Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/2005CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA March 24, 2005 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held befare the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on March 24, 2005, at 7;30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29in Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 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-OS-Ol: An application filed by Mazk & Kim Davis for approval of a waiver from the requirement for an escrow of funds in lieu of construction of public improvements pursuant to Section 5-45 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4240 Garland Street. B. Case No. WA-05-03: An application filed by Jeffrey Battershill for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-One A (R-lA) and located at 3811 Wright Court. C. Case No. WA-05-04: An application filed by John C. Bandimere Jr. for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standard pursuant to Section 26-603 resulting in an 8 foot fence on property zoned Residential-One B (R-113) and located at 3655 Chase Street. D. Case No. WA-05-06: An application filed by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority for approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot reaz yard setback variance from the 10 foot side and 10 foot rear yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4501 Everett Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - January 27, 2005 B. Voting Change 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ~ TO: Boazd of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-01/Davis DATE OF MEETING: March 24, 2005 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a waiver from the requirement for an escrow of funds in lieu of construction of public improvements for property zoned Residential Two (R-2). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4240 Garland Sueet APPLICANT (S): Mark and Kim Davis OWNER (S): Mark and Kim Davis APPROXIMATE AREA: 11,200 (.257 acres) PRESENT ZOlVING: Residendal Two (R-2) ENTER INTO RECORD: ' (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Subject Parcel s~a or naju.tt~m Case WA-OS-01Navis w F 4 O ~Q c ~ H o~ 4 ~ } ry ~ N 0 ~ W~y V ~ = QQ 1 ~ a2ki (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION ~ d o ° w o ~ r W o ~ o F U) .Q U' Q ~ N ~ c1 ~ ~ o ❑ N ~ Q ~ ~ N Ef A-9 ~ E~ ~ 1 Jurisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met for the public hearing on this date; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. This case was originally scheduled for the February 24, 2005 Boazd of ~ Adjustment public hearing, however it had to postponed to this hearing due to ]ack of a quorum. ' 1. REQUEST The property in question is ]ocated at 4240 Gazland Street. The properry has Residential Two (R-2) zoning. The applicants, Mark and Kim Davis, aze requesfing this waiver as the property owners. The request is for approval of a waiver to the requirement for an escrow of funds in ]ieu of construction of public improvements pursuant to Section 5-45 of the VJheat Ridge Code of Laws (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request, Exhibit 2, Section 5- 45 Code of Laws). Appiications for building pemvu are reviewed by the public works department to deternune whether the proposed construction will require construction of, or an escrow in lieu of, public improvements. A building pemut for a single family residence on the property in question was submitted and received on September 23, 2004. The public works departcnent approved the permit on September 24, 2004 with the condition that an escrow for public improvements be submitted (Exhibit 3, Building Pernut). Pursuant to Section 5115 of the Code of Laws, the cost estimate for this escrow was prepazed by the public works department for an amount of $3,01316. Section 5-45 of the Code of Laws also states that any owner who is aggrieved by a decision of the department of public works requiring escrowing of funds in lieu of construction shall have fihe right to appeal the departmenYs determination to the board of adjustment. The applicant has decided to appeal this decision by the public works department for reasons specified in Exhibit 1, Letter of Request. A Certificate of Occupancy (C.O) was requested for the single family residence on the property in quesdon on January 25, 2005. As the property owners expressed their intent to apply for a waiver to the requirement that the above mentioned escrow be received, a condition was placed on the Certificate of Occupancy related to this request (Exhibit 4, C.O./Attached Letter with Conditions). The condition, signed by the property owner, specifies that the C.O. is issued contingent upon the decision rendered at the public hearing regarding this waiver request. Essentially, the conditions state that if the appiicant is denied the waiver, they must pay the specified escrow amount within 30 days of the public hearing. ff approved, the applicant dces not have to pay the specified escrow amount. The requirement for public improvemenu with building permits involving substantia] changes to the property, or escrowing in lieu of per Section 5-45 is the city's means for constructing these public improvements to include curb, gutter and sidewalks. The public works department makes the deternunation to require an escrow where the construceon of public improvements is not feasible for the city at the date of the building pernnt, but is intended to take place in the future. The intent of the escrow collection is for the city to have adequate funds to construct public improvements in a particulu location in the future. The escrow amount is retained by the ciry for a period of 10 years, and if the construction of public improvements dces not take place at this Iceation during this 10 year period, the money is released to the individual with no interest accrued. The duector of public works has provided a more detailed justification for this requirement, specifically for this lceation (Exhibit 5, Director of Public R'orks Memo). It has been expressed by the public works department that the primary purpose of the requirement for an escrow for public improvements at this specific location is for drainage purposes. The property owners have requested this waiver for reasons outlined in the letter they submitted (Exhibit 1). The property owners have also submitted a survey of nearby residenYs opinions about public improvements in l. the uea (Exhibit 6, Survey of Residents). Bosrd ot Adjushceut Case WA-05-011Davis The loca6on of this waiver request dces have some history pertaining to its stams with curb, gutter and sidewalks. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Case No. WPA-87-2, was passed in 1987 to exempt particular streets from the requiiement to construct curb, gutter and sidewalks. Garland Street at this location was included as one of those streets to be exempt. The intent of the amendment was to maintain the semi-rural chazacter of the neighborhood. This lceal exempt street regulation was purposely taken out of the Comprehensive Plan when it was last adopted in 2000, therefore it is no longer a regulation. Section 5-45 of the Code of Laws makes reference to this local exempt street designation, however this reference is no longer valid and will be excluded from this section of the code during the next revision. H. SI1'E PLAN The property is approximately 11,200 squaze feet, or .257 acres. The property measures 80 feet wide with a depth of 140 feet (Exhibit 7, Survey). There are no public improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk) in the vicinity at this time. Section 5-45 (c)(1) of the Code of Laws states that curb, gutter, and sidewalks may not be required where less than hatf of the properties on the sveet extending 500 feet from the property have in existence these improvements. There aze no curb, gutter, or sidewalks in the vicinity so this exception dces apply. However, due to drainage concems the city intends to address when feasible in this specific ]ocation, the public works department elected to impose the requirement for an escrow in order to help ensure sufficient funds for these improvements. II. VARIANCE/WAIVER CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a waiver request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable retum imuse, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in wttich it is located? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. The property may still be ~ used as a single family residence without the need for any waivers. 2. If the waiver wem granted, would it alter the essenNal character of the locality? The request may have an effect on the essential character of the locality. None of the properties in the immediate vicinity have curb, gutter and sidewalks. The request, if approved, may decrease the likelihood of the city constructing public improvements with a precedent set for this location of maintaining the existing conditions related to the lack of curb, gutter and sidewalks. The request, if denied, may increase the likelihood of the city constructing the necessary public improvements in this location to address drainage concems. 3. Dces the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardslup (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? Not applicable 4. Aas the alleged difticulty or hardslup been created by any person pmsenUy having an interest in the ProPertY' The applicants have created theu own hazdsfiip by requesting a waiver to the requirement to escrow for public improvements. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighbor6ood in wluch the property is located, by, among other Board of Adjnsmrent Case WA-05-01/Davis 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? None of these factors should be affected by approval or denial of this request. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, t6en, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribu6on to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variaace result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request will not result in a substantial benefit or conh-ibution to the neighborhood or community distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicants. Grandng the waiver will 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 waiver request. Staff has found that there are not unique circumstances pertaining to the above listed criteria attributed to these requesu that would wanant approval of a waivez. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons 1. The property may still be used as a single family residence without the need for any waivers. 2. The appiicants have created their own hazdship by requesting waiver from the requirement for an escrow of funds in lieu of construction of public improvements. 3. The request will not result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or community distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicants. 4. Approval of the waiver may set a precedent which will limit the city's ability to construct public improvements in the future. soaa ornajust,ent 4 Case WA-05-01/Devis } MARK A. and KIMBERLY A. DAVIS ~ 4240 Gazland Sveet l, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 - (303) 423-3926 Email: kimmerdav@msacom T0: Boazd of Adjustment Hearing of March 24, 2005 Case No. WA-OS-Ol - Waiver from Requirement for an Escrow of Funds in Lieu of Construction of Public Improvements Ladies and Gentlemen: We are petitioning the Boazd of Adjushnent for a waiver from the requirement of having to place funds into a City escrow account in lieu of constructing sidewalks, curbs and gutters with regazd to the new construction of a house at 4240 Garland Street. Although the construction is "new", it is actually replacing a home built in 1950 that was constructed out of cinderblock and quite frankly falling apart from the foundation upwards. When it became apparent that there was going to be some major house improvements needed with regard to the foundation and the structure, itself, we found it more economically sound to demolish the old house and replace it. At the time, our site manager applied for the building permit, Public Works informed us that sidewalks were required for any new construction. We objected to any sidewalks, etc., being built because there aze no sidewallcs whatsoever on Gazland Street through to Garrison Street. We, and our neighbors, desire to keep the "rural" setting in our neighborhood. In lieu of our opposition to sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, it was decided by Public Works that we could place $3,013.00 into an interest bearing escrow account for a period of 10 yeazs, just in case that within that 10 veaz period the Citv of Wheat Ridge would build sidewalks, etc., in our neighborhood. At the end of those 10 yeazs, our $3,013.00 would be returned to us - with no interest that will have accrued on our money. Ciry representatives have told us that we have a"unique" situation; an issue that hasn't been deait with before with regazd to public improvements. We were led to understand that any final deternvnation is based upon a consideration for each case presented, and although the Department of Public Works could have made its own decision regazding a waiver of the public improvements, it, through Community Development, determined that the decision to place funds in escrow would remain. We do not feel that Public Works looked at the entire situation, did not review the history of our area or viewed the site of construction before making this determination. It was ~ somewhat of an "across the boazd" decision - not based on the individual case. Because EXHIBIT 1 Page 2 we are of the opinion that this determination is in error and very prejudicial, we aze appealing its decision through the Board of Adjustment. Again, although the construction is "new", we simply replaced what had already been on the property. We upgraded and increased the community value of our neighborhood. LINE OF REASONING Under Section 5-45, Public Improvement Required, (b) it states in part that "if it is determined by the department of public works that any such public improvements are necessitated by the proposed construction based upon the specific adverse effects created by the proposed construction, including, but not limited to...curb, gutter and sidewalk... the condition shall be inserted in the building