HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/2005. .=f . . . . .
CITY OF W1IEAT RIDGE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
December 7, 2005
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of
Adjustment on December 7, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 W. 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
L CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for auyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the
agenda.)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. WA-05-20: An application filed by Advance Auto Parts for approval of a
variance from the maximum allowable height, maximum allowable size and setback
requirements for freestanding signs and a variance to the maximum size altowed for wall
signs for property located at 5400 W. 38`h Avenue and zoned Commercial-One (C-1).
B. Case No. WA-05-21: An application filed by Paul Halliday for approval of a 2 foot rear
yard setback variance from the 10 foot rear yazd setback requirement resulting in an 8
foot rear yard setback and a variance to the maximum building coverage requirement for
a detached garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3440 Estes
Street.
G. Case No. WA-05-22: An application filed by Doug Pollock for approval of a 5 foot side
yard and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yazd and 10 foot rear
yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height for property zoned '
Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4280 Pierson Street.
D. Case No. WA-05-23: An application filed by Scott Rensch for approval of a variauce to
the maximum fence height standazd pursuan, to Section 26-603 of the Code of Laws for
property located in the public right-of-way adjacent to property at 3805 Garrison Street
and zoned Residential One (R-1).
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of minutes - September 22, 2005
8. ADJOURNMENT
oFw"~Tk
'o
u ` m
._°o<oan9° .
TO:
CASE NO. & NAME:
ACTION REQUESTED:
CI'i`Y OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Boazd of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: 7eff Hirt
WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services DATE OF MEETING: December 7, 2005
Approval of a variance from the max;mum allowable height, maximum
allowable size and setback requirements for freestanding signs and a variance
to the max;mum size allowed for wall signs for property zoned Commerciat-
One (Gl).
LOCATION OF REQiTEST: 5400 West 30' Avenue
APPLICANT (S): Site Enhancement Services
OWNER (S): Cadence Capital Investments
APPROXIMATE AREA: 38,554 (.89 acres)
PRESENT ZOIVING: Commercial One (C-1)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
(X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
Location Map
Subject Parcel
Im 101
Boazd of Adjustment 1
Case WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services
.Turisdiction
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 5400 VJest 38"' Avenue. The property has Commercial-One (C-1) zoning.
Construction is currently underway on the properry for an approximately 7,000 square foot Advance Auto Parts
retail store at this locafion.
The a licant, Site Enhancement Services is requesting this variance on behalf of the property owner
The recuest is for approval of the wall signage and freestanding signage shown on the
plans submitted It has been determined by staff that in order to
construct the signage as shown, a variance from the ivaximum ailowable height and setback requirements for
freestanding signs and a variauce to the max;mum size allowed for wall signs is required.
Per Section 26-709 (D) of the Code of Laws, the regulations for signage on this property are as follows:
FreestandinSignaee
• 15 foot maximum height
• One freestanding sign per street frontage
• Setbacks from right-of-way - 5 feet if sigi is 7 feet or less in height, 10 feet if sign is between 7 and 25
feet high. •
• Size allowed is based on the floor area of the building (Table for calculations is in Sea 26-709 (D) of
the Code of Laws). There is also a provision in the Code of Laws for the transfer of allowable signage
for freestanding signs if 2 freestanding signs aze allowable by virtue of multiple street.frontages. Such
transfer cannot allow the lazger sign to exceed 150 percent of the maximum azea allowed based upon
building azea. If the sign azea is transferred from 1 allowable sign to another, only the lazger sign is
allowed ?*?d +_he seco+?ci sig? ?s not be pea?rirred. With this provision, the maximum allowable uea for
one freestanding sign on ttris property is 156 squaze feet (104 square feet is allowed, 150 percent of 104
squaze-feet is 156 squaze feet).
Wall Sienaee
. One wall sign is allowed for each wall which faces a public street or major interior drive.
• Maximum area can be no lazger than 1 squaze foot for every lineaz foot of the side of the building to
which it is affixed. For the subject property, wall signage is allowed on the east (facing Benton Street)
and north (facing 38'b Avenue) elevations. A 70 square foot wall sign is allowed on the north elevation
(north wall is 70 feet long). A 120 squaze foot sign is allowed on the east elevarion (east wall is 120
feet long).
It is also important to note that this property is subject to the regulations in the Streetscape and Arclutectural
Design Manual. Per Section 26-223 of the Code of Laws, all properties with commercial zoning aze subject to
the regulauons in the Manual. Sec. 2.6 (Signage) in the Manual has the following notable regulations for
signage. These regulations are not requirements, they aze recommendauons.
• Monument style signs are encouraged.
• Design which treats poles as low cost and expedient methods of structural support is discouraged.
• The materials of the ground sign supporting wall should resemble the materials of the building. Signs
should compliment the building azchitecture.
Secuon 4.2 of the Manual also requires conceptual review by the City's Design Review Comrnittee (DRC) for
projects which aze govemed by the Manual. Tlus development was govemed by the regulauons of the Manual,
therefore conceptual plans were submitted and approved prior to Advance Auto Parts receiving their building
Boazd of Adjustment . 2
Case WA•05-20/81teEnLancement Sesvices
permit for the project. Approval of the conceptual plans was given by the DRC with conditions. One of the
conditions of approval was regazding signage. The conditions (numbers 16 and 17 on the attached memo) state
that only monument style si s shall be allowed, and wall signage must be in conformance with the City's sign
code
The signs shown on the elevations submitted aze as follows:
Freestanding Sign - A 25 foot lugh, freestanding pole sign setback 5 feet from the 38o' Avenue right-
of-way, 108 squaze feet in size.
Wall Signs - Two wall signs, one on the north elevation and one on the east elevation. Each wall sign
is 92.9 squaze feet in size. There is a red background shown, however only the text of the sign is taken
into considerarion for the size of the sign.
Therefore, variances aze needed as follows to allow for the siehs•
• Freestanding Signage
➢ A variance of 10 feet from the maxunum height of 15 feet for freestauding signs, resulting in a
25 foot lugh sign.
➢ A variance of 5 feet from the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way for signs 7 to 25
feet lugh resulting in a 5 foot setback from the 38`" Avenue right-of-way.
➢ No variance is necessary for the size of the freestanding sign.
• Wall Signage, North Elevation - A variance of 22:9 feet from the maximum allowable azea for wall
signs. The north wall is 70 feet long, and the wall sign is proposed at 92.9 sqnare feet.
• Wall Signage, East Elevation - No vaziance is necessary. The east wall is 101 feet long, and the wall
signage is 92.9 squaze feet.
Sepazate motions by the Boazd aze required for each component of this request
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The subject property is 38,218 square feet, or .88 acres. The property measures approximately 150 feet wide
with a depth of 256.75 feet.
The azea surrounding the property in question consists mainly of commercial uses. Adjacent properties include
a caz wash to the west, multi-tenant commercial uses to the immediate east and directly north across 38t`
Avenue, and single and multi-family residentiai structures to the south and east.
The variances required are for both the freestanding and wall signage. The applicant may conslruct a
freestanding, monument style sign 7 feet in height with a 5 foot setback without the need for any variances.
The City has required the building to be closer to the street, with a 15 foot build to line as required by the
Streetscape and Arcfritectural Design Manual for this properry. A request for a variance to this 15 foot build to
line was made for this property in 2004 by a different applicant and property owner than is makiug tlus request.
Case Number WA-04-08 was a request for a vaziance of up to 55 feet &om the 15 foot build to line to conshuct
a one story retail building on the subject properry. The request was denied at the 7anuary 2005 Boazd of
Adjustment hearing. One of the reasons for denial was that the request was contrary to the intent of the
Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual.
The current property owner, azchitect, and Advance Auto Parts have been willing to comply with the
regulafions of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. They have designed the building to be pushed
closer to the street, and they have provided significant azchitectural upgades from the typical corporate design
of an Advance Auto Parts retail store, as well as slreetscape and landscaping ameniues. Such amenities include
Board of Adjivctment 3
Case WA-05•20/Site Enhancemeat Services .
the use of brick on the fagade of the building, and sueetscape nnprovements on Benton Street to match the
existing unprovements done by the City on 38`h Avenue.
In constructing the building to be in compliance with the 15 foot build to line, the orientation of the building
provides limited azea for wall signage on the north elevation (facing 38`h Avenue) given the size regulation. for
wall signage (size for wall signage is based on lineaz footage of the wall). This factored in with the length of the
text needed for signage ("Advance Auto Parts") makes providing adequate wall signage on the north elevauon
problematic. In addition, constructing a wall sigi on the north elevation smaller than the sign on the east
elevation may look awkwazd given their proximity to one another.
The intent of the required build-to line of 15 feet, in particulaz with this portion of 38`b Avenue, is to allow for
neo-traditional design where commercial structures aze pushed forwazd towazds the front properry line. The
buildings should be located closer to the street to focus on pedeshian acfiviTy rather than excessive pavement,
pazking lots and cazs. The pazking azeas aze de-emphasized as a design feature and are usually located behind
or beside the structure.
To support the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual and encourage this Type of design, the City of
Wheat Ridge invested significant funds into a pilot streetscape project on 38`b Avenue between Sheridan Blvd.
and Harlan Street. Improvements to the subject property at the city's expense included installation of a
detached sidewalk, a five-foot wide treelawn with the planting of trees, corner treatment, and adecorarive fence
Mi, M EM This is the first significant commercial development withiu the 38'h Avenue
streetscape improvement area. The design elements of this development wIll likely set the tone for future
redevelopment on ttris important corridor for the City.
A 25 foot high pole sign with a 5 foot setback from 38`h Avenue is inconsistent with the objec6ves of the
Manual and the in4ent of the City's investment in this corridor. The allowance for two wall signs on a building
setback 15 feet from the 38`h Avenue right-of-way provides sufficient visibiliTy for motorists and pedestrians
from the street and sidewalk. The allowance of a 25 foot high pole sign in this location would also contribute to
visual clutter on 38t° Avenue, and it does not compliment the building's architecture and materials.
