HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/2006CITY OF WIMAT RIDGE
BOARD OF ADNSTMENT
AGENDA
January 26, 2006
Nofice is herebygiven of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of
Adjustmenton January 26, 2006, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 W. 29h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC FORITM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the
agenda.)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. WA-05-20: An application filed by Advance Auto Parts for approval of a
vaziance from the maacunum allowable height, maximum allowable size and setback
requirements for freestanding signs and a variance to the maximum size allowed for wall
signs for property located atS400 W. 38`b Avenue and zoned Gommercial-One (Gl).
B. Case No. WA-05-21: An application filed by Paul Halliday for approval of a 2 foot rear
yard setback variance from the 10 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in an 8
foot reaz yard setback and a variance to the maximum building coverage requirement for
a detached gazage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3440 Estes
Street.
C. Case No. WA-05-22: An application filed by Doug Pollock for approval of a 5 foot side
yard and 5 foot reaz yazd setback variance from the 10 foot side yard and 10 foot reaz
yard setback requirement for detached gazages over 8 feet in height for property zoned
Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4280 Pierson Street.
D. Case No. WA-05-23: An application filed by Scott Rensch for approval of a variance to
the maximum fence height standard pursuant to Section 26-603 of the Code of Laws for
properry located in the public right-of-way adjacent to property at 3805 Garrison Street
and zoned Residential One (R-1).
E. Case No. WA-05-25: An application filed by Jerry Kannapinn for approval of a vaziance
from the maximum number of freestanding signs allowed on properiy located at 10160
West SOth Avenue and zoned Coinmercial-One (Gl).
5. CLOSE THE PiTBLIC HEARING
6. OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of minutes - September 22, 2005
8. ADJOUi2NMENT
4 rn
. ,COCORPAO
TO:
CASE NO. & NAME:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment
CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt
WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services DATE OF MEETING: January26, 2006
AC1'ION REQiJESTED: Approval of a variance from the maacimum allowable height, maximum
allowable size and setback requirements for freestanding signs and a variance
to the maacimum size aliowed for wall signs for property zoned Commercial-
One (Gl).
LOCATION OF REQIJEST: 5400 West 38"' Avenue
APPLICANT (S):
OWNER (S):
APPROXLIAATE AREA:
Site Enhancement Services
Cadence CapitalInveshnents
38,554 (.89 acres)
PRESENT ZONING:
ENTER INTO RECORD:
Commercial One (C-1)
(7) CASE FII.E & PACKET MATERIALS
(X~ ZONING ORDINANCE
()Q DIGTI'AL PRESENTATION
Location Map
Parcel
Board oS Adjustment 1
Case WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services
Jurisdiction
All notificafion and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case.
I. REQUEST
The property in quesrion is located at 5400 West 38ffi Avenue. The property has Commercial-One (Gl) zoning.
Construction is currently underway on the property for an approximately 7,000 square foot Advance Auto Parts
retail store at this location.
T'he a plicant, Site Enhancement Services is requesring this variance on behalf of the property owner
' The request is for approval of the wall signage and freestanding signage shown on the
plans submitted It has been deternvned by staff that in order to
construct the signage as shown, a variance from the maximum allowable height and setback requirements for
freestanding signs and a variance to the maacimum size allowed for wall signs is required.
Per Section 26-709 (D) of the Code of Laws, the regulations for signage on this property are as follows:
Freestandin SQe
• 15 foot maximum height
. One freestanding sign per street frontage
• Setbacks from right-of-way - 5 feet if sign is 7 feet or less in height, 10 feet if sign:is between 7 and 25
feet high.
• Size allowed is based on the floor area of the building (Table for calculations is in Sec: 26-709 (D) of
the Code of Laws). There is also a provision in the Code of Laws for the lransfer of allowable signage
for freestanding signs if 2 freestanding signs are allowable by virtue of multiple street frontages. Such
iransfer cannot allow the larger sign to exceed 150 percent of the maacimum area allowed based upon
building area. If the sign aiea is transferred from 1 allowable sign to another, only the lazger sign is
allowed and the second sign is not be pemutted. With this provision, the maximum allowable azea for
one freestanding sign on this property is 156 squaze feet (104 squaze feet is allowed, 150 percent of 104
squaze feet is 156 square feet).
Wall Siena¢e
• One wall sign is allowed for each wall which faces a public street or major interior drive.
• Maximum azea can be no larger than 1 squaze foot for every linear foot of the side of the building to
which it is affixed. For the subject property, wall signage is allowed on the east (facing Benton Street)
and north (facing 38th Avenue) elevations. A 70 square foot wall sign is allowed on the north elevation
(north wall is 70 feet long). A 120 square foot sign is allowed on the east elevation (east wall is 120
feet long).
It is also important to note that this property is subject to the regulations in the Streetscape and Architectural
Design Manual. Per Secrion 26-223 of the Code of Laws, all properties with commercial zoning aze subject to
the regulations in the Manual. Sec. 2.6 (Signage) in the Manual has the following notable regulations for
signage. These regulations aze not requirements, they aze recommendations.
• Monument style signs aze encouraged.
• Design which treats poles as low cost and expedient methods of structural support is discowaged.
. The materials of the ground sign supporting wall should resemble the materials of the building. Signs
should compliment the building architecture.
Section 4.2 of the Manual also requires conceptual review by the.City's Design Review Committee (DRC) for
projects which are governed by the Manual. This development was govemed by the regulations of the Manual,
therefore conceptual plans were submitted and approved prior to Advance Auto Parts receiving their building
Board of Adjustment
Case WA-05-20/Site Euhancement Services
pernrit for the project. Approval of the conceptual plans was given by the DRC with condirions. One of the
condirions of approval was regarding signage. The condirions (nuxnbers 16 and 17 on the attached memo) state
that only monument style signs shall be allowed, and wall signage must be in conformance with the City's sign
code Sommommmmmmmm
The signs shown on the elevarions submitted aze as follows:
• Freestanding Sign - A 25 foot high, freestanding pole sign setback 5 feet from the 38h Avenue right-
of-way, 108 square feet in size.
• Wall Signs - Two wall signs, one on the north elevation and one on the east elevation. Each wall sign
is 98.5 square feet in size. There is a red background shown, however only the text of the sign is taken
into consideration for the size of the sign.
Therefore, variances are needed as follows to allow for the siens:
Freestanding Signage
➢ A variance of 10 feet from the maximum height of 15 feet for freestanding signs, resulting in a
25 foot high sign.
➢ A variance of 5 feet from the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way for signs 7 to 25
feet high resulting in a 5 foot setback from the 38t° Avenue right-of-way.
➢ No variance is necessary for the size of the freestanding sign.
Wall Signage, North Elevation.- A variance of 28.5 feet from the maacimum allowable azea for wall
signs. The north wall is 70 feet long, and the wall sign is proposed at 98.5 squaze feet.
Wall Signage, East Elevation - No variance is necessary. The east wall is 101 feet long, and the wall
signage is_98.5 square feet.
Separate motions by the Board aze required for each component of this request.
II: CASE ANALYSIS
The subject property is 38,218 squaze feet, or .88 acres. The property measures approximately 150 feet wide
with a depth of 256.75 feet. :
The area surrounding the properiy in quesflon consists mainly of commercial uses. Adjacent properties include
a car wash to the west, multi-tenant commercial uses to the immediate east and directly north across 38fl'
Avenue, and single and mulri-family residential shvctures to the south and east.
The variances required aze for both the freestanding and wall signage. The applicant may construct
freestanding, monument style sign 7 feet in height with a 5 foot setback without the need for any variances.
The City has required the building to be closer to the slreet, witti a 15 foot build to line as required by the
Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual for this properry. A request for a variance to this 15 foot build to
line was made for this property in 2004 by a different applicant and property owner than is maldng this request.
Case Number WA-04-08 was a request for a variance of up to 55 feet from the 15 foot build to line to construct
a one story retail building on the subject property. The request was denied at the January 2005 Board of
Adjustment hearing. One of the reasons for denial was that the request was contrary to the intent of the
Streetscape and Architechual Design ManuaL
The current property owner, architect, and Advance Auto Parts have been willing to comply with the
regulations of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. They have designed the building to be pushed
closer to the street, and they have provided significant azchitectural upgrades from the typical corporate design
of an Advance Auto Parts retail store, as well as streetscape and landscaping amenities. Such amenities include
Board of Adjustment . 3
Case WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services
the use of brick on the fapade of the building, and streetscape improvements on Benton Sireet to match the
existing improvements done by the Ciry on 38'h Avenue.
In constructing the building to be in compliance with the 15 foot build to line, the orienta6on of the building
provides limited azea for wall signage on the north elevation (facing 38th Avenue) given the size regularion for
wall signage (size for wall signage is based on linear footage of the wall). This factored in with the length of the
text needed for signage ("Advance Auto Parts") makes providing adequate wall signage on the north elevation
problemafic. In addition, constructing a wall sign on the north elevation smaller than the sign on the east
elevation may look awkward given their proximity to one another.
The intent of the required build-to line of 15 feet, in particular with this portion of 386 Avenue, is to allow for
neo-traditionai design where commercial structures are pushed forv✓azd towards the front property line: The
buildings should be located closer to the street to focus on pedestrian acrivity rather than excessive pavement,
pazldng lots and cars. The parldng azeas are de-emphasized as a design feature and aze usually located behind
or beside the structure.
To support the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual and encourage this type of design, the City of
Wheat Ridge invested significant funds into a pilot streetscape project on 38'" Avenue between Sheridan Blvd.
and Harlan Street. Ixnprovements to the subject properiy at the city's expense included installation of a
detached sidewalk, a five-foot wide treelawn with the planting of trees, corner treatment, and a decorative fence
EMENEMEEM This is the first significant commercial development within the ;:38th Avenue
streetscape improvement azea. The design elements of this development will likely set the tone for future
redevelopment on this important corridor for the City.
A 25 foot high pole sign with a 5 foot setback fi-om 38t° Avenue is inconsistent with the objectives of the
Manual and the intent of the City's investment in this wmdor. The allowance for two wall signs on a building
setback 15 feet from the 38`" Avenue right-of-way provides sufficient visibility for motorists and pedestrians
from the street and sidewalk. The allowance of a 25 foot high pole sign in this location would also contribute to
visual clutter on 38`h Avenue, and it does not compliment the building's architecture and materials:.
It is also important to note that one letter of objection from an adjacent property owner has:been received
H. VARIANCE CRITERIA
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. Can the property in question 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 is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be
used as a retail store providing adequate signage without the need for any variances.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character oF the locality?
The request for a 25 foot pole sign with a 5 foot setback from 38t° Avenue will have an adverse effect on
the essential chazacter of the locality. Such a sign is inconsistent with the pedeshian scale and appearance
of the streetscape improvements, as well as the building orientafion. Granting of the variance for the wall
signage would not have an effect on the essenfial character of the locality.
3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplucal condition of the specific property
involved result 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?
BoardofAdjustment 4
Case WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services -
There are no condirions related to the shape or topographicai condition of the property that render any
portion of the lot unbuildable for a freestanding sign, or necessitate a variance for wall signage.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardslup been created by any person presently having an interest in the
ProPerlY'
The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting the variances for freestanding signage. The
applicant xnay.construct a freestanding, monument style sign 7 feet in height with a 5 foot setback without
the need for any variances. The City requiring the building orientation as it will be constructed makes it
problemaric for adequate wall signage on the north eIevation however.
5. Would the granting of the variance 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, 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 dimiuislung or impairing property values within the neighborhood?
Approval of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the area.: The requests would not substantially increase the congesfion in public streets, increase the
danger of fue or endanger the public safety. Properiy values should not be impacted as a result of this
request. -
6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or
contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on
the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation
of a person with disabilities?
The request for a variance to freestanding signage and wall signage would not:result in a substantial
benefit or contribution to the neigliborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the
applicant. Approval of the variance for freestanding signage would be a nega;ive conhiburion to the
neighborhood; being contrary to the intent of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual, the City's
investment in streetscape improvements in this corridor, and contribute to visual clutter.on 38t° Avenue.
The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilifies.
III. S1Arr CONCLiJSYON5 AN"il RECOi3MNDATiYOI+iS
Freestanding Signage
A request for a variance of IO feet from the maximum height of IS feet for freestanding signs, resulting in a 25
foot high sign; and a variance of S feet from the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way for signs 7 to 25
feet high resulting in a Sfoot setbackfrom the 38" Avenue right-of-way.
