The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/25/2006CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA May 25, 2006 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on May 25, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the City. Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29tb Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL ELECTION OF OFFIQERS 4. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WF-06-02 (continued from Anri127. 2006): An application filed by Patrick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Perrnit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One (R-1) and located at approximately 3430 Sunms Street. B. Case No. WA-06-06: An application filed by Holly Hall far approval of a 3.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot reaz yard setback variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback AND a 136 square foot variance to maxi2num lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R-1) and located at 3880 Everett Street. C. Case No. TUP-06-01: An application filed by Medved Autoplex for approval of a one-year Temparary Structure Pernut to allow an office trailer on property zoned Commercial-One (C-1) and located at 11001 West I-70 Frontage Road North. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - April 27, 2006 9. ADJOURNMENT u,~E WH~"q T CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ PLANNING DIVI5ION STAFF REPORT 1. CO~ORP~O TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: 7eff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WF-06-02/Koentges DATE OF MEETIlVG: May 25, 2006 ACTION REQiTESTED: Approval of a Class II Floodplain Exceprion Pernut to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One (R-1). LOCATION OF REQI7EST: Approximately 3430 Simms Street APPLICANT (S): Patrick Koentges OWNER (S): Roger Knight APPROXIMATE AREA: Tract "A": 28,006 square feet (.64 acres) Lot 2: 43,598 (1 acre) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-One (R-i) ~ M . o ~ ~'rnM ~ I 1~ I M h~ 1 ~ l N, i~1 1 . . . Boazd of Adjushnem 1 Case WF-06-02/Koentges Jurisdiction All notificarion and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case 1. REQUEST The properiy in question is located at ap oximately 3430 Simms Street, and encompasses two separate lots at this fime, "Lot 2" and Tract "A" . Lot 2 is 43,598 square feet (1 acre) and Tract "A" is 28,006 (.64 acres) maldng the total lot azea 71,604 (1.64 acres). The applicant is requesting a class II flood lain exception eimit to allow for conshuction of a single family home - The property is currently zoned Residential One (R-1), and sits vacant with no structures on it. The R-1 zone dish-ict allows single family residential uses and accessory buildings. The majority of the property is within the 100 year floodplain. A11 other development standards have been met with this request. Per the Code of Laws Sec 26-808 (D)(1) the Board of Adjustment must heaz this case. U. CASE ANALYSIS The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws states that in order for any single family home to be constructed in the 100 year floodplain a floodplain pernut must be obtained. Specifically, Sec 26-806 (D) states that any new conshuction of any residential structure for human occupancy within the floodplain must obtain a class II floodplain permit, and plans must be certified by an engineer to the floodplain administrator that the lowest floor is elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation. The applicant has submitted all required information, and the floodplain administrator has not approved the request. The applicant has also submitted the required final drainage report from a registered engineer, which indicates that the lowest floor of the house will be at least one foot above the base flood elevarion of 5428.57 feet . However, there are other issues which aze problemaric related to the impact on the floodplain and adjacent properry. Based on the plans submitted, there may still be an adverse impact on the floodplain and there is grading proposed on adjacent property miliMilillipSIBMIlM . The floodplain administrator cannot approve the request until this has been resolved, and approval has been received from adjacent properiy owners where necessary. The engineer for this project has expressed that there may be a solurion which would make the floodplain pernut approvable. Information may be presented which states this prior to the public hearing. However, based on the information that has been presented to staff and reviewed by the floodplain administrator, this application cannot be approved at this time. There aze also currently two sepazate properties which encompass the building footprint proposed for the house. The applicant must consolidate these rivo lots prior to approval for the building pernut, if this floodplain pernut is approved. Consolidation plats can be approved administratively without a public hearing. II. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOIVIlVIENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the single family home as proposed may have a negative impact on the 100 year floodplain. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. The floodplain administrator has not approved the request based on the information submitted at this rime. 2. There may be a detrimental effect on the 100 year floodplain based on the information that has been submitted and reviewed. I Boazd of Adjushnent Case WF-06-02/Koentges r/n 3 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 w ~ W ~ d V7 H I ~ ~ I ~ I I I I I ~ I I ~ ~ I I I ~ I x I I ~ ~ I ~ I I i I „ert.,,,oma KNIGHT SUBDIVISON ~ s«Uon za. r. 3 R. 69 w. A RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT "8", VALLEY BROOK SUBDIVISON BEING A PART OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 28, , TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON UxSUBOMDEO ZONEO ft-1 ~ ~SEME~iI ~ i~ i~''/`✓16ts~~~~µ / ' TRACT."A VALLEY BROOK SUBDIVISION (NOT A PARi OF THIS SUBDIVISION) LOT 4 10.59].91 50. F. ~NE N0. 3331 ROI1Tf ST BMN WiRE FENCE ~ ~ I x , I ~ e = V ~I 4.B445E 320.45' GUi a` N89'37, 1 9'E 328.15' A.M. m~ l R9.15'---------- ~I 5' ~Nih Eoumwl ~ r a ~ ~ 6 ~ I 50_ lFB lo . I ' Ic I LOT 1 LOT 2 I N0. 3400 SIMMS ST. Io I~ N0. 3430 SIMMS ST. X 5° I i I 20.883.96 S0. R. I_ I m 28.005.89 S0. fl. ~ e ~ In~ I E' TRA i IWI I I ~ W I VALLEY 8 O K B IVISION ' 3 SouNeM limit 100 Yea. FIOOE Ploin I I I Cortal ~ b ~ [xiating~Channe~ onEttiam a . I Lena Lul. Mmlar Plon (1975) I I l I ~ id J ra,.m rm 48931'19~E I _ ~ l8Y31'IYE -168.50-_ 7_ - - ivF-- 5' Illifly Eamnml GItAVEL ORNE I \lip I . ~ LOT 3 1 ~ 19.6I4.20 $0. FT. Iy I ~ I ~ I I _ a I NO. 3370 SIMMS ST. I I I 1 L - - - saso•- - - - ! L I ~ 58531'19"W LOT 14 I I VAILEY BROON SUBDIVISION I ~ zoneo n-u I I ~ .1, wert i/~ ca.~.. ~251 5¢YOn 28, L 3 5.. N. 69 W. x NOTES: i. 9i5rs af eFMIxGS: T1E WESf uNE af iRnCIS 'A' H~6 AS N.OP39'11 W. PFR Cf1Y CG WHEATRIOGE PECOPUS. T1E PUTIFJ BFAMHG OF VN1fY BROON SUBOMSION IS N.O1736'OPM. (SW I1NE 15 MONUYFNIED AS SHOWN) ~ 2. ~ INDiGT6 A W. 4 0.CHHt WIIN CIP 'pxN, INC. PIS 14112' SEf UHlE55 NOiED OTNESMSE. a. Nan¢, Acco?mxs m mmua uv. rw iusr m.cxt wrc UUiA. eLiml N4➢ Vd Nrt YiER p IXR IIPIqvIXMt SIWEf . vur hrxw wc vus wiEn mi ncn mSCvm 4q1 9F£ER. q Ia EVEMf IMY xrt IEGY. Ki11M BAffO ~i0l . xtt Y6ECi d 1MS WIWFlillf 4AVEY 0.Af E . CmmE1LE➢ qE IWM lp 1F/At i0111E MiE w TE crxnnuna auw Ma-m 1. ZONING ON SIIE IS I'-1. 5. 10iAL MFA OF TIE :UBOMSIXI - 2.0001 OGRES. ~ > ' u ~ ~ Y m ~ es m 0 0 w 'a $ ~ N ^ N 6 I !•P ~ 0 I17 u ~ N ZONEO R-t E~ I WI ~ m ~ I II il V!CINITY MAP NOT i0 SCAIE IN (0) RTH a is so m en SCAL,E 1"= 30' 3za.is .~STREE'T / I nPPtFMO00 BROOKSIOE E+ r - \ SUBDM510N N ry 1 i LaNE➢ R-i l I a \ 25' I - 25 I Kuq_/_ nvx ~ I I RECEPTION N0. L3~(L--_----- MAP N0. PLAT NO. 12'-i p 0c L/;1Ne vi - STATE OF COLORADO. "'A ,S DEDICATION: a~ c~. ml owm ar mc arK rewvicerc a iaaoi ~cxES o~.cmem ws . VN3EY B0.0.W. 51199NSYM - • WIIN(f ? JEYFFIVSRI . STAIE CF tt%➢MCO' YORE PMIICUINM1Y OESCfl1Bm IS «1LLLM5: BECIMMNf..1i TIE SOUI~MST LCPXER Of SMO i(4Cf ~6. M1XO1 POIM IS pl R1E WFS! IIXE OF T1E XYI 1/1 Cf YCIIUM 34 i0W119NP 3 Shcfll. FAVEE fiY N6l [f 111E 61M PY. Nq 4Ad1 MX61 PoIM OF BECINNING TIE W6i ONE-OWRfFR COIMEP 5M0 SEG7V011 36 aFMS SCO394t'E ~ q5lAVCE Of 6lO.e iF£f: 1Xp1 X.EPJ9Vl".I. NPNC lMF W6f I~NE YIU RNC!'6 Atil]lN1LE ~3b3.50 fFEf ip 1HE IMR111W6i COR4ER SNO iRKT ~9: - . cCRNER Y10 1PKf'6: i M4di5. WAIEA PIPE11M6. SVMLWY SEPFN tu~u. ~~neei ~nmwccs ~xceEm. rt emw owacss~r ~xomnwo uro rcnrm e~ n~c uxowsww'n nur ~u [avwss un cons ~xvavrn ix coxsmucixw ulo TML.YG SWRA91' SEMG SSIEL MtlflNS Mb IIN4 GS SEFK£ fIX6. EtECENICII. SQMLE WC1M5 N10 IINES. SfIXN SflrtAS M10 pWNS. SINEET XIIN4 GIbIN4 .WD LWOSCN4i0. CURBS. GRIQfS. SIRf£T PA4EYMt. AOflYILfS.WO OMEV 91d UIRIIIES AMO 41MCf5 941L BE I.IYFM(1~ 0 PIO idl 81 TtE SUBdNDEA Ofl MP.WGfl1EM5 WCE H! TIE SIIBMNCEY T1EAff01~ WtlfJl IAE IPY0.0hD 0Y TIE Ut! OF MXFAi IaOLE. Mq 4lCX 41K NL Wf PE PI9 6/ 111E CT' OF M11FA1 RICGE. CELQLCO. MO TNT N1Y IIEL 50 CqI5l0.UL~m pf INSiNlID Nl41 M:6PIm BI TIE UIY Of MNFAT CCE MILPMO. YuLL BEfAYE ME SOIE %tOP6Fi1' K SMO P1Y IXCEFf IIElIS PMIm 6f MVIWJPNLT iPNKTB4➢ UIIMES !NO/dl T1E YOIIMMN ~1E5 illFPIqNE.W01fl£LPK~11 COMPN!! NHIP11RM5.. M1kN L0.YSIPIICim IXi LYSfN3ID. SIVLL PEY'M TIE PRJPWf! 0~ TIE OVI~EII N9 FMLL NO! couE lr~c vxoPwtt a 1HE arc. .J ~ ` • ROGEP E NIGM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: }10 s'" wNFwT F~ocE co. eoa]]. vNOXE / 31/-alco S1AlE M CMOPI➢0 ) ) i5. + muxn' or ~cssEnsox 1 I~' / L<liii ~ Q . ~ raxccdxc ixsmuuExr wws :crcxorxmrEn erjw[ ue ixis L_o~r or _(Q/-~wa. i9_Fh~ar Aacne c wxc~r~_e1~ MIME55 M WWO.vq CiFlCMI . ~^4a'r• u. muwsvui owx . ; ~.Tn• no weuc SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: Kum o. uiw.'+n. ~ acas~wm sumnw n inc n~i[ a canwno. oo xrnmr c[Hm' ma Mc smer or nc eoviu.m' ar ~ tG •MGMf SIEIXNSILII MI6 WCE 111bQ! W OWECI FESPp15~&L(IY. AIPEANS~CX NIO G1E~4' M I4CLImMKE NIM NPIICIBIE rLIOP.Wa SGNIES Nq 1NE ACCWIPNMNC NAT ILYWNiFLT RFPR6SE11115 SMO SU~. 1/lw Rr~v. MiE CF 41M£T: KIIRT 0. IYM. M Z ,,,7.1.2 73 3 NF51'1&0AVFM'E ' 'LyfhV: SEPf. 39. 1993 M ~EM.w. ~ 15 RKWE I IJ]-tl)1 • NW. 25. 1993 ~•~.-~11\~ PlY: APPROVALS: DES. 15' 1991 ` ~ ,1, 1,s w sEx.sc owrxr a caoiuoo. us r i x ~ nFECfaR C£ xUN~6 I ~ 4 £ ~~I.: Q ~;.~1-gd_~1 ~crw OF vwwwc i oeuq7~^ ' ~wHrwr ~°~-urc °'m~cm ~~,s e xccxunw v PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFlCATE: M6 5 N QMI%TMT TIE'MMM %Ai HAS 9E➢1 IPH+TID df TC PWXNMG CCLWSSWM Ci TIE OIY Of MTifAi RLVE' .~1PP.W'0. MAYOR'S CERTIFICATE: - ma rsom ~~xo ~v v.c THEwm ix vur~o~ic~ ~incro~ on ~ca~i w~ m ax mc ar ar wa ° CLERK & RECORDER'S CERTIFlCATE: Si~iE Cf C0.LRIN 1 ) n to~wrr a'~Ft<Exsah ) i xrsre. curnr TMa ra awr wvs Pun w.W oma 'Vr _-Z wV0 5 MK1 flEGLPCED M 0.N1 i11E • IY ~I . ~ ~'ro a 1 t EA )0u. a, *xc 3~11 ar' 1064;m . 1sa3 EXHIBIT 1 ~ February 8, 2006 Patrick & Laurie Koentges 3391 Oak St. Wheatridge, CO 80033 Re: Simms Street & Routt Street Residence Dear Neighbors We would like to introduce ourselves to you. We are building our new home on the acreage at approximately 3400 Simms Street. Our family has lived in the neighborhood for more than 12 years and our children attended Prospect Valley Elementary. We hope to begin construction in the spring and will make every effort to be considerate of your space. We intend to construct our home on approximately 1 3/4 acres as we wish to maintain the open feel of the acreage. If you have any questions or would like to meet, please feel free to ca11 us. We look forward to getting to know our nevv neighbors and hope to see you in the near future. Sincerely, Patrick & Laurie Koentges 303-435-0064 EXHIBIT 2 , GRAOING EROSION CONTROL AND SEDIMENT COMROL GENERAL NOFES. 1. THE CONiRACIOR SHALL NDIIFY THE qTY OF Wr1EAT RIDGE AT LEAST iHREE DAYS PRIIX2 TO STAR'IING CONSiRUCl10N. 2. ER090N CONTROL MEASUR6 WILL BE INSTALLEO PRIOR TO GRADING ncnwncs. ALL TMES DURINC CONSiRUCtiON, ALL TEMPOftMY ANO PERMANENT ' V AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MFASURES 91pLL BE MAINTAINED AND rD AS NEEDm TO PREVENT ACCELERA7ED ER090ry ON THE SITE AND ..£NT PROPFRTES 4. ALL, TOPSOIL FiALL BE SALVAGED. TOPSOIL PND OVERBUROEN SHALL BE REDISttiIBUiEO WITHIN THE GRAOED AREA AFiER ROUGH GRADING TO PROhDE A SUITABlE BASE FOR ARERS WHICH WIIA BE SEEDED qN0 PLANiFD. RUNOFF FROM STOCKPIfID AREAS SHALL BE CONiROLLEO TO PREVQJT EROSION. . 5. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO REMOVE MAtER1AL IN EXCESS OF 200 fJJBIC YARDS TO ANOtHER 51'IE IN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, A GRADING PERMIT IS NECESSARY FOR THE OFF-SIiE PftOPFRTY. IF THE MAIEftIAL IS MOVED TO A PROPERN LOCAIED YATHIN ANOIHFR JURISDICTQN, ENOENCE 15 REOUIftEO iHAT THE LOCAL GOVQtNMENT HAS APPROVEO THE GRADMG OPERAiION. 