It is also important to note that one letter of objecrion from an adjacent property owner has been received
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 wluch 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 retail store providing adequate signage without the need for any variances.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
The request for a 25 foot pole sign with a 5 foot setback from 38`b Avenue will have an adverse effect on
the essenrial chazacter of the locality. Such a sign is inconsistent with the pedestrian scale and appeazance
of the streetscape improvements, as well as the building orientafion. Crranting of the variance for the wall
signage would not have an effect on the essential character of the locality.
3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specitic property
involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere i
inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out?
Board of Adjusanent - 4
Case WA-05-20/Site Enhancement Services
There aze no conditions related to the shape or topographical condition of the property that render any
portion of the lot unbuildable for a freestanding sign, or necessitate a variance for wall signage.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardslup been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property?
The applicant has created his own hazdslup by requesting the variances for freestanding signage. The
applicant may construct a freestanding, monument style sign 7 feet in height with a 5 foot setback without
the need for any vaziances. The City requiring the building orientation as it will be constructed makes it
problematic for adequate wall signage on the north elevation however.
5. Would the granring of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property or improvements in the neighborhood in wluch the property is located, by, among other
tlungs, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing
the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or
substantially diminislung or impairing property values within the neighborhood?
Approval of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other property in
the area. The requests 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 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 disabiliHes?
The request for a vaziance to freestanding signage and wall signage would not result in a substantial
benefit or conhibution to the neighborhood dis6nguished from an individual benefit on the part of the
applicant. Approvai of the vaziance for freestanding signage would be a negative contribution to the
neighborhood; being contrary to the intent of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual, the City's
investment in streetscape improvements in this corridor, and contribute to visual clutter on 38ffi Avenue.
The reqdesi would not result in a reasonable accommodation oi a person with d:sabiliries.
III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Freestanding Signage
A request for a variance af 10 feet from the maximum height of I S feet for freestanding signs, resulting in a 25
foot high sign; and a variance of 5 feet from the required 10 foot setback from the right-of-way for signs 7 to 25
feet high resulting in a 5 foot setback from the 38`h Avenue right-of-way.
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria aze not supportive of the variance
request. Staff has found that there aze not unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant
approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons:
1) The applicant may construct a freestanding, monument sryle sign 7 feet in height with a 5 foot setback
without the need for any variances.
2) If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable rehuv in use. The properry may still
be used as a retail store providing adequate signage without the need for any variances.
3) The request for a 25 foot pole sign with a 5 foot setback from 38`h Avenue will have an adverse effect
on the essential chazacter of the locality.
4) Tbe applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting the variances for freestanding signage.
Boazd of Adjustment
Case WA-05-20/Site EnLancement Services
5) Approval of the variance for freestanding signage would be contrary to the intent of the Streetscape and
Architectural Design Manual, the City's investment in streetscape improvements in this corridor, and
conuibute to visual clutter on 38`b Avenue.
Wall Signage, North Elevation
A request for a variance of 22.9 feet from the maximum allowable area for wall signs, resulting in a 92.9 square
foot sign.
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance request.
Staff has found that there aze unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a
variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons:
1) Granting of the variance for the wall signage would not have an effect on the essential character of the
locality.
2) The City requiring the building orientation as it will be constructed makes it problematic for adequate
wall signage on the north elevation.
3) Constructing a wall sign on the north elevation smaller than the sign on the east eleva6on may look
awkwazd given their proximity to one another.
Board of Adjnslwent . . 6
CaseWA-OS-20/SiteEnhancementServices
1 . q
Justifications for Approval of Advance Auto Parts
Sign Proposal
A. Can the property in quesfion 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? Advance Auto Parts shives to
locate their properties where they can provide adequate exposure to their
customers. Unlike Nike, for example, our trademazked name Advance Auto Parts
is much longer. As a result increased squaze footage is required to allow for our
name orientation. The red panels aze simply an architectural detail of the
building. These panels are non-illuminated and simply serve to enhance the
building. This proposal is the minimum amount of relief necessary to allow this
commercially zoned pazcel to reach its maximum zoning potential. This will not
only increase revenue to the property but will also result in an increase in valuable
tas revenue for the coxnxnunity.
B. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the
locality? Tlus is a commercial corridor. Motorists traveling along this corridor
want and expect signage to a11ow them to locate and safely access the property.
Our proposal coordinates with the overall building and trade corridor.
C. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition
of the speciric property involved result in a particular and unique hardship
as distinguisued from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the
regulation were carried out? This property is located on a hazd corner. In order
to provide the min;mum amount of exposure necessary for our customers to safely
locate our property these signs represent the minimum amount of exposure
required. Typically AAP would utilize three wall signs and a lazger freestanding
sign. Based on thoughts communicated through staff we have reduced the
number and size of signs to represent the m;nimum amount of relief necessary.
D. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presentiy
having an interest in the properly? The alleged difficulty is not a result of any
person presenfly having an interest in the property.
E. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties? Approval of this proposal would in no way be
detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other properties. In fact, by
providing a quality wayfinding tool you will prevent unnecessary vehiculaz
maneuvers such as u-turns, double backs, sudden stops, quick decisions, and
EXHIBIT 1
excess drive time. A decrease in such maneuvers will help to promote an increase
traffic safety.
F. If criteria a through e 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 accommodafion of a
person with disabilities? As mentioned previously, allowing flus properly the
proper exposure for the thoroughfazes that serves it, will allow this commercially
zoned pazcel to reach its maximum zoning potential. This will allow for the
property to reach its maximum potential, increase revenue as well as increase
valuable tas revenue. This increased tax revenue can be used as a valuable
contributor to improve the neighborhood or community.
~ . ,
Octo6er 12, 2005
Aft
,4,
w
ia'a
Wheat Ridge, CO
SiteEnhancementServices I Ph: 1 . 888. 546. 6095 1 Fax: 1 .574. 237. 6166 1 www.siteenhancementservices.com SC•S7
L/
EXHIBIT 2
NORTN EL8VA710N - 387N AVR'NUQ
~s uw- ro
84BT QLBVATION - 9fiNTON $tRl6T e~an e,.. we
October 12, 2005
1 e,_o„ ~
1
Scale: 118"=1'
Wheat Ridge, CO
SRe Enhancement Services 1 Ph: 1. 888 . 546. 6095 1 Fax: 1. 574. 237. 6166 1 www.siteenhancementservices.com SIEV
October 12, 2005
O
37'_2"
D
M ~ e a ~ S e
Sq. Ft. =92.82 sq ft
Scale : 1/8" = 1'-0"
Wheat Ridge, CO
Site Enhancement Services ~ Ph: 1.888. 546. 6095 1 Fax: 1. 574. 237. 6166 ~ www.siteenhancementservices.com Sl~S~
u
.4dVaaste Auto Pas'tsl.=:=
. 2005
~
Wheat Ridge, CO
Site Enhancement Services ~ Ph: 1.888. 546. 6095 1 Fax: 1. 574. 237. 6166 1 www.siteenhancementservices.com Sw
W
~
~
z
~
~
x
F
Oi0
M
H
~
W
~
O
cl'
tn
, .
~
,
S
~
,r
,
EXHIBIT 3
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum
TO: Applicant; File
FROM: Alan White, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Commercial Development at 5400 West 38th Avenue
~E WHEqr
~
h Q
U m
°~<oanoo
DATE: July 25, 2005
The Wheat Ridge Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual was adopted by reference as a regulation
to applicable development on February 26, 2001. Per Section 4.1 of the Slreetscape and Architectural
Design Manual, all development applications that aze determined to be govemed by the Streetscape and
Architectural Design Manual aze required to make a Conceptual Design Pian Submittal to the City of
Wheat Ridge Design Review Committee (DRC) prior to making site plan submittai required by Section
26-111 of the Zoning and Development Code.
It has been determined that the proposed commercial development at 5400 West 3e Avenue will be
governed by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. Approval of a Conceptual Design Plan
(attached) has been requested by Cheng Ku of C.K. Architects.
The Conceptual Design Plan, received on 7uly 13, 2005 has been approved by the Design Review
Committee; and the applicant may proceed with site plan submittal pursuant to Section 26-111 of the
Code of Laws with the following conditions:
1. The corner entrance shall have an overhang that must square off the northeast corner of the
structure. We would prefer to see an enlarged canopy/roof structure, supported by brick columns
that further articulates the entrance. This would also provide more protection from the elements
for customers.
2. The City's Parks and Recreation Department must be consulted regazding the proposed break in
the fence structure on 38ffi Avenue. The applicant will be responsible for identifying any issues
regazding underground irrigation, future maintenance and any other underground utilities that
may be affected.
3. One additional street tree will be required where the access point will be closed off on 38th
Avenue. The new tree must match the elcisting trees on 38th Avenue on this property's frontage
and be placed in line with the existing irees on this property's frontage.
4. One street tree in each of the 2 landscaped islands shown between the two Benton Street curb
cuts will be required. At least one street tree must be placed directly to the east of the southern
pazking area shown.
5. All new street trees on Benton Street must be within 15 feet of the eastern property line.
6. All street trees must be consistent with the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manuals' design
guidelines for street trees.
7. The landscaped area on 38th Avenue must be continuous and consistent with existing conditions
through the azea where the proposed closure of the access point on 38`h Avenue is proposed.
EXHIBIT 4
S. All mechanical equipment must be completely screened fzom view from the right-of-way and
adjacent properties. The preferred method is to place all mechanical equipment below the top
level of the pazapet walls. Please show the roof deck line on the elevations so that we can verif
if any equipment will be screened.