permit which shall require the construction of such public improvement... It is unclear exactly what "specific adverse effects" have been created by replacing a broken down, eyesore of a house with a"new" house in an older neighborhood. What specific adverse effects? It appears that because our situation is "unique", no one in Public Works or Community Development could elaborate on this issue when questioned. It is our opinion that there are no adverse " effects by replacing our old home - specific or otherwise. The replacement of the old and decrepit can only been seen as an improvement and an enhancement to our neighborhood, without sidewalks, curbs and gutters, which in turn is an advantage to our CiTy. Additionally, under Section 5-45,(c)(1) it states: "The installation of curbs, gutter and sidewalks and related roadway improvements may not be required where less than half of the properties on the street extending five hundred (500) feet from the lot lines of the property in question, on both sides of the fronting street, have in existence curbs, gutter and sidewalks." There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks extending far more than 500 feet on either side of our property line, as well as in front or back of the property lines. There has never been any sidewalks, curbs or gutters in our neighborhood since its inception. When the Notice of Public Hearing was placed on our properiy and the neighbors became awaze of such, and wben they started receiving letters of notice from the City, all that was accomplished was a "neighborhood outcry". We took a resident survey of those for or against such improvements covering Gazland Street, which horseshoes into Garrison Street. All approached were vehemently against even the idea of sidewalks, curbs or gutters in their neighborhood. We aze all in agreement that we like the "nual" setting in which we live. A copy of our survey of neighbors is attached to our statement. If we had gone ahead and built sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the ~ Page 3 front of our property after the new construction was completed, we would not have been able to continue to live in our own neighborhood and would have ended up "outcasts". Animosity and anger against us would have been created. Not good for neighborly relationships! Further, (c)(3) under Section 5-45 states: "Installation of curbs, gutter and sidewalks would be impractical or economically unfeasible or not in the best interest of the city at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy." The implementation of such improvements in our neighborhood is very impractical; it is economically unfeasible and really not in the best interest of the City at this tune. This is true. There are no such improvements in existence. None are being planned or pursued by the residents of Gazland and Garrison Streets; nor by City Council. Of course, this could change should a vote be pursued by, or if the City Council attempted to make such a ruling that improvements to our neighborhood should be forthcoming - when, if ever? No one has the power to predict such. If ever that event took place, it is our understanding that each resident owner of real property in our neiQhborhood would be given a prorated shaze of the costs to construct sidewalks, curbs and Qutters. Fees are usually imposed for "services furnished", not for "services" that may never be performed. If no services are being performed, then there is no validation to impose a fee for the same, or Yo hold funds for services that may or may not come to pass - especially with no foundation for those services to render fees in the first place. It is very prejudicial to us to have to place funds in escrow -"just in case" this event may come to pass - while everyone else residing in our neighborhood is excluded. At present, there is no ordinance that provides a date for any commencement or completion of a sidewalk, etc., project in our neighborhood. No services are being performed or are planned to be performed by the City of Wheat Ridge in exchange for holding these funds in escrow. No fees have been assessed to any of the owners of real property in our neighborhood for sidewalks, curbs and gutters. We have replaced an eyesore with something new, and now it appeazs that we are being singled out as a result of that "replacemenP": We would be more than happy to pay our fair share of any costs for any improvements at the time those decisions aze agreed upon, voted on or passed by City Council. We shouldn't have to escrow our funds for a period of 10 years for improvements that may or may not ever materialize, and give up the interest that has accrued on those funds. It is simply unfair, unjust and highly prejudicial. We should not be penalized for helping unprove our neighborhood by replacing an old, broken down house. Page 4 Therefore, by virtue of the above, we request the approval for a waiver from the requirement of placing $3,013.00 into an interest bearing escrow account in lieu of the construction of public unprovements so that we, along with the rest of our neighbors, can exercise our desire to remain in a rural setting and shaze the costs, together with our neighbors, for such constructed improvements to be implemented by the City of Wheat Ridge, if any, if ever. Respectfully, Mark and Kimberly Davis ~ W z cc ~ O C ~ CD O ~s O 'C N O P~ ro ~ ~ -P N 4~ O ~ ~ j1. ~ ~ N ~ J ~ 0 'C3 ~ P~ ~ O ~ w ~ O ~ W ~ ~ C/] N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n O ~ ~ G 0 ~ O ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ a. ~ 0 c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD a. ~ n ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~ O O ~ Ur: ~ O ~ ~ ~ O 4~1 ~ ~ ~ (D ~ G N ln ~ a~ z ~ ~O ~ n fD ~ O O ~ ~ C!G ~ O ~ O O O ~ ~ O ~ ~ f~- O O UQ O ~ UU O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~O Z3 V~ h ('D n dG .'3 CfQ ~ O ~ ~ W ~ ~ n ~ S1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O O '7Z 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ O N ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~t cD ~ N n ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ .--O O ~ (IQ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ A A a' ~ tD ~ C (D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n CD N .-r O O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ r9 < ~ .`3 G ~ ~ ~ n C ~ m ~ ~ Ii! ~S ~x p~ V.w ' S a .y g y N , ~ 2 4 as 1 ry A Y2 a 4, % j V ~ Y 'cN a L ~ ?Yw ~ ~Y 4 L 5 I 2 ~t. 4F C'1 h _ ~ + ~ i 1 `6Y y~ 'd3i •Y y. .zY t q E . ~x ~ . . f . - ~4y Y p`~~t~~.) ~ ~RF .M1e f . ~~~.~r~~~i@$&~~~~ ~ . i t +fe ~ i~ . ~ M1 ~n " ~ . , x i > s ' t . - . s ~ F-- ~ , ~ 2 s. > -~'-'~"„*•j~~~ \ ~ ~ ' 3 I ~ Pssa , ,9 ~ a 4~~~ . ~ r ~i~af i ~k~ ~ , , i 7 ~ (F ~ ~ dr ~ 1 ~ '.s j, Y 0 4 a ~ ~ t : '.~n b ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~~y ~ ~q~~~~5~ ~i"~v t ~ - ; . ~ r. Y ~~~a.~2'~~~` t~ , ~ ...~u,++~,~"~„is fi5i i ~ ~ " _ ~ ~ ` ~4~} ~ ~ . l~ t n r~,~". ~,~1~ . z^ r~t~ s q~~f.. ,6., s~~ ~ ~r . f~ r~d'~ a , ~ < ~.'s e ' . ~ . - k'" fd r`t~'~::'~ . ~ , ~ , r c,~"' ~~x~°^ . i' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ I a es "C .~~`,,Y, ~ : _ l . ~ . . . ; - ~ ~ ~ ~ ''~A '~'.-nT~ ~ o" ' ~ t ~ ~ . F y,.~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 4 ~ h r p{ ~X +~:Fl~e T^'S'~G ~t?L ~;~_jd ~ T v ~ ; ~ ~n~ N ~ . ~ fG ~'i2°Mr N e ~ { v ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 A ~ ~ . I ~ F ~ . Q II Fry ~A ~ 9j~3" iF ~ ~ ~ . r~` ^ ~~2 ( a ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~T . ~5. ~1 ~ i ~ v. . , , t* . ~ o ~ ~ d t ` . `a ~ . " 1 , E " _ . , ~ y : G p . ~ ~ 1 ~ _ . ~ ~ 'i , k ~ " ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ . ~ , , x.> ' , ~ n A ' a . ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ k ~ce 'a ~ . Y ` ' ` ry ~ ~ . ~ . w,~{ ~ ..-t ~ ~ ~ ~ F t ~ ~N ~ ~.4~i-.Sf.a~.. ~ ~ ti ~ v : _ ~ ~ - ~F r, A ~ h ~ 1 . i~ ~L ~ ~ ~ i • 1 . ~ ` _ ~ . . . , I .a++n ~ I ~ . ~ . 4F ~ . ~ I ~ ~ , A ~ti "r.e ~y'e . +f, h I ' _ ~ ~ n'R.4~N ~ ~ " ~ . ~ , ' ~ I M..~ ~ ~ ~h .i . . . ~ r ~ . , i . y . ~ f " ~SrS~.. . I ~ l~ ; f ~ A ( ~ ~ q • .t i J S . , g s ! f Id ~ , ~~1jY ~ . . ~f{ ~ h Y. , II 11 ~ ; ~ ARTICLEII. ADVtENTISTRATTON AND ENFORCEMENT~` Sec. 5-44. Compliance with subdivision regulations. Page r of 9 Prior to the issuance of a ceRifiicate of occupancy for new construction of z dwelling or main building, applicable subdivision regulations existing at the time the building permit was issued shall be complied with by the owner or his assigns. This shall include the ptoper instaliation of curb. gutter and sidewalk in compliance ti-itti the adopted standards. installation of streets adjacent to the building site as required by the regulations, installation of proper fire hydrants to meet the standards adopted, proper connection to public water and sewer fiacilities as required by the regulations, and compliance with other adopted standards. (Ord. No. 1996-1039. § 1, 7-29-96) Sec. 5-45. Public improvements required. (a) Applications for building permits shall be reviewed by the department of pubiic works to determine whether the proposed construcUOn wiil require the instailation or construction ofi public improvemen s inc u ing; ut noi limited to, street paving, cur , gu ers, si ewalks, drainage facilities, or cther public improvements as may be required by ordirance or the subdivision regulations. a e (b) If it is determined by the department of public works that any such public improvements r necessitated bv the oroposed construction based uqon the soecific adverse_sffects created by fhe proposed constructi "n, including, but no', limiied to, drainage, traffic, street continuity; curb, gutter and sidewalk, relocation or undergrounding of utifities, street lighting, roadway construction), the department of public works shall so inform the building official, and in such event a condition shall be inserted in the building permit which shall require the construction of such public improvement or public improvements by the property owner and the dedication thereof to the city. All such improvements are to be constructed in full compliance with the city's engineering division regulations, design standards and construciion specifiicaiions. The cost of any such improvements shall be bome by the property owner, and the consiruction thereof shail be ai the sole cost, risk and expense of the property owner, subject to the provisions of any appiicable city ordinance, regulafions or policies. Subject to the requirements oi para9rh _(c~_ below, failure to construct any such required public improvements shali-entitle Ehe city to withhold any certificate of occupancy. (c) JLit is determined by the department of public works; after consideration of the factors se# forth beiow thai such public improvements may be placed at a later data. An escrow amount equalling one hundred (100) percent of the estimated cost of the required pubGc improvements shall be deposited with the city. The cosi estimate will be prepared by the engineering division, based Zovements current construction costs prior to issuance o# a building permit The instaliation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and related roadway may not be required where less than half of the properties on the street extending five hundred (500) feet from the lot lines of the property in question, on both sides of the froncing sireet, have in exis#ence curbs, gutters and sidewalks. (2) No curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall be required fior a remodeling ot an existing building. Q ~(3) Installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks would be imprctical or economicaily easible or nof in the best interest of the city at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. (d) In no event shall installation o# curbs, gutters or sidewaiks be required if the cost of installation of such curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other improvements exceeds ten (10) percent oi the cost of the building permit value. In this case, an escrow in the amount ot ten (10) percent of the value of the building permit shall be deposited with the city by the property owner prior to issuance of a building flermit fior the improvements. hrm //lihrarvE, mnnicnde.com/oatewav.dlUCO/colorado/1219/1251/1253?f=temolaLes$fn=document_ 1/6/2t1f15 r~RTICLE H. ADM1NiSTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT* Pa,-e 8 of 9 In addition, the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall neither be required nor aliowed upon any street designated as an exempt local street in We city's comp.rehensive plan nor shall the department require an escrow for public improvements. (e) In any such event, a development agreement shall be signed by the owner of the property, pursuant to the subdivision regulations of the city, which development agreement shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years from the date of execution by the properry owner, unless sooner released of record by the city. (fl Any owner, contractor or developer who is aggrieved by a decision of the department of public works requiring instaliation of such public improvements or escrowing of funds in lieu of construction shall have the right to appeal the department's determination to the board of adjustment pursuant to section 2-61 of the city's Code of Laws. (Ord. No. 1996-1039, § i, 7-29-96) ~a•v(a.~.a~ ~ Secs. 5-46--5-55. Reserveci. f DIVISION 3. ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS* 'State law references: Eiectrical inspection fees, C.R.S. § 12-23-117. Sec. 5-56. Generally. ~~WJk9irL All electrical work performed under the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to inspection by the division and certain types of work shall have continuous special inspection by privately employed qualified inspectors. All inspections, except those requiring a special inspection, shall be requested at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the actual physical inspection. (Ord. No. 1996-1039, § 1, 7-29-96) Sec. 5-57. Certificate of tesL; retest and suspension of certificate. (a) The chief building official may, ai his option, accept a certificate of test trom a licensed contractor in lieu of actual inspection. Such cert'rficate shall be on a form prescribed by the chief building official, shall be signed by a responsible representative of the licensed person, and shall set forth the date of test and the results obtained therefrom. (b) The chief building official or his authorized representative may retest any instailation or assembly on which a certificate has been fiiled and, in the case of substantial discrepancy in :he results of this test, may suspend any contractor's privilege to file such certificate in lieu of actual inspection. (Ord. No. 1996-1039, § 1, 7-29-96) Sec. 5-58. Type required. Required inspections shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Rough-in first inspection which shall consist of a11 conduits, semirigid piping or hrrn-//lihrarvF mnnicnrle cnm/oatewav_rill/Cn/r.nlnradol1219/1251/1253?f_temnlates$fn-document._. 