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are not supportive of the variance
request. Staff has found that there aze not unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant
approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons:
1) The applicant may construct a freestanding, monument style sign 7 feet in height with a 5 foot setback
without the need for any variances.
2) If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may sfill
be used as a retail store providing adequate signage without the need for any variances.
3) The request for a 25 foot pole sign with a 5 foot setback from 380 Avenue will have an adverse effect
on the essential chazacter of the locality.
4) The applicant has created his own hardship 6y requesting the variances for freestanding signage.
Board of Adjustment 5
Case WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services
5) Approval of the variance for freestanding signage would be contrary to the intent of the Streetscape and
Architectural Design Manual, the City's investment in streetscape improvements in this corridor, and
contribute to visual clutter on 38'` Avenue.
Wall Signage, North Elevation
A request for a variance of 28.5 feet from the maximum allowable area for wall signs, resulting in a 98.5
square foot sign.
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria aze supportive of the variance request.
Staff has found that there aze unique circumstances athibuted to this request that would warrant approval of a
variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons:
1) Granting of the variance for the wall signage would not have an effect on the essential character of the
locality.
2) The City requiring the building orientation as it will be constructed makes it problematic for adequate
wall signage on the north elevation.
3) Constructing a wall sign on the north elevarion smaller than the sign on the east elevafion may look
awkwazd given their proximity to one another.
Board of AdjustmenY
Case WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services
Justifications for Approval of Advance Auto Parts
Sign Proposal
A. Can the property in question 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? Advance Auto Parts strives to
locate their properties where they can provide adequate exposure to their
customers. Unlike Nike, for example, our trademarked name Advance Auto Parts
is much longer. As a result increased squaze footage is required to a11ow for our
name orientation. The red panels aze simply an azchitectural detail of the
building. These panels are non-illuminated and sixnply serve to enhance the
building. This proposal is the minimum amount of relief necessary to allow this
commercially zoned pazcel to reach its maximuxn zoning potential. This will not
only increase revenue to the property but will also result in an increase in valuable
tax revenue for the community.
B. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the
locality? This is a commercial corridor. Motorists kaveling along this corridor
want and expect signage to allow them to locate and safely access the property.
Our proposal coordinates with the oveXatl building and trade corridor.
C. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition
of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship
as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the
regulation were carried out? This property is located on a hazd corner. In order
to provide the m;nimum amount of exposure necessary for our customers to safely
locate our property these signs represent the minimum amount of exposure
required. Typicaliy AAP would utilize three wall signs and a lazger freestanding
sign. Based on thoughts coxnmunicated through staff we have reduced the
number and size of signs to represent the minimum amount of relief necessary.
D. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently
having an interest in the property? The alleged difficulty is not a result of any
person presently having an interest in the property.
E. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties? Approval of this proposal would in no way be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties. In fact, by
providing a qualiTy wayfinding tool you will prevent unnecessazy vehiculaz
maneuvers such as u-turns, double backs, sudden stops, quick decisions, and
EXHIBIT 1
excess drive time. A decrease in such maneuvers will help to promote an increase
traffic safety.
F. If criteria a through e are found, then, would the granting of the variance
result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as
distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or
would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a
person with disabilities? As mentioned previously, allowing this properry the
properexposure for the thoroughfares that serves it, will allow this commercially
zoned parcel to reach its maxiinum zoning potential. This will allow for the
property to reach its maximum potential, increase revenue as well as increase
valuable tax revenue. This increased tax revenue can be used as a valuable
contributor to unprove the neighborhood or community.
October 12, 2005
w
'4"
Amik
18'4
Wheat Ridge, CO
Site Enhancement Services I Ph: 1. 888. 546. 6095 1 Fax: 1. 574. 237. 6166 1 www.siteenhancementservices.com SL~~
EXHIBIT 2
. NORt11 lLSVATION - 38TF{ AYPNU!
" uw, no
SlaBT EL$YATION - B@NTON STRCET
ecva w. na .
0
0
N
~
~
a
E
0)
U
41
O
G
~
~
-o
3
O
U
0
M
~J
~
~
T
T
LO
~
M
LL T
y
k
1 T
14
~ j6
co
U
L~-b.
c
Cf3
~
r
T
r
(D
ED
T1^
y/
M
u
H
E~
O
U
~i
N
U
~
N
C
N
E
m
U
C
cri
t
G
N
~
y
9
(D
co
(0
~
N
V
r
to
N
L1.
LO
a)
O
(0
(D
d
LO
W
co
m
L
Q.
N
d
V
L
(D
C) ' N
~ 4)
d ~
U
a c
r . t
~ G
d : W
M d
~ U)
Advance Auto Partsl.-:
. - 00
0 1a,_o„
Scale: 1/8"=1'
Wheat Ridge, CO
SlteEnhancementServices ~ Ph: 1 . 888. 546. 6095 1 Fax:1.574.237.6166 I wwwsiteenhancemeniservices.com Sl~v
EXHIBIT 3
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum
TO: Applicant; File
FROM: Alan White, D'uectar of Community Development
SUBJECT: Commercial Development at 5400 West 38tj' Avenue
DATE: July 25, 2005
~F WHEqT
~ ~i
a
~ m
c~G OR A00
The Wheat Ridge Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual was adopted by reference as a regulation
to applicable development on February 26, 2001. Per Section 4.1 of the Streetscape and Architectural
Design Manual, all development applications that are determined to be governed by the Streetscape and
Architectural Design Manual aze required to make a Conceptual Design Plan Submittal to the City of
Wheat Ridge Design Review Committee (DRC) prior to making site plan submittal required by Section
26-111 of the Zoning and Development Code.
It has been determined that the proposed commercial development at 5400 West 38`' Avenue will be
governed by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. Approval of a Conceptual Design Plan
(attached) has been requested by Cheng Ku of C.K. Architects.
The Conceptual Design Plan, received on July 13, 2005 has been approved by the Design Review
Committee; and the applicant may proceed with site plan submittal pursuant to Section 26411 of the
Code of Laws with the following conditions:
1. The corner entrance shall have an overhang that must square off the northeast corner of the
structure. We would prefer to see an enlazged canopy/roof structute, supported by brick columns
that further articulates the entrance. This would also provide more protection from the elements
for customers.
2. The City's Parks and Recreation Depaztment must be consulted regazding the proposed break in
the fence structure on 30' Avenue. The applicant will be responsible for identifying any issues
regazding underground irrigation, future maintenance and any other underground ufilities that
may be affected.
3. One additional street tree will be required where the access point will be closed off on 38th
Avenue. The new tree must match the existing trees on 38`h Avenue on this property's frontage
and be placed in line with the existing trees on this property's frontage.
4. One street tree in each of the 2 landscaped islands shown between the two Benton Street curb
cuts will be required. At least one sireet tree must be placed direcfly to the east of the southern
pazking area shown.
5. All new street trees on Benton Street must be within 15 feet of the eastern property line.
6. All street trees must be consistent with the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manuals' design
gLudelines for street trees.
7. The landscaped azea on 38`h Avenue must be continuous and consistent with existing conditions
through the area where the proposed closure of the access point on 38th Avenue is proposed.
EXHIBIT 4
8. All mechanical equipment must be completely screened from view from the right-of-way and
adjacent properties. The preferred method is to place all mechanical equipment below the top
level of the parapet walls. Please show the roof deck line on the elevations so that we can verif
if any equipment will be screened.
9. Clarification must be provided for the approximately 10 foot wide azea west of the building and
the south 51' 1" of the property for what this azea will consist of.
10. The screening of the dumpster enclosure must be a wall 6 feet in height consistent with the
materials used on the building. No chain link or wooden fencing will be allowed for the
dumpster enclosure. All trash storage azeas must be completely screened. A separate fence
permit will be required for this azea.
11. There must be a curb to delineate between pazking spaces on the southeast corner of the building.
The option also exists to remove 2 pazking spaces here as it appeazs that more pazking spaces
have been provided then what the City's Code of Laws requires.
12. The two handicapped accessible. pazking spaces shown must be moved to the north, adjacent to
the main pedestrian entrance to the building.
13. More brick on the east and north elevations would be preferable to us.
14. We would prefer that the windows shown on the north and east elevations not extend all the way
to ground level. Placing either brick or matching split face CMU would be acceptable on the
bottom section of the window currently shown.
15. Any new fencing to match the existing as part of the City's streetscape improvements must
consist of the same materials. used by the City.
16. Any freestanding signage allowed on the subject property must be monument style signs with
materials consistent with the building exterior visible. No pole signs will be allowed.
17. The wall signage must be in conformance with the Ciry's sign code regazding allowable size
Wall signage is allowed at no lazger than one (1) squaze foot for every linear foot of the side c.
the building to which it is affixed.
Please also be awaze that the following will be required as part bf the submittal, Per the Code of Laws:
a) A detailed landscape plan showing that all requirements of the Code of Laws have been met, in
addition to the landscaping requirements specified in the above conditions.
b) A photometric report, illustrating 0 footcandle readings at all property lines.
c) All other applicable requirements in Sec6on 26-111 of the Code of Laws.
The above referenced Conceptual Design Plan, received on July 13, 2005 is hereby approved by the
Design Review Committee with the above listed conditions; and the applicant may proceed with site
plan submittal pursuant to Section 26-111 of the Code of Laws.
Community Development Director
Z- ~o,~r„ ye~ °i' ~,~,.ls~
Pr~c,~eat bieotk, 17 ~
fevtce.
.r-- morc
~ ~Frrc fa____ / .~i,sni~`s~ri„-~.=
na,..n exTSf~Kg ~~r
.
EJ05l~Nfi
U'flU71' P.4D
va~w~r
. ~
R C(ar~}~j wh~t
fktf a•~eq. ~✓~tl
GvWst sf o'~
ao~+t~x ~oi.e
~pG,~GR{~w ~
\ I I i
1. Na~ df~ic~ld{ec~ ern-F('ancQ
r
/6. xtvs 3~ beH f S4 l''',
xisnr~ a~sTw.w I I / YMaH ~lht Y,..
~ ~
~
~
POST MATfh! ~
' EXi5T6 ~ ~
\
8
~z. -
~ ave
N~ k~
t~'7 FENC£ 1 P
MATGiE395T5
B
~ ~
T
~
~l• ~v/b m f bG hereJ
dr efiwtihdf~ Z
S~acer
io
Ia• d~v~~pJfer
r~tvsf- f7~ Scfca
9. c(a~b y " ~ 3
` a
- - ~
~ ~
fBY.E
i1AtKiL
~ C.tlf
~
~
z
~
4• .~-St~Yef
t/cei ~e~v~Y'e ~
lar~hitects,lnc,
8539 PJSi 1b'fH Av@LE'
~R CALORioo 80Z~.9
Ahcne~~('A3c 3T1-39BH
Fax. ) 3gb-~O]H
mo`4 c bY+ceyobo.com
W
~
Z
W
~
d
x
h
~
M
~
v~
~
~
0
0
~
LO
EXHIBIT 5
0
Nov. 29, 2005
Boazd of Adjustment
City of Wheat Ridge
Case No. WA-05-20
As the owner of 3780 Benton St. across from this development and the former owner of
all C-1 property on the south side of 38`h Ave. from Ames to Benton streets, I consider
the signage requests to be excessive. I reviewed the proposals at the Planning Dept. and
believe they aze requesting four large signs. I request the Board of Adjustment consider
the rights of other property owners before granting these variances.
Lee Fisher
EXHIBIT 6
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
C~CORP~O
TO:
Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt
CASE NO. & NAME:
WA-05-21/Halliday DATE OF MEETING: January 26, 2006
ACTION REQUESI'ED:
Approval of a 2 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot rear yard
setback requirement resulting in an 8 foot rear yard setback and a variance
from the maximum building coverage requirement for a detached garage on
property zoned Residential-Two (R-2).
LOCATION OF REQUEST:
3440 Estes Street
APPLICANT (S):
Paul Halliday
OWNER (S):
Paul Halliday
APPRO3IIMATE AREA:
26,350 (.60 acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Two (R-2)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(7) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGTTAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
I
rnu
(EXEMPLA
LUTHERAN)
Subject Property
r-
Board of Adjustment 1
Case WA-05-21111nlliday
JurisdicHon
All norification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdicrion to hear this case.
I. REQUEST
The property in question is located at 3440 Estes Street. The property has Residential-Two (R-2) zoning.
The appiicant, Paul Halliday, is requesting this variance as the property owner
The request is for approval of a variance from the maximum building coverage requirement for a detached
gazage on property zoned Residenrial-Two (R-2). The detached garage as shown on the site plan submitted also
is deficient from the rear yard setback requirement of 10 feet . New information has been
submitted however, which eliminates the necessity for the setback variance request. This is discussed later.
