Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2005~ r., . CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA January 27, 2005 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on January 27, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29tn 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-04-08: An application filed by Cheng Ku for approval of a variance of up to 55 feet from the required 15 foot build-to-line for special mixed- use areas as established by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual for property zoned Commercial-One (C-1) and located at 5400 West 38th Avenue. B. ` Case No. WA-04-09: An application filed by Maween & Jim Stigall for approval of a 103 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yazd setback requirement resulting in a 4.7 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3240 Jellison Street. C. Case No. WA-04-14: An application filed by Affordable Gazages for approval of a 10 foot side yazd setback variance from the 15 foot side yazd setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential- One (R-1) and located at 2971 Teller Street. D. Case No. WA-04-17: An application filed by Republic Gazages for approval of a 12 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in an 18 foot side yazd setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3010 Saulsbury Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - August 26, 2004 B. Resignations C. Election of Officers D. Complaint 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting August 26, 2004 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BLAIR at 730 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howazd James Molnaz Members Absent Bill Echelmeyer Paul Drda Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secre#ary The following is the official set of Boazd of Adjushnent minutes for the public hearing of August 26, 2004. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Deparhnent of the City of Wheat Ridge. PUBLIC FORUM No one indicated a desire to speak at ttus time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-04-04: An application filed by Manuel and Heidi Marfil for approval of a 3-foot front yazd setback variance from the 30-foot front yazd setback requirement resulring in a 27-foot &ont yazd setback for property zoned Residential-One A and located at 2900 Webster Street. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He advised the Board there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He entered all pertinent documents into the record which were accepted by Chair BLAIR. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation and explained that, due to the fact this request is for a 10% or less variance, this request could have been approved administratively. However, since two relevant Boazd of Adjustment 08/26I04 -1- letters of objection were received, the code requires the case to come before the Boazd of Adjustment. Staff recommended approval of the vaziance for reasons outlined in the staff report. Heidi Marfil 2900 Webster Mrs. Marfil, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She stated that the existing single car gazage wili not accommodate their vehicle (a pickup truck with extended cab) because the fireplace chinmey juts into the gazage and the gazage is too small. They wish to add an attached gazage which wouid allow room to pazk their vehicle and leave room for her husband to exit the vehicle and enter the house without having to go outside in the elements. Her husband is totally blind and has fallen on the ice while walking outside from the vehicle into the house. The garage would elixninate the necessity of pazking their extended cab pickup truck in the driveway. She stated that pazking the huck in the driveway presents a greater hindrance to the neighbor's view of the park than would the proposed gazage (as this pertains to one of the letters of objection). Bill Mentgen All Trade Services, Inc., Golden, CO Mr. Mentgen, builder for the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He submitted photographs into the record for the Board's review. He stated that several options were reviewed for the proposed gazage. The gazage could not be extended towazd the back because of an existing swimming pool and a side-load garage would not provide sufficient tuming radius for the iruck. The most desirable location for the garage necessitates the need for a 3-foot variance. In response to a question from Boazd Member ABBOTT, Mr. Mengten explained that interior access is planned from the new gazage into the old gazage which will be renovated into a laundry and mud room. He also explained that once the gazage is built, the entire house and garage would be fuushed with traditional stucco. In response to a question from Board Member MOLNAR, Mr. Mentgen stated that no consideration has been given to removing the above-ground swinuning pool in order to make room for the gazage. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOWARD, Mr. Mentgen stated that he has planned to build a three-caz gazage in order to allow sufficient room for Mr. Marfi1 to have a clear path into the house and allow storage space for lawn equipment, etc. There would also be space for a second caz. Chair BLAIR asked when staff became awaze of the applicant's plans to build a three-caz garage. Mr. Hirt stated he was not aware of those plans until this Boazd of Adjustment - 2 - 08/26/04 meeting; however, there is sufficient room to build a 3-caz garage within the required side yard setbacks. In response to questions from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Mentgen and the applicant stated that they would be willing to leave the third bay of the gazage within the 30-foot setback. Chair BLAIR asked if there were any present who wished to address the Boazd. The following individuais responded: Jan Croom 2910 Webster Ms. Croom was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She lives next door to the applicant. She stated that the three-foot variance would block her view to the pazk. She also objected to plans for a three-caz gazage and the stucco fuush. Boazd Member ABBOTT asked Ms: Croom if she would stiil object if the third bay is built within the setback requirement. Ms. Croom replied that it would make no difference in her objection. Boazd Member BELL suggested that the truck being parked in the Marfi1's driveway presents a greater obstruction to Ms. Croom's view than a three-foot variance would present. Ms. Croom replied that the truck isn't always parked there. Suzanne Wilson 2915 Webster Ms. Wilson was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She expressed her objection to the application. She stated her belief that the addition of the garage and the stucco finish will dimnush property values in the neighborhood of brick homes Jeff Hirt submitted photographs from the applicant which depict other homes in the immediate neighborhood (on Webster and Vance). Some of these homes have finishes other than brick. Boazd Member ABBQTT clarified that the applicant has the legal right to build a three-caz gazage and apply a stucco finish. The Boazd's only authority is to detemvne whether or not to allow the three-foot variance. Linda Eckerds Green Mountain Ms. Eckerds was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She commented that her neighborhood consists of brick homes. Some homeowners aze updating their homes with stucco finish which she believed improved and updated the neighborhood. Boazd of Adjushnent - 3 - 08/26/04 Suzanne Wilson returned Io the podium to say there is no comparison between their neighborhood and Green Mountain. She also commented that changing a brick house to a stucco house is a big waste. Chair BLAIR commented that the house directly east of the applicant has a stucco finish. Board Member ABBOT"I' inquired about the depth of the garage. Mr. Mentgen stated the gazage depth is planned to be approximately 21.7 feet. The common depth for garages on new homes is 24 feet. He commented that lazger garages are required to accommodate lazger vehicles that are populaz today. Boazd Member HOVLAND reminded those present that the Board's Authority extends to the front yard setback variance only and not the finish of the house, etc. Boazd Member ABBOTT asked if the gazage addi6on could be extended into the existing garage to eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Mentgen stated that every engineering calculation failed with this scenario because it would necessitate removal of a structural wall. He also stated that he studied every possibility to avoid the necessiry of asking for a variance. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOVLAND, Mr. Mentgen stated that it is necessary to have at least five feet between the gazage and swimming pool for excavation purposes. Boazd Member HOVLAND commented that it seemed the inconvenience has been caused by the swimming pool. Boazd Member ABBOTT suggested that the swimming pool could be moved. Meredith Reckert commented that the builder is attempting to provide the closest path to the indoor gazage entrance for Mr. Marfil. Boazd Member BELL commented that she did not believe three feet would constitute a major barrier to the neighbor's view adjacent to West 29I' Avenue. There would stili be a 27-foot setback to the street on one side. The side yard would still have a 10-foot setback. Further, one of the major issues in the request is to accommodate a person with a disability. For these reasons, she stated her support for the application. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member ABBOTT the following resolurion was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and ~ Boazd of Adjushnent - 4 - 08/26I04 Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-04-04 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were two relevant letters of objection received about the request; and Whereas, the relief appiied 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 A.djustment Application Case No. WA-04-04 be and hereby is approved. Type of Variance: A 3-foot front yard setback variance from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement resulting in a 27-foot front yard setback for property zoned ResidenNai-One A and located at 2900 Webster Street. For the following reasons: 1. The request would result in the reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability. Constructing a garage that allows fordirect access into the house from the vehicle would be bene£cial to the indiveduai with the disability. 