HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2005CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
BOARD OF ADNSTMENT
AGENDA
Juty 28, 2005
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on July 28, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the
Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on
the agenda.)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. WA-05-13: An application filed by Republic Garages for approval of a
variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for an accessory strucriue
resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2)
and located at 3810 Cody Street.
B. Case No. WA-05-14: An application filed by James Pryor for approval of a
variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback resulting in a 21 foot front
yazd setback for property zoned Residential-One C(R-1C) and located at 5725
West 37th Avenue.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of minutes - May 26, 2005
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
C~CORADO
TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-13/Republic Garages DATE OF MEETING: July 28, 2005
ACTION REQiTESTED: Request for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot
side yard setback requirement for accessory structures in the R-2 zone district.
LOCATION OF REQITEST: 3810 Cody Sireet
APPLICANT (S): Republic Garages OWNER (S): Victoria Nosal
2532 S. Broadway 3810 Cody St.
Denver, CO 80210 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
APPROXIMATE AREA: 10,454 sq. ft. (.24 ac.)
PRESENT ZOPRNG: Residential Two (R-2)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAI.S (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Locat
Site
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear
this case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant, as a representative for the property owner, is requesting approva] of a 5 foot
side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for an accessory
structure in the R-2 zone district (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request).
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The property is currently zoned Residential Two (R-2), and contains an existing single family
residence. The R-2 zone district allows single family uses and accessory buildings. The
minimum lot size for a single family residence in the R-2 zone district is 9,000 square feet,
including a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The property is 10,454 squaze feet in size, is 75
feet in width, has a rectangular shape, and is relatively flat (Exhibit 2, Improvement Location
Certificate).
The applicant wishes to construct a detached gazage in the southeast corner of the property
behind the existing home. The garage would be 660 squaze feet in size, located 5 feet from
the southem (side) property line. The R-2 zone district allows detached garages up to a
maximum of 1,000 square feet. The required setbacks are determined by the height of the
structure. If a garage is 8 feet or less in height, the required side yard setback is only 5 feet. If
the garage is over 8 feet in height (up to a maximum height of 15 feet), the required side yard
setback is ten feet. It should be noted that gazage height is measwed to the midpoint of the
roof. The R-2 zone district requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet.
The gazage will be 11.2 feet in height, measured to the midpoint of the roof. Therefore, the
required side yard setback is ten feet. The applicant wishes to place the detached garage 5
feet from the side property line. All other required setbacks and development standards in the
R-2 zone district would be met.
There have been three variances granted on this block: 3960 Cody received a 3.5 foot side
yazd variance for a carport in 1970, 3995 Cody received a 5 foot side yard setback variance
for a patio in 1977, and 3815 Cody received a three foot front yard setback variance in 1999.
After a visual inspection of the aerial photographs and research through the building files, it
appears that most of the structures in the neighborhood meet or exceed the required side yud
setback requirement. The property currently contains a one-caz attached gazage.
III. 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 return in use. The
- propefty may continue to be used as a single family residence, and the property currently
~ contains an exisring attached single-car garage.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
Boazd of Adjustment 2
V✓A-05-13/Republic
If the request were granted, the character of the locality could possibly be altered. After
reviewing the aerial photographs, many of the structures in the neighborhood appeaz to
meet the required side yard setbacks. The notable exceptions are for two properties which
were each granted side yard setback variances in 1970 and 1977.
3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the
specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the
owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the
regulations were carried out?
The lot does not have a unique shape. It is a rectangulaz shaped lot and is relatively flat.
The property exceeds the minimum lot size for a single-family dwelling in the R-2 zone
district. The location of the existing house does not preclude the construction of a
detached garage in the appropriate location.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having
an interest in the property?
A person who has interest in the property has caused the hardship. The request arises
from a desire to construct a lazger detached garage closer to the property line, when other
opportunities may exist. It may be possible to reduce the size of the garage, thereby
providing for the required side yard setback.
5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is
located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or
increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially
diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood?
The request would not be detrimental to the public welfaze. The adequate supply of light
and air could possibiy be compromised as a result of the request. The gazage would be
11.2 feet tall at the midpoint of the roof, located 5 feet from the southern property line.
The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire.
The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood.
6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a
benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished
from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the
variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?
The request would not result a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the
property owner. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person
with disabilities.
