Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/20081' CIt)/ Of ~~Wheat~idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA January 24,2008 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on January 24, 2008, 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 Zeast 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 HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-07-20: An application filed by Phil Benallo for approval of 1) an 11 foot front yard setback variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement resulting in a 19 foot front yard setback (39th Place), 2) a 15 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement wheu adjacent to a public street resulting in a 15 foot side yard setback (Ingalls Street), and 3) a 10 foot rear yard setback variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement when adj acent to a public street resulting in a 20 foot rear yard setback (39th Avenue) on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 6088 W. 39th Place. B. Case No. WA-07-24: An application filed by Karen Stor for approval of a 5 foot side yazd setback variance from the 5 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 0 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential-One C(R-1C) and located at 3025 Eaton Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - September 26, 2007 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT c~~ORp00 TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert CASE NO. & NAME: WA-07-20/ Benallo DATE: January 17, 2008 ACTION REQUESTED: A 10' rear yard setback variance, a 15' side yard setback variance and an 11' front yard setback variance LOCATION OF REQUEST : 6088 W. 39'' Place APPLICANT (S): Phillip Benallo OWNER (S): Gerald Benallo APPROXIMATE AREA: 10,375 s.f. PRESENT ZONING: Residential- Three (R-3) PRESENT LAND USE: Single family residence ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS O DIGITAL PRESENTATION ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Location J UltiSll1CT10N: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, the there is jurisdiction to hear tlus case. 1 WA-07-20Benallo I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a three fold variance request in order to construct an addition to the existing single family home on the property. The individual requests are as follows: 1. A 10' reaz yazd setback variance from W. 39t' Avenue (south side) resulting in a 20' reaz yard setback. 2. A 15' side yazd setback variance from Ingalls Street (west side) resulting in a 15' side yazd setback. 3. An 11' front yazd setback variance from W. 39~' Place (north side) resulting in a 19' front yazd setback. This case began as an admuustrative variance request but was denied as one letter of objection was submitted. II. SUBDIVISION HISTORY The property was subdivided as I.ot 7 of Hazlan Court Subdivision which was approved by the Jefferson County Comxnissioners in 1951. The subdivision originally contained lO lots. W. 39'h Avenue runs along the southern boundazy of the subdivision with W. 40t' Avenue running along the northern limit of the subdivision. Abutting the subdivision on the east is Hazlan Street with Ingalls Street on the western perimeter. All of the "local" streets dedicated with the subdivision (40d' Avenue, 39~' Avenue and Ingalls Street) are 40' in width which is substandazd in width to today's 50' standazd for local streets. (Exhibit 1, Hazlan Court Subdivision plat) Harlan was dedicated to the half width of 30'. It appeazs that Lots 3, 4, 7(subject property) and 8 were further resubdivided subsequent to original plat approval. (Exhibit 2, Assessor's pazcel map) Staff has not been able to ascertain when this occurred. Aside &om two five-plex structures on the Harlan frontage of the subdivision, the majority of the homes aze single family ranch-style construc6on built in 1952. Another exception would be the structure on lot 9 which is a two story "farm house" built in 1923 broken into four multiple units with a carport connection to a four-unit structure built in 1963. At the time of construction of the majority of the homes, a private "alley" was built along the interior of the common shazed lot lines of the subdivision. This "alle}~" was privately owned but named W. 39h Place. Many of the homes built "fronted" this interior roadway and at some point, were addressed to it. (Exlubit 3, aerial photo) The private roadway known as W. 39th Place was not built to the City's standazd road construction section for width and pavement thickness and was inadequately maintained by the homeowners. In 1987, the subdivision residents approached the city to inquire about dedication of this private roadway. In 1988, W. 3911i Place was dedicated to the City Council by a"dedication plat". (Exhibit 4, W. 39~' Place Roadway Dedication Plat) There is existing "Hollywood" curb with an attached sidewalk along all of the street frontages in the azea. Pursuant to the R-3 zone district regulations, front, side and rear setbacks from public streets aze required to be 30'. Dedication of 39th Place as a public street resulted in the creation of numerous nonconfornung setbacks in the subdivision. Any new construction must meet the required setbacks. III. CASE ANALYSIS ~ 2 WA-07-20Benallo The applicant, Phillip Benallo, is requesting the three variances as the representative of the property owner, Gerald Benallo (his father). The property is addressed as 6088 W. 39"h Place and faces north. Ingalls runs along the western side property line and W. 39b Avenue runs along the southern rear property line. The ?licant lives in the home and wishes to construct an addition to the residence to accommodate his father. kExlribit 5, site plan) The R-3 zone district allows for single family and two family dwelling units as well as multi-fanuly dwelling units and accessory structures. The property measures approximately 100' x 104' with 10, 375 s.f. of total land area. The property would be able to accommodate a duplex as it exceeds the 9,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement and the minimum lot width of 75 feet for a duplex. It is not large enough to accommodate a tri-plex. The R-3 zone district allows for malcimum lot coverage of 40%. Based on a lot size of 10,375 squaze feet, 4150 squaze feet of lot coverage is allowed. The proposed single family home with addition will be 4150 squaze feet or 40% of the lot if developed as proposed. The home meets all other development standazds including the interior side setback and maximum height. The existing home is single-story brick construction. It faces north onto W. 39~' Place (formerly the private street). A single car gazage is provided on this northem face as well as a shed which violates setbacks. The existing setback on the north side is 29'. The southern elevation of the structure faces onto W. 39`h Avenue. There is an existing double caz driveway with a covered paUO azea. There is also a metal carport structure which does not meet setback in this area. The western portion of the yard where the addition will occur is landscaped with sod and upright junipers. The existing setback on the south is 45'; however the covered porch and carport extend into the required 30' setback. ,e proposed addition will be two-story and will include another bedroom and bath intended to be used by the iather and a lazge family room all on the first level. The second story will include a master bedroom and bath and a loft azea. A lazge gazage/shop azea measuring 27' x 66' (1782 s.f.) is also proposed on the bottom level of the addition. The westerly garage door is high enough to accommodate a recreational vehicle. The addition will be stuccoed and roughly 21' in height at mid-roo£ (Exhibits 6 and 7, house eleva6ons) In 2007, the applicant submitted an application for approval of a lot consolidation to reassemble the two halves of the lot which were resubdivided subsequent to original subdivision approval. A lot consolidation plat was recorded on November 20, 2007 which reassembled the two lot portions back into a single parcel. (Exhibit 8, lot consolidation plat) One letter of objection was received in response to the administrative posting and no6cing. (Exhibit 9, letter) 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 applications compliance with the variance criteria. (Elchibit 10, applicant letter) Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. WA-07-20Benallo 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 yield a return. The western portion of the property currently is vacant and would accommodate an expansion of the existing single family residence or the addition of another unit. If denied, the applicants would still be able to construct a house addition on the lot but it would have to meet the 30' setback requirements on the north, south and west, Staff finds 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 chazacter of the locality. Several homes and other structures in the area violate the 30 foot front, side and reaz setback requirements. The number of nonconfornuties greatly increased when W. 39`h Place was dedicated as a public street. (Exlubit 11, aerial with 30' setback overlay) Although the addiuon is two stories in height, the general appearance and construction materials will be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Staff fmds 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 will result in a positive outcomr The investment in improving this lot will substantially increase the value of property and could increase the value of neighboring properties. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplucal 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. Although the property is rectangulaz in shape and is flat, there aze unique conditions related to the physical surroundings that hinder the developability of the vacant portion of the property Double- fronted lots (lots with streets along both the front and rear property lines) aze prohibited in the Subdivision Regulations. It is highly unusual to have a lot that has three street frontages. Given 30' setback requirements on three sides, only 900 s.f. of the western portion of the lot is buildable. At least six of the 11 lots in the subdivision have nonconfornung setbacks adjacent to streets. 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. 4 WA-07-20Benallo The original owner of the property was the applicanYs grandfather. Gerald Benallq the applicanYs father, was one of the petitioners requesting dedication of 39t' Place. The applicant has created his own hazdship by proposing such a lazge addition. 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 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 home would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent street and would not impede in 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 unusual circumstances which impact all of the homes in this subdivision due to the public dedication of 39~' Place and the 30' required setback. The neighborhood is unique in that there are a lazge number of nonconfornung setbacks. However, none of the homes have encroachments to the extent of this application. The addition could be reduced in size, lessening the need for such extreme variances. 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 Architeclural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. WA-07-20Benallo IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMNIENDATIONS Staff has concluded that there are unique circumstances due to the property having three street frontages, however that the extent of the requests is excessive. There aze alternafives such as reducing the size of the addition, lessening the need for a variance on at least one side. For these reasons, Staff gives a recommendation of Denial for vaziances on three sides. Staff would support the variances on two sides with the following conditions: 1. The addition be built consistent with the applicanYs Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. 2. All existing outbuildings be removed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The existing driveway on the south side of the home be removed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 4. A brick wainscoting three feet in height matching the original home be provided on all three street elevations. i 6 WA-07-20Benallo _300k lo % Aye- z/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N \ W E I Scale I" = 50' 50 50 50 50 HA RLAN COU RT A Subdivisicr nt part of lhe S% NE%sSE%+SWY. Se ction 24 T 35. R69Ai Li- -i 5(~-s ueoir 166 , . ~ W 40-^ QVENLi F ~T I io OI 40 ~ 35 Illn _ r 152 .C 7 0$ I30 . I . 'O !a951 y ~ ct i 4 1 -y ~ ~ 1 f39 b ~ 6 (396F) OI ~i rn~v ya ec.e rrocr y +s not incmesa IF 'niz suceIvision X- ej_~~4 / 5 u'bJ PROTECTIVE COVE_PJANTS a. ea eijne.ny or svP cm.e snan see eren.o, nmcea a auerea any owmFnq oior; rn's ,~eei.i ~on ~nri rne nuimmq oioss, spicllicarions on0 plot plon shawing 1ha iocclion ol sucM1 Ouiltling o sbuchre hove been vpOroveO w'rilinq Cs 'o ganeral plan anA ure~~oi aesqn anc oz ro 1acar- ot mao. :~rvUOr~ ~rn asoem lo orope.fy ane seroocx imes ey roe momvmer er his It9ally aOFOinHE ogeui, succasaoi ne'r or oes'qn B. No ^oxrO or alfensive 'ra0e or acbvi/y sholl-OS conducteC upon anyloln , 0a11 onytNnqOe Jone IFereon wNCa moy Ee or Oecome an a noypnce ar nmsance o Me neigpborOOOE. 6 lo arel+ino s1io/1 be ereuea or o«miftee o+ ony lor wirn a g,aun0 tlao' mea +clusive pf -story apen Porches onE yoroqes less Man 720squaro faO forOLn91e sbry struc~urea mlesa!han 6$0 SQm!e flet fOI mJlt Ero/y StfYGfYle3. D M. Oesemenl, fen; sbacF, qaTvpe, Ge,n o roiler, or any o,her ou11Uiltlinq shall Le cupieE o, see as e esidence iemOe`arily / OermanOnfly, na osho11 any em0o+ory 5huclu~G he occupiGE as a resrOence excepl by special wrBlen parmission Irom ihe sAEEii- fG.rs £or o DerioO nof to nrceed su moMns Ourinq c nslruclion a, Oe,manenl Eulltlmqi. J I ~ I J ' I C7 ~ 0 7 9 z l _ I 161195~ I (64'65i I fFUiS! D E D I C A T I 0 N NNOW ALL MEX Bv iXESE PflE5ENT5; Tx/i I[ rxE uxvEnalfllEO, EJNarG C. Yoare 1 0vn.r of oll af /ne bllowny 0esmMtl I/aCl ei sv''fa a[r< is fM SW -q rx[ S' hHE/SEUSWV ar 5[nmx 2aT35, X69W o1 ix[ 6Tx pX. . uuro ITUX iPf[f5 a JAv(yUEf VXOEa tM[ X M . ix syHPRLPN LCOURT f u~sxowY aX Miv[L^~<[o i RAN: AND WT x[s[ • Scnn OO n~ ixL Cau.ivJ x ff~[~90xY• eEE SMIt[. 0, SxE Y9E 0y TxE /YMLIC.tIL v [ IthE ^x itMflS ]xOM OX iI 0 YN'. IN V T E55 wNE E0l' n[ lve IumxID fues.xero aon xuq up fui ixn 3iwr c' . s. c... . ~ Lo ♦ ei J[nuewl°.s. M[ e(wui~0~ gi ~ MaM UN GOURT rAs acxxv+leoeeo eeaac r r~usmr or m~Y .yyr R ca.am c. vaureu. Yf k s` w. w.~ns~m canRc. Fea. f39251 . ~✓/{~y(y~./ O ~ ~ II NOTPRx PUBLIL I ~ APPRGVALS ~ 109 =J 30 ~ o` PVPNOYEO V INE JEFfER$ON COVHiY PLINNING BOARO MII `30~~ ouv aei ° W 3 9 ' - " A V E N U E UP sE~,~, C • .~A -~n r~ .u."He (E1Fl~~ - ~ . orne~cr sE ~ i - O ll~ b A f'THAN PR SRe. ~ • + K Nor .~ea~.~e.e . Sh4E%y5E'/a5W%a .~eeox ~s i c<cr.m n n~ eovxn xrrtw COiaueq axon a r nxi77-2onr a j - y.w.~.. ~ e~. aUenc+ m 1x1 rouw~w wxwnos1 rxE crvnr ww oxou- I~AX •.a.~n~xce a.a. sw. ueuc xAr, wAX a.Rr ow. urNA c.nw a e. vnaucimii..vo...~m n.xe mem.~ans. . v SYGM ANN •ao 0 ar,L xAs eC " V a bOpFO OFC OUNiTLOMMISSIOXFNS ;f-,a M1LFi[A..A r'4 i- (AAM1~~ . CGU1r+ ~ CxunMw Q[mf . E. An o r is Ieei +1ee .ea ea,y ai+ r mi ,ma ana5 re mer .;ae oioly ou s~aa ior rnez ro, ur;iuy .o~umlon mo n;nicnance. a .;9ni.al-woy I: ,e:mvee fa, nNgoilon abcF.es sbovn onihe oIe1. c rn.se ccvenanrx .u ..;rn rne ione ana :n n c- e u pan;e: cmrmng uneer mem unn donuorr 4 is]f, o n' n rm< m<r ShOI, O¢ OulOmOfi[OII; eFtpntlCO /Or S Ce55-VC 1 y plri0O5 unl¢55 by a vole o/ M1e ow^C ol o majoiify . " I zai9 _ovnm" ore RM1en chan9CGIn wpole ar In pa11, G. involiaalion ^ ony o1 t0ese _nnntx Uy Juegmmt or Lourf OrOer shal!i HiSH alfeci,o+y of 1dc o/her /novisins wM1lep shollO .emain m lull loice an0 ellecl. ~ i ~ I ~ I ~--1- a------J a. t 1 y.. EN6IMEER'S GEPTIFlGIIE - I, P.H.NYRAIS. flfE1Si[IIFU CIYII EAGIFCCII iX Tx! $II}E ! + COL011A001 x[ 4Fe p 00 nvA o NPRLPN GOUFT vVm, Ano ixsi i Nnnc vur •nuv •xo Ila~lxp~ LIr E.v~x[[n q~a^ fYi0v1910X - ^~d R[ ie ~ Si F G 4,~Y0t S3. CaV J[ ffttOx) ~ s:C. een •xo sxonx ro eva.e xe nis f- e.Y G ~ • ♦ P.N.N M+ COMMI551oM [xI ln(iy~LY'~?~%/ CLEXK-•o flECOfl0EW5 CERTIFiLplE ACCILITER r M tK .IC[ OF [ Jmcmw Gnuxn EtuE rv PttORo[n rt Gaeoex . I ' a. 4a~an eo rx 5 o . Q' . s'. ' . EXHIBIT 1 k ~v EXHIBIT 2 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 , O . ~ L C C q..:~ Ln co LO :q C) Lo e 0 co O O m O f9 O . F eg::, /N y,4 Lq,U c•oa,er SUBOfY/S/O.U PG4T odsEO iu S~k NE'/s SE,'(s SiY#sY 9ECT/O.U 14, 735, .P6'9t4/ C/TV OF N!HEATR/DGE, ,/EFFE.2606/ COU.VT,Y STATE OF CO[oRA00 LOTS ; 2, 3, 4, 7 g 9 AND ,(q ///oLOS/V£ ~ WfST 407H. AI/ENUE ` ' - I ~J ~ ~ .a ~ mr ¢ 107- 3 Zor2 . ^ Wli Ela ~ W/t Erx . SO•. I SD' . ~ ' -WES7 39T,W . PLACE _ ~ V ~ HEREBY OEO/C T ATED o ro . V] . W V ' ~ [OT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 ~ W'x F"< ~ W 1t EIt i o - • ~ ~r ra• m• ~o mz:s ~ • w WEST 3 9TH. Al/E,U!/E ~ /09' 9D' s~ a LOT / LOT /O ~ ~P b W..F9 7H. AYE S t COR.SEL. 24 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 10~ iA ~ ` ti ~ ~ bI MFUZION` aw 1u, m ei FVUe evsrxes: iwx va M uxovsic~, auxvs or ~mx ~r aa eun oe wtt no~s L. 3, o. 7. S. s. liem w via.nsive or aw..x cwrs SNDIVIfIWI. CISS OEV6ASlID2. JEPlFA5011 CpAR. Sid2[ OP COW.W. YVC IJi➢. Wf '[9E SUVM 19.Z6 2R AF LOLS l. S. J. /.m 6 ACL. ItlD lII NO6S6 20.74 PQt OI Wt5 S. 9. !m IO I11CL. N CdIUSC A 00 FOOS YI9E [ICH[-➢l-V1Y Wl A$iRECI 65 9fl]Id W! i915 Plf.t MD !T StlE4F PKSp1I5 W 4LYt Yb aMVLi R SQ RSS- OF YpAA206Q. COIAABO. IX FII 5ffiIS. POe 1VE OS[ OE Si %ISLIC. , GWGC L. JllV35 IM 1 r IMSI T. JRPS PJf LOf J/ tlfD[XE [..JNYIS VlI 1 F. a lCR4 ~CN JYVS 6y LOT WIG9i 3. SW. 30.. Ibl 1 W[EV B..