The structure is to be urilized as a studio/workshop azea however staff has determined
that it will be classified as a detached garage, thus subject to the regulations for detached garages. The
proposed structure is 1,240 squaze feet in size. The applicant states in his letter that the garage is 1,000 square
feet in size, however this number excludes the covered patio area shown, which is 240 square feet in size.
Covered parios count towards building coverage. The marimum building coverage in the R-2 zone district for
detached garages is 1,000 square feet The property owner may have
more than one detached garage, as long as the total square footage stays under 1,000 square feet for the lot. The
applicant has an exisring 576 squaze foot garage; therefore the total lot area covered by detached garages with
this request will be 1,816 square feet. Specifically, the variance request is an 816 square foot variance to the
1,000 square foot maximum building coverage requirement for detached gazages resulring in 1,816 square feet
of detached garage area on the property.
The applicant has stated his reasons for requesting the variance in the letter of request.
All other development standards have been met with this request.
H. CASE ANALYSIS
The subject property is approximately 26,350 s uare feet in size, or .60 acres. The ro erty measures 100 feet
wide with a depth of approximately 263.5 feet
The area surrounding the property in question consists of single family homes on all sides, with the Exempla
Lutheran Hospital campus to the east. The property has an eacisting detached garage, as do sevenl other
properties in the vicinity, including two adjacent properties. The property to the immediate north was approved
for a variance in 1993 to allow for an oversized detached garage, and cutrently has what appeazs to be two
detached garages. Discussion of this variance is later in this report.
This case was originally scheduled for the December 7, 2005 Boazd of Adjustment public hearing, however that
meering was cancelled due tolack of a quorum. The public norificarion for this January hearing contained the
same language, addressing not only the maximum building coverage variance but the setback variance. The
setback variance request was necessary because the property owner had acquired addirional land to the east of
his existing property line, however this was not reflected on the survey submitted, only the deed
The building as proposed is 8 feet from the previous eastem property line, while the setback
requirement is 10 feet. The applicant has since submitted a new Improvement Locarion Certificate which
reflects this hansfer of ownership (See Eachibit 5, Improvement Location Certificate). Therefore there a
variance request to the reaz yazd setback requirement is no longer necessary as part of this request, only the lot
coverage variance request. With the correct Improvement Locarion Certificate, the reaz yazd setback as
proposed exceeds the 10 foot requirement.
Board of Adjustment 2
Case WA-05-237Halliday
The applicant has stated in his letter of request that the building will have a brick fagade and match the existing
house in appearance. The floor plan indicates that the building wil] have a bathroom, shower and a sink in the
studio area. The applicant has stated that there is no intention at this rime of using this building for anything but
personal use as ancillary to the existing residence on the property. This informafion however obligates the City
to inquire about the possibility of this being for the use as a business, or the creation of an addirional dwelling
unit now or anytime in the future. The property has R-2 zoning, which does allow for one and two fanuly
dwellings based on minunum lot size and lot width requirements with some other provisions. The property is
wide enough, and large enough to allow for a two faznily dwelling. Detached addirional dwelling units are not
allowed in the R-2 zone district however. Therefore, an additional dwelling unit would not be allowed on this
property under current regulations.
As this property has residential zoning, commercial uses are not allowed, with the exception of home
occupations. The regulafions for home occuparions would be applicable for this property if the owner wishes to
obtain a home occupation license. Of note is that the squaze footage of the area used for the home occupation
cannot exceed 25 percent of the overall floor area for the sh-ucture or shuctures on the property.
A variance to allow for an oversized aza e was nted for the property to the immediate north of the subject
property, 3470 Estes Street . Specificaliy, case number WA-93-8 was a request
for a 500 squaze foot variance to the maximum azea of 1,000 square feet allowed for a detached garage
The R-2 zone dishict also has a regulation that no more than 40 percent of the lot may be covered by any
structure, including the house and any accessory buildings. It is important to note that with the proposed
building, the applicant still stays well under the 40 percent total maximum building coverage for the lot. This is
the case with or without the additional 5,600 squaze feet the applicant acquired by deed which is not shown on
the survey.
It is also important to note that staff has not received any conespondence or inquiries regazding this variance
request from property owners m the vicinity.
II. VARIANCE CRITERIA
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be
used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the dishiM in which it is located?
If the request is denied, the property may srill receive a reasonable return in use. The properry may sfill be
used as a single family residence without the need for any variances.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
The request will have a siight effect on the essenria] character of the locality. Several properties in the
vicinity have accessory buildings, aithough few of the size the applicant is proposing. The property
immediately to the north however was approved for a variance to allow for a garage similar in size to the
proposed structure. The applicant has also stated that the building would have a faqade to match the
house.
3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographicai condition of the specitic property
involved result in a particular and unique hardsltip (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out?
Board of Adjustment
Case WA-05-21/Flalliday
There are no unique condirions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in
quesrion unbuildable. The property in question is rectangulaz in shape and flat. The property is lazger
than the minimum lot size and width for the R-2 zone district.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property?
The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a building of this size in this location. There is
not an essential need for such a structure and the proposed use of the structure for the property to funcrion
as a single family residence. The applicant currently has a detached garage for parking, and is allowed
400 square feet for accessory storage buildings although this may not be sufficient for the property
owner's specific needs at this fime.
5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property or improvements in the neighborhood in wltich the property is located, by, among other
things, 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?
Approval of the variance would not be dehimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other property in
the area. There may be a slight decrease in the supply of light and air to the property to the north. The
request would not substantially increase the congesrion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety. Property values in the swrounding area should not be impacted as a result of
this request.
6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or
contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from au individual benefit on
the part of the applicant, or would grauting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation
of a person with disabilities?
The request would not result in a substanrial benefit or contriburion to the neighborhood disfinguished
from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant.
The reguest would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabiliries.
III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIIENDATIONS
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are not supportive of the variance
request. Staff has found that there aze not unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would wazrant
approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAI. for the following reasons:
i. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. The property
may srill be used as a single family residence without the need for any variances.
2. Although a similaz variance was approved for the property to the immediate north of the subject
property, variance approval does not constitute a precedent set.
3. The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a building of this size in this location.
There is not an essenrial need for a variance to allow such a structure and the proposed use of
the struchue for the property to funcrion as a single family residence.
Board of Adjustment
Case WA-05-21/Aelliday
November 9, 2005
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
7500 West 29d' Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Dear Sus:
This letter serves as a request for a variance of Section 26-209, Municipal Code of Laws, City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for the properry legally described as "Lot 1 and the Westedy 56 feet of
Lot 2, Beasley (Minor) Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado," otherwise known as
3440 Estes Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The following enclosures accompany this letter of
request:
1. Original signed and notarized Land Use Case Processing Application.
2. A personal check in the amount of $390.00 to cover the fees for processing this request
for variance.
3. A copy of the Recorded Deed to the property described above.
4. A copy of a Certified Survey of the properry in the form of an Improvement Location
Certificate plat.
~ 5. A copy of the Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Building Elevations describing the proposed
changes to the property.
The full intent and purpose of this request aze described in the paragraphs that follow.
Secflon 26-209 of the Municipai Code of Laws provides categories of buildings allowed on
residential property. These categories include a detached garage or carport and a private storage
shed. The maximum building coverage allowed for a detached garage%arport is 1000 square feet;
the maximum building coverage allowed for a privaie storage shed is 400 square feet. Currently
our property has a detached two-car garage covering 576 square feet We would like to add
another detached buiiding on our property to serve as an art studio and workshop.l'he planned
dimensions of tiris studio/shop are 20 feet deep by 50 feet wide, which comes to 1000 square
feet. Since there is no category for shulio/shop in the code, the City of Wheat Ridge Building
Department has indicated that this building would fall under the detached garage category . This
would bring the total square feet of "detached garage" to 1576, which exceeds the maximum.
The need for a studio/shop arises from not having enough space in ihe existing slructures.
Currendy, the art studio is set up in the main living room of the dwelling, and the shop is set up
in half of ihe existing detached garage. Tius presents a hardship in that we are not able to use the
living room for its original purpose, and we are not able to park one of our two vehicles in the
gazage. Adding on to the primary dwelling unit would be pmblematic as it would:
1. htfringe on the circular drive surrounding the dwelling.
2. Detract &om the original "bungalow" architectural style and "charm" of the house.
3. Be difficult to exacdy match the existing brick making it look like an add-on.
4. Lessen the natural light on the interior of the existing residence.
EXHIBIT 1
_page2_
Adding on to the existing detached garage would also be problematic as it would:
1. Detract from the original architectural style and cbarui.
2. Be difficult to exactly match the existing brick making it look like an add-on.
3. Only allow an additiona1424 square feet. This falls short of our need for space in a
studio/shop.
We have contracted Yano Designs, Inc. to provide us with a conceptual and detailed azchitectural
design for our studio/shop. The conceptual design, provided in this request package, includes a
site plan, a floor plan, and building elevation drawings for the studio/shop. The intended
placement and height of the studiolshop conform to the setbacks and maX;n,um height defined in
the municipal code. Our lot area is over 26,000 square feet which exceeds the minimum of 9,000
square feet.
Please note that the existing storage sheds adjacent to the lot line dividing Lots 1 and 2 will be
removed. The studio/shop will not encroach upon the utility and drainage easements between
these two lots.
The proposed studio/shop is to be for our personal purposes only; we have no intention or desire
to operate a business from the properry. It will have a brick fagade and a hip-roof porch which
will preserve the essential cliaracter of the prunary dwelling and detached garage. Since the
building will not be visible from Estes Street, the character of the streetscape will be preserved. If
the variance is granted, we do not believe that it will be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property in the neighborhood.
Thank you for consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul W. Halhday
3440 Estes Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Home: 303.2323449
Cell: 303378.4700
Email: phalliday@att.net
,
Bazbetta L. Halliday
Enclosures (5)
PL
~
m
a)
CO o,
a) O . (
i10'-0"1
45'-6"
R
0
~
N
6cisting
Front
Porch
Edsting driveway
Existing One Story Brick House I Existing
Rear
Porch
Existing driveway
12'-0"
0
\ I Existing Garage o
CD
LOT 1
207.5'
0
0
I
175.1'
126.9'
'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'-'_'r'-'_'_'-'_'-' ~
50,_01, ~ I
I ~
- _-_i
i~~%%~ ~ I
v One Story Buildin I
I
rvered orch
- - ° ~
existing tree ~ - i
24'_0 ,
$1_01, V_Q" ~
~ I
~
IE O
( ~ I 0
LOT 2 I°
Iv ~
la ~
c I
~ 15 I ~
I
L----•-•-------•-•-----•---
56.0' PL
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 1 and the Westerly 56 feet of lot 2, N
Beasley (Minor) subdivision; Counry of ~
Jefferson, State of Colorado.
EXHIBIT 2
J
12 4 (match e)dsting garage roof pitch)
i
I 1 I
I I I
I I I
I
I
~
I I I I
i I I I
I
1
I i I
I I I
- -
I I
I
1
I I I I
I I I I
I I
I I i I
. .
0
~
a
~
r
~
~
a
~I~'~'~I~I~I~I~I~'~I~I~I~I~~I~I~I~I~I~I~'~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~,~'~I~I~I~I~I~I~'~I~'~I~I~I~I~I~I~IIIIIIII''lll I~IIIIIII' I'll'IIIIIIII'IIIII'''I '
I I I I I I i I I I i I I I i I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I i i I I I I 1 I I I I i I I I 1 I i I i I 1 I i I I I I 1 1
I I I i I I 1 I I I I J I I I I I I I i I I I I 1 I I' I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I• I I f I I I 1 I I i I I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I ~ I~ I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I. I I I I I~ I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1
I i I I I 1 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I
i i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I I i I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I
1 I I I 1 I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I i I i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I i I I i I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I I i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I 1 I i I I I I I i I
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I i I I I
I 1 I I I I i I I I I 1 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I~ I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I i I I I I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I, i, I, I, I, I, I, I. 1' i. I. I. I. I I I I I I I I I i i i I I
J
a
~
00
'v
i
12
i iir r r
i i iii i i
_i i i
i
I~I~I~I~I~I~- I I I I I I I I i I I l
I I.I I I I I I I I I. I
.iiii_ir
I II I I i l.l I I.1 I II J 1 I I.I
iii~ii; -
I I I I I I
12
III~I~i
I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I~I~I~I~I~I~I~L~~~i~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~ll~l~l~l~l
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I i I I
I i I I I I I I I 1 IIIF
I~I~I,I,I,I,I,I,I.I,I.I.I.I.I I
50'-0"
EXHIBIT 3
- City of Wheat Ridge f WHEqp
' Commuoity Development x~ P
. . 7500W.296 Ave. ` o
. WheatRidgqC080033
303-2352846
"IC. 26-209. R¢Slderlti0l-TWO D'IStrICt (R-2). www.ci.wneatridge.co.us co 0
LORP~
„ Intent and purpose: This district is established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate-density
residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character.