Boazd of Adjustmen[
WA-05-131Republic
IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMNIENDED MOTION (S)
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are not
supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following
reasons:
1. The hardship has been created by a person having interest in the property.
2. Other..opportunities may exist where the garage could be constructed while
complying with the development standazds in the R-2 zone district
3. The physical attributes and dimensions of the property do not pose a particular
hardship. The property exceeds the minimum lot size for a single-family structure in
the R-2 zone district.
4. Granting of the variance could potentially change or alter the character of the
neighborhood. A majority of the structures in the neighborhood all meet or exceed
the required side yazd setback requirements.
Board of Adjustment
WA-05-13/Republic
JUL'-13-2005 13:11 FROM:REPUBLIC 303 781 4170 T0:3032352857 P.2
3a. the garage would not be functional as a 2-car qarage, becapse the
overhead door would be to far to the north. The cars both would
have to angle to the north to enter. It would not be a straiqht
shot into the garage.
3b. the gerage would not alther the essential character 5f the loca9tty.
other-AeTghbons through out the area have their garage 5' off side
property lines.
3c. the location of the house to the lot does not make for easy access.
5' side set back provides easier access to the garaqe for both
uechiles.
3d. No, when house was originally platted, the Mardship was created.
3e. No, other neighbors have been granted similiat varianoe request.
3f. the 6enefiit would be fewer cars and yard equipment on the driveway
Victoria Nosal
3810 C6dy St.
Wheat Ridge, C0.
EXHIBIT 1
.y
RoEJK DATE 06/14/20 REPUBLIC GARAGES B# 86-19020
L A N D S U R V E Y 1 N G AoDRess 3810 coDY 9TREET
5460 WARD ROAD • SUITE 160 NAME NOSAI.
ARVADA,COLORADO 80002
(303) 420-4788 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE LEGALDESCRIPTION
(a r--
Attn: JOANNE
N
Scale: I "=30'
140.0
E ATTACHED
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
~
r7 - -
ceoted Portion (LeeaA /
0
0
v~
~
~
G
0 Fq
8.
I
G o ~
I
o
b
i U^ v~i
a(
~
T 1r;
~
.
4
~
f
U
18.2
7.0 7
ZH'
m
Conc. Drive 19.8
Conc. Drive
~
-
i
140.0
i ~
~ 25.0
Southwest Comer ofthe East I/2,East 1/2,SE1/4,SE1/4
~
of Section 22,T3S,R69W of the 6th P.M.
~ Frame
Shed
0
0
h
O
h
10'
posed aae
On the basis of my knowledge, information and befef,'I hereby certify that i~improvement location ce ' te was prepared for
REPVaLIC GARaGES that it is ot a nd Survey Plat
or Improvement Survey Plat, and that it isifot to be relied upon er the establishment of ferco, bullding, other future
improvement lines. I further certify that he improvemants o the above described parcel on is date, e cept utility
connections, are entirely within the bound rias of the parcel, cept as shown, that there are encroachment upon the
described premises by improvements on ariV adjoining premis , except as Indicated, and that re is no apparent e idence or
sign of any easement crossing or burdenin any part of said arcel, except as noted.
"NOTICE: According to, Cobrado law you must ommence any egal acNon based
lirst discover such delect. In no event, may any actio ased upon y de(ect in fh/s si
the certilication shown hereon." ,1~
NOTE: V~ V
SUHVEYISOPAWNI151Na PLAITEDANGLESOfl T'.{
iis survey wifhin fhree ~ears alter you
more than ten vearsifiom fhe date ol
.I-3 •
or RoRAW40M. Hayden, L.S.
EXHIBIT 2
>~f WH~TqQ ci m
c~[ORP~O
TO:
CASE NO. & NAME:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANIVING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjushnent
CASE MANAGER:
Jeff IIirt
VJA-05-14/James Pryor
DATE OF MEETING:
July 28, 2005
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a variance from the required 30 foot front yazd setback resulting in
a 21 foot front yard setback for property zoned Residential-One C(R-1C) and
located at 5725 West 37'h Avenue.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 5725 West 37t' Avenue
APPLICANT (S): 7ames Pryor
OWNER (S): James Pryor
APPROXIMATE AREA: 5,085 squaze feet (12 acres)
PRESEN'I' ZOIVING: Residential-One C (R-1C)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
, (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Subject Parc
BoardoPAdjustment 1
Case WA-05144ames Pryor
,iurisdiction
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case
1. REQLTEST
The property in question is located at 5725 West 37~' Avenue. The propeRy has Residential-One C(R-1C)
zoning.