6. SOIL STABILIZATON MEASURES SHALL BE APPLJEOVATHIN 30 DAYS TO DISNRBED AREAS WHICH MAY NOT BE AT FINAL GRADE, WT WILL BE LEFT DORMANT fOR LONGER THAN 60 DAYS. . Z PFRMANENT YEGETAPVE COVER CONSSiING OF THE MIX NOTED BELOW SHALL BE oRiLL Oft BROqOCA5T5EEDm qT THE RAiE NOIED BELOW. NULCH CONSISTNG OF HAY OR SiRAW. APPUED AT A RATE OF 2 1/4 TONS PER ACRE AND CRIMPED SHALL BE USED TO STABWZED THE EXPOSED SURFACE. PERMANENTSEEDMIX SPECIES VARIETY% OF MIX MIN.IBS.PIS/ACFE BROAOCRST IXtlUcn WESTEFIJWHEATGM:S (ARRIBFORBNilOM 42 132 0.6 sMOOmeaeene NMoLN7 as 0.8 s.s SIDEOATBGRAMMA NAUGHWaRBIITftS T3 3A 18 ~ t'HI Kll.it t~VtIV I l~tJ KtJIUtIVI,t SIMNiS STREEf WNEAT RIDGE, COLORADO CENiERLINE OF 100-1EAR Fl.OOD PWN l1MIT PER ORAWING 9 OF 70, LQJA GUITCH iD0-YEAR fL00DPWN PL4N PREPARFD FOR FENA LOMR CIN OP KHFAT RIDGE BY OAND J. - LOVE & ASSOCIAlES, APRIL 1866. \ FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP \ PLS 17669 ~ ~ ~I ' - i- I I ' UNPLATTED I ~ a~yI / It 4 Y _ FIA c~ FF 5430.5 iOCS0.30.0 8. FUGTVE DUST EA115510NS REAILTING FROM GRADING ACTINTIES AND/OR'N9ND. SHALL BE CONTROLLEO 119NG THE BEST AYAILABLE CONTROL 1ECHNOLOGY, AS DffINFD BY THE COLOftADO OEPARTAIENT OF HEAL7H, AT THE TIME OF q2ADING. . I 9. THE EROSION M10 SEDIMENT CONiftOL PLAN SHALL 8E MODIFIFD BY THE CI7Y ` 9F YMEAT RIDGE. OR ITS AU7NOfXZED REPRESENTAPVE, AS FlELD CONDITONS I WARRANT. ` 10. SILT FENCE SHAIL BE INSPECIED AND REPAIRED AS NECESSARY AF'lER EACH I STORM EVENT. SFDIkENTS SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN ONE HlJF OF THE I OFCiGy DEPTH HAS BEEN FILLED. REAIOVEp SEOIMENT SHALL BE RElAOYED iROM nTER iRUCK MAY BE REQUIRW TO CONTROL AIRBORNE EROSION AS I' ~_...fMINED BY lHE diY OF WHEAT RIOGE. . I f n 12. SiRAW BAIE BARRIQi S11ALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BE PROPERIY MAINTAINFD I ~ UNTIL PERAIANENT LqNDSCAPING IS ESlABIISHFA. I • 13. SEFDWG ANO MULCHING SHALL BE COMPLEIm INTHIN iHIRN (30) DAYS OF I I INITIAL EXPOSURE OR SEOEN (7) UAYS AF1ER CRADING IS SUBSTANTIALLY COAIPLEIE I IN. A GIYEN AftEA (AS DEFlNFD BY THE GTI), iFpS NAY REpUIRE MULTIPIE - MOBNZATONS FOR SEEDING ANO MULCNINC. 14. ANY DIST1RBm AREA OR STOCKPRE N0T AT FlNAL GRADE lHAT15 TO BE LFFT E%POSEDFOft MORE THAN THIRTY (30) pAYS AND NOT SUBJECT TO CONSTROCIION 7RAFFlC, SHALL BE TEMPORAAY SEEDED W1T11N SEVN (J) OAYS OF DISNRBANCE OR PLACEMENT OF SAID STOCKPIIE IN'ACCORDANCE VATH THE CI7Y OF WHEAT RIDGE IEMPORMY SEEDINC 57ANDARDS. IF THE SEASON PROHIBITS ~ . tEIAPORARY SEEDING, THE DISNR6ED AREAS SHAIL BE MULCHm YflIH SiF2AW MIILCH ANO TACNIFlQi, OR COVERED Ni1H AN ANCNORED FROSION LYINTROL BIAtJKET, IN ACCORDANCE WI7H CITY OF N'riEAT RIUGE SEEpING ANO ERQSION CANTROC ' REOIIIROAEN75. 15. PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY SOIL STABIIJZAl10N MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIm TO OISiIIRBm AREAS WITHIN iNIRTY (30) DAYS AFiER FlNAL GRPDE IS Aq11EYED ON ANY PORTION OF THE SITE, OR TO 015fURBEO AREAS THAT MAY N0T ' BE AT FlNAL GRAOE, BUT ARE TO BE LEFf DORNANT FOR A PERIOD OF IIME OF MORE 1HAN THIRTY (30) OAYS. ' 18. ADDITIONAL QtO510N GONiROL MEASURES MAY BE REOUIREDOURING THE CWftSE OF CON51RUC110.Y, AND SHALL BE INSTALLED W1THM lYfiNTY-FOUR (24) HOURS, Oft 1511NiN THE 71MF,FRAME SET FORiH BY THE GN INSPECTOR. !10'fES: . . t BFNCHMARK: a~YOFNHFATWIX£ID&Ww,d.BINS6GPINaoEWAl1t WEBTOFPPYft&tON1HENORiH90E0F3}NOA1£NUE,WE9TOFTIBORSIPFEI, pFlATON- ~NGVDS PAHfliMOFBlE FF 5Ai0.5 2 SUBECTPWPFAIYLOGIEOWIIHINIDNEP£: SPELIALiLWDHVPROAPEASSU0.IE4Tttl INUNM11INi8lTHE1%ANNURLCWWCEFlOppEVpR. BASEFlDOppFJAlNIHSH.OVEBEEN R1HU9NE4 PQtFlA0DIN5UMNtEM1E WPNO.OB[~19q~EFfELTVE 6t'IE .WlE U,5p3. TOC 5430.0 ~ y VALLEY B D \ N` x-_z_ x- f._ ~ FOUNO N0. 5 REBAR INJIk~ / YFLLOW PLASIIC CAP ~ L PLS 14112 ~ . ~ \ \ 1 \ ~ cor I \ ~ KNicrir sueoIvrsioN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~•Z I HDUSE FOOiPRINT 6,]06 sq.ft Fx Ce,iz.. ProposeE Contours _g_S,_ sut VMIrJe TrackMg Conird ~ Pqe ProlecFion 777- Dbturbed Mea, T. be ReseeCed ~ . 5" HOT MIX ASPHALT . EXISIING GRAVEL (TP.) l e• ~ . SUBGRAOE COMPACIED TO MINIMUM OENSRY PFR SOIL CL0.551FlCAPON, CDOT SECTIDN ~ +103.0]. _ _plm 6' AGGREGAiE BASE O W ~ ~ ~ ~ Q b' ~ ISION I ~ 9ROSA SECTION OF DRIVFWAY IN ROW NOT TO SCAIE 100-YEFR FLOOD %AIN SOUTHERLY UMIT I ' PER DRAtNNC 9 OF 10, tENp GULTCIi 100-YEAR Fl.OODPLAIN PLpN PREPARm ~ fOR FEYA LOMR qtt OF WHEAT RIDGE BY DAND J. LOVE & ASSOCIA7ES, APRIL 1966. I 100-M FLOODPWN EI.EVAPON = 5427.57 N CAlL UiILtfY NOitFlCATION f D CENfER O COLORA O - 1-800-922-1987 oa 534-6700 m m o oer,m o N uE Wl 1 9LLSIN65 M15 IN IA'NICE p£FONE ttMl ac, auoe ae E40nwM Fnx me u.wOnc or uNOmcaouxo uvrem ummc5 mmioacwm~ y~ - ~ 4 0 Y ~rr- mn HVS ENGINEERING INC. 9]I'OIAE WADSWOqiH BLVO., R-BW aRVaoM COfDRADa Soooz ppEG/S)f 4~NOiC~ g~ PNONE: (30) 940-5807 iAX: (30) 940-5803 p y. a DESIGNED BY: HH. DRAWN BY: . LIAR P~F``SSIQh~. ' ' DATE: 05/70/06 EXHIBIT 3 GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN PATRICK KOENTGES RESIDENCE SIMMS STREET WHEAT RIDGE, C0. CE-3 ~ FLOOD STUDY MODELING AND RESULTS ~ ivlodeling of the flood plain was done usiag a 100-year flow of 2450 cfs, which is the flow used in previous studies to establish the 100-yeaz floodplain elevations. A comparison between the 100-year floodplain elevations from the HEC-2 runs in the ~ Wright-Mcl,augUltu study and the HEC-RAS calibration run in this studg are shown below: Section Heo-2 Elevations HEGRAS Elevations Difference ~ 8003 5422.42 5422.33 -0.09' 8004 5427.57 5427.43 -0.14' ~ , 8005 5430.22 5430.05 -0.17' 8006 5436.94 5436.98 +0.04' The runs agree to within 0.17' and are considered calibrated. Furthermore, the finished floor elevation of proposed shuctures should be coustructed at a minimum elevafion of 5428.57. This is 1' above the 100-year floodplain elevation at Section 8004 in the ~ Wright-McLaughlin study, which goes through the site of the proposed residence. The floodway analysis indicates tUat the floodway at section 8004, wluch is the secfion ~ that includes the site of the proposed residence, is approximately 84 feet wide. Furthermore, the proposed fill is outside the litnits of the fioodway. Therefore, a11 fill proposed for this residence is located in the flood storage district and is not in the ~ floodway district. Thus, the proposed constnxction is pernutted on this lo# if a special exception to TiuiIctin fTie f3oodplain is approvecT by Yhe Wheat Ridge Boazd of Adjushnent. ~ HEC-R A S computer output data are provided in the appendix. The run titled Koentges Floodway shows the resnlts of the calibration run (the fust line of each section in the ~ ouiput tables) and the encroachment analysis. The run tifled Koentges Mitigation Revised shows the resuits of the analysis with the proposed grading. Appropriate portions of the Wright-NlcLaughlin HEC-2 outpuY aze also provided in the appendix. The ~ append'ui also inciudes a copy of the drawing included in the Wright-McLaughlin study wi#h the proposed site constniction and results of the #loodway analysis contained in this report added. HEC-RAS generated cross sections at river station 8004 for both the existing and proposed condition are also contaiued in the appendix CONCLITSIONS ~ 'I'ract A of the Valley Brook Subdivision and most of Lot 1 of the Knight Subdivision is located in the Flood Storage District. Buiiding is permitted in accordance with the Ci#y ~ QfWhgatgldge F1omd Plavi O~diuauce af apgroved by the City of Wheat Ridge Boazd of AdIWtuo~ A tes-iiienee is proposed on this site with a minimum fniished floor elevation of 5430.5, which is welt above the min;mum elevafion of 5428.57 required by ordinance. Fwthermore, exoavation along the north property line is proposed to mitigate ~ the effect of filling tn the floodplain required for the residence so tha# there will be no i increase in the 100-year floodplain elevation when the project is completed. I EXHIBIT 4 , i II ~ 1 N N ~ ~ 1 N~ C m y L m Jb aiu~ V a a r o o iw 3iw~G;o 3 m i i I ~ t w J. U'- ~ ~ a . ~ o o ~ . a •~.~.x y 9 V °4- `m Y ~ 4 O V ~ N 0 ` ~ N ~ Y T 0 ~ o ~ 2 ~ •0 2 0 > k W ~ h 4ZI 0 J ~ ~ ~ h Ct. "G ~ V ~ ~1+ ~ L ~ ~ h 'O ~ ~ tf ~y ~n• . ~ ~ N EXHIBIT 5 WHE'Tqo CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT I C~~oppQO TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-06/Hall DATE OF MEETING: May 25, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 3.5 foot side yard variance resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback, a 10 foot rear yard setback resulting in a five foot rear yard setback and a 136-square foot lot coverage for property zoned Residential One. LOCATION OF ItEQUEST: 3880 Everett Drive APPLICANT (S): Stephanie McNamara & Holly Hall OWNE R (S): Same 3880 Everett Dr. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 15,000 sq. ft. (034 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residential One (R-1) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE PILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRES ENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Y ~j9 b j Location Map ~ ° > 90 40 0^ 6~ 9\ p o ~ $ ° a c p o R-1 ' N n N N ,n o ° M rn v a. Q N O a ~ " o M Site F a o ~ = m 4a 9 ~ ~i m W.3 9TH AVE ~ 'P - 8650 v ~ ~S. 3860 3840 r~ 2~ i '„n 3865 m M M o M o ~ R 2 ~ V~ o yh Mm ° N M ~ ~ w u' m ml ~I ~I W4~J wl ~I ml m Board of Adjustment 1 WA-06-06/11all All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jwisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of three vaziances, all of which are related to the location of a shed. The variances are: a 3.5 side yard setback vaziance resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback, a 10 foot rear yard setback resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback and a 136 square foot lot coverage variance (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). II. CASE ANALYSIS Request The property is 15,000 square feet in size, has a rectangular shape, and has a gentle slope from south to north. The applicant wishes to keep a shed in the southeast corner of the property (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). The applicants recently completed an addition to the existing single-family structure. The shed which is the focus of the variance requests previously existed on the property in a conforming position. During construction, the shed was moved to the southeast corner of the property. During the permit review stage, the applicants identified the shed as being demolished. Instead, the shed was relocated and consequently violated the side and rear yard setback requirements, as well as maximum lot coverage. The R-1 zone district requires a 15 foot side and reaz yard setback for any structure. The applicants wish to place the shed 11.5 feet from the side (southern) property line and 5 feet from the rear (eastern) property line. Additionally, the R-1 zone district allows a maximum lot coverage of 25% of the property. Lot coverage is defined as the area of the lot covered by structures such as houses, garages and sheds. The subject property is 15,000 square feet in size. Based on this, a maximum of 3,750 square feet may be covered by structures. With the new house addition, the lot coverage is 3,742 square feet, or 24.95 percent. The shed is 144 square feet in size. If the applicants wish to keep the shed, the total lot coverage would be 3,886 square feet, or 25.96 All other development standards will be met. The entire neighborhood is zoned R-1, and consists of well established single family homes. An analysis was performed of the neighborhood from W. 38`F` Avenue to W. 41 S` Avenue on the east side of Everett Drive and the west side of Estes Street. The analysis revealed that most of the properties are well below the 25% maximum lot coverage. All lots in the study area are at least 14,000 square feet in size. The minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district is 12,500 square feet. Only two of the properties in this study area were at or exceeded the maafimum lot coverage allowed in the R-1 zone district. However, many of these properties did contain either outbuildings or main stnxctures which do not meet the minimum required side or rear yard setback. In fact, more than half had at least one encroachment into the 15-foot side ar rear yard setback area. Only two of the Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-06/Hall properties received a variance to a11ow these encroachments. For most of the properties, there is no information located within the building permit files which would identify how or when these non-conforming structures were constructed. The shed would be located 11.5 feet from the side (southern) property line. The location of the shed would be adjacent to a neighbor's driveway and detached garage, and therefare would not impact the neighbor to the south. The shed would be 5 feet from the rear (eastern) property line, and located in an area which contains mature landscaping. This landscaping will screen the eastern elevation of the shed. A packet of information has been submitted by a neighbor who objects to the variance request. This neighbor lives directly to the east (3881 Estes Street). This packet has been attached as Exhibit 3. A letter in support of the variance has been submitted from the property owner to the north (3890 Everett Drive). This letter has been attached as Exhibit 4. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Because there are three separate requests, staff will discuss each request independently. The first variance discussion will relate to the lot coverage variance, as it is the most integral to the three requests. Simply, if the lot coverage variance is not approved, the setback variances may not be approved. The side and rear yard setback variance requests can be approved (or denied) separately. Request A: Lot covera¢e 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 were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The properry currently contains a single-family structure, and this use may remain regazdless of the outcome of the variance request "A". If the request were denied, the applicants would be required to remove the shed. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. An analysis was performed forthe entire block (from W. 38d' to W. 415t on the east side of Estes Street and west side of Everett Drive), and the neighborhood has an average lot coverage of 15%. There are at least three properties which are close to or exceed the 25% masimum lot coverage. The property directly to the south of the subject property (3870 Everett Drive) has a lot coverage of 23%, and a property to the north of the subject property has a lot coverage in excess of 25%. All of the lots within the immediate neighborhood are at least 14,000 square feet in size. A lot which is 14,000 square feet with 25% lot coverage does not have the impact of a lot of smaller size with 25% lot coverage. That is, a larger structure on a larger lot does not Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-06/14all seem as cramped or overbearing. The applicants are requesting an increase to lot coverage of 136 square feet, a fairly inconsequential increase above the maximum 25%. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical 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? The shape and physical characteristics of a property have no bearing on the request to increase the allowable maYimum lot coverage. The R-1 zone district allows a masimum lot coverage of 25%. Based upon a lot of 15,000 square feet, a total of 3,750 square feet of lot coverage is allowed. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? A person who has interest in the property has caused the hardship. The applicants constructed a house which occupied 24.9% of the property. By keeping the 144 square foot shed, the lot coverage is being exceeded. It should be noted that the R-1 zone district is the most restrictive zone district in respect to lot coverage. The 25% maximum limitation is the lowest of all residential zone districts. 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? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfaze. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not haue an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria l 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 would not result a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the property owner. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Request B: Side Yard Setback Variance 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? i _ Board of Adjushnent WA-06-06/Hall If the request were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains a single-family structure, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the variattce request "B". If the request were denied, the applicants would be required to either move or remove the shed. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. A visual survey and an analysis of the aerial photographs was performed for the entire block (from W. 38h to W. 415t on the east side of Estes Street and west side of Everett Drive), and there aze numerous outbuildings which do not currently meet the required side yard setback. In the neighborhood, there are 10 structures which appeaz to violate the 15 foot side or rear yard setback requirement. Of these 10 structures, 2 received a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 3. Does the paMicular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property invoWed 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? The lot has a gentle slope from south to north. The largest grade change comes from the separation between the lawn and the patio. A grade change of approximately three feet exists in this area. Given the location of the new house expansion, coupled with the15- foot side and rear yard setback requirement, the applicants have extremely limited opportunity to locate a shed in the rear yard. The applicants have also re-landscaped the backyard, complete with a patio which impedes the opportunity to place the shed in a conforming location. The side and rear yard setback requirement alone severely restricts an opportunity to locate the shed in a conforming location. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? A person who has interest in the property has not caused the hardship. The hazdship arises from the grade change between the patio and lawn area, coupled with the location of the structure addition. The area of expansion for the structure occurred to the east and south. The applicants constructed the house addition at or near the 15-foot setback line, leaving little room for location of the shed. 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? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfaze. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The IRC specifies that residential buildings that aze within three feet of the property line must have a one-hour Board of Adjustrnent WA-06-06/Hall rated firewall. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 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 would not result a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the property owner. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Request C: Rear Yard Setback Variance 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 were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains a single-family shucture, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the vaziance request "C". If the request were denied; the applicants would be required to either move or remove the shed. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locatity? If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. A visual survey and an analysis of the aerial photographs was performed for the entire block (from W. 38`h to W. 41S` on the east side of Estes Street and west side of Everett Drive), and there are nuxnerous outbuildings which do not currently meet the required rear yard setback. In the neighborhood, there are 10 structures which appeaz to violate the 15 foot side or rear yard setback requirement. Of these 10 structures, 2 received a vaziance from the Board of Adjustment. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical 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? The lot has a gentle slope from south to north. The largest grade change comes from the separation between the lawn and the patio. A grade change of approximately three feet exists in this azea. Given the locarion of the new house expansion, coupled with the15- foot side and rear yard setback requirement, the applicants haue extremely limited opportunity to locate a shed in the rear yard. The applicants haue also re-landscaped the backyard, complete with a patio which impedes the opporhxnity to place the shed in a conforming location. The side and rear yard setback requirement alone severely restricts an opportunity to locate the shed in a conforming location. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? ~ Boazd of Adjushnent 6 WA-06-06/Hall A person who has interest in the property has not caused the hardship. The hardship arises from the grade change betcveen the patio and lawn area, coupled with the location of the structure addition. The area of expansion for the structure occurred to the east and south. The applicants constructed the house addition at or near the 15-foot setback line, leaving little room for location of the shed. 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 properly, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfaze. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The IRC specifies that residential buildings that aze within three feet of the property line must have a one-hour rated firewall. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granfing of the variance result in a benetit 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 would not result a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the property owner. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S) Each request will require a separate motion. If the lot coverage variance is not approved, the side and rear setback variances cannot be approved. Request A: Lot coveraee variance Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The 136 square foot increase to matcimum lot coverage is fairly insignificant given a lot size of 15,000 square feet. 2. The lot is oversized at 15,000 square feet and the impact of the increase to lot coverage will not have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are severallots within the neighborhood which meet or exceed the 25% maacimum lot coverage in the R-1 zone district. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure, and as such will give the property a cohesive feeL 4. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-06/Hall Repuest B: Side vard setback variance Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staffrecommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The shed will be located 11.5 feet from the southern property line, adjacent to a neighbor's driveway and garage, thereby lessening the impact of the variance request. 2. The expansion of the house and grade change between the new patio and lawn azea restrict the opportunity to place the shed in a conforming location. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure, and as such will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. There are multiple structures in the neighborhood which encroach into the required 15-foot side or rear yard setback azea. 5. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Request C: Rear vard setback variance Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria aze supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The shed will be located 5 feet from the eastern properry line and will be screened by large mature landscaping. 2. The expansion of the house and grade change between the new patio and lawn area restrict the opportunity to place the shed in a conforming location. A newly planted tree on the west side of the shed fiirther restricts the placement of the shed. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure, and as such will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. There are multiple structures in the neighborhood which encroach into the required 15-foot side or rear yard setback area. 5. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. \ Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-06/Hall MCNAMARA/HALL 3880 EVERETT STREET WHEA7 WDGE,CO 80033 303.940.5688 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 March 31, 2006 This letter is a request for a variance to the zoning setback requirements for a shed in an area zoned R- I where a I S'-0" rear and side yard set back are required for a shed at the property of 3880 Everett Street. We applied and received a permit in June of 2005 for an addition and remodel to the existing house. During the construction process a neighbor submitted a complaint that the location of the shed was decreasing their property value. After receiving the notice of this complaint we learned that the set backs for a shed in our neighborhood are I S'-0" for rear and side yards. When we decided to move the shed we were unaware of these setbacks. All properties adjacent to us have a shed within 0'-0" to 5-0" of rear and side yards. Because of the locations of sheds nearby our contractor made an assumption that the shed could be relocated within a five foot setback, which is typical for most municipalities. The new location of the shed is 5-0" from the rear property line and I I'-6" from the south side property line. We have invested a lot in the improvements of the shed. We put a new roof with gutters on the shed, which lowered the roof line from what it was prior to the improvements. We had the shed painted to match the addition as well as re-locating the shed as inconspicuously as possible.There are bushes and trees on the east property line of the shed that create a screen as well as a new tree on the south side to act as a screen. The new landscaping of the rear yard does not allow the shed to be located within the R-I setbacks. Please see the attached documents and photos in review of this petition. Sincerely, Holly Hali Stephanie McNamara EXHIBIT 1 I ' ws~rz~ 6-a' rc ~ D[E v~¢ ( 0 1 3880 EVERETT STREET wnn[ m woa 1 re-ittr.na wms rpx e-i ~s~ wpUR$ 15-0' 9Cf TAW X181'r ~¢teuna a sxco vu msn mv rou~ xer uu *af EXISTING SITE PLAN c o N ~ ~ d ~ i ~ O O ~ U ~ m \p.