9. Clarification must be provided for the approximately 10 foot wide azea west of the building and
the south 51' 1" of the property for what this area will consist of.
10. The screening of the dumpster enclosure must be a wall 6 feet in height consistent with the
materials used on the building. No chain link or wooden fericing will be allowed for the
dumpster enclosure. All trash storage areas must be completely screened. A separate fence
permit will be required for tkris area.
11. There must be a curb to delineate between pazking spaces on the southeast corner of the building.
The option also exists to remove 2 parking spaces here as it appeazs that more pazking spaces
have been provided then what the City's Code of Laws requires.
12. The two handicapped accessible parldng spaces sliown must be moved to the north, adjacent to
the main pedestrian entrance to the building.
13. More brick on the east and north elevations would be preferable to us.
14. We would prefer that the windows shown on the north and east elevations not extend all the way
to ground level. Placing either brick or matching split face CMU would be acceptable on the
bottom,section of the window cunently shown.
15. Any new fencing to match the existing as part of the City's streetscape improvements must
consist of the same materials. used by the City.
16. Any freestanding signage allowed on the subject property must be monument style signs with
materials consistent with the building exterior visible. No pole signs will be allowed.
17. The wall signage must be in conformance with the Ciry's sign code regarding allowable sizP
VJall signage is allowed at no lazger than one (i) square foot for every lineaz foot of the side ~
the building to which it is affixed.
Please also be aware that the following will be required as part of the submittal, Per the Code of Laws:
a) A detailed landscape pIan snowing that all requirements of the Code of Laws have oeen met, in
addition to the landscaping requirements specified in the above conditions.
b) A photometric report, illustrating 0 footcandle readings at all property lines.
c) All other applicable requirements in Section 26-111 of the Code of Laws.
The above referenced Conceptual Design Plan, received on July 13, 2005 is hereby approved by the
Design Review Committee with the above listed conditions; and the applicant may proceed with site
plan submittal pursuant to Section 26-111 of the Code of Laws.
Community Development Director
C~ ~ ~ ~
pf.podeo~ b~dk, I`~ ~
~ N CC.
. r~ ~ rV70/C
~r~ ~ ;
~d~K exTSf~Kq
r~
11771~71' FhD
~ _
~
9. C~4 r~~ ~„t~at
~u d~ea:
ev~sesr o f
~at+~c rcx.e
1. ~are d{}ic✓Id{ec~ Bln+l~ance i
!b. xtV r~~~x+ f S~f ~ ~
~ ~ i n~ H _ Y
~
MATGH ~ ~
~
\
8
~a. -
M ave
~ ~~k~
tnrmsc.~ -
t r~nr~r~s . Ftw.~ 3 r~
r+nrc++ ~asrs
`b '
e
)3 ~
3d-O' + 7 -0•
l
Cv~b rr~ ~F bC he/~j
dr e/iwtilndfr 2 ~
S~ac2J ~
W
/ ~ ~ . 30C-O' .7L
~h
Ia• dU~'~°,r{er L';~°`.x"'a~
r6tvsf V~e ScfeB .i$-__---- -
N ~
-9. crar,6 y
` . ,
~
~ ~as'n+b ~ i
p~d.'E POL~ ~p ~
O
C17f
S-Frre+ I
trce~ se~v~r~ i
~
Ar~htt~cts,lnc.
8539 E°5T ~HiH AV@LE'
vENVER ~LCRADO 80Si8
A11~) 3"f1-1908
~ar. ) 38b-7o?9
+r~4 Itecbtwey Soccom
W
~
~
W
~
~
x
H
00
M
~
W
~
4
O
~
Ln
EXHt_1971 5
0
Nov. 29, 2005
Board of Adjustment
City of Wheat Ridge
Case No. WA-05-20
As the owner of 3780 Benton St. across from this development and the former owner of
all C-1 property on the south side of 3e Ave. from Ames to Benton streets, I wnsider
the signage requests to be excessive. I reviewed the proposals at the Planning Dept. and
believe they are requesting four large signs. I request the Board of Adjustment consider
the rights of other properry owners before granting these variances.
Lee Fisher
EXHIBIT 6
~aF w~earqo CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ,
~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-21/Halliday DATE OF MEETING: December 7, 2005
ACTION REQiJESTED: Approval of a 2 foot reaz yazd setback variance from the 10 foot rear yard I
setback requirement resulting in an 8 foot rear yard setback and a variance
'
from the maximum building coverage requirement for a detached garage on '
property zoned Residential-Two (R-2).
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3440 Estes Street '
APPLICANT (S): Paul Halliday
OWNER (S): Paul Halliday
APPROXIMATE AREA: 20,750 (.48 acres) '
PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Two (R-2)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FII.E & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
(X) DIGTI'AL PRESENTATION
Location Map
Subject Property
rnv
(EXEMPLA
LUTHERAN)
~
Board of Adjustmen[ 1
Case WA-05-21/11alliday
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 rectangulaz in shape and flat. The property is lazger
than the minimum lot size and width for the R-2 zone district.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardslup been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property?
The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a building of this size in this location. There is
not an essential need for such a structure and the proposed use of the structure for the property to function
as a single family residence. The applicant currently has a detached garage for parking, and is allowed
400 square feet for accessory storage buildings although this may not be sufficient for the property
owner's specific needs at this time.
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?
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 property to the north. The
request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety. Property values in the surrounding area should not be impacted as a result of
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 granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation
of a person with disabilities?
The request would no[ result in a substantial benefi[ or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished
from an individual benefit on the part of the applican[.
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 are not supportive of the variance
request. Staff has found that there aze not unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant
approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasonx
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. Although a similaz variance was approved for the property to the immediate north of the subject
property, variance approval does not constimte a precedent set.
3. The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a building of this size in this location.
There is not an essential need for a variance to allow such a structure and the proposed use of
the structure for the property to function as a single family residence.
Board of Adjustment
Case WA-05-21/Halliday
November 9, 2005
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
7500 West 29t' Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Dear Sirs:
This letter serves as a request for a variance of Section 26-209, Municipal Code of Laws, City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for the property legally described as "Lot 1 and the Westerly 56 feet of
Lot 2, Beasley (Minor) Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado," otherwise known as
3440 Estes Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The following enclosures accompany this letter of
request:
1. Original signed and notarized Land Use Case Processing Application.
2. A personal check in the amount of $390.00 to cover the fees for processing this request
for variance.
3. A copy of the Recorded Deed to the property described above.
4. A copy of a Certified Survey of the property in the form of an Improvement Location
Certificate plat.
5. A copy of the Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Building Elevations describing the proposed
changes to the property.
The full intent and purpose of this request aze described in the paragraphs that follow.
Section 26-209 of the Municipal Code of Laws provides categories of buildings aliowed on
residential property. These categories include a detached gazage or cazport and a private storage
shed. The maximum building coverage allowed for a detached gazage/carport is 1000 square feet;
the maximum building coverage allowed for a private storage shed is 400 square feet. Currently
our property has a detached two-caz gazage covering 576 square feet. We would like to add
another detached building on our property to serve as an art studio and workshop. The planned
dimensions of this studio/shop aze 20 feet deep by 50 feet wide, which comes to 1000 square
feet. Since there is no category for studio/shop in the code, the City of Wheat Ridge Building
Department has indicated that this building would fall under the detached garage category. This
would bring the total square feet of "detached garage" to 1576, which exceeds the maximum.
The need for a studio/shop arises from not having enough space in the existing structures.
Currently, the art studio is set up in the main living room of the dwelling, and the shop is set up
in half of the existing detached gazage. This presents a hardship in that we aze not able to use the
living room for its original purpose, and we aze not able to pazk one of our two vehicles in the
garage. Adding on to the primary dwelling unit would be problematic as it would:
1. Infringe on the circulaz drive surrounding the dwelling.
2. Detract from the original "bungalow" azchitectural style and "charm" of the house.
3. Be difficult to exacUy match the existing brick making it look like an add-on.
4. Lessen the natural light on the interior of the existing residence.
EXHIBIT 1
-Page2-
Adding on to the existing detached gazage would also be problematic as it would:
1. Detract from the original architectural style and chann.
2. Be difficult to exactly match the existing brick making it look like an add-on.
3. Only allow an additiona1424 square feet. This falls short of our need for space in a
studio/shop.
We have contracted Yano Designs, Inc. to provide us with a conceptual and detailed azchitectural
design for our studio/shop. The conceptual design, provided in this request package, includes a
site plan, a floor plan, and building elevation drawings for the studio/shop. The intended
placement and height of the studio/shop conform to the setbacks and maacimum height defined in
the municipal code. Our lot area is over 26,000 square feet which exceeds the minimum of 9,000
square feet.
Please note that the eacisting storage sheds adjacent to the lot line dividing Lots 1 and 2 will be
removed. The studio/shop will not encroach upon the utility and drainage easements between
these two lots.
The proposed studio/shop is to be for our personal purposes only; we have no intention or desire
to operate a business from the Froperty. It will have a brick fagade and a hip-roof porch which ,
will preserve the essential chazacter of the primary dwelling and detached garage. Since the '
building will not be visible from Estes Street, the character of the streetscape will be preserved. If ;
the variance is granted, we do not believe that it will be detrimental to the public welfaze or
injurious to other property in the neighborhood. '
Thank you for consideration in this matter
Sincerely,
,
~
Paul W. Halliday
~U1~~'
' '
Bazbetta L. Halliday
3440 Estes Street
I
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Home: 303.2323449
'
Cell: 303378.4700
,
Email: phalliday@att.net
'i
Enclosures (5)
PL
I
(D
~
O ,
w ~I I
i t0'-0"I
45'-0"
4
0
60
N
Exdsting driveway
~
Exi5cin9
6cisting One Story
Brick House Existing
24'-0"
Rear I o ~ i
Porch $-_0~~ $-_Q-'
o
~
6cisting Garage Q
New
o Proposed
N
I covered porch
- - ~ I
, I
~
F~dsting driveway
LOT 1
207.5'
101-0°
~ ~E
~
°
I
I~
LOT 2 I°
12
I9
~
c
~
- ~
I
I
- --L--
56.0' PL
LEGAL DESCRIPTfON:
Lot 1 and the WesterlY `-6 feet of lot 2, N
~
Beasley (Minor) subdivision, County of
Jefferson, State of Colo!~ado.