The applicant, James Pryor, is requesting this variance as the property owner. The request is for approval of a
variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback resulting in a 21 foot front yard setback for the purpose of
constructing an attached gazage (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). Attached gazages are subject to a 30 foot front
yard setback on R-1C zoned property.
The property has unusual circumstances relative to the setback requirements. The property has frontage on both
a public street (37`" Avenue to the south) and a private drive (to the east) (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). Per the Code of
Laws Sec. 26-123 (Definitions) the front lot line is considered the common boundary line between an interior
lot and a street. The front lot line is therefore considered the south lot line, facing 37~' Avenue, making the 30
foot setback required from the south lot line.
The applicanUproperty owner proposes to construct a single family residence with an attached garage, with the
overall structure being a total of 1,959 squaze feet in siae. The attached garage portion of the structure is
proposed to be approximately 624 squaze feet in size (24' X 26'). The proposed structure will be located 21
feet from the front property line on the south, making approval of a variance required to allow for the structure
in this lceation.
The property will have vehicular access off of 37`h Avenue, as requ'ued by the subdivision plat (Exhibit 3,
Subdivision Plat Approved by City Council September 2002). Per Sec. 26-609, for residential uses, no more
than 4 dwelling units may use the same private roadway. The R-1C zone district only allows single family
dwellings. There are 5 buildable lots directly adjacent to this private drive, so given this requirement in the
Code of Laws it was specified on the plat that the subject property have access off of 37'" Avenue and not off of
the private drive. As a result, there ue only 4 lots with d'uect vehiculaz access off of the private drive to meet
this requirement in the Code of Laws. The side yard setback (eastem setback) required adjacent to the private
drive is 5 feet:
Staff prefers at least 18 feet of driveway length to accommodate vehicles pazked in the driveway. This is the
required minimum length of a parking space for a standazd, 90 degree pazking configuration. The 21 foot
driveway depth proposed therefore is sufFicient for this purpose.
It is important to note that the applicant requested an administradve variance to the required front yard setback
that was approved on Mazch 23, 2005 (Exhibit 4, Administrative Variance Memo). That request was for
approval of a variance of 3 feet from the required 30 foot front yard setback resulting in a 27 foot front yard
setback from 37'" Avenue. Per Sec. 26-115 (C) of the Code of Laws, the Zoning Administrator is empowered to
decide upon applications for a minor variance or waiver (10 percent or less) from the standazd if certain
conditions are met.
The applicant expressed in the above mentioned letter of request that this variance being requested to the Boazd
of Adjustment is necessary because the home was manufactured off site and the design was altered. In other
words, the home was manufactured with a luger layout than what was previously understood at the time of the
administrative variance request.
Board of Adjuslment . . . . 2
Case WA-05-14/James Pryor
Altemate placement of the garage to meet setback requirements, given the dimensions proposed, appears to be
problematic given setback requirements and easements in place. The applicant cannot move the house further
to the north, as it would then be in the required 10 foot utility and drainage easement shown on the subdivision
plat. The only option appeazs to be to make the gazage more narrow, however there may not be enough room
for a two car garage if this was the case.
There appears to be some encroachments into required setbacks in the vicinity, but staff has not found evidence
of any vaziance cases in the vicinity of the subject property.
tYll other development standazds have been met with this request.
II. SITE PLAN
The property is approacimately 5,085 square feet, or .12 acres. The property measures 50.85 feet wide with a
depth of 100 feet.
The lot is part of the Riley's Roost Subdivision, approved in September of 2002. The lot is currently vacant.
The house is proposed to be facing east, towards the private drive. However, the access must be off of 37"Avenue because of a condition on the subdivision plat and a requirement in the Code of Laws for no more than
4 dwelling units to have access off of a private drive.
The azea surrounding the property consists of residentiaily zoned and used property. To the west, south and
northeast, there aze existing multi-family structures. There aze also some single family residential properties in
the vicinity.
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 reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be
used only under the conditions allowed by regulafion 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 essenfial character of the locality?