2. The request wouid not alter the essential character of the locality if constructed of material consistent ar blending with the existing house and surrounding area. 3. T6e request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area. There may be a slight decrease in the supply of light and air; however, addition of an attached garage will eliminate the necessity for the property owners to park their vehicle in the driveway and/or the street which would then also be an obstrucrion if allowed to continue. 4. It has been determined that there are no other feasible altematives for placement of the garage to accommodate the needs of the person with the disability. With the following condition: 1. The materials of the proposed attached garage shall be consistent with the general character of the area, including the surrounding streets, and with existing houses in the surrounding area. Boazd of Adjustment - 5 - 08/26/04 Board Member ABBOTT offered a friendly amendment to add a condition that the third bay to the north not be allowed the 3-foot variance. This condition was accepted by Board Member BELL. In response to a question from Chair BLAIR, Board.Member BELL explained that, while driving through this neighborhood, she observed that it is not an entirely brick neighborhood. There is brick, a combination of materials, wood or clapboard and stucco finishes. The motion passed 4-2 with Board Member HOVLAND and MOLNAR voting no and Board Members ECHELMEYER and DRDA absent. Chair BLAIR advised the applicants that their request for vaziance was denied. Mrs. Marfil asked if a side-loading gazage could be built as long as it is within required setbacks. She was advised that this would be permissible. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BLAIR closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. (Chair BLAIR declazed a brief recess at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:55 p.m.) 6. OLD BUSINESS Jeff Hirt responded to a question raised at the last Board meeting regazding a variance granted in 1982 per Case No. WA-82-37 to build a carport. Upon investigation, it was found that a subsequent variance had been granted in per Case No. WA-84-31 to allow the cazport to be enclosed and converted to a gazage. It was detemuned that staff followed the appropriate steps in allowing the gazage to be in its current state. 7. NEW BUSINESS • Approval of Minutes - It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes of July 22, 2004 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Board Member HOWARD referred to the northwest corner of 46h and Hazlan. He expressed concern that there is less than the 1500-foot separation between caz lots at this location. Meredith Reckert stated that, following proper procedures of holding neighborhood meetings and posting, an administrative decision was made to allow less than the 1500-foot sepazation via a special use pemut. Boazd of Adjushnent - 6 - 08/26/04 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to adjoum the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Robert Blair, CHAIR Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Boazd of Adjustment - 7 - 08/26/04 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT °~(onnoo TO: Boazd of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-04-08/Cheng Ku DATE OF MEETING: January 27, 2005 ACTION REQiJESTED: Approval of a variance of up ro 55 feet from the required 15 foot build-to-line for special mixed use areas as established by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual for property zoned Commercial One (C-1) and located at 5400 W. 38"Avenue. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 5400 W. 38'" Avenue APPLICANT (S): Cheng Ku OWNER (S): Jimmy Kay APPROXIMATE AREA: 38,218 squaze feet (.88 acres) PRESENT ZOrTING: Commercial One (C-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Village Center (VC) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) COMPREHENSIVE P LAN (X) CASE FII.E & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION ( ) SUBDNISION REGULATIONS Location Map 38T H AVENUE w _ ' - _ C-1 ; w : P-RD LOCATION w ~ w _ -1~ eR . . . . r-. _ _ . Boazd of Adjustment 1 Case WA-04-08/Cheng Ku Jurisdiction This case was originally scheduled for the Board of Adjustment hearing on December 9, 2004. However, there was no quorum to have that hearing therefore it had to be rescheduled for this date. For the date of this hearing, all notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 5400 W. 38'" Avenue, and currently has a vacant commercia] building ]ceated on the front portion of the property (Exhibit 1, Survey). The rear portion has several dilapidated out-buildings which were accessory to the main siructure when it was used as a single family residence. The property is zoned Commercial-One (G1). The original house was constructed in 1928. In the early 1990's, it was converted to a commercial structure. The structure has been unoccupied for the past several yeazs. The applicant, Cheng Ku, is requesting approval of up to a 55 foot variance from the required IS foot build-to line for special mixed-use areas as established by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. This request is being made on behalf of the owner, Jimmy Kay (Exhibit 2, Deed). The intent of the variance is to allow for the construction of a restauranUretail structure containing approximately 7,200 square feet (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The Gl zone district specifies a minimum front yazd setback of 50 feet unless the structure is less than 35 feet in height and the front yard is totally landscaped with the exception of access drives, whereby the front setback can be reduced to 30 feet. The Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual was adopted as a regulation and as a supplement to the zoning and development code in February of 2001. The manual has specific design standards for designated mixed use azeas. This particular property falls within a designated mixed use area so it is subject to these design standards. Specifically, it i! stated that the build to line in these azeas for the street front shall be 15 feet from the property line and that automobile activity in this uea will not be allowed. The intent of the build-to line, in particular with this portion of 38aAvenue, is to allow for neo-traditional design where commercial structures are pushed forward towazds the front property line. The buildings should be located closer to the street to focus on pedestrian activity rather than excessive pavement, pazking lots and cazs. The parking azeas are de- emphasized as a design feature and aze usually located behind or beside the structure. Written into the manual is the ability of the Community Development director to waive all or a portion this build-to line requirement through an administrative variance process. An emphasis of the Streetscape and Architecmral Design Manual is also to encourage consistency with neighboring structures where possible. The build-to-line proposed with this variance request is not consistent with adjacent properties (Exhibit 4, Aerial Vicinity Map). Two property owners immediately to the east, one at 5330 W. 38'" Avenue and one at 3770 Benton, have expressed their opposition to the proposal. The property owner at 5330 W. 38th Avenue expressed specifically that that build to line should be more consistent with the structure at 5330 W. 38w Avenue. To support the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual and encourage this type of design, the City of Wheat Ridge invested over $2 million into a pilot streetscape project on W. 38'" Avenue between Sheridan Blvd. and Hazlan Street. Improvements to the subject property at the city's expense included installation of a detached sidewalk, a five-foot wide treelawn with the planting of trees, corner treatment, and a decorative fence. On August 26, 2004, planning and public works staff inet with the applicant to discuss development of the property. A plan was presented which was similaz in design to the plan being reviewed by the Board. The plan showed the strucmre setback over 70' from the front property line with two rows of pazking located in front of the building. Staff informer the applicant that the proposed setback was not permitted and that it would not be approved administratively by the department director. Boazd of Adjus[men[ . Z . Case WA-04-08/Cheng Ku Soon thereafter, the applicant met with the Community Development director to discuss a revised design. The design for the property was modified to have a front setback of approximately 55' with a single row of angled parking in front of the building (Exhibit 5, Revised Site Plan). Although the strucmre was not as close as specified by the streetscape manual, the director indicated that he would support the redesign because it was more consistent with the front setbacks of the commercial buildings on both the east and west sides of the property. When the owner was told that they could not have pazking off of Benton Street, they reverted back to the original design with an approximately 70 foot setback. The applicanUowners' justification for requesting the variance is to provide as much parking in front of the building as possible (Exhibit 6, Letter of Request). II. SITE PLAN The ]and azea for the proposed use is 38,218 squaze feet, or.88 acres. The property to encompass the building is approximately 150 feet wide with a depth of 256.75 feet. The property is zoned Commercial-One (C-1) which specifies a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet unless the structure is less than 35 feet in height and the front yard is totally landscaped with the exception of access drives, whereby the front setback can be reduced to 30 feet. The property is however within a mixed use area designated by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual, which has been adopted as a regulation and supplement to the zoning and development code. The required build to line for this property and this use is specified in this manual as 15 feet. The site plan submitted shows the proposed retail structure setback approximately 70 feet from the front property line, therefore the request is for a variance of up to 55 feet from the 15 foot build to line. The Streetscape and Architecture Desigri Manual states that the Community Development director can waive this requirement through an administrative variance process. The director has declined to waive this requirement as it is contrary to the intent of the Manual. The area surrounding the property in quesuon consists mainly of commercial uses. Adjacent properties include a commercial use to the west, muld-tenant commercial uses to the immediate east and direcNy north across 38' Avenue, and single and multi-family residential strucmres to the south and east. II.- VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request 1. Can t6e property in question yield a reasonable retum in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the condirions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? If the requests are denied, the property could still be developed and receive a reasonable return in use. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the variance was granted, it would slightly alter the essential character of the locality. The building would be significantly further back from the street in comparison to the existing buildings to the immediate east and west. 3. Dces the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved msult 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 Case WA-04-08/Cheng Ku There are no physical consffaints or unique circumstances that support approval of the variance. The applicant has already shown that a modified design is possible which pushes the structure closer to the street and still allows some parking in front of the swcture. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant, acting on behalf of the owner, has created a self-imposed hardship by requesting a variance from the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in wttich the property is located, by, among other tlungs, 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 diminislung or impairing property values within the neighborhood? The requests would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate suppiy of light and air would not be compromised as a result of these requests. The requests would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. However, Staff has concluded that granting of the variance for a 70' setback is contrary to the intent of the Streetscape and Architecmral Design Manual. The intent is cleaz in the Manual to de-emphasize the automobile and encourage pedestrian activity through neo- traditional design in this particular azea. 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 tLe 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 requests would not result in a conuibution or benefit to the neighborhood as distinguished from an individual benefit for the property owners. The requests would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are not supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there are not unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. The applicant; acting on behalf of the owner, has created a self-imposed hudship by requesting a variance from the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. 2. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. 3. The requests would not result in a contribution or benefit to the neighborhood as distinguished from an individual benefit for the property owners. 4. The request is contrary to the intent of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. Staff would support a front yard setback of 55 feet as represented in Exhibit 5, Revised Site Plan. ` Boazd of Adjus[ment Case WA-04-08/Cheng Ku DESIGN SURVEY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. CRIPMC SCILB ~ 1 IACH = EJ F£Sl p 1RIFNGUUR FOlRION OESLRIBEp AS S1A4TING Ai FEET fAOY THE NORIHEASi CORNfR OG Y10 INiNG; THENCE NOFiH NAMG SuD FlSf IINE iHENCE wEST PLONG THE NOHM UNE OF Sa0 0 THE POINT Of iEGiNNING, COUNtt pF NCffei: t) BFMixGS ARE 8a5ED OM iHE NOHM IJNE OL THE NOftiHF4Sf QUMIFH OF SELiION 25, tJS. F69W Of THE 6TX P u. uPNUUENIS REGRESEN11uG TiE NORiNflSf CORNFR u10 THE NORiH OWFTEP CORNEft OL SFCPON 45 WEPE OBSEftVE0 BY GP$ PND THE P.AB5 OF BENiINC$ IS A PESULT OF THE OBS.MATqN. 2) NOPCE: ACPNY OCORD~NG TO COLORADO L/~W YOII NlISi WMYFNCE 1MY IFGN- ACiIOM &SEO UPOrv EfEGI IN iX15 SUMEY MRXIN iXREE YEPRS NTFR IOU fIRS1 CT IN SURR✓cY SUCH BE D CONMENCED MORE iHAN T iEN TFPRS FftJM ~MF W1E OG THE TXS CER➢nGTWN 9HOwn HEREOR nNr PEFSMi WHO KNOwiuGLY REYplES. AL1ER5 OR DEFnCES NfY PU84CI-AND SUFVEY MONUUENT OR VNO BWNMRT MOMUYEM OR ACCESSOPY. COMMRS P CV55 TNO (Y) 415DEMFANOR POftSUAM TO Si>TE SIANIE 18---5O4. C.R.S. y) aTX5 SUINEI" I,DES HOi CONSi1iUlE A TIRE SFM4H 8Y f1CL ENCINEERING k 511R,EYNC. LLC, i4 OEfFRMINE OWNERSMIP OF ElSEYENR OP RECORD. FOR NL INfORN4TION REG4tIANG FASFJMENT. RIGXi-0F-WAY ANO TR£ OG RECORO. HCL 0 iE~ SAViEMBER U]I3W4~ PREP.WO Bv oLwD ~ i~LE Gu"EMnMEE COUG.wv.]]286. 5) iH15 $VRVET Wp5 PFEPAftEO FIXt THE E%CLU9VE USE Of THE PAR11E5 AS NqMm IN THE CERTIFICAIE AS SHOMN HERECW. SND CERiIGiGIE DOES NOT EXiENO i0 PNT UNNAAIED PERSON OR ENTtt MiHWi PN E%GRE55 RECQtTIFlCAiIM BY iNE SUFVEVOft NnuING SUCH Pflt50N OP ENlltt. 6) THE LCCATON OF UNDERGRq1Np MLITE$ PRE SXONN BAYP CN N9BLE ENDENCF hN0 pLT ASBWLL MGORNATION. NO RESPONSBNTY IS PCCEPIEO FGft T1EIR ACNRACT. THE LOCATONS Oi UNDEftGRWNO U➢I➢IfS SIOULD BE f1EL0 VFRIFlED PRIOR TO ANT DIGGING ON OR ADUCENT TO THE SUBJECT PftWERTT. 7) OAiE OF LIElD SURKY'. AUCUST 19. 3004. 8) NO SuRVFY 1: !UUENiS v.ERE SET OUftING iNE CWRSE OF ME WOFN, NOR wERE N+1 REaMD. 9) HCl EnGiNEEF C k SUPyEneG. LLC nH0 THE UNDFFSICeEO SURVEYOR nCLEPi NO RESPONSiBWI OR LUBiLitt FOP CwWGES M GRnDMG, iOPOCRnPHY. SMUCTURES OR FMER NODIFICATION$ i0 THE SRE SHOWN iHAi 4AY HeVE BEEN UNDE111ANEN PVIE ' THE OAiE OF TXE fiEW SVMEY SMOWN ON THIS DOCUNENT. CBBTffiVAT14H i0: CXENG C- KV. C N_ PRCHIiECTS. INL i$ Cg Q O PW k CAP AS SNOTN } cxIseUo cxoss 0 HHiCM4R1( O No. 4 It¢BAR O No. 5 AEBAR p No. B RE6ILR B EIECI'RIC Box ,--o tw.eem slcxet Poes 49 TRI.PYIC COM'ROL BOY Q BIBCIiGC Y1NB018 Q ISGHT 3[1ND1RD 0 rowe¢ wu p'Q a" v"ve b Cl5 C00 SinP 0 9ANRIHY ~OOT 6 9ANRARY WNH018 m SroRl1ILWH018 ~ 3fOHY CILXOUT O RA'ISR 111N901P 1I1T8R CUPB 8MP }x 9Y~ItMT m 1fAT8P VLLVE 0 11AT6R YEISR • 4R88 CONIP6ROU9 ~ trtse necmoous . -c- cAS twe -8- 618C1'RIC LfNB I -o- .exce wre EXHiBIT 1 LTfAI QC:pIIQY LO15 13. 14 `M'0 THE NORT1 10 fEFf OF lOi 12. CASE SUBOMSION. COUNtt Of JEfiER$ON, SfwTE OG C01.ORIDO- fxCEPi TXPT PORiION OI SV&ECT PFOPERtt OEEDED TO THE CftT Of WHUT MOGE IN IXSIHUMENT RfCORDED APPoL 9. 1991 UNDER flEGEGipX N0. 91029079 M'D BFING NORE PMPCUVRLT pE$CftIBEO /5 fOLLOWS: . THE NORix TEN (10) FE£T OG 1HnT PUtCEL OF W10 OESCRIBED AT RECEPiqN N0; 79015365. I, JNAES P. HENN ISSY, A REG14ERE0 CROGESSIONCl W10 SUMEYOR IN THE SiATE 04" LOLORADO, DL HEFEBV CE0.iIFY IHnT ON nUGU51 19, 2004 e SUM£Y W/5 CONOUCffO uNOEI+ ur SUPERa510N USiNG THE NORUaI 4nNOM0 OI CPRE Oi pR0I-E590NAL IAHO SUItYEY0R5 PPACiIONG IN JEfFER50N COUNtt COLOftPDO. NJp THE uN SXOWN HEREON nCCURATEO' ftEPRE5EM5 SAID SUHVEY. AND THRT ALL iMPFW[UErviS FOVrvO l5 OF 1NI5 WTE ARE ACCUFniELY SHOWN. TO THE BE4.OF YY KN61-1iEM.E. IHIS SGTJEY DOf S NpT CONSili11TE A iRLE SGFCH BY THE UNDERSiGNED SUKJEYOF OR XCt ENGINEEdINC k SUfMYING, LLC OF iME PROPEFT' SHOWN PND OESCRIBEO NEREOx t0 OEiERMINE: 1. OWNLRSNIP OG iH15 iRPCi OF IAND. RiGN5-0`-k'AY. EASEUENIS N10 ENCUMBFANCES RECOROED OR VNRECOI'DEO nFFEC➢NG TMIS LFACT ^ tAxO. J. COUPViBilltt OF iH15 OESCRIPi10'. wI1H THOSE OF AWACEM iRACiS Oi IFN6 ~ FLL/lNCSS~ 30.980 ,LWES P. HENNESSY, bJL IAND SURVElOR 3~H99 (OR eND ON BEWlf Oi NCL ENqNEERIN~ k SUFJEYING. LLt 9570 KINGSiON F'T.. SIE 310 cNcuwooo. cro ~miiz / I DAIE I RE``,SIPV$ I 1 1 10-14-0a ' UGWTE F15F11EN15 PER 11i1E WYMIiNEN ~L■. .0PI■ V_ ~ ••r. S m ■ Engineering & Surveping, LLC ■ 3570 NMG4pN CT. SWTE 310 OXONE (303) 773-1605 e°ncwooo. co. eona FAr: (303) ns-anv 5400 WEST 38TH AVE. DESIGN SURVEY 4 RECEPTION N0. 93182157 18.00 RECORDEO IN COUNTY OF-JEFFER50N STFiTE OF COLORADO 1.1/04/93 14:30 WARRANTY DEED qOOJ J M i OJ a Qy $U = ~ THIS DEED, Madc this day of NOVEMBER 1 19 93 , beiwecnTRUOC VAN NGUYEN AND THUAN THI NG[IYEN of the •Countyof JEFFERSON and StateotColorado,granmr,and JIMMY C. RAY AND JULZE LOU KA whose icgal nJdress is 7573 EATOiV ST WESTMINSTER COLORADO 80003 ~~the County of JEFFERSON and State ofColorado, grantees: W fRJFSS, Oiat the grnnloq for and in con+idcmrion of 1he sum of$ 80 . 000 . 