{LI]NL IM i acxn.n. sma wt x ~-ti-tlY SL.q. rwicu N. eu~ Wc dYL6 E. /YMSYMi~ CUNIIE E. CYIRI.W WT u.werz v. ..xsxmno 3 r E COi ] lOPIQ E. C4PBSAX IOS roecva.vs L. xxaius(l~~~s~ LOT 3 ocua a. euavs WF. a~ B]MSL L. S9WM4 Mf IOS 3 y~y~{ SSAR fALUY.~W OP ~ pOMY,p T. SCMI..W~/ f.S IOS 4 ~iyi.~ ee . CONR4 OF JLR@SIX1 . . 1LLLG1~C2 SClIILI.1m E~1 lM 4 /J I9 PH SSAR OP WIM~00. A NRLLY PW.[C MNI¢ C. BIMLI 'F. LOT 4 ~ UO .~ECi GOKIrt TIAT ONS igISE XN6f .VP6AH AbV6. W YW BRE . . ~ P[0.50XLLI.Y RPd1P t0 Iff. .NPWm ![FOR[ tN P650N. NN ''~ApYLmQ.U J.VdYN S. fl2C1QLA NI IM 4 StCXm1N[S RAS. y TN fiELID N. lON.UI iM11 LOT A1 ~0~ ~I L~ E CIKP NfiM M1' . ANO MI'MI.LL SEV, tMI$ ~UAY OF aB OL`~i C~O~. LEW.p N. B01I.L1O Ey UIS ] ~ N'[ COl~RSSIUN @I8f3 /O- /.M MO0.E5$ SS i41O'Jf . ~'w. / " /0 q~ CaLafNDO 0019P15 I. lCNALIO WSi(E4 WS . i ~ ~ , \ SllGK ~ GYLM~ ~ Iq[MY PVlLLC. lEffEflY L. N1I2E NO /A/'K.~Y.~ . . IWEN R. flIGGIHS O MI~ . . MXMA M. VC4NN1 MI Wi 9 FH4SNLG5 C£BiIFIGiE I. NGQIE L. PAIXfN, A QGISSEAm %AlT95ZOPFL OWINHCR .Wp Wlp $Y6VklOR IN SIIB SLA4[ OF COI4MW. MPmP COITiFIGiLS tMi 26 STlCB} AS SMWI! A$-V 39tF PIACE 4A5 9URV[{m BY 14 ON 1NC WAINm M4 }IYS.}9E SICLY~LRS. LMES~ CV12CR5 YiL ASPXALt PIVMENS L[[5 VISRIH lHL PIGM-0z IS PWttm yR YXI.S SPFAL 4.~5 NO PRIVA}E SThUCMFS INR0ICPIXG IV[0 INf 4SYEC! 0.IGXSbF-VAY. P.E. 6 L.1. 2065 eeemv.~cs uepovra ewmnw cwnssxon. cxn ae vxvwntxoe[ n SECPESKY ~r~CNAIRII/uV . . . eeepweo oee.uTl6Xi eaxt or rwuc wnrs -Y . 1 L r~li~ ~IRECIOe . }OVm MPN PI1MINC f'DEVEIAtIXR e. APPlOL'm BY 111E CIR WVXCIL OP 49[~IIi➢4E. IXI 1pHpE .2*x DAY OP 19g~. ~A.Z, ~ X1YOR . bapcivn Xo. dfCII3ID !00. PfLINE ➢1 E¢ O~PtCLOF' TLL W011'iT 4LFJF YW Y60JtDlt OF RRVSON WNRT AS OOLINP, COIAUDp O. 5?atR U/s 0[ ~19ffi~~0'~ . ~ EXHIBIT 4 IFa WEST 39th PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY i 0• ~ T 1 ~Y I I t - i i ~I I~ LOT 8 ~I b 0 II j'N ==J~ ~yq^~ I p~ I n F 1 1 ~ ~ i I ( ~ V]: Ey O K • I d m ax a.~ Q ` s o z,a C 7i 7a i 1 I I ~ j Ip e.~- 1 I~ ~ F Y--__ - ~ 6 ~pM PROPERTYLINE I e ~~3 BS.OT _ 7152' 33" W I ~ WEST 39th AVENUE 40' RIGHT-OF-WAY ~ I ~ ~ Y ~ I - J 1 ~ SITE PLAN 1/8• - V-0• . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: WEST 7/2 8 THE EAST 1/2 OF L0T 7, HARLAN COURT LOCATED IN TNE SOU7HWEST 114OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. CI7Y OF WHEAT RIOGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COIORADO - - - - ~ EXHIBIT 5 , 189'53'07'E fROPERTY LINE 100.09 111E ~ Fi 30`i o,e~ ~OsP E,~m32 ~ i LOiR2uui . Bll 5p. Fr, Exi DRIVE H. s,iNc WSE ~ i ism xi r.. L.OZ' 7 I 10,375 SQ. FT. ~ (6,348 OPEN SPACE - 62%) Mtlre¢dBqOpOR)CF. Philip & Shamn Benalb PhiliD 8 Shamn Benalla m g O d. N c4 m w K ~ W U Z W 0 y W w Q J J Q Z W m o m ~$n c mam d mmy L ~ ~mN ao d a F~ m ~ v Y 6 9 c 3 ~Q p Y m ~ O = ; Z O a a Z g v a w w o ~ N W w N JEFFERSON COUNN WHEAT RI~GE SITE FIO a C EXTERIOR ELEVATION (NORTH) 1/4" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATION - (WEST) 1!4" = 1'-0" _ EXHIBIT 6 f~ YC[n9 RKR 0.<R Y ~ta ~a / b o 0 0 X ° o ' EXTERIOR ELEVATION (EAST) 1/4" = 1'-0" m "s ~ ~ 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIOtN (SOUTH) 114" = 1'-0" EXHIBIT 7 I . oAJ " - Of~ c.~_i 1 i~ • I ~ ~ I L . ~ JL~ r 7 i nc~~! ~61-rc :i I f~. ~ L~ J l~'u il: f~ r L t ~ ~ Li ~ ~a.: vieil'[TV tM~BCIIE OXNEP'S CFATIFtG.iE: BENALLO CONSdUDA110EN PLAT A Final Plat Consolidating thg West 1/2 & the East 1/2 of Lot 7. Harlan Court, -Located in the SouthNest 1/4 of S@ction 24, Township 3 South, Ran9e 69 West of the 6th P.M.,. City of Wheat Ritlge, County of Jefferson. State of-COlorado. - Sheet 1 of 1 m~~m, ~u.m ~ I ~ py ' • C-1 I ~ ~ F~~q.u I xanM~ oF ~ I LIIE 'IIB9'S3'GS'E 496 50 (K) i4%A' (fl) J m~~ w wm. °w°F*r ~ . v ~ um ~ ~ ~ y~ I0 W d8 *~f~U ¢0 U i~ W W IEIt➢X 0R1 111(6~ w rvxma rc(.r~rt9~{/~""sfr. w.r ~(p errt Y ~ W@O GM1iE T! TF CIlY 0 +~a M ~ ~ I ~Tyey ~ ~ GB ~ ~ - Sf ~IMg TAIB~ MItEN L [1E9. y Uk~E11~iN1. PoIP4 ~ LS9118 ~LL , . er.re s cwauw . ~ SS Ca/NiV W ..@PFPSAI iME F BJCA~E.~~I1(6 IMSINEaIl~11~48 .WN~~O OEF~d~~Ea ~~E~ iH19lC'l(C WY 6G~ I..O.. eu~si.oY y== xo u4. wr waeewx vnmte z=.=,p~~ L~/ h.LL.~,~ ~ ey CItt CEIXII TIqA' ~s ~ Y Cf ~ NO). BY 1X[ 2°iC'.°`'~° 199 5< W. 40TH AVENUE 40' AIGHT-OF MAY - i N89'53 41 E 9%.51 110 396.1' (A) _ 1 q I 00 ¢ I Z I O ~ . ~ I IO I Y z I ti I ~ ~ 2M1 T- F m i ¢ N88'S9'09'E iGG26 52 (q 426.< lPl ~ ^ I °o d a ~ ' (39TN PL X 39TH PLACE IO RIGHT-OF MAY ACE HOAOMAY OEOICATION PLA7 !#C. MO 88063162) n ~I j z ' 1W.0' lM~ 100' 1 ~ - ~ ~ ~ i ~j ^ N m ~ _ U y a ~WT~ur~[i ~ I . I . ~ . ~e m Zg ^ I j ~ . tl 4 iu N m f6bl f ~TR6 1 Ib~T ] ~ ~pi 2., I wt~ n^ ~ I i i ~ I I O ~ Ig I.~ I< < 2 , Q I ~ N ~ ' N I ~ . I MY~PoIM ~ I I 1~ ~ 85.0) ' M193'(P) W . ` elNl[Me ` 311.97 - ' 1 ~ I ~ Jb fr ~6.51 598'S2 93'M 396.54' (IU 3% 1' lPl Q! I 4:~ 39TH;AVENUE 40 RI6NT-OF-1WfAY ~ L 598 •112 39'M d9G.35' lX) ~%.1 IW P11 93f.6' ~ a0 ~r ~ I I 4e ~ m ~ oJ f I I ~ ~ LECAm: .p 0 - ruMO ve- im,n xp un p . FouM La• XBAR W W • - aer ve` a v wan xi nm wanc W xa nem ~ ~$Ei I.MLNOP 6 ALWIMN i~B GLS Zl'.R9 W. ~ IE161NE0 ~u-iacamco BF.NEWL NOiE6: fl 8 OF BEM~g~ AIE T L W i1f i U.UF l~E S/~ 6 t~TIDN t1.E/914~-0 3$WJIH y~{ LB~y(~~ ~~pg~~g~y MCON. Y~in M~.l ~YH~' NiERFH~p, ~IN~~RI.NiNE T~IMACTI. v a . ~ * . .,M ~ ~ .m`~~ ~ aT.~`~"~°~~'~'~~ MiB 9brvEM Lff! W@1BlIYUrt . TtR£ %ANM iD pEtET~OE 61IBbMID. OM 1) .K zaux's or ~ vxoKx*r ca x-a. vex cxrv rc wu. nmE mxnie. 159' cM S 6 f~~ Ri n~ , i~OT L ~ iwa" T'wP~~l. 7 ~T. ILIF~MI~ StpVETbV'S CEPTIFICATE x, omus ♦ swrvs wn ~x ra er ic or .m, m' anr~' iww a~ mn nwr. ne M+ xnd ~s "im 2]269 W !tll Y9 W F ~ ~'~'~iruemp ~ ~W~ . PF . ~~mno ~aew.,m~rxs m . CWNiY CiFAK AND P€COHOLi15 LFATIFICATE . I MlTV ~SIIIIM TWT iXFt P4i MLS PItW IM liE OFF 6 ilE COIIIfY fJJYt .~M 6..fM1H6M NMY 1 caauoa arT320'o.~r.2.x. w ~ 2@~a4r J ~ GflAPMIC 9C41E S'NO' 0 40 80 120 EXHIBIT 8 _r lETE9 C BqROS LEBAL 9E9qiIPTIpt ~rt esr'~/p yu~oy ye.peI,~r u~ a iur ~ waixyI(~ ~p~l,lellN 6 rK~'T11Nr1W • . l~ ~ r xor a~ cm r.n.. xue s~x~~o ~ m Esr ~~wI M EMII.I~EV IpEM~MIiBEN.•• • P9x 1 E~MOP~1l RM Kt 12/13/2007 7:24 PM FROM: Fax T0: 3032352857 PAGE: 002 OF 002 Dec.13,2007 7317 Braun Way Arvada, CO 80005 itm City of tNTheai Ridge Planning Division 7500 W. 29' Ace. Wheat Ridge, CO 86033 RE: Case No. WA-07-20 Following are my comments regarding Case No. WA-07-20. As property owner of an adjacent property (6090 W, 39'h Ave,), ! am not opposed to an addition to a single family home. However, a 33% to 50°1a setback vaziance on three sides of the property at 6088 W. 39t' PI. seems excessive. The proposed vazianees seem to allow for a building to iand ratio that is out oF proportion with most of the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. In addition, not having at least one setback of 30 feet is out of cliaracler with neighboring homes. It would seem that an addition could be built with an allowable variance on one or at most two sides; or a much lesser variance on all Uvee sides. I am also concerned the variances, if ailowed as is, would permit the future buiiding of a sizcable multi-family unit in an azea of generally small one level homes. Again, the building W land proportion would be out of character, and as such, a detriment to the neighborhood. Thank you for ihe oppor[uniry to comment. - Ci- S. A. Burson EXHIBIT 9 Community Development 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303.235.2846 Fax:303.235.2857 The Crty of Wheat Rldge Variance Criteria for Review Staff uses the set of criteria listed below to critically evaluate a variance request when they are performing their review. Applicants must also submit a written response to each of the applicable critetia with their application for a variance. The critena listed below are applicable to all variance cases with the exception of the final two criteria, which are not applicable for variances for properties with single family and two family dwelling units. The responses must reflect why a variance should be granted. The community development director, board of adjustment, planning commission or city council shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates a majority of the following criteria have been met: 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 regu]ation for the district in which it is ]ocated. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial inveshnent in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. D. The particular physical suaounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. F. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfaze 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, substanrially 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. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. H. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. EXHIBIT 10 QUESTIONAIRE FOR VARIANCE CRITERIA REVIEW FOR 6088 WEST 39TH PLACE A. Subject property would not yield a reasonable return, service or income if not permitted for variance applied for due to minimal square footage of existing dwelling (806 square feet, two bedrooms and one bath). The approximate 10,600 square foot lot can and should be used to accommodate a more serviceable residence. B. The proposed application for variance would not alter the character of the locality as the neighborhood has much larger homes both single family and duplex/tri- plex/four-plex type housing. Proposal will enhance the character of this area. C. Yes, the applicant is proposing a"substantial" investment in the subject property which would not be possible without the proposed variance. D. Subject property does present particular and unique hardships upon the owner due to lot being somewhat of a peninsula; as subject is surrounded by three streets, 39`h Place on the south, Ingalls on the west and 401h on the north. The setback requirement due to said three streets creates an extreme hazdship on owner as these restrict and/ar limits unproving the serviceability of subject property. E. The unique nature of subject property does create a hardship on current owner. Current owner has not created hazdship, as unique nature of property location being sided by three streets was created apparently by original developer in the 1950's. F. Definitely, the proposed vaziance would not be detrimental to the public or be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. In fact the proposed variance would be advantageous to the neighborhood by improving the neighborhood values, site usage specific to subject property by updating and improving subject property value. No additional congestion on public streets will occur with this variance as the proposal improves existing residence and does not substantially increase number of occupants at subject property. Applicant has letter from local fire jurisdiction with no conflict to proposed improvements and no endangerment to public safety will occur. G. The neighborhood due to age is quite unique in iYs self and the unusual location of subject property requires said request for variance. Applicant does not believe the variance request is unique to subject property. H. N/A 1. N/A + 4Y O: ~ O a P 7 € ~ s 77, 77OW N a 4 ~ LJ ~'~1 ~ O XHIBIT 11 a I A~~EW H~T h'i0 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT °~toaaao TO: Board of Adjustments CASE MANAGER: Adam Tietz CASE NO. & NAME: WA-07-24/Stor DATE: January 24, 2008 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 5 foot setback requirement resulting in a 0 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential One C(R-1C). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3025 Eaton Street APPLICANT (S): Karen Stor OWNER (S): Kazen Stor APPROXIMATE AREA: 6,250 square feet (.14 acre) PRESENT ZONING: Residential- One (R-1C) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Home ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE ( ) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Locai~ ~ O11N OIf15 NI30 WI51 aon Map 2~ ~ E ~ ~I wis cvss I I I oa~m mvn ~ t~~+ I onro ami wvo wm~ ~'I iM' .f2IDI0) ~ BID85 OA% Bld9~ II q 031W i ~ % 3 Z OIOR I4l0]i ~ 1Di6 I UlJti i. lr j- ~2 BIDIb O~n i OWY ~ BM15 . ~AII I ~ I I _ I IemaR-1C ama Q i omse !II_ e~eas V s36Y w i Wa~ z~.y i ~ ~ ~~k ~'3+ 0%N g OIDID I O1405 ~ a~ea gv.~"' ~ omm Lxr,9 di~ Y~i s~omaz owei ~ S1tPi Hszi, r oau mx - azss~ ~~s ! R-1 I rr$ ' omn I'wu i~ ann I Boazd of Adjustment 1 WA-07-24/Stor All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case. 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 5 foot side yazd setback variance for the u ose of replacing an existing carport, resulting in a 0 foot setback. . All other development standazds have been met. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to heaz and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standazds are required to be heazd at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANLYSIS The applicant, Kazen Stor, is requesting the above variance as the property owner of 3025 Eaton St. The property is located on Eaton St. between W. 30`h Ave. and W. 32"a Ave. in an R-1C zone district. The applicant wishes to construct a 188 s uaze foot, attached, wood frame carport in order to replace an exisung metal carport The R-1C zone district allows for single family dwelling units and accessory structures. The pro ert currentl contains a single family home with an attached dilapidated, metal carport There is also a detached gazage located in the northwest corner of the property. The lot is 6,250 square feet and 50 feet wide. The R-1C zone district allows for malcimum lot coverage of 40%. Based on a lot size of 6,250 squaze feet, 2,500 square feet of lot coverage is allowed. The home and detached garage cover approximately 1,393 square feet or 22.3% of the lot. The new carport increases the lot coverage to 1,581 square feet or 25.2%. The properties in the surrounding azea aze also very small and contain homes, detached gazages and other shuctures constructed within the required setbacks, if not all the way up to their respective property lines ~~"!~~;1' ~ ui'~ ~Y. The current zoning code was adopted after the azea was platted in 1917 and many of the homes and accessory stnactures would not be allowed to be constructed as they aze, if they were rebuilt today. Over the past 10 yeazs there have been 6 approved variances to side and front setbacks in the immediate vicinity and numerous others within this azea of Wheat Ridge. The most recent was approved in 2004 when side setback variances were approved at 3101 Chase. The carport that is cunen8y on the property is constructed of inetal and was already in place when the property owner purchased the home in 1973. Over the yeazs, the carport has weathered and come to a state where it can no lon er be re aired. The roof has many holes and lazge dents due to snow loads The way the roof Board of Adjustment 2 WA-07-24/Stor angles towazd the home also causes water to come through the wa11s of the home during rain and snowmelt. The new carport's roof will slope away from the home in order to prevent any further water damage from accruing inside the home. In addition, the new carport will be wood frame with a shingled roof which will be sturdier, safer, and last longer. It will also be more visually appealing, match the home better, will add significant value to the home, and will be an addition to the neighborhood. The current carport extends all the way to the northen property line. While the request for the variance is to allow for a 0 foot setback the carport to be constructed will actuall constructed be one foot from the property line resulting in a 1 foot side yard. SEEM. 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 rovided their analysis of the applications compliance with the variance criteria . 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 likely still yield a reasonable return. The property currently has a single family home with an attached carport and it may remain in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicants would still be able to keep the existing carport. Staff finds 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. Since the proposed carport will be 1 foot further away from the property line than the existing carport, the impacts to adjacent properties would be minimal. In addition, many of the lots in the area have homes, carports, garages, and sheds that aze built in the required setback azea. Staff fmds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, wlrich would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing an investment in the property that will result in a positive outcome to the chazacter of the neighborhood and will nnprove the Boazd of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor existing conditions on the property. The investment will not be possible without granting of a variance as requiring the carport to conform to the side yazd setback would result in a carport that would not be wide enough to accommodate a vehicle. The new carport will also protect the home from further water damage which has occurred as a result of the existing carport. Providing a solution to this problem will further enhance the home and the improvements that have been put into it. 