B. Development standards:
TARLE INSET:
-
Maxenum
Mazimum
A4nimum
Minimum
AUnimum
Mnimum
Afinimum
Height
BudNrg
Lot
lot
Front
Sitle
Rear
Cwerage
lvea
W,0(0 -
Yard
Yard
Yard
SelbaCk
Sethack(')
Setbadc(a)
One-famdydwdAng
35
40%
9,000 sf
7541
30{e)
5ol
70'
Tvro{ym2yAy¢ifng
35
40%
72,500sf
100'
300)
5{e)
10'
Grouphome
35
40%
9,OOOsf
7S
~b)
~c)
1d
Accessory buildiigs(o)
D~ached guage a
75
1,000 sf per und
9.000 sf
75'
~,~b)
5 if 8' in heighk 10' H
5 H r 8' in height 10' i/
~N~
> 8' in heipht
> 8' in height
Privale stcrage shed
10'
400 sf
9,000 sf
75
30'
yddl ff 4 g m height
50) Rr_ 8' m height:
10"rf> 8' in height
70' R> 8' in height
Churches.schools.
36
40°h
lacre
200'
30'
1549)
4'
gpvemmentandquasi-
.
gwemment buildings,
gott courses,-smail day
carecenter,and
-
musmg, ddeM and
igrega[e cae hanes
alotlhetuses
35'
40%
9,000sf
75
304b)
~n(c~
10'
Notes:
(3) Any side or rear yard which abuts a public street shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet for all structures.
ro> Front setbacks for structures on lots or portions of lots which abut cul-de-sacs may be reduced to ten (10) feet for those
portions of lots which abut a cul-de-sac bulb. (See Figure 26-123.3.)
A totai of fifteen (15) feet side yard setback for every individual lot with a minimum of five (5) feet on one (1) side.
Any building or structure which houses animals, except a residence, shall be set back fifteen (15) feet.
(e) Fifteen-foot setback for the first story and five (5) feet for each additional story.
(0 Comer lots shall have a minimum lot width of eighty (So) feet for both street frontages.
(9) Metai accessory buildings over 120 square feet in size are not permitted.
(Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2 26-01; Ord. No. 1313, § 5, 10-27-03)
EXHIBIT 4
http://livepublish.municode.coml2Ape7ct.dlUinfobase7/Ul d5c/205c/20d4?fn=document-frame.htm&f=temp... 5/4/200z
iMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE
. #3440 ESTES STRrET 70' UTIUN
EASEMENT
PER PLAT
~
GRAVEL
26.7't
_
DRIVE .
I
.
-
26.6't
,
10' UTIIITY
.
.
EASEMENT
• .
PER PIAT
e
a70.0
~
•
: .
11. ° a70.2'70
51.2t 1 .5
N S.B N
F'"
p
5.8n
w ~ w
PORCH
'
'
//3440ES
fES
.
'
.
I`_ O
tREET .
S
i STORY ~ .
W
45.5't 50 . BRICK. HOUSE n
O °
•
F- t0
° .
EIECTRIC
. .
-
f
`
7't METER 320't . /
~32
a
.
I
' GRAVEL
aT DRIVE
t~ . -a
.,t: -.r
~ . 8'xt2.5'
1 STORY SHED IN76'x8'. $HED
FRAME GARAGE EASEMENT IN ESMT.
IN EASEMENT BARBED WIRE BARBED WIRE' FENCE 0.3't NORTH FENCE ON - OF PROPERTY.LINE - PRORERTY IINEt .
263.50' REC.. 7j'± 3.'F• .
- X z -
.T.d:~ , Z8't ~ ,s:o• f, x . . . .
_ 24.1 2.5' 1 39i5't
.,Z•f . . ~ •p . . p . , - . x .
N N''
126.9't 24.7' WESTERLY . .
. ' . ~ j . 56 FEET " . . C
GRAVEL I . ~(15 OFLOT 2 , . w,:DRIVE.PONDIN'.. ~K 'oo~ TREE WIT H~- SEMENT
LOT 1 ~Z~ RAOius I ~ DRIP PUMP ~...,x I ~.~.BARBED
WIRE
I FENCE
AND DRAiNAGE Y x . -
CONC. WAI.K PEREPLA~ I^-r AND DRAINAGE I WELL
EASEMENT
i^ PER PLAT x
9.0't
. . . ..,,:i,. i
r !
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT b AND-THE WES'fERLY-56 FEET
OF LOT 2, BEASLEY.(MINOR) SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF ' i
JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO.•_. _ . !
~
-CERTIFlCATION: i HERE@Y-CER'fIFY SHAT SHIS IMPRQVEMENT
~.,.e nomeorn CnA Pdlll - HAIcCIDAY :
ISN07 A;LANDSURVEY:FlAT-O~?IMPROVEMENT,SUKVb7,..'PLAT, AND;~THAT IT IS-NOTTO BE RfCiE6 UPON FOR;.TNE 'r•.
...r. ~~.~.r nc ccmec:~aimrnua;'oR OTHER FUiURE .
THE PARCEL,?r;'~,:~~:I...
_ EXCEPT AS.NO.lED,
:FRbM TITCi-REPORT AND -
'N07E: IEGAL.-DESCRIPTION
-
.
,
EASEMENIS FROM7FiNAl P.LAT AND PRORERTY IINE .
,
EVIDENCE.CON95TE0 9F STRHET RIGHT=OF-WAY AND-
~
FENCES.
.
y~,.
;'h I
j
Z/
1 EL S GHESSNOE G/0 CHESSNOE~AND ASSOQIATES
~
2 SDUTH UNIVERSITI'BLVD. (/203
ER. C080210
z
. .
NO. 303-722-3267
.
;
~
;
NOTE: SURVEYOR RELIED UPON~TITLE REPORT PREP,4RED BY
LAND TITIE:INSU.RANCE. CORP. OFMR N0; K701 0 49 45-2
WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MAY 37, 2005, FORTHE
PREPARATiOM OF.'MIS-SURVEY. ,
. ~ . . .
~ ~ 263.50 REC. . .
70' U11lIN CHAIN LINK FE.
EASEMENT CHAIN LINK FENCE . OJ't NORTH Of - PER PLAT ONPROPERTY UNEt pROPERiY UNE- _
LEGEtl1Z
REC. DEED OR PLAT OISTANCE
E } -1j CONCRETE AREA
EXIST. FENCE AS NOTED
--0H - EXIST. OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES
nH
J, GUY WiRE GRAPkI1C SCALE
C~ POWER POLE
-3U 0' t0' .1U
~(-iN FEET 20 fl
~
~
~
~
~
r,..>.
:.>:.~:.::.>:,.w
u......<:...:~...w.:::::
:........~..w::..>~,......,..~...._....~._...r..... .
y
~
~
~ oa~a ~..mx{~ m n m~c mm ov.. v..m
N N S l ~..7
C O'J P G 9 C l
S
^
m
C.~ r
0an
`C O'i S
ox
-1~ S
o
Kf -M1
rJ
A T
. O
rt
'y
y
^
w
S~ O
N N N O O 0 0''C M O' d rt 1 N N~+ O-
N
,
mo
. rf N N
O
rt N
rT
0
A^
N N
'a
'
0 0
~
~
y
m
^
IU N 0 1+ rt E 4 4 J ~ N ~ 3^
~•~~mc~oei..F+o non n~rv-.y m.+y
~
O
'+]H
J N
~~.m~
~
sm
C~
C
H
-~a
m
c n m m m m
K m ~ 9 m~ n
Om a O
9~+ fL M G R~f ~ J N J S N N
1
~
m
.
O.tSO
0
H N
mv .050 ~Cb 9 aom• m mo 47
-n
m o rr rt p m 0 o N W rt V re -i ~
-i
a
Y
C+J H
.h1
n
J N N
m
O_
aa
H
~
N
m
0
W
oc n
V V
a
2
o n
m o
C
Q-n
r,
a m
m m
o m o a o o m o
~ < H
~
H
>
y
~
>
U N O rt
H
~
VZl
'b
~
\
b
O O
00
d
N
- N 3
N~
O
b N
.
1
•
'p ^ 0 Y N M K O >
'O o M^b m~n~o~a> m a m m
ei -1~ v N U IL 4. O 3U G S N d l~J e1 N~l ~
~
Q?1 rt p . N N N d
m
N
05
z tl
m~ m
. A N b
p'
~
m
(/l
N
d
~
$
+j
t1
~
d
o m
A
~
\
A P
~n
3 4~
F~O
n
J
Vj S M R G
O N n k E N o.4 9 J K~ O fC ¢
N
~ b 0.
(D
C
`
-
i
6
o
O b
m
. K H
n o
O
~ d 7 S N y 9 S.~' Ir Y D N N . n l n O
n
"
H
N
S
H
l~lltl~
O
SO
7
~
O O
QNNStl O4.F+1+ Y r~ITNNd Sfl3
Ot 'i b~i 0~S y H S W N N R~ Y
4
!
fD
clJ~i
J~~.N
J ~ C
N
N
N
~y
y
3
~
? b
Y
n b
-3
N-1~ 0 k ~4 LO h N N 7 N. 1-3 N d
~ N 0 b C n rt rt N t~ S n T 3 n
'
~
~
lD
n
H LSJ
-h
0
.i O
~ -n
xi
~
N
N
N
y
d
6
m
S
~
~
~
d x
K o
p b o E o rt 1+ y m m m O b O m 3 a~
nm
I
O--1 J d IL 0 S' 9 O Y 9 k N d. 7
~
H S
a
m 3 v ~
~
m
~
~
~
~.r
S rt 7 ~f K ry Q R 6 N 3 ~d N~y N d -I 0
1
N
O
G
[M
N
O
Q~
H
N
7
I
O
d l
'3' 'i
I~
-
a~ Q
. a~^
0 N~
N N~ Q rc Y` 9 µ O Ob
j
~
? Y-
~
u~
[4 3
~ ~ y^ Y CW b k 0~n E o f'~' n m
-
m
-
O f]
Q w n
C
C
m
-r
d
W
A
~
~
g
L~]
n
~
i
o
m
i ty m a~
0 i a o o~ o D •-0 s
QL M N 10 N . N 3 N N J
K
~
~7 p7
•
ef J
p.
„
p
C
N
~
O
1o J ~ k
,y lp ~p . ~ ew o w~ 7 3£ G ~ 3 • O.
x~' b M m m~ m. sm'+~m o
T~c
w
~
nr
O
H
'
o
~
o
- ~
M
H
N
d
~C
y£
.
. N d^ S£ IO K R 1~. N rt b. J N S e+ J J N
T O W d N 0 J N r? . N N N~
n
~p
~
J N
N£
~
^
C]
O
`G
'
'
VJ
[
d
O
' K
S
N
y
J
^
-
rq
d
b N
p'
d
r
m w , n x
c~ -i ~ x z ta o a tr~V n m~ • s j
-1
l £ 10
'
rP
O
t~
O VI
~ T
O
F
-
F{
v
C L9
J VJ
i
~A ~
n
Y
°
n
o
N O
~ V~ p R W~
OI ~ N N
Tn ~a n o-a rt o n x -nm ~'m c
;U ~
n
~
.
ny
p~ -n
o
m
m
z
z
m
m
n
~
m. ~
n 3 m. -zi ~C u k o o~ m v m n c~ m . a m m
bo n m~m a n3w
C'7
y
~ T
nn
K
KJ
7I
'
y
.
; o
~
~
ro M n°-a °,M iavo
m'
Cn
tlh]
N
h
°
1
°fn
H4
~ L+7
J+
$
4
C
o
~
•
^
ma
^
z o m o 0 ou~-e... nm-ia m~m
*m~mc<a~
a
~
5'
H
[+7
0 [9
= m~'
J
N-
vo
aomo
.
~ do a a
a
a a'm..~ ~ m ma
m~ ~..n n~•.p um
y
y
m-~m
Pi
(D
~
a
N
~
a
T O_ -n u m k V tr m N o . n~~
3
S
~
n O ~
O 0 d N
m
O.
