Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/2006( ~~t CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT AGENDA July 27, 2006 (A dinner training session will be held beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Lobby conference room.) Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on July 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-06-09: An application filed by Larry & Sharon Muehe for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard (northwest) setback and a 5 foot side yazd setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard (west) setback for properiy zoned Residential Two (R-2) and located at 3895 Allison Street. B. Case No. WA-06-10: An application filed by Lewis Candy Company for approval of a 9 foot setback variance from the required 10 foot setback for a freestanding sign; resulting in a 1 foot setback for property zoned Commercial- One (C-1) and located at 6140 West 38th Avenue. C. Case No. WA-06-11: An application filed by William Packard for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yazd setback and a 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential Two (R-2) and located at 3065 Reed Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - June 22, 2006 8. ADJOURNMENT ( BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TRAINING WORKSHOP Lobby Conference Room July 27, 2006 • 5:30 p.m. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. il. 12. 13. 14. Appointment and Membership Power and Authority of the Board Relarionship with Other Officials Nature of the Case: Burden of Proof Implementing the Hardship Standard In Practice The Quasi-Judicial Standard Ex Parte Contacts Board Procedures Surviving Judicial Review Selected Case Decisions Conditions of Approval Taking Testimony Making Motions Q&A ~ CITY OF WFIEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT TRAINING WORKSHOP 1. APPOINTMENT AND MEMBERSHIP: CHARTER SEC. 9.3. The council shall make all appointments to all boazds and commissions and shall specify the term of office of each individual in order to achieve overlapping tenure. All boazds and commissions sha11 have approximately equal representation from each council district. All members shall be residents of the city, registered voters and shall be subject to removal for just cause by the council. The council shall also make appointments to fill vacancies for unexpired terms. 2. POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD. A. Generally, Code of Laws Sea 2-61(a); (b); (c). a. The boazd of adjustment shall have the authority to heaz and decide requests for variances and waivers of the city zoning ordinance, flood- plain zoning ordinance, and sign code, and for interpretation of those ordinances and codes and the subdivision regulations, subject to those guidelines set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, section 26-115, and as approved by the city council in the form of official rules and regulations for the board of adjusiment. b. The board of adjustment has the responsibility, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, section 26-115, to permit in any district a temporary building which is used for a permitted use in that district, or a temporary use of land which is not allowed in that district; such permit is to be issued for no longer than one (1) yeaz per application. c. In exercising the above-mentioned powers, the board may, in confomuty with all other appropriate provisions of law, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision or determination as in its opinion ought to be made in the premises, and to that end shall have a11 the powers of the zoning administrator. B. Code of Laws Sea 26-115. Variance/Waivers/Temporarv Permits/Interpretations. Where it is desired to gain relief from the strict application of any provision of this chapter or to seek an interpretation of the provisions or associated official maps, appeal to the appropriate authority as described below shall be made in accordance with the requirements relating to the specific type of appeal. C. Review Criteria for Vaziances and Waivers: Code of Laws Sec. 26-115.C.3. 1 a. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which iY is located? b. If the vaziance were granted, would it alter the essential chazacter of the locality? c. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particulaz and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? d. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? C. Would the granting of the vaziance be detrunental to the public welfaze or injurious to other property or unprovements 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? £ If criteria a. through e. aze found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to tlie 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? 3. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER OFFICIALS. The Boazd of Adjustment's function is to serve as an independent body to review special and exceptional cases, and to be a"court of last resort" for persons who feel that an administrative official's decision is unfair. This allows the City Council the freedom to implement general policies, and to act upon them as development proposals move forward. The City Council is less capable of serving in the highly individualized, case specific appellate role filled by the Board of Adjustment. Similazly, the administrative officials charged with administration of the zoning and building regulations of the jurisdiction should not be placed in the position of granting exceptions to the rules they are asked to enforce. To do so would be to compromise their ability to enforce the rules in each case. For example, if the building official granted an excepfion to the required distance between finished grade and the floor joists for residential construction, each applicant for a building permit would request the same exception, claiming that "you gave the exception to the last applicant; you should give it to me." Zoning and building control regulations aze enacted for a purpose: to protect public health, safety and welfaze. Good regulations aze designed to apply in most cases. \ It is the exceptional cases which give rise to the need for a Board of Adjustment. The 2 function of the Boazd of Adjustment gives both elected and appointed officials the freedom to do their jobs. There is, of course, a natural tension between the work of the Board of Adjustment and these very same officials. It is possible (and even likely) that in some cases the Boazd of Adjustment action (which may well reverse the action of the building official or alter the conditions of approval of a project imposed by the City Council) could be seen by that official or that governing body as undercutting their authority. The only way to avoid this circumstance is to ensure that the situations in which such vaziances are granted are truly unique and exceptional hazdship cases, where granting the minimuxn variance necessary will also preserve the public health, safety and welfaze. 4. NATURE OF THE CASE: BURDEN OF PROOF. As an appellate body, the Board's task is not to solve each problem brought to it, but instead to deterxnine whether the necessary standards of hardship have been met and, even if so, whether reversing the administrative decision or granting a variance will not injure the public health, safety and welfare. It is to be expected that the Board will deny the appeal in many cases, or grant less than the requested variance. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to prove that ali of the requirements of the Code of Laws have been met. Note especially that the review requirements of Code of Laws, Sec. 26-115, are in the conjunctive: this means that all of the requirements must ( be met (hazdship: not self-imposed; unique attributes of the property; public health; safety and welfare not affected; etc.). Strict interpretation of this section means that the vaziance or waiver must be denied if even one requirement or element has not been proven. The courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the Board unless the Board's discretion has been cleazly abused. Monte Vista Professional Building v. Citv of Monte Vista, 531 P.2d 400 (Colo. App. 1975). 5. IMPLEMENTING THE HARDSHIP STANDARD IN PRACTICE. While "hazdship" is in the mind of the beholder, some important elements should be a part of the applicant's case: Hardship should not be self-imposed. Did the applicant buy the property knowing that it was too small for the required lot size in the single family zoning district, or with knowledge that the front setback would force the building to be exceptionally narrow? The conditions creating the hazdship should be peculiaz to that property and not shazed generally in the zone district. Are a11 of the lots in flus azea subject to steep slopes such that it is not possible to build conforming structures without the need for a variance? What is the motivation for the claim of hardship? ~ 3 It is not enough for the applicant merely to prove that it would be more convenient to have the variance. Monte Vista Professional Building Inc. v. City of Monte Vista (copy attached). The applicant has no right to the highest and best use of his property, and the Boazd need not grant a variance to ensure this. Levy v. Board of Adjustment, 369 P.2d 991 (1962) (copy attached). Is the motivation for the variance simply financial? Does the applicant merely wish to avoid the cost of compliance with the regulations? Has the impact on the surrounding area and the health, safety and welfare with the public been documented? It may be that even though true hardship is proven, to grant the variance would decrease the quality of life for the neighborhood. The applicant's burden of proof extends bevond proving its own hardship to include aiso proving that granting the vaziance or reversing the administrative officer's decision will not injure the public or the surrounding properiy owners. 6. THE QUASI-NDICIAL STANDARD. Actions of the Board on variance or waiver requests or appeals from administrative officials are q_uasi-iudicial, not le2islative. The Board sits as an appellate body (a judge), not as the decision maker in the first instance. The consequences of the fact that the BOA's function is quasi judicial are severaL• a. Notice and heazing (posted, mailed). b. Right to present witnesses and evidence. C. Right to cross-examination? d. Right to legal azgument. e. Right to rebuttal. f. No ex parte contacts allowed. g. Rules of evidence: informal. 7. EX PARTE CONTACTS. Defined: Contacts between the applicant or opponents and the members of the Boazd of Adjustment outside of publicly scheduled hearings and meetings on the application. Why should these contacts be avoided? The consequence of engaging in such contacts can be as severe as invalidating the action of the Board. How can ex parte contacts be avoided? Once approached or called by the applicant or opponent and the matter is identified by them, immediately advise them that, as a boazd 4 member, it is improper for you to talk about the case outside of the hearing room, and urge them to bring their points of view and testimony to the heazing room. The prohibition extends to written materials as well: Make sure any materials you receive outside of the heazing room are copied and shared with everyone at the tune of hearing. What to do if an ex parte contact has occurred: Disclose the contact to the Boazd at the beginning of the hearing; describe its content as completely as possible. In an extreme case, you may be required to step down and not further participate. Site visits: Avoid any contact with either side at the site. Even "informational" contact is still an ex parte contact. 8. BOARD PROCEDURES. A. Voting Requirements: Code of Laws Sec. 2-53(d). Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, the following voting rules shall be in effect for all matters requiring decision by the boazd of adjustment to grant any vaziance, waiver, temporazy building or use perxnit, any interpretation or floodplain special exception permit (or for any matter requiring decision by the plauning commission or the city council under Section 26-115 of the (yf the city): Members Present Votes Needed to Approve 8 6 All other actions shall be taken by majority vote of the members present. B. Public Hearing Procedures. The applicant or his or her agent, including his or her attorney, must appeaz at the hearing before the Boazd. Bylaws, Art. II, ¶ 4.; C.R.S. § 31-23-307: At the time of public hearing, the Community Development Department shall present the case stating recommendations, the appellant shall state his case, then the opposition shall be heard and the appellant shall be given opportunity to reply. Both sides sha11 be given an opportunity to smmnazize their case. At the conclusion of all evidence, the Board shall declaze the public hearing closed. Bylaws, Art. V, ¶ 4. C. Taking Action: The Importance of Written Findings. 5 a. Consider all the testimony and evidence. (Don't let the number of people for or against the application deterxnine your decision.) b. Compaze the evidence against the standards and the code or regulations. c. Draw conclusions from the evidence. d. Rely upon and state your conclusions in the decision. e. "[A] record of proceedings before the Board must contain details of the evidence presented and proper grounds and reasons to support its decision." Murrav v. Board of Adiustment of Laramie Countv, 594 P.2d 596 (Colo. App. 1979). £ Written findings of fact and resolution. Code of Laws Sec. 2-61(d). g. Written: Summarize the evidence and relate the evidence relied upon to satisfy each and every one of the criteria in the Code of Laws. h. Conditional Approval: Conditions aze perfectly appropriate, and, in fact, encouraged. You have the authority to "modify" the order or decision being appealed from, not merely to grant or not grant the appeal or vaziance. Conditions should be reasonable and should related to the impacts of the project. i. Term; Expiration: Variances and waivers expire 180 days after being granted unless: (1) a building permit issued, before that time, or (2) a different term is granted in the resolution. 9. SURVIVING JUDICIAL REVIEW. Appeals from a decision of the Board of Adjustment must be filed under Rule 106(a)(4) C.R.C.P. with the district court within 30 days of final action. Code of Laws, Sec. 26-6(D)(5); Rule 106 (a)(4) C.R.C.P. Failure to do so results in dismissal of the appeal. Substantially improved chances if there is a preponderance of the evidence in the record on each of the required elements, and if that evidence is summarized in written findings. Generally, the courts will not substitute their judgment for yours unless you have clearly abused your discretion. Monte Vista Professional Building Inc. v. City of Monte Vista, 531 P.2d 400 (Colo. App. 1975). You have the authority to reheaz an application for a vaziance, but only if new evidence is submitted which could not have been available at the first hearing, or one yeaz has passed since the prior decision. The Board may. reopen and review past decisions when it is 6 alleged that the Boazd has exceeded its authority, or when the applicant allegedly violates { the terms of the variance which has been granted. See Moschetti v. Board of Zonin~ Adiustrnent, 574 P.2d 874 (Colo. App. 1977). In Moschetti city employees checked the dimensions of the plaintiffs sign and found it to exceed the conditions of the his signed variance. The city petitioned the Board of Adjustment to reheaz the plaintiffs variance and the plaintiff sued to block the reheazing. The Court of Appeals held that the Board could reheaz the case despite the lack of expressed co-provisions authorizing rehearings. 