0 0 "`GiI:Y :FiOUSAND :~P7D n0 00/100 . DOU'~RS' the mceipt md sufficiency of whic6 is hemby xknowlrdged, haz ganted, bargaircd• sold and mnveyed, and by theu pmsents does grvnt, barguin, sell, convcy and confirtn unto the granteu, theirheirs eM assigns foreveq not im mneucy in common bN in joinuenancy, nII the real property, togelher with improvements, if any, siNate, lying and being in the Coomy o( JEFFERSON and State of Coloredo, deuribed %s foilows: . . . SEE EXHIBIT "A" . r5t:~`o Cccumontary Fee I 5•iQ ~rmwncr: alsoknuwn6ysin:ciandnumberaz 5400 W 38th Avenue WHEAT RIDGE COLOF.ADO 80033 TO(:E7'HEB with all and singular the herediramems and appurtenances theeeunto belongiug, or in anywise apperlaining and the reversion and mversions, remainder and remainders, mnLS, issues and profits thereof, and all the estam, right, utle, inlerest, daim and demand whatsoever of the grentor, either in law ot equity, of, in and w the above bergained premisu, wrth the hemditame^1s and appuncnances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bazgainedand deuribed, wilh the appur[enances, wto Me ffsnreuti, fheir heirs and assigns fon.wer. And the gantot, for Itimsel( his he'us and personal rop2sentativu, does covenant, grant, bargain end agree ro and with the gruntces, tlheir heirs and assigns, fhet et the 4me of Iheensealing auddelivmry of Nese preunLt, he is well seized of the p¢mises above conveycd, has good. su1e, pertect, ebmluw and indeteasible atam of ioheritence, in law, in fx simple, and M1as 6ood right, full powerand Wwful uuNoriry to gcant, bargain, ull and wnvey the same in manner andform eforesaid, and IhatdK same arefree eod cteer gever kiiM or naWre (roTn ell fofiner and olhu ganu, bargains, setes, liens, taea, esscscmants, encumbtances and restriction of w scevu,except for taxs and asessments for the year 1993 an~ su sequent years,and subject to easements,reservations,restrictions,covenants and right of way o£ record,if any; And except for A first deed of trust in favor of.JOHN T.OBIALERO J17 The granmr shall and will WARRANC AND fY1REVER DEFEND the above-barBai^ed Premises in the 9uiU md peeccable possessianofthe granteex, their heirs and assigns, againstall and every pecsun m persuns lawfully ciaimingihe whole or eny pacc thereof. The singWar number shell incWde the plurnl, the plmal the singulu, and the use of any 6eode* s6a11 be applicable to all grndera. IN WITNESS WHERFAF the grmtor hes executed this detd on the dam ut tOrth abowe. A~ n / ~IY, rLLL~ ~ C. &rl OC VAN ~ EN THUAN HI NGUY STATE OF COLARADO ss. Countyof llQIn U- I The fonrtgoinginstrumeN waz acknowledged 6efo¢ me 11tis IS% day of No v . is93. bY -r6eUO(, 111919 N(i.VY-CN /}ND T/q!i/fN 71)'/ N bvyEu I- EXHIBIT 2 .yE% H I B I T LOTS 13, 14 AND THE NORTH 10 F&&T OP-LOT 12, CASS SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATfi OF COLORADO. SXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SUBJ&CT PROPBRTY DESDSD TO THE CZTY OF WHEAT RIDGS IN INSTRi7MSNT RSCORDSD APRIL 9, 1991 UNDER RBCEPTION NO. 91029079 AND BSING MORE PARTICULARLY DBSCRISED AS FOLLOWS: AS ILOTS 79015365, R,B ORDSOOFFE THE OFO RELORADOCEPTIOI~ 13, 14, AND THE NORTH 10 FEST OF LOT 12, CASB SUBDIVISION, TOGBTHBR WITH A TRIpD1GULAR PORTION DBSCRIB$D AS STARTING AT A POINT ON THE BAST LINH OF - SAID PARCSL, TWSf7TY FEST SOUTH OF THE NORTHHAST CORNTiR OF SAID PARC$L, SAID POINT BSING THE TBIIS POINT OP BBGINNING; THSNCB NORTH ALONG SAID SAST LINS •I•WBNq•q (Zp) pggT Tp THE SAID NORTHSAST CORNSR; TffENNCS WHST ALONG THE T~Y TO THE PARCEL OF JB ~PFERSON,S STATBOF $COLORAD 0. POINT OF BEGINNING RECEPTION NO. 93162157 ~ -ws.,~ Cx~5n~5 _u>ti. t4AS[.~ TE °,-AN ~wS 46n, .o cn. n ~ R ai~~ex.e +ati~ ONG 6'ORY R¢+.Y: B.:!LDNCs !3'I TI[._iY IVOC..1"iON LA~O /JtEP K;i vV.J1L' MEn uv~v¢~o .vc+ cco~n..coa u+[. FJXAME/. 24Tp rriOM C~ !'R/TRC9 (FLW9 GO~'E~NSE B" 5+~6~L1L~E 64PRO lAVE44SE Br 4~ l+'OSGac~AS .~.eea or v~ruaw .r~.:e. ccy:ar~ w~aca r vwi¢~iw sP+:zs wcvir_~ npHER'S F6V^.IGnwE` va~u~HW 5oKF5 rsEpR~'..J Nf-EER 5 uu.DIL~NEE: o~.¢rul S~KESWM~T_D °4~Y.Ka R~,Qi1.IQ¢MNt pp3b Y.1.lODE h:CL: ]40]<5~ (C66 4G~. 910~ 9F (O~'J KSE~ +aw sF iDda RN+ ro n[r rr.G... w¢en. ¢s Ax: nO'.r ~1C6'3 w'J~ nvE~v °i3i iM3i W. 56 so.cEs 56 ] SvKK_ ] °iKES 5JiLCJrt'iE <fiEA_ 206 Y' 4_'S'aJR.aNr 20 ' z 6='-B' = i]53 5~ -:[i'GNEm bDOSF; • 659 SF 65' S° : 15 • B' `F~.'ES ¢E'a.iL: a`.%E3'-H' a 6'g'F %O-. ' :O^.. _ :685Pr1G-L° rp'nL SPIU;~S RERJiRL^. : 955 5</tiE5 36 SPA.%!5 TO AI. $PKE5 PROVIpE • 96 5?A6CS EXHIBIT 3 c$ ~ a~i QBm~~ U 9) o8u,a~ rcorta_ L a~wy ~ ry w u~ ~ ~ ~ J $ 55 J W ak Z5 dJ ~ w ` W ~ d ~ J < 0 ~ ga ~ h > 9 ~ O O Y Y t~ ~a g ~ o ry a . d $ o °o , Q4001 SP-o, .Ba?-+ cv=.Nurz EXHIBIT t ~ rn x _i ~ ~ ~ i ~ W ~ IE 1> ~ ■r■ Z c m ~ A 2, _ EXH1~307' ar -S R~n OWNER'S STATEMENT The subject property, 5400 W. 3e Avenue, was purchased in 1993 by 7immy and Julie Kay. They have owned and operated the "Wok to You" restaurant on Alameda and Logan in Denver for 19 years. It was their intent to develop the subject site as a small retaii center anchored by a second "Wok to You" restaurant when the owners were financially able. The site was chosen to facilitate the significant "take-out" portion of their business and offered the following advantages: 1. It offers high vehicular uaffic (four lanes plus a left turn lane) on 38b Avenue, one ofthe major easdwest arterials in Wheatridge. 38~' Ave provides a quickly identifiable address. 2. It is within two blocks of Kipling, a major north/south arterial. 3. It provides right in, right out and left in, left out access to 38b Avenue. 4. Ridge Village, a major King Soopers shopping center and Chase Plaza, another lazge strip shopping center occupy the two sites directly across the street. The general character of the neighborhood as a retail area with high volume vehicular access and pazking was well-established and likely to continue into the future. In 7anuary of 2003 this picture was dramatically altered by adoption of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Overlay Districts. The provisions ofthis measure restrict the building set back to 15 feet from the properry line and prohibit the automobile activity at the street front of the building. These restrictions were creaxed to promote pedestrian oriented retail projects. The effect of this change in set backJuse criteria effectively eliminates the viability of the original use for which the owner purchased the property in the following ways: 1. The lack of parking in front of the project severely restricts the take-out and impulse retail parking advantage originally inherent in the site. 2. The lack of set back, combined with the speed of the vehicular traffic, reduces the business signage exposure time to just seconds. Most traffic will be past the restawant before a decision to find a way to enter the establishment can be made. E)CHIBIT 6 3. Criven the vehiculaz oriented character and size of the established businesses surrounding this proposed project, imposition of the new guidelines on this small 7200 square foot project will not produce enough pedestrian oriented space to impact a change in the established character of the neighborhood from vehicular to pedestrian. It would be a small island in a congested and fast moving stream. 4. Pedestrian orientation is antithetical to the take-out natwe of the business. 5. It is clear the newly installed at the frontage were designed to provide entrance to and screening for a parking lot. Conversion to a 15 foot set back would require removal of a majority of these new improvements just to access the stores fronting the sidewalk. Meetings with the Planning Department produced a compromise solution that was neither "fish nor fowl." The ovvners respectfully request they be allowed to construct the project under the guidelines of the Commercial-One District (C-1) which was applied to the site before the Architectural Design Overlay was imposed on the property in 2003. A project so designed and constructed will be economically viable as well as remaining in character with the rest of the neighborhood. The plan and elevations for the project as designed to conform to the C-1 regulations are attached to this request. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~CORP~~ . TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-04-09/Stigall DATE OF MEETING: January 27, 2005 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 103 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yazd setback requirement in the R-1 zone district. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3240 Jellison Street APPLICANT (S): Maureen & Jim Stigall OWNER (S): same 3240 Jellison St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 11,999 sq. fr. (.27 ac.) PRESENT ZOrTING: Residenqal One (R-1) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Man Site All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant (owner) is requesting approval of a 10.3 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yazd setback requirement in the R-1 zone district (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The property is currently zoned Residential One (R-1), and contains an existing single family residence. The R-1 zone district allows single family uses and accessory buildings. The minimum lot size for a property zoned R-1 is 12,500 squaze feet, including a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The property is 11,999 square feet in size, is approximately 105 feet wide, has a fairly rectangular shape and slopes from south to north towazds the Rocky Mountain Ditch which abuts its reaz property line (Exhibit 2, Improvement Location Certificate). II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant wishes to construct an attached carport on the east side of the existing home. The carport would be 375 square feet in size, located 4.7 feet from the eastern property line. The R-1 zone district requires a minimum front yazd setback of 30 feet, and a minimum side and rear yard setback of 15 feet. The existing structure meets the required front and rear yard setbacks. The side yard setback on the westem side is 14.8 feet. All other development standazds appear to be met. One side yazd setback variance was granted for a property in the neighborhood. The variance was for a 9 foot encroachment into the required 15-foot side yard setback for a deck. This variance was approved in 1975 for the property at 3228 Jellison Street. After a visua] inspection of the aerial photographs, it appears that most of the properties meet or exceed the 15-foot side yazd setback requirement. One letter of objection was received regarding this variance request (Exhibit 3, Letter of Objection). III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yieid a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request is denied, the property may stiil receive a reasonable retum in use. The property may continue to be used as a single family residence. Additionally, the structure has an existing double-caz attached garage on the west side. Boazd of Adjustment WA-04-09/Stigall 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essentiai character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality could possibly be altered. After reviewing the aerial photographs, each structure in the neighborhood appears to meet the required 15-foot side yard setback. The one notable exception is for a property which was granted a 9-foot side yard setback variance to build a deck. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The lot does have a unique shape. It is a rectangular shaped lot with a small appendage located in the northeast corner of the property. This appendage does not create a unique situation or create a hardship. The property slopes from south to north. Construction of a garage in the backyard would require a steep driveway for access. The property does not meet the minimum ]ot size requirement in the R-1 zone district. 4. Has the atleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently 6aving an interest in the property? A person who has interest in the property has caused the hardship. The request arises from a desire to construct a carport, when a garage currently exists. The property has ample parking areas. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the pub6c 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 could possibly 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 resuit 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? Board of Adjustment WA-04-09/Stigall 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 & RECONIIVIENDED MOTION (S) Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are not supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons 1. The hazdship has been created by a person having interest in the property. 2. Granting of the variance could potentially change or alter the character of the neighborhood. A majority of the properties in the neighborhood all meet or exceed the required fifteen foot side yard setback requirement. 3. There are no unique circumstances which would justify a setback variance. . Board of Adjustment WA-04-09/Stigall %~~'1, el Paving ■ Pacching . Sealcoatlng . Cracl6ill . Striping . Landscape construction . Drainage systems . Re[aining Walls December 9, 2004 Mr. Travis Gane, Planner City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29`" Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 SUBJECT: Application for Residential Variance Property: 3240 Jellison Street Purpose: Driveway, carport and shed roof Dear Mr. Crane, Pursuant to our meeting, I have enclosed the required documents, along with a check in the amount of $390.00, in order to make formal application for a zoning variance on behalf of 1Nlaureen and Jim Stigall for the construction of a supplemental driveway, carport and shed roof. Please note the foilowing highlights concerning the Stigall's proposal. 1) The outer appearance of the carport structure will be of a design intended to complement the existing home, including color and texture of siding, vertical posts and shingles. Also, the north-facing roofline wiil be identical to the existing roofline. 2) The eastern-most end of the carport is at a considerable distance from the neighbors' residence, thereby providing significant physical space between. 3) The lot size of both the Stigall's residence, along with that of the neighbor to the east, provides ample overall space so as not to detrimentally affect the neighborhood. 4) The shed roof will not be visible from the street, and is intended only to direct rain and snow away from rear of the house. Mr. and Mrs. Stigall aze sensitive to the overall aesthetics of their property, as well as those of the neighborhood; they have enlisted the services of a qualified architectural firm to achieve that end It is their inteni that the visual impact of the proposed construction will be complementary to the appearance of the neighborhood. Our thanks to you and the review board for their consideration of our proposal. Ph: 303.587.8900 EXHIBIT 1 Fax: 303.477.9101 s i rHOr+E: nnr.n coDe 103 i00.N]Ifl 300-B31B 3UO-N?110 i ~^~9LLIM1,1!. BU {Glu'9ZN and Associ~lm, lnc. ; 4065 ColUliAOO 0LVU. orNV[rt COLO.0o21a Rp(Zk y suRvr. v rio 72645 LA ....Pr,v W 3Gr)", E;rnoiro ~-rri.nr!a and m n ~ ~ ffz POap cAtZ PoKT Pa r+ of Whea+ridga Knol15 ' scale • 1"=20 ~ 7`his cerUflev fluit tho abuve ix n plat oP nn Improvcmeut Incullon survey mude under my diroction thia 78Y.h day of January, 1974 ot thc properl,y ilencribed mv Lot 7, `AIiCATRIDGE KNOLLS, t:ounty of Jefferson, State of Colorado, ' uud Ilml l6o Iuculiun mtd dimenslune ut nll build6xgImprovementr, clwementx or dgidx-o4wuys In'ovidenco or known to me, naid ~•nerourhmrula by or on dio prCniltir's:~'nro~uUOwu In rclutiai lo bowidury evl(irnco touml. TIds,Plnt ehuuld nut Iro uned. lor oonvtrupUnn of fcncov or iu4IfUanql IanlirqvetnAU4R. No mnnuments set on prol>erty.COrners. . . EXHIBIT 2 zY bv.`;'J s r vcn•4~1h ! O ,4MPROVEMENT„SURVEY ONLY ~i.y✓ 2~ ap.~ ~~iL►a,~J '1 211 January 21, 2005 John W. Anthorry and Donna I. Hallewell 3244 Jellison Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Deparhnent 7500 W. 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Case No. WA-04-09, 3240 Jellison Street Attn: Travis Crane, Planner Dear Mr: Crane: We aze writing in regazds to Case No. WA-04-09 of the Planning Department of the City of Wheat Ridge, which is a request for approval of a 103-foot side yard setback variance from the current 15-foot side yazd setback requirement. This would result in a 4.7-foot side yazd setback at the subject property (3240 Jellison Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado), which is zoned Residential-One (R-1). It is our understanding, based on a plat of the subject property provided by the City of Wheat Ridge; that the variance has been requested to allow consiruction of a carport adjoining the east side of the single-family residence at that address. We are the owners and occupants of a single-family residence adjacent to, and immediately west of the subject properiy, at 3244 Jellison Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and aze concerned about several aspecu of the requested variance. Current dwelling setbacks on all properties in the neighborhood aze generous, and contribute to the spacious and quasi-rural chazacter of the neighborhood. Our first concern is aesthetic- consiruction of a cazport closely impinging on an adjacent property boundary is not in keeping wiih the chazacter of the neighborhood, wluch uoiformly consists of single- family residences with enclosed garages. (Note that the single-faxnily residence at the subject property already has a two-caz enclosed gazage on its west side.) Furthermore, construction of a carport on the east side of the residence would result in a dwelling with vehicle pazking structures on its east and west sides, and with two separate driveways. Our second concern is that approval of the requested variance would establish a precedent, allowing installation of inappropriate structures, essentially at the whim of an owner. Neighborhood property values could be adversely affected by a significant change in the character of the neighborhood, such as would resutt from subsequent construction of inappropriate structures. CADocumentt and SetlingtUohn W. Mthony\My DocumentsTersonal Work\Whea[ Ridge Pro[est Letter.doc EXHIBIT 3 ~tr. Tra~ is Crane. PIaumer '1 J:nuan?(10` fa,c _ Our most seiious concern addresses the issue of safety. To a large degree. propert}' setbacks for struchIres liave becn adopted to prevent the readti= spread of a fire from an affected structure to an adjacent structure. It'the requested variance is granted, Lhis could lead to a sigiuficant reduction in fire safety for the entire neighborhood. As a result of these concerns, we feel that we must protest the requested property setback vanance. Tliank vou for your assistance in this matter. Sincereh. ~ lohn Anthony Donna l. I Iallewell C`,DaumenLC and Setfing'sUehn W_ P.ntliooy'1v1y Document~;Peannal Albrk`1'heat Ridee Pmtest I.eucr A(lc Subject property (3240 Jclfison Street) - Ie(t jt.)o jewson ~ircai -f iguL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT . . CO~ORPQO TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-04-14/Affordable Garages DATE OF MEETING: January 27, 2005 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement in the R-1 zone district. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2971 Teller Street APPLICANT (S): Affordable Gazages OWNER (S): I.en Keams 1251 S. Huron St. 2971 Teller St. Denver, CO 80223 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIIVIATE AREA: 14,020.8 sq. ft. (32 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residential One (R-1) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FII.E & PACKET MATERIAI.S (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE ~ I,ocation Map, M O i ~ M' ~ O LL~ 1~ R-2 O O R q ~J I r~ o ` W 30TH AVE 1 0 ' ' ol ~w ~ ~i rn (D I 'N N i ~ C:>' r I ~ . 1~ 1~ r r' N O~ Site 7 W 30TH AVE ; r N N i Ra ~ 0 0) ' N M I N ~ N ! ~n I 0) ° ~ rn~ ~ u ~ - 1 N I N I 1 O O O O I 0) c0 ~ O i I I r':rn LOi N ~ ~ m~co , J 0) ` ~ iCN rn;_ O N W 29TH PL I N ~ i O O O O O a tb ; W (D ^ O ~ p)j n n n O N NI I~ I ~i~Li ~ - ^ I ( All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQiJEST The applicant, as a representative for the property owner, is requesting approval of a 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement in the R-1 zone disvict (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The property is currently zoned Residential One (R-1), and contains an existing single family residence. The R-l zone district allows single family uses and accessory buildings. The minimum lot size for a property zoned R-1 is 12,500 square feet, including a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The property is 14,020.8 square feet in size, is approximately 96 feet wide, has a rectangular shape, and is relatively flat (Exhibit 2, Improvement Location Certificate). II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant wishes to construct a detached gazage on the north side of the existing home. The garage would be 990 squaze feet in size, located 5 feet from the northern property ]ine. The R-i zone district allows detached gazages up to 1,000 square feet. The R-1 zone district requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet, and minimum side and rear yard setbacks of 15 feet. The R-1 zone district allows a macimum height of 15 feet for detached garages, measured to the midpoint of the roof. The garage will be 11.5 feet in height (Exhibit 3, Elevations). All other development standazds in the R-1 zone district would be met. There is an existing single-car garage attached to the south side of the home. The applicant has indicated that the existing garage will be converted to ]iving space. According to our ]and use atlas, there have been other variances granted in the immediate vicinity: • Case No. WA-83-25 was a 10' side yazd setback variance granted for R-1 zoned property located at 2935 Teller Street for construction of a house addition. • Case No. WA-77-31 was a 1.6' side yard setback variance granted for R-2 zoned property located at 7250 W. 29`" Avenue for construction of a detached garage. This property was subject to a variance request in 1998. Case No. WA-98-01 was a request by I.eonard Kearns (same property owner) for approval of a 5' side setback variance from the required 15' side yard setback to allow construction of a detached garage. This case was denied by the Board of Adjustment on February 26, 1998. (Exhibit 4, January 22, 1998 Board of Adjustment minutes) and (Exhibit 5, February 26, 1998 Board of Adjustment minutes). Staff has received one letter of support from an adjoining neighbor (Exhibit 6, Letter of Support). Board of Adjustment WA-04-14lAffordable Garages III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: L Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may continue to be used as a single family residence. 