~
0
n
.
t
o
C N N N h N
S d O R O (L 0
a.,••m ~o mm
a
°
m
O
c~c m o-
ryP]
• Sd
H
~
m
m m-~, ~
m v oq
a 0
m ~ m m
'
C9
+
[n
o
m
a
v
V
~
n
m
H m m m ~ a
~ m... m
n.mn n
H
xi
K!
~mnm
'S
n
[
J
-+]H
O
.
.
a
~
.m o wp~ ~rv~a
n
x ~ m z `C m o v m T~ •
[+J
C"
o n
O
0
"si
~
z
o
; m
.
.
-r
m
y
m n~ a d i•. m n o . o cn m-~, o m m m n
'
L+]
O
o.- 7~c
~
-n ~
G
7
H
L•]
t'
N
~
: _
~
r
,
m . o<~• 9 w
~
o o m m H~ m c~ m a
m
5
H
H
,
tn
'A $
t"
o
: m
'r
m
~
w
n
c c~ T m
n n naa m m m m
s~f
4
N
a
U]CC
H
v
o
m
m
m mvm K 45trbm~w mssv m~n
w
a n
'
N
m
3
LsJ m
F1
m
O L•1
C7
~
w
v
o
m
n
~o .
a m z 1.. w o o n b n o
.r m o a o N rt a o c a o o • 9 m a
O G'! N 10 O-1
M
$
.
~ n-
N J b
p,
d
M
7,"y
'y
~
~
n
~
. O 3
T R M C
N
N N
N N
~tl F! 4
O' O
x
hJ N rt N
•
y
~
l~
C
N
O
^
^
.
.
S N 7 r1 . 1+ W
~ r n M~ m ~
-
W
trl
[+J'- o a
W
o
o
r
'
~
.
xo a a~..m ~1 nm -n~
~ ann p
b
A1
a n
0
=
'A
n+
d
~
.
m
£
'o
,y
m
't
~
o n~ 0-
mn o~
m m an n a n ~n ~a a• mm
"5 a
H
'y
fn
T
~s
W
o
-n
H
~
a
n
n
.
d
v
n
w
s
'
NE NoM mnT< T ~v
'
rn
OOmv
w
G
y
O
N N ~ O RN Yd N S rt N d N N r?
b
EC R^S 'C P. N. ~ N In J . N C
fi
-
rb
0
7i N Gl
~
rt
N In
N
y
l J
y
r
a
'~i
p
;
N N
q P 4 0 G1 /t N N p. rt•
'
~ l IG
O
S
m
i'f [tf
m
(n
r
J
.
m
o b ~ -n o_ s ~
o ~ o rt
m
-
~
~
ty
c
~
p1
.
~
m
•
aa rtn..c ~o m a m
~ m av w m
~
~
.
.
~
F+
m
m
m
JO
11
y
i -r m
H v
n. a m-~i o o n~ a W o-~ n% T u
m.
*
O
c
0
m
<
m
-~i.
C1 S/)
g T < e C m b m F b m m. m n G~
'
~ m
O d
~
a
o
µ Q
y
O ~ >
y
O N
N rt N d O~I 4. G M 4. 4 rt N
N N
Sl . M 0'hti N O NN
P 0
.
d(GV•
O
➢
W
tn
3
n
1
^
a N`C J 4.f+4 WI 3£b SJ V N
Q
z
J,D
2n.Q
,
0
Z
~
[
'
y-~
~
N N mW 4.K 0.NNON2N dW
E
•
O
~F
^
Qp
2
~
3
ry
yyy
(n 1 v ~ f hJ
E]
~ -O K p' ~ K O G
d' a`
a
•
Vl N"! l
f~'
~'q O
•
A
a
a
°m
o .
°o
~ ~
~
J
- tl p n o ~ n m rv m x o m
f ~ O 1
l N 9
p
~ T~n
N N d
p W
~
~
O
~
m
tn
N
W
'
~ Ai I~
+
~
1L W O b T M. O N J r
N
rt ^ O N tS Q K E' J a N N.f ~ N
S
O
n£
~
~
i?
W
~ W
N
(l
F
yp
.
) ~ ~
C
. ~-M1 O
J 3 C 0 R N R d G~- -1~' J
N C
•
W
W
y
Cr
N
~
O S S p
W
~
X
M
°
T1
lt d P. O, N Ol N N ^
-F e~ O N M
•
~
tr ~
m
.
4~
( 0 .
{ T
Q
j
J
T
D
(
~
,s~
V V\ J
~ ~ O N N
M W~i
~ N' N 9 P k
tl
f
3
~
OJ
e
i
<
~l
C
o
a
y t'° C
n v b a x a n f a c v • c ~
N '
H
n
mO
O
-O N
O
3
m
r
•
v
O
D W
I 'f O
M Y
m"O
u 5 H 0 m O
-
Q
O
n
p
~j
c
N ~f r' 1~
_
.
~ O
w ~ tn 0 tr o E o H. M n W M N o N t0
O N J -h ~
'
O.
O~ j
p
a
~
rT N R 0 N ll C N
O rt tT 0 R
O ^ J S < W M k < ~ M A -h N d ` N J
~
VJ
o1 A d d
•
< m m ° aU, P' § W 5 i rv' o
a
H
O
o m m 2
°
O
0
? -d
N N
N
O
d
d O 0 F
tn
~
n
o
O
~ d C 0 Q
Q
j
N
i . W 4 ~ M rt S n . w
z
d~n
•
o
~
O
N M N 0 O W b R J G N N J 3
~
<
'
y~ j
<
S
S
~
~
~
c a
a
o o~
J C rt 0 M tr n o o a
. N J ~
Ll~ 1+N~C R Y 3 N
y
.
N
E
Ol y Q' O 4. ~ N O O L N N rt N
O
~
N
v
L>
Cl
i O
_ O
rf K~ ' M O R O S 0 W rt d• O O ~ d
m
vm oa
~
, N
rt
s a w aa-.o 0 0
1+M 0 ~ f- 2 n `G
n U
N O
~
N p-1 .
d
d
`
~
Ia ry C N d N N 7 O S S N£
N S~•
y
2`C N
< d
J
J
b O. ff 1L r! 'h J J~ N N
C d N O 9 r
N • W d L G'V' M 0 C O r~ 2 N !D N
K
.
N N l 2
~
^
l
v~ao u o wm
❑
~
p
-tirt
m
b n
y.b Q C M o W o O o w~ W O. < 7 < rt'O
y
v
-
~
o C ~C
d
_
o
~mam.
mrt
0 OWbao
b'o b n P rt m m t0 r. N~ m . m
~
~
m n m
doma . n~<D dM
r
m N M o v o w m m a~.w w.
m
N
r
~
d
c
-i .v
~
C tl~ ~ H< rt v ~ N
rt R 0 f+
`
N
N
< m
N
y
d J
S ~ Y O. G R N` O' -1
!
p
D
J O 8 4
0
.
• O m
O
d N rt 1O
1Y N M
.
RI :
i W
V
.
~ M 0 rt 2
b
A :
w
~
~
0
rn
~
~
sD
U)
(n
.t
~
CD
cD
.rt
U~" I RIT 17
CER?ZFZG?B OP RLSOLUTION
Z, Mary Lou Chapla, Secretazy to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of
' Adjuatment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was
duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jeffersfln,
`•:State of Colorado, on the 24th day of .7une , 1993:
SE NO: ; GU1-93-8
{
PI.ICSN'!'$ N71IQ:
,
4
Rebert Conner
ea' 3470 Estes Street
Upon motion by Board Member AH80TT , neconded by Hoard Member
DOOLEY , the following Resolution was stat2d.
WRERE118, the applicant was denied permissien by ar. Administrative`•
Officer; and
a{ `3 tiHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-93-8
is an appeal to this Board fzom the decision of an Administrative'
Offieer; and
iiBEREAS7 the property nas been posted the required 15 days by Iaw~
and there WERE NO protests registered against it; and
NREREAS; the relief applied foz MAY be granted without detriment
. to the public welfare and W3thout substantially impairing the
intent ar.d puzpose of the regulatlons governing the City of Wheat
, Ridqe.
NOW, THEREFpRE, HE ZT RESOLVED
that Board of Adjustment
AppliCation Case No. WA-43-8 ,
be anu
hereby is APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 500 square
foot to
the maximum azea of 1000
~
square feet
allclwed
for a duteched carage in a:.
:r;~x"'..rr:.
Residential-Two zone
district.
.
. To build a detached garage
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Y.hYM1. ' . .l?~1
1: 'The lot is one full acre and therefore -rizquires above average storaqe for maintenance equipment:
2. There are a few houses in the neighborhood which have over
` 1000 square foot detached structures.
3. This lot Currently has 250 square feet uf ehed storage, this
olus the lOdO square feet alloweA for a detached garage
=esults in only an increase of 250 square feet.
F'4. ';he 3000 square feet alloWed for a detached qaraye is a much
smaller percentage of a full acre than that samA 10U0 squaze
feet on a atandard builing lot, therefora this oversized
'tructure seems in pzopnrtion.
, EXHIBIT 8
,
~ .
~ x~...e. . _ . . ~n:
. . ~ ~ ~%i.
WZTH Ts'iE FOLLOWZNG CONDITIONS:
Five hur►dred (500) square feet of the proposed structure
l
must '
'
.
be devoted to non-vohicular storaye.
ust be remnved no
;
later
m
2. Three existing sheds on the preperty
of Certi£icate of Occupancy.
,
than 30 days after issuance
No additional sheds, garages or other storage structures
~3
may ^~4~'
.
be constzucted at a future date.
l
t
V~_
tion4
'
oc
e
4. Location of the structure will be in~the approxima
u
a
indicated in the applicant's survey.
VOTE: YES: Abbott, Dooley, Howard, Reynolds and Rossillon
NO: None
~
DISPOSITZOH: Variance yranted by a vote of 5-0.
DA ED this 24th da of June, 1993.
I --T'"
..~"ct-• h=- ~
RdBERT HOWARD, Chairman Mery o ChaQla, Sec
etas
Hoard of Adjustment Boar Adjustment
t.
I s~
. . .a9ri.~s_. . .
A.,oFWNE°Tqo CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
~ ym pLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
c~IORP~~ .
TO:
Board of Adjushnent CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert
CASE NO. & NAME:
WA-05-22/Pollock DATE OF MEETTNG: Jan. 26, 2006
ACTION REQiTESTED:
Approval of a 5 foot side yazd setback variance and a 5' reaz yard setback
variance from the 10 foot side and reaz yard setback requirements for detached
garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential Two (R-2).
LOCATION OF REQiJEST:
4280 Pierson Street
APPLICANT (S):
Doug Pollock
OWNER (S):
Doug Pollock
APPROXiMATE AREA:
9129 square feet
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential-Two (R-2)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FII.E & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
~ co
~
*
R
~
d'
Subject Parcel / I ~
~ iQ~
N
S7-
Board of Adjustment 1
Case WA-05-22/Pollack
Jurisdiction
All notificarion and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
I, REQUEST
The property in question is located at 4280 Pierson Street and has Residential Two (R-2) zoning.
The applicant, Doug Pollack, is requesting this variance as the property owner ~ Mfflmlv~-
The request is for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yazd setback requirement
and a 5' rear yazd setback variance from the 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached garages over 8
feet in height . The purpose of the variance request is to allow for the .
construcrion of a detached garage of approximately 576 square feet in the southeast corner of the property. ~The
R-2 zone district allows single family uses and accessory buildings.
It should be noted that in 2003, the setback requirements which aze applicable to this vaziance were changed.
Prior to the current regulation, adopted by City Council in 2003, the side and rear setback requirements were 5
feet in the R-2 zone district for detached gazages, regazdless of height. Therefore the proposed garage would
have been allowed without variances under the previous setback requirements.
All other development standards have been met with this request.
II. SITE PLAN
The property is 9129 square feet, or .21 acres. The property measures 85 feet wide with a depth of 107.4 feet.
The R-2 zone dishict has a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet for single
family lots.
The properiy currently has an existing single family residence on it. There is no covered parldng on the
property. A greenhouse/sunroom addition was constructed on the south side of the main sh-ucture in 2002.by a
previous owner. This addition is located 24' from the southem property line. The applicant has indicated that
if the 10' setbacks are required to be met, the gazage would be inaccessible due to proximity of the sunroom
addition. The exisring struchue is setback 38' from the front property line versus the typical 30' front setback.
