Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2006CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA October 26, 2006 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on October 26, 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-06-15: An application filed by Richard Moreno for approval of a 9 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 6 foot side yard setback AND a request for approval of an 800 square foot variance to the 1000 square foot maacimum resulting in an 1800 square foot bann on property zoned Residential One (R-1) and located at 6671 W. 26th Avenue. B. Case No. WA-06-16: An application filed by 7ason Tixnxnes far approval of an 15' 1" side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public sireet resulting in a 14' 11" side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4675 Lamar Street. 5. CLO5E THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Cancellation of November 23~d & December 28th meetings to hold one meeting on Wednesday, December 13th B. Approval of minutes - September 28, 2006 8. ADJOURNMENT ,oEW"~"'T~,a CITY OF WHEAT ffiDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~[ORP~O TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-15/Moreno DATE OF MEETING: October 26, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 9-foot side yard setback variance resulting in a 6- foot side yard setback and a request for an 800 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum for a bam on property zoned Residenrial One. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6671 W. 20 Avenue APPLICANT (S): Richard Moreno OWNER (S): Same 6671 W. 26°i Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 27,081 sq. ft. (0.62 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residenrial One (R-1) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE ro CT N N ° ~n U Location Map ~ (0 O C) N N N 0 0 Q m O ~ ~ r N ro N W 28TH AVE ' . , ~ . , a _ . ~ 8 Site a ~ m N co N ~ ~ o ~ :F N . ~..~.~~..:.N ~ iW ~ 'p [p m . W ~ N _ ~ R-1A ~g ~ N ~ ~ N W Z o ~ o 0 V Q N (p N N ~ 0 0 0 0 26f ~ zsa 2669 2661 267 2655 26E 2637 26E R 'I ~ . N:.. . N ' ~1 . . N . ~ ! * N~ ~I ~I ~I ~I [I ~I kni 26?H .4\lE Lakewood Board of Adjushnent 1 WA-06-15/Moreno All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of two sepazate variances which would facilitate the expansion of an existing barn. The first request is for a 9-foot side yard setback variance resulting in a 6-foot side yard setback. The second request is for an 800 square foot variance to the maximum 1,000 square foot limitation for a barn in the R-1 zone district (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 27,081 square feet in size, has a rectangular shape, and contains an existing single family structure and existing barn. The applicant wishes to add 600 square feet to the existing barn (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). The applicant has indicated that the barn will be used for bulk hay storage. The applicant does have several horses on this property. It should be noted that horses cannot occupy the barn addition, as a 15 foot rear yard setback is required. The barn has an attached shed and covered area for hay storage, giving the structure an overall size of 1,486 square feet. The 286 square foot covered area and attached shed would be removed and replaced with a 600 square foot addition. This would increase the size of the barn from 1,486 square feet to 1,800 square feet. The addition would be located 6 feet from eastern property line. The R-1 zone district is not specific in regulating size and placement of a barn. Staff has made the interpretation that a barn is similar in nature to a garage. Garages in the R-1 zone district require a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, and are allowed up to a maacimum size of 1,000 square feet, and a masimum height of 15 feet. It is unclear how a 1,486 square foot barn was conshucted on this property, however, staff assumes it was perxnitted during a time when it was acceptable to combine the allowed square footages for accessory buildings and build one larger structure. By example, the current regulations in the R-1 zone district allow a 400 square foot shed and a 1,000 square foot garage. In years past, it was acceptable to allow a landowner to build one 1,400 square foot outbuilding. This practice of combining allowed square footage for outbuildings is no longer allowed. The barn is currently five feet from the northern (rear) property line. The current Code of Laws requires a 15-foot rear yard setback for accessory structures. A pernut was granted in 1997 to allow an addition to the bam within five feet of the northern (rear) property line. The previous Code did allow this five-foot reaz yard setback in 1997. The addition to the barn does not meet today's rear yard setback requirement of 15 feet. However, because the applicant is proposing to construct `in-line' with the existing structure, and will not be increasing the amount of non-conformity, the addition may be constructed five feet from the northem property line without a variance to rear yard setback. As a result, staff has reviewed this request with the intent of legitimizing the existing oversized barn. Even though the addition to the barn is only 314 square feet added to a 1,486 square foot barn, staff has advertised