EXI~IBIT 2
PL
-----~-------•---~r-----------------•-------~.
50~_p,~ ~ I
~ - - - ---i
I
j ne ~ry ~ ~
~
3 =
~
~ W
d
~
0
m 'C N
O
'0a N
W
~ Q
= C~
M
Z
~
~
~
W
~
~
VJ
Page Numbar.
if
Site Plan
1 °=20,_0„
11~~105
50'-0"
~ Peg Boaro
a
~
To fO
~ o.
~ t ToolBench
U
Drill -
Press
0 ~ WOOD SHOP
:hopsaw
~ Table Saw
Storage
Cabinet
7,o X $,o
4" concrete slab
~
Easel
3 12"
PAINTING STUDIO
Drawing Table
Computer
-
~ Glass Block Detail
(typical 6 places:
match existing house detail)
covered patio
Easel
0
0
N
Drawing Table
0
0
_ - i-~~ _
EXHIBIT 3
i
8 ~
8 '
= I~
~
O 0
oN~ '
i
0
CO)
C N
~av
= O
'd'
M
i
Z {
LL I
O
O i
i
PapeNurtber.
2 II
1/4'=l'-p' .
17/OB/O$
12 14 (match e)dsting garage roof pitch)
J
~~~i~i
~i i
i
i i i i
Fl' i i.i.i. i.i.i.i,i i.i.i.i,i.i,i
0
~
a
<
IL;
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I II I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I~I~IIIII~III~I~I~I~I~III~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~III~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~III~IIIIIIIIIII~I~I~I~I~III~I~III~I~I~I~ ~I~I~IIIII~III~I~I~IIIII~IIIIIIIIIII
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I I~ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
IIIII~I~III~1'I~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'Illlillllllll~lllllllllllil~I~I~I~I~i~i~l~i~lllll~l~lll~l~l'I~II:IIIIIIIIII~I~I~I~I'ill~l'I~I~I~I~I~I
I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I~I~I~I~III~IIIII~I~I~I~I~I~III~I~I~I~III~IIII~~IIIIIIIII~I~IIIII~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~i~lllll~lll~lll~l~l~l~'~I~I~I~IIIII~I~I~I~III~I~I~I~I~I~i~l
I~I~~~I~III~III~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~IIIII~IIIII~I~I~I~I~I~IIi~III~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~illll~lll~lll~l~l~l~
I~I~III~I~III~I~I~I~I~I~I~III~I~I~I~I~IIill~l~l~lll~l~lll~lllll~l~l~lll~l~l~lll~l~l~l~llt~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~ ~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~IIIIIII~I~I~IIIII~I~I
I~I~I~I~I~III~III~I~~II~I~IIIII~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~III~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~1~1~1~ ~III~I~I~I~I~III~III~I~IIIII~I~IIIII
I~I~IIIIi~llllllllll.llllllllllllllllllllllll~llll~lllll~l~lll~lllllllllllllllll~l~lllll~lll~l~l~lll~l-III~II~IIIIIIIII~III~IIIilllllll~lllllll
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
I~I~I~I~I~I~III~III~I~I~I~III~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~I~III~I~I~IIIII~I~I~I I~III~I~I~I~III~I~I~III~III~I~III~I~I~!~I I~I~I~I~III~I~1~1~1~1~1~~~1~1~1~1
IIIII~I~I~I~IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII ~III~IIII~I~I~I~I~I~IIIII~III~I~I~I~I~IIIII'I~IIIII~I~III~III~I~I'I~II!~III~III~IIIIIIIII~I~I~III~i~l~l~l~l
I I I I I I I I ~ I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I. I. i. I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I 1 I I. I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I. I. I. I. I. I . I . I _ I. I. I. I, I, I, I, I I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, 1, I, I, I,
J
a
~
m
'v
i. \
12
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I
/ I I I
I I~I~III~1
I I~I~IIIIIIIII~I
12
I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
1 I I I I I I I L I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I
I~I~I I I~I~1~1~1~1~1~ I I1 I~II
I ~ I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I ~I~I~I~III~I~IIIII~I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
, ~I~I~I 1 , I~I~I~I~I I~III~I~I~
I I I I I I I i I I I I I I
I I I t I I I I I I I I I I
I I I~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I 1 I I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I i I I
- - City of Whea[Ridge p WHEqT
Community Developmen[
,7500 W. 29" Ave. = o
. WheatRidge,C080033 " F
303-235-2846
Sec. 26-209. Residential-Two District (R-2). w~.ci.wnea«iagexo.us CQ~~RA~O
Intent and purpose: This district is established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate-density
,idential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character.
B. Development standards:
TGRI F INSFT,
Maximum
Mazimum .
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Hagh[
Building
Lat
Lot
Front -
Side
Rear
.
Coverage
Area
Wdth(p
Vard
Yartl
Yard
Setback
Seroack(a)
Seroack(a)
One-tdmiyAvdling
35'
40%
9.000 sf
7540
304b1
ql<)
10!
Two-tamiydwelling
35'
40°h
12,500sf
100'
30{e)
5{c)
70'
Grouphome
35'
40%
9,0005f
75'
30{b)
50)
10'
ory 6uildings(A)
garage or
Detached
15'
1.000 sf per unfl
9,000 sf
75'
30.(e)
5 i( 8' in heighk 10' H
5' if 8' in heighC 70' if
!
>8'inheght
>B'inheght
staage shed
10'
400 sf
9,000 sf
75'
30'
50) 'rf 8' in heght;
50) if B' in heghk
10'i(>8'inheght
70'if>8'inheght
Churches,schools,
35'
40%
iacre
200'
30'
150)
p' -
govemmentantlquasi-
,
gwemmenlbuildings,
gott wurses,small tlay
cdre center, and
nureing, eldedy and
congregale care homes
'atheruses
35'
40%
9,O00 sf
75'
30{b)
50)
10'
Notes:
(a) Any side or rear yard which abuts a public street shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet for all structures.
(b) Front setbacks for structures on lots or portions of lots which abut cul-de-sacs may be reduced to ten (10) feet for those
portions of lots which abut a cul-de-sac bulb. (See Figure 26-123.3.)
(c) A total of fifteen (15) feet side yard setback for every individual lot with a minimum of five (5) feet on one (1) side.
(d) Any building or structure which houses animals, except a residence, shall be set back fifteen (15) feet.
(e) Fifteen-foot setback for the first story and five (5) feet for each additional story.
(0 Corner lots shall have a minimum lot width of eighty (80) feet for both street frontages.
(9) Metai accessory buildings over 120 square feet in size are not permitted.
(Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1313, § 5, 10-27-03)
EXHIBIT 4
http://livepublish.municode.com/2/Ipext.dll/Infobase7/i /1 d5 c/205c/20d4?fn=document-frame.htrn&f=temp... 5/4/2004
"F HEASLEY (Minor) SUBDIVISION
~ . Beinq o Minor Subdivlsion ln the S E I/4 N E I/4 of Section
_ 27, T35. R64W of the 6ih P,M., Jefferson Canfy. Colorado.
o''A •er»•[ ru u.c cov.
o ev.o• . scan QnK
T ^I m
urt p
6W Iluliv
b IIP.^E:1 . :..-..v~ ~ t.. .....ic5
. .
N.~ ~ . . .
. .
ry
'
•
:ovv
PL
"
i9°9
-
.
:
tT
0
RO>v.
5
.
~
1- - _ a-
Q.
I
.
d
.q
.
~
:
.W
J
.....u.l ~
. -
- N .
_
,
I
,
f
ai
o
=
,
~
.a.o
°
a>•
u
- Lot 1
Lot 2. la
=
L
IfGG'
~
:~n ea•..•
..a
.os.s• .
~
~JI:?
e. iL'JC. 'i
i ' ed
.
i 1 `i•anrE Pm.on
_ • t
~ ~ '
-ir.c•
3;J5 'n.34f!:>.t?73:.
~
'h.?R:n :ut. . ,
. . ' .
' rw r..~.l . . . .
' $ufv¢yOf S C¢fTIfICOf¢
Scole: I i~ •30 teef - -
_
"
.a~ -Ha,i. a reqisfereA land Surveyorand Engineer
-
vOiES:
s. flearing deierminaliom ere mnde by eolar observalion.
i are 3/8're-bars wlth red plaalic caps
M
)
61ora0o, do hete6y cerlify Ihal 1 hav¢ aur-
a( (
onum¢n
se
E.
6:
'7
an.. ark<d upon Ihe qroand the land ahevn md der
.
9
wiih idenfificalion numFer
d R' 2
I he,eriih. 1 foriher cartify fhd said sorveyconforms
. .
a. Lofa ara zane
Coto•ado Reviaed Slalul¢s; Chopler 51,- Article 2,
a. E+7sfinu sbudvre on Lof 2 muy remuin as ~ho..'n buV muy mf
os anended.
M ex panded. If desiray ed o, remwed il cannof be rehaill
-
wilhin Ihe alilify and diaina0e ¢m~nenL
r~{ lviy U. 14, 1981.. Plat prepared by unaeniqnzd.