10. SELECTED CASE DECISIONS INVOLVING BOARDS OF ADNSTMENT. A. Murray v. Board of Adiustment of Lazimer Countv, 594 P.2d 596 (Colo. App. 1979). a) Facts: Adjacent property owners challenged variance to setback requirements and allowance of second free-standing building (gas station). Proposed use of second building was for a"repair gazage," but no findings were made regarding gazage use. b) Decision: • Variance "should not be used as a way to avoid the normal processes of amending zoning resolution (rezoning in disguise). • Hazdship should not be self-created and must be "of a type peculiar to this property owner and not shazed by others." • The record contained no fmdings or conclusions relative to the repair gazage use. • No reference to any "exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hazdship." • Case remanded to the Boazd of Adjustment to hold a new hearing and to prepaze a record of the evidence and their decision. B. Monte Vista Professional Building, Inc. v. Citv of Monte Yista, 531 P.2d 400 (Colo. App. 1975). a) Facts: BOA granted use vaziance allowing doctors to expand a building for cluucal space. Board denied request to locate apothecary. Testimony of neighbors and residents not put under oath. b) Decision: BOA proceedings are inforxnal, the strict rules of evidence need not apply; basic requirement is the principles of fundamental 7 faimess be observed. City zoning ordinance did not require that witnesses be placed under oath at a public hearing. It would have been proper for the Boazd to permit only sworn testunony but it was not error to fail to do so. Applicants failed to meet burden of proof in regazd to the apothecary: "[t]he most that can be said from the evidence is that there was a showing that it wo«ld be a convenience for some of the ciinic patients. Therefore, the doctors fail to meet their burden of proof that they were entitled to consideration for a vaziance for the apothecazy.° Court agrees that BOA should not have gone beyond the record in its findings relevant to the detailed operations of other drug stores and the competitive relationship between outlets. Luckily, failure of the applicants to meet their burden of proof was conclusive as to the outcome and the improper findings would not require a different result. C. Lew v. BOA (Arapahoe County, 369 P.2d 991 (Colo. 1962). a) Facts: Plaintiff bought land with notice that it was not sufficient for single-family residence. 1.25 acres; 2.5 required. b) Decision: Rights of prior owners not relevant. Hardship was self-imposed. No constitutional right to build house. D. Buck v. Park et al. as Members of the Cherry Hills Villaee Board of Adiustment, 839 P.2d 498 (Colo. App. 1992). a) Facts: The plaintiffs acquired lots after the City adopted zoning regulations with the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Each of plaintiffs' lots was less than one acre. BOA denies application to grant some lots nonconforming status or to grant a variance for construction of single family residences. b) Decision: • BOA denial was final action; 30-day rule applies. • Appeal properly dismissed. E. National Advertising Companv v. Boazd of Adiusrinent (Denver), 800 P.2d 1349 (Colo. App. 1990). a) Facts: • 10-yeaz amortization of overheight billboazds. • Billboazd owners challenge height restrictions. • BOA denies vaziance. b) Decision: • Restrictions a legitimate government interest; not a"taking". • Other profitable uses of land remain. . Remand for evidence on available uses. F. Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Services Inc. v. Citv and Countv of Denver, 795 P.2d 271 (Colo. App. 1989). a) Facts: • BOA denies office permit in B-4 zone. b) Decision • Addiction treatment center is a permitted "office" use. • Pernut would not be denied on basis that methadone dispensing was primazy use. • BOA reversed. G. Sclavenitis v Cherry Hills Board of Adjustment and Anpeals, 751 P.2d 661 (Colo. App. 1988). a) Facts: • Permit for single-family house denied. Lot too small. • At hearing, staff told applicant's attorney to go home; then more testimony was taken. c) Decision: • Reopening hearing denied due process of law. • Decision of BOA contrary to facts and law; not supported by evidencein record. • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for money damages permitted. • Case remanded to BOA. 9 H. Fitz Motors v. North lg enn. a) Facts: • Auto dealer wants to "switch" vaziance from one sign to another; BOA denies application. b) Decision: . No switching. • Money spent on application does not affect decision. L Neighbors for a Better Approach v. NEPA (Denver), 770 P.2d 1390 (Colo. App. 1989). a) Facts: • Denver Rescue Mission emergency zoning gets variance from Zoning Administrator BOA affirms . Neighbors sue b) Decision: • Applicant is indispensable party to suit by neighbors • BOA definition of affected "adjacent" properties upheld • Competent evidence supported BOA's decision on pazking • Testimony of Zoning Administrator entitled to significant weight 11. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 12. TAKING TESTIMONY. Rules for Limiting Testimony: Goa1: That boazd members and public attendees leave the hearing feeling that it was fair and that their views were heard and appreciated. Explain the rules for conduct of the hearing at the outset. Some suggested rules: a. Require those wishing to speak to sign up and indicate for/against and who they represent b. If a lazge number signed up, divide the available time and assign it at the beginning ~ c. Stick to your rules on time 10 d. Suggest speakers don't repeat prior testunony if they can state they agree with an eazlier speaker e. Make sure that all attendees at the public hearing know they have the right to speak £ Alternate between those for and against the proposition, or take them in order of sign up g. Option: Permit organized groups to block their testimony h. Thank all the speakers for appeazing YVhat Testimony is Admissible? a. Heazsay: "I heard J. Dahl say that." [Where J. Dahl is not present and cannot be cross examined.] b. Relaaced rules of evidence in administrative heazings. c. There is no prohibition/limitation on kind or nature of testimony in the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. d. It is appropriate for the Board to consider the weight and credibility of testimony e. Consider all the testimony and evidence (Don't let the number of people for or against the application determiae your decision.) your decision.) 13. MAHING MOTIONS. Importance of Findings and Reasons for Approval: a) Compaze the evidence against the standazds and the Code b) Draw conclusions from the evidence c) Rely upon and state your conclusions in the motion d) °[A] record of proceedings before the Board must contain details of the evidence presented and proper grounds and reasons to support its decision." Murrav v. Boazd of Adiushnent of Larimer Countv. Findings: a) Written: Summazize the evidence and relate the evidence relied upon to satisfy each and every one of the criteria in the Code of Laws b) Oral: Not recommended. How do you defend an oral finding? 11 c) Written conditions have a greater chance of being enforced. Amendments to Motions: a) Must be germane to the motion b) Are a good way to add one or a series of conditions. c) An amendment seeking to "reverse" the main motion is a substitute motion and is not favored. Stick to the request before you: a) Apply the same standazds of relevance you would want to see in public testimony. b) Okay to grant a smaller variance; not a larger one. Failed Motions: a) b) If approval motion fails, someone on the prevailing side should immediately move to recommend denial. \ 12 WH~T CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT c~10 R P00 TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-09/Muehe DATE OF MEETING: July 27, 2006 ACTION I2EQUESTED: Request for approval of a 5 foot side yard (northwest property ]ine) variance resulting in 5 foot side yard setback and a 5 foot side yard (west property line) setback resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback for proper[y zoned Residential Two. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3895 Allison Street APPLICANT (S): Larry Muehe OWNER (S): Same 3895 Allison St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPRO%INIATE AREA: 15,703 sq. fr. (036 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residential Two (R-2) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE p 4-- (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION ~n J V 4015 4010~ ° a Location Map ' N~ m °i-... ~ z T, . g p4 N ~ ~O" (C/ m o ' R.2 . . Site nvF / :i89V.~:. y'y ~ ~ N O ~ 0 4 ~ ~ !'1 N K N Z U .a°o 0 m BoardofAdjustmenC WA-06-09/Muehe I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of two variances: a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the northwest property line resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback, and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the west property line resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback for a detached garage (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 15,703 square feet in size, has an irregular shape, and is relatively flat. The applicant wishes to construct a detached garage in the southwest corner of the property (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). One existing shed would be removed as a result of the conshuction. The garage would be accessed from the existing driveway, with a drive extension on the northwest property line. The drive extension will be 8 feet wide at the most narrow point, which can accommodate a vehicle. Setbacks for accessory structures are dictated by height. An accessory shucture 8 feet or less in height may be located 5 feet from the side and rear property lines in the R-2 zone district. An accessory structure which is greater than 8 feet tall must be located at least 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. The maximum height far a detached garage is 15 feet. The maacimum size for a detached garage in the R-2 zone district is 1,000 square feet per unit. The applicant wishes to construct a new 22 foot by 30 foot detached garage 5 feet from the northwest side property line and 5 feet from the west side property line. The garage will not exceed the 15-foot height limitation. All other development standards will be met. The entire neighborhood is zoned R-2, and consists of well established single family homes. There has been one variance granted in the neighborhood far a side yard setback for the conshuction of a new house. It should be noted that as recently as 2003, the R-2 zone district allowed a minimum 5 foot side and rear yard setback for accessory structures. The property has an abnormal shape, and has frontage on two public streets. The northern (front) property line is adjacent to W. 39th Avenue while the eastern (side) property line is adjacent to Allison Street. The property has 5`sides': the two property lines with street frontage, the rear (southern) property line and a northwest side and west side property line. The shape of the lot, orientation and position of the house limit the opporhxnity for location of a detached garage. If the garage were to meet the required 10 foot setback for the western and northwestem property lines, it would be extremely difficult to access the gazage. Two letters of support have been included as Eachibits 3 and 4. The letters are from the property owners directly to the north and south of the subject property. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Because there are two separate requests, staff will discuss each request independently. The side and rear yard setback variauce requests can be approved (or denied) separately. Board of Adjustment WA-06-09/Muehe Request A: Side Yard (Northwest Prouertv Line) Setback Variance Staff has the foliowing 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? Ifthe 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 variance request "A". The house has an existing one caz attached gazage. 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. The garage will be in a location which should not impact adjacent lots, due to the irregular shape of the subject property. The adjacent property owners most directly affected have submitted letters in support of this request. 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 property does have a unique shape. Further, if the garage were in a conforming locarion, it would be difficult to access given the shape of the lot and location of the house. These two factors lunit the opportuuity for consmxction of a detached garage. 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 lot has an irregular shape and has frontage on two public streets. The location and orientation of the existing house fiu•ther complicates the matter. It would be difficult to access the gazage if it were located in a confoiiniug locarion. 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 tbe neighborhood? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. 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 sireets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighbarhood. ~ 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 Boud of Adjushnent WA-06-09-Muehe 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 conhibution 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 (Western Propertv Line) 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 structure, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request "B". The house has an existing one car attached garage. 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. The garage will be in a locarion which should not unpact adjacent lots, due to the uregular shape of the subject property. The adjacent property owners most directly affected have submitted letters in support of this request. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardsbip (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The properiy does have a unique shape. Further, if the garage were in a conforming location, it would be difficult to access given the shape of the lot and location of the house. These two factors lnnit the opportunity for construcrion of a detached garage. 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 properiy has not caused the hardship. The lot has an uregular shape and has frontage on two public streets. The location and orientarion of the existing house further complicates the matter. It would be difficult to access the garage if it were located in a conforming location. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-09-Muehe increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request wouid 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 disabiliries. IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S) Each request will require a separate motion. The requests can be approved or denied independently. Request A: Side Yard (Northwest) Setback 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 lot has an irregular shape and has frontage on two pubiic streets. 2. The location and orientation of the house would 'unpede vehiculaz access to a garage if it was in a conforming location. 3. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adj acent properties. Repuest B: Side Yard (Wesfl Setback 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 lot has an irregular shape and has frontage on two public streets. 2. The location and orientation of the house would 'unpede vehicular access to a gazage if it was in a conforming location. 3. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-09-Muehe Variance Criteria: a. The nature of the lot layout is restricting accessibility to the backyard. b. Character would be improved as front lawn would remain as is - no second drive - and less concrete in backyazd. c. Wanted to auoid encroaching upon the S' utility easement (south side) of residence. Wanted to keep aesthetically attractive and maintain neighborhood appearance by using existing drive. d. The problems being iayout of properry, causing additional expense, and variation of enjoyment and further reducing an already small backyazd. e. This would be an improvement in appearance in Yhe neighborhood and property value. f. This would be a benefit to all - more amactive and keeping with the appearance of the neighborhood. Stuiunary: In general, the reduction in setbacks from 10' to 5' will make the garage more accessible, less expense, leauing us with a more usable back yard, and in no way alter the appearance in the neighborhood. EXHIBIT 1 ReEsPORF DATE 03/27/2006FEE 110.OOJOB# 06-277 CLIENT LARRY MUEHE L A N D S U R V E Y I N G ADDRESS 3895 Ai.i,isON ST. 5460 WARD ROAD • SUITE 160 NAME MUEHE ARVADA,COLORADO 80002 ~ (303) 420-4788 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE LEGALDESCRIPTION ~ . Attn: LARRY MUEHE tPerveueri.l FLOT 1, BLOCK 12, MELROSE MANOR, ' COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORAI)O. L ~ N . Scale:l"=30' Noh: . The~e Appeafs N Be Disc~epaucies wiW fLe WeSt 39(h AveVPlatted Lo[ Dime¢sion as Shown. Accordwg to »6.93' ue SO~ my Inteipwtatlou of Colorado Law a Bouudary Survey CBp~wiiqe gyd~~ R• isRecommeuded - 54.0$, ~ LOT 2 r Ga~` 7 8 ~ 'OC. ryQa ar~o \ w ~ cooc. ! 3 ~ ,r 1 0 0 16 2.3 \i\ . ~ o / f 3.2 ld, e' o i ~ ~ ^ •9 Q \ ~C «^~I x13' \ 2-3 3.4 `n F-0 FrameShed i ~ ~ ~ LOT I e i~ i L----------- . . ' 8' Easement (Plat) ' 156.00 0 On the basis of my knowledge, information and belief,_I M reby certify that this improvement location tificate was prepared for r.naRY adc7EHE • 4hzt it is t a Lard Survey °lat or Improvement Survey Plat, and that it is ri to be relied upon for establishment of fence, buil. 'ng, or other future improvement lines. I further certify that t improvements on th above described parcel on this te, except utility connections, are entirely with e in the bound of th parcel, exc t as shown, that there are no en oac ents upon the described premises by improvements on an. adiesjoining premises, cept as indicated, and that there is o appar t evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdenin any part of said par el, except as noted. "NOTICE: According to,Coforado /aw you mu commence any lega action based upon /n t' survey withln three ears after you /irst dlscover such defecf. In no event, may any act n based upon any e/ect in thls surv~~~~ more than ten years / om the date of thecertircationshownhereon." ~ o~,~: • H9y~.9~`'p ; SUA EYI• -C~•~ _ ' PLRTTEU - Z~~~ ~VC1~ BEAqINO Robert E. Port L~'i , 5321 or Rob~lk ~t. Hayden, L.S. 27268 ' EXHIBIT 2 "',,%,;°tiAti~'pNO,~-,,,,, To whom it may concern: I have no objection to the building of a detached garage on the north side of my neighbor's backyard at 3895 Allison St. Name Address Date EXHIBIT 3 To whom it may concern: I have no objection to the building of a detached garage on the north side of my neighbor's backyard at 3895 Allison St. pi✓.~~ ~ t//~v~ / D~v~ N e CCJ Address la /5 d ~ Date EXHIBIT 4 ,~`WH~"PO CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~<ORP~O TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAiVIE: WA-06-10/Lewis DATE OF MEETING: July 27, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 9 foot front yard variance resulting in a 1 foot front yard setback for a freestanding sign for properiy zoned Commercial One. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6140 W. 38`h Avenue APPLICANT (S): Lewis Fine Candies OWNER (S): Same 6140 W. 38" Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 16,476 sq. ft. (037 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Commercial One (C-1) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map ssso 'Z ay~ S NC 'n w 3840 ~wf iE 4\~1Fr d.o-~+ ra r H~ge y~1~ u~. SI♦ I.Pi ~ ~ a-2 3765 3770 `r` r~ a~ ~y -i v61i vmi W 37th PI. 3755 a ~ 5~ ~ ti:• ~ rv ta ""~~R~~~a1~,~`' ~,i`~~ in R-1C o 3743 ~Ca....~°~~~V~a~~~~~~d 3750 ~ 3735 ;g;. 3735A. ~3740 3725 3725 3730 3730 3711 3720 .~~3715 't;:? -311$7Xlr:t: ~q 1~?TYr*'..''Nl~~A1ti'~ N 3720 All notification and posting requirements have been met therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Board of Adjustment 1 WA-06-10/Lewis I. REQiTEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 9-foot setback variance for a freestanding sign, resulting in a freestanding sign one foot from the front property line (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). - II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 16,476 square feet in size, has a rectangulaz shape, and contains an exisring retail candy store. The applicant wishes to remove an existing sign and replace it with a new 15-foot tall freestanding sign (Exhibit 2, Site Plan and Exhibit 3, Sign Detail). The site contains two existing freestanding signs; neither of which meets today's setback standards. The Zoning Code allows one freestanding sign per street frontage. These signs were constructed well before incorporation of the City, and are at least 50 years old. One of the signs is located in the northeast corner of the property. The other sign is located further west near the parking area. The applicant will remove both exis6ng freestanding signs. A new sign will be conshucted in the exact location of the eastern-most sign. The Zoning Code requires that a 15-foot tall freestanding sign must have a minimum 10-foot front yard setback. The applicant wishes to construct the new sign one foot from the front property line. It is important to note the sign setback is measwed from the leading edge of a sign, that is, the setback is measured from the part of the sign which is closest to the property line. There is no side yard setback requirement for freestanding signs adjacent to commercially zoned property. The sign will comply with all other standards outlined in Article VII of the Zoning Code. The property contains a building that is approximately 5,000 square feet in size, located approximately 30 feet from the front (northern) property line. Directly in front of the building is head-in parking. These parking stalls are 18 feet deep. Given a ten-foot required setback for a 15-foot tall freestanding sign, one or more of the parking spaces would be rendered useless if the sign were to meet setbacks. The site does not currently provide the minimum required parking as defined in the Zoning Code. A conforming sign will cause confusion among patrons and will be a traffic hazard for motorists trying to park and maneuver the parking lot. The applicant would like to locate the new sign in the same location as the existing sign in the northeast comer of the property. This location will not conflict with any parking spaces and will make the sign more visible from the street right-of-way. The front property line is located approximately 10 feet from the edge of existing street asphalt, so the leading edge of the sign will be 11 feet from the street. III. VARIANCE CRITEffiA Staff has the following criteria to evaluate variance requests: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service ar income if permitted to be used only under the conditions aliowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? ; Board of Adjustment WA-06-10/Lewis If the request were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains a commercial business, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the ~ variance request. The property currently has two freestanding signs which can remain. ~ The applicant has expressed a desire to upgrade the current signage. However, it should be noted that it would be difficult to locate a new freestanding sign in a conforming location. If a freestanding sign cannot be located on this property, business could decline. 