and reviewed the request as if the request is for an 800 l Boazd of Adjushnent WA-06-I5/Moreno square foot addition to a 1,000 square foot barn. This would legitimize the total barn size of 1,800 square feet, if the request were approved. The applicant is also requesting a 9-foot side yard setback variance. This side yard setback variance would allow the barn addition to be located within 6 feet of the eastern property line. The barn is placed in the middle of the eastern and western property lines. The applicant wishes to add 20 feet to the side of the barn. This addition will encroach 9 feet into the required 15-foot side yard setback. The site contains an existing 2,347 square foot house and a 1,200 square foot barn, with 286 square feet attached of covered area and shed. The R-1 zone district allows a masimum lot coverage of 25%. Based on a lot size of 27,081 square feet, 6,770.25 square feet of structures are allowed. The applicant is proposing 4,147 square feet of total lot coverage, or 1531% of the lot. The barn will comply with all other standards outlined in Article II of the Zoning Code. The barn addition would be the same height as the existing barn (15 feet to the peak of the structure). Letters of support have been included as Exhibits 3, 4 and 5. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA There are two requests with this applicarion: a request for a 9-foot side yard setback variance and a request for an 800 square foot variance to allow a 1,800 square foot barn. Each request must be discussed separately. Staff has the following criteria to evaluate variance requests: Reauest A: Size of Barn 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 request "A" were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains an existing single-family structure and barn, and these uses may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request. The applicant would not be able to conshuct an addition to the existing barn if the request were denied. 2. If the variauce were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If request "A" were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. Even though the published request is an 800 square foot addition to the exisring barn, the net increase of barn area is only 314 square feet. This lot is more than double the minimum size required in the R-1 zone district. The barn is located in an area of the lot where it will not be seen by the public. The bam would be located 260 feet from West 26`h Avenue behind the existing 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? Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-I5/Moreno The property is rectangular in shape, and is large in size. The R-1 zone district only requires a minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet. This lot is more than double the minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district; however, the lot does not meet the minimum lot width of 100 feet. 4. Has the alleged difriculty 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 increase in square footage to the already-oversized barn is a direct result of the applicant needing more storage space. The applicant has indicated that the addition will be used to store large quantities of hay. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public weifare 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 congestiou in public streets or increasing the danger of 6re 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 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 B: Side Yard Setback 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 request "B" were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains an existing single-family structure and barn, and these uses may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request. The applicant would not be able to construct an addition to the existing barn if the request were denied. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If request "B" were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. The eastern side yard setback would be reduced to six feet. There are numerous structures in the neighborhood which do not meet the required IS-foot side yard setback requirement. Boazd of Adjushnent WA-06-15/Moreno Most notably, the properties directly to the north, east and west all have accessory structures which are at most five feet from a side property line. 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 is rectangular in shape, and is large in size. The R-1 zone district only requires a minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet. This lot is more than double the minimum lot size in the R-1 zone dishict; however, the lot does not meet the minimum lot width of 100 feet. 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 decrease in side yard setback to the oversized barn is a direct result of the applicant needing more storage space. The applicant has indicated that the addition will be used to store large quantities of hay. It can be argued that the substandard lot width does exacerbate the problem and necessitate the need for a variance. 