' +t°,(l~I 1's 's f 'UU ~ 1 tr• + ti,,.^ '.c h Y tt7 TY ~ t} } * { { " • "~fR;•' d Yom. Ss•t }'}ara hxa+• VM .Ywt.+ i.' II I.. ;ur ,p HF,rl!rly- 1•,JI I`N ^fSO.T: ~LiCS:i 6n-: • ~ _ r ; '-;1-_ r 'ty4 IC•:J74LwIT~~ ' r.~ ►z I O+:JU Lri_I~lr1 tR7T:1Lry', ~ IsJtt;i E,Inrq..r l~s°~ISrst-1 •lyv-ty FZ_ts: hrn}~• P" JT: Lm VJ Y tl, .a_ °d ,J ? F o -r-.,.- Vii.' ? s ct-~1. d.:. ~J.,. - 1~ , I! bA I 1"r1!" , J.: 14r 1,', S/{i♦R1r LS•_ Wi06 J'..-.- ~ Administrative Variance Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman Administrative Variance Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman EXHIBIT 4: LETTERS OF SUPPORT City of Wheat Ridge To whom it may Concern- I live at 3285 Moore Street, ttie property that is directly south of the 5herrnwi property, at 3:305 Moore Street. The proposed structure would he built ten feet out from the presets: building, five feet from the property line. I do not have. any problems with a structure built within five feet of nay property line. The project has my complete approval. Regards, t J de Ziemke City of Wheat Ridge To whom it may Concern: We live at 3300 Moore Street, the property that is directly across Moore Street from the Sherman property, at 3305 Moore Street. The proposed structure would be built ten feet out from the present building, five feet from the property line. We do not have any problems with a structure built in such a fashion. The project has my complete approval. Regards, 1 Pat and Vi M Sea 5--1,Z- - 0 9 r ~ -ag Case No. WA-09-04/Shernzan City of Wheat Ridge To whom it may Concern: /6 D We live at 3300 Moore Court, the property that is directly west of the Sherman property, at 3305 Moore Street. The proposed structure would be built ten feet out from the present building, five feet from the property line. We do not have any problems with a structure built in such a fashion. The project has my complete approval. Regards, Kevin and Janenc Poziombkc r Administrative Variance NOTE: Dimensions Approximate -for illustrative purposes only. 9 Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman City of Wh6a-tPudgc CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: CASE MANAGER: Board of Adjustment DATE: July 23, 2009 CASE NO. & NAME Meredith Reckert WA-09-05/Snyder ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a five (5') foot rear setback variance to the ten (10') foot required rear setback AND a twenty-five (25') foot side setback variance to the required thirty (30') foot setback requirement on property zoned Residential-One A (R- lA) located at 2995 Webster Street. LOCATION OF REQUEST: APPLICANT /OWNER: APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE 2995 Webster Street Catherine A. Snyder 11,338 square feet Residential-One A (R-1 A) Single Family Residence ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a five (5') rear foot setback variance to the ten (10') foot required rear setback AND a twenty-five (25') foot side setback variance to the required thirty (30') foot setback requirement adjacent to a public street on property zoned Residential- One A (R-1A) located at 2995 Webster Street. The purpose of the variances is to allow construction of a 192 square foot wooden shed over 8' in height. (Exhibit 1, applicant drawing) Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment. Because this is a two-part request with the larger request requiring a public hearing, both portions will be heard by the Board. II. CASE ANALYSIS Catherine Snyder is requesting this variance as the property owner. The subject property is 115.25 feet wide by 98.35 feet deep and 11,335 square feet in total area. (Exhibit 2, improvement location certificate). There is an existing single family residence on the property approximately 1,952 square feet in size. (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The property is zoned Residential One A (R-1 A), which carries with it a set of development standards that include the following for main structures and accessory structures, including the proposed shed which will be over 8' in height: House Shed over 8'in height Front setback 30' 30' Interior side setback (south) 10' 10' Side setback adjacent to street 30' 30' Rear setback 15' 10' The property is a corner lot with Webster running along the eastern frontage and W. 30th Avenue running along the northern property line. Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder 2 The existing house with attached two car garage, which was built in 1954, meets the minimum 30' setback from Webster at the southeast corner of the property. The rest of the existing front wall of the house staggers back whereby the setback from Webster at the northeast corner is 45'. The northern setback for the house from W. 301h Avenue is 29'. The setback from the south property line is 16' and the rear house setback is 25'. There are two covered patios on the western side of the structure which comprise the outdoor living space for the residence. One of the covered patios extends into the rear yard resulting in an 18' rear setback for this portion of the house. A 6' high solid fence totally encloses the side and rear yards of the property. Surrounding properties to the east, south and north are single family residential and are zoned Residential One A (R-IA). The Wadsworth Exchange Planned Commercial Development abuts the property to the west. The PCD has been approved for up to 93,000 square feet of commercial development. (Exhibit 4, Wadsworth Exchange ODP). 301h Avenue running along the north property line is constructed to a full width status except for the western 11' where it narrows down to a half-width. Upon development of the commercial property to the rear, Webster Street will be fully built out. Staff did not find any evidence of setback variances granted in the immediate vicinity. Although from the aerial photo, it is evident that there are many setback encroachments by what appear to be existing sheds. Attached is a drawing illustrating where a shed meeting required setbacks could be built without variances. (Exhibit 5, allowable shed locations) III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following criteria to evaluate variance requests and shall 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 applications compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 6, applicant responses). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Request A: A five rear foot setback variance to the ten foot required rear setback resulting in a 5' rear setback. 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. Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder 3 If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return. The property currently has a single family home on it and it may remain in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicants would still be able to construct a shed but it would be required to meet the setbacks for the R-lA zone district. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. While no other shed setback variances are reflected in the city's case log in the immediate vicinity, it is apparent that there are numerous violations by sheds erected without permits violating the required setbacks. 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 an investment in the property that could improve the existing conditions on the parcel. This investment would still be possible without the variance but would encroach into the existing small back yard which is 18'- 25' in depth. The front yard is nicely landscaped and maintained and erection of a shed in this area would negatively impact the aesthetics of the street view of the property. As both of the rear patios are covered, a shed in these areas would have to have a 3' separation from the edge of the patio roofs. Other options for shed placement are impractical. 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 surrounding physical conditions have resulted in the request for the shed to be built at the proposed location. The property is a corner lot which requires 30' setbacks from both the east and north. In addition, the structure design "staggering" the building back to the west has further constrained available room in the back yard. Other options for shed placement such as in the front yard are impractical and would negatively impact the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder 4 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. A person who has interest in the property has created the hardship. The request relates to the location of the proposed shed that does not meet current development standards. It is possible to relocate the proposed shed in a location on the property where setbacks can be met; however, this may prove to be inconvenient for the owner and may impact the aesthetics of the property. 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. Staff concludes that 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 property. 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 increase the danger of fire. The request will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The shed would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance triangle. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There are numerous corner lots within the City that have the same development constraints with required 30' setbacks from both street frontages. The home design has further limited options for placement of the shed. Staff finds 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 structures are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder 5 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 dwellings. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. Request B: A twenty-five foot side setback variance to the required thirty (30) foot setback requirement adjacent to a public street. 