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. The sign will be located at least ten feet from the edge of existing asphalt, giving the appeazance of a sign with a ten-foot setback. There are some existing freestanding signs on adj acent properties which meet the rec}uired setbacks; however, it should be noted that the Code requires an `offseY for freestanding signs within 20 feet of each other on adjacent properties. This is to prevent sign visibility blockage. The proposed sign should not block visibiliTy for adjacent signage. 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 existing layout of the site causes a unique hardship. The building is located approximately 30 feet from the front property line. Parking stalls aze located directly in front of the building. These pazking stalls are 18 feet deep, leaving no room for a freestanding sign which meets the required front yard setback. Given the site design, the applicants have extremely limited opportunity to locate a freestanding sign in the front yard. 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 property is fairly shallow. The presence of pazking in front of the building further exacerbates the problem. The shallow property depth and location of the parking does not leave room for a freestanding sign. A fifteen foot tall freestanding sign setback ten feet from the front property line would conflict with the pazking spaces. 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 sign would be setback one foot from the front property line, but 11 feet back from the street. The sign Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-10/I,ewis would not cause a hazazd to motorists. 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 could result in a benefit to the City. The presence of a freestanding sign could have an effect on sales and business for this property. This in turn would be a benefit to the City. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S) Staff concludes that the hardship has not been created by the property owner, and that unique circumstances warrant the approval of the variance request. 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 hazdship has not been caused by the applicant. The hardship arises from the site design and location of pazking spaces. A conforming freestanding sign could not be located on the property without compromising existing parking spaces. A conforming freestanding sign would be a traffic hazazd. 2. While located one foot from the front property line, the sign will actuallx be 11 feet from the edge of existing asphalt, thereby giving the appearance that the ten- foot setback is being met. 3. The applicant will be removing two antiquated non-conforming signs and replacing them with one consolidated sign. This will be an improvement to the property and the West 38`h Avenue corridor. 4. A ten-foot tall sign in a conforming location would eliminate at least one pazking space. The site does not meet the current parking standards for a retail use, and a further reduction in parking would be a detriment to the site. 5. The request will not be detrimental or injurious to the public welfaze, will not impact the adequate supply of light or air, nor increase congestion in the streets. With the following condition: 1. The property shall have only one freestanding sign. Both existing non-conforming signs shall be removed and replaced with a singular freestanding sign. Board of Adjustment WA-06-10/Lewis ~ i , FINE CANUIES ~ JulV 1 7 1, 2006 To Whom It Mav Concexn: SL'BJECT: SIGN LOCATION GRCEC~E-WLDD J U 1 9 20~6 My name is D2yron Lewis, and along with my wife Heidi we own and opexate Leu=is' Fine Candies here in Wheat Ridge. Lewis' Fine Candies has a long and honored histoxy in the ciry of Wheat Ridge as vell as in the suirounding cides. My fathex Richaid Lewis founded Lewis' in 1962, and in 1964 began occupyuig space in our cuzxent location at 6140 W. 38t` m a building that was constructed b}' my pxandfathei in 1958. ' My grandfadiei built this building next to the building at 6] 90 W. 33111, a building that be puichased in 1942. My grandEathes cxeated his own hisrory in business Uy opexating Lewis Auto, and then Lewis .Sppliance and Television in Wheac Ridge until 1960 when he began a new caxeer in polidcs as a Commissioner for Jeffeison County. In 1998 when my fathex retixed, my u>ife and I Look the seigns of the fanuly business. \X/ith my fathers retitement he also closed the last of his 4 retail mall locations, at the Villa Italia Mall, a location in which he held a lease fox 32 years. \YJith Villa Iealia's pending xedevelopment and the high cost of othei xegional mall space, iny wife and I decided to open a retail stoxe next to our manufacturinp faciliry. Heidi and I have been foitunate to take over a familv business with a sespected reputarion and a legacy of providing quality pxoducts to die people of ]efEerson counrn for so many years. With every yeax since openuig the store we have seen a steady inciease in our sales. From the begumuig, we were fortunate to be frequented bv custoinexs [hai in die past used to tsade with my father. These loyal customers were happy see that a e had a new sroie, although manp oY , fihem xepeatedly stated that they had a haid time finding our stoxe. Some of oux new customers even to this day say that tiev have lived in Wheat Ridge fox years and diive 38t' Ave all the ttme and nevex knew we were hexe, ox that they had a hazd ume seeing the signage as they dtove by. In today's world of corporate bxancling and bxand recognition of some brand names by childxen as young as nvo it is difficult to compete at such a coiposare leveL Most young people today don't frequent oldex mom and pop sryle business unless they'xe in a new suip center, os in buildings wirh new facades etc. Fox this season I feel chat it is very important for us to do what we are doing by installing new lugh-end signage, and planning a facade iemodel fox next year. Wich an incxease in our wholesale business and ouz expansion inro retail gift baskets, having a recognized refexence point from wluch new cwtomers can find us is not only essential to Lewis candies, but also to the city by bringing people into Wheat P.idge and che 38~' Avenue Business DistLict Hacmg the new sign in the same locauon as the 6190 \ti. 38'I'H hVE. GHEh7 RIDGE, CO E0033 EXHIBIT 1 - z- July 19, 20e6 old sign will allow passex bves to xead the nem marquee and discovex that we are moie rhan just a candy store, they'll find that u e bake all of oux own pastries, pies, and cmnamon rolls, as u-ell as our new gift basket luie. As far oux cuxxenc signage u-e have tu-o free standing pole signs, one the rruddle of the parking area, and one on the East edge of the parking area. Borh axe being iemoved, -,vith the new sign taking the place of the old sign on the East pxoperry line. This oiiginal sign was uistalled when the building was constzucted ni 1958. Oiiginally oux plan was to use an oval shaped backlit sign cabmet that I had puxchased used from a local business. UnFortunatelv I had gieat difficulty un imding a sign company that Nuould work with us in placinO the cabulet on the old sign poles. All of die sign companies that I contacted u-exe moxe than happy to come out and give us a yuote, unfostunately they would eidier rsy to sell us a cheap square lipht cabinet, or a new cabine[ and new pole, or woxse thev wouldn't call us back or even xetum our phone calls. Tlus problem lead us to et:arrune the new sign ne:x, pole opnon, but take i[ fuxther bv incorporating design elements to coincide wirh the 1950s atclncecture of our building. Finallp I cx-ould lil;e to say chank you to he ciry planning department, and the economic developinent depairment foT all of dheir help dixoughout the pasc 5`-eaxs. Sincexely, ewis' Fine Candies Sweet)ava Cafe I I~ ~ W i = n; cao.n ~Fo °s ~yv o ~oFo ~y :-taF'. ~ 5 P 'acz°asz aT°m i I - ° - p g - > V ~ v f as`- 55 ' 6 mo5ez'" z ~ F m • W ~ . e ~ y'-je ap. a ➢ ma o9ywr c 6 n m _ ` ge~9^ _ - W.