1/6/2005 ARTICLE IL ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT* Sec. 5-44. Compliance with subdivision regulations. Page 7 of 9 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction of a dwelling or main building, applicable subdivision regulations existing at the time the building permit was issued shall be complied with by the owner or his assigns. This shall include the proper installation of curb, gutter and sidewaik in compliance with the adopted standards, installation of streets adjacent to the building site as required by the regulations, installation of proper fire hydrants to meet the standards adopted, proper connection to public water and sewer facilities as required by ihe regulations, and compliance with other adopted standards. (Ord. No. 1996-1039, § 1, 7-29-96) Sec. 5-45. Public improvements required. (a) Applications for building permits shall be reviewed by the department of public works to determine whether the proposed construction wili require ihe installation or construction of pubiic improvements including, but not limited to, street paving, curbs, gutters, sidewaiks, drainage facilities, or other pubiic improvements as may be required by ordinance or the subdivision regulations. (b) If it is determined by the department of public works that any such public improvements are necessitated by the proposed construction based upon ihe specific adverse effects created by the proposed construction, including, but not limited to, drainage, traffic, street continuity, curb, gutter and sidewalk, relocation or undergrounding of utilities, street lighting, roadway construction), the department of pubiic works shall so inform the buiiding official, and in such event a condition shall be inserted in the building permit which shall require the construction of such public improvement or public improvements by the property owner and the dedication thereof to the city. All such improvements are to be constructed in fuil compliance with the city's engineering division regulations, design standards and construction specifications. The cost of any such improvements shall be borne by the property owner, and the construction thereof shall be at the sole cost, risk and expense of the property owner, subject to the provisions of any applicable city ordinance, regulations or policies. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) below, failure to construct any such required public improvements shall entitle the city to withhold any certificate of occupancy. (c) If it is determined by the department of public works, after consideration of the factors set forth below that such public improvements may be placed at a later date. An escrow amount equalling one hundred (100) percent of the estimated cost of the required public improvements shall be deposited with the city. The cost estimate wili be prepared by the engineering division, based upon current construction costs prior to issuance of a building permit. (i) The installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and related roadway improvements may not be required where less than half of the properties on the street extending five hundred (500) feet from the lot Iines of the property in question, on both sides of the fronting street, have in existence curbs, gutters and sidewalks. (2) No curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall be required for a remodeling of an existing building. (3) Installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks would be impractical or economically unfeasible or not in the best interest of the city at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. (d) In no event shall installation of curbs, gutters or sidewalks be required if the cost of installation of such curbs, gutters, sidewaiks and other improvements exceeds ten (10) percent of the cost of the building permii value. In this case, an escrow in the amount of ten (10) percent of the value of the building permit shall be deposited with the city by the property owner prior to issuance of a building permit for the improvements. http://library6.municode.comJgateway. EXHIBIT 2 nplates$fn=document... 1/6/2005 ARTICLE H. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT'* Page 8 of 9 ° In addition, the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall neither be required nor allowed upon any street designated as an exempt local street in the city's comprehensive plan nor shall the department require an escrow for public improvements. (e) In any such event, a development agreement shall be signed by the owner of the ' property, pursuant to the subdivision regulations of the city, which development agreement shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years from the date of execution by the property owner, unless sooner released of record by the city. (f) Any owner, contractor or developer who is aggrieved by a decision of the department of pubiic works requiring installation of such public improvements or escrowing of funds in lieu of construction shail have the right to appeal the departmenYs determination to the board of adjustmenf pursuant to section 2-61 of the city's Code of Laws. (Ord. No. 1996-1039, § 1, 7-29-96) Secs. 5-46--5-55. Reserved. DIVISION 3. ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS' *State law references: Electrical inspection fees, C.R.S. § 12-23-117. Sec. 5-56. Generally. All electrical work performed under the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to inspection by the division and certain iypes of work shall have continuous special inspection by privately employed qualified inspectors. All inspections, except those requiring a special inspection, shait be requested at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the actual physical inspection. (Ord. No. 1996-1039, § 1, 7-29-96) Sec. 5-57. Certificate of test; retest and suspension of certificate. (a) The chief building officiai may, at his option, accept a certificate of test from a licensed contractor in lieu of actual inspection. Such certificate shall be on a form prescribed by the chief building official, shali be signed by a responsible representative of the licensed person, and shall set forth the date of test and the results obtained therefrom. (b) The chief building official or his authorized representative may retest any installation or assembly on which a certificate has been filed and, in the case of substantial discrepancy in the results of this test, may suspend any contractor's privilege to file such certificate in lieu of actual inspection. (Ord. No. 1996-1039, § 1, 7-29-96) Sea 5-58. Type required. Required inspections shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Rough-in first inspection which shall consist of all conduits, semirigid piping or http://library6.municode.com/gateway.dlUCO/colorado/12 i9/ 1251/1253?f=templates$fn=document... 1/612005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Building Permit Number : 17817 BUILDING INSPECTION LINE -(303-2345933) Date : 10J1/2004 CITY OF WHEAT RiDGE 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 - (303-235-2855) „ L 071 Property Owner: MARK AND KIM DAVIS Property Address : 4240 GARLAND ST. Phone : 423-3926 Contractor License No. : 22100 Company : Northstar Homes Inc. Phone :(970) 667-8830 OWNeR/CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERS7ANDING AND AGREEMENT Valuation : $183,075.00 1 hereby certify that tbe setback distances proposed by Nis pertnit application are accurate, and permit Fee : $1,903.47 do not violate applicable ordinances, rules or regulations of Me Ciry of Wheat Ridge or covenants, easemen4s or restrictions of record; that a1i measuremenis shown, and allegations PIBn RevieW Fee : $1,237.26 made are accurate; that I have read and agree to abide by atl oonditions prin[ed on ihis 196 $2 90 T U applicaGon, and that I assume full responsibility for wmpliance wiM the Whea[ Ridge Building , . ax : se Code (U.B.C.) and ail other applicableV ~ {~eal R id ~ o rd'~ I an ' fw work under this permit. ( , ~ . ( ) J~ J , (OWNERxCONTRACTOR) SIGNED -Y.~LlMI- / ! DATEkU Total : $5.337.63 Use: too.oo con 150.0o EF Description : SINGLE FAMILY RANCH WITH GARDEN LEVEL BASEMEtVT ~0 eF 5F Sd~ " '~oo ~ t3`t . fo~oo BUILDINGDEPARTMEN~pP~~a~r FL : 1424 Approval:,lH 9/30104 °v ~w Zoning : R•2 G~ ~ ~~r4 (bF~~o 111e0tioe-26-3o1(q q OK W/ NOTES 9127/04 ~M2 de~y maa fmm dt Po~nr b~ro dx+lAr+hd/bs nvlaad Approval : CR ' ~t drfakpiowiad~aUm~~, OK. 9/24104. (NEED TO ESCROW FOR PUBLIC iMPROYEMENTS Approval : DFB 3,013.60). SEE ATTACHED SHEETS Occupancy : R-3 W alls : Roof : Stories : Residential Units Electrical License No : 21864 PlumblEng~--sEM~ l b~ Mechanical License No :22123 Company :Brautigam ElecVic Inc. ~ p~r p.r m,n,ry (l0)~feer (orp„a6pmpany : Antelope Plains Heating Expiration Date : 2128/2005 ~f7D1A0a'"1Ob`PkOwed11Jrhi"d„jro,r 8 A'r sdbaet 1otvum~ocofoeer[lfemeoJ 0cmPaml Approval : OK/KS ~~M+~y-I+vepucene (15x) oj~pi~tion Date : 10/7/2005 nc tss+lha+one &omsd porenv (100Vproval : ok/ks Vj)md+hd/ bs lan*mPxd (1) TNs permil was iasued in axadance wNh the pvvisims s4ollftlid to llie laws oi ttie Stare of CobraOO aM W Ihe Zoning RegulaUOnc aM BuiWup Cale d Wheet RiOge. Cobrado u ary omar e0pwapa oramanma m ma Gity. (2) This pemiit shall eoie if (A) Ihe Mork aWtwriaetl is nDt mnunenoBtl witlhn suaY (80) days Gom i6u» Aate a(8) iM -_"`M>ed is suspaMed a (3) abaMmed tor a pBriotl of 120 Geya. If Cris Darmit expirea, a nar+0ermit may be ac9uued tor e fee of aneJwll the amourrt nortnaly requued. DmAdeA m ori8uW Wens antl sDeaficetions anE an susPensbn or abantlonment nac rwt exceedeC one (1) ear tt chanpes y y . tn> exceeds one (1) Yesr.lWl feas shail be Paid lor a new pertnit ro „ork arany marm,"icea«e that wiuChWW marko,minow or~~musing earainve roblem. y2y0 G ,5> cano-acar sUi rron,y me auxane insvectDr +wenlyfour (z.) rours in advance,o. an i,specba,n aa aWi ,ecenp c~f"lewit+ a~ ~~av d 30 (6) The issuarwe of a povel d dmwoWti-A ' spedfwations shall not be mn 3, y~' , prOVi5iW15 0f nIBfKG.12w. NIE 0fleBW2GW1. o w ~i+~ I:~~7 7 ~ ~rww ' ~ momia ~ s ~ lo Chief Building Inspector IIO MPH t/sre _ Please sign Terms and Conditions o~~&*w- EXHIBIT 3 ~ i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SINGLE-FAMILY/DUPLEX BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW Date: 9~Zy,o e1 I,ocation: S(ZIqD S7-*_,E~ AITENTION: BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~ o m eoL~POo I have reviewed the submitted application documents to construct a SN(~tE ~//-~ry ~LY .~si~EU cE to be located at the above referenced address. Please note the summaiy comments below. 1. ✓ Drninage: a. Drainage Certification LetEer & Plan required: Yes ✓ No b. Lot drainagelgading to be reviewed by Building Division: c. Site drainagelgrading plan has been reviewed and is: _OK _ Not OK; refer to stipulations. 2. ✓ Public Improvements to be completed a. street paving/patching: Yes ✓ No b. curb & gutter. Yes ✓ No c. sidewalk: Yes ✓No If not, the amount of escrow taken: ~ Items escrow is taken for. !o " L/,EX7- cu,zay N'W.~~ S.D~w.+nx, Z~ H-8P A.a-ru+~~(s.- . Is an Escrow Ageement required: Yes _ No 3. v- State Highway AccessPermit needed: _ Yes _~No 4. ✓ Does all exisung roadway/alley R.O.W. meet the standards of the City: ✓ Yes _ No If not, what is requested: w)/A If R.O.W. is reyuired, has the deed been received: _ Yes _ No 5. ✓ APPRO,VED: The Public Works Depaitment has reviewed the submitted material and hereby approves this Permit Apptication, svbject to the above and/or attached stipula6ons. Signature David F. Brossman, P.L.S. Date 6. "04 NOT APPROVED: The Public Works Depaziment has reviewed the submitted material and dces not approve this Permit Application for the reasou(s) stated: Signature David F. Brossman, P.L.S. Date 7. 44 Stipulations attached: _ Yes _ No 8. A Drainage Certification Letter is required prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) 9. ✓ NOTE: Any damage to the existing Public Improvements as a result of this conslrucUOn is to be repaired ~ to meet City standards by the Pemrit Applicant prior to the issuance of the Certificate of ~ Occupancy. 9iz3nooa Engineer's Cost Estimate Escrow Funds for Public Improvements 4240 Gazland Street Item CosWnit 2' wide X 6" HBP (asphalt) Patching $ 27.00 6" vertical curb $ 15.00 4" thick X 4' wide sidewalk $ 37.50 Frontage for 4240 Garland Sveet = 80.00 feet Item Cost/LF LF Totals HBP Patching: $ 6.00 80.00 = $ 480.00 6" Vertical Curb: $ 15.00 80.00 = $ 1,200.00 Sidewalk: $ 16.67 80.00 = $ 1,333.60 Total Cost for Improvements - $ 3,013.60 Fsumau By: David F. Brossman. Ikvelopmrn[ Review Engoea Unit SY LF SY $6.00/L.F. for a 2' wide patchback) $16.67/L.F. for a 4' wide walk) 4240 Gazland - PI Estim Date: A Certificate of Occupancy / Compleiion has been requested for. ADDRESS: PURPOSE OF SaRUCTURE: Building Department Approva Remarks: ,j r~ Zoning Remarks:q .111 ~~t/DY -okP" .rr'fuPd af~u~l,~~( IPfkr aqo( Jr~~~r~ l aHtl uY < t rcvmv 0 y /t e=vr wr~- Public Worlcs Approval: !!,,i GX ,,11.~,8 ~ Remarks: Fire Marshall Approval: (If Applipble) - San"itafion Distrid Apl (If Applipble) Remarks: Water District Approval: (tf Applicable) 1 \ Remarks: EXHIBIT 4 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303/235-2846 Fax:303/235-2857 The City o, f W h.eat Ridge January 26,2005 Mazk and Kim Davis 4240 Cmrland Street M Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 u~ RE: Certificate of Occupancy (C.O) for Single Family Residence at 4240 Crarland Street T'he public works department determined on the building permit application for a single family residence at the above mentioned address that an escrow for public improvements in the amount of $3,013.60 will be required. The property owners azo requesting a waiver to this requirement. Per the Code of l.aws Su. 5-45 (f) the right exists to appeal this detemtination to the Boazd of Adjiutment. The issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (C.OJ for the single family residence at 4240 Gazland is subjut to the following: • The requirement for submission of an escrow is contingent upon the decision rendered at the Februazy 24, 2005 Board of Adjustment hearing. In order for the C.O. to be issued, the property owners must submit the application and pay the necessary fee of $390 for the above mentioned waiver for the Boud of Adjustment hearing bv Mondav. Februarv 7. 