~ 'O Lq~ N `V L E 3 cc z o>ii.os on.xr. av: ~:uH %O0! SITE PLAN ~ ~ ~ ch MEMORANDUM TO: Wheat RidRe Board of Adiustment Members: District I: Paul Drda, Davis Reinhart Distdct II: Rbbert Blair, Robert Howazd Distriat III: Thomas Abbott, Janet Bell Dis4rict IV: Lany Linker, Paul Hovland City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department City Hall 7500 West 29t' Avenue Vdheat Ridge, CO 80033 FROM: Elizabeth G. Crrant and family 3881 Estes Street VJheat Ridge Colorado, 80033 Phone:3/420-2544 DATE: May 17, 2006 SUBJECT: Boazd of Adjushnent Hearing on Mav 25, 2006 - CO.Se No. W A-0(o' 06 Regazding ttie case concerning two variance requests by Holly Hall and Stephanie McNaznara, owners of the proroertv at 3880 Everett Street, which is directly in back of our property, (on 3881 Estes St), Wheat R'tdge, CO, 80033. I still have not received the certified letter from the ciTy outlining the exact wording of the hearing process to take place May 25. In general, the two variances beinE requested bv the occuuants of 3880 Everett St. are: 1. To exceed the maxiinum percentage of squaze foot coverage of land allowed, for structures on their size of lot; (by city ordiuance)and 2. To be allowed to place their large shed about 5 feet from our proper[y Tine. As you laiow, there is a rule in place providing for a 15 foot easement aE homeowners' back property lines in my neighborhood. This rule was written by city planners many yeazs ago, to protect neighbors from encroachment and obstruction by adjacent properiy owners placing a structure too cfose to a neighbor's back or side property line. With resnect to the above subiect, I request that the Board of Adinstment denv the requests for these two-variances.. : The basis far my request is fhat this shed is au obstruction for our property. Also, the remodeTed.fiouse at 3880 Everett Streef already occupies the malcimum space aIIowed on the lot, and the enlarged house already now comes within 15 feet of our back properly line, which is as close as anv buildings on neighboring lots aze supposed to b EXHIBIT 3 . , paue 2 Letter to the Board of Adiustment These limits were set in place to preserve the attractiveness of the nei _ boxhood, and neighbors' and the neighbarhood's space, visually, as well as physically: : The regulations ¢overning the arantin~ of variances states"As a rule, a variance shoulck only be granted when there is a unique physical problem (sueh as topography or irregutar lot shape) and when there would be no detriments to the neighborhood 1.) The tonoaxavhv of the lot in this case does NOT impact ttus case Tt is essentially flat. Nor is there an irregular lot shape. Nfs. Hall migkt have left tlus shefl where it was before they remodeled in 2005, but they built a verv IazQe addition*-w75ich now covers the land where the shed used to stand. Additionally, the city told her they couid only have structures on a certain percentage of their tot. The way it is placed now, it is as far out (yf the way for them as possible, eTearing their own view of the small back yazd they haue left. But ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS only abont f ve feet awav from mv nropertv line, OVERSHADOWING an azea where I hope to landscape. The shed ks so large and so close to our propefty line, it detraets from this azea of mg property. (*LabeIed phatographs aze attached, showing thes-e circumstances.) In fact, in herplans submitted to the city in June of 2005, in order to obtain a building permit, Ms. Hall specified that this shed was "to be demolished." The problem is, she didn't do this. Soon afterward, she proceeded fo hire someone to aemodel this shed instead. ` She then nlaced this shed last August 2005 five feet or less awav-from our back nronerWline• _ location. 2.) This shed is a detriment to us because it causes an obstruction for qur property. My partner consulted with a reat estate broker and apprazser, abouY tlus: He was told that tiiis obstrucfion lowers our property vatue while it lowers the visual appeal of our back properEy Tine. It also limi4s fhe effect we can achieve by enhancing fhe landscaping in this azea of our property. There used to be a beautiful rock gazdendn.this azea of our properly and I had planned to restore it, now that I have the time.-'Fhe;shed in question is too close, and it visually encroaches on ttus area of our land, aud the shadows cast late in tke day, and snow, etc. would affect this area just as the gazage cfid, starting in 1978, to oursouth. CWe haue an area. on o u r sou.+l,~ proper+5 I tne wlnere a. c,arct,cpe fha.k' was bui(+-t'oo close -fa oure-ar~J' ea5-f5 ashndow c.wsd snow dvesri+ rnet-r Gtul'oK13; +he addec) c-O(d in wIn-!er Kl'Iled 5 VN yy~ pr;ze ,^ose bushe.s S. had gro~;~g near my ~L-~-~ horde T..b3s~e5i.,, i~ -.Ilowed +o s~, detrirnent to my ~7roper-f~. amd i}'a ValuC;. PART I ` Re: Board of Adjustment hearing on May 25 Letter to the Board PART . p Page 3 I have had iC) . montfis (REPEAT,'ten MONTHS) experience of loolang at this lazge I wooden storage shed (the object of the variances) at 3880 Everett; behind the crumbling six-foot high wood fence. I am starting to sense that Marv's ghos4 lives on. Aside from the visua2 unaffractiveness of this structure being so close to us, it is a conseious reminder of the reduction in the quality of my life so neaz my hand yet again, and already. constandy with me, from 1978. Csea pmTt z) 'Fhe foFlowing additional consequences form the basis for my appeal to the Boazd of A&justers, that the current Variance(s) in question, for 388Q Everett Sfreet, be denied. What also concerns me is that had I not spoken up about this shed's placement to the city planners last August, I never would have known about this hearing for a vaziance in time to reseazch and gatker the information and photographs, ete. which . seem to be essentiaF, in order to present my point of view and my request for a denial_ (I sriYF haven't received my letter, and the hearing is a week away, and this is the deadline (May17 or , 18)for me to submit a letter and photos, for distribution to the Boazd members, to give you a ehance to look over the issues invoTved on my behalf, beforehand). I-stroiTly support fhe notion thaf Wheat Ridge Building Deparirnent has rules and regulations for the benefit and protecfion of all its property owners. But I have misgivings as whether or not it was my concern over tlris matter last suminer that spa€ked this matter or was it a violation of the department's ruTes? (I submit, that it is unportanf to ask, wkich eame ftrst- the deparhnenYs rules, or my concerns expressed to the city, because of the violation of my easement rights?) Is it the rules or is it my concern, governing the department's actions? After I voiced my concems; it was a full nine months or so, before anything was caused to happen. Ms. Hatl ignored the eity ali tYsis time, when she was told she was in violation of the rules, last snmmer. I absolutely agree with tlie Bttilding DepartmenYs eontention, tfiat the VJheat Ridge property owners have an absolute right to make unprovemenfs to their properiy. I fiuther agree, also, that there aze niles anfl regulations that should be followed by everyone, regazding matters changing property attributes. 'f'he fence at the properiy line does not hide the storage shed. Hag the shed - so close to the property Tine fence for a11 to see does not enhanca„vaPlue of my property. The storage shed is an obstruction and a detraction from my property value. The detraction will be lessened if the storage shed is moved back from my property to the legal easement Iine of 15 feet, or removed entirelv and demaTished as Ms. Hall said she was going to do. . PaRT Z. Re• the Board of Adiustment, for the Hearin¢ Mav 25, 2006 : . - p ge Y . _ - _ . , . ' . . . ' . ~ iy . . pART The following is a lusCory/cluonology oY the f"acts and circumst~ tha'tI have eaperienced with respeet to tlie Gity of Wheat Ridge Building ➢epariment and Board of Adjnstment, regazding:the issuance and approval of building permits/variances, years ago, prior to the Hall 8c McNamara variance matter now before you. I fiilly understand there is absotutely notlvng I can do about this pre-malter, however it describes tke environxuent and fhe basis for-the eTeven (11) speeifie objections in Part 2 wTuch F have listed, regazding Ms. Hall's two vaziance requests (the hearing), set for May 25. There is a 720 foot garage wtueh towers above my soutk property line, only 4 feet away from my yard, buiTt in 197& This gazage is located at 3874 Esfes attd is Tacated on approximately their north pmperiy 1ine. Because it is located on a incline tUat is higher thau my property, this huge garage casts shadows on my lot as a two story building would. For the past 27 years it has lirnited my view, and 1'united the stznIight on this part of my propeiiy to where my old rose garden wilt not grow since it was put up. ft governs my free right and use of this azea of my properly, for any building purposes of my own, for the past and for the future. It is an ugly, dark shucture, and looms over this part of my land. It would be very unaesthetie for me to place a compazable structure afongside it, for example, on my land. One ean only wonder how and whg this yariance was ever granted to Marv. He claimed "the slope of lus land" required that it be placed so close to my property.Me also claimed if he put it further away from my property, (i.e. the required 15 feet) he'd haue a hard time making tha sinall turn in his driveway this would neeessitate! His reasons were pure hokum! The trutli is, it would be ugtp, ta him, to have it block part of his view out lus back windows, and so much better{'vvrhCivi,to obs-tn:tck rny .4b, pvopt!~r-~s, i~ he f xt raised the value of his property handsomely, wlule it diminished my property's appeal ~ ns~ead and visual aesthetics greatlye m ro pe:r+%l vc~\ue woa d i m t n i s hed d~ 5~ o h One of the beautifixl feafures I fe11 in love with, about this neighborhooct, was the spaciousness of the lots, and the generous space between dwellings. This gazage nuned this beauty for us in our backyazd. I would have asked that it not be built, if I had been forewamed. I live in the shadow of this building, now and forever. There is (and was) nothiug I couid do about it now ox theu. I was never wamed ahead of time. The oid method of notice, namely an announcement in the back of the Sentinel and a sma11 sign in their yazd, escaped my notice"as an extremely busy, worldug divorced mother of two young children, at the time. Marvin Alms in 1978 owned this properiy to my south, at 3879 Estes. Mazvin had been a major Wheat Ridge building contractor, for yeazs, at this time. ~ Letter to Board of Adiustment Page . Marvin wanted a big garage immediately and so, applied for and received a vaziance on his North Property Iine to build a garage almost on top of the property Iine that separated our progerties. (see photos (o~e.riai v i e uO The city, at that time, granted tBe variance, WITHOUT effective NOTICE TO ME OR fiNYONE BLSE, which at tTie time upset the neighbarhood, but there was nothing we could do about it The building permit and variance were grantefl without due comment from any of the neighboring property owners, and it was approved quiefly by a handful of people present, just enough were there to pass the vote, totally unopposed. This gazage was then erected in tess than one week. Later on, we Iearned thaf the electrieal wiring was not put in to code, nor were certain other portions of ttris structure built eorrecfly, as well. But it was all "appmved". I tried to inquire of Marv about tFris huge garage practically on aur boundary line, but I was rebnffed. F was crushed. Marvin subsequentiy hinted, that he knew the building department staff and they "cooperated" to help him get the gazage put through. Furthermore, if a concemed property owner approached the building department, he then fotuid his efforts werz a wasfe of time and money, for persons fhere in years past couTd effectively stonewall or influence these appeals. Marvin added that potential civil court appeals were a waste of time for neighbors. Consequendy, Marvin vzas.able.to hold the neighborhood at anns length unril he died abont trurteen yeazs later. NEy beautiful rose garclen along the property line by his garage, died for tack of d'uect sunlight. Only those plants which do not require