+Ei Ywp
~T
rol4PCG.Tt
-
DEDICATION
f ~V IK O~lV R t![ ~i4 I~V9R ff O.Pii~[f Ri~ld V haim~ ~ AC( R tuo 1~ M Yi' S:
I~ IyLVlM. ~wQ M~lST 6 IK !t~ !1 ~IE tiiRY~« ~mip ~S ittlp{~ `I~If R ~
~ Ri 5M~ 6 M YfN[S1 W, ~tl ~`K 911N12! i keMM S rt 41O gfia 11~ MR Iuf
pI1~1101 Xii Ip ~ qryf. • ~Cf.] fFR N. NAf.~~fCE OfY IaO IiR 10 AIN 6
]n 111[O ~'O IIVId YN VM V~~ IPFOI le0 Li! 4iYtl R Zwlt .Y4 91v1.9
ii d Iit [Irt R~f4i ~Z. RtO~~ R 1KY ~l4Mff W C0 ~i[ 10 ~K:IIf O~K~1~ q
i~ ~ uY na.6 W RM1[5 a tt 6OiMYM1G M1~~ f~ . F~LK YS fMR FA
) il! 16( V IiE :Il 6/rt~t ~Im u0 LLt raCIf4V O~RJ ic uS1NLL~ I~uCx1YO Nlllll6 W
tR'1 d u[ E[SYwoW Y[10@'S W ~ItMi RlV W MC~tP. ITLL!
.av! (O 41 ~YK6~ IYlInIG ' q411f fi M I.L.
.iR rO ia^CYTIVO [NtE. r!S lIRIRS. R B LIV3. ii~rtl
:I.L6 up Yn11[~NC221K~lTO. 1l F Sy~ u045(tR uo
~l ~41 6.''~ ~ 6`S - aS1S Iw1v!]~ .ICT1iG uY IRi4L1K Surt~t~ lne . 9a2 un
m¢u mnce .sa .o inxs, m.. mn~ ,w uInw, mm i m .~oa~o
~nc.`mri
~Tr 11'X~415 ~c Rf9 F[X¢ It1~1.R~uO SG~IRS 9uLL GuaW 9 ~Vp1m IOi R IM .Y~'~n
4 s..u ne n~rv~on cz.~.w r~z. .c s.en svs ttui wr a
v n: crv .'c.r ~iu. mr,x. rvv .v iR.: m~cmmcin a~m.um~.~-. v.K cro s..unca,n
~a.a. swu .m< 1. .1 maran v vm cneee, a.s v...zn.ur n~m.mi~mi pM/u ~e
r ~
~r¢ reinwE re~a.1 e+rm .er.a ~ren.~ cm~_~ a rmai~. i. 1x d0 4L Ct a6[vF iH Rp'9:f ...Y' CIiI. 11w MLS Of IYL KI[GREe Te. :[E rtli MYy<.1
INA u. ~EASL~~°Ng, \ . ~ M ~ ASIEY
] 61n L.
T.1.213.~513.
Staie of Goloradu
County of Jefferson ss* - Th¢ aSov. and (oreqoinq mnp and dedicalionnere ocknarle6 befon
me fhis ^1 dai o! ^r'- 1911.yyW.Lmd InaMBaasleY"
Wilnev ny hanC and a(ficial ieal.
My Gomnivion Ea01ee zt!-_z 1919 '
Z i._ _
ieY>r w,~~Yplc<~o¢T..,~p'ru~u<
r✓+Z-! Az-1f a . ~w._..l/
Planning Commission Certfficote .
Thi4 4 fo cerHfy Ihe vilhin plaf haa been oPProved by the Planninq Can-
mission af the Cil, af WnealAiCqe. Colorado. . ' W..r. j!ut, <MwlMwn
!,'I
I ~rP
r.
k
u
na¢:.nc. c.:.:.uv.
, .L>.I
yY(1p1~lft fVf. ~5
"IS uln1~41 ~~S aiii
YYppNC~T YF..ii
su~o. n.o.
•iiWVE] ie~a' y.}
•:CLM' 14Y Fltll(: IZZI
' t~~~A9~YXtY'sl ~
i~1 p_Y
+n. v
~TG4W
65>.eY Y~- .
1-
>.un
. . ..j ~a .s,
i x
~R[
'I
u;
> .
1 C
F
~ .
3
- c~
. p190 ~.YN.r S~. LL ~2~-Dl1 . .
. . w-~_a~ . . Mayorrs Cerfiftcate :
Ohl
. - . . . _ ' . ~ . ~'~bi•• -
Th is ia }o ce.lify limf Ih Ciiy of WheatRidqe CabraGO br nol ion o( it a
. a.
CiIY Ceurcil dia m Inedoy o( m'T^/J=Q 190{.adopt ano app,ove 9~
the vifhin plal and acc<p11he dtdicolion hertcn made.
'n . - . ~v~uc xu iy[<. 1 . . ' ~ ~ . .
wN~r<onec ron
ATTCST / u1~Ofl
OI CONYUMITI OEVCLOIY!NTI
.urr ceeRw UG . .
♦HO Rcuu.1onocrARnrwr
- I - . CI¢rk ond Recorder's Certificate _
. . . . . . . - - 7.09
- - . . . - . . . --J Aeraby ctrli(y tnaf ihi6D IaLwm(iled inmy offPCe - i
rded ~ .
th~!^9 . daYOf~L""~"~ 1981.and uduiy reco o<lo<k
• suvmcco. -uovar srn:csrcLcvwo+c Plan Fil~~eee~c-.YProNU~- Feea Paid /a ' Y I
m d_ J.°/~`~ . . . I . _ . . . .
i\
. . - - . ~ - ~ . . . . . _ Caae Hialary
~ _ ! g I
~
, _ _
,
I '
~
EXHIBIT 5
# Filed for record the day of ,A.D. , at o-clock M. RECORDER.''
Reception No. By DEPUTY.
WARRANTY DEED i
THISDEED, Made on this day of June 30, 2005 , betueen
DOUG FAWCETT AND MELISSA FAWCETT
: of the County of JEFFERSON and State of , of the Crantor(s), and
PAUL~LIDAY AND BARBETTA L. HALLIDAY
U ~~LGr
i whose legal address is : 3440 ESTES STREET MHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033
: of the County of JEFFERSON and State of COLORADO , of the Grantee(s):
WITNESS, That the Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of ( $335, 000.00 )
Three Hundred Thirty Five Thousand and 00/100 DOLLARS
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these
presents does grani, bargain, seLl, convey and confirm unto the Grantee(s), their heirs and assigns forever,
not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate,
lying and being in the County of JEFFER50N and State of Colorado, described as follows:
LOT 1 AND THE WESTERLY 56 FEET OF LOT 2, HEASLEY (MINOR) SUHDIVISION, COUNTY OF
JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO.
~ also known as street number 3440 ESTES STREET WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
TOGETfiER with all and singular and hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywice appertaining
'and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereo£; and all the estate, right
title interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantor(s), either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained .
premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with appurtenances, unto the Grantee(s),
: their heirs and assigns forever. The Grantor(s), for himself, his heirs and personal representatives, does covenant, grant
: bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee(s), (heir heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensea(ing and delivery
~ of these presents, he is welt seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indeteasible
~estate of inheritance, in Lau, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and LawfuL auYhority to grant, bargain,
selt and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other
grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever,
subjeae to general taxae foz the yaaz 2005 and ehoae apeotfSa Sxoeptiona deaaribad by referenae to reoorded doouments ae
refleated in tha Tltle Doauments aaoepted by Crantaa(s) in aooordanoe with 9eation ea (Title Review) of the Contsaat to
Buy and Sell Real Hatate zelating to the above deaoribed propezty; diatributton utility easements (tnoluding aable TV);
those apeotEically desaribed righta of third partiea not ahown by the publio zeoozds of whiah orantee(s) hae aotual
knowledge and vhiah neze aaaepted by Crantee(a) ia aooordanoe with 9eation 9b (Mattera not Shown by [he Publto Aeoorde) aa
9eation Ho (9urvey Review) of the Contraot to euy and Sall Real Satate ralating E. the above deaaribed real property;
Saoluslon of ehe Property withia my apeoial tax diatziot; and, the benefi[ and bvrdens of any dealaration and party wall
agreementa, 1f any and other NONS The Grantor(s) shalL and uill WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in Che quiet and peaceable
possession of the Grantee(s), his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the uhole
! vr any part thereof. The singular number shall include the pWral, and the plural the singutar, and the use of any gender .
shall be applicable to all genders.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor(s) has executed this deed on the date set forth above.
Ey:
DoVC AWC TT
By:~ JG ` ~J'QI.R"Q~
MBLI99A FAWCSTT
$
' STATE OF wnoxxno ) :s nz.--.-a^~^..~,.,=~,~ '
>ss. ~Fii~l:?~:~:~ i_. C.113E~iAY
county of JSFPSX30N > LE~3LiC
I`.l, f /tr
ST%1.Trr LiF CvLORADO
My Commission Expires Jan. 2, 2008
;I
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of sune 30, aoos ,
bY DOVO PAWCBTT ANO MHLI33R FAWCSTT
My comnission expires
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Pub(ic
Name and Address of Person Creating Newly Created Legal Description ( 38-35-106.5, C.R.S.)
Escrow# C70104945 When Recorded Return to: PAUL W. HALLIDAY AND BARBETTA L. HALLIDAY
Titte# K70104945
3440 ESTES STREET WHEAT R[DGE, CO 80033
i: Form 96 08/29/04 WDJT1 WARRANTY DEED (Joint Tenants) Printed: June 25, 2005 (1920498)
EXHIBIT 6
~
~
.p
O
m
~
~
U)
cn
CD
cD
r*
EXHIBIT 7
.
~ .
CERTIFIGTE OF RHSOLIPtION
~
I, Mary Lou Chapla, Secretaxy to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of
Ad
justment, do hereby certify that the foliowing Reaolution was
_
duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridqe, County of Jefferson,
'
State of Colorado, on the 24th day of .7une1993: -
rA
C11SE NO: W]1-93-8
11PPLIG?IT'8 HA!!L: Rebezt Conner
K'
LOCATION: 3470 Estes Stzeet
Upon motion by Board Member AB9GT2 ,,^.econded by Board Member
DOOLEY , the following ResOlution was statad.
t
' .