5. Would the grauting 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 endaugering 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 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 iudividual beneGt 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 requires a separate morion. These variance requests are mutually exclusive; that is request "B" cannot be approved without request "A". In respect to Request A, a request for an 800-square foot increase to the existing barn and upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of Request A for the following reasons: Board of Adjustment WA-06-15/Moreno 1. The increase in size of the existing barn and attached shuctures is negligible. The increase in structure size will accommodate covered storage for hay. 2. The increase in square footage to the barn will not change the character of the locality. There are at least two accessory structures in the neighborhood which are at least 1,200 square feet in size. The property directly to the north has an outbuilding approximately 1,200 square feet in size. 3. Many adjacent properties have multiple outbuildings which create a cluttered landscape. The addition to the existing barn will create one cohesive shucture on the property. 4. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The barn is located in the extreme north-eastem corner of the property. The closest residential dwelling unit is over 105 feet to the closest point of the barn. With the following condition: The barn addition may not be occupied by harses. In respect to Request B, a request for a 9-foot side yard setback variance to allow a barn within 6 feet of the eastern property line, and upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of Request B for the following reasons: 1. The request will not change the character of the locality. Many accessory structures on adjacent parcels do not meet the required 15-foot side yard setback requirement. 2. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare, will not impact the adequate supply of air or light to adjacent properties or increase the danger of fire. 3. The lot is 9 feet short of the required lot width of 100 feet in the R-1 zone district. The deficient lot width directly relates to the need far the variance for side yard setback. Board of Adjushnent WA-06-15/Moreno Richard L. Moreno 6671 W. 26t' Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80214 City of Wheat Ridge Plauuing De Xartment 7500 W. 29 Avenue Wheat R.idge, Colorado 80033 September 5, 2006 RE: Letter of Intent for Variance Deaz Wheat Ridge Representative: I would like to apply for a Variance in order to enhance and enclose the already existing structure located on the East side of our baru at the above address. This entails tfie enclosure of the current structure and an addifipnal 314 square feet bringing the front flush to the front of the existing bam. I have enclosed the following documentation as requested: • Variance Application • Fee of $480.00 • Letter of Intent • Proof of ownerslup • Certified Survey s Site Plan • Power Point Presentation (Including before and after pictures) • Signed Letters from three of four neighbors Respectfully su/b/mitted, ~LL~/+1• ~ ~~vy~ Richard L. Moreno EXHIBIT 1 , ,W,.~.. . , x~x_.._.._sr r ~ ° ~ ~ • ` • t ~ \ , 1 +.+...~..~,...r+ l 1L- O ~ ,•1 ' • ' . . • - - - . •~a• ~ v t;2-0 SC ri.~: . . Yls- - - ~ ~ 00 , \.+O . . ~ , wm 19~' v C> r.'.95.00! ~SC,) ~ 1 N~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 EXHIBIT 2 Richard L. Moreno 6671 W. 26th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80214 Rhonda J. Hiatt Timothy O. IIellwig 6775 W. 26h Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80214 September 3, 2006 Deaz Rhonda and Tim: I am in the process of submitting for a"Variance" to the City of Wheat Ridge in order to increase the squaze footage of the existing bazn by 314 square feet. Oui plan is tq enhance and enclose the current structure. This entails the enclosure of the current stnicture and an additional 314 square feet bringing the front flush to the front of the existing barn. (See attached before and after pictures). The City requires that we notify you of our intentions for the improvement of the barn, and ask for ydur signatures if you approve. Thank you for your tiame and support. Sincerely, Richazd L. Moreno ~ ame ~ Name Date J - e~;-- D ( Date EXHIBIT 3 Richard L. Moreno 6671 W. 26h Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80214 Rhonda J. Hiatt Tiruothy O. Hellwig 2650 Pierce Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80214 September 3, 2005 Dear Rhonda and Tim: I am in the process of submitting for a"Variance" to the City of Wheat Ridge in order to increase the square footage of tlie existing barn by 314 square feet. Our plan is to enhance and enclose the current structure. This entails the enclosure of the current struchzre and an additiona1314 squaze feet bringing the front flush to the front of the existing barn. (See attached before and after pictures). The CiTy requires that we notify you of our intentions for the improvement of the barn, and ask for your signatures if you approve. Thank you for your time and support. Sincerely, Richard L. Moreno ~ (.1✓ • C1 Name Name 9-~-04 Date -(E-1 0 ~ Date EXHIBIT 4 Richard L. Moreno 6671 W. 26`b Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80214 Stefanie Allison and Zachariah E Magalei 2660 Pierce Sireet Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80214 September 5, 2006 Dear Stefanie and Zach: I am in the process of submitting for a"Variance" to