~lEeg~g' aT $ f 5 O v05='fm y ~ O S``e 3 2 C~ C x • o~E} a, p 6 ~g~~o'= y ti ~u ~ i:~yca ~ v'~' mo~m~ 3 ~ ~ K ,o WHE°Tqo CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~(ORA~O TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-11/Packard DATE OF NIEETING: July 27, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 5 foot side yard variance resulting in 5 foot side yard setback and a 5 foot rear yard setback resulting in a 5 fooY rear yard setback for propeRy zoned Residential'1"wo. LOCATION OF l2EQUEST: 3065 Reed Street APPLICANT (S): William Packard OWNER (S): Same 3065 Reed St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 10,592 sq. ft. (0.24 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residential Two (R-2) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE ~Y 4t~x~~~~ P.qxmn k r~~ js ma o- rn rn rn ~ ~ Location Ma P ' s=~~~ , ~1 ~ , 7 v o r7 n' rn r ~`a ~a~ ; • ~ ~ a° rn o M i.°~ `v -LDr Site R,2 m r°, o N ~ W ~ o m : W N tti ~ C~j m O ~ p. V M: o ui < O M x0 O M p C0 0_ W 30TH AVE 0 " ¢ a_ n` n ~ N o o o. W!30TH AVE: coq : U) 0 O( <o n All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Boazd of Adjustment 1 WA-06-11/Packard I. REQUEST The applicant is requesring approval of two variances: a 5 foot side yard setback variance resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback, and a 5 foot rear yard setback variance resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback for a detached garage (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 10,592 square feet in size, has a rectangular shape, and is relatively flat. The applicant wishes to construct a detached garage in the southwest corner of the property (Eachibit 2, Site Plan). Two existing sheds would be removed as a result of the conshuction. Setbacks for accessory structures are dictated by height. An accessory structure 8 feet or less in height may be located 5 feet from the side and rear property lines in the R-2 zone district. An accessory structure which is greater than 8 feet tall must be located at least 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. The maximum height for a detached garage is 15 feet. The maximum size for a detached garage in the R-2 zone district is 1,000 square feet per unit. The applicant wishes to construct a new 24 foot by 30 foot detached garage 5 feet from the side property line and 5 feet from the rear property line. The garage would be 113 feet tall. All other development standards will be met The entire neighborhood is zoned R-2, and consists of well established single family homes. There have been two variances granted in the neighborhood. The first is located at 3090 Reed Street which was a request for a reduced front and side yard setback for the construction of a carport. The second is located at 2990 Saulsbury Street which was a request for a reduced front yard setback for a detached garage. These properties are corner lots, which require a thirty foot setback on each street frontage. There are not many detached garages in the neighborhood. Most properties have attached garages or carports. Many of the surrounding properties do have smaller ancillary shuctures, such as sheds, in the rear yards. Many of these sheds do not appear to meet the minimum required side and/or rear yard setback requirements. The location of the house has some implication on the viability of the proposed garage. If the garage were to meet the required 10-foot side and rear yard setback, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maneuver a vehicle into and out of the northern half of the garage. The garage would be approximately 10 feet from the edge of a patio and landscaped area. These items could not co-exist with a garage in a conforming location. It is possible that the garage could be rotated 90 degrees to the north and pushed farther to the north, however the garage would take up most of the rear yard. The location of the garage as proposed would have the least amount of impact on the subject property and minimal impact on surrounding properties. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Because there are two separate requests, staff will discuss each request independently. The side and rear yard setback variance requests can be approved (or denied) separately. Repuest A: Side Yard Setback Variance Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-11/Packard 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 structure, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request "A". The house has an existing one car attached garage. 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. There have been two variances granted in the neighborhood for a reduction in setbacks for a garage or carport. Many existing detached sheds do not appear to meet the required setbacks. The applicant proposes a brick faqade on the most visible elevation (eastern), which will match the house. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, sbape or topographical condition of the specific property involved resuit in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The property itself does not haue a unique shape; however, the current location of the house could 'unpede any vehicular access to the garage. Per current regulations, the gazage must be 10 feet from the side property line. A vehicle would not be able to access the northem half of the garage for lack of space to maneuver. 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. A garage which conforms to the setback regula6ons would not be fixlly functional, as vehicles would not be able to access the northern haif of the garage. A landscaped area, patio and the house would impede access to the garage. 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 welfare. 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 have an effect on properiy 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 Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-11/Packard from an individual beneTit 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 neighbarhood, only the property owner. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Request B: 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 structure, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request "B". The house has an existing one caz attached gazage. 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. There have been two variances granted in the neighborhood for a reduction in setbacks for a garage or carport. Many existing detached sheds do not appear to meet the required setbacks. The applicant proposes a brick fagade on the most visible elevation (eastern), which will match the house. 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 property itself does not have a unique shape; however, the current location of the house could impede any vehicular access to the gazage. Per cunent regulations, the gazage must be 10 feet from the side property line. A vehicle would not be able to access the northern half of the garage for lack of space to maneuver. 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 hazdslup. A garage which conforms to the setback regularions would not be fully functional, as vehicles would not be able to access the northern half of the garage. A landscaped azea, patio and the house would ixnpede access to the garage. 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? l Board of Adjustment WA-06-11/Packard The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. 