2. If the variance were graa►ted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality could possibly be altered. There have been variances granted in the neighborhood pursuant to Case Nos. WA-77-31 and WA-83-25. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The ]ot does not have a unique shape. It is a rectangular shaped lot and exceeds the R-1 lot area minimum of 12,500 square feet at 14,020 squaze feet. The property is relatively flat so topographic conditions aze not a concern. 4. Has the alleged difficuity or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? A person who has an interest in the property has caused the hazdship. The request arises from a desire to construct a three-caz garage measuring 33' x 30'. The garage could be reduced in size and meet setback requirements, or at least require a lesser variance. Another altemative would be to build the garage in the reaz yard; however, the applicant has indicated that there are existing trees which would have to be removed for this to happen. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or iujurious 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 wouid not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate supply ~ of light and air could possibly be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of Board of Adjustment WA-04-14/Affordable Garages 3 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 appiicant; 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 & RECONID'ENDED MOTION Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are not supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. The hazdship has been created by a person having an interest in the property. 2. Granting of the variance could potentially change or alter the character of the neighborhood. 3. There are alternatives available including reducing the size of the garage from a three-caz to two-car gazage requiring a lesser variance or building a gazage meeting setback requirements in the reaz yard. Boazd of Adjustmen[ WA-04-14/Affordable Gazages A11ORdAb1E GARAqES 1251 S Huron Sl Unit A. Denver, CO 80223 (303) 384-3242 Bank Financing Availabie Inexpensive Garages Custom Garages Expansion Detached Attached Licensed . Insured December 22. 2004 City of Wheat Ridge, B.O.A Community Development Department 7500 W. 2911' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 To Whom It May Concern: Aft'ordable Garages, representing Len Kearns, would like to request a variance. We would like to have the I S' side setback on the north reduced to 5' so that the Keazns can build a 3003 detached garage. Thank you Since Affordable rages EXHIBIT 1 A11ORdAb1E GARAGES 1251 S Huron St Uni( A Denver, CO 80223 (303) 384-32a' Bank Financing Available Inexpensive Garages Custom Garages Expansion Detached Atlached Licensed Insured a. The property located at 2971 Tel]er St. would not be able to yield a reasonable return in income if the homeowner is not able to have a garage built for parking, vehicles. The homeowner is planning on coavertrn-, the existing garage into living space, therefore making it difficuit to sell the house in the future. b. If the variance is granted it would not alter the essentia] character of the locality. Throughout the area, others have built large structures on their property. This garage would be next to the house and the adjacent property owner has no problem with the proposed garage (see attached letter). c. If the homeowner has to have a 15'side setback, the garage will need to be mov~ed behind the house, which will result in trees having to be removed. Additionally, a great deai of ]andscaping will need to be removed and a hard surface will be needed all the way back to the garage which would diminish the appearance of the surrounding landscapes and houses. d. The homeowners have not brought any difficuity or hardships on themselves. e. This garage would have no negative affect in any way on anyone. In fact, it would help the general appearance ofthe area by taking cars offthe driveway and street and storing them out of sight. It will also make it safer for children in the neighborhood as there would be fewer cars for them to be running between, around and behind of .It would also mal:e it safer in regards to easier visibility for both children and drivers coming down the street, f. Granting this variance would contribute to the neighborhood as far as the property value goes and the abitity to sell houses. Physically, it would be more pleasing to see a nicely constructed gazage then to see a driveway also with vehicles on it. These homeowners are also getting older and a garage will make it safer and easier for them to enter their house. l M 09/27/2004 110.00 98-16 DATE FEE JOB# MORTGAGE CO. J.A. mrmumasz RZPO~$ AooHESS 2971 TBLLSR aTRSBT L A N D S U R Y E Y I N G 8460 WARO RoAU • SUITE 160 BORROWERS NAME KEARN$ ARVADA, COLORADO 80002 . Z (908) 420-4788 . LEGAI DESCRIPTION IMPROV.kMNT ~%ATIO'N CERTIFiCATE iPewcuanr) ' ~TAS SODTB 96 FSST OF TBE ~ . NOEtT8 217.56 ESBT OF TAS B71ST 146.05 FSST OF 7AR 4, SIACK 1, SARPH'8 80~DMSION, CWNTY OF , JSFBSRSON. STATS OF C07ARD0 ~ L ~tCOI'l1El" Of - I LY~ & i~E: &.~CjzS m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . r4S f'N A C.T~ 2.. 'Z9 - v . yp'o''••.......... ~ . ~ i ~ N p ? C~ 0 3.0 .o ~xua-~c,v 6 ~ V; „m 6.0 S on me baeisor my ImbvweCga, trvamietlon ana oatef, ► nerebr certly riiaa vtls rrVrwernant bcatlcri ceWcme was prepered for J.F. 8tiT8itPRISS 6ARAG68 r tf1Ht R IB fiot 4 L.67KI 81tV9y R9L w ImPrrnement SurveY Plat and tlmt k is fio be re9ed upon foc~the eatabliehment of fence, buYdh~g or other hjhme Improvemant 6nes. . 1 further certiiy that themprovemeMS on the above described parcel onthts date,. a*cept u[flity connectlons, ere er»kely vuitlitr~ Cre bota~derfeat af U~a Percel. e~oc~at as e1mMm. tt~at tl~ere are ro~xn~. upon the descrbed PrOMbW 4Y hiprovernerrts on any ~g prerriaes, ~coep4 eis tW~d. wd that tFiere is rq-hpperent 6~ifdAnce or ~~mY~~b9ab~~J~Y ; ofsald~.~a~Ptasnobed. ' i ~V to Cobracb krwym muot~~ 11U1111(I! M&,MFVOY Ww*l mme Ye" WWYW 14sicecovw auch ctlsfact M r~o eren4 meY ~Y ~ . ~Pa+~ ~f'~ UYe rno~e Cnarr Oen yaers hora Ba deEa d thB oerWcadon afrown hereon.' Aa. •!i. .o : . 27268 g' .27. ~ ~Q N ` ~ ~ N O ~ r ~ EXHIBIT 2 l ` . ~ ~ ~ r J r y c~ J ~ J . L1 ~ ~ ; ~ , E n_ ' y ~ f, I T + ~ ~ - IK :z J 4R ~ j I ' --I " ~ ~ ~ J x f ~ ~ ~ Y ^ EXHIBIT 3 ~ ~ ~ G N~ ~1 ~~r ? ~ ~ { t r_ J ~ ~ C I ~ j ~ ~7 ~ T ~ ~ ~ S N- ~ ~ ? f7=~'1~ ~ Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an Administrative Officer; and Whereas, Board ofAdjustment Application, Case No. WA-97-31 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an Administrative Officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the required 15 days by law and in recognition that there WERE NO protests regisiered a.-ainst it; and Whereas, the relief applied for MAY I`TOT be granted without substantiaily unpairing the intent and purpose of the regulations goveming the City of Wheat Rid.ge. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that Board of Adjustment Applicarion Case No. WA-97-31, be and hereby is DENIED. Type of Variance: A Request for approvai of a 953 squaze foot lot azea variance to the _ 9,000 square foot lot azea requirement and a 15-foot lot width variance to the 75-foot lot width requirement for the purpose of building a two-family residence. For the Following Reasons: Criteria: 1. According to Section 26-15 (F), of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, a one-family dwelling in the Residential-Two A zone district can be located on a 7,500 squaze foot proQerty with a 60 foot lot width. Therefore, if the request is denied, the property may yield a reasonable retum in use, service and income. 2. The property was subdivided with the understanding by the Planning Commission, that it was to remain a single family parcel. The applicant was made aware during the subdivision process that the property was substandazd in lot width and lot area for the development of a duplex. 3. The property currently exists as a primarily rectangulu lot, although the southem propecty line meanders to the east at a slight angle there is inadequate building envelope established that would permit proper development of a sizable residential structure. 4. The hazdship has been created by the applicant through the subdivision process. The applicant has sole interest in the property. 