S:
~
fet t.
~t
leiC';
WHEREAS, the applicant rras denied permissien by ar. Administrative
Officer; and
WAEREAS, Board of Adjustment Applica`_ion, Case No.
is an appeai to this Board fzom tha decision of an Administrative
Officer; and
WHEREASI the property has bean posted the required 15 days by law
and there WERE NO protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS; the relief applied for MAY be qranted without detriment
to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the
intent ar:d purpose of the regulattons governing the City of Wheat
Ridqe.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ST RESOLVED that Soard of Adjustment
Application Case No. WA-93-8 , be anu hereby is APPF.OVED.
TYPE OF VARZANCE: A 500 square foot tc the maximum area of 1000
square feet allnwed for a d`tached carage in a
Residential-Two :one district.
PURPOSE: To build a detached garage
FOR THE FOLLOWINC REASONS:
1. The lot is one full acre and therefore -re
.quires above average
3torage for maintenance equipment:
2. Thero are a few houses in the neighborhood which have over
1000 square foot detached structures.
3. This lot currently has 250 square feet uf shed storage, this
elus the t000 square feet ailowecl for a detached garage
results in only an increase of 250 square feet.
4. :he 1000 square feet allowed for a detached gcraye is a much
smaller percentage of a full acro than that same 10U0 square
feet on a stAndard builinq lot, thereforo this o:Prsized
etructuie seems in propnrtion.
EXHIBIT 8
fi.l..:::v.
~
rI~ . ~ ~ ~ ,
r
Certificate of Reaolution
Caie No. W11-93-8/Page 2
<y:.
'.a
WITR THE FOLLOWZNG CONDITIONS:
1. Five hundred (500) squara feet of the proposed structure
mu6t
be devoted to non-vohicular storaye.
2. Three existing sheds on the preperty must be removed no
later
than 30 days after issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
.
3. No additional staeds, garac.es or other storage structures
may
be constructed at a future date.
4. Location of the structure aill be in`the approximate loc
ation
indicated in the applicant's survey.
VOTE: YES: Abbott, Oooley, HcWard, Reynolds and Rossillon
NO: None
DISPOSITZON: Variance c,ranted by a vote of 5-0.
,
DATED this 24th da of June, 1993.
,
1-
RdHERT HOWARD, Chairman M2ry o Chapla, Sec
etas^
Board of;Adjustment Boar Adjustment
r,:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANIVING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
c~CORA9~ TO: Boazd of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: VM. Reckert
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-22/Pollock DATE OF MEETING: Dec. 7, 2005
ACTION REQiJESTED: Approval of a 5 foot side yazd setback variance and a 5' reaz yazd setback
variance from the 10 foot side and rear yazd setback requirements for detached
gazages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential Two (R-2).
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4280 Pierson Sireet
APPLICANT (S): Doug Pollock
OWNER (S): Doug Pollock
APPROXIMATE AREA: 9129 squaze feet
PRESENT ZOIVING: Residential-Two (R-2)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGTfAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Subject P;
Boazd of Adjustment
Case WA-05-22/Pollack
durisdiction
All notificafion and posung requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
1. REQUEST
The property in question is located at 4280 Pierson Street and has Residential Two (R-2) zoning.
The applicant, Doug Pollack, is requesting ttris variance as the property owner M.
The request is for approval of a 5 foot side yazd setback variance from the 10 foot side yazd setback requirement
and a 5' reaz yazd setback variance from the 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached garages over $
feet in height . The purpose of the variance request is to allow for the
construction of a detached gazage of approxunately 576 square feet in the southeast comer of the properry. The
R-2 zone district allows single family uses and accessory buildings.
It should be noted that in 2003, the setback requirements which are applicable to this variance were changed:
Prior to the current regulation, adopted by City Council in 2003, the side and reaz setback requirements were S
feet in the R-2 zone dishict for detached gazages, regazdless of height. Therefore the proposed gazage would
have been allowed without variances under the previous setback requirements.
All other development standards have been met with this request.
U. SITE PLAN
The properry is 9129 square feet, or .21 acres. The property measures 85 feet wide with a depth of 107.4 feet.
The R-2 zone district has a minimum lot size of 9,000 squaze feet and a m;n;mum lof width of 75 feet for single
fan:ly :cts.
The property currenfly has an existing single family residence on it. There is no covered pazking on the
property. A greeahouse/sunroom addition was constructed on the south side of the maiu structure in 2002 by a
previous owner. This addifion is located 24' from the southern property line. The applicant has indicated that
if the 10' setbacks aze required.to be met, the gazage would be inaccessible due to proximity of the sunroom
addiuon. The eacisring structure is setback 38' from the front property line versus the typical 30' front setback.
The placement of the house results in less backyazd space. See attached Eachibit 3, which shows the ro erty
with 10' setbacks and E~ibit 4, which illustrates the ro erty with the proposed 5' setbacks
The neighborhood is comprised primuily of one-story ranch style homes with attached single caz gazages or
carports. The property to the north appeazs to have a detached gazage fairly close to the property line. One
vaziance in the azea was granted at 4275 Pierson Street pursuant to Case No. WA-81-17. The variance wluch
was approved on June 25, 1981 was for a 15' side yazd setback requirement when adjacent to a public street (W.
43rd Avenue) for construcrion of an attached gazage.
The Cleaz Creek 100-yeaz floodplain ends just south of tlris property.
The pro erty owner to the north, 4340 Pierson Street, has indicated to Staff that he has no objecuon to the
request
II. VARIANCE CRITERIA
Board of Adjustment 2
Case WA•05-22/Paliack
Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. Can the property in quesrion yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be
used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located?
If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may 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 character of the locality?
If approved, the request should not have a negarive effect on the essenrial chazacter of the locality. The
property directly to the north has a detached garage located very close to the common property line.
3. Does 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?
There aze no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in
question unbuildable. The progerty in question is rectangulaz in shape and flat. There are limited
alternafives for placement of the gazage due to the location of the sunroom addition and a lazger than
noimal front setback (38' versus 30'). There is no covered parking on the property.
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 hazdship by requesting a gazage in this location.
5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property or iunprovements in the neighborhood in wluch the properiy is lceated, 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 unpairing 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 small decrease in the supply of light and air to adjacent properties if the
variance is approved. 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 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 in a substanfial benefit or contribufion to the neighborhood distinguished
from an individual benefit on the pait of the applicant.
The request would not result in a reasonable accommodarion of a person with disabiliues.
III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance request.
Staff has found that there aze unique circumstances athibuted to the locarion of the existing house and a
Boazd of Adjustrnent . 3
Case WA-05-22/Pollack
sunroom addition completed in 2002 that would warrant approval of the variances. Therefore, staff recommends
APPROVAL for the following reasons:
1. There aze limited altematives for placement of the gazage due to the loca6on of the sunroom
addition and a lazger than normal front setback.
2. If approved, the request should not have a negative effect on the essential character of the
locality or on property values in the neighborhood.
3. There will be no negative impact to the public welfaze or other properties in the azea.
4. The request would not substanfially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the
danger of fue or endanger the public safety.
With the following condition:
1. The design and azchitecture of the proposed gazage be similar in chazacter to the existing house.
Board of Adjustment 4
Case V{'A-05-22lPollack -
EXFIIBIT 1
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter of request is in regard to 4280 Pierson St.. I am requesting that I be aloud to
build a 24x24 garage five feet from both the back and side property lines on the south
east corner of the lot. The reason for this request is that if I was to foilow the standard
setback of ten feet from the property line it would make the garage vary difFicult to use.
The sunroom that currently exists on the south side of the house would block a large
portion of the garage door and make it vary difficuit to use on a daily basis. If this
variance was to be granted and the garage door offset as far south as possible it would
make the garage much more useable. On the copies of the II,C you will see one that
shows the house and the property as they are now. The second copy shows the garage in
relation To the house and the sunroom if it was built using the l Oft set backs. The third
copy shows how moving the set backs to Sft will greatiy improve the access to the
garage.
Thank u for yopr consideration,
~
Dougl Pollock
vo -•o p
o_
~a<vm~
m
mp
~~3vAi`5~°.
~
~"~.~I c C 3
8-L
1~S~cDF
Ld 3
ao3
°mv~~+ ~
~
z~
~x=3° ~
C
F,~~
~
~~cpqo
03
cXi"`^~° ~
• ~ O ~
M; ~ -
~
T
4
O
w
.w
w
"~'c
~ p(~ O
lD`~
~ G
m »
(,E N •w-n
O
i
~gZ~
N
~n
~m~y a
~
~
nn
C
y,yS
A
'T~
O n~ ~ 2
cx
OOT ~
Qo>; M
~
H
^m?
0
~
~
n
~
D 3,
t
m o
m
z
s-g m4:~z
~
O ~
1
RO
j
3~
,
~t
N
~a o 0
ma z
3
~ m °„~rn
2^~~
m?
p
T`
~
a
?^>T"
t
P
.C
~aocca
Q ~
IEIE
~ Rn ~GQ
n Z
d
(M) 1331115 MOWjId OBLi
or ~ 1+ 3-t o~-
n °
pO ° °m
m
z ~AA., m
o
Z
~N ~cMi~a
m(n0
m o
~ .