2005. • If the request for a waiver to public improvements is approved, the propaty owner's do trot havc to pay the escrow amount mentioned above and the C.O. remains vaiid as long as all other condiuons of the C.O. aze met. If the request for a waiver to the public improvemenu is denied at the February 24, 2005 Board of Adjustment hearing, the property owner must pay the specified escrow amount within 30 days of the Board of Adjustment hearing for the C.O. to remain valid. Failure to. do so may result in a Summons being filed with the Wheat Ridge Municipa] Court. Sincerely, ~ Planning Technician, Community Development Depaztmeni I hsve rred antl umlecsfand the above conditions. ao S rty Owter Dau Gty of Wheat Ridge \ l Department oi Public WwkS MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff HiR, Pianner Tech FaoM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works / CC: Dave Brossman, Civil Engineer oare: February 16, 2005 Suadec7; Public Improvemenis at 4240 Gariand Street The application for a building permit for a new house at 4240 Garland Street was reviewed b~ Public Works Staff on September 24, 2004. Garland Street is relatively flat south of 44 Avenue and proper drainage facilities are not in place to drain runoff from properties along the street. Development of this lot would also increase the amount of runoff in the street, as the building and driveway wili decrease the vegetated area avaiiable for stormwater infiltration. As provided in City Code Section 5-45, a determination was made that curb, gutter and sidewalk were required along the frontage of the lot if a house were constructed. Gutter and sidewalks are not constructed at this time in front of adjacent lots and, therefore, it was determined that the improvements would be constructed at a later time in conjunction with construction of other curb, gutter and sidewalk along the street. The City code provides that the estimated cost of the construciion of the improvements be placed in escrow to insure financial participation by the building permit applicant. It is important to understand ihe purpose of Section 5-45 of the City Code. Individual ptoperty owners typically do not improve their properties on the same timeline and it is not practical (and sometimes not functional) to build disconnected segments of improvements, such as curb, gutter and sidewalk. The City Code provides that required improvements, such as curb and gutter, can be constructed after a sufficient number of properties along a street have been required to construct the improvements adjacent to their properties. Escrows in place can then be used to buiid a larger project that will serve the neighborhood. EXHIBIT 5 Survey of Residents - Board of Adjustment February 24, 2005 Hearing Neighborhood of Garland and Garrison Streets; South of 44`h Avenue Would you be for es or aQainst no sidewalks, curbs and gutters in your neighborhood should the City of Wheat Ridge pursue such improvements? Name and Address Yes No ~.Undecided V ~ ~ 2. ;,s~l"1 T ~ :'G C=,av~~Ga r"' n 4. ~ -/7 7u' 5. T,vs~ ~j-'a;.~~.,~•~ - ~ 6. ~k.- '"4 i\'} Y". r. K'23: ! ndvili~CL , 5~- ~ x X EXHIBIT 6 Name and Address C' LF't!V17 9. ' A• T-74 Z S/ • ; i „ ~AM ~3~- 14. rlol 3 3'' GJ~if ~ 1~N1~~7' 15. Ss/ ~ftrzc,~.Y~ ~ . ~ 16. ~in~--~---- Yes No L-- " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X "Y Undecided , ~ Name and Address 17. ` t2/G/ ~a ~ lan ~ST~ y2c r&, G S 7 19. ckl c-L'Yn.trtl 20. nJ ~y- zi. 14) /2i~y' ~ 1*1 11 25 A • r 26. ~ • ~ 3 ( ~ ~ ~"'✓l Yes No Undecided ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ V ~ Nazne and Address 27. ~ ' vey~~<, ! 28. ccrr~' ~`s~~~ ~275 ~rirvi$v•1 st'- ! 29. iJ-u`e P' 30. , 9a--is jV~y-z"r 32. 33 34. 35 Yes No \4 Ll---, -LZ ~ Undecided 36 ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ -w- d M w EXHIBIT 7 F-- r CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ; °Otoep~° TO: Boazd of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-03Battershill DATE OF MEEITNG: March 24, 2005 ACTION REQiJESTED: Approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yazd setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential One A (R-lA). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3811 VJright Court APPLICANI' (S): Jeffrey Battershill OWNER (S): Jeffrey Battershill APPROXIMATE AREA: 12,500 (.287 acres) PRESENT ZOrTING: Residential One A(R-IA) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FII.E & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE I.ocation Map ~ \ Subject R-1 ~ ~M Q U F C~ ~ ~ 0 M LLN) N PCD F w w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M N tr~l I~ if soara ornaju,hroeoi 1 Case WA-05-03/6at[ashill - Jurisdiction Al] notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heu this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 3811 Wright Court. The property has Residentiai One (R-lA) zoning. The applicant, JefFrey Battershill, is requesting this variance as the property owner (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The request is for approval of a 5 foot side yazd setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for detached gazages over 8 feet in height (Exhibit 2, Site Plan/II.,C). The purpose of the variance request is to allow for the construction of a detached garage of approximately 960 squaze feet. The property currently has an existing single family residence and attached two car garage. The R-lA zone district allows single family uses and accessory buildings. It should be noted that in 2003, the setback requirement which is applicable to this variance was changed. Prior to the current regulation, adopted by City Council in 2003, the setback requirement was 5 feet in the R-3 zone district for detached gazages, regardless of height. Therefore the proposed garage would have been allowed under the previous setback requirements. The applicant has stated reasons for his variance request in the letter of request. The applicant had made arrangements for the construction of the garage prior to the adoption of the new setbacks in 2003, whereas the garage in the location proposed would have been considered conforming. The applicant has stated that he was unaware of these changes that took place in 2003 until recently. The applicant also has stated that the conswction of the proposed garage will allow for the vehicles he currently has parked outside on the property to be pazked inside away from view. A letter of objection has been received by an adjacent property owner (Exhibit 3, L,etter of Objection). All other development standards have been met with this request. II. SITE PLAN The property is approximately 12,500 squaze feet, or .287 acres. The property measures 100 feet wide with a depth of 125 feet. The property is considerably larger than the minimum lot size and lot width for the R-lA zone district. The R-lA zone district has a minimum lot size of 9,000 squaze feet, and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The azea surrounding the property in question consists of single fanuly homes with attached gazages. There aze not any detached garages in the immediate vicinity of this property. To the best of staft's Imowledge, there have not been any setback variances approved in the immediate vicinity related to this request. II. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the condi&ons allowed by regulation for the district in wh[ch 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. B~a otnayusb~t 2 Case WA-05-03BattersLill 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The request may have an effect on the essential chazacter of the ]ceality. None of the properties in the immediate vicinity have detached garages. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplucai condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? There are no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. The property in question is rectangular in shape and flat. The property is larger than the minimum lot size and width for the R-lA zone district. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardsltip been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a gazage in this location. There may be other alternatives for placement of the garage, although this may be problematic for the applicant. There is also an existing two caz garage that may be utilized. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering t6e public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other property in the area. There may be a decrease in the supply of light and air to adjacent properties, as approval of the variance would provide for the conswction of a 960 square foot gazage. The request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granGng 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 in a substantial benefit oi contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM1ViENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are not supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there aze not unique circumstances athibuted to these requesu that would warrant 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 retum in use. The property may still be used as a single family residence without the need for any variances. 2. The request may have an effect on the essential chazacter of the locality. None of the properties in the immediate vicinity have detached garages. Board of Adjushnent 3 Case WA-05A3Battershill 3. The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a gazage in this location. 4. The request would not result in a substanual benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. 5. While the applicant faces unfortunate circumstances, the code amendment regarding setbacks applicable to this case heazd before city council adhered to all public notificadon procedures. It is not the responsibility of the city to provide notice to all citizens personally for such hearings. ~ Board ot ndjusnnent 4 Case WA-05-03/Battas6ill Jeffrey B Battershill 3811 Wright Court Wheatridge, CO 80033 303 431 4785 02-09-2005 L.etter of request for variance The purpose of my request is to build a detached garage as I had planed upon since the purchase of the property. The garage is a needed comfort for me to continue my personal hobby of coilecting, cherishing and preserving ciassic motor vehicles. The city changed the setback requirement to ten feet in November of 2003. My plan is to build a detached gazage five feet from the south property line and ten feet from the back or west property line. Prior to buying my home in July of 1994, I called the ciry to confirm what could be done. 1 was advised that the setbacks were five-foot from the back property line and a total of fifteen feet for the sides. (North and south, five feet on one and ten feet on the other) Existing structure is 19 feet plus away from property line on both sides. The city changed the set back rules in November of 2003. I was not notified of this change and if I were aware, I would have built the garage prior to the change. I applied for a home equity line of credit and approved three years ago and just now have I borrowed against the loan for the garage. I have not used the loan for anything else. The advantage to the five-foot setback as compared to the ten-foot; 1. Adding the guage to the lot without detriment to the usage of the back yard and keeping the access within reason. Having five extra feet of property on the south side of the aarage is wasted space and can be used/enjoyed as part of the main area of the back yazd if on the north side. Adhering to the ten foot set back would interfere with direct access to proposed garage door as it would be partially blocked by existing scructure and I would need to remove a red maple tree. 2. To keep public view clear of what is often described to as derelict or unattracUVe vehicles EXHIBIT 1 3. To enhance the value of my property and my life as well as the lives of my neighbors. 4. Since I have been planning this for many years and the last time I spoke with a ciry planner, Darin was his name, in early 2003 and nothina had changed nor did he mention that it was about to change, I went ahead with the first task of this project which was to have my underb ound main power line moved as it was in the way of the planned foundation area. In order to do this I was required to bring the electrical on my home up to code which consisted of a main breaker switch, complete new electrical box with monitor mounted on the back of my home and correct a ounding per present code. Public Service required me to hire their contractor to lay the new power line and I hired my own excavator and electrician for the remainder of work. (I want to point out that I moved the power line far enouah to the north to build my planned gazage. If I were to buiid the same narage but five feet to the north, I would have to move the power line again!) (All required permit(s) were obtained for this work.) Sincerely, Jeff Battershill ~ C"?ILI,Axv'S ENGIP:EERTNG, INC: 6477 Tumpike Dme, Suae 203 • Wesvninner, CO 80030 •(3G3) 4267731 ~ IIvIF'12OVEMEN`I' LOGATION CER'I'IFICATE Mit wa;t~~~z tr, 'T`t @; s t f° •,".`..~~."+tt„vo i"s"v.~vw. F? xCa'sf ,a.+ivx lv i:"i1an:a.. sf~`z~ of 421M~W-1 i^vb.oG' n. 1~ 7_I ;2iGA2A 2 ~.1'n_ . rcua,,.l 3 ic+sadsacwubthc~rmiHCDredWA~driamonflmdHuad&amdvyimpn. S~ oodbamdbwndvy W* D. d Fne~wio:.~ . r';FST FLNDSNd ?'