the City of Wheat Ridge in order to increase the square footage of the existing baru by 314 square feet. Our plan is to evhauce and enclose the current structure. This entails the enclosure of the current slructuze and an additiona1314 square feet bringing the front flush to the front of the existing barn. (See attached before and after pictures). The City requires that we notify you of our intentions for the improvement of the bam, and ask for your signatures if you approve. Thank you for your time and support. Sincerely, Richard L. Moreno L~- Name ~4 Name S-•CJCs Date g(slcko Date EXHIBIT 5 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE o W"E°TR , a ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~(ORP~O TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAIVIE: WA-06-16/Timmes DATE OF MEETIN G: October 26, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval o£ a 15-foot 1-inch side yard setback variance resultin g in a 14-foot 11-inch side yard setback when adjacent to right-of-way on property zoned Residential Two. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4675 Lamar Street APPLICANT (S): Jason Timmes OWNER (S): Same 4675 Lamar Sh-eet Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 10,522 sq. ft (024 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residential Two (R-2) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGIT AL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map ~ , J g , I y a 4701 4700 14 701 o~- W47THAVE ii W 47TH A VE m u ~n y O ~ ~ W o ~~a o I I o' ~ H' ' O I m t7I .H H N N 4870 - ~ ~ ~ y 4675 i I ~ :V}~ ~ll I N~ N I N~. N ~ CBSS ~ N OI T ia0 ry Oy l h I M ~ N N ~.N N: M N .N ell N ~ NI -V1 bl b NI ~ y l9 ~j l. l9 .~.:~tG 10 lOl~. 10 W. . l9 . t9 .19 ( O{.. V' (9~ . 1O S1tE f W 46TH PL F 5 ~ 1 # } o~ o o~ -o 0 0l I I ol a :o 0 0 I o a~~ Y_L'3u.,~ } f.i b i~' 10 N a01 N~ . 1~' ~O I (O b N %1 ~ ~ =`u . , vCL W~ d b a~~ I R•2 p t ~ AM1 ql~~ m N l I MI NI N~ N- ~p 0 b~ ~~~10 14 ( O t b ~ W 46TH AVE ~ N O ~ tl1 . ~O v oi I ~ C ~ " ~OI ~ I O i dl ~ z 9580 ~ 4510 i ~ ~ ii ifJ N ~I I ~ Z fl MI ~~~.hl ~ NI h~. 1500.: -.W 45TH PL ~.I . . . . . . . Board of Adjushnent 1 WA-06-16/Timmes All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval a 15-foot 1-inch front yard setback variance resul6ng in a 14-foot 11-inch front yard setback. The variance would allow an expansion of an existing single family structure (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The applicant has indicated that this addition would allow an expansion to the existing shucture while preserving a small area for a usable back yard. It should be noted that the applicant indicates that an administrative side yard setback variance is needed far the southern property line. This is not a hue statement; the proposed side yard setback on the southern property line does not need a variance. II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 10,522 square feet in size, has a rectangular shape, is located adjacent to two street frontages and contains an existing single family structure. The applicant wishes to add to the existing single family shucture (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). The property is bounded by Lamar Street on the east and West 46`h Place on the north. The addition would face Lamar Street. The addition will be constructed on the south end of the existing house angled towards Lamar Street (Exhibit 3, Elevations). The entire addition will not be constructed 14-feet 11- inches from the eastern property line. Only the southeast corner of the addirion will encroach to that limit. The addition will be for a three car garage and living space above. The garage will be 22 feet deep; a standard garage length. The applicant is showing living space above the garage and above the existing shucture. The intent is to create a larger living space. The R-2 zone district requires a 30 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot setback for any shucture adjacent to right-of-way. Further, the R-2 district requires a minimum 5 foot side yard setback, with a combined total side yard setback (on both sides) of 15 feet. The rear yard setback is 10 feet. The front yard of this property is the eastern properry line adjacent to Lamar Street. Because this is a comer lot, a 30 foot setback is required for both the north and eastern property lines. All other required setbacks (northern, western and southern property lines) will be met. The property is 10,522 square feet in size. The R-2 district requires a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet for a single family shucture. The site contains an existing 1,539 square foot one story house and a 96 square foot shed. The R-2 zone district allows a maximum lot coverage of 40%. Based on a lot size of 10,522 square feet, 4,209 square feet of shuctures are allowed. The applicant is proposing 2,710 square feet of total lot coverage, or 25.75% of the lot. The structure will comply with all other standards outlined in Article II of the Zoning Code. It should be noted that the south-eastem comer of the addition will be located 14 feet 11 inches from the property line. This area of the structure will be a garage. A typical driveway length is at least 18 feet, the length of a standards pazking space. Projecting a perpendicular driveway to the right-of-way shows that the