5. There wautd appear to be no hardship other than the lot size and width. There aze several properties throughout the City of Wheat Ridge which exist as substandazd lots of record, this hazdship situation is common to all of these properties. The motion carried 8-0. B. Case Nn. WA-98-1: An application by Leonazd and Glenna Kearns for approval of a five foot side yazd setback variance to the 15' side yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a two-caz garage. The propeRy is zoned Residential-One and is located at 2971 Teller Street. Q 0 Board of Adjustment EXHIBIT 4 1/22198 Page 3 Sean McCartney presented the staff report, including a correction to ihe cover sheet. The date posted and date legal notices sent should state January 8, 1998, instead of January 15, 1998. Zoning Ordinance, case file and exhibits were entered into the record. The propeRy is within the City of Wheat Ridge, all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore there is jurisdiction to hear the case. Mr. McCartney presented slides and aeriai pictures of the property. He also presented an overview of the case including measurements, comparisons to properties neazby, and other options for the size of the proposed gazage. Mr. McCartney followed with explanation of the criteria used to evaluate a vaziance application. Staff concluded that the criteria supports approvai of the request. Boazd Member ECHELMEYER brought attention to the fact that the application is unsigned and was not notarized, he asked if the Boazd is still able to act. Staff responded that an incomplete application keeps the Boazd from taking any action at this Yime. Public testimony can be heazd but decision should be based on a complete application. Boazd Member THIESSEN asked for clarification of the option of locating the structure at a different location of the site. Mr. McCartney responded that the structure could be located in the reaz of the property which would comply with the setback requirement, however, this wouid create a long driveway, which would be more costly. Boazd Member HOVLAND asked if the garage has to be defached, or could an attached gazage be proposed. Chair Person MAURO swore in Leonard Keams of 2971 Teller Street. Leonazd Keams presented his case including the explanation for proposing a detached garage. The reason being is that in order to attach the garage the gas meter would have to be moved. Mr. Keams also explained his reason for proposing the extra width, in order to accommodate his lazge vehicles and space to open the doors while in the garage. Boazd Member ABBOTT discussed the hazdship criteria with the applicant and explained that this is one of the major deciding factors. He also explained that there aze a number of properties within ihe City of Wheat Ridge that meet the same requirements of his property and they have (ocated their garage behind the house. Discussion followed regarding the requirements of ventilation and escape windows according to the Building Code. There was a motion by Boazd Member AOVLAND, seconded by Boazd Member WALKER, to continue the case until the application is compiete and the Board has all of the information that is necessary. 01 /22/98 Page 4 . - ~ ~ A. :(continued from January 22, 1998.) An application by Leonazd and Glenna Keams for approval of a five-foot side yard setback variance to the fifteen-foot side yazd setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a two-caz gazage. The property is zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 2971 Teller Street. Sean McCartney presented the case. He entered into the record the zoning ordinance, case file, packet materials and exhibits. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all notification and all posting requiremenu have been met. Therefore, there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. The applicant requested a vaziance to construct a riventy-four foot wide garage on the north side of his property which would provide adequate access and pazking for his two full-size pickup trucks. There is an existing attached singie caz garage which is presently used for storage. If approved, the garage would be located approximately ten feet &om the north property line with a four to five-foot separation between the house and the proposed garage. The code requires a fifreen-foot setback for any detached garage or cazport located in the R-1 Zone District and, therefore, the appiicant is requesting a five-foot variance. Mr. McCartney reviewed the criteria used to evaluate this vaziance request. It was staff's conclusion that the criteria supported approval of the request. Although it was found that the applicant could locate the structure in another azea of his site, or modify the design to comply with the setback requirements, approval of this request should not alter the essential chazacter of the locality. Also, because there would be a ten-foot side yazd setback, there would be twenty feet between the proposed structure and the existing garage to the north allowing for adequate light and air to the adjacent property. In response to a question from Board Member HO WARD, Mr. McCartney clarified that the staff report should have stated that the proposed structure would require a ten-foot setback rather than a five-foot setback. Chair Person MAURO swore in Leonard Kearns, 2971 Teller Street. Mr. Keams stated that it xvould create a financial hacdship for him in terms of added construction costs and Public Service Company chazges to attach the gazage. He also cited a number of houses in his neighborhood where the garages have less than a fifteen-foot setback. Boazd Member ABBOTT asked the applicant io explain the reason for requesting a twenty-four foot wide garage when the code allows nineteen feet which is Board of Adjustrnent OZR6/98 1 Page 2 EXHIBIT 5 adequate for parking two irucks. Mr. Keams explained thai the twenty-four foot width wouid allow more adequate room for his two lazge vehicles with space to open the doors while in the garage and to provide access for lawnmowers, etc., to be removed from the gazage without moving one of the vehicies. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and a second by Board Member WALKER, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and W6ereas, Board of Adjustrnent application Case No. WA-98-1 is an appeai to this Board from the decision of an administraYive officer; and Whereas, the property had been posted the required fifteen days by law and there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, Therefore, Be It Resoived that Board ofAdjustment Application Case No. WA-98-1 be, and hereby is, denied. Type of Variance: A request for approval of a five-foot side yazd setback vaziance to the fifreen-foot side yard setback requirement for the purpose of building a two-car detached garage. Fnr the following reasons: L There aze other azeas within the site which could accommodate the proposed structure. 2• The hazdship was created solely by the applicant. 3. There is neither benefit to the community or to a person with disabilities but to the sole benefii of the applicant. . 4. ' A nineteen-foot wide two-car addition can be constructed without variance. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated he would vote against the motion because there SoardofAdjustrnent - - 0226/98 Page 3 .are several garages in that block that aze bazely within a ten-foot setback, and he didn't feel the applicant should be penalized because the homes were built before today's zoning was applicable. The vote was 3- 4, with Board Members ECHELMEYER, HOWARD, JUNKER and MAURO voting NO. Boazd member ECHELMEYER then moved and Boazd Member JUNIKER seconded that the variance be granied for the reason that the approval would not alter the essential character of the locality, and that there is adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties on either side. The morion failed by a vote of 4-3, with Boazd Members ABBOTT, THIESSEN and WALKER voting NO. DISPOSITION: A request for approval of a five-foot side yazd setback vaziance to the fifreen-foot side yard setback requirement for the purpose of building a two-caz detached garage was denied, based on Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 2-53 (d) of the City of Wheat Ridge Codes of Law which state that Board of Adjustment motions not carried are ~ thereby deemed denied. Chair Person MAURO informed the applicant that his request had been denied. B. Case No. WA -98-2. Alan White presented the case which is an interpretation of the zoning ordinance pertaining to psychological and sociai counseling ctinics within the Restricted Commercial Zone District. This is a result of an interpretation by Mr. White as Zoning Administrator for the City conceming a use as a counseling clinic for addictive and violent behavior that is in existence at 4243 Hazlan Street. Mr. White informed the Boazd that the property is within the Ciry of Wheat Ridge; that all notification and posting requirements had been met for an interpretation; and that there was jurisdiction for the Board to heaz this case. He entered into the record the case file, packet materials and exhibits. Mr. White explained that one of the duties of the Boazd is to hear appeals on decisions made by the Zoning Administrator in terms of interpreting the code. He noted that this is not a site specific case, and that the interpretation should apply to any azea of the City that is zoned Restricted Commercial (RC). He pre.sented a background of the case and reviewed the various commercial districu in the City which are organized on the "cascading system." He noted that one of the permitted uses in Restricted Commercial One (RC-1) is clinics and offices for psychological, social, marital, development or Board of Adjustment - ' Page 4 01J26/98 December 22. 