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 hardslup (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulatioas were carried out. The surrounding physical conditions have resulted in a hazdship on the property owner. The applicant wishes to construct a carport to replace an existing carport which is in poor condition and was built prior to the owner purchasing the home. Due to the size of the lot, which was not created by the owner, it would be impossible to construct the carport according to the plans without a variance. If the carport complied with the 5 foot required setbacks it would only leave a 5 foot wide opening which is not wide enough to accommodate parking a vehicle under the carport. 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. The hazdship described above relates to the location of the proposed carport, to replace an existing one that does not meet current development standazds and was built prior to the current owner having an interest in the property. It is within the nature of the surrounding neighborhood to have very small lots in which variances are needed in order to place sheds, build gazages and to make other improvements to property. Staff finds this criterion has 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 tlrings, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of 6ght and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in pubGc streets or l Board of Adjustment 4 WA-07-24/Stor 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 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 home would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent street and would not impede in 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. The circumstance necessitating the variance request is the fact that the existing carport was built beyond the applicable side yard setback minimum standazds. This condition is not unusual or unique and does occur on other properties in the neighborhood. 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 dwelling units. Staff fmds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIIENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends approval of the 5 foot side yazd variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant Board of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The request will not alter the chazacter of the neighborhood. 2. The construction of the new carport will be a substantial investment in the property. 3. The proposed carport wIll be a substantial improvement from the existing conditions. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfaze. 5. The variance would result in the addition having a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. 6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding azea, as a majority of the homes, sheds, and gazages in the area have been constructed within the required setback azeas. 7. The hardship has not been caused by the applicant. 8. The improvements will prevent further water damage to existing improvements and the home. 9. There were no objections received for the vaziance during the 10 day public noticing period. With the following conditions: l. The materials used and azchitectural detail shall be complimentary to the existing improvements and home. 2. The carport be constructed as proposed; 1 foot from the property line rather than having the ability to be constructed up to the property line. Boazd of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor 3025 Eaton St. Wheat Ridge, Colorado December 15, 2007 City of WZieat Ridge 7500 West 29t' E:venue NVheat R idge, Colarada Baard of Adjustrnent: I atn subtnittuig tlus request to replace an existing carport Iocated at 3025 F..aion SE, in Wheat Ttidge. When 1 rreaved into this hause on Janvarv• 1, 1973, the carport was on the praperty. Af'ter more tlian thirty-five years, the snQw and rain have taken its tull. During the winter of 2006-2007, di-ainage off the carport raoF dripped into the house between the starn3 door and the entry door and possibly behind the siding located west of the de,ar. My major concern is the slope of the roof aver the north door_ which creaLes avalley chat aliows -vvater to flow toward the house_ The carport raaf itself sliows rnultiple depressions frprn snpw loacl and Ieaks where ihe alumim.un shceting resis an the sugpprting mel'al edges. Refer ta Attaclunent 3pichcrc A attd Allachmeac 7. ~ AttachFnent 1, picivres A<[nd 13 shaw the eristing stntcturc looking wesi. Attachment 2 p is the proposed carpoit pEa3i looking west. Ailaclvnent 3 picture A sliows the undersicie af the carport roaf and lioca tlxe rain and snaw meit riin directly into the siding af'the W house. Attachment 3 picture B is a view of the existing carport looking southwast. Attaehtnent 4 is the prcapased carpnrt plan lookiEig soutii. A4tac}tment 5, pictures A and B shaw the existiixg structure look'sng east. At#ac3uneiit 6 is Utc proposed carport plan looking east. Attachment 7 is a picture of the roof'tqp and a feu= of the multipfe attempts I have made by patching with tar, cauli;ing and silicone to stop the lcaks. None af these effc>rts worked. Iwould tike to remavue and reptace lhe existing c:irpori rvith a niw s[ructure diat has a roof pitch away £rorn the liouse. Alt of the proposed carport ptans (ilttachments 2, 4 and 6) reflect a roofline slaping from soutif to nordi at a;'x 12' pitch. I£ yau need additional infonnaYion, please lec nze know. Th:nik yau far yonr time attd cffort in lielping me complete this praject. Verv sinc;erely, J~ Karen Stor 303.237.7292 Board of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor scaLE y - z6p. COLORADO INGINEERING 10, 93-17765 iT liURY ifYIN4T INY. (3'Y'ONE ) 3970 9a. 8hermen 9t, Suito 8• Enqlawaod, Coloradc 60330 • 761-8055 Surveyrng Calorado Since 1972 + FAX: 761-084 i r ~ ; 7-s. r • k ,'nv Nevdcarport -4 O"e- v\ ~ - - ~G • nj ,,Yfl ' ~ r . uaL d ~ M e ~ N x K W LEGA2, DESCRTP'i'ION: LOT 15, BLQCK fi, OE.INGER GARDENS, EXCEPT THE REI#R 8 FEET OF SAID LC3`Pr COTSNTI' OE` JEFFERSDN, S2'ATE UF COLORAAO. ALSO fCiIt3WN AS 3025 EATDN ST ~ Boazd of Adjustment 8 WA-07-24/Stor A M ~ t ~ M,. -kz go AttACYnhE~Tr 3 ~ w Board of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor It A ~ iG F~ 0 Site ~ Properties with structures in 5' side yard setback Board of Adjustment 10 WA-07-24/Stor ~ ~ 1 4 _ - ~ n . ~ ~ .D k W A`ftk c O(v1E NT Board of Adjustment 12 WA-07-24/Stor ~ ~ ~ w A7tACN;t;ENT 7 Board of Adjustment 11 WA-07-24/Stor I my,~ xNa wm~ ~ W < ~ityr r- L ~ M ~ W ~ ~ o ~ N w ~ O r ~ O ~ LG ~ ~ a a ~ K ~ i x 04 Y y yT LI^~~ 00 Y ~ ~ ~ _ i Q ^ \ W Y ❑ ~ ~ y0 C\ ~ N w , O ~ O ~ P1 ~ l u i ~ ~ O ~ W 2 s 00 t`n', rn N A v~ iC W Y 14 ~ ~ O ~ N O ' ~ ~ O ~ W ~ 3025 Eaton St. Wheat Ridge, Cotorado Junuary 4, 2048 City of Wheat Ridge Canununity, 17evelopment 7500 West 29°i Avenue W'heat Ridge, Colorado Board af Adjustment: Variance Criteria far Review A. The existiiig carport is 10' wide. It would NOT he usable as a carport if I replaced it with a structure 7.5' wide. E. 't'fqe variance woutd improve the essential chazacter ofttte focality and prevent additional waier darna-Lie to tite iuterior wa11s of iny house. o G. I am anticipatii3g a Yotal iiivestment cost af around $8,000.00 doflar.;. This is a ~ substantial investment in the property for n3e. ~ j D. The design of the existing carport is causing water 4o seep 'tnto ihe side of my house. T must rc:move it. I would like ta replace it with a diflerzni roaf pitch. E. Any person presently having an interesF in tiie property did not create the original carpc,rt. F. TIZe granting of ilie variance wuuld ntrk be detriinental to the puhlic welfare or injurious io odtee propertv car improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is lacatecl. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating Ehe varianee request are unique to this property. 