_-NFNC7AL SERVf~C£S.tnD w^d.aL:pRADb`£SCAntF ~odamYSURrvitiaomtlthuitumtatmdSweyAaorio~ S~Ypl+,+edthuituootm~fslie3 faallrceruy' fwa.Mvldiv~,aorLvfmmeimpmvurcmlirsuiLNevcMfp WU~heimNvve~ossm~heaboxdmmbed "Pm IuLmrntM mmectimsudfeoo-..aMl...a«~m... _ . Tuvaou~AiadueamnwiV~rv mmmeema ~m~e thm en Y~ tmm the dste EXHIBIT 2 ~'4R 1 8 2Pr` i _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ Mazch 16, 2005 CASE NO. WA-05-03 3811 WRIGHT COURT Response to request for set back changes by owner. He is asking to forgive a zoning law so that he may further advance his hobby of collecting, cherishing and displaying junk cars that are pazked in front of his residence and on the street. This is an R-IA Zoned area which means a residential environment and not a memorial junk car display. See submitted photographs. The Landscaping has been neglected since 1994 when he moved onto the property. Four trees have been removed, a red leaf Maple is dead and what was once a beautiful tlvck, green Lawn is now weeds and dust. All trees have broken branches that have not been removed, nor have they been trinuned, with over growth onto my property. This may be irrelevanY to the question of set backs but I feel the Boazd should have some background before making their decision. He was negligent in pursuing final approval when first submitted for review and that is no fault of the planning department for not informing him of setback changes. Funding the project is also irrelevant since the Board does not base its decision on funding. He has said to various neighbors that if he didn't obtain the five foot approval that he would pazk cazs in that space. These cazs will endanger my property because of noxious fiunes and possible volatility. The advantage of an additional five feet to the North yazd means nottung because he does not keep up the landscaping in any case. He mentions in his request to keep" the public view cleaz of derelict and unattractive velucles" then why is he building this structure if not to keep these vehicles inside away from public view. Tlvs out structure does not increase the value of properties, in fact it decreases the value because of a limited market for residential out buildings. This structure is not azchitecturally pleasing to anyone purchasing adjacent properties. He began to build this project without final approved construction documents, he therefore beazs the responsbility of any construction mistakes and it is not a valid reason for this request to change setback requirements. We doubt that this person has the respect for his neighbor's properties to keep this structure and his landscaping pleasing and well maintained. Tlvs is why we ask the Boazd ofAdjustment to deny his request. 'I'hank You Ratph and Josephine Santangelo 3801 Wright Court ;aJfA-- EXHIBIT 3 °F wHE4TQ'o a? m c~(OPP~O 4 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANIVING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: R'A-05-04Bandimere DATE OF MEETING: March 24, 2005 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 2 foot variance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standazd pursuant to Section 26-603 resulting in an 8 foot fence on property zoned Residential One B (R-1B). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3655 Chase Street APPLICANI' (S): John C. Bandimere Jr. OWNER (S): John C. Bandimere Jr. APPROXIMATE AREA: 8,748 (201 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential One B(R-iB) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map M ~ PRD o r~i g r~ m Subject Parcei 3697 5 u~ ~ (D M I Board of Adjusiment Case WAA5404/Bandimere (X) DIGTfAL PRESENTATION 3745 3740 ~ . M 3739 3730 ~ R"1 r~ 3720 r i 3715 tf) W 3710 R-1A m F- 3675 W W is it X 3700 M ~ ~ z ~ W O cM o fA M co Z _ ~ W U 00 M LO t!> cr) ED M 4 ~ n 1 Jurisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 3655 Chase Street. The property has Residential One B(R-1B) zoning. The applicant, John C. Bandimere 7r., is requesting this variance as the property owner (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The request is for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standazd pursuant to Section 26-603 of the Code of Laws resulting in an 8 foot fence. The 8 foot fence is proposed to go on the south side of the property in the backyazd. The property in question sits apprmcimately 2 foot lower in elevation than the property to the south, separated by a retaining wall. This retaining wall follows the approximate location of the property line (Exhibit 2, Survey). The purpose of this variance request is to conscruct a fence 8 feet in height on the north side (ground level of propeRy in question) of the approximately 2 foot retaining wall to allow for adequate privacy for the property owner (Exhibit 3, Photos Submitted by Applicant). The location of the above mentioned retaining wall makes it problematic for the property owner to construct a privacy fence 6 foot in height that provides a true 6 feet of privacy. Per the Code of Laws Sec. 26-603 (1)(2) the height of the fence is measured from finished gade, 5 feet inside the property which it belongs. Regudless of whether the fence was on top of the approximately 2 foot retaining wall or on ground level, the fence could not exceed 6 feet above finished grade of the property in question. In other words, if the fence was constructed on top of the retaining wall for the property in queseon, it could not exceed approximately 4 feet in height per the above mentioned section of the Code of Laws. However, if the fence was conswcted on top of the retaining wall by the property owners to the south, it could be constructed up to 6 feet This would be allowed because the height of the fence would be measured from finished grade, 5 feet inside the property, which siu approximately 2 feet higher than the property to the north (Exhibit 4, Fence Height IDustration). The 6 foot fence height requirement is applicable to azeas of the property not within the minimum required front yud, in this case the minimum required front yard setback is 30 feet. The variance request is to allow for a fence 8 feet in height along the south approximately 94 feet from the southwest property corner going east, making it not within the minimum required front yard. The Code of Laws states that no fences are allowed above the height of 48 inches within a minimum required front yard. ff fhe appiicant wishes to construct a fence within this minimum required front yard, it cannot exceed 48 inches in height measured from 5 feet inside of finished grade on the property in question. H. SITE PLAN The property is approximately 8,748 squaze feet, or .201 acres. The property measures 60 feet wide with a depth of 145.80 feet. The azea surrounding the property in question consists of single family homes. to the north and east, multi- family to the west, and a two family dwelling on the property to the south which is adjacent to the lceation of the proposed fence. The property to the south (3625 Chase Street) is also zoned R-1B, which only allows for one fanuly dwellings. To the best of stafPs Imowledge, this property has been classified as a lega] nonconfornung two unit dwelling. This status was last confirmed in Ocrober of 2003, pursuant to a court ruling in 2001 making this deternrination. A variance to fence height was appmved for the adjacent property to the south, 3625 Chase Street, in 1983. The regulation for a 48 inch maximum fence height within a minimum required front yazd was essentially the same as it is now in Sec. 26-603 of the current code in 1983. The variance was to allow a 5 foot fence within the \ Board ot Adjustment Case WA-OS-ONBandimere minimum required front yard. The reasons for the variance request were stated to be for safety purposes, as there is a ditch immediately to the south of 3625 Chase Street. Staff could not find any conclusive information pertaining to whom constructed the retaining wall on the south of the property in question, and when it was constructed. II. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. The property may still be used as a single family residence without the need for any variances. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential c6aracter of the locality? The request will have a minimal effect on the essential chazacter of the Iceality. An 8 foot fence at the proposed location will be less impactive given the grade change between the two properties. 3. Dces 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? There is an approximately 2 foot grade change along a retaining wall between the property in question and the property to the south. The manner in which the height of the fence is measured pursuant to the Code of Laws (from finished grade 5 feet inside property which it belongs) makes it problematic to have a true 6 foot privacy fence for the property owners on this portion of the lot. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a fence of 8 feet in height in this ]ceation. However, the grade change and retaining wall may be considered a hazdship relative to fence height standards. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the pubGc welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the azea. There may be a decrease in the supply of light and air to the property to the south, as approval of the variance would provide for the construction of a fence 8 feet in height along the south property line. However, the fence would be approximately 6 feet above the grade of the property to the south. The request would not substantially increase the congestion in public sueets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request. 6. If criteria 1 t6rough 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 We part of the applicant, or would granting of che variance msult in a reasonable accommodetion of a person with disabilities? Board of Adjusftnent 3 Case WA-05-04Bandimere 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. 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 that the above criteria aze supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there aze unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. There is an approximately 2 foot grade change along a retaining wall between the property in question and the property to the south. The mauner in which the height of the fence is measured pursuant to the Code of Laws (from finished grade 5 feet inside property which it belongs) makes it problematic to have a we 6 foot privacy fence for the property owners on this portion of the lot. 2. The request wIll have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. An 8 foot fence at the proposed location will be ]ess impactive given the grade change between the two properties. VJith conditions: 1. The fence height variance is approved for the 94 feet along the south property line as specified by the applicant in Exhibit 1. Construction of a fence within the minimum required front yazd must adhere to applicable height standards including the method in which the fence height is measured. \ Board of Adjusfinent 4 Case WA-05-041Bandrmere . John and Lorraine Bandimere Jr. 3655 Chase Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80212-7091 Febniary 21, 2005 The City of Wheat Ridge Colorado Land use case processing application Community Development Department 7500 West 29h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Detailed description of request for a Variance We aze asking for a fence height vaziance of 8' for 94' on the South side of our home, from our property level. The fence will start at the farthest South/West corner of our properiy and be 8'in height for 94'. Then the fence will gradually (over 15') come down to 4' from our properiy level, to the farthest South/East corner of our property. If you will let us have this vaziance the fence will only be 6' in height on Magalei's property, because there is an unsightly cement retaining wall of approximately 2' between our properties. A 6' fence (which is city code) will not hide what we deal with, that is why we aze asking for the vaziance. We have lived in our home on Chase Street, for 37 years. Our neighbor to the South of our property, Melody Magalei, rents out her home to several tenants. We aze very disappointed in the way that the renters take caze of the properry and the owner has no concern about it, (as she lives in Utah). Lonaine is a stay at home wife and helpmate who cazes about our home and the surrounding neighbors. Many calls have been made to Wheat Ridge Code Enforcement about what goes on at this property. They find ways to bypass the rules and we are tired of looking at the filth, as well as picking up their trash and toys. This is a single family dwelling with an attached apartment and an attached garage that was converted to be an additional apartment. Code Enforcement looked into this and made the ruling that one family can live in the main dwelling and one in the attached apartment, including the converted gazage. Probiem is that the family living in the apartment is a mother and her x-husband, her daughter and her live-in, along with two small kids and a third one on the way. To comply with the rules they cut an entry joining the two to make it appeaz as one apartment, and there aze three outside doorways to this unit. Lastly, the Magalei property is a disgrace to our city and if left to continue the way it is, it will end up pulling all of the surrounding properties value down with it. I have attempted to contact Melody to see if we could handle this in a neighborly way and have received no response. Thank you for your consideration to the Variance matter. PS: Photo exhibits attached Signature of applicant ' Sub o to me tlu y of 005 . • e TA io ~ Notary Public $~RADES M 's ion e " es : • : • EXHIBIT 1 SURVEY OF A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 25 TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH,RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLOftADO S 8942'07" E 2648.75' _ L- - _ _ 1 - ' 750a.55' NW CORNER NORTHEA57 1/4 SECTION 25 1 3 7/2" BRAS$ CAP IN ~ RANGE POiNT BOX STAMPED 'LS 28279' i I lo 0 IN 20 0 'C 226 30 N 89'42'07' W 745.80' IMPROVEMENTS DEtJ8ERAIELY N0T SHOWN S 89'42'07" E EDGE OF WALL ON 745.80' r PROPER7Y UNE 11 L /T ✓ L--E6CE pr-WISL iS 0.3' N OF T ~ PROPERN CARNQ2 ' ~~WZ ~i.wZ N~wZ N4WZ RECOVERED 7 1/2' PIPE 0.9 ' r w Z ;-c o a' o a ~ o g~ O ao zi EAST OF CORNER . NORTH AND 0.4 ' ~ °o ~ a s a ~ a u? w a SOUTH . . RECOVERED jY5 REBAR 0.7 ~ d o o o pND. 4.0' EAST OF CORNER PREPARED B1': LhNE ENGINEERMGSERVICE, INC. ~ 9500 WEST taiti AvENUE, lwCEw00D, CO 80215 Tn. fznx% 9ii_n(169 . CGY. /iOS1- 9Sl-(179iq . I I / 1743.60' NE CORNER NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 25 3 7/2' BRASS CAP IN RANGE POINT BOX STAMPED "LS 28279" I I °ol o1 ~ a N r M • 'p N 1143.60' - 3 I ~ ~ I ,lo - RECOVERED REBAR WnH CAP STAMPED "LS 844" 0.8' NORTH AND 0.4' EAST OF CORNER j ~ : POIN7 OF BEGINNING i i i ~ oz °l O ON J N~ p V I W 2 ^j N§UZ EOGE OF WALL IS 0.3' W OF PROPERTY CORNER °o W o 3 N 0 °o ~ m WALL CORNER IS 0.6' S IAN00.2'WOF oonocorv rnauco DESCRIPitON: THE SOUTH 60 FEET OF THE FOLLON7NG DESCRIBED PROPERTY iHAT PART OF THE W 1/2 NE 1/4 NE 7/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUiH; RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 67H P.M.. DESCRIBED AS FOLLON5: : BEGINNING AT A POINT ON iHE EAST UNE OF A.E. ANDERSON $USDIVISION, ACCORDING TO 7HE RECOROED PLAT. 7HEREOF, WHICH POINT IS 1143.6 FEET, MORE OR LESS, WEST ANO 570 FEET SWTH OF THE NORiHEAST CORNER.OF SAIDSECTION 25; THENCE SW7HERLY, PARALLEL N7TH 7HE EAST L1NE"OF SAID SEC770N, 120 fEET; THENCE EAS7, PARALLEL N77H 1FIE NORTH UNE Of SPJD SECi10N, .745.8 FEET, MOREOR IFSS, TO THE WEST LINE OF CHASE STREET, iHENCE NOR7FI 120 FEET; THENCE WEST, PARALLEL N7iH THE NORTH UNE Of SAIO SECTION, 145.8 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. - CERTIFlCATION 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF. MY KNOWlED6E, INFORMATION AND BEIJEF, THE ABOVE DRAWING IS AN ACCURATE DEUNEATION OF THE SURVEY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT, MP9E UNDER AfY SUPERVISION A(JD COMPLETED ON AUGUST 18, 2004, AND DOES ACCURATEIY DEPICT THE DIMENSIONS OF SAID TR4CT, ANO THE IOCATiON OF ALL EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY. VI518LY EVIDENT OR KNOWN TO AIE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE NOTES, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE INCLUDEO AND HEREBY MADE A PPRT OF THIS CERTIFlCATE., EGISTERED IAND SU(NEYOR COLORADO N0. 