The placement of the house results in less backyazd space. See attached Exhibit 3, which shows the pro erty
with 10' setbacks and Exhibit 4, which illustrates the ro erty with the proposed 5' setbacks
The neighborhood is comprised primarily of one-story ranch style homes with attached single caz garages or
carports. The property to the north appears to have a detached garage fairly close to the property line. One
variance in the area was granted at 4275 Pierson Street pursuant to Case No. WA-81-17. The variance which
was approved on June 25, 1981 was for a 15' side yard setbackrequirement when adjacent to a public street (W.
43`d Avenue) for consirucrion of an attached garage.
The Clear Creek 100-year floodplain ends just south ofthis property.
The property owner to the north, 4340 Pierson Street, has indicated to Staff that he has no objection to the
request NommemEgimom
II. VARIANCE CRITERIA
Board of Adjustment 2
Case WA-05-22/Pollack .
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. Can the property in question 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 wluch it is located?
If the request is denied, the property may srill receive a reasonable retum in use. The property may still be
used as a single family residence without the need for any variances.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
If approved, the request should not have a negative effect on the essential character of the localiTy. The
property directly to the north has a detached garage located very close to the common property line.
3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
involved result in a parficular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out?
There aze no unique condifions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in
question unbuildable. The property in quesflon is rectangulaz in shape and flat. There are limited
alternatives for placement of the garage due to the locafion of the sunroom addition and a lazger than
normal front setback (38' versus 30'). There is no covered pazldng on the property.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the
ProPerty?
The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a garage in this location:
5. Would the granting of the variance 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, 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?
Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other property in
the area. There may be a small decrease in the supply of light and air to adjacent properties if the
variance is approved. The request would not substanrially increase the congestion in public streets,
increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a
result of this request.
6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a beneSt or
contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on
the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable aecommodation
of a person with disabilities?
The request would not result in a substantial benefit or conh-ibution to the neighborhood distinguished
from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant.
The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities.
M. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIVIENDATIONS
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance request.
Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to the location of the existing house and a
Board of Adjustment 3
Case WA-05-22/Pollack
sunroom addifion completed in 2002 that would warrant approval of the variances. Therefore, staff recommends
APPROVAL for the following reasons:
1. There are limited alternatives for placement of the gazage due to the locafion of the sunroom
addirion and a larger than normal front setback.
2. If approved, the request should not have a negative effect on the essential character of the
locality or on property valuesin the neighboFhood.
3. There will be no negative impact to the public welfare or other properties in the area.
4. The request would not substantially increase the congesrion in public streets, increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
With the following condition:
The design and architechue of the proposed garage be similar in character to the existing house.
Board of Adjustmen[
Case WA-05-22/Pollack
EXI-IIBIT 1
To Whom It May Coneem:
This letter of request is in regard to 4280 Pierson St.. I am requesting that I be aloud to
build a 24ac24 garage five feet from both the back and side property lines on the south
east corner of the lot. The reason for this request is that if I was to follow the standard
setback of ten feet from the property line it would make the garage vary difficult to use.
The sunroom that cutrently exists on the south side of the house would block a large
portion of the gazage door and make it vary difficult to use on a daily basis. If this
vaziance was to be granted and the garage door offset as far south as possibie it would
make the gazage much more useable. On the copies of the ILC you will sez one that
shows the house and the property as they are now. The second copy shows the garage in
relation to the house and the sunroom if it was built using the l Oft set backs. The third
copy shows how moving the set backs to Sft will greatly improve the access to the
garage.
Thank u for yopr consideration,
Dougl Pollock
AAA SURVEYING SER EXH1B17' ?
P.O. BOX 2055 ARVADA,CO 8000.
303-519-7015/FAX 303-940-4927
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION GERTIFICATE
ATTEN: DOUG
JOB N0. 05-0871
DATE: 11 /15/2005
FEE: $ »0.00
MORTGAGE C0: PAUL PROPER7IES MANAGEMENT & CON3T.
ADDRESS: 4280 PIERSON STf2EET
BORROWERS NAME
LEGAL DESCRIP770N
(PER CUENT)
LOT 12, BAR HEIGHTS,
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO.
~
a
~
N
P
LEGEND:
.-«-x-. EXISIING fENCES
~ FOUND 3 REBAR
• FWND ~IN/CAp
} FOUND CROSS
SCALE 1°=40'
~ - io7.+o' - ~
I II
$ LOT 14 IgI
( I
~ ;o»rJ- - ~
I II
Ig LOT 13 Igl
I II
On the basis of my knowledge, information, and belief, 1 hereby certffy tnat this improvement location certiflicote wos prepared
for JEFFERSON COUNN BLDG. DEPT. that it is not a Land Survay Plat
or Improvement Survey Plot and that it is not to be relied upon for the establlshment of Fence, buBding, ar other future
improvement~~JjRear.J..~,further certify thaf the improvements on the o6ove descrlbed par~el on thls dota, except uttltty connections,
ore enttr~ w hiq~,tti~-byundaries of the parcel, excepf as shown, thot there are no encroachments upon the descrlbed premises
by impp~tt9`o~/~~}T-.edjoining premises, except as indlcoted, and thot there is no apparent evfdence or sign of any easement
cros~6i ¢.ucde~inq r~~aR~ part af said parce! except os noted. ~e p~_ P~~3 ,L ~
~ Gh:;~cordinq ip~+`Cdl~rado law you must commonceany legal action 6osed upon any defect in this survey within three years
y.~rst discoveyguch ~lefect. in no event may any aCtion based upon any dafect in tAfs survay be commenced more than
tert §~,ar~fi~qr~~{~ d¢~ ~[~ie cert(fication shown hereon.°
NOlE ILC IS BASED ON NOTE
b0571NG CONTR01. AS SHONN, yy/RYEY IS
A BWNOAftY SURYEY IS . PLp"W j
RECOMMfNDED. BEqRINGS
EXHIBIT 3
~ o~~c►;
~ LOT 93 S
$
.
N
Y
~
Yy!
~
~
~
~
~
RA
\
\
~
~
!D ~ SETf3A-C.,~-S
EXHIBIT 4
;
o~,o•
g LOT 13 ~
.
~
~
~
z
~
~
~
Q
~
~
~
~
an
~
.j
w
~
~
EXHIBIT 5
7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
3031235-2846 Fax:303/235-2857
The Ciiy o
Wheat
Ridge
°OtoRO°
rn
November 22, 2005
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA-05-22 which is a request for approval of a 5 foot
side yazd and 5 foot reaz yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yazd and 10 foot rear
yazd setback requirement for detached gazages over 8 feet in height for property zoned
Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4280 Pierson Street. This case will heard by the
Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on December 7, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing
and/or submit written comments.
If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning
Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you.
Planning Division.
\lsrv-ci-eng-001\users\kfield\Katliy\BOA\pubnotice\2005\wa0522.wpd ,p f)
~
~;OF W~~T R~Q CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
c~LORP~O
TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-23/Rensch DATE OF MEETING: January 26, 2006
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a variance to the maximum fence height standard pursuant to
Section 26-603 of the Code of Laws on property zoned Residenrial One (R-1).
LOCA7'ION OF REQiTEST: 3805 Garrison Street
APPLICANT (S): Scott Rensch
OWNER (S): Julia McClurg and David S. Ebersole
APPRO}IIMATE AREA: 14,168 (33 acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residenria] One (R-1)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
r
m
00
w
W
°
Go
N
co
c'R-9
"
co
tn
0
o
T
~n
r
c°i
~
r00i
m
~
Q
M
~
~
-
(X) DIGTTAL PRESENTATION
F-
w
~
~
Subject Property
O p
13790 g ~ R-2 o
3785
Board of AdjusMent 1 Case WA-05-231Reouh
Jurisdiction
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
1. REQUEST
The property in quesrion is located at 3805 Garrison Street. The property has Residenrial One (R-1) zoning.
The applicant, Scott Rensch, is requesting this variance on behalf of the property owner
. The request is for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 6 foot masimum fence height standard
pursuant to Secrion 26-603 of the Code of Laws resulting in an 8 foot fence. The 8 foot fence is proposed to go
on the south side of the property, adjacent to 38'" Avenue ~ . The purpose of this variance
request is to allow for a fence 8 feet in height to the south of the subject property to allow for adequate privacy
from 380' Avenue. The property in quesrion sits lower in elevarion than the 38d' Avenue right-of-way, including
the sidewalk . There is an exisring approacimately 3 foot high retaining wall
.
along the south property line adjacent to the 38 Avenue right-of-way and sidewalk
MEMENEEMEM
These improvements were constructed by the City as part of the 38d' Avenue reconstruction project at this
locarion. The fence is proposed to be located in the 38b Avenue ciTy right-of-way. The reasons for this are
discussed in the case analysis. The subject property is addressed and accessed off of Garrison Street, therefore
the south property line adjacent to 38'" Avenue is considered the side property line. Fences up to six feet in
height aze not allowed within minimum required front yards, however they are allowed in side yards as long as
there is no violation of the City's sight distance triangle regulafions in Secrion 26-603 (B) of the Code of Laws.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The subject property is approximately 14,168 square feet, or 33 acres. The property measures 100 feet wide
with a depth of approximately 140 feet.
The azea surrounding the property in question consists of single family homes on all sides, with a church and
the Wide Horizons care facility to the south and east. The property abuts 38'h Avenue, which is classified as a
collector street.
The grade change on the subject property makes it problematic for the property owner to construct a privacy
fence 6 foot in height that provides a h-ue 6 feet of privacy from the 38`h Avenue right-of-way. Per the Code of
Laws Sea 26-603 (1)(2) the height of the fence is measured from finished grade, 5 feet inside the property
which it belongs. There is approximately 3 feet of grade sepazation between the driving surface of 38`" Avenue
and the applicants property where the fence is proposed to go.
Also problematic for the property owner is the fact that the property line adjacent to the 38h Avenue right-of-
way does not immediately abut the above mentioned retaining wall. In other words, for the applicant to
construct the fence on their property, it would leave a strip of City right-of-way land, approximately 5 feet in
width between the retaining wall and the fence which may present maintenance concems
Per Sec. 26-502 (G) of the Code of Laws, property owners/occupants aze responsible for
maintenance of landscaping within the portion of the public right-of-way between the back of the curb or street
pavement and their properry. The applicant, as well as the Public Works Department, has expressed that the
preferable altemative would be to construct the fence in the City right-of-way abutting the retaining wall so this
remnant sh-ip of land would not remain. In order to construct a fence in the right-of-way, a right-of-way permit
must be obtained from the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department has agreed that a right-of-
way permit would be issued for this fence. Aftached is the form used for right-of-way pemuts, and the
language that will be inserted into this specific pernut regazding the maintenance of the fence
memo=
Board of Adjus[ment
Case WA-05-23/ReouA
It appears that if the fence were constructed on the south property line, and not in the City right-of-way, there
would be a conflict with existing mature trees. Construcring the fence abutting the retaining wall appears that it
would minimize the amount of vegetation that the property owner would have to remove EMENEEM
The fence will be subject to the City's sight distance triangle regulations in Section 26-603 (B) of the Code of
Laws. This regulation essentially prohibits any potentially hazardous obshvcrions to view for motorists and
pedestrians at the intersecrion of streets, driveways and alleyways. This property is a corner lot, therefore these
regularions apply. There cannot be a fence, or obstruction to view, exceeding 36 inches in height within the
sight triangle on the subject property. Attached is an illUStrarion of this requirement for the subject property
Staff was unabie to find any comparable variance requests in the immediate vicinity
H. VARIANCE CRITERIA
Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be
used only uader the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located?
If the request is denied, the property may srill receive a reasonable return in use. The property may srill be
used as a single family residence without the need for any variances.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
The request wil] have a minima] effect on the essenria] character of the locality. An 8 foot fence at the
proposed locarion will be less impactive given the grade change between the two properties. Given the
gade change and the approximately 3 foot retaining wall on the south property line, the 8 foot fence at
the location proposed would have the same visual impact as a 5-6 foot fence. Fences aze allowed up to 6
feet in height in side yards.
3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topograp}tical condition of the specific property
involved result 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 is an approximately 3 foot high retaining wall between the property in question and the 380'Avenue
right-of-way. The manner in which the height of the fence is measured pursuant to the Code of Laws
(from finished grade 5 feet inside property which it belongs) makes it problematic to have a hue 6 foot
privacy fence for the property owners on this porlion of the lot.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presenUy having an interest in the
property?
The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a fence of 8 feet in height in this locarion.