1 have not found a similar situatfon witiiin this ❑eighborhood. Thank you fur }=our tinxe and efT'ort in helg"sno nae complete this project. Very sincer/ly, ~ Karen Stor 303 '137.7292 kastpr@i;cctmcast. net ~ Boazd of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor 16 3025 Eaton 5t. Wheat Ridge, Colorado TJecember 15, 2007 Ciry of VJhzat Ridge 7500 West 290'Avenue LVheat Ridge, Calorado Board oPAdjustment: I am submittuig diis reRuest to replace an existing carport locatcd at 3025 Faion St. in Wheat kidge. When 1 mpved into thas 6ause on January 1, 1973, the carport was on the property. Afier more thaii thirty-five years, the snow and rain have taken its toll. During the winter of 2006-2007, draiuage off the carport xoof drigped inFo the liouse between the starni door and the entry door and possibly behind the siding located west ol'the dpor. ]viy major concern is the slope of the rpof aver the north door, wluch creates avalley khat aIfows water to flow towazd the house. The carport roo£ itseif slio4ms mullipte depressions from snaw loaci and leaks where tlie aluminwn sheeting res4s cm the supporting ntetal edges. Rafer Yo Altachinent 3picturc A and Aitachment 7. ~ Atiachment 1, pictutes A and B show the existing slnicturc laQking west. Atiachrrkent 2 p is the proposed carport p6aii looking wesE. Ariaclunent 3 picturc FL shows the underside k a€the carport ronf and laow the rain and snow me[t run direetly into the siding of the W Irouse. :4ttactiment 3 picture R is a vieur of'the existing carpori taoking souihwest. Attachment 4 is the proPosed carport plan lvoking soutii. Attachnrent 5, picte3res A and B show the existine structure looking east. At#achtnent 6 is the proposed carport Plan looking east. ,Attachment 7 is a pdcture nFthe roof top and a few of the multiple attempts I have made by patehing with tar. caulking and silicone to stop the leaks. None of these 4'ffoT[5 WUTkCCI. Iivould like to remove and replace the existing carport witli a neev sEructure that has a roof pitch awap from the liouse. All of the propost.d catport pPans (Attaehments 2, 4 and 6) reflect a roofliite slapiiig from sautli to nortii at a 3'x 12' picch. If yau need additional infoniaation, please leS me know. Thank yari for ynur tinze and effort in helping me eumplete tlzis project. Very sincerelv, xaren star 343.237.7292 Board of Adjustment 7 WA-07-24/Stor ! scALE t^- rz7 CDLQRADO INCtNEERtNCr po. 43-17765 & BURY ft i ING INC. ( STONE ) 3470 90. Shermaa 9L, 9ulte 8• Enqlewaod, Colorado 90110 • 761-8055 Surveying Ca/oreda Since 1972 • FAX: 761-0847 , N ~ ~z`~ ~ ,,,}.CRGt'1 F ~.t• . i nv ~ . Newcarport ~ ~ae. • ~ ~ V ' r i-1 Lli 01. + ~ • ~ , u ~ U r K W , LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 15, BLOCR 6r OLINGER GAR.DEN3, EXCEPT Z'HE REAR S FEEY OF SAID LC}Tr COUNTY C?F JE;FFERSpN, STATE UF CC]L4RAA0. 9L30 RNQWN AS 3025 EATON ST I Boazd of Adjustment 8 WA-07-24/Stor Board of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor A B AttficHnnErsr 3 9 M P J'".. W 0 Site 0 Properties with structures in S side yard setback It ~ ~ X W Boazd of Adjustment 10 WA-07-24/Stor ,n-ri ACHM E Prr 7 ~ J~ ~ ~ ~ W Board of Adjustment 11 WA-07-24/Stor ~ < . ~ ~ . .r - . - 00 ~ ~ ~ x W ~ fl I IAcrj ,mv.i-r _i Board of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor 12 a Y O q = 2 w0 y ti K1 Y ~/1 ~ 5 , j y I F m _ . ( . ~ l + _ . . , ~ x + ~ / ~ f I li ~ cxi a~ ~ ~ ~.N \J ili 22 ~ s i ' 4 + i _ _ +~`"~1 I i__-'__ I 4 rl i ~ .I._. ~~I i ~l I/ I ` Y f o . . . . . . . . . - Q, N w , b O P1 ~ 0 a ' ~ i o$ ! 0 ~w ~ 00 Y K W S 9 } aJ Q NC F ~ N w , O~ b O P1 ~ 3025 Eaton St. Whcat Ridge, Colorado January 4, 2008 City of Wheat Ridge Commuaity Developinent 7500 1Vest 29°i Avenue GVheat Ridge, Colorado $oazd of Adjustment: Variance Criteria for Re<<iew A. 7'he existing carport is 10' wide. Ii wouldNOT he usahle as a carport if I replac.ed it with a shticture 7.5' wide. B. 'Fhe variancz would iniprave ciie essential chazacter of the toeality and prevent additional w+ater damage to tlia interior waIls of tny house. o a.+ C. I am anticspatii3g a total investment cost of around $&,OOO.Qfl dollars. This is a ~ substantial invesiment in the property For me. uj D. The desi,'n of the exisiine carporf is causing water to seep into the side of my house. I musi remove il. I would like ta repiace ii witii a differeni roof pitch. C. Any psrson presently having an interest in tiie property dicl not create the origfnal C3CjJOrt. F. '1"he granting of the variaiicc Nvpuld nut be detrifnental to ttre public welfare or injurious to otiier propcrly or improveinents in the neiohborhood in tuhich the property is tocaFed_ G. The unusual circumstances ar canditions neeessitating tlie variazice request are urtique to this property. 1 have not founa a similar sitaation witttin this neighborhood. Thank pou for your tima and effort in heIping me comp}e#e this proje+,t. Very sincer~Iy, 1 Karen Stor 303,237.7292 kastorrcn mcast n et l Board of Adjustment WA-07-24/Stor 16 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting September 26, 2007 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair BLAIR at 7:06 p.in. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present Tom Abbott 7anet Bell Bob Blair Alan Bucknam Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Betty Jo Page Staff Members Present: Travis Crane, Planner II Debra Kalish, City Attorney Aim Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to address the Baard at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ` Case No. WA-07-13: An application filed by James St. John far an interpretation of a non-profit day spa for cancer patients as a similar use to a residential group home as defined by Section 26-123 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws relating to property located at 3405 Flower Street. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The applicant is requesting an interpretation of the Zoning Code. Section 26-204 of the city code provides the ability for the Community Development Directar to interpret the Code. On February 8, 2007, the Director of Coimnunity Development made a determination that the subject use was siinilar in nature and less intensive than a residential group home for eight or fewer elderly persous (an allowed use in the R-lA zone district) and that the number of cars generated by this type of operation would be Board of Adjustrnent Minutes - 1- September 26, 2007 less than that generated by a residential group home. Based upon information provided by the operator of MY House, along with its investigation of this case, staff has concluded that the use will not have a substantial impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the original determination made on February 8, 2007 should be upheld. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Crane stated that he did not believe MY House, a nonprofit entity, is a business. Board Member BELL commented that a single family residence would generate more trips than MY House is expected to produce. Mr. Crane agreed and commented that a single family residence would produce more trips on a weekend. James E. St. John , 3480 Everett Street Mr. St. John, the applicant in this case, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He submitted the following documents into the record: ' • Copy of Mr. St. John's comments to the • Two maps of neighborhood and aerial view of the subject property • Copy of a portion of Sectiou'26-123 of the City Code. • Copies of a portion of Section 26-204 and a portion of Section 26-216 of the City Code. Copies were provided for'each Board inember. He argued that a day spa is not similar to any category of a residential group home. This use establishes a commercial and industrial use in a residential R-lA zone aud should not be allowed. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. St. Jolm stated that he lives across the lake from the subject property and his house would not be affected'by MI' House traffic. However, he was concerned for the neighbors who lived closer'to the subject property. He also stated his belief that MY House will lower property values in the neighborhood. Board Member ABBOTT asked when the aerial photo of the subject property showing cars parked in the driveway and submitted by Mr. St. John was taken. Mr. Crane stated that the photo was provided by DRCOG and was taken in the spring of 2006 before MY House was established. Board Member asked if the lake association functioned as a homeowners association. Mr. St. John stated that it was not a homeowners association but was related only to the lake. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2- September 26, 2007 Board Member BELL asked Mr. St. John how MY House differs from a single family house. Mr. St. John stated that people visiting MY House are strangers and do not know the streets and families in the neighborhood. Board Member BELL commented that she didn't see how the situation at MY House would be any different than any residence that has visitars. Further, there would be no visitors in the evening or on weekends. Mr. St. John stated that he would prefer to see residents of the subject property who would spend the night there and who would form life-long friendships with neighbars. Board Member LINKER asked if there have been traffic problems associated with MY House in the past. Mr. St. John replied that the problem is that the neighbors have no control how many people will be coming to MY House. Board Member PAGE asked if there are any regulations pertaining to the location of nonprofits within the city. Mr. Crane stated that there are no such regulations. Board Member BUCKNAM asked if there had been any police reports related to traffic problems associated with MY House. Mr. Crane stated there have been no reported traffic incidents. There has been one civil incident. In response to questions from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Crane stated that a home-based day spa business is an allowed home occupation. The subject nonprofit use is not considered to be a`business. , Debra Kalish'stated that MY House is not considered a business because it is by invitation only through referrals from hospitals and clinics for women who are being treated for cancer. Jodelene Walter 3405 Flower Street 14124 West 21s` Place, Golden Ms. Walter, operator of MY House was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She submitted the following document into the record: Booklet containing a copy of Ms. Walter's presentation to the Board on 9-26- 07 as well as background infonnation on MY House. A copy was provided to each Board member. Ms. Walter stated that she conducted a neighborhood meeting in an attempt to be a good neighbor. She also hosted an open house and a number of residents chose not to attend. She showed a DVD from two episodes hosted by Kim Christensen on Channel 9 news. The videos explained that the concept of MY House started when Ms. Walter gave massages to her friend who was going through cancer treatment This expanded to performing pampering functions for other woinen Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3- September 26, 2007 going through cancer treahnent. Ms. Walter could no longer perform these functions in her home and she needed a different location. At first she and her volunteers paid for all expenses. As the vision grew, more financial help was needed and a 501 (c) 3 corporation was formed in order to receive financial donations. MY House has no paid staf£ She stated that no fund raising activities occur at MI' House. She explained that a license to do manicures and pedicures is not necessary because cancer patients cannot have complete manicures or pedicures because of chemo treahnent. The patients are given hand and foot inassages and nails are painted. A business license was obtained in order to perform massages on patients. This involved doing background checks on volunteers. MY House does not perform any hair care on the women. A light lunch is served at noon. Patients come to MI' House once a month during their treatment. There are two patients per day for five hours"a day. There are two volunteers who perform the "pampering" services plus one'volunteer who comes in before noon and prepares lunch. This person leaves a$er lunch clean-up is finished. Ms. Walter is there at different times to bring groceries;.do landscaping, cleaning, eta She has installed a security system. She stated there would be no fund raising activities at the house with the exception of a prospective donor who would want to tour the property. She also inentioned that after the neighborhood meeting, some residents approached her and told her they were sorry they signed a petition against MY House. Some even made monetary donations. For purposes of anon}nnity, the address is not given out in any literature about MY House. Nothing has changed in the operation of MT'House that differs froin the original application given to the City of Wheat Ridge. She stated her belief that MY House is a definite asset to the community. She reguested that the Board not overrule the original decision by the Community 'pevglopment Director. (Chair BLAIR declared a recess at 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m.) In response to questions from Board Member HOWARD, Ms. Walter stated that MY House has been in operation for six and a half years. The first two years, MI' House was not a 501(C)3 corporation. Prior to being located at 3405 Flower Street, MY'House operated out of the guest house of some friends. Prior to operating out of the guest house, MY House operated out of Ms. Walter's home for four and a half years. In response to a question from Board Member BUCKNAM, Ms. Walter stated that she wanted this service to operate out of a residential house instead of a commercial business place to provide a comfortable home-like arinosphere. In response to a question from Board Member PAGE, Ms. Walter stated that fund raising activities take place away from 3405 Flower Street. Occasional volunteer Board of Adjustment Minutes - 4- September 26, 2007 meetings take place at MY House. She encourages volunteers to carpool or to park outside the neighborhood and walk in. In response to Board Member BLAIR, Ms. Walter stated that MY House presently operates Monday through Wednesday. Thursdays will be added after the first of the year and eventually Fridays will be added. MY House will not operate on weekends. In response to questions from Board Member HOWARD, Ms. Walter stated that the two bedrooms are used for manicures/pedicures and massage and no one lives in the house at night. She does come to clean the house some evenings and has installed a security system. She also stated that MY House has no paid employees. Everything is done on a volunteer basis. Jim Hoy 9140 W. 35t" Avenue Mr. Hoy was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He expressed concern that the zoning for MY House would be grandfathered in. Debra Kalish informed Mr. Hoy that there was no change in zoning and there is no precedenf setting value involved in this case. Mr. Hoy commented that group hoines liave someone sleeping there at night and is not a business use. Stephanie Cooper 3385 Flower Street Ms. Cooper was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She submitted a written copy of her comments into the record and provided copies for Board members. She stated that she balieved ~,vIY Ho'use is doing a noble thing, however it doesn't belong in a neighborhood where there are children at risk from traffic and people backing out of the driveway for MY House. ' Carol Ferris Neidiger 3210 Flower Ms. Neidiger was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She spoke in opposition to having MY House in her neighbarhood. She expressed concern about traffic danger from people coming to MY House. She also expressed coucern about massage being performed at MY House. She stated that five massage therapy schools in the Denver area teach that you should not give massage therapy to cancer patients as it causes the cancer to metastasize to other parts of the body. She stated that she contacted Channel Nine and was informed that Channel Nine would be doing a story on the impact of MY House on the neighborhood. She also stated her understanding that a group home would require a variance. Debra I{alish explained that a variance would not be required far a group home unless there would be more than eight people living there. She stated that the Walter's teenage son drives recklessly in the neighborhood. \ Board of Adjustment Minutes September 26, 2007 5- Bill Montony 8480 West 35`h Avenue Mr. Montony was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. Mr. Montony submitted a written copy of his comments and provided copies for Board members. He stated that granting MY House allowed use status sets a precarious precedent. If the decision is allowed to stand, it makes it easier for another business to take the place of MY House at the same location making it more valuable for a business than a residence. Travis Crane explained that each situation is identified and evaluated on a case by case basis and any decision by the Board on this matter will not set a precedent. Board Member BELL commented that an actual home occupation can occur as a permitted use in the R-lA zone district where there is an exchange of money. There would be an exchange of money for a group home. MY House is a nonprofit organization. Mr. Montony stated that he believed MY House is a business and opens a door to other businesses to come into the neighbarhood. Janet Monson 9140 West 35th Avenue Ms. Monson was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She submitted a written copy of her comments into the record and provided copies for members of the Board. She spoke in opposition to MY House. She objected to MY House as a business use of the property and its tmpact on the neighbars' privacy. She objected to her house being shown in the background of a picture of MY House on its website. She stated that the city failed to notify adjacent property owners of the "variance" use by MY House. Lois Millican 3390 Flower Ms. Millican was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She submitted a written copy of her comments into the record and provided copies for members of the Board. She objected to MY House being given permission to locate in a residential neighborhood without following city guidelines for spa use. She expressed concern about increased traffic from MI' House. Non-residents driving through a small area increases the potential for tragedy. Jane Meyers 9120 