The request will not have an effect on the essential character of the locality. There appear to be existing
non-conformities in the vicinity relative to setback requirements, although staff has not found any
compazable variance cases in the immediate vicuvty. While the Code of I,aws requires the front property
line to be considered the south property line, this portion of the lot essentially funcrions as a side yazd
given ihe configuration of the lot and the proposed configuration of the house facing east.
3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condidon 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?
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 squaze in shape and flat, with no vegetation as the site
has been cleared for development.
4. Has the alleged difticulty or hardstup been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property?
Board of Adjushceut 3
Case WA•05-14/James Pryor
The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a garage in this location. However, there are
limited options on the property for placement of a two car gazage.
5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property or improvements in t6e neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among ot6er
things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially iucreasing
the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or
substanfially diminishing or impairing property values witlun the neighborhood?
Approval of the variance would not be detrimenta] to the public welfaze or injurious to other property in
the area. There may be a slight decrease in the supply of light and air to the property to the 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
streeu, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values of the property in
question and adjacent properties should not be affected by this request.
6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or
contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on
the part of the applicant, or would grauring of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation
of a person with disabilities?
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 appiicant. Approval of the request may result
in one less caz parked in the driveway or the street however.
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 not supportive of the variance
requesL Staff has found that there are not unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant
approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons:
1. 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. There aze no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in
question unbuildable.
3. The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a garage in this location.
4. The request will not result in a substantial benefit or conVibution to the neighborhood or community
distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant.
Board ot Adjustment 4
Case WA•OS•iMJames Pryor
Jun-15-05 02:58P
BZ
LLC
Edward J. Kaufman
13490 Lafeyettc Court
Thoruton, Colorado 80241
June 15, 2005
fax Letter
City of Wheat Ridge
Planning and Zoning
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Attn: Jeff
Developmeut - Marketing
303 255-9307
Faa 303 2559397
brdev "a'vahoo.com
Ref: Riley's Roost Subdivision - Request for Variance of Six Feet for Southem
Boundary of Lot 8 that accesses from 37t6 Street owned by James Pryor
per Sec. 26-115 Variancelwaiversltemporary permitslinterruptions
Paragraph C. Variances and waivers:
Paragraph 3. a. through f.
a. Yes, the property in question wilt yield a reasonable return in use and
service if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by
regulation for the district in which it is located.
b. No, this variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
c. Yes, the speafic property involved would resuli in a unique hardship
upon the owner as opposed to a mere inconvenience. Given the
length of today's automobiles, and the fad that there is no basement in
this home, there woufd be no room for storage and a full sized
automobile and/or a SUV would not fit.
d. Yes, the alleged difficulty and hardship wa5 created the person having
an interest in the properiy. The problem arose when the home,
manufactured ofi-sita was built, an additionaf four teet was added to
the original design. We initially felt an Administrative Variance would
suffice, but after having the Surveyor review our ptans, it was apparen#,
that we were not gang to have the depth needed for reasonable use.
e. No is the answer to all concsms of the City. Granting this variance
would not be detrimentat to the public weJfare or injurious to other
neighbors.
P.O1
EXHIBIT 1
Jun-15-05 02:59P
Granting !he variance would result in the ownePs vehicles being under
cover and with no vehicles parked in the drive. It would give the rest of
the communiiy a clean and ordedy look. Atl of the homes built in
Ri1ey's Roost are "#iandicapped Accessible" with oversized doorways
and back bracing for grab rails and are all built with one floor living.
This extra space would accommodate a wheelchair or handicapped
equipment.
Please attach this to my formal application.
Sincerely,
n r~,
s Pryo
Owner
P_02
o N
m3P 6
nW:O°D~
N
a
~ o
~
~?AZ
=0 ~
~oc~~ ~
~=oz O
P O
TmZ4 ~
zT ~ y
O
tl -mq!l
9~P Vt
Sn~OZ 5
`zo~q C
~ = O P L
~
Q~Np
p 9- O
03 x
O
rn
C~/] C
n
t
~
n Ln
D0- 0
N
1
O~Ooa;v\
I
~
^
m
O:~ 11 m~
O~mTVicnv
{ .