However, the grade change on the property and the inability for the applicant to have a 6 foot high fence
that provides 6 feet of privacy on the south property line may be considered the hardship in this instance.
T'tie inability for the applicant to have a h-ue 6 foot privacy fence is in part difficult because the City
conshucted an approximately 3 foot high retaining wall at this location on 38`" Avenue.
5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property or improvements in the neighborhood in wluch the property is located, by, among other
things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing
BoaN of Adjustment
Case WA-05-23/Rensch
the congestion in public streets or iacreasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or
substantially diminislung or impairing property values within the neighborhood?
Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other property in
the area. There will not be a decrease in the supply of light and air to adjacent private property. The
request would not substanrially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request.
6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or
contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as dis6nguished from an individual benefit on
the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation
of a person with disabilities?
The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contriburion to the neighborhood distinguished
from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant.
The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabiliries.
M. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMNIENDATIONS
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria ue supportive of the variance request.
Staff has found that there aze unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a
variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons:
1. There is an approximately 3 foot retaining wall on the south property line and a significant
grade change on the property which creates a hudship for the property owners to have a hve 6
foot privacy fence on the south property ]ine. The retaining wal] was constructed by the City.
2. The request will have a minimal effect on the essenrial character of the locality. An 8 foot
fence at the proposed location will be less impacrive given the grade change between the 38'"
Avenue right-of-way and the subject property. The 8 foot fence at the locarion proposed would
have the same visual impact as a 5-6 foot fence.
With condifions:
1. The fence height variance is approved for the fence as shown on the site plan submitted by the
applicant. The applicant must submit infortnation with the building permit which illustrates
that the fence will be out of the sight distance triangle.
2. The variance is not applicable to the sight distance triangte on the subject property. The fence
must adhere to all sight distance triangle requuements in the Code of Laws.
3. The properry owner's must obtain a right-of-way pemvt from jhe Public Works Department
prior to constructing the fence in the right-of-way.
Board otAdjustmeot 4
Case N'A-05-23/Rensch
V~,e\ ~ l~~~
(0` 44~~
~~~~T
F/-O-"
Currently, our side yard faces 38`h ave. and provides easy view into our property. The
street and sidewalk are raised about 5 feet above the level of the entrance to the house
and we are located in a busy section of the street, close to the high school and in between
two RTD stops which provide a fairly steady amount of foot traffic. We would very
much like to place a fence against the 38`' avenue side of our property but a normal 6 foot
fence would not provide any additional privacy due to the raised grade of the property as
well as a 3 foot wall at the edge of the property that at the top is at street level. T'his
means that only 3 feet of a 6 foot fence would extend past the height of the street and
sidewalk, providing little additional benefit. By allowing for an 8 foot fence, we would
in essence have 5 feet visible from the street, and would provide more adequate privacy
and elimination of road noise.
S c~ `~.ah scl.~
/3 ui/p(
C- 3(Rob~`~~8`~
O- 31 q31e- 5000
2 2Q~5 ~
EXHIBIT 1
~ Z
Q
~ ~ ~qw FR U°X~
~
?
N
o z1OJ~°~
a Q
¢
~ ~Y m~~oa~~
~
K
0- QV}- ~o ¢U x¢~ Qw~
N
~ ~aWWViMZ
U L`~W~¢
Y
~
y ~
~
.L.Yq F) UW~f7~
~ W ~ 0 WU
}
~
~
J
W
T
Z
a ~ °°fv
aa
Q
vl, t
i~~~o
~
3
W
>
<
U NU QJ
(7 V J WQJJ~~¢~
w ~
W
R
O
Q U>CI
Z 1.7F`~Vr Nw. W~W iDv~~ZJW
f
0 '
L7
U
l.L J0 Z JWO
x
x
V LLI
.
„'+d'HUl.7D
~
Z
i i
Y
li L'i
i-
~
O
O
V 4'
O1 ~
m
J 0
0
(
i
Q
Z
~
l;J
U
Q
N
L~
W
Fl
~
~
~
I
i
1
Q Cp
J N ~
~ i
/ W U
~ d
c
4n0 04 4no 0-,b6 ° N
£ Bal aJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - RtiM do 4-46w D!lqnd - (D - -
~ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ♦ ■ ■ ~
C~
T4' 3
aAH q4-SE U i
EXHIBIT 2
Z
u
~
w
a
a
N
U
Q
li
aL
d
Q
V
F
~
~
0 20 40 Feet \
3805 GARRISON ~
Contours, Elevations in White
Property Lines in Biack EXHIBIT 3
I-
W
W
~
F-
U)
Z
O
U)
cr
Q
0
LO
0
00
c~
~XHIBIrT 4
0 20 40 Feet \
3805 GARRISON l~
right-of-way/property line boundary.
qraa r_.rosc hatchPd in[iir_.atP-s dictanr_.P hetwe?n rPtajnjnr~ v~all anri
CITY flF WHEAT f2lDGE
7500 WEST 29nAVENi1E
1NHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033
PHONE (303) 235-2881
APPLICATION FOR RlGHT !OF WAY PERMIT
2.
3.
4.
5.
Name, address, and telephone number of praposed Permittee:
Describe location and nature of strudure or other intrusion info the City of Wheat Ridge
rigM-of-way and idenfrfy right,of way; attach map other diagram:
Briefly describe reasons for encroachmerat and aitematives considered:
Indemnification.
.
The Permitiee #or itseff and its heirs, successors and_ assigds, herebq releases and
discharges the City, its employees, agerrts end assigns irorn any liability and from any
and aIl claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action, or suits of any kind or
nature whaisosver related to or arising trom Pertnittee's occupation of the pubiic right-ofi-
way permitted hereunder. The Permittee agrees that the City may elect to provide its
own defense or to require Permittee to provide such services. The Permittee shaB be
liable for all costs and fees relaied to the defiense, regardless of which party provides the
services.
insurance.
(a) No peRnit shall be issued or remain in effect unless the Permittee obtains
and maintains in force and on file wi3h the Pubfic Works. Deparimeni, suificient
evidence ofi a general liability policy covering injury to or'tiesVuction of properiy
and bodily injury, including death, to a# least the tiabitity limits established by
Sedion 2410-114, Colorado Revised Statutes, (currendy $150,000 per persan
and $600,000 per occurrence) and as hereafter may be amended.
(b) ftequired coverage may be evidenced by sndorsement, wiih the city
named as an addiiionai insured, and providing for ihirty (30) days' notice to the
Direcior of Public Works or his designee in the eveM of anv ma#erial change in or
cancellafion oi the coverage.
City M Wlaeat Ridge
RigM of Way Aenn@ AppTcation
EXHIBIT 6
REV 2DD4
(c) The Permittee must provide proof ot the insurance coverages required by
this Paragraph on an annual basis and ai such other times as reasonably
requesiad by the Director of PubGc Works or his designee.
The undersigned, by his signature, acknowledges the helshe is: An authorized
represerrtative of the Permittee; tha# the Permittee is #amiliar with and agrees to comply with
ali laws and regulations of.the Ciiy of Wheat Ridge applicable to the permit granfad
herewiih; that any misrepresentations or #aise statements appearing herein shali
automaticatly cause this permit to be nuli and void in its entirety; and helshe hereby releases
the City of Wheat_ftidge ftom any liability which may arise from the issuance o# the righ# of
way encroachmeni permitted hereon. The City may, with 90 days written notice, terminafe
this permii. The Permitiee herein agrees the City shafl nat be held iiable for any costs
incurred by the Permittee resufting from such tertnination:
Permitcee
For City Use Only - Permittee not to write below this line
Action bv Citv
The Pettnft is:
approved
~ aPProved, with condi#ions (afteehed)S2z- a~
denied
The term of ihis Right of Way Permit is: 5 924 V--S-_ (may not excesd five years)
Oate of Issue: - Expiration Date: 12oll)
The term of this Right of Way Permit shall be in accordance wiih Section 21-102 of the Ciiy
af Wheat Ridge Code of Laws.
City Engineer
Date
City of Wheat Ridge
Right oiWay PermitApplication. .
12EV 2004
I-
W
W
~
I--
~
Z
O
U)
cr
rr
Q
0
LO
0
co
rY)
EXHIBIT 7
NOS N~Jt~D
~
co
o ~
W
~ o co
o
~
~
c
o
o
N
Ca}
.m~
U V >
Z
~ ~ ~ a)
m ~
N
~-o
~
~
Q
LO
0
co
M
~
~
LO
N
~
~
~
LO
LO
W
D
z
W
~
<C
_
00
cY)
EXHIBIT 8
~;oFwN~i;~.oT CITy OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
°QtoanA°
TO:
Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt
CASE NO. & NAME:
WA-05-25/Kannapinn DATE OF MEETING: January 26, 2006
ACTION REQiJESTED:
Approval of a variance from the maximum number of freestanding signs
allowed.
LOCATION OF REQiTEST:
10160 West 50`h Avenue
APPLICANT (S):
Jerry Kannapinn
OWNER (S):
Spasco Ltd.
APPROXIMATE AREA:
82,182 square feet (1.89 acres)
PRESENT ZONIlVG:
Commercial One (C-1)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAI.S (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Subject Parcel
ARV,4CkA
Board of Adjustment 1
Case WA-05-25/Kannapinn
Jurisdiction
All notificarion and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdicrion to hear this case.
1. REQUEST
The property in question is located at 10160 West 50'h Avenue. The property has Commercial-One (Gl)
zoning.
The ap licant is requesting this variance on behalf of the property owner, Spasco Ltd
The request is for approval of a variance from the maximum number of freestanding signs allowed.
Per Secfion 26-709 (D)(2) of the Code of Laws, a maximum of one freestanding sign per street frontage is
allowed for nonresidential properry. Street frontages aze those streets which are public rights-of-way. While
the property essentialiy has street frontage on all sides, only one street is public right-of-way in SQ`" Avenue
All other street frontages (west, south and east) are currently private streets,
not public rights-of-way.
The two proposed freestanding signs are located at the northwest and northeast comers of the site, adjacent to
50' Avenue. The northwest sign is the main identification monument sign, and the northeast sign is the
secondary identification monument sign. The northwest sign is shown as 12 feet in height and 64 square feet in
size. The northeast sign is shown at 10 feet in height, and 76 squaze feet in size All other development
standards for freestanding signage have been met with this request.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The property is currently being developed for an approximately 14,400 square foot multi-tenant retail structure.
Surrounding properties include commercial uses to the east which are adjacent to Kipling Sireet, vacant,
commercially zoned property to the south, and industrial uses to the west. To the north of the subject property
is the City of Arvada, and a recently constructed lazge scale commercial development.
Given sign regularions, and the subject properties' offset from Kipling Sheet, freestanding sign visibility is
problematic for this development. There are unique circumstances in that there are streets on all sides of the
property, and access points on three of the four sides of the property. Three of these sireets aze classified as
private, and only one of them is considered public right-of-way therefore only one freestanding sign is allowed.
Providing visibility for motorists on Kipling Sireet has been noted as essenfial by the appiicant, thereiore 'u'ie
need exists for signage on the northeast comer of the property. The private sireet on the west side of this
property aligns with access into the above mentioned new large scale development, therefore the applicant
wishes to have identificarion here as well. If any of the private streets shown on the site plan were classified as
public streets, the applicant would be allowed two freestanding signs.
H. VARIANCE CRITERIA
Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. Can the property in question 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 is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. The property may still be
used as commerciaUretail properry without the need for any variances.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
The request will have a ininimal effect on the essential chazacter of the locality. The property essenfially
funcfions as comer lot, therefore the allowance for two freestanding signs is appropriate. The applicant
Board of Adjustment
Case WA-05-25/Kannapinn
has expressed, and the elevations submitted indicate that the signage will compliment the architecture of
the building itsel£
3. Does the particular physical snrrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
involved resuit 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 no conditions related to the shape or topographical condition of the property that render any
portion of the lot unbuildable for a freestanding sign. There are however unique conditions in that there
aze essenrially 4 street frontages, and three vehicular access points but only one street classified as a public
sfreet. The purpose of the allowance of one freestanding sign per street frontage in the Code of Laws is to
allow for visibility of signage for motorists.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardslup been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property?
The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a variance to allow for two freestanding signs in
this location. The property does funcrion as a comer lot with multiple street frontages, however only one
street is considered a public right-of-way.
5. Would the granting of the variance 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, 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?
Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other properry in
the azea. The request would not impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The
request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request.
6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or
contriburion to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on
the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation
of a person with disabilities?
The request would not result in a substanfial benefit or contriburion to the neighborhood distinguished
from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. The request would not result in a reasonable
accommodation of a person with disabiliries.