76837 NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACT10N B0.SED UPON ANYDEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFfER YOU fIRST OISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVEM, MAY ANY AC110N BASED UPQN ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEIJ YEAfi$FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICAnON SHOWN HEREON. NQIESt . - . . - . , 7. 5/8 INCH DIANETER tRON PIN WITH CAP STAMPED LANE ENG SRV INC 76837 IS SET ~ w AT POINT SHOWN.IHUS: • . - - - . . . , . y . ~ 2. THE LOCA710N OF THE EXISTING FENCES OR OTHER SIMIIAR F"EA7URE5 DENOTING . . ` UNES OF POSSESSION IN 7HE -VICINITY- QF THE PERIMEtER OF iHIS. TRACT, t5 THE . ~ ~ PERIMEfER I1A5 6EENESTP8LIS11ED 8Y THIS DESCRIPiION, MAY iNDICATE OWNERSHIP a - ACQUIRED OR LOSTTHROUGH UNRECARDED NEANS.'AN ATfORNtY SHOUtD BE ' -CONSULTED REGARDiNG THIS MATTER. nl . 3. 5/8"DIAMETERBRASS WASHER STAMPED "L$ 16837' SEf AL POINT.SHOWN THUS:O N o.l. . . . ' - . . - . . : . . . . _ . . . . ' . . SE CORNER NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 25 . 37 J2" BRASS..CAP IN..RANGE PO1NT $OX . EXHIBIT ~ . STANPED.•'LS 1321Y. . . . . . . . .'~PREPAREDr 09f03/04'- . , . - , . . '..PROJEC7• 81$4-2 i ~ ~ r a g:..i k H. '~aS'~CM1 4M 9.1 X.Il. I IBIT 3 ~ ~ ~ z~"+h a" . A^ e 1 ~ i ~ 1 a ~ ~ f= ! 1' ~ , r . ~ a . ~ 1 9! M°I m z 0 m _ m ~ - r r C ~ ~ ~ s O Z EXHIBIT'4 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT . C~(ONP~O ; \ TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: VJA-05-06/R'heat Ridge DATE OF MEETING: March 24, 2005 Housing Authority ACTION REQL7ESTED: Approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yazd and 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached gazages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential Three (R-3). LOCATION OF REQIJEST: 4501 Everett Street APPLICANI' (S): Wheat Ridge Aousing Authority OWNER (S): Wheat Ridge Housing Authority APPROXIMATE AREA: 20,052 square feet (.46 atres) PRESENI' ZOIVING: ResidenUal-Three (R-3) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FII,E & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map 1 ~ t~ u ~ Q ~ R-3 ~ ~ ❑ a~ U 1- ~ ~ w W ~ w j w W W > W Subject Parce G1 c-2 m boara or najashcent Case WA-05-06fW6eat Ridge Hou9ng Authority 1 Jurisdiction All notifcation and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case 1. REQITEST The property in question is Iceated at 4501 Everett Street. The property has Residential Three (R-3) zoning The applicant, Jerry DiTullio, Wheat Ridge Housing Authority chairperson, is requesting a variance on behalf of the owciers, the VJheat Ridge Housing Authority. The request is for approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the required 10 foot side and 10 foot reaz yard setback: Detached garages over 8 feet in height must be setback 10 feet from the side and rear yards in the R-3 zone district. The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 1,668 squaze foot (69.5' X 24') detached garage on the property (Exhibit 1, Site Plan). The proposed garage will be located 5 feet from the rear property line on the east, and 5 feet from the side property line on the north. Per the Code of Laws, the minimum side and rear yard setback for a detached garage in the R-3 zone district is 5 feet if the structure is less than 8 feet in height, and 10 feet if the structure is over 8 feet in height. The proposed garage is over 8 feet in height; therefore the 10 foot setback requirement is applicable for both the side and reaz yazds. As a result, a variance of 5 feet to both the side and rear yazds is required to allow for the proposed detached gazage at the lceation shown on the site plan. It should also be noted that the property is a comer lot, making the setback requirements more restrictive. The R-3 zone district regulations state that any side or reaz yard which abuts a public street shall have a setback of 30 feet for all structures (Exhibit 2, Buildable Portion of Lot). The R-3 zone district also specifies that the maximum allowable size for a detached garage is 600 square feet per unit. The property has an existing 8 unit multi-family residential structure on it; therefore the maximum size allowed for a detached gazage on this property is 4,800 squaze feet. Access into the proposed gazage wil] be from the exisung access off of 45'" Place, going north into the property. A substantial portion of the property lies willun the 100 yeaz floodplain. It is not certain at Uris time whether any portion of the proposed garage will lie within the floodplain. If it is deternrined that it will, a Class I floodplain exception will be required to construct the gazage. This may be placed as a condition upon the variance request if approved. A class I floodplain special exception permit can be approved administratively by the City's Flood Plain Administrator. All other development standards have been met with the proposed structure. Options appeaz to exist to build the detached garage to conform to either the side or rear yard setback, but it appears that in order to build a garage of this size, a variance to at least one of the setback requirements would be required. Placing the gazage further to the east, for example (to be in conformance with the rear yard setback), would likely require reducing the size of the garage given iPs proximity to the existing multi-family structure. Placing the detached garage further to the south, for example (to be in conformauce with the side yard setback), would also likely require reducing the size of the structure given iPs proximity to the existing multi-family shvcture. Given that there aze currently 8 residential units on the property, constructing a detached garage with multipie spaces is logical. It should be noted that in 2003, the setback requirement which is applicable to this variance was changed. Prior to the current regulation, adopted by City Council in 2003, the setback requirement was 5 feet in the R-3 zone district for detached garages, regudless of height. Therefore the proposed garage would have been allowed under the previous setback requirements. ~ soara ornaJushmen: 2 Case WA45-06/Wheat Ridge Houtiug AuNority . Goals of the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority aze to increase the number of owner-occupied units in the City, increase property values and provide affordable hbusing. Since its inception in 2001, the WRHA has successfully bought, rehabilitated and reintroduced 24 townhouse units into the City's housing stock. Proposed improvements to 4501 Everett include new floor coverings, new windows and kitchen remodeling (new ~ countertops, cabinets and appliances). II. SITE PLAN The property is approximately 20,052 sguaze feet, or .46 acres. The property measures 142 feet wide with a depth of 140 feet (Exhibit 3, Improvement I.ocaeon Certificate). There is currently no covered parking on the property for the 8 residential units. Residents pazk in a small paved azea behind the building, accessed off of 45`' Place, or on the sveet along Everett Street and 45th Place. The azea surrounding the property consists of multifamily to the north and the west, a pazk to the east, and a commercial use to the south. There is a common paved azea that encompasses three different properties, including the property in question. Three different multifamily buildings have unimpeded access to this paved area, although it dces encompass three different properties. II. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonabie 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 retum in use. The property may still be used as a multi-family residence without the need for any variances. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The request may have an effect on the essential character of the ]ceality. None of the surrounding multi- family residential shvctures have garages. 3. Dces the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a parficular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished fmm a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the mgulations were carried out? There aze no unique physical conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. The property in question is square in shape and flat but is a corner lot resulting in more restrictive setback requirements. 4. Has t6e 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. However, there aze limited options on the property for placement of a gazage to accommodate an 8 unit residential structure. It appears that a variance would be required for a sizeable detached garage regazdless of its placement. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfam or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in wl►ich the property is located, by, among other ' things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properiy, substan6ally increasing I~ - the congestion in pub6c streets or increasing ihe danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values wiWin the neighborhood? Board of Adjustment Case WA-05-06.M1Yheat Ridge flousiug Au[horiry Approval of the variance 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 to the properties to the north and west, given that approval of the variance would result in a structure closer to the property line than is allowed under current development standards. The request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values of the property in question and adjacent properties will be improved as a result of this request, as it is the opinion of staff that the property in question and adjacent properties are in need of improvements. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance resuit in a bene6t or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of t6e applicant, or woutd granting of the variance resuit in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request may result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or community distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. It is the opinion of staff that the property in question, and adjacent properties aze in need of improvements. Providing an incentive to make physical improvements to a dilapidated property may be beneficiai not oniy to the property in question, but to the surrounding area as a result The property in quesUOn is owned by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority, the intent of which is to provide a public service resulting in a contribution to the community. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff conclddes that the above criteria ue supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has very limited options for placement of a gazage to accommodate an 8 unit multifamily structure without the need for a variance or variances. 2. Approval of the variance would provide an incentive to make improvements to a dilapidated property, and perhaps be influenual for adjacent properties to do the same. 3. The intent of the property being owned by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority is to provide a public service resulting in a benefit to the community. Approval of the variance would therefore be related to providing a public service. With the following conditions: i. If it is determined that any portion of the structure is within the 100 year floodplain, a Class I floodplain exception will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The structure shall not have an exterior with visible metal materials. Board of Adjuxtment Case WA-054NW6eat itidge Hou9ng AuWority El I ~ ~ w~.. _ ~ i I i ~ i ~ i i ~ i~ i i 5 i" i i i ~ i ~ ~ i i i i ~ i ~ - ~ i ~ - -2- i : i i ~ ~ LI..-..-.._.._ IVROM ~ PLOT PL4N EXHIBIT 1 ~ ~v a, ~ ~o b~ ~h hW 0 _-DATE S~1 ~ 3 100 Feet I r.5~ ra, rL~ . EXH[_11IT 2 ~ J o < N I o W I F, ~ = 2 G~ N p ¢ ~ O ~ f n, c a os; 53921LS YL31Iau z ~ s_ G ~ I 4 ~ ? d I ~ ~ i cS . . ~ N G ` ~ \ ~ \ ~ s!iNn ?eeaois H!M M~d a~aso~ ~ g w ~ p o ~ ~ C ~ I I 6 \ < ~c GI ~6 ~ A y @ I l > -I L g I~ ~J fl 5 j 7l Z y < ' < I - N r Q I < ~ V1 M ~OCAC.00 N 7y ~y ~ ~ 'I JI I I~ LLI i ~ I IC 6 d 3 F ~ D 3 EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT Minutes of Meeting January 27, 2005 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair DRDA at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29b Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howazd Members Absent Bob Blair Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Boazd of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing o January 27, 2005. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLTC FORUM No one indicated a desire to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 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 I S-foot build-to-line for special mixed use azeas as established by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual for property zoned Commercial-One and located at 5400 West 38h Avenue. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. At the request of Boazd Member ABBOTT, Jeff Hirt reviewed the portion of the Streetscape Manual thai applies to setbacks. One of the intents of the manual is to create a more pedestrian friendly, neotraditional design as well as provide compatibility with the surrounding azea. Board of Adjustment - 1 - 01-27-OS In response to a question from Board Member BELL, JefFHirt stated that the applicant did not accept staff's suggestion for an alternate configuration as contained in Exhibit 5 of the staff report. Meredith Reckert explained that the applicant was concemed that parking in front of the building was necessary for the success of the business. Therefore, staff's suggestion as contained in Exhibit 5 included one row of angled pazking to give the appeazance of parking and would be more compatible with existing building lines in the azea. More parking would be available at the reaz of the building. Cheng Ku 2620 South Parker Road #280 Aurora, CO Mr. Ku, the applicant, was swom in by Vice Chair DRDA. Mr. Ku stated that, in order for the proposed business to be successful, he felt it was necessary to have more than one row of parking in front to attract motorists. He did not believe this azea along 38`h Avenue is conducive to pedestrian traffic. Further, pazking in the front would provide less impact on the residential properties than behind the buildings. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOWARD, Mr. Ku stated that it is not known at this time what types of business aze planned at this location other than one restaurant. Boazd Member BELL expressed concem about the turning radius available if there were two rows of pazking in front. Ms. Reckert explained that was one of the reasons for staff's suggestion of one row of angled pazking. Stacking of traffic from 38th Avenue waiting to enter the property was also a concern to staff. Mr. Ku stated that, if the area proves to be pedestrian friendly in the future, he was confident the owner would convert the pazking in front to a gathering ptaza. In response to Mr. Ku's concem about the impact of pazking on the residential properties behind the buildings, Board Member HOVLAND commented that there would be a 65- 85 foot buffer between the parking lot and the residential properties to the south. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Ku stated that the existing house would not remain on the property. It would either be demolished or moved to another location. John Montoya 3755 Benton Mr. Montoya was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. His property is directly south of the subject property. He asked if a fence would be constructed between the properties. ~ Boazd of Adjustment - 2 - O 1-27-05 Mr. Ku replied that the owner is tentatively planning to construct a 2-3 unit townhouse on the southem portion of the property and all of the existing outbuildings and trash would be removed and, most likely, a fence would be built on the southem property line. Mr. Montoya stated he was not concerned about the pazking situation and was in favor of the proposed development because it would improve the existing trashy situation on the property. Boazd Member HOWARD asked if residentialdevelopment is ailowed in C-1 zoning. Mr. Hirt replied that a certain percentage of residentia] is allowed if certain conditions aze met. Ms. Reckert expiained that, in this case, multi-family construction in the reaz of the property would require a zone change as well as a subdivision. Frank Bugino 3770 Benton Mr. Bugino was swom in by Vice Chair DRDA. He was in favor of parking in the front. He expressed concem about noise coming from a parking lot in the back. If pazking is planned for the back of the property, he would like the city to construct a sound barrier fence along Benton Street. He also expressed concem about decreased property values if pazking occurs in the back. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Hirt explained that there is requued buffering between business and residenrial properties adjaoent to each other but there would be no requirement for buffering on the east side of the property along Benton Street. Ms. Reckert commented that there would be a requirement for pazking lot light buffering. Suzanne Olson 3735 Benton Ms. Olson was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Her main concern was related to increased traffic on Benton which is already used by many motorists as a detour from Sheridan Boulevazd. She also commented that having all parking on the side and in the back seems to work well for the nearby LaFonda Restaurant. Board Member HOVLAND commented that more pazking in the back would be less likely to develop into an eyesore azea than if there is only one row of parking. Board Member BELL expressed concern about the danger of the limited turning radius if more pazking is allowed in front. The appiicant declined an altemative which was offered to allow one row of angled parking in front and she was in favor of adhering to the Streetscape and Architectural guidelines. Boazd Member ABBOTT suggested a one-way hun for motorists tuming left onto Benton toward 38h Avenue to prevent increased trafFic on Benton. Boazd of Adjusrinent - 3 - 01-27-OS Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-04-08 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fdteen days required by law, and in recognition that were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for MAY NOT be granted wit6out detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the inteat and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resoived that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 04-08 be and hereby is DENIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: 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 and located at 5400 West 38th Avenue. For the following reasons: 1. 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 guidetines. 2. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. 3. The request would not result in a contribution or benefit to the neighborhood as distinguished from an individual benefit for t6e property owners. 4. The request is extreme in its variance and therefore as to the intent and goals of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. 5. The Board found the applicant's position that parking in front is required to bring customers into the business unconvincing. The motion passed 5-0. Vice Chaii DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance had been denied. (The meeting was recessed from 830 p.m. to 837 p.m.) B. Case No. WA-04-09: An application filed by Maureen and Jim Stigall for approval of a 103 foot side yazd setback variance from the 15 foot side yard ~ Board of Adjustment - 4 - 01-27-OS setback requirement resulting in a 4.7 foot side yazd setback for property zoned Residential One and ]ocated at 3240 Jellison Street. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She advised the Board there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Before reviewing the staff report and digital presentation, Ms. Reckert submitted the following documents into the record and provided copies for Board Members. • Letter from Paul Hazgrave, 3224 Jellison Street, dated January 24, 2005 expressing opposition to the application. • Letter from the applicant, dated January 27, 2005 outlining unique circumstances and hazdship. Staff recommended denial of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Boazd Member DRDA, Ms. Reckert stated that the application is for a carport rather than a garage. Board Member ABBOTT discussed staff's previous concerns that carports sometimes evolve into garages and such changes are very difficult for staff to monitor. Boazd Member BELL commented that the application stated the carport would prevent parking on the street and asked if there were any regulations which would prevent pazking in the driveway. Ms. Reckert stated that it is permissible to pazk cazs in the driveway. In response to a question from Boazd Member DRDA, Ms. Reckert stated that a driveway would be required for a carport. Maureen Stigall 3240 Jellison Street Ms. Stigall, the applicant, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Matt Daily Arrowhead Concrete & Asphalt Contractors Mr. Daily, contractor for the appiicant, was swom in by Vice Chair DRDA. Ms. Stigall stated that the carport was necessary to make it easier for her mother to directly access her living quarters in the lower level of the house. This would prevent her mother from having to enter from the driveway, street or gazage and walk through the house to access the 14 stairs to the lower level. Mr. Daily stated that the carport would be adjacent to the house and constructed to match the existing house's azchitecture and materials. He welcomed input from neighbors as to suggested changes in the design. Boazd of Adjustment _ 5 _ 01-27-OS Boazd Member BELL expressed concem that the carport would be on the same level as the house and it would still be necessary to use stairs to gain access to the lower level entrance. Mr. Daily explained that he would install steps that would be less steep than the existing steps. For safety reasons, there would also be covering from the carport, over the stairs and up to the entrance of the house. Boazd Member ABBOTT suggested that the mother could enter the house from the garage and live on the upper level to avoid the use of stairs. Ms. Stigall stated that the reason she purchased the house is that it does have an R-1 compliant mother-in-law living space downstairs which is more convenient for her mother. Board Member HOWARD expressed concern about blowing snow since the cazport would be open on the north side where the stairs would be located. Mr. Daily replied that if this proves to be a problem, a wal] could be built on the north side. Ms. Reckert commented that walls aze not allowed on carports. Ms. Stigall and Mr. Daily stated they would be open to building a garage rather than a carport if that would be acceptable. Boazd Member BELL asked if the downstairs living arrangement with a kitchen was permissible in R-1 zoning. Ms. Daily read into the record the following letter dated June 10, 2004 from Alan White, Community Development Director, to Ms. Stigall: This message is to summarize our telephone conversation. You described the "mother-in-law quarters" as a couple ofrooms and a kitchenette located in the basement of the residence. There are stairs leading between the ground floor and the basement and there are no lockable doors behveen the iwo floors. Under these conditions, and as long as these conditions remain as described, the mother- in-law quarters are not considered a separate living unit. The residence is considered a one family dwelling and is in cornpliance with zoning regulations. Kevin O'Toole 3248 Jellison Street Mr. O'Toole was swom in by Vice Chair DRDA. He stated his opposition to the applicaUon based on the following reasons: there are no other carpor[s in the cul-de-sac; two-driveways, whether for a carport or gazage, is objectionable; carports diminish the quality of a neighborhood; and access to the downstairs quarters already exists through the house. His wife, Mazcie, authorized him to voice her opposition also. Boazd of Adjustment - 6 - 01-27-OS Paul Hargrave 3224 Jellison Street Mr. Hazgrave was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He expressed his opposition for reasons stated in the letter earlier submitted to the Board: creation of another pazking structure on the ]ot is not in keeping with the chazacter of the subdivision; approval of the application could lead to future attempted legal use of the dweiling for multi-family purposes; covenants for the subdivision call for a single family dwelling not to exceed 2- 1/2 stories in height and a private gazage; and the variance would set a precedent for the subdivision which could depreciate property values. He also stated that he was authorized to voice opposition on behalf of his wife. John Anthony 3244 Jeliison Street Mr. Anthony was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He expressed his opposition and was authorized to express his wife's opposition also. He lives next door to the west of the subject property. He presented a digital depiction of the proposed carport as described by the applicant. The digital presentation was made a part of the official record. His opposition was based on the following: a carport would be out of character for the neighborhood; an attached two-caz garage already exists at the residence; the variance would set a precedent that could depreciate property values in the azea. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-04-09 is an appeal to this Board from t6e decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fdteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for MAY NOT 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 resobed that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 04-09 be, and hereby is, DEIVIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10.3 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 4.7 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential One. For the following reasons: Boazd of Adjustment - 7 - O1-27-OS 1. The hardship 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. The Board agrees with one of the neighbor's statements that "current dwelling setbacks on all properties in the neighborhood are generous and contribute to the spacious and quasi-rural character of the neighborhood." 4. TLere are insufficient circumstances that would justify a setback variance. 5. There were letters and testimony received in objection to the proposed variance by immediate neighbors. 