C x
OT~~~~
o
~ A
z
D
m;VZ
~Nv 0~
i m
~
0OGI
I
l
OZm
o
z
i
o~p
D
v
o ~
r
N^c•
O m
~
~
to
y
N
tl ~~s
m zi~
0
N~ ~mo
~g>
z ~
z
~
C
0 6
r ~S
m
m Z
~ C1
~
D
n
F
N
N
0
70 o~wN
n
Q m !
~
Z
"mDo
3P~T
Q
?°n:~m
m
3~
A^'S
~
m Z
v7tz
0
;a n
0
0
C
m
~
~
CA
v
~
C
m
z
C
m
SO'00'03"W - _
I i
~ ~7.0
p i N
O -
?I
n
D
c
a
~
W ~
~ m
w ~
Wrn
o<
W~
T
D
Z
fi
p 5' UTILITY,& DRPJNAGE 1 OO.OO~
-~p -
F
- - - $0,00,03"W S.
- - EP.SEME
2
NT
-
O
r - _ - _ u
.
=
'
~
' 30.35
I-
,
44.OO' Px1'CnW3v~~~~~~
10.00'
_
O
o
i .OOZt
~
I I
o
W
W
_
~
I
-_.11
BrC~~
Ol
C
-~1 (n m-i
~
I
0
I
r
LOT 8
Z~ `~l~~~
' .oozt
5725 WEST 37TH AVE. i
~ m~
;
S
44.00'
~
L~
~
70.0u
~
-
~p
- - -
- -
p
1
r
_ ~
,oo.oo~
N
so•00•03°w
~ ~ PRIVATE DRIVE (TRACT B)
< - -
n W~ _
; so•oo'o3°w
r-----
~
100.00, ,
J
48.00'
~ So'00_03°w } - - - -
I JI
.00' 1Oj
o ~ ^'y r_-
' sl 1_ ~N
~
~Gg ~.3S R~c~ F~583saS io•iD-aoo~. io s3 3~
RILEY'S ROOST SUBDIVISION
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER
OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE
CITY OF WH£AT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
FINAL PLAT
A
_ _ " _ ' _ " _ _ _
i/ ~ YOItME~T I♦
3 I/2' Wif C.V IM IIMqL
Wwr wc u 2u,v
i
Z
w
u
0-3 2 M
y
N H'M'JS'1 IA.OY"
I~ .IS
v
E O ~~o'S
s ..~r
8 W.R.
i $
~ - Lsu
bt
t Ha ~e r
177
(T~
~iftAlCll c
~
IYp[ 4
~
MTE
LOf ♦
~
s
19
OF THE NORTHEAS
69 WEST OF THE
COLORADO
"
\
131~.W'
~
~ I
I
SVDJ~
I
I
I
I
I
;
1
vus 1'• ~0'
I
j
~s
• M'b' A't
SOS VS'
I
I I~ ~
.
- 3 UflLltt a11YQ
'
'
~
f YTILI 110 M1~IWJF
~
E
a~
W' N
13
[ w I f.~f04MT N[ l~ J
.~aflCMi ~FL xoTf 3
1
A
.
~
"
•
I u. .
8 - ~S
~
S •.w~ w.rr.
3'1eS
, a I' ~
3~
.
g
I
,
~
~
~
g ~or • ~
8 " wr ~
n•r- i . ~
I
~
$
•
s(wf0[Mf Y[ ~ol[ JM~~
Y;
g
SYYS
.
~
5
s~r•.~~xi~ 8 .
•.r~»=5o.rt. ~s
~
jq
Y.a!A ^I
• '
' 1]i
M'
~
~
~
~
.
.N' I
.Y6
M
l
l
~
3 I/1' Wif W~~ N
pIYT !p% L, 2l2l9
Lor e L.E. A+oEllsw aurotr
~t VOq{ 0 tWE 28 .
m 20Y1N$
r~-0u'i'2od:-• P~ia[sw ww,r 29
o~o za.~w
LOT i0 A.L MO[1fW MMl
!UT WOl 0 taY[ n
nro zaiwe
~ ~ I • C'~IW01~ M~- I LOT ioa i I ;piMVIf10Y I oI
11! W.IT. I .