south-east corner of the driveway will only be 17 feet in length. The northeast corner of this driveway will be at least 22 feet in length, meeting the minimum requirement. The Code requires two parking spaces for this property, and this will be achieved with the additional garage space. Boazd of Adjuslment WA-06-16/Timmes There have been two variances granted for properties in the neighborhood to reduce setbacks adjacent to the right-of-way. The first variance was granted for the property directly south and east of the subject parcel at 6385 West 46`h Avenue. This property is located on the corner of Lamar Street and West 46`}' Avenue. The property received a 26-foot side yard setback variance for a detached garage adjacent to Lamar Street. The second variance granted was for 6415 West 45`h Place. This property received a 12-foot side yard setback variance for a detached garage adjacent to Lamar Street. In addition to these variances, there appear to be numerous other properties which contain structures which do not meet the required 30 foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. Many of these non-conforming stnxctures are located on corner lots in the surrounding neighborhood. A signed letter of support has been included as Exhibit 4. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following criteria to evaluate variance requests: 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 an existing single-family shucture and attached garage, and these uses may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request. If the request were denied, the applicant would not be able to construct in the proposed location. 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 are multiple structures in the area which do not meet the required 30-foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. The location of the proposed addifion would be comparible with other attached and detached structures in the neighborhood. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical conditiou 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 is rectangulaz in shape, and meets the required lot size for a single-family structure in the R-2 zone district. The property does have right-of-way located on the northern and eastern property lines. The presence of this right-of-way requires a greater setback for the northern property line. If this were an internal lot not adjacent to right-of- way, the applicant could conshuct an addition 6 feet from the nor[hern property line. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-16/Tunmes A person who has interest in the property has caused the hardship. The structure could be constructed to meet the required 30-foot setback; however this would diminish any small amount of usable back yard. It can be argued that the presence of right-of-way on two property lines causes a unique situation and severely impacts design alternatives on this property. 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 Tire 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 congesrion in the streets, 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 resuit in a bene£t or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as disfinguished 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) 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 request will not change the character of the locality. Many adjacent properties have main or secondary buildings which do not meet the required 30 foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. There haue been two variances approved for structures on corner lots in the immediate area. 2. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing structure which would be an attractive expansion and significant inveshnent in the property. 3. While the hardship can be perceived as being self-imposed, the presence of right- of-way on two property frontages severely impacts design alternatives for an addirion to the existing structure. 4. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The request would not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Board of Adjushnent WA-06-16/Timmes October 3, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to detail my request for a Variance for a proposed addition at 4675 Lamar St. in Wheat Ridge, CO. We are planning to add a three (3) caz garage on the south side of our existing home, as well as adding a second story over the entire structure. In the interests of preserving a backyard space as well as designing with a nice aesthetic appearance, we plan on building the gazage at an angle towards Lamar St. to the east (please reference the site plan inciuded with this letter). This angle would have the front corner of the garage 14' 11" from the front property line, which requires a Variance be granted for the addition. The southern reaz comer of the garage would also be encroaching 8" our on side setback (9'4" from the property line), although it is my understanding that this side setback Vaziance may be handled administrafively. To address any concerns regazding elevation, the new structure would be approximately 26' tall, well below the city limit of 35' for the current zoning at our address. Since we are nowhere near the elevation limits, no elevation plot has been submitted with this Vaziance applicauon. The overall appeazance of the structure upon completion, although still being designed, will be done with the intention of maintaining a clean, consistent appearance. It will not be obvious to people viewing the home which secfion was the existing home, and which section is the new addition. The intention of this addition is to create a home lazge enough that we may raise a family in Wheat Ridge, without ever needing to worry about having to move into a lazger home. My wife and I have decided that we like our neighborhood, respect and appreciate our neighbors, and would like to remain long term residents of tlus city. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Regards, 9 7aC,r.u-Inmes 303-278-6975 jtimmes@yahoo.com EXHIBIT 1 ~ N Wes# 464h Pbce 50' R.O.W. = 30' 75.ee' 3 O m ~ ~ ~ ti ~ V wp ~asod Poxry ian0 dn#sxg EXHIBIT 2 tn c ,o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s J ~ 0 ~ C L ~ d ~ j 0 ~ ~ ~ F O ~ 0 ` ~ 3 -'Z7 3 ~ a ~ --F ~ c J ~ C q O ~ V ~ 0 ~ c 3 ~ ~ D G EXHIBIT 3 Petition for buildinE variance at 4675 Lamar St. We, the undersigned, being neighbors of 4675 Lamar St., give our support to the application for a variance to the Timmes famiiy residing at 4675 Lasnar St. in Wheat Ridge. We understand that the garage of the proposed addition would reside cioser to the front and side property limits than is typically allowed, but feel that this would not hazm or diminish the neighborhood in any way. Name: ress: ~ Comments: (MS, ChGMp~on 1a+er cAose --o w44draw tier- svljoorf) Name: Address: Comments: Name: 'i1N1 Wvvl~✓ 1, Atldress: q ~~--e- Comments: Name: ~ Address: 41 c/P i~_ e__., ~ Comments: EXHIBIT 4 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Kathy FYeld SUBJECT: November/December Meeting Schedule DATE: October 20, 2006 With the holidays approaching, staff wanted to confirm with the Board a meeting schedule for November and December. Our schedule shows the Board's November meeting falling on November 23rd (Thanksgiving) and the December meeting falling on December 28th. Staff would like the Board to confixm its concurrence with canceling the November 23rd & December 28th meetings and holding one meeting on WednesdaV, December 13, 2006. This meeting would be held in lieu of the two other meetings. Asrv-ci-engA01\usmud"ield\KzthyNBOANtgrnecvos\nov-decmeetiug06.wpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting September 28, 2006 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjushnent was called to order by Chair BELL at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29ffi Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howard Davis Reinhart Staff Members Present: Trauis Crane, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to address the Board at this time PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-06-14: An application filed by Mark Shively for approval of an 18-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adj acent to a public street resulting in a 12-foot side yud setback for property zoned Residential-Two and located at 6675 West 44"` Place. for reasons outlined in the staff report. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Travis Crane explained that the variance, if granted, would be specific to the greenhouse shucture only. Those individuals wishing to speak regarding this case stood at this time and were sworn in by Chair BELL. Board of Adjustment September 28, 2006 - 1 - Barbara Shively 9653 Meade Ct., Westminster Ms. Shively was appearing on behalf of the applicant, her brother Mark, who is unable to speak for himself due to effects of a stroke. She stated that her brother would like to have a greenhouse on his property. The greenhouse would be wheelchair accessible and built of lumber with translucent sides. The sides could easily be removed, if necessary, for access to any easements on the property. Boud Member REINHART asked why the greenhouse could not be built 10-14 feet straight east of the proposed location resulting in a smaller variance. Travis Crane explained that the existing garage would hinder the eastern side of the greenhouse. Ms. Shively stated that building the greenhouse 10-14 feet further east would prevent any sunlight to the greenhouse until about I 1:00 a.m. due to shadows from the garage. Board Member REINI3ART commented that the greenhouse would be closer to the street than the house directly behind it on Pierce. Travis Crane explained that the house does not meet the 30-foot setback requirement and there is a house on the corner to the north that has the same setback as the proposed greenhouse. Board Member HOVLAND commented that perhaps the greenhouse could be pushed further to the east because neighboring irees would seem to block more sun than the garage. Ms. Shively stated that Mazk's calculation for the proposed locarion was based on his previous experience with a greenhouse. There were no other members of the public who wished to address the case. Chair BELL closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. Boazd Member REINHART expressed concern about the structure being only 12 feet away from the street. He was in favar of having the greenhouse setback match the setback for the house. Board Member HOVLAND commented that while he would like to see less of a variance, he would not want the request to be denied. Board Member DRDA favored a variance in the range of 10-12 feet rather than 