6. As a solution, the structure, or structures, as proposed as an accommodation for a disabled person seems impractical in inclement weather. The motion passed 5-0. V ice Chau DRDA advised the applicant that the request for vaziance was denied. (The meeting was recessed from 9:29 p.m. to 932 p.m.) C. Case No. WA-04-14: An application filed by Affordable Garages for approval of a 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yazd setback for property zoned Residential- One and located at 2971 Teller Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. Leonard Kearns 2971 Teller Street Mr. Kearns, the property orvner, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Ken Relyea 1250 S. Huron, Denver Mr. Relyea, contractor for the property owner, was swom in by Vice Chair DRDA. Mr. Relyea stated there is no option to place the gazage to the left side because it would require two driveways. It would also be difficult to build the gazage behind the house because there is a covered patio that would sepazate the yazd into pieces. It would also necessitate opening and closing a gate to the fenced yazd in order to access the garage. Mr. Kearns stated the garage would not be usable for him if it were placed in the back. ~ Board of Adjustment - 8 - 01-27-OS Board Member ABBOTT suggested that an attached garage would eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Relyea explained that an attached garage would be significantly more costly than a detached garage. Boazd Member BELL suggested building a double tiered, or tandem garage, to eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Relyea explained that would be too tight and cumbersome for the vehicles. Mr. Keams has a'/a ton pickup that needs extra room to open the doors. A 16-foot door is not adequate for vehicles this size. That is why the applicant wants to build a 3-car garage rather than a 2-caz garage. Board Member BELL stated that she has difficulty approving a variance when there is room in the back to build without a variance. Mr. Kearns stated that building in the back would reduce the size of his yard. Boazd Member BELL also expressed concern about fire protection when side yard setbacks aze reduced. Mr. Relyea asked if the Boazd would consider a smaller variance. Boazd Member DRDA stated that he could not find a hardship in this case. The applicant could build a 24-foot double caz, double deep gazage. Boazd Member HOVLAND agreed that he did not believe a hazdship has been established. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member ABBOTT, the foilowing resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-04-14 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 NOT be granted without substanHally impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Applicatioa Case No. WA- 04-14 be, and hereby is, DENIED. Boazd of Adjustment - 9 - 01-27-OS TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One. For the following reasons: 1. The hardship has been created by a person having an interest in the ProPertY• 2. Grantiug of the variance, while it would not potentially change or alter the character of the neighborhood, does encroach a considerable distance into the required setback. 3. There are alternatives available including reducing the size of the garage from a three-car to a two-car garage requiring a lesser variance or building a garage meeting setback requirements in the rear yard. The motion passed 5-0. Vice Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance was denied. D. Case No. WA-04-17: An application filed by Republic Garages for approval of a 12 foot side yazd setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in an 18 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential Two and located at 3010 Saulsbury Street. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. Prior to his presentation, he entered a letter into the record and provided copies to the Boazd. The letter was signed by nine neighbors expressing support of the application. Mr. Hirt entered ali pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. StafF recommended denial of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. Jerry Cassell 3010 Saulsbury Mr. Cassell, the property owner, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. His reason for requesting a variance is to build a three-caz detached gazage. He wants to get his vehicles off the street and driveway and into a gazage. He stated that the proposed garage would match the house with a hip roof and similaz building materials. If he were to extend his single car garage to the south it would necessitate the removal of two 25-year-old shade trees. The oniy viable ]ocation for the proposed garage is the one contained in the application. There is also a safety factor involved with his property being located on the corner. There was one incident of a car crashing through the split rail fence on the corner of his property as well as incidents of vandalism to his vehicles. There is a well-house in the back yazd that will not be removed. \ Boazd of Adjustment - 10 - 01-27-OS Board Member BELL commented that a two-car gazage could be constructed without a vaziance. Mr. Cassell stated that he wanted a three-car garage to get his cars out of the driveway and street. He noted that there were other similaz situations in his neighborhood. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Reckert stated that the proposed gazage space would be within the lot coverage requirements. Patty Polich 3030 Saulsbury Ms. Polich was swom in by Vice Chair DRDA. She lives two doors from the applicant and indicated her support of the application. There aze other neighbors who have received variances which have not hurt the character of the neighborhood. She believed the gazage would increase property values. Board Member ABBOTT asked if she had a problem with the driveway entrance being located from 30`h Avenue. Ms. Polich replied that she believed the entrance from 30`h would be safer than the driveway which faces Saulsbury. Craig Sharbonno 3030 Saulsbury Mr. Sharbonno was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He spoke in favor of the application. Getting the cazs off the street and out of the driveway would be safer because of careless drivers coming azound the corner. Decreasing the size of the back yazd without the vaziance would decrease the property's value. Terry Olson 2990 Saulsbury Mr. Olson was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He received a variance in 1994 to build a two-car gazage. His lot is smaller than the applicant's lot. The Boazd decided that there would be sufficient room for a car to be parked in the driveway without encroaching onto a sidewalk based upon the city's regulations for pazking space size. The Boazd's major concern was the character of the neighborhood. His garage was built to match his house and appears to have been built at the same time as the house. He stated that he has also experienced problems with careless drivers and vandalism when his cars were parked on the street. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND the foilowing resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-04-17 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Boazd of Adjustment - 11 - O1-27-OS Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for MAY be granted without detriment to t6e public welfare and without substantialiy impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 04-17 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: 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 yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two. For the following reasons: 1. The garage, as proposed and with conditions to follow, would be an improvement and betterment to the neighborhood. 2. The variance would not cause an alteration to the essential character of the neighborhood nor affect air and light to adjacent properties. 3. The setbacks required on a corner lot significantly reduce the allowable buildable area of the lot and therefore create a hardship. 4. A petition was submitted signed by nine neighbors who were in favor of the variance as requested with the garage door facing West 30th Avenue. 5. Alternative locations arguably would have a negative impact upon the property. With the following conditions: 1. There will be a brick face on the garage and a hip and gable roof to match the house. 2. The board fence will be moved back to be in line with the new garage face from the eastern property line and board fence removed from west of the garage and replaced with split rail as described by the applicant. Board Member HOVLAND offered a friendly amendment to add two more reasons: b. The requested 18 foot setback from 30'h Avenue appears to be more like 24 feet because of the six feet between the ►ot line and the pavement. 7. The variance would address safety issues described by the applicant and an adjacent neighbor by locating the driveway from 30th Avenue as opposed to the alternative of locating the driveway on the corner of 30"' and Saulsbury. The amendment was accepted by Board Member ABBOTT. Boazd of Adjustment - 12 - 01-27-OS Boazd Member DRDA asked for clarification about the statement that alternate locations would have a negative impact on the property. Boazd Member ABBOTT explained that moving and turning the garage another direction in the back would have a negative impact on the use of the yazd for a single family house and, azguably, the property value. Boazd Member DRDA stated that he had difficulty finding a hardship in this case. Boazd Member ABBOTT commented that options are considerably less on a corner lot because of setback requirements on two sides of the lot. The morion passed 4-1 with Board Merober DRDA voting no. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair DRDA closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - August 26, 2004 Boazd Member HOVLAND offered an amendment to the minutes on page 6, paragraph 3: The sentence should read: "The motion failed (rather than "passed"). It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of August 26, 2004 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. B. Resignarions • Meredith Reckert submitted copies of a letter from Bill Echelmeyer notifying the Boazd of his resignation due to a serious health condition. • Ms. Reckert also announced that James Molnaz resigned from the Boazd to serve on the Building Code Advisory Committee. C. ElecHon of Officers It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to select Paul Drda as Chair. The motion passed unanimously. It was moved by Board Member DRDA and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to select Janet Bell as Vice Chair. The motion passed unanimously. Board of Adjustment - 13 - 01-27-OS D. Complaint There was discussion regarding the copy of an anonymous complaint about the Board which was included in the packet. 7. NEW BUSINESS Board Member ABBOTT discussed the possibility of amending the Streetscape and Architectural Manual to provide protection for residential neighbors whose properties are directly adjacent to pazking lots in back of businesses. Boazd Member BELL suggested taking a look at ways to eliminate the need for certain vaziances in older neighborhoods. Jeff Hirt will bring this recommendation to the consultants who are presently working on a Neighborhood Revitalization Study. Boazd Member BELL suggested that Board members have input into this study. Since it seems to be almost impossible to write rules which would address all the varied situations in Wheat Ridge, Board Member ABBOTT commented it is practical to have a Boazd of Adjustment to consider each case. There was some discussion about taking a look at possible changes to the present criteria used in evaluating variances. Board Member HOVLAND stated that he heard a comment that it might not be necessary to have a super majority vote to approve variances and asked how other Boazd Members felt about it. Board Member ABBOTT commented that for the super majority vote to work well, it is important to make swe vacancies aze filled in order to have a full Board. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Paul Drda, Vice Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary i ~ Boazd of Adjustment - 14 - 01-27-OS City of Wheat Ridge ~OF W~Eql9 Community Development Department ~ m Memorandum ~~CORPo~ TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: V"'Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Variance Voting Rules DATE: March 18, 2005 Attached is a memorandum regazding a change to the current voting rules for variances. Staff is proposing that the voting rules for variances and other matters ruled on by the Board, be modified from a super majority vote to a simple majority. City Council will be discussing this issue at a future study session. No date has been set for the study session. City of Wheat Ridge 4- TO: Community Development Department Memorandum Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director ~~,~((r 1~,~~~ SUBJECT: Variance Voting Rules DATE: January 24, 2005 Sections 2-53, 2-61 and 26-115 of the Municipal Code require a"super majority" vote of the Board of Adjustment to approve various items, chief among them variances. The "super majority" vote is defined as 6 votes when 7 or 8 members are present; 5 when 6 are present; and 4 when 5 aze present. This voting requirement applies to Planning Commission or City Council if a variance is combined with another application, such as a subdivision. While this voting requirement may have been needed in the past to make it more difficult to gain approval of what I would term use variances, the amendments to the Code adopted in 2001 do not allow the City to grant a variance to anything that is prohibited, nor to anything other than development standards or items specifically set out for variances. We have had variance cases in front of the Board of Adjustment where the vote is 5-3 in favor of a motion to approve the request, but beeause of the voting requirement, the request is denied because it takes 6 affirmative votes to approve. If only 7 members are present, an application can be denied with a vote of 5-2! To make it even more confusing, if a motion to deny the request receives a 5-3 vote, the motion to deny fails and under a strict application of the voting rules the request is approved with only 3 favorable votes. (If this occurs we encourage the Board to then make a motion to approve which then fails.) It is no wonder that applicants leave the hearings bewildered. Since 2000, we have had seven cases that were denied because a super majority vote was not obtained. In one case we were sued, but the Court mled in our favor. While this is not a large number, consider that the total is seven cases out of 62 total cases during the five yeazs. There are other actions taken by the Planning Commission or City Council with far greater impact than a variance, such as a rezoning, which requires only a simple majority vote. Staff Recommendation: I would propose a code amendment which would revise the voting requirement to require a simple majority to approve the action. I would like to receive direction from Council at their next study session. These voting rules are also embodied in the bylaws of the Board. Their bylaws would have to be amended.