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 l likely not haue 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 resutt in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request would not result a benefit or contriburion 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. The requests can be approved or denied independently. Request A: Side Yard Setback 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: l. The location of the house, patio and landscape area would impede vehicular access to a garage if it was in a conforming location. 2. There aze multiple shuctures in the neighborhood which encroach into the required side or rear yard setback area. 3. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adj acent properties. Request B: Rear Yard Setback 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 location of the house, patio and landscape area would impede vehicular access to a garage if it was in a confornung locarion. 2. There are multiple structures in the neighborhood which encroach into the required side or rear yard setback area. 3. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adj acent properties. ~ Boazd of Adjushnent WA-06-11/Packard William Packard Stacie Packard 3065 Reed Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 (303) 237-3226 June 6, 2006 Community Development Department City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Planning Committee: As residents of the City of Wheat Ridge we would like to apply for a 5' side and rear variance on the South West portion of our proper(y to build a garage located at 3065 Reed Street. The reason we are asking for this variance include the following: As you know, most of the pleasure in living in Wheat Ridge is that we have large, beautiful yards. I would like to set my garage in the South West corner of our lot 5' foot instead of 10' to allow more open space for grassy areas. This variance would also accomodate the new drive-way better to allow vehicles to be stored in the garage and will keep them from being parked on the street. This would also allow a better flow of traffic in and out of the garage area. With the new variance, the closest #he front garage door would be is 14' 6" away from our back patio and would not interfer with the placement of the patio which intern would not cause a financial hardship on me to replace the mature landscaping surrounding our home. The reason I would like to build a 24X30 garage is for the storage of 2 vehicles, sporting equipment, a boat and storage. This would allow me to alleviate 2 storage sheds that I currently have if I am able to build the proposed garage. I believe that this variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood_ Our plans for the garage include putting brick on the front of the garage as not to cause a distraction in appearance and will remain constant with the architecture of the neighborhood. There are other residents in the area that have built garages similar to ours and it has only added to the property values. Some have been granted the 5' foot variance. I have also spoken to my neighbors and they agree that this would not cause them any hardship. EXHIBIT 1 I appreciate your consideration in granting the variance. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me @(303) 901-0170. Sincerely, ~ William Packard t,,ice. . s~ s~k qarao~9.. U -~--.r i D Qon N _ Fznee ; - - Iq Qr,rden A r2q 5 i+c f' lan t-'o I` ~s Red pAk;n I ,I el ~ a-0 a oz ~ 6 0 1~~'~~,~ ~o^k aU= La.idstupe ~ o A-) ~ ~f°SS 0 v ~ 3, - EXHIBIT 2 G~asS I Dp 0/ ( I gs Ree-~ S~"re~.~ ' C-cz CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT Minutes of Meeting June 22, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Bell at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott 7anet Bell Bob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howazd Larry Linker Dauis Reinhart Members Absent: Paul Drda Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Jeff Hirt, Plumiug Technician Chris Route, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjushnent minutes for the public hearing of June 22, 2006. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There were no individuals present who wished to address the Board. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-06-08: An application filed by Walter Mackie for approval of a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 10-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5-foot side yazd setback and a 5-foot rear yazd setback variance from the 10-foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5-foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential One B and located at 3892 Nelson Street. The case was preseirted by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons and with conditions as outlined in the staff report. Board ofAdjustment - 1 - 06-22-06 Walter Mackie 3892 Nelson Street Mr. Mackie, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BELL. He stated that he would like to build a freestanding garage in the back yard and be able to get comfortably in and out. Boazd Member ABBOTT asked why the neighbor to the back of his property didn't sign the petition. Mr. Mackie stated that there was a death in the family of the owner of the property and he was unable to contact them. He had adequate signatures on the petition and did not approach the neighbors across the street. There was also a language barrier issue with those neighbors. Upon a motion by Board Member BLAIR and second by Board Member REINFIART, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-08 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-08 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. Compliance with 10-foot side and rear yard setbacks would result in diff cult turning movements into the garage for vehicles if the garage were placed in the location shown on the site plan. 2. Alternative placement would eliminate a signif'icant portion of usable backyard space for the property owner. 3. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as the majority of the detached garages in the vicinity were constructed under prior regulations, specifically a 5-foot side and rear yard setback requirement 4. Multiple property owners in the vicinity have signed a petition in support of the request. The motion passed 7-0. Board of Adjustment - 2 - 06-22-06 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing. 7. OLD BUSINESS Meredith Reckert stated that the modified Board of Adjushnent bylaws were adopted by city council and there is now the ability to select alternates. This would be a pool of four people from across the city that could be called upon to fill in for an absent Board Member. These appointments would be made by City Council. • Ms. Reckert announced a dinner training session with the City Attomey on July 27 at 530 p.m. The regular meeting will convene following the training session. It would be a good idea for the alternates to attend the trauung session even if they have not been sworn in by City Council yet. Davis Reinhart stated that he would be unavailable on that date. • There was discussion of possible solutions to problems arising from the recent change in the setback ordinance which increased side and front yard setbacks from five to ten feet. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - May 25, 2006 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minntes of May 25, 2006 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. B. Meredith Reckert announced Jeff Hirt's resignation. Chair BELL expressed appreciation to Mr. Hirt for his efforts on behalf of the Board of Adjushnent and wished him well in his new endeavor. 9. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Janet Bell, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Boazd of Adjustment 06-22-06 -3-