III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMNIENDATIONS
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance request.
Staff has found that there are unique cucumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a
variance. Therefore, staffrecommends APPROVAL for the following reasons:
1) The request will have no effect on the essential chazacter of the locality. The property functions
as a corner lot with mulriple street frontages. In most cases corner lots are allowed two
freestanding signs.
2) There aze unique conditions in that the property has street frontages on all sides, with only one
being public right-of-way and the others being private streets. Current regulations only allow
public rights-of-way to be considered street frontages for the purposes of freestanding signage.
3) Staff considers the request reasonable for visibility purposes.
Board otAdjustment . 3
Case WA-05-25/I{annapinn
4) The elevarions submitted indicate freestanding signage which will compliment the buildings
architecture and be an attractive element to the property. Monument style signs are encouraged,
and the proposed signs will be monument signs.
With the following condition:
1) The signage constructed shall be consistent with the elevations and site plan submitted for this
variance application.
Board of Adjustment . 4
Case WA-05-25/I{annapinn
Z
Z
a
a
z
z
~ December 15, 2005
Ms. Meredith Reckert
Senior Planner
City of Wheat Ridge
I 7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Dear Meredith:
~
d
11 ~a.
8670 JELLISON ST.
ARUADA, CO.
sooos
i am requesting a variance for a new retaii development (Blue Grass Terrace) located
at 10160 West 50"' Avenue.
The variance requested is to allow two free standing signs along West 50'h Avenue.
Justification is as follows. 1. 81ue Grass Terr'ace fronts on three streets (501' Avenue, Street A and Street
g). i ,
2. Would like to identify Blue Grass Terrace from the intersection of 50th Avenue
and Kipling.
3. Need idenfification before ihe main entrance at Street B where you have to
tum left (need to' get into left lane).
4. !t weuld not cause any detrimental efFects to surrounding properties and in fact
compliments the sign program of the Arvada Ridge deyelopment.
5. Would increase the leasing space appeal for the building.
6. Aesthetically blerids into the project in both i etting and architectural
compatibility. j ,
Meredith, again, thank you for the opportunity in presenting ttiis variance application
to help us in enhancing, our project and tenarrt appeal. This is going to be a very nice
project for the City of Wheat Ridge.
,
EXHIBIT 1
x;aNN::P:NN IPAP-i 1\:1:.: d [O.>t.rN - :;ANnAPiNN A.I.A. D>:siCr,rr~. , Ar;('H1-Ft".TS
:P
~ -r,
z
3,~
z
¢
s
~
~
~y.Sff4~.
.e
e
,nnit,~atl.
O
~
~
Vy
o:
'
~ o
i
'
6
w
!
.
W
A J~
G'
00 N
e~
i
o
,
•N ~
.
W
aM~o
'
I
W
~
F ac
p LLI
~
Q~ 4
~
.
~ r
~
i
. ~ ! I..
`Sheet,
I.I3:M tafl j
Secoir+dary t:D.; Nlonuinegt
. . Soeia'sve'+~P>o'-~: .
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
September 22, 2005
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Blair at 730 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the MunicipaT Building, 7500 West 29~' Avenue, Wheat Ridge,
Colarado.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Tom Abbott
Bob Blair
Paul Aovland
Bob Howard
Betty Jo Page
Members Absent: Daniel Bybee
Janet Bell
Paul Drda
Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretazy
The following is the official set of Board of Adjustrnent minutes for the public
hearing of September 22, 2005. A set of these minutes is retained both in the
office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the
City of Wheat Ridge.
3. PUBLIC FORUM
No one indicated a desire to speak at this time.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
Acting Chair BLAIR stated that with only five members present, four affirmative
votes would be required to grant a variance. He informed the applicants that they
had the right to request a continuance if they wanted their cases to be heazd when
more members were present. There was no response from either applicant.
A. Case No. WA-05-17: An application filed by Jerry Roach for approval of
a partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscaping Requirements) for the
property zoned Restricted Commercial and located at 7331 West 44"'
Avenue.
Board of Adjustment
09-22-OS
Prior to his presentation, Jeff Hirt entered a letter from the applicant into the
record. A copy of this letter was provided to each Board Member and also made
a part of the case file. After the Board had opporhznity to review the letter, Mr.
Hirt entered all pertinent documents into the record which were accepted by Chair
BLAIR. He advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case and
reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of
the request for reasons outlined in the staff report.
The applicant is planning to build a 2,700 square foot addition to an existing
commercial structure. With these proposed changes there are required
landscaping improvements under the Code.
Board Member HOWARD commented that the applicant could have applied for a
zone change to Planned Commercial Development. Meredith Reckert explained
that zoning is in place to allow the addition and therefore the applicant could not
be required to rezone to a Planned Commercial Development, even though staff
would have preferred it. There would be more flexibility with landscaping under
a PCD.
Jerry Roach
7331 West 44th Avenue
Mr. Roach, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He stated that his
original plans called for a six-foot landscape buffer in front of the fence on the
northern boundary of the property. He and his architect were then told that the
bnffer was not necessazy because of the six-foot fence. In response to a question
from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Roach stated that he could not recall the name
of the person who gaue that information during one of severai meetings he
attended with the city and fire department.
Mr. Roach disagreed with the staff report that landscaping in front of the existing
building was nonconforming because he received a variance for the landscaping
in 1981. He stated he would be providing more landscaping in front than required
by the city while many neighboring properties do not seem to take pride in
landscaping. He provided photos of those properties. He offered to add
additional landscaping at the corner of 44and Vance at the other end of the
building.
Board Member ABBOTT suggested that it would be advantageous to Mr. Roach
and the city if his two lots were combined. Mr. Roach stated that a land surveyor
is presently looking into this. Meredith Reckert commented that, while
combining the lots would help to more effectively deal with parking and
landscaping issues, the six-foof buffer strip at the rear of the property would still
be required. In order to accommodate fire access azound the rear of the building
Board of Adjustment - 2 -
09-22-OS
as configured, the 6 foot wide required buffer needs to be waived by the Board of
Adjustment. This buffer cannot be administratively waived by staff.
Board Member ABBOTT asked the applicant if he would consider continuing the
case in order to give more time to work out parking and landscaping issues. Mr.
Roach indicated that he would prefer not to delay building construction because
of approaching winter weather.
Chair BLAIR asked if there were any present who wished to address this case.
There was no response.
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 No. WA-05-17(A) is an
appeal to this 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
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-05-17(A) be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: A partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscaping
Requirements) specifically related to the required 6 foot wide landscape
buffer along the northern property line for property zoned Restricted
CommerciaL
For the following reasons:
1. The full six-foot buffer in this location would seem to serve no
practical purpose as to the intent of the ordinance.
2. The inclusion of the full six-foot landscape buffer precludes the
required twenty-foot drive path around the north side of the building
addition as required by the fire department.
With the following conditions:
Board of Adjustment - 3 -
09-22-OS
1. Any property remaining along the north property line of 7331 W. 44tn
Avenue after provision of the required fire department access
required parking dimensions will require landscaping.
Board Member HOVLAND commented that the building seemed to be too deep
to accommodate buffering and parking. He asked if the building was redesigned
to be larger when the applicant thought the landscaping buffer was not required.
Mr. Roach replied that the initial plan was drawn up with space for the landscape
buffer. After meeting with the fire department where he was told he didn't need
the buffer because of the six-foot fence, he and the azchitect proceeded on that
basis.
The motion failed 3-2 with Board Members HOWARD and HOVLAND
voting no.
Chair BLAIR advised the applicant that his request regarding the landscape buffer
along the north property line was denied.
Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND 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 No. WA-05-17(B) is an
appeal to this 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
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 Case No. WA-05-
17(B) be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: A partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscaping
Requirements) specifically related to the ten-foot landscape requirement
abutting 44th Avenue for property zoned Restricted Commercial.
For the following reasons:
~
Boazd of Adjustment - 4 -
09-22-OS
1. The variance does not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood as there is currently angled parking adjacent to the
street.
2. It would not be detrimental to the public welfare and, as designed, the
landscaping that the applicant has included can be perceived as a
possible benefit to the neighborhood by increasing some of the
landscaping as seen from the public view.
Board Member ABBOTT offered the following friendly amendment:
Reason No. 3: It is not in the best interest of the city or its citizens that this
commercially zoned property remain a vacant, paved and othenvise
unimproved parcel.
The amendment was accepted by Board Members HOVLAND and PAGE.
Board Member HOVLAND requested an amendment to add two conditions
to his motion as follows:
l. Landscaping will be required as shown on the review with planters
and trees as approved by the city.
2. Parking spaces in front that lack adequate depth must be addressed
and approved by the city.
Board Member PAGE agreed to the amendment to add the two conditions.
Board Member ABBOTT offered another friendly amendment as follows:
Condition No. 3: Landscaping of the 171 square foot triangle at the corner of
44th and Vance, as proposed in the applicant's letter, be requireu.
The amendment was accepted by Board Members HOVLAND and PAGE.
The motion passed 5-0.
(The meeting was recessed from 9:10 to 9:17 p.m.)
B. Case No. WA-05-18: An application filed by Michael Pusateri fbr
approval of an 8 foot rear yard setback vaziance from the 15 foot reaz yazd
setback requirement for a swimming pool on property zoned Residential
One and located at 3201 Nelson Street.
This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent docuxnents into the
record which were accepted by Chair BLAIR. He advised the Board there was
Boazd of Adjustment - 5 -
09-22-OS
jurisdiction to hear the case and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation.
Staff recommended approval of the request for reasons outlined in the staff report.
In response to a question from Board Member HO WARD, Meredith Reckert
explained that the easement referred to in the staff report is an 8-foot utility and
drainage easement. The pool would encroach into the easement by one foot.
Approval from appropriate parties would be required far this encroachment to
occur.
Michael Pusateri
3201 Nelson
Mr. Pusateri, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He is requesting an 8-
foot reaz yard setback to build a 16-foot by 36-foot swimming pool.
In reply to a question from Board Member PAGE, Mr. Pusateri stated that there is
a sump pump that would pump any water away from the perimeter of the
property.
Kyle Lynch
1621 Iris Street, Lakewood
Mr. Lynch, the applicanYs contractor, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. In
response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Lynch stated that any
overflow from the pool.would be accommodated by a sump pump. He also stated
that, from a structural standpoint, the pool could be built no closer than four feet
from the house.
Chair BLAIR asked if there were others present who wished to address this case.
There was no response.
Upon a motion by Board lYlember ABBOTT and second py Board Member
HOWARD, the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-18 is an appeal
to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
Whereas, the property has been posted the fdteen days required by law, and
in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and
Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the
public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of
the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge.
Board of Adjustment - 6 -
09-22-OS
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case
No. WA-05-18 be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: An 8-foot rear yard setback variance from the 15-foot
rear yard setback requirement for a swimming pool on property zoned
Residential One.
For the following reasons:
1. The request will have a minimal effect on the essential character of
the locality.
2. There are very limited options for placement of a swimming pool of
the size proposed without the need for a variance or variances. The
property is a corner lot and thus subject to more stringent setback
requirements. Without the benefit of the variance, the pool could only
be eight feet wide.
3. The intent of the classification of swimming pools as structures
subject to setback requirements is more applicable to above-ground
pools. The applicant is proposing an in-ground pool.
4. The pool can be located no closer to the house due to structural piers
on the house itself.
5. A letter of approvai for the variance was received from a
representative of the Applewood Reserve Subdivision.
With the following condition:
1. The pool shall be in-ground and not be an above-ground pool.
2. This variance acknowledges the one-foot drainage easement
encroachment and final approval is subject to review by City of
Wheat Ridge Department of Public Works.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair BLAIR closed the public hearing.
6. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Board.
NEW BUSINESS
• Approval of minutes - August 25, 2005
Board of Adjustment - 7-
09-22-05
Boazd Member BLAIR requested the following amendment to the minutes:
Board Member Howard should be listed as present at the August 25, 2005
meeting.
It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board
Member PAGE to approve the minutes of August 25, 2005 as amended.
The motion passed unanimously.
• Jeff Hirt reported that Janet Bell is working on changes to the Boazd's bylaws
regarding appointment of alternates and has asked that Boazd members e-mail
any suggestions to her. Meredith Reckert commented that she is also working
on Section 2-61 of the Codes of Laws relating to Board of Adjustment powers
and duties.
8. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member
HOVLAND to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Bob Blair, Acting Chair
Boazd of Adjustment
09-22-OS
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
-8-