2004 To Whom It May Concern: I am a next door neighbor of Len Kearns and he has discussed with me his idea of putting a detached garage (3003) 5' from our property line on his property located at 2971 Teller St. I have no problems with this new construction and in fact, I think it will be an enhancement to our neighborhood. I believe it will also make the neighborhood safer because cars will be taken offthe street and children will not be running in between cars and into the street. By storing cars in the garage it will also improve the physical appeazance of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Date EXHIBIT 6 WHGT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~COPM~~ TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-04-17/Republic Garages DATE OF MEETING: January 27, 2005 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 12 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yazd setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in an 18 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3010 Saulsbury Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: Republic Gazages Jerry and Karen Cassel 11,248 square feet (.258 acres) PRESENT ZOIVING: Residentia]-Two (R-2) ENTER INTO RECORD: ' (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION L,ocation Map H ~ R-2 } ~ ~ co ~ J ~ a Subject Parcel / ~,os W. 30'" Ave R-2 ~ 3aTH AVE H U) r) w w Q~ 30TH AVE 2990 Saulsbury R-2 Roara or aajustment 1 Case WA-04-17/Republic Garages Jurisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 3010 Saulsbury. The property has Residential-Two (R-2) zoning. The applicant, Republic Garages, is requesting the variance on behalf of the owners, Jerry and Karen Cassel. The request is for approval of a 12 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in an IS foot side yard setback (Exhibit 1, I.etter of Request). The applicant proposes to conswct an approximately 864 square foot (24' X 36') three car detached gazage on the property (Exhibit 2, Elevation). The proposed garage will be located 10 feet from the rear property line on the east side of the lot and 18 feet from the side property line on the south side of the lot (Exhibit 3, Site Plan/Improvement Location Certificate). Per the Code of Laws, the minimum side yard setback for a detached gazage in the R-2 zone district is 5 feet if the swcture is less than 8 feet in height, and 10 feet if the structure is over 8 feet in height. However, the Code of Laws dces specify a 30 foot side yard setback requirement for all structures which abut a public street. The location of the proposed detached garage does abut a public street (West 30d' Avenue) on the side yard of the property to the south; therefore it is subject to this 30 foot side yard setback requirement. As a result, a variance is required to allow for the proposed detached garage at the location shown on the site plan. If this were an interior lot, the proposed detached garage would be required to meet a 10 foot setback on both the side and reaz yards. Constructing the three car garage with the dimensions noted (24' X 36') directly behind (to the east ofl the existing house would allow for an attached gazage to meet all setback requirements in the R-2 zone district. There appeazs to also be sufficient room direcdy behind the house (to the east of) the lot to conswct a smaller (likely two car) detached gazage and meet all development standards. Placement of the garage to meet all development standards may be problematic however, as both an attached or detached garage would eliminate a large portion of the open space in the backyard. All other development standards have been met with this request, IL SITE PLAN The property is approximately 11,248 squaze feet, or .258 acres. The property measures 91 feet wide with a depth oF 126 feet. There is an existing single car attached garage on the property which is accessed by a driveway off of Saulsbury on the west side of the property. The azea surrounding the property consists of single family homes on all sides. Two adjacent properties to the south have buildings that encroach into the 30 foot required setback from the street. One property at 2990 Saulsbury was approved for a 12 foot variance resulting in an 18 foot setback for a detached garage. This variance was granted in 1994. The property at 7105 W. 30ffi Avenue has a structure that is setback 10 feet from the 30'' Avenue right-of-way, however there was no information found on this property regazding any variances granted for this encroachment \ Board of Aajusmcent Case WA-0417/Republic Garages II. VARIANCE CRITERIA S[aff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance requesC 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable retum in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be used as a single-family residence without the need for any variances. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essenfial character of the locality? The request would have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. The majority of adjacent properties have gazages, however most aze attached to the houses. There ue two properties (comer lots) in the immediate vicinity that have structures which encroach into the required 30 foot setback. The first is a detached garage that encroaches 12 feet into the required 30 foot setback and received a variance for this in 1994. The second is part of the house that encroaches 20 feet into the required 30 foot setback; however there is no historical information regazding the allowance for this encroachment. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplucal condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upou the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? There are no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in ques[ion unbuildable. The property in question is rec[angulaz in shape and flat. It is, however, a comer lot. All structures on a comer lot must adhere to 30 foot setbacks on each side abutting a public street. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a garage in this location. There are other altematives for placement of the gazage. 5. Would the granfing of the variance be detrimental to the public welfam or injurious to other property or improvements in t6e neighborhood in wluch the proper[y 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 d'vninisl►ing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the azea. There may be a slight decrease in the supply of light and air to the property to the east, given that approva] of the variance would result in a structure closer to the street than is allowed under wrrent development standards. The request would not substantially increase the congeseon in public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request. 6.. If criteria i U►rough 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to t6e 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 in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. Board of Adjustment Case WA-04-1711tepublic Garages The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes thatthe above criteria are not supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there are not unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would wanant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable rewm in use. The property may still be used as a single-family residence without the need for any variances. 2. The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a garage in this location. 3. The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. 4. There are altematives available to construct a garage and meet the R-2 development standards. soara ot najusameoc a Case WA-04-17/RepubGc Garages JqN-6-2005 09:08 FROM:REPUBLIC I REPUBLIC GARAGES Janaary 6, 2405 TO: JeffHirt FROM: Jerry RE: Vaziance at 3010 Saulsbury Street 2532 South Broadway • Denver, Cotorado 80210 (303) 781-9400 • Fan(303)781•4170 Jerry Cassel would L7ce to build a 36'x24' detached garage in his back yard. He is on a comer lot so the current zoning setbacks makes is difficuk to confam to present setback requirements. He needs to be 10' from east (back property line) since Jerry would h7ce 9' walLs. There is a 30' setback &om 30'" ave and we are asking for 18' so the garage would allow ailow a 5' distance for egess from house to garage on Northwest comer of garage. The garage would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The neighbor direcdy across the street from this pmposed garage has a snnilaz set back off 30'h. The hardship was created when house was originally buih. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to public welfare. Infact it would remove outside vechiles from the driveway to the new gazage. It would not impair the supply of light to adjacern pmperty to the east and would reduce congestion to vechiles on present driveway_ 303 781 4170 T0:3032352857 P.1 EXHIBIT 1 i O ~ v ~ ~ i N C7 ~ tu t V iJ ~ 'a N a a 0 s a 4J ~ N v, u U ~ i d-c ep N Y r- 7 ~ N ~ c. o s~ mo \ N Y H LLS 5 L U l l l r Z'd LS82S£2E0£:O1 ~ R °x y.i 4- ~ M Oztib isL sME z O ~ ~ ~ W ..1 W r z O a IL W' iM M EXHIBIT 2 R APOW Dwrs 01/06/2005 FEE 110.00 Jos~ CLIkNT REPMLIG 6A&TCJ$9 L A N D .,4 U R V E V 1 14 G AoDF2ES5 3030 6AVL$gt7gy 9TNEIdT 5460 WwRO RoAO - SwrE 160 . ARVwor, CaLoaA~o 60002 NAME ~~X ~L (303) 42QA788 IhiPROVEMENY LOCA710I4 CER7IFICATE LE6qL DFSCFIPPION Attn: SiCitY2Y ~c~ . I IA2 7, CHERRY LAt7E . ~ _ 8[7enzvIB20N, cAVNTY Qs +7EFBSFI3ONi 8TA2E pF COLpVADp L ~ 1 1 SCaIC: 1 "-20, 3 0 d S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ EXHIBIT 3 Wost 30#h Avcnue 50'Ro.w. ~'ELP US SERVE YOU BETTER! 303.234.5900 necause we want to provide ihe best possible service, we would appreciate your wmments about your recent contact with the Ciry of Wheat Ridge. Please take a moment to tell us how we did our job and if there is any need for improvement. Thank you for your time and consideration. Visit our web site atwww.ci.wheatridPe.co.us. Emails for City Manager may be sent to:barbarad@ci.wheatridge.co. . Does the service we provide fuifill your needs? Whatdidyoulikeordulikeaboutourservice?G,I GGKFb P-L"Ii - LtYlC~P/liR-Rjf VAIU6/L/.C-4 Do you see room for iinprovement? What might that be? *7- L' l-ll1'1't qci 1/ A7~i ~'11 !,r- 1-11 1161 r-;, I6w VAu^10,1cC n t4k,~7nc-g zuz~ e"ly-', iiA2f A'PPet~'..~Z~ *13iEIirA t f-z N-7145ct neiskg~~c~-r~. Could our process be designed or coordinated better? If so, how? 16h - A vKItVIck -6W0894 i~T Jilli'l ,rtf ir Was the City representative(s) courteous and knowledgeable? jA.C D~F;K-N c JE-~ Additional Comments/Suggestions: `I 7'-7-5 V1tvc G'1-N -1v~p MIVi`re 1rA+- n-F wl-I~Gtt~c~ 1~ " v~5 Name of Department: VS7YYI~V~'"' Name of City Representative'(s): 1- q at" tr -t"_lAhLci!'2LA-PL K WQ /'d like m speak with someone at the Ciry: ( Day Time Phone No. 4m 17 Utit- Address:,54121 Email• ~ LtiLU -yly'_i -e vt G~ S 1 D ~