rur !Mlo r~w
i
~ ~sz:.~r ~
I
+w•oom~c„+s,n' \
WIIR~ IIOIIMUT I14 f[ CGR~ IW1~E~fi Ii1 RR1044
) I/i" MW W 111 It4NOF D ~iTWff CY 1~ ~YbE roiMf
Lf itI>0 r1CO~ WI WI Lf ~J212
EXHIBIT 3
~ I
[LL'L Af~ ~
t
I
♦
1
~
)
pNJ[R RM-~
IRE/Ym
1/W/3005
~
ftT
I~
~
11[Y
1/tl/~
WY
MiXO
310I/7062
~,V~lYtYEBO~IOfII~O
R7 ~+[s
~iovrxit
sew ~a'rtr .~C lrivom. a
u~s~i w
iB:00~SB+OC R1FOG1f1Tti
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum
TO: Applicant; File
FROM: Alan White, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: WA-05-05/5725 W. 37'b Avenue
DATE: March 22, 2005
F WMEqT
O ,p
~
~ a
U m
c~CORA00
Case No. WA-OS-OS is an application filed by Edward J. Kauffman and is a request for approval of an
administrative variance; a variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback in the Residentiat-One C
(R-1C) zone district. The property is 5,085 square feet in size, 50.85 feet wide, and 100 feet in depth.
Pursuant to Section 26-208 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet
is required. The applicant wishes to construct an attached garage to be located 27 feet from the south
(front) property line, which is 3 feet less than the required setback. The property is located at 5725 W.
37' Avenue and is zoned R-1C.
Pursuant to Section 26-I15 (C) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, the Zoning Administrator is
empowered to decide upon applications for a minor variance or waiver (10 percent or less), without
requirement of public hearing, provided that the following conditions are met:
1. The variance or waiver dces not exceed ten percent (10%) of the minimum or maximum
standard; and
2. That the Community Development Director finds that the "findings of fact," as set forth below,
are substantially complied with and support the request; and
3. The Community Development Director has notified adjacent property owners by letter notice
and posting of the site at least ten (10) days prior rendering his decision, and that no protests
have been received during such ten-day period; and
4. That no addiUOnal dwelling units would result from approval of such a variance or waiver; and
5. That the limitations of Charter Section 5.10.1 are not exceeded.
If all the conditions above are met, the Community Development Director may issue an administrative
variance provided the findings of fact below are met:
FindinQS of Fact: The Director of Community Development shall decide upon a request for a variance
or waiver, and shall base his decision in consideration of the extent to which the fol]owing facts,
favorable to the applicant, have been established by the evidence:
1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use or income if pernutted to be used only
under the condidons allowed by regulation for the district in which it is ]ocated?
2. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
EXHIBIT 4
3. Dces the par[icular physica] sunounding, 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?
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interestin
the property?
5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfaze 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 ]ight and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing
ihe congestion in the public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public
safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood?
6. If criteria one through five are found, then would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or
contribution to the neighborhood or the communiry, as distinguished from an individua] benefit on
the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation
of a person with disabilities? .
This request for an administrative variance meets all applicable conditions as required by SecUOn 26-115
(C) of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. Staff has not received comments in opposition to this
request from the surrounding neighbors.
Case No. WA-OS-OS is hereby:
~ APPROVED
❑ DENIED
~ WTTH CONDTI'IONS:
1. Vehicular access into the property and the proposed garage shall be directly
from 37th Avenue.
2. All other applicable development standazds shall be met for construction on
the property.
❑ WTTHOUT CONDTI'IONS
C, 9L
Community Development Director
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
May 26, 2005
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Bell at 730 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29* Avenue, Wheat Ridge,
Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Bell welcomed new members, Daniel Bybee and Betty Jo Page to the
Board of Adjustment.
Members Present: Tom Abbott
Janet Bell
Bob Blair
Daniel Bybee
Bob Howazd
Paul Hovland
Betty Jo Page
Members Absent: Paul Drda
Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public
heazing of May 26, 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. PUBLIC FORUM
No one indicated a desire to speak at this time.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WA-OS-OS: An application filed by Brothers Fence Company
for approval of a variance to the 6-foot maximum fence height standard
under Section 26-603 resulting in an 8-foot high fence for property zoned
Commercial-One and located at 9505 West 44"' Avenue.
Staff recommended continuance of this case so that issues resoiving access to
Wesi 45`h Avenue could be further discussed.
Boazd of Adjustment - 1 -
OS-26-OS
It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member
BYBEE to continue Case No. WA-05-08 to t6e June Board meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
B. Case No. WA-05-09: An application filed by the Wheat Ridge Housing
Authority for approval of a 5-foot side yazd setback variance from the 10-foot
side setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property
zoned Residential Three and located at 4501 Everett Street.