18 feet. Boazd Member HOWARD stated that he would vote in favor of the variance because the greenhouse would be an asset to the well established neighborhood and the placement would not present a hindrance. Board Member ABBOTT stated that he would vote in favor of the variance because a large portion of the greenhouse would be translucent and set back faz Board of Adjushnent September 28, 2006 - Z - enough that it would not be obtrusive to the neighborhood. He also expressed his trust of the applicanYs experience with greenhouses and his judgment that this location is the only one that would work. He could find no rationale to move the location of the greenhouse further east. Board Member BLAIR stated that he would vote in favor of the variance because he felt it would fit in with the neighborhood. Further, several neighbors indicated they were in favor of the variance. Board Member BELL asked about setbacks for other houses in the neighborhood. Trauis Crane replied that not all of the primary structures in the neighborhood have 30-foot setbacks. Board Member BELL stated that she would vote for the variance because it is not too far off from the setbacks down the street and the neighbors support the vaziance. Further, the applicant is experienced with greenhouses and has determined tlus to be the only practical location. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Bvard 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-06-14 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted withont 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-06-14 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. There would seem to be no other practical options to place a functional greenhouse in a conforming location on the property. Eyisting structures and large trees obstruct the supply of direct sunlight to most areas on the property. 2. The proposed greenhouse will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Within the immediate neighborhood there are several existing structures which do not meet the minimum required side yard setback. Specifically, some structures do not meet the minimum 30-foot setback when adjacent to.right-of-way. . Boazd of Adjustment September 28, 2006 - 3 - 3. Related to criteria number six, this structure is being requested as an accommodation for a person with disabilities per the applicant's letter that read in part: "Gardening is an impoxtant part of Mark's life and the greenhouse will enabZe him to continue his pursuits in his current condition. It is important for Mark's physical and psychoZogical well- being." 4. The structure sits far to the rear of the lot and, at eight feet tall as defined by the ordinance, will not be obtrusive to the neighborhood as to the intent of Ehe ordinance. 5. A petition in favor was submitted by £ve adjacent neighbors. 6. Upon review of the request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request and recommends approval of request. With the following conditions: 1. The greenhouse shall be constructed of materials as described by the applicant as a minimum. 2. The structure shall not be used as a non-greenhouse structure. 3. The structure must be constructed as handicapped accessible. The motion passed 6-2 with Board Members DRDA and REINHART voting no. B. Case No. WA-06-15: An application filed by Richard Moreno for approval of a 9-foot side yazd setback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 6-foot side yard setback t1ND a request for approval of a 514 squaze foot variance to the 1000 square foot maacimum resulting in a 1,800 squue foot barn on property zoned Residential One and located at 6671 West 26"' Avenue. Chair BELL announced that Case No. WA-06-15 would not be heard at this time. Travis Crane explained that a publication enor had occurred and therefore this case would be heard at the October 26, 2006 meeting. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for rehearing of Case No. WA-06-12 which was denied by the Board of Adjustment on August 24, 2006. Board of Adjustment September 28, 2006 - 4 - Gary DiGiorgio 9461 West 63~d Place, Arvada Mr. DiGiorgio requested reconsideration of his application to grant a duplex in R- 3 zoning. He stated that he had new documentation to support the request based on rationale that since the original hearing he has become better informed and realized that he did not have ample opporhanity to work with staff regarding his request. He also stated that he had resolved the parking situation. Due to lus absence when the case was originally heard, Board Member REINI3ART stated thaf he would abstain from voting because he did not feel well enough informed on the case. It was moved by Board Member BLAIR moved and seconded by Board Member LINKER to grant a rehearing for Case No. WA-06-12. The motion failed 5 to 2 with Board Members HOVLAND and DRDA voting no and Board Member REINHART abstaining. (A super-majority of 6 affirmative votes was required for approval.) B. Approval of Minutes - August 24, 2006 It was moved by Board Member DRDA to approve the minutes of August 24, 2006. There were no corrections and therefore the minutes stood approved as presented. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. The motion passed unanimousiy. Janet Bell, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Boazd of Adjustment September 28, 2006 -5-