direct sunlight, now grow there. In winter, snow drifts don't thaw readily due to the shadows cast by this very tall shuctyre. When it rains, the moisture does not evaporate, and canses the azea to be wet and moldy, owing to the problems of drainage from his huge garage roof and the slopa of his lot. Basically, I lost the free right and use of about 900 square feet of my prime southem exposure. As I've said, I lost the flower beds along more than half of my south properiy line and ali I coutd do is to try to grow scrab oak/buckfhom anfl sucfl to try to hide the enaroaching 16 foot high gazage walt from view. ~ Please, I am living today with Marvin's legacy. To me, the shadow, facts and circumstances of 1978 aze upon me again today, with the specter of yet another structure (the shed to my west)possibly becoming a permanent encroachment on our property. I ask you to please not allow these variances. `Fhe following is not jnst a speculative or prospective hatdship to me, it is experienced, real, here and now. a Letter to the Board, Part 2, continued Pa¢e 6 If the variances aze issued, these will be hazdship on me, and for any prospeetive buyer of my property. My realfor is experieneed 'sn property appraising. The storage shed is a visual obstruction and a definite item to be listed on the appraisal worksheet as a deduction from the calculation where auerage comps are listed. (Where snnilaz properties' values aze averaged.) The overbearing gazage eucroaching on the south property Iine is a significant deduction already. The storage shed, if it is left there, would be a deduction on my pioperty value too, estimated by one property appraiser to be at least ten thousaud dollazs since a variauce wouTd be required (since it would then be permanently allowed and have legal status.) I wish to apply for a bank loan to improve my property. I need a garage too, and expansion for the floor space and rearrangement of the rooms and kitchen. The bank loan offieer told me to get an appraisal, submit an application and subxtut ttie partieulazs of my propose& building pro,ject. My realtorlappraiser walked the properiy and we did an inifial worksheet of the comps and deductions to azrive ak a value of the properiy. Tlus was not an official. licensed professional appraisal; it was a tentative vvorksheet. This worksheet showed the detaits and the two variances' deductions (the gazage and the potential storage shed if it were granted) and many other details. This was applied to my contractor's tentative cost workup of the conshuc6on I envisioned. My proper6y value, txnder these circumstances, wouFd not support fhe loan sought. The bank makes a furtUer deduction, as a percentage to arrive at a figure that oan be financed. This additional deduction is to cover the potential over-estimation in the properfy value by the appraiser. Under the new Iaws governing real estate property appxaising, the basis for the itemized appraisal must be cleazly defined each item added in or deducted out, to arrive at a value or price agaittst a comp. The appraisers very license is at stake each time an appraisal is made, and every singIe point must be identified and jusfified and is snbject to audit (and liability). Property appraising is now a semi-science and not the art form of a few years ago. Ms. Hall's storage shed, were it to be allowed to remain, is a cleazlv identifiable reducfion in the prospective ealue of mv ro e and as a eonsequence I would be unable to get the toan I wanted. The conlractor noted that it would be difficult or impossible for ME to get a variance to do work within the south properly easement. (Where the huge - garage looms four or five feet away, over my soutlt properEy line.) ` Letter to the Board of Adjustment, Part 2, Page 7 It is fair ta say that I do not have the same equal opportunity as my neighbors to the south did, to improve tihe economic value of my property to the maximum extent because it has been limited by this one prior variance. Please do not inflict another encroachment such as the shed would cause, on my property to the west. Preemption has an economic value, there aze wiiuiers and there aze losers, and it depends on which side of the property Iine yon aze on.&d in Wheat Ridge I wouid hope it isn't still true tfiaf it is a matter of who gets there first! I would sustain an economic loss if this variance(s) were granted. It is azguable as to the amount of loss. The sale price of my properiy at some point will reflect this loss. The prospective buyer of my properiy wiLt be a loser too, for his aspirations are preempfed, i I have lived at 3881 Estes since 1974. Now, as a senior citizen, on a fixed income and retired, I wish to look forward to preserving, protecting and gerpetuating whatever quality o€ life I have ieft. A kome and a nice garden where I ean grow a variety of plants, is where whatever quality of life might be left for me. Please order the shed at 3880 Everett to be demolished, as the official plans called for. Very truly yours, lLlL~- El` beth G. (3rant and farnily Addendum to Letter to the Board of Adjustment, for hearing on May 25,1006 The exercise of my future right to improve my property's economic value by asking for a variance either to ttze south or to the west, may be (or is) to some degree, preempted by these two existing structures. This preemption would not allow me to improve my property by a garage or shed in the future (should I choose to build one) outside the 15-foot easements.( With a set back, such as tlie extreme one Marv was granted.) I laiow it is speculation, but could you see yourself allowing me to build a future siructiue within 4 feet of the current garage or 5 feet to the reaz of the lot? Or imagine it as an aesthetic addition to our neighborhood, which has fought for a long time to preserve its rural (spacious) atmosphexe7 a. Using the new law and regulations for determining a legal basis for a property appraisal or value, it is cTeaz that the shed does not enhance my property , values. The shed is not neutral wit12 tespect to eithet enhaneing or degrading values. The shed is a definite item on the appraiser's list of "legal" considerations. The garage and/or shed aze only seen as a DEDUCTION from the calcutation of compazative. real-estate value (comps). The only arguable itexn is ttie amount of deducfion from the comp. The appraiser is required to look at variances to present and adjoiaing properties. If they do not include ttris, there aze legal remedies and room for subsequent appeals. b. It has already been arguably establishe&, in my case, that the deduction eaused by the garage being so close to my sonthem property line, already exists; lawering my potential resale properry value. c. The potential for a second deduction, posed presenflv bv the nronosed shed vatianee being requested by Ms. Hall, is particularlY onerous to me. It is azguable as what the amount ofthis deduetion WILL BE but it is not azguable that there WILL BE a defrimental effect in achieving the highest possible loan vatue (or justified sale price) to my property should I ehoose to get a loan to improve my properiy or sell the property. It is an obstruction to my property. I4 is also potentiallg a fire ha7.ard. I wouid like to noint out that two fires haue occurred in the last ten or so yeazs along my backyazd progerty line. Both involved wires down, which spazked and caused fire threat. The last one was this Mazch, and there aze still charred remnants of that fire. The shed in guestion is too close to the property line from that standpoint as well. d. T7us deductible is not recognized (specifically) by the property taY assessors office on the grounds tfiat as a percent of totat value, a ten or twenty thousand doilar hit is inconsequential considering the method of overall calculable vatue facfors. They average everything. However the assessor's office will include in the properly file a notation to this effect (my complaint or concern if or when I register one.). In other words, if or when these neighbors add improvements of this variety to their properry, it raises their property value, but I take the hit, unless I am allowed to-stop fhem. e. If, the deduction (The lessening of my property value) is not being found on the assessors tax caFculation, I will have to pay the full value and appeat (the admittancelallowance of the deduction) the assessment each yeaz. It was eacplained that if everyone were granted these deductions, it would be in incalculable hardship on the county assessors staff just trying to keep up witk the paperwork. £ A ten or twenty fhousand dollaz deduction is difficult ta find in a percentage calculation. The best I can get is a notation in the file and an annual appeal. If and when I sell this property, no matter what the assessor's office has said, potentiat bayers wilT look at these obshvction(s) fo my property and either make a lower offer, or Iook for property which hasn't been corrupted by neighboring encroachments. g. I do not want ffxrther degradations to my own proper€y, or to the generat quaFi[y of our lovely Wheat Ridge neighborhood. I have made annotated photographs of all aspects of this problem, which I have included, to assist in clarifyiug how imporfant the denial of these proposed variances for the property at 3884 Everett S4reet aze to me. I hope to remain on good terms with my neighbors who are involved in this hearing, and I look forwazd to a tour of fheir new home. My concerns aze stricfly about maintaining the quality and value of my properiy. Ve y iruly yours, El' eth G. Grant 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 3031235-2846 Fax:303/235-2857 The Ciiy of Wheat Ridge May 16, 2006 Dear Property Owner: This is to inforxn you of Case No. WA-06-06 which is a request for approval of a 3.5 foot side yazd setback variance from the 15 foot side yazd setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yud setback variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback xequirement resulting in a 5 foot reaz yard setback AND a 136 squaze foot variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R-1) and located at 3880 Everett 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 May 25, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. As an azea resident or interested garty, 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 Plauving Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. \\siv-ci-eng-001\users\ldield\RatLy\B OA\pu6noHce~2006\wa0606.wpd "en lav9ed I-~eme and whi~l,e scquare. rec-,i-.~ex~c~ as c~.ihere -~h~ shed iS s r rc~ su vn►ner 0 f 200 „ Fe T 00 . ~ i a FORY ICK 0 1> >80 O ~ 00 8.O' or, LOT 17 ~ N ~ C A R r_-_ Q0 i Z., C/~ i I 3 AR. -T] T o v z o X O N _ _ - ~ X - X - X - 50' CONC. STRIP f;ENFRA INFO~ PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3880 EVERETT STREET K71EAT RIDGE, CO 80033 LAND AREA: 15,000 SF ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 R-3 OCCUPANCY EXISTING AREA: 1802 SF FAAIN 437 SF GARAGE 2239 SF TOTAL EXISTING 299 SF AREA-A 572 SF AREA B '332 SF AREA C 3742 SF < 3750 ALLOWABLE CON57RUCTION iYPE V-N NUMBER OF STORIES: 2 ABBREVIATIONC (D) EXISTiNG ITEM TO BE DEMOLISHED ' E-ShE(I (E) EXI571NG ITEM TO REMAIN (N) NEW ITEM AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR - EQ EQUAL GFl GROUND-FAULT INDICATOR OC ON CEN7ER T1'P 77PICAl. UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE W/ WITH G N RA NOiES 1. ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL PROVIDE'A CERTiFlCAiE OR LJABILIN INSURANCE BEFORE STARTiNG WORK. 2. AlL CONTRACTORS SHALL PROVIDE A ONE-YEAR WRITTEN WARRRANiY FOR ALL NEW WORK. 3. DO NOT RUN ANY CONDUIT, REFRIGERANT LINES, WIRING OR ANY OiHER U711JN LINE ON 7HE OUTSIOE OF q WpLL. 4. FRAMER SHALL COMPLEIELY COVER WpRK WITH TARPAULINS WF{ENEVER A CHANCE OF R41N rc rnarncr ov 1r .In-,,..- ..T.,..