~
~
~
~
. C
-
o
-^lZ 0 n0°o
~'l ^ 'S
~
nc3
~m~
y
m
~ x ~ o 'm c
f
z
„i
p
N z
~
~ Ln 0
D ~O
O
U
I
o Q
o
o
n
rr,
Ln
r n
z
~
~
a m
~
`i cu'i+
~
~
~
r
O
I
r
O
I
y
z
C7
\
A
n
D
~
{a
I
f7
O
~
O
W D
~
c~
Z
o
w
I
I
y
~ 00
O
01 I~
1
~
b
OOOX
~
~
{~p
V ~
- ,pp'S@
OOY9
_
2ZZy
~
000=
~
m=
N
m
~Am
VS
n
a
m ~
J
~
0
~
~
~
~
z
0
rn
~
x
~
~
~
~
EXHIBIT' 3
107.4W'
p LOT 93 $
S
.
w 1 l
N
~
~
~
~
N
~
-t
O
k!,'~
~
~
+a a
"y..
~
~
G<t-2<rr~ McETl,v~
SETf3~-G+~S
EXHIBIT 4
o7.R'
$ L4T 13 ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Q
\N
U%
~
~
~
~ w'•
f+: j
~
~
1V
~Y/U-4GG u/ / Tzl 5' S i D E ~ RE<l,c.
S ET ~3A-~-k l/~tZ/ f7-ni ~-E s
EXHIBIT 5
7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
303/235-2846 Fax:303/235-2857
November 22, 2005
Deaz Property Owner:
The City a
Wheat
Ridge
°°<oRM
rn
This is to inform you of Case No. WA-05-22 which is a request for approval of a 5 foot
side yazd and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard and 10 foot rear
yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height for property zoned
Tcesidential-Two (R-2) and iocaied ai 4280 Fierson Street. This case wiii heard'oy tne
Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on December 7, 30059 at 7:30 p.m.
As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing
and/or submit written comments.
If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning
Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you.
Plamung Division.
\lsrv-ci-eng-OO I \users\I<field\Kathy\BOA\pubnotice\2005\wa0522.wpd
`
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
0
PLANiVING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO:
Boazd of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt
CASE NO. & NAME:
WA-05-23/Rensch DATE OF MEETING: December 7, 2005
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of a variance to the maximum fence height standazd pursuant to
Section 26-603 of the Code of Laws on property zoned Residential One (R-1).
LOCATION OF REQiTEST:
3805 Garrison Street
APPLICANT (S):
Scott Rensch
OWNER (S):
Julia McClurg and David S. Ebersole
APPROXIMATE AREA:
14,168 (.33 acres)
PRESENT ZOriING: Residential One (R-1)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE F1LE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
(X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
Location Map
M I 1--
~
~
~
Subjec4 Property
~
o o,
a~
3790 rn
3780 3785 3780
Boazd of Adjushnent - 1
Case WA-05-23/Rensch
.Turisdiction
All norificarion and posting reguirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heu flus case.
1. REQUEST
The property in question is located at 3805 Garrison Street. The property has Residential One (R-1) zoning.
The ap licant, Scott Rensch, is requesting this variance on behalf of the properry owner
. The request is for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standard
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, adjacent to 38h Avenue HMO=. The purpose of tlus variance
request is to allow for a fence 8 feet in height to the south of the subject property to allow for adequate privacy
from 38`h Avenue. The property in quesuon sits lower in elevation than the 38th Avenue right-of-way, including
the sidewalk . There is an existing approximately 3 foot hi h retainin wall
along the south property line adjacent to the 38' Avenue right-of-way and sidewalk
These improvements were conshucted by the City as part of the 38`b Avenue reconsuvction project at tlus
location. The fence is proposed to be located in the 38`h Avenue city right-of-way. The reasons for tlus aze
discussed in the case analysis. The subject property is addressed and accessed off of Garrison Street, therefore
the south property line adjacent to 38~' Avenue is considered the side property line. Fences up to six feet in
height are not allowed within m;n;mum required front yazds, however they aze allowed in side yazds as long as
ihere is no violation of tUe CiTy's sight distance triangle regulauons in Section 26-603 (B) of the Code of Laws.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The subject property is approximately 14,168 square feet, or .33 acres. The property measures 100 feet wide
with a depth of approximately 140 feet.
The area surrounding the property in question consists of single family homes on all sides, with a church and
the Wide Horizons care facility to the south and east. The property abuts 38ffi Avenue, which is classified as a
collector slreet.
The grade cfiange on the subject property maices it problematic for the property owner to construct a privacy
fence 6 foot in height that provides a true 6 feet of privacy from the 38`h Avenue right-of-way. Per the Code of
Laws Sea 26-603 (1)(2) the height of the fence is measured from fmished grade, 5 feet inside the property
which it belongs. There is approximately 3 feet of grade sepazauon between the driving surface of 38"' Avenue
and the applicants property where the fence is proposed to go. :
Also problematic for the property owner is the fact that the property line adjacent to the 38m Avenue right-of-
way does not immediately abut the above mentioned retaining wall. In other words, for the applicant to
construct the fence on their property, it would leave a strip of City right-of-way land, ap roximately 5 feet in
width between the retaining wall and the fence wluch may present maintenance concerns ~Per Sec. 26-502 (G) of the Code of Laws, property owners/occupants aze responsible for
MalliMMM maiutenance of landscaping within the portion of the public right-of-way between the back of the curb or street
pavement and their property. The applicant, as well as the Public Works Department; has expxessed that the
preferable altemarive would be to construct the fence in the City right-of-way abutting the retaining wall so this
remnant strip of land would not remain. In order to construct a.fence in the right-of-way, a right-of-way pernut
must be obtained &om the Public VJorks Departrnent. The Public Works Department has agreed that a right-of-
way pemut would be issued for this fence. Attached is the form used for right-of-way ernuts, and the
langua e that will be inserted into tlus specific permit regazding the maintenance of the fence
soara oenajusanent 2
Case WA-05-23/Rensch
It appeazs that if the fence were constructed on the south property line, and not in the Ciry right-of-way, there
would be a conflict with existing mature trees. Constructing the fence abutting the retaining wall appeazs that it
would min;mize the amount of vegetation that the property owner would have to remove a~~c~~~,.~~ mm
The fence will be subject to the City's sight distance triangle regulations in Section 26-603 (B) of the Code of
Laws. Tlus regulation essentially prolubits any potentially hazazdous obsuvctions to view for motorists and
pedestrians at the intersection of streets, driveways and alleyways. This property is a comer lot, therefore these
regularions apply. There cannot be a fence, or obstruction to view, exceeding 36 inches in height within the
si ht trian 18 on the subject ro erty. Attached is an illustra6on of this requirement for the subject property
Staff was unable to find any compazable variance requests in the immediate vicinity.
U. 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 regulation for the district in wluch it is located?
If the request is denied, the property may sull receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be
used as a single fanuly residence without the need for any variances.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
The request will have a m;n;mal effect on the essenrial character of the locality. An 8 foot fence at. the
proposed location will be less unpac6ve given the grade change between the two properties. Given the
grade change and the approximately 3 foot retaining wall on the south property line, the 8 foot fence at
the locationproposed would have the same visual impact as a 5-6 foot fence. Fences aze allowed up to 6
feet ln height in side yards.
3. Does the gartic•,n:ar pu;~s:: s:~rrounding, shape o: topograYY.`eal condition of the §p.°.~'^r yL'oY.°.:ty
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 is an approximately 3 foot high retaining wall between the property in ques6on and the 38`b Avenue
right-of-way. The ivanner in which the height of the fence is measured pwsuant to the Code of Laws
(from fuushed grade 5 feet inside properry which it belongs) makes it problemauc 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 lus own hardship by requesting a fence of 8 feet in height in ttris location.
However, the grade change on the property and the inability for the applicant to have a 6 foot lugh fence
that provides 6 feet of privacy on the south property line may be considered the hardship in ttris instance.
3'he inability for the applicant to have a true 6 foot privacy fence is in part difficult because the City
constructed an approximately 3 foot high retaining wall at tlus location on 38`h Avenue.
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
Baazd of Adjustment . 3
Case WA-05-23/Aensch
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 area. There will not be a decrease in the supply of light and air to adjacent private property. The
request would not substantially increase the congesuon in public streets, increase tUe 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 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 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.
M. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMNIENDATIONS
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria aze supportive of the variance request:
Staff fias 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. There is an approacimately 3 foot retaining wall on the south property line and a significant
grade change on the property which creates a hardship for the property owners to have a true 6
foot privacy fence on the south property line. The retaining wall was constructed by the City.
2. The request will have a minima.l effect on the essential chazacter of the localiry. An 8 foot
fence at the proposed location will be less impacrive given the grade change between the 38th
Avenue right-of-way and the subject property. The 8 foot fence at the location proposed would
have the same visual impact as a 5-6 foot fence.
With conditians:
1. The fence height variance is approved only for the portion of right-of-way adjacent to 38Ih
Avenue, along the frontage of the subject property as shown on the site plan submitted.
2. The variance is not applicable to the sight distance triangle on the subject property. The fence
must adhere to all sight distance triangle requirements in the Code of Laws.
3. The property owner's must obtain a right-of-way permit from the Public Works Department
prior to constructing the fence in the right-of-way.
BoazdofAdjustment . 4
Case WA-05-23/Rensch .
Vaf^ 1- lv,.e~
Fo-v
IQt'vc~
Fjvcq g-04-i
Currently, our side yard faces 38h ave. and provides easy view into our property. The
street and sidewalk are raised about 5 feet above the level of the entrance to the house
and we are located in a busy section of the street, close to the high school and in between
two RTD stops which provide a fairly steady amount of foot traffic. We would very
much like to place a fence against the 38`° avenue side of our properiy but a normal6 foot
fence would not provide any additional privacy due to the raised grade of the property as
well as a 3 foot wall at the edge of the property that at the top is at street level. This
means that only 3 feet of a 6 foot fence would extend past the height of the street and
sidewalk, providing little additional benefit. By allowing for an 8 foot fence, we would
in essence have 5 feet visible from the street, and would provide more adequate privacy
and elimination of road noise.