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. The property currently has a single family home on it and it may remain in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicants would still be able to construct a shed but it would be required to meet the setbacks for the R-lA zone district. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. While no other shed setback variances are reflected in the city's case log in the immediate vicinity, it is apparent that there are numerous violations by sheds erected without permits violating the required setbacks. The northern side yard is surrounded by a 6' high solid wooden fence which would provide additional screening from W. 30th Avenue. The proposed shed would be tucked into the northwestern corner of the property adjacent to a utility pole. 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 an investment in the property that could improve the existing conditions on the parcel. This investment would still be possible without the variance but would encroach into the existing small back yard which is 18'- 25' in depth. The front yard is nicely landscaped and maintained and erection of a shed would negatively impact the aesthetics of the street view of the property. As both of the rear patios are covered, a shed in these areas would have to have a 3' Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder 6 separation from the edge of the patio roofs. Other options for shed placement are impractical. While there is more room to work with on the north side as there is 29' from the fence to the north wall of the house, it is the only large expanse of turf within the rear and side yards. 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 surrounding physical conditions have resulted in the request for the shed to be built at the proposed location. The property is a corner lot which requires 30' setbacks from both the east and north. In addition, the structure design "staggering" the building back to the west has further constrained available room in the back yard. Other options for shed placement such as in the front yard are impractical and would negatively impact the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. A person who has interest in the property has created the hardship. The request relates to the location of the proposed shed that does not meet current development standards. It is possible to relocate the proposed shed in a location on the property where setbacks can be met; however, this may prove to be inconvenient for the owner and may impact the aesthetics of the property. 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. Staff concludes the request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder 7 impair the development of the adjacent property. 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 increase the danger of fire. The request will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The shed would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance triangle. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There are numerous corner lots within the City that have the same development constraints with required 30' setbacks from both street frontages. The home design has further limited options for placement of the shed. Staff finds 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 structures are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. 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 dwellings. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Request A Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends approval of the five foot rear setback variance to the ten foot required rear setback resulting in a five foot rear setback. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. While there are alternatives for placement, they are impractical and may negatively impact the aesthetics of the property. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder 1. There are unique circumstances as the property is a corner lot and there is very little usable back yard, resulting in minimal viable options for shed placement. 2. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 3. The aesthetics of the property could be impacted if the variance is not granted. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. Request B Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends approval of the twenty five foot side setback variance to the thirty foot required setback adjacent to a street resulting in a five foot side setback. 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. There are unique circumstances as the property is a corner lot and there is very little usable back yard, resulting in minimal viable options for shed placement. 2. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 3. The aesthetics of the property could be impacted if the variance is not granted. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The existing 6' fence along W. 30th Avenue will provide screening of the shed from the surrounding neighborhood. Case No. WA-09-05/Snyder 9 (JD O o O O O U rL OF- CD C. O SVted. ~~a,Cen"1PVlt on Plot `P(a n- cr d-- - ,l 2s J* C1 C-l S- Tervlo ~vArE: 3p" - -.I-- W ~ 6 G 7 EF r '~b "I Q s 4 - ~e9C-,4a( - t LL c I +y, 'RzFLz' X411_ 20 N EXHIBIT I m yF O Z ~y 0 Fa 0 d U z U w ~ Ga N~ O w J w < a Ca9 N LLI u aN E-1 Z V) a w N LLI I-- W p 2 k+ 0 o ° 0 0 0 Z L-01 w 0 ~ Q U ZO LL N w 0 w WNCD U > 1 0 O I-t o a <x0 a a" ooN U W q H w ° 0 Ul U M : a- Z 0 > w p c0 Q w N Z in > Q a J ~ TJ aNi C a 0p o C w c~ ~ b4 0 G .Y p W 4, 0 C U 0 ra y > 0 h1.0.2I Ob hags ialsgaM 566Z SZ'SII > a: p 0 1 ° S'LI 0 .a C v > ~ M C) 00 M ~ N o S IZ 0'9i o U v 9.61 N Z'6Z 0 s,OZ I 0 o'd Q v p .C ~ 0 Ia S'6ti ' ' . l a s 9. "JjIO m V. D. •a.i. CO W I I I Ol Id) luauiaseg ,S roam O ro L+ L O y 0 E W (L r U ~E m 7 0 C O ~ m o r a~ j' O Q Q.~a) E Etc 2 'U N D. 0x0 QZcm L N~ O a) C ~ =nm -o c C: T N mro roC Q 'o a ~ a 0 0cmm 0 o ° D ro . N ro~m O 0 w C LCC r m E) rN:O. a) 0 U O (n C) ai c o c L ° m `o E C UOCN 0 a) , _ m..E i- Uv L 0 ca , Q a) ~p1 O MEfN a) C c En - ca m-~ a) oL- ccro ;O N NY~a3 o ro 1 ~3 i. N>r~ro r a) 0 N ~ cri (n ca m Li Y N E YQU y6 o >1 a) 0 FL C: Q OC O2 ~ a U O( a ~ N ro L mN C = cn Qy m a T C a) ) ~E ca L L O O. o3r h _ a)>OQOoE00 E" n OL Cr vm, ~d c o a N 0Q. 'E (z 0TW~ 0o E 0.0 Q ~ n , - N T C c C - ro °EaE ro>. m` E E ro c 0) m occY ao c co - C o a 0 m a) E co E ca 0-0 W - 0 a°¢ 0 .0 Y L O n m ocU o O a O Nco o E0 NZ'O~ 0) a.- L> c 0)m'Oa~0 H co N'= 0 °'o ~ aIL~3ay~m0 rA E2 3 ° a) N' U 4 o ni ro - m m Y N 7 y C N a) E 8 >1 ()OOa) E cE - < E E~NOEo~o c 0 E a, 8. (1) E C O O o f me 'Vj a) a) C Q E t m 3 C13 n >Eo'ockart L0a).. a)ro= mm O U n w F° m T i Ouim°m U C E C 0 E V Q N C EOa)0)Om~a 0 0._U'ONZmmm M Cf 0 IV SZ'SII 0 a~i s~ ~ p ZU~w Z u N Mill 8,3 .00 co w ti (b (D N pn N n~C/) I\\ J tttaVV ~ ca 2 t11 N ~u MCI w z 0 0 Z mmW '0f zm0 mmz mz< N<m m0 w wz zwgm zma NORTH SIDE, LOOKING EAST EXHIBIT 3 NORTH SIDE, LOOKING WEST NORTH SIDE, LOOKING WEST BACK YARD, WEST SIDE, LOOKING SOUTH BACK YARD, INVEST SIDE, LOOKING NORTH ~,#05Cb211 Wadsworth Exchange Planned Commercial Development, Amendment No. I Outline Development Plan: An Official Development Plan in the City of Wheat Ridge A Parcel of Land Located in the SE 4 of Section 26, Township 3 Sow, Rhea 69 West of the 6th PM., City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado Site Plan R0W. Dedication Rl t-4nr ~tlg t-F~nt Access EXist4Ftg Cenlqgy ('.leffco) v- -M d SIR* Family R.O.W. DeAte F I ! Peden Co 'on I 'i Planned F ~ Commercial, I Sin g ~"Faenil3 l stilcl R-IA v, b AK t~'cW :E)4 AVCiti}Q Fnil Movement F Yt yttt3g _~1[V'_ OF Access Wl*08e City Hjl R-2 Site Plan _SICaL 1-100 _SCALEINfEET ~ 7 0 100 NMI NORTH I ~ ~I 6 Foot Solid Fanclne with Gverelory Piantings Restaurant A site design shown for eP-Iric user as of the date of this GDP Ex»tng 25' public right of way- no connection of vehicular access to this for future acquisition by City. Area to ba utilized for Wadsworth Blvd. expanslan, streatsesps development and 10 foot walkway. p29rojFootaet; area undaigofround utilities W1 be d6oee9adreservation Right- In/Right -out Intersection Traffic Analysis criteria Project Slgrsyge, iyp. - Sheet 2 of 5 wrnw inrric t_em Per Treftic Atrlya» Grnaria 29th Ava..re >ah trek ROW- to city by Future plat document I Full Movement Ineter9ectton to Allgn with Pi:aon Place RM Bus stop f'roJset 6t0rres, typ. schanatic PIM SCALE: 11-W F7L= GCMG aYP- 8 a 40 Ib NORM For Wadsworth Boulevard dedication, is 4719 dtroe -%,410 SP. Development Plan. NOtae I. Gross lot steel is 4b01 acres •300,401 SP. Nell [at area, minus I;15 Sf. For East 30th AvawaNkbetar Street dedication and 12,7ib Sf. 2. Data provided for the "anticipated coverage per prel!minaru a!te absien" Is For raferance purposes only and » 64b)sct to dories. Final data will be provided With the Final Devslopnnsni P+en. V-0 "allvweote coverage per aonlrg allowance" is valid per this Outline 3. ITS total perking spaces requlredx 190 parking space provided 4. To the arrant any future govarnmemal action to acaiuirs all or part of the 29-foct reservation area were to take tM site out of compliance wnh Glly requirement For minimum iandscaping or property, the property shall be considered lsSaliy conformfne >n regards to those requirements, provided that G^e amount of narking reduction does not exceed 25 percent of tire mingrerm parking requirement unlace a greater reduction has bean revhsnd and approved by the Gommun!ty Development Director. Ex40-9 rraop.rty Lin. 6 Pant blid Fe" alth Orw.tesy lManlMge Case History: Wb-63-01 W7AB-91 hyehdQe: JettLwy 4, 2818 bvleei 00: Janway 51, 2008 BHltl wire wltdiFda at EXHIBIT 4 20 Foot MOM Dedication for Wac»WOM.h Bouleverd by future plat document N Scale: 1 "=20' LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PER CLIENT) LOT 6, WEBSTER GROVE , COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO ~ J West 30th Avenue kn N W) 98.35 70.31 4f d LOT 5 Ve~r v U`1-~ 1,, G Lk S kn N 3 0 F1-I O d' cu N N b w N p N 3 N EXHIBIT 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ON 2995 WEBSTER STREE. WHEAT RIDGE, CO I am applying for a variance to decrease the setbacks on the north and west sides of my property, for the placement of a shed, which is 12'W X 16` L, height of 8.6 with your method of measurement. This shed has a loft, which increases the storage space from 182 sq. ft. to 302 sq. ft. On the west, I am requesting a 5' setback instead of 10' setback, and on the north 5' setback instead of 30' set back. The northwest corner of my property is the only space I can place this shed, based on the variance being approved. a. 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. This property in question is not used for service or income. This is a private residence and the addition of a storage shed on the property, should make it more desirable for resale. To maintain property, there is a substantial amount of equipment involved. Having adequate storage space to keep all of this equipment, out of sight, in an attractive structure, creates a more desirable environment. b. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. No. It will enhance the character of the locality by providing a place for things that should be out of sight for normal daily living activities, such as tools, seasonal items, equipment, and building supplies. With a storage shed these things will be in their proper place, allowing me to put my car back in the garage, and have a place to do repairs, which will enhance the appearance of the property, EXHIBIT 6 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ON 2315 WEBSTER STREE, WHEAT RIDGE, CO c. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible x rit:;t the vu, fiance. Yes. The shed I am interested in placing on my property is well built, with an attractive appearance, while providing a large area of storage space. This shed has a loft, which adds substantial area for storage. Having this shed will definitely get things out of sight, and improve the appearance of the property. It is not possible to place this shed on my property, without the variance. d. 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. Yes. All regulations were met with the placement of the house on this property, leaving no space to place a shed, without a variance of the regulations. On the east and on the north side of the house, the setback required is 30'. The house sets according to these regulations, therefore, no place for the shed. On the south side there is a requirement of a 5' setback for the shed, the house is 16' from the fence, which again leaves no room for the shed. To the west there is a 10' requirement as a setback if the shed is over 8' high. The southwest portion, of the property has a large covered patio, which is a nice entertainment area, as it extends out beyond the house an additional T with concrete, on to the yard area. To the north of the patio there is an roofed area, that extends out into the yard T, which leaves 18' so with the APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ON 2995 N EBSTER STREE, tiN IEAT RIDGE. CO 10' setback there is no room to place the shed. The back northwest portion of the property is the only area large enough to place the shed, however, the set back restrictions, do not allow it to be placed, in this area, without a variance. The northwest area, sets on a dead end street, to the north, where there would never be another house built, and to the west is commercial property, which most likely would use the area adjacent to my property, on the north as their service area, so this shed would not be a detriment for the commercial property. This is the most reasonable area, for pla- ement, all things considered and required. e. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created hi any person presently having an interest in the property. No, not in any way. f. 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 of 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. No, it would not. g. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance requested are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to this property. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ON 2995 WEBSTER STREE, 'W EAT RIDGE, CO Yes. 1 believe so, under the same conditions they would be, unless the city changed some of the regulations. All corner lots would face this same dilemma. h. Granting the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with a disability. Not applicable. The shed will be accessible to a person with disabilities. i. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standers set forth in the Architectural and Site [design Manual.