This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record
and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff
report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of the application for
reasons outlined in the staff report.
Boazd Member HOVLAND commented that this request for a variance is due to a zoning
change for the R-1 zone district to require setbacks relative to building height and asked
why this requirement would apply to multi-family dwellings. Meredith Reckert
explained that R-3 zoning also allows single family structures and therefore the setback
requirement applies to all structures in the zone district.
Board Member BYBEE commented that he could find no reasons not to approve this
application.
Board Member HOWARD suggested that setback requirements be revisited citing an
example that presently a 20-foot setback would be required for two garages built adjacent
to each other. Jerry DiTullio
3250 Newland Street
Mr. DiTuliio, chairman of the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority, was sworn in by Vice
Chair BELL. He stated that, following the denial of a previous request for variance, the
number of garages for the project has been reduced from six to five. The depth of the
garages has also been reduced from 24 to 21 feet. He asked the Board to approve the
variance based on the foliowing reasons:
• There has been no neighborhood opposition.
• Staff has recommended approval.
. The Housing Authority will be improving a dilapidated property.
• Garages will reduce on-street pazking.
• The 10-foot setback on this particulaz property serves no purpose in that the gazages
would face a back yazd and would not therefore infringe on the adjacent property.
• Approval of the variance would not set a precedent for any other future projects
within the city.
Boazd of Adjustment - 2 -
OS-26-OS
Henry Wehrdt
2659 South Pitkin Way, Aurora
Mr. Wehrdt, Jefferson County Housing Authority, was swom in by Vice Chair BELL.
He is also project manager for the subject property. He explained the garages have been
designed with hip rather than peak roofs. Without the variance, there would be more
oppommity for continued grafFiti problems on the buildings. With the requested setback,
the azea could be fenced which would reduce the amount of weeds and graffiti. The
reduction in the number of garages would also increase the distance from the gazages to
existing structures by an additional6 feet. This project will not only provide affordable
home ownership, but wili greatly improve the appeazance and quality of the
neighborhood.
In response to a question from Board Member PAGE, Mr. Wehrdt explained that parking
will be a cooperative effort with the other multi-family units. The parking area and
driveway will be paved.
In response to a question from Boazd Member ABBOTT, Mr. Wehrdt stated that units .
with gazages sell first. Gazages also improve the property by providing off-street pazking
as well as some additional storage space for personal items.
Cheryl Brungardt
5621 West 36t" Place
Ms. Brungardt was swom in by Vice Chair BELL. She is a member of the Wheat Ridge
Housing Authority. She stated that housing units with gazages sell quickly and provide
safe off-street pazking for the homeowners. She pointed out that the majority of
homeowners in the Housing Authority properties only have one vehicle. There are also
individuals who do not own vehicles and that is one reason the Housing Authority likes
to choose units that are near public transportation. This project will mostly likely
encourage surrounding property owners to improve their properties.
There were no other individuals present who wished to address this case. Vice Chair
BELL closed the pubiic hearing.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR
the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-09 is an appeal to this
Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in
recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and
Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public
Boazd of Adjustment - 3 -
OS-26-OS
welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the
regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-
05-09 be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: A 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 10-foot side setback
requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned
Residential Three.
For the following reasons:
1. The applicant has very limited options for placement of garages sufficient
to accommodate an 8-unit multi-family structure without the need for a
variance.
2. Garages are seen by Jefferson County Housing Authority and Wheat
Ridge Housing Authority as very much affecting the likelihood of
achieving the goals of both Jefferson County and Wheat Ridge Housing
Authorities.
3. Approval of the variance would hopefully provide an incentive to make
improvements to a dilapidated property and perhaps be influential for
adjacent properties to do or request the same.
4. 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.
5. The adjacent property to the north is also zoned multi-family.
6. The corner lot status of t6is apartment building places the building with a
sigaificant double front yard setback therefore limiting available space in
the rear and side yards. This has caused a hardship in the design of a
viable project.
7. The 10-foot required setbacks do not seem to provide a definable benefit
to this neighborhood due to the conTguration of adjacent occupancies.
8. There has been no neighborhood opposition registered.
With the following conditions:
1. 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 buildiag permit.