West 35'" Street Ms. Meyers was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She submitted a written copy of her comments into the record and provided copies for inembers of the Board. She stated her belief that the city code does not include uses such as MY House. She expressed concern that business activities will increase in the future at MY House causing frequent disruptions in the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 6- September 26, 2007 Linda Millican 3775 Garland Street Ms. Millican was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She objected to MY House being given an allowed use status without going before City Council. Clarification of a non-profit versus a business operation is needed. Barbara St. John 3480 Everett Street Ms. St. John was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She submitted a written copy of her comments into the record and provided copies for members of the Board. She disagreed that MY House is not open to the publia lt is open to members of the public who need the services. She expressed concern that MY House has negative impacts on the neighborhood. There is no residential component in its use and no one lives there at night. A group home in this size house could only accommodate two residents and one supervisor and a group home needs three residents to be called a group home. This would nat generate as much traffic as MI' House. Bringing new people in has comprc neighborhood. This could set a precedent for ot neighborhood. A less restricted use should not 1 zone. She expressed concern about decreased p neighborhood. She expressed concern about ex House, liability issues and dust in the sununer. >ed the quiet nature of the nonprofits to locate in the llowed in a more restricted erty values for the >ion of activities at MY Gene Walter 14124 West2lst Place, Golden Mr. Walter was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. In response to concerns expressed about security and no one living there at night, a security system has been installed. All fire safety concems haue been addressed. Landscaping is well taken care of. He commented that Dr. Shui who is the head of oncology for Lutheran Hospital was present at the meeting earlier but had to leave. Dr. Shui is on the board of MY House and he has no problem wifli any of the services (including massage);performed far the patients who come to MI' House. He stated that teenagers helped to accomplish the move but no longer have any reason to come to MY House. Peter Lilienthal 2200 Norwood Dr., Boulder Mr. Lilienthal was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He is owner of the property at 3405 Flower Street. He stated that he was very pleased with the use of the property for MY House. The property is suitable for such a use as it has a very tranquil aspect to it and is not visible from the road. He disagreed that MY House is a business. He clarified that the aerial photo showing cars parked in the driveway which was subinitted into the record earlier in the meeting was a photo of his cars taken while he lived in the house. He commented that impacts on the neighborhood would have been greater had he stayed in the house, popped the top Board of Adjustment Minutes - 7- September 26, 2007 and had two teenagers living there. He asked the Board to uphold the decision made by the Community Development Director. There was no one else to address the Authority and therefore Chair BLAIR closed the public hearing at 10:40 p.m. Board Member LINKER asked if other cities have the same zoning laws in this area. Travis Crane replied that this was not researched. Board Member HOWARD asked what recourse the operator of MY House would have in the event the Community Director's interpretation is overturned. Debra Kalish explained that Ms. Walter would have the right to file an action in District Court with the argument that the Board's decision'was arbitrary and capricious. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member PAGE, the following resolution was stated; Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case Number WA-07-13 is an appeal to this Soard from the decision of an administrative officer and in recognition of testimony given; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case Number WA-07-13 be, and hereby is denied. For the following reasons: ` 1. The operator'of MY House, a 501C3 nonprofit under the IRS Code, has demonstrated to the Community Development Director and to the Board of Adjustment that the facility is most similar in impact and less severe than a residential group home with eight or fewer adults, the determination originally stated by staff on February 8, 2007. 2. The `day spa' is not a"business open to the public" rather it is the function of a nonprofit organization which serves women stricken with cancer who are referred to the facility. 3. The facility only accommodates up to two women at a time, and the duration of a woman's visit will last no more than Fve hours per day conducted during week days but not on a daily basis. i Board of Adjustment Minutes - 8- September 26, 2007 4. The facility, as described, would not be expected to produce impacts beyond what can be incurred from accepted and allowed residential uses. 5. The Board of Adjustment found no use that we felt was more applicable. 6. There are similarities to a group home with eight or fewer adults. It is a residential based use. It serves people with health conditions in an outpatient, controlled and residential manner. Staff attends to clients, serves a nonstandard residential use in an acceptable impact manner. The house is an allowable square footage for a group home with eight or fewer adults and meets all other city xequirements and fire department requirements. It is again not open to the public in the common sense but operates by invitation by a direct medical referral. 7. This use does not appear to be in violation of the rules of the Reservoir Improvement Association. Board Member PAGE requested that the words "but not on a daily basis" be deleted from reason number 3 because Ms. Walter indicated Thursdays and Fridays would be added in the future. Board Member ABBOTT agreed to delete the phrase. Board Member BUCKNAM commented that he has two small children and could sympathize with safety concerns expressed by neighbors. He also operates a home-based business and could sympatliize with the operatars of MY House. However, traffic issues can be addressed through police and public works departments. Board Member BELL stated that she would support the motion. There is nothing that says when someone purchases a house that they have to live in that house on a daily basis, sleep there at night or participate in the neighborhood. She did not see the di£ference between what would be done with a single family residence and what is done;at MI' House. She did not see any excess impact associated with the use. Board Member BLAIR stated that he would support the motion. Much of the testimony smacked of "not in my backyard syndroine" with talk about neighborhood versus strangers. Board Member HOVLAND stated that, while this is a difficult case, the charge to the Board is to determine whether or not the Director of Community Development made the correct choice. While some legitimate concerns have been expressed, I ~ Board of Adjustment Minutes September 26, 2007 -9- he didn't believe anything was presented that indicated the Director made the wrong choice. Board Member ABBOTT stated that the Board is concerned about safety and welfare issues in a neighborhood. However, when there are such concerns, citizens have the option to contact the city to address the concems. He stated his belief that the use is accurate. Board Member HOWARD stated that the argument has been made that the subject use is similar to a group home. He commented that a petition to raise the number of residents from four to six in a group home was heard before City Council last Monday night. The City Council denied the request. This may or may not have any bearing on the subject case, but itdoesn't indicate that the city is actually for group homes. The motion for denial passed by a vote of 7-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no. Chair BLAIR advised that the application had been denied. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BLAIR closed public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS ' A. Approval of Minutes - July 26, 2007 It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member BELL to approve the minutes of July 26, 2007. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT 10:55 The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Robert Blair, Chair Board of Adjustmen[ Minutes September 26, 2007 Ann Lazzeri, Secretary - 10-