-., 3HETW12X A0.0 GENERAL INFORMATION & SPECIFICATION: AO•1 A0 2 EXISiING/p EMO SIiE PLAN . NEW.SITE PLAN A0.3 • W7NDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE AD1.7 EXI571NG/DEMO BASEMENT pLq AD72 EXISITNG/ DEMO FlRST PLP,N FL~ A1.0 BASEMENT PLAN A1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A1.3 FlRST FLOOR RCP A7.4 SECOND ROOR RCP . ' A7.5 ROOF PLAN A2.1 ELEVATIONS A2.2 ELEVATIONS A3.1 BUILDING SECTiONS A12 WALL SEC710NS A3.3 WALL SECT10N5 E1.1 POWER PI.AN - FlRST FLOOR E1.2 POWER PLAN - SECOND FLOOR 50.0 GENERAL NO7ES 51.0 51•1 FOUNDAiION PLAN - MAIN FLOOR/LOW ROOF FRAMING PLAN 37.2 . UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLAN MCNAMARA/H.ALL 3880 EVERETT STREET WHEAT RIDGE,CO 80033 303.940.5688 KATHRYN GRANT ,.Q,~J~ 3881 ESTES STREEf Iz~ WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 re'a~ ~~w~,) ,z,, _ April 04,2006 /V~~ ~ Dear Kathryn, ~ I am writing this letter for two reasons. First is to apologize for the misunderstanding this summer. Our contractor had cut some tree branches and let them fall into your yard.Then when you were dropping them back we responded thinking you were dropping your own branches in our yard. i am truly sorry for this misunderstanding. During our construction we had a dumpster in our yard and had many mysterious items left in it. Please understand why we responded the way we did and please accept our apologies. Second, I understand that you filed a complaint with the City of Wheat Ridge as to the location of our shed. We have done everything with the shed to make it blend in with the. addition to our home. We have since discovered that the setback for a shed in this neighborhood is ffteen feet from the back and side yard property lines. We have to applied for a vari- ance for the new location of our shed. I do not believe that anyone on our block has a shed that is in compliance with the City's zoning regulations. . Unfortunately, we are now on their'radar. Neither the Merkle's or the Hansons s sheds are in comp{iance with.aaning. I would hate to have any of our neighbors_ to have to go the variance board on this issue. It is costly and time consuming and has no guarantee of a positive outcome. I am asking you if you would please consider withdrawing your complaint. We have done our best to relocate the shed as well as put a new, lower roof on it and painted it to match the new addition. We have also planted a new tree to act as a screen. Again wA apologize for the misunderstanding this past summer and we would welcome any further conversation with you about this matter. In the future, please feel free to call us with any concerns. Sincerely, Holly Hall " Y Stephanie McNamara 38c~U z.ve~~ ~ree~ ShowiY)9 khe, shed c ~:h e. S o c.cNi e c€s-c Lorner blF f h i5 ~'ir'o pcr4-y; Too u-cse To o u r P Ro PERTY ~ 'ra,Ken ~c on~ rn v~ ba~k t~ar~ a,i- 3 8g1 Stre.G~- ~ Show ~ow -~O Ovr , . J E -L ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ r,~IQ RA!'K Ynd2D PAC~E ti -A +!)e m . • ~ ~A~~ . - ~o use ~ this s~de, So u. t s-, 5' d e- 3g80 F-uerd:t So 5 hed w a: p(~5~-~-•' .r show; ng how t-i-,e wqs ~tnn9~~d nr, " i , p us he.e1 -t~ rea~ a~ Lot~ {o PAC-~ t-- A. rrY BacK Y6►RD CzA5T~ . e>f Shec~ c~ 3138o everc+E Street i v, 5 ~corv~er, p~o-Eogrc.,Q4,S ~~GF- 3 j''Y16'COS O-r SP'7CO 'rrvrrti rn~j r 4 <-}.W Q ~ C C, i a V %n o P Y t' 4' Jc, - v i ~ V3- ~ 1. ~ v a $ z , ti . ~ ~ ~ Qd ~ Q' ~ ~ ~ L~ G-- 3s 1 i -T b}j.~ ~1 \n ~ ; r ~ RECEONIED MAY 1 7 2006 May 15, 2006 Travis Crane City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Deaz Sir, I am writing as a neighbor of Holly Hall and Stephanie McNamara who I live adjacent to at 3890 Everett St. There is appazently some concem by another neighbor about their shed. As their only neighbor who can see into their yard without an unobstructed view, I just wanted to say that I don't even notice the shed any longer. It used to be big and sit in the middle of their yazd but when they remodeled they cut it down in size and tucked it into a corner where it is unobtrusive. They also made it look a bit like their remodel so it is actually sort of "sryling" now. Overall, though their remodel caused my home to have "house envy", the value of all our properties could only haue gone up by the addifion of snch a nice remodel to an old neighborhood. Respectfully Subxnitted, ~J Kim J. Stafford EXHIBIT 4 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 25, 2006 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert CASE NO. & NAME: Case No. TUP-06-0 1/Poik for Medved Autoplex ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a one-year temporary building LOCATION OF REQUEST: 11001 W. I-70 Frontage Road North NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT (S): Dennis Palk for John Medved APPROXIMATE AREA: 8.86 acres PRESENT ZONING: Commercial-One (G1) PRESENT LAND USE: Vehicle sales ENTER INTO RECORD: O COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) O SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS DIGITAL PRESENTATION Board ofAdjushnent 1 Case No. TUP-06-O1/Pollc for Medved JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The property in question is located at 11001 W. I-70 Frontage Road North and is currently used as vehicle sales lot. The property has Commercial-One (C-1) zoning. The applicant/owner requests approval of a one-year temporary building permit to allow a pre-fabricated office building on the property. The purpose of the request is to allow for the use of the shucture as a used vehicle sales office. s Pursuant to Section 26-115.D3 the Boazd is empowered to approve a one year temporary permit for buildings and signs. Only one permit can be granted per property and no renewals aze allowed for the same building or sign. U. PROPERTY HISTORY The following is a brief history of the Medved Autoplex history which includes properties located at 11001 W. 1-70 Frontage Road North (Chevrolet, Hummer, Cadillac, GM), 11201 W. 1-70 Frontage Road North (Chrysler, Jeep and previously-owned vehicles) and vacant property on the east side of Pufet Street. The property encompassing the land on both sides of Parfet Street was rezoned from Agriculture- One to Commercial-One pursuant to Case No. WZ-86-10. The rezoning encompassed all three parcels and included a condition that prior to any development, a site plan approval process be compieted in front of Planning Commission and City Council. A two-lot subdivision was approved which divided the property on the west side of Parfet into two parcels (Case No. MS- 86-3). A site plan was approved for the Chevrolet dealership (11001 W. I-70 Frontage Road North) with a special use pernut to allow major automotive repair (Case No. SUP-86-10). In 1994, the owner applied for a planned building group pian to establish,an interim used caz sales operation on the westerly pazcel (11201 W. I-70 Frontage Road). The interun site plan allowed for a 25' x 55' modular building to serve as a sales office. The northern half of the site was proposed as a test trackfor'Hummertesting. In 1998, the applicant applied for an amendment to the recorded planned building group for 11201 W. I-70 Frontage Road to.allow construction of two buildings containing a total of 98,000 squaze feet of building area. An additional building with 9000 square feet of area was proposed : on the north end of the properly. This building was intended to serve as a child caze facility for employees. A 10' right-of way vacation also occutied for West SOth Avenue which was dedicated back to the property owner. The western-most structure was built, however, the other two approved structures have not. The modulaz building was shown as remaining until the second dealerslup building was construcYed Board of Adjustment Case No. TUP-06-01/Pollc for Medved In 1999, the dealership was cited for having illegal vehicle storage on the vacant property on the east side of Pazfet. In response to the citarion, an application was submitted far approval of a temporary use permit to allow temporary vehicle storage. The request was denied by the Board of Adjushnent on December 9, 1999. The applicant filed suit with the Jefferson County District Court against the City of Wheat Ridge and the Board of Adjustment. The court upheld the decision of the Board of Adjustment. On July 25, 2005, the Wheat Ridge City Council approved a zone change to PCD and an Outline Development Plan for the vacant property on the east side of Parfet. A Final Development Plan andlat was ap roved for the property in February of 2006. ~ III. SITE PLAN As indicated in the case history portion of this report, the modular building is currently located on the westem parcel (11201 W. I-70 Frontage Road). The applicant is requesting approval of the relocation of the existing modulaz building sales office to the middle parcel (11001 W. I-70 Frontage Road North) to allow for construction of the additional dealership building as approved in the 1998 planned building group plan. The modulaz building is located within the footprint location and will be displaced by the new construction. Staff has not reviewed plans for the new structure. There is an existing dealership structure on the middle pazcel with employee parking, customer parking and vehicle inventory. Access is by way of a curb cut each on Pazfet and the frontage road. The modulaz building will be located to the east of the existing structure as depicted on the submitted site plan ~ ~ff Two landscaped islands wili be removed to allow nine customer parking spaces. The landscaped islands each measure roughly 10' x 40', contain six mature, coniferous trees and provide buffering for the vehicle maintenance area to the reaz. Twenty-seven inventory pazking spaces will be removed to accommodate the structure. The modular building is shown as being located on an existing Public Service easement. This easement is 113' wide and was reserved as part of the original platting of the property in 1986. Although typically easement encroachments aze not pernutted, the structure is on wheels so it can very, easily be moved. Prior to issuance of a building ermrt for relocation of the structure, written approval from Xcel Energy, must be obtained. y9 , a~•_~ IV. TEMPORARY PERMIT CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a temporary permit: 1. Will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare and safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use; _ and Boazd of Adjushnent Case No. TlJP-06-O1/Pollc for Medved There should be no impact on persons residing or working in the neighborhood if no additional cars are parked on Parfet Street. At any given time, there can be up to fifty cars parked along both sides of the street adj acent to the dealership. Although Parfet is a public street and pazking is not restricted, a commercial property must provide all customer, employee and inventory parlang on-site. A reduction in the amount of on-site parking could exacerbate the parking on Parfet Street. 2. Will not adversely affect the adequate light and air, nor cause significant air, water or noise pollution, or cause drainage problems for the general area; and There should be no impact on the light and air or cause air, water or noise pollution. As this is a temporary shucture which is on wheels, there should be no unpact on site drainage. 3. Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to the detriment of persons whether on or off the site; and There should be no negative impact on loading and service on the site. There may be negative impacts due to the net reduction of parking on the site and resultant use of Parfet Street. 4. Will be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk, buffering, screening and landscaping, so as to be in harmony and compatible with character of the surrounding areas and neighborhood, especially with the adjacent properties; and The proposed trailer is in compliance with the Gl zone regularions relative to height and setbacks. Staff is concerned there may be a visual impact in that existing mature landscaping is being removed which helps screen the maintenance area from the general public. Staff will be recommending that this displaced landscaping be accommodated elsewhere on the lot in an area viewable by the public. 5. Will not overburden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks, schools and other public facilities and services. There will be no impact on utilities, pazks or schools. There may be an impact on Parfet Street due to displacement of existing vehicle parking on-site. The proposal eliminates 27 spaces but provides nine customer spaces for a net loss of available pazking of 16 spaces. The pazking of vehicles on Parfet has been a continuing problem with up to 50 cars parked along both sides of the street along the Medved frontage. The next phase of development on the east side of Parfet Sireet is to include fifly additional spaces for empioyees to accommodate those vehicles parked - _ along the street. V. AGENCY REFERRALS Wheat Ridge Building Department: Has indicated that no restroom faciliries aze required if the structure is within 500' ofanother structure with facilities. Handicapped access must be maintained. ( Boazd of Adjushnent Case No. TUP-06-O1/Pollc for Medved Wheat Ridge Public Works: No comments. Arvada F9re Protection District: No problems as long as the fire lane south of the proposed customer parking is not blocked. VI. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIMENDATIONS Upon review of the request, Staff has concluded that there should be no impact on the amount of light and air or cause air, water or noise pollution. There will also be no impact on utilities, pazks or schools. However, Staff is concemed that there may be negative impacts from the proposal relative to the number of cars parked along Parfet and the removal of mature landscaping and the maintenance area screening. Staff will only recommend approval of the temporary building if an accommodation for displaced puking and landscaping is provided. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. There should be no impact on the amount of light and air. 2. There shall be no resultant air, water or noise pollution. 3. There will also be no impact on utilities, parks or schools: With the following conditions: 1. Written pemussion be obtained from Xcel Energy to allow encroachment into their easement prior to issuance of a building permit far the structure. 2. The temporary building shall be allowed for one-year starting from the date of occupancy in the new location. 3. Permanent landscaping displaced by the improvements be accommodated elsewhere on the site in a location that is visible by the general public. 4. No additional parking will be allowed on Parfet Street: . Boaxd of Adjustment Case No. T[JI'-06-O1/Polk for Medved STATEMENT OFINTENT Medved is seeking a temporary use of a building for purposes of conducting its used car operations. The basis for the request is to move an existing building to a temporary location to facilitate the. construction of a pexruanent building at the location of the current used car facility. The request is necessary to comply with franchise requirements. Further, a re-zoning and subdivision process has occurred on adjacent property; which because of the expense and off site issues cannot presently occur. An attached site plan is attached. EXHIBIT 1 ~ OFFICIAL DE1/ELOPMEfJT PLAN ~ MEDVED AUTOPLEX - AMENDMENT NO. 1 A PLANNED BUII.DING GftOUP 4M T'H~E CIN OF WHEAT RIDGE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STqTE OF COLORADO ,HM zW : PAP F-d 2- P.20,o0s&-13 'YLSlftP ~-:`;C,tSTtsvC'r- Goc~47.0"! N6kl OJe-- TKf~~ L E"~ 15 r,'- ! e- .o ll'VG, , t \ \ L J J r. 1 y. - c~asn~ aa urucRSlw ~ 6 1 PL I 1 ' i O i ul 19 , i 3 1 ' ~ sl •Q R ~ , I ~ u • 1 Y ~s ~ u ' ■ ~ i 1 ~ ~ ~ %'1 _ I ~ -i ~ ~ / / • i ~ lI ,1 ~.i C I ~ I I I I ~ Rcaa s;aEU P;,aK suae. 1 "5P"F FH+PE4" ' ~c111 411~1.1..{~LLl fl 11J~LLJ ~ i j ~ -~-r --t- ~ - ~ 1 wrior z Of/Wwl 2 B-0M~1hT RM~ ~~Ml . i_,.-OE'" - oE . J ' - ~ tvwi uwrr r ~ , I Y~r w~w T --T- ~ 1 I . I I -W 0 tl SCALE 1* , ii jaLi.ll11 V~L 11JJ~t~LL1.I ' ~ I I II l Illlll.lltlllx I ~ . T + - - ~ - ~ =--J }ji -JI f~T'f~II~V~IpfTT ~1~~ ~ y I~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1= vI ~~[J A . 4Mn ~j 1 - ~ ~ I IIII t_jr~ ~ - III , pE" G9 LL11 I _ -.-Y[ C7- - 11JJ.~- oc O TT"P1~rr{i T 1 tI ~ ~ ~ 94 -l- j1 +II11 Iy ~ I I ~ IF- I I I I i/3 I I i . A J I i I f I I/~ I'~ I J-1 IL iii r R-2~60.00• i r p1 FYOrttuo~ r w.wv - P,q, pr6 R.- P 0ut L- n~ a+ : EXHIBIT 2 4 'N4.1v.4 A.rlee~s~c- ~ N ~ Q. ti ~ ~ ~ c\j 0 N ~ N O • MEDVED AUTOPLEX PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AN OFFICIAL FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO SITE PLAN n/. ro.eta . T s[n e. ns, xssw ramv a-1H• exess w on ar v.xui xiocc W NAV4£ BOMIRII' ' ' NptiHNEST CdiNW LF 4-0. NMI M1Efl5EC1pN GOINi ~ SE f/A SM t]5. R6 fI{.9W AG I6. 'I fWNO J-1/f X.J. OP :::Allnl:F r: ~ irv ~ NWIXGST CdiNFR Ci R 1/4 SX f/ m• . FWNY 3 I/Y KNt CM - Ott OG %NEA! MOGE SIf2Et MIXIV4EVT ~'S c~ W ~ ` 5l.WPE~ YS 2>601' . $iAMKO ~.5 1]31I~ . ' ~ 3=1 .l VY. bP 3 60 ' N w n~.rcc eox 8 E 390.80 . 9'30 8 0 ~ . ~ /'.::..•.:r ~ . , : ~.r . SOTH AVE. - ~ , . . ; - rv ' OF tsl PHASE Of iOTAL 41E 3. 5 U➢IIFY NINIMUM / REWiREO 9TE DATA' ' PpONpEO ' 5436 Ac - 223.637 sf 10.016 Ac 435.281 sl r ORAyJAGE EA50.1ENT : 30' pGHi-OF-WAY HEPEBY OEOICATED BY PLAT i0 RIE tltt OF WHEAi RIDG ISEG kATE : iqONi 50 ' FRONT: 9) r,- . ' ~ ' 1 . i $ e SNNING 25.036 50. FL OR 0.575 ACREL iCO REAR: 10 REM: 344 N ` SEiBALi(5 SIDE: 30' ' 40E 184' ' UB"E 140.00', N89'34' Si~E: 30 9DE s9] 50 FEET 50 FEET ~ B1111DINC HEIGHi N ORE PHA NG , Z I j, X .Y ~ ' • FNO DRAMA BURDING COVERACE 8,889 $0. FT. 3.8% 2.OS ~ ~ ~ I II ! f ' n ~ J ~ ~ I I ~J ~ J n I ' ~ 5' OENAII( ~ ! i . ROApS AND GARKING AflE'A - INCWDES IX1iRIGR VEHICiE DISPLAY MEA 109.704 50. R. 49.1% 35.15 4 ~ ~ E WT OF 5.854 SP. FT. I` Il ~ " / ~ ~ ' 105 Fi A8 50 24 2% io ,unurr 0 DRAVJACE ~ LO Jl ^ • 1 ' ~ I ~ ~ u :.:dIP.G Q°EN SPNLE . . . 67.IR . ~ ~ SEMEnSi BLO K 1 ' ~ ! m; I t _ r~ ~ - INLLUDES: FOfl1AM. UNOSCME AREA 30.506 50. PL (11fi.R) k I ; . ~ 1 ` , ' REIENTON POND 52.D3 50. Ft (2J.4S) I10 1 x1 , I I / . ' 436 S0: R. . : F - I VEHICIE DEIAONSIIUTON AREA 22.600 50. Fi. . . . I lCii ? • 10. 16 ACRES PHFSE UNE ~ 1 ~ ~ / ' ~ I~ I ~ ~ ULIIMAtE SIIE DEVELOPMENT (NNRE PHASES) i60 FT B09 50 NA ~6.4T~ / ' , s ' - iNCLU0E5: NOfliHEFN DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 3.69 Ac %CEL CORPIDOR 1.19 Ac, . . . 51,846 50. R. NA ❑.95 I I ` . ' ' ' tt ASEM T ' ' OElENl10N APEA 0.64 Aa 27.878 50. Fi. NA 36.85 : LI ~ 30 U ~ ~ l PHA$E I ~ I , ' , i0TAL5 iWS ioox • : ' g ' 6 1 ao' ' • - - . - _ r- _ - _ - _ _ _ >,I , ~ ; OU2 O6 W • O GARKINC &0<0 sf DISGIAY 8 SPACES 8 SGACES 3 SP CES a oo 129f 555 0 OFRCE 3 SPA[ES A % ~ 8 EM%.OYEES HA% SHIFT 8 SPACES B SPACES 4 ~ NOSERMCE/WAREHWSE AC SPACZ5 ~ f i ' ' • SUB TOTAL 19 SPACES 19 SFACES (L l , ~ , r . b :3~ i i . EIAPl0YEE5 FFOM USTNC DEALERSHIP 50 SPwtES ~ H~ :0 ~ II~ NI ~ I t R ON } I r G. P~D INVENTORY qd SPACES = J i+i lU' ~ ' [ ~ I :I . m TAL iO 213 SPACES ~ ~ m , • ( . 9NQUDES 2 HANDICAP AS REWIRED ~ ~ ~ f ~ i m : ; ,i ' moH 3 , +.V•~ : : IE S 4i . ocMOHSmanox uiea I E wwr ~ ~rv m ~I ~ ~ l. a ~(APPRO%IMAIE) Y • ~ . . f . I-STORY\ ' I @ ort0icxco~. 1 ~ S . . :X,.,- p . I 1 . I ~ 8889 SO.Fi r NO. 122 . ~ . ^ . ~ ~ F`~: b" : - I3.:`,r • : ~s :i, I s i ~ „ ~ Y G_ MN oRM1'L`z op- N~ H?~555 % ~ ..l ::r ' I'. Y i. v ~l) ~w ' : • ~1 :I! , 0.A~-~B~.X.:::Y"~PAN~.%'~?:i. l''~-..~. .i........ I ~ SIDEWAUC. i ~ U d ° PAR ~ ~q6 H 6~ ORPNAC T~ A ~ ~ ' l l I . . •~i ' t' Sq95 f5' EASEU[NT ~ 3l~ . . 1 31 ~ ~ ~ 5 3 3Z4vp ~ ~ ~ . CASE HISTORY 5F.M~ 5 r FEH40n NS-86-03 i ~ r. E: ~MM." ' aJ ~ Z-e6-10 I . , T _ ` . r ' ~ . . . ` . :1 . . ~ . Y..... I~ ' F \ r sWTM G.N. IDP-99-05 ~%1 . ♦r; -c . : P69W StifuJ65I. WZ-05-05 1 W.a.wES.eo1 'vv_ _ ~ _ , . : Ott 6 xxEn~'WCLt-~ • -fx = . _ - ~J ` ' J MS-05-04 . . _ ';S . . . ` . ` ~ _ m ~s i 5 A11P ' IJ2y13 1 1 WZ-OS-fl . 60 0 60 120 SWLE t'=60' LECENO + GWNO SEC110N CORNER. AS NOiED O FOUNU NONUAIENT AS NOIED OO SEi 85 FEBAR W/ VLASTC LnV 'LS N0. 24968' 6L HANDICAP RAMP UVON CONSLRUCTON OF A DE1EN110N SlSIEIA. A NEW DEALERSHIP MAY BE CQYSiflUCiEO N11H APPROPRIAIE FlNFL aEVELOPMENi PLAN qMENOMENT PflOCESS. 3 ,A►~C~i1~G~S I~lC f ~ Archit~cture Pl~nning ~ Interiors I ~ ~ Coloradn Blvd D~ver, Colo~a 8Q24b 303 2'w-$~00 ~ 3Qi~ 220-0708 Fu ~ PU LIC S RVICE EA EMENT I ( -4----75' PUBLIC SERVIGE-~ EASEME T ( ~ ~ - ~ Co i ht pn 9 These plans are an instrument of ' service and are the property of the Architect, and may not be duplicated, disclosed, ar reproduced without the written consent nf the Architect. RELOCATE TFfE E~ RELOCATE TF~E EXISTiNG fENCE ~ Gopyrights and infringements wil! 75' 1 75' TQ TNE NORTH be enforced and prasecufed. _ _ I ~ i ~ ~ ~ - s NEW LOCATI4N QF 1 w~; ~w ~ nr:ar~nN nF T~F ~ rSFn r.aa i-1 - I~~, ~ ~ , ~ ;e~ SALES TRAILER IN~ N ° ; ~ o HC RAM ~a;; ~o ~ N} O ~ ~ ~r ~cis~iNCauTa DEAIERSHIP ~ 3 t- 3 ~ w ~ b ~ L I ~ ~NSTALL 18 NEW PARKING SPACES, ~ PATCM AND REPAIR ASPHAI.T i i RELE}GATE THE EXIS~ING USED CAR ' SALES TRAILER IN IT S ENTIRfTY . iNCLURIN6 DECK - - DI , HC RAMP AND STAlRS, _ r~. ~ , ~ 30' WATER i EASEMENT , . ~ ; . ~ ~ 20' SANII'ARY SEWER , EASEMENT 183.63 " S 89°40'36"W ~ ~ NTERSTATE HI H GW AY 70 FR NTA ~ GE ROAD ' f. 1 N 0 20 40 40 86 120 i SCALE:1" = 40' ~ EXHIBIT 4 f W F 7 ~ '-C + ~ ~y 1 E { _ $K 9D 'P°} W9 'Rec #90959a7 CRAIG CHEVROLET NIINOR SUBDIV1S10N A PORTION OF THE S.E. 1l4 OF THE S.W. 1I4 OF SECTION 16, T 3 S, RANGE 69 W, OF THE CTH P M., COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO FINAL PLAT U?+ F L:,T]' F C SHEET z oF z i - P A R F E.T STREE T ~ eooK 155, YAGE zaz ~ w500°06'56"E 881.12 500°04'24"E 110.99' l 5 POW OEDIC4TIOH I IN WESTERLY 0.OM . PPPFET SIXEET PflOPO5E0 WESTEflIY ROW PGPfEi STREEI SpUiXFXLT BWNWT ~ M.E. 9 M]HIIMESTERq PIIBL65ERV¢E 0.X.CO.RO.W.BRQ6 E45EMENi PG.'!83 l 20 $LOUGN~;,: +i:~ ortcn . £45EIlEXT .n ~ 1018 % NOFiMENLT BOUHOPMY -IXNVEP B MOflTMwESTFflH --1 ' 4ENT pGp583 pOW BK 136 pUBLIL $E Rv . . 722 PG -15'BROMNBOtIGM IOITCH E45EMENi aw ~ k I ~ LOT I \ t 8.860 ACRfS ~ \ \ ~ESMi1PECEPAIA.B]02988 i \ \ \ I \ \ 2a51HITPN1 SEWEfl I \ \ ~ EPS£MEHT~ -L -J ~~l H 21 NME: ~ 1. SIIOULD MES: SOSH 11VEHUE N^i BE COA- STAJLTCp AS AN APTCRIRL STPEC! COWNCClIIiG TC %IPLIN4 5]AEET. I-10 exoxxnce nmr xxcc rxzx ae toxvex-pn SO .U" ApTEF:A:. CLASSIPSCATIOA, 'FITY. MAJOA CONNLCitONS T9 KSPLSNG $TRECI VIF }HE PUBLSC $EFVTCE COXpANY PSGNS-OP-4hY SO TNE £AST OF PAPFET STFEET. S{' iNI6 OCCVRS, jifE CITY •GREE$ i0 VACATE MEST SOSN AYEMIE D~TIGTEO H£REOI:. AAp TNL OF'NER AGxEES TO OEpiUiE UP M AN ' .VIOITiONA1 30 FEEi OP AIGNi-OF-xRY ALONG THE SpL2X LSNL OT LOfS 1 ANO 2, AA'p FL'[TNLPMORE StlE ONNEA AGREES SO 1qVE ANL PEDEl2LOG iANpSCPP]NGr PARXIA'G, AAJ AC[E55 AS SHE ONNEA'S E%➢ENSC. 3. TIIE CWNER IS RESPONSIS:.£ FOA COX- $PPJCTING OA PSNRNCIN.LY PARTICI- ➢i.TINL }N 'IXE CONSSpUCTSOM OF CL'FB GLlTEk. SIBEn"Au%. ORAINAGE. ANp STREET ROAC4:A? 20 SSAEEf CENfE0.CIN[ OF ALL AOSACENT $Z0.EE25. a 5C 25 0 50 IW GXeGmf SCW.£ ' 1 I SC ORTE PIiE1ARE4" A%iIL 2Br 1986 W51> u} L3:._ ul' TNi SE u, i% Y - le b[I!.J 565°:0'36'n u =H~ mHE ~s~:u. u WHLA7-111ZE V:L«, II:OLST3IJ. P.4A. h• S ~ $ i L im &(.9J9.PG.W1 m EL 16 61 PG. 642 PAPCEL ' 55 LOT 2 sK.,2z n.ao 8.632 ACRES E%iSTWG 56VRARY TOTAL ALREAGE • 17.492 SE'"E"ESwT'"EDF°' N0. 83015531 ~ ~ F♦ - - ' . ~ . TS RBLIC SfRVICE CWAWY ~ ~ELELTIYC ESYT, ~ - ~ ~ - ~ . 4=05°I0'04' p=2060.00 L•185.80 ~ GH•SB7°05'34"W 185.74 .c . . Fzi.iW4 C _ LEii ti w fSMi,BF S I PG I61 , IYEST LINE Ci SE V4.SW I/a R:,83 ;i7REE' r;.RH SJSL'. ENGtNEER / SURVEYOR ~►1J carrol l e tange, tnc. 3555ou1A tMim Blve..5uitG i56 takywwd, [olaatlo 150228 303/9$0'0200 . Lli t f" :i U EXHIBIT 5 - CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting April 27, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Bell at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet BellBob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Dauis Reinhart Members Absent: Paul Drda StaffPresent: Travis Crane, Planner Jeff Hirt, Planner Jerry Dahl, City Attorney Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of Apri127, 2006. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Deparhnent of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There were no individuals present who wished to address the Board at this tixne. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. . Case No. WF-06-02: An application filed by Pariick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Cla.ss II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street. Jeff Hirt advised the Board that the application contained insufficient information to hear the case at this time. Therefore, the applicant requested a continuance to the meeting of May 25, 2006. Board of Adjushnent - 1 - 4-27-06 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member REINHART to continue Case No. WF-06-02 to the meeting of May 25, 2006. The motion passed 7-0. B. Case No. WA-06-04: An application filed by Robin Hofrneister for approval of a 15-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 15-foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential Two and located at 7105 West 29t" Place. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He presented a petition containing signatures of the applicant's neighbors indicating their support for the variance. The petition was submitted by the applicant prior to the meeting. Mr. Hirt reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the variance request far reasons outlined in the staff report. All individuals who planned to speak during this hearing stood and were sworn in by Chair BELL. Robin Hofineister 7105 West 29`h Place He stated that he previously remodeled the attached garage into living space and now wishes to build a detached garage. The proposed location for this garage is the only place that will work because he wants to saue a mature plum tree and does not wish to take up the major portion of the back yard with the garage. Further, the proposed placement would be in the best interest of the neighbors as far as appearance is concerned. He plans to build a tandem gazage that would hold three of his four vehicles. Due to traffic and vandalism problems, he does not wish to park on the street. He stated that he didn't realize until today that there is a restriction for driveway lengths and he would therefore be willing to move the garage back 3 feet to create an 18-foot driveway. This would reduce the request for a 15-foot variance to 12 feet. Catherine Dunlap 7160 West 30t'' Avenue Ms. Dunlap stated her opposition to the variance because she felt it would have a negative effect on the neighborhood in that it would be larger than other gazages in the area that were gven variances. Ruby Hankel 7135 West 29t" Place Ms. Hankel spoke in favor of the application and stated that she has resided in Wheat Ridge for 56 years in the location next door to the applicant. She stated that the Hofrneister's were good neighbars and have done an excellent job in ' Boazd of Adjustment - 2 - 4-27-06 improving their house. She was confident that the garage would be done in the same excellent manner. She commented that it would be safer to have three vehicles in a garage rather than on the street. Besides, parking vehicles on the street is a hindrance and makes the neighborhood look less desirable. There were no other individuals who wished to address this matter. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Hofrneister returned to the podium to state that he plans to remove the existing fence. Board Member REINHART asked for clarification regarding a request to change the variance during the hearing. Travis Crane explained.that the request may be allowed as long as it is less of a variance than was published. If the requested change were for a variance greater than that published, a new hearing would be necessary. Board Member REINHART asked if stafPs position would change if the variance were decreased to 12 feet. Jeff Hirt replied that similar variances granted in the neighborhood had been recommended for denial by staff. Board Member HOVLAND commented that, due to configuration of the street, the other variances in the neighborhood gave an appearance of 24 feet even though they were 18 feet. He prefened to see 20 feet with an absolute minimum of 18 feet. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member REINHART, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative of5cer; and I Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-04 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 a protest was registered against it and in recognition of a petition in favor submitted by the applicant; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted 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-06-04 be, and hereby is denied. Board of Adjustxuent - 3 - 4-27-06 For the following reasons: 1. The property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be used as a single-family residence without a need for variance. 2. The applicant has created the hardship by requesting a garage of this size and in this location. The perceived hardship simply does not rise to the level significant enough to allow the Board to approve the requested variance. 3. The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. 4. There are alternatives to construct a garage and meet the R-2 development standards, or lessen the degree of the variance requested. The motion for denial passed 5-2 with Board Member BELL and LINI{ER voting no. Chair BELL advised the applicant that his request for variance was denied. C. Case No. WA-06-05: An application filed by Copper Fields Land Holdings, LLC, for approval of a variance to the maximum allowable height for billboazds under Section 26-711 far property zoned Commercial One and Indusirial and located at 4901 Marshall SU-eet. Board Member ABBOTT disclosed that he was acquainted with the applicant and his attorney through a business club relationship and that he had no financial or personal interest in the case before the Boazd. This case was presented by Trauis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. Boazd Member HOWARD asked how many billboards in Wheat Ridge were 50 feet or more in height. Trauis Crane replied that it is difficult to fairly ascertain height for all those billboards because so many are old. Three variances have been granted in the past 10 years to billboard height due to large grade change between highway and billboard. Three were denied in the past 20 years. Board Member BELL asked if the city has a period of time when a nonconfornung use expires. Mr. Crane explained that the use may continue indefinitely unless that use is eliminated. To be replaced, it must then conforxn or Board of Adjustment - 4 - 4-27-06 ` have a variance. The original billboard was 50 feet in height but no record of variance or building permit could be found in city files. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Crane stated that the trees in quesrion were in CDOT right-of-way and that at a billboard height of 32 feet, only 8 feet would be visible from the highway. At tlus time, all individuals who wished to address this case stood and were swom . in by Chair BELL. Tom Ripp Boatright, Ripp and Sharp Mr. Ripp, attomey for the applicant, stated that a variance is being requested on the basis of hardship. He submitted into the record copies of the posting certification, correspondence in favor of the variance from the property owner to the east, and a certificate of resolution dated October 10, 1996 which granted a height variance to another applicant. He also presented copies of photographs showing different views of the billboard. He commented that the billboard is located near Cleaz Creek in a nonresidential area and has been in place for at least 20 years. Worthy Cummings 4901 Marshall Street Iv1r. Cuxsunings, the applicant; stated he was available to answer questions. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Cuuuiiings explained that the billboard would be leased to various advertisers. The sign would be exactly the same size as the existing sign that has been in this location for over 20 yeazs. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Travis Crane expiained that this billboazd could have continued at 50 feet in height if there were no change in lease or ownership. Dan Scherer 4647 Leyden Street, Denver Mr. Scherer, general manager of CBS Outdoor, spoke in opposition to the variance. CBS Outdoor was the prior lessee of this billboazd. The board directly to the north of the subject billboard is operated by CBS and is 32 feet in height. His company currently manages 8 billboards in Wheat Ridge and none are above 32 feet. CBS was the lessee on the subj ect property prior to December and offered to extend that lease with Copper Fields, at 32 or 50 feet in height, but they chose to go with United, a comperitor of CBS. He stated that CBS would love to have all their billboards in Wheat Ridge at 50 feet. He fiu-ther stated that CBS is in the process of compiling applications to the Board of Adjushnent to increase the present height of all of their billboards to 50 feet. Board of Adjushnent - 5 - 4-27-06 Harry Sach 11808 W. 44tn & 12505 West 44tn Mr. Sach stated that he has a CBS billboard on his property as well as one next to Medved. They are both 32 feet in height. He stated that he would also like to haue 50-foot signs that would be more visible from the highway. Alan Weiss 9745 E. Hampden, #200, Denver Mr. Weiss is Executive Vice President of Mile High Outdoor Advertising which has 3 billboards in Wheat Ridge, all of which are 32 feet in height. He stated opposition to the variance request. He stated that his company's request for a similar vaziance in 1997 for a 50-foot billboard on the south line of 76 west of Sheridan was denied. His billboard cannot be seen by eastbound traffic and his company has suffered hardships ever since the variance was denied. He submitted copies of the minutes from the Board meeting where his request for variance was denied. Richard Holme 1550 17th Street, Denver Mr. Holme, attorney for CBS Outdoor, Mile High Outdoor and Lamar Advertising Companies since 1972, stated that, in all this time, he had never heard of a Board allowing a billboard to be erected so it could be seen over trees intentionally planted by anyone. He clarified that the subject billboard was built prior to 1970 without a variance and is therefore a nonconforming grandfathered. use. He addressed several criteria in Section 26-115 of the city code to be considered by the Board when considering variances and stated the following: • The property could continue to operate without a variance. . It would probably not alter the chazacter of the locality. A number of VJheat Ridge billboards are blocked because of the 35 foot height limit. Therefore, this case does not present a unique hazdship. . If this variance were to be granted, the Board would be hard pressed to deny a variance of 50 feet for other billboards that have similar blockage problems and it would therefore have a detrimental effect on the public welfare. He asked the Board to deny the variance request and commented that the property owner would not be hurt but the billboard advertiser could be hurt. Worthy Cummings retumed to the podium. He stated that they wanted to change companies which necessitatedremoval of the existing billboard and building a new one in its place. He requested that they be allowed to replace the old billboard with one of the same size. ~ Board of Adjustment - 6 - 4-27-06 There were no other individuals desiring to speak at this time. Chair BELL closed the public testunony. 7erry Dahl addressed that ugument that granting of a variance in this case would result in setting a precedent for other cases. He stated that the Board of Adjustment deals with site-specific cases and cannot be in a position to decide this case based on what other cases might occur. This case needs to be decided on its own merits and provisions in the code. . Board Member REINHART commented that an unusual grade differential exists that is worthy of consideration in determining whether or not there is a hardship. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the primary intent of the 32-foot height limitation on billboazds was to keep them from being obtrusive to the surrounding population and especially residential districts. Since there have been no complaints.about this billboard since 1970, it appears the public does not perceive this location to be obtrusive. Otherwise, the city would have received complaints. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Jerry Dahl stated that the city does not have an amortization program for billboards of any height other than in the B-1 District. Boazd Member BELL expressed her struggle with a decision in this case. She stated that she understood CDOT planted trees with the desire to improve the driving experience and in this case the billboazd would be visible for only 8 feet above those trees. She expressed concem about distractions for drivers traveling at a high rate of speed along the highway. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-05 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 protests registered against it, in particular by CBS Outdoor and Mile High Outdoor; 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 - 7 - 4-27-06 Now, therefore, be it resolVed that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-05 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The hardship is topographical and is created by a severe grade change which would render a conforming billboard substantially invisible. From the perspective of the highway, the billboard at 50 feet will not appear as over-height. 2. The hardship has not been created by a person having interest in property. 3. Granting the variance would not change or alter the character of the neighborhood. 4. As a mitigating circumstance, there is no residential zoned property within the direct line of sight for several hundred feet in all directions. 5. A letter of approval of the variance was submitted by an adjacent property owner. 6. Three other billboards exist with height variances with similar reasons occurring. 7. A 50-foot billboard has occurred historically on this site with no complaints registered with the city. 8. Staff recommended approval. With the following conditions: 1. The face of the billboard must be oriented perpendicular to Interstate 70. Motion passed 7-0. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing and announced a break at 9:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 p.m. (Board Member REINHART left the meeting at 9:45 p.m.) 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Board of Adjustment Bylaws At the March Boazd of Adjustment meeting, the Board reviewed staff's recommended changes to the bylaws. The Board reviewed and discussed the bylaws which included modifications made at the March meeting. It will be necessazy to gain City Council approval of the changes before they are implemented. Board of Adjustrnent - $ - 4-27-06 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOVI,AND to recommend approval of the Board of Adjustment bylaws as submitted. The motion passed 6-0. 8. NEW BUSIIVESS A. Approval of Minutes - February 23, 2006 and March 23, 2006 It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of February 23, 2006 and March 23, 2006 as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 9. OLD BUSINESS Board Member BELL suggested making an audio tape of Board of Adjustment training sessions that could be used by future members and alternates. 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. The moYion passed unanimously. Janet Bell, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretazy Boazd of Adjustment 4-27-06 -9-