2. The structure shall not have an exterior with visible metal materials.
3. The set6ack area being varied behind the garages shall be enclosed for
security, prevention of storage of illicit materials, and graffiti control.
Boazd Member BLAIR commented that the function and duty of the Wheat Ridge
Housing Authority is to provide a public service and the proposed project will improve
Board of Adjustment - 4 -
05-26-OS
the quality of the neighborhood.
Board Member HOVLAND commented that the zoning code amendment which
increased setbacks from 5-feet doesn't make sense in this area. There would have been
no need for a variance in this case without the zoning code amendment.
Board Member BELL stated that she would support the motion because of the location of
the gazages. The bulk plane in this situation is not as much an issue as it would be in a
single family residential zone with a single story house adjacent to a single story house.
It was moved by Board Member HOWARD that the variance request be changed
from 5 feet to 3 feet. The motion died for lack of a second.
The motion passed 6-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no.
C. Case No. WA-05-10: An application filed by Holiday Inn Express Hotel and
Suites for approval of a variance of 10 feet from the required 30 foot setback from
the right-of-way for signs over 25 feet high resulting in a 20-foot setback from the
right-of-way for property zoned Commercial One and located at 10101 West I-70
Frontage Road South
This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all 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 approval of the application for
reasons outlined in the staff report.
Boazd Member HOVLAND asked if there were any safety or sight h-iangle issues
involved with the proposed location of the sign. Jeff Hirt stated that this matter was not
referred to the traffic engineer because the sign wil] not be located at the intersection of
two streets where sight triangle regulation would apply.
In response to a question from Boazd Member ABBOT"I', Mr. Hirt stated that the size of
the proposed sign is well below the allowed squaze footage.
Todd Brummond
Holiday Inn Express
Mr. Brummond was swom in by Vice Chair BELL. Mr. Brummond is managing
member of the ownership group of the Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites. The
required 30-foot setback for the sign wouid infringe upon the Valley Water District's
water easement and therefore a request for variance became necessazy.
There were no other individuals present who wished to address this case. Vice Chair
BELL closed the public hearing.
Boazd of Adjustment - 5 -
05-26-OS
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BYBEE,
the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Applica6on Case No. WA-05-10 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 there were no protests registered against it; and
Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public
welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the
regulations governing-the City of Wheat Ridge.
Now, therefore be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-
05-10 be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: A variance of 10 feet from the required 30 foot setback from the
right-of-way for signs over 25 feet high resulting in a 20-foot setback from the right-
of-way for property zoned Commercial One.
For the following reasons:
1. The request will have no effect on the essential character of the locality. The
request is to upgrade an existing sign using the same height and
approximately the same size dimensions with an approximately 3 square foot
increase.
2. There are unique conditions in that the property 6as adjacent right-of-way
on three sides therefore limiting options for placement of a 50-foot high sign.
3. There are limited options for placement of the 50-foot high sign within
setback requirements without displacing parking spaces and/or drive aisles
on the property.
4. Approval of the variance would not result in any change in existing
conditions relative to the location and size of the existing 50-foot high sign.
5. Approval of the request would result in an upgrade to an existing sign along
Interstate 70.
6. The most affected adjacent occupancy is a hotel to the west across the I-70
frontage road south.
7. The Valley Water District has written a letter stating that they were opposed
to relocation of this sign to the required setback because it would interfere
with the 16cation of their water main and adjacent soil conditions.
The motion passed 7-0.
Board of Adjustment - 6 -
OS-26-OS
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Vice Chair BELL closed the public heazing portion of the meeting.
6. OLD BUSINESS
Super Majoritv Vote - Board Member ABBOTT reported that he and Boazd
Member BELL appeared before City Council to speak to the proposed change
reducing the super majority vote to a simple majority vote. The City Council
voted 8-0 to table the proposal indefinitely. If the Neighborhood Revitalization
Study suggests that the super majority vote should be changed, the City Counci]
would revisit the matter. City Council also expressed appreciation for the work
performed by the Board of Adjustment.
There was discussion about appointing altemates to the Boazd to serve in the
absence of regulaz members.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of minutes - March 24, 2005
It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board
Member BLAIR to approve the minutes of March 24, 2005 as
presented. The motion passed unanimously.
8. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member
BLAIR to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Janet Bell, Vice Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
Boazd of Adjustment
OS-26-OS
-7-