«
S c~ ~ `~.as~ ScG~
/3 pr G S- ~._e., C...i .
c- 3(aoe-4wF
D- 303b- 500o
EXHIBIT 1
~EL a QU
0
a
~
ro
~7 F H~ .
H
~ U
F~
-C}
~
~
~
ElPaa~r
=n w
F-W Y~~OaZ
lil
Z
.
m W~
q Z
~ x~
3 d~,OJd-'qh
~
¢
~
LLIM
Q~
WU
Q
JCOR~~
M
a
v
~
¢~7-- ~N o
Y W
xa~ q~H
(1)
~
y
~!~WZ~
v wawo~n
x
~
ajc W~R
~UV
iW=)AC3
6q
~
W
Q
<t w
o-~-VL1U¢~
o
W ¢yca Wu
a~ °ZI,VI
HN
Z
W
~U~A'i00~
~
H
~
m[¢.fJ R70)JL`Lal¢F-
~
L~j.
Z
UrJ
1.7F-~
~ W XXQ
UJC]
f
L.~
J~Li0¢
~~Z
~L.L1 XX~F-ZJL+1
WO¢Vi
~
~
WO
.-,.-,V-Vi U17m
N
8
N
.1-
u
M
A
~
~
Z
0
~
~
~
~
a
u
w z
~
~ to
p o
S 00
M
i-`
3
O
0
~4-
m ~
a
J o
M
Z
l7
u
N
W
R
Q
H
U
Q
~ Z
~ l7
~
N
n W
Q Q
U
ti. z
U
Q
W
R df
~ aCp I
F-
~
O
d
K
Q
U
OJ L)J N k
~ i
~ N
iD a
v
;no 0; £ Ba-j 0-,76 °c
a-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Aron+ jo 4.u6!A D!lqnd - CD - -
■ ■ r■ ■ ■ ■ ~
c-
T-F 3
anV 44-8£ d
U L
EXHIBIT 2
N
3U05 G/'1Rf\IJoiV 0 20 40 Feet A
Contours, Elevations in White
Property Lines in Black ~~ItBIT 3
.~a_
H
W
w
rC
F-
(n
Z
O
U)
OC
~
a
c~
LO
0
co
n
EXHIBIT 4
3805 GARRfSON
right-of-way/property line boundary.
0 20 40 Feet
~Mmmmmm
/k
Area cross hatched indicates distance between retaining wall and
CiTY OF WHEAT RIflGE
7500 WEST 29T" AUENUE
WHEAT RIt3GE, CO 80033
PHONE (303) 235-2861
APPL1CATiON Ft3R R1GHT {)F WAY, PERMIT
2.
Nams, asJdress, and telephone number of praposed Permittee:
Describe location and nature of sirudure or other intrusion into the City of Wheat Ridge
right-of-way and identify right.of way; attach map oiher diagram:
3. Brisfly describe reasons for encroachment and aftematives considered:
4.
5.
Indemnification.
,
The Permittes fior itself and its heirs; successors an d_ assigris, herebq releases and
discharges the City, its employees, ageMs and assigns £rom any liabitity and firom any
and all claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action, or suits of any kind or
nature whatsosver related to or arising Srom Permittae's occupation of the public right-of-
way permitted hereunder. The Permittee agrees that the City may elect to provide its
own defense or io require Permittee to provide such senrices. The Rermi#ee shall be
liable for a!I costs and fees related to the defense, regardless of which party provides the
services. ,
Insurance.
(a) No permit shali be issued or remain in effeot uniess the Pertnittee obtains
and maintains in iorce and on fi!e with the P..ublic Worlcs. Departmeni, sufficient
evidence of a general iiability.policy covering injury to or'iiesiruction of property
and bodily injury, including death, to at Isast the liabi3ity limits esiablished by
5ection 2410-114, Coloredo Revised S#atutes, (currentty $150,000,per person
and $600,009 per occurrence) and as hereafter may be amended.
(b) Required coverage may be evidenced by endorsement, wiih the city
named as an additional insured, and providing for #hirty (30) days' notice to the
Director of Pubiic Works or Mis designee in the event ofi anv ma#erial changE in or
canceflation of the covaraga.
City of Wheat Ridge
Righi of Way PermkApplication
EXHIBIT 6
REV 2D6d
(c) The Permittee tnust provide proofi of the insurance coverages required by
this paragraph on an annuai basis and at such other fimes as reasonably
requss#ed by the DitacYor of Public Worlcs or his designee.
The undersignecl, by his signaiure, acknowledges the heishe is: An auihorized
representative of #he Permittee; that the Permfttee is fami3iar with and agrees #o cfltnply with
ail laws and regulatioris of.the Ci#y of Wheat Ridge applicable to the permit granted
herewith; that any misrepresentations or faise statements appearing herein shall
automatically cause this permit #o be null and void in +ts entirety; and he/she hereby releases
ihe Ciiy of Wheat Ridge from any iiebiiity which may arise from the issuance o# #he right of
way encroachment permit#ed hereon. The City may, wiih 90 days written no#ice, terminate
#his permif. The Permittee herein agrees the City shall not be hetd liabis for any costs
incurred by 3he PermitYee resutting from such termination:
Permittee
Action bv Citv
Daie
For City Use Oniy - Permi#ee riot to write below this line
The Permit is:
approved
~ approved, w+th conditions (aiteched)-s¢e- a~
denied
The term of this Right of. Way Permi} is: 5 9Qay-S" (may not exceed {n+e years)
Date of Issue:-11_12C6109 Expira#ion Da#e: _kL) 2cq Q_
The term of fhis Right o# Way Permit shall be in accordance with Section 21-102 of the Ciiy
of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws.
Engineer
Da#a
City of Wheai Ridge R4ghtofiWayParmR.ApPiicatiop . 2 . . REV200d
h
W
W
cr.
H
cn
Z
O
N
cc:
0:
d
C~
~
0
00
ce)
EX_R1B1T 7
W
(11
~ ~
W
o co
~
~
j
°a~c
Z
O
`
N
H O > ~
~
~
Q
_
~
~
O
co
M
N
(D
LO
N
N
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
EXHIBIT 8
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
September 22, 2005
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to arder by Acting Chair Blair at 730 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29t' Avenue, Wheat Ridge,
Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Tom Abbott
Bob Blair
Paul Hovland
Bob Howard
Betty Jo Page
Members Absent: Daniel Bybee
Janet Bell
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
hearing of September 22, 2005. A set of these minutes is retained both in the ,
office oi the City Cterk and in tne Community Development Department of tne
City of Wheat Ridge.
3. PUBLIC FORUM
No one indicated a desire to speak at this time.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
Acting Chair BLAIR stated that with only five members present, four affirmative
votes would be required to grant a variance. He informed the applicants that they
had the right to request a continuance if they wanted their cases to be heard when
more members were present. There was no response from either applicant.
A. Case No. WA-05-17: An application filed by Jerry Roach for approval of
a partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscaping Requirements) for the
property zoned Restricted Commercial and located at 7331 West 44"'
Avenue.
Board of Adjushnent - 1 -
09-22-OS
Prior to his presentation, JefFHirt entered a letter from the applicant into the
record. A copy of this letter was provided to each Board Member and also made
a part of the case file. After the Boazd had opportunity to review the letter, Mr.
Hirt entered all pertinent documents into the record which were accepted by Chair
BLAIR. He advised the Board there was jurisdiction to heaz the case and
reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of
the request for reasons outlined in the staff report.
The applicant is planning to build a 2,700 square foot addition to an existing
commercial shucture. With these proposed changes there aze required
landscaping improvements under the Code.
Board Member HOWARD commented that the applicant could haue applied for a
zone change to Planned Commercial Development. Meredith Reckert explained
that zoning is in place to allow the addition and therefore the applicant could not
be required to rezone to a Planned Commercial Development, even though staff
would have preferred it. There would be more flexibility with landscaping under
a PCD.
Jerry Roach
7331 West 44th Avenue
Mr. Roach, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He stated that his
original plans called for a six-foot landscape buffer in front of the fence on the
northem boundary of the property. He and his architect were then told that the
buffer was not necessazy because of the six-foot fence. In response to a question
from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Roach stated that he could not recall the name
of the person who gave that informat:on d-arir~g oile oi several meeiings ne
attended with the city and fire department.
Mr. Roach disagreed with the staff report that landscaping in front of the existing
building was nonconforming because he received a vaziance for the landscaping
in 1981. He stated he would be providing more landscaping in front than required
by the city while many neighboring properties do not seem to take pride in
landscaping. He provided photos of those properties. He offered to add
additional landscaping at the corner of 44`h and Vance at the other end of the
building.
Boazd Member ABBOTT suggested that it would be advantageous to Mr. Roach
and the city if his two lots were combined. Mr. Roach stated that a land surveyor
is presently looking into this. Meredith Reckert commented that, while
combining the lots would help to more effectively deal with parking and
landscaping issues, the six-foot buffer strip at the reaz of the property would still
be required. In order to accommodate fire access azound the rear of the building
Board of Adjustment _ 2 _
09-22-OS
as configured, the 6 foot wide required buffer needs to be waived by the Board of
Adjustment. This buffer cannot be administratively waived by staff.
Board Member ABBOTT asked the applicant if he would consider continuing the
case in order to give more time to work out pazking and landscaping issues. Mr.
Roach indicated that he would prefer not to delay building construction because
of approaching winter weather.
Chair BLAIR asked if there were any present who wished to address this case.
There was no response.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member
PAGE, the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-17(A) is an
appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
R'hereas, 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 welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of
the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge.
Plow, thereio-re, be it resoived 4hat Boarrd of Adjrusimen4 Appiication Case
No. WA-05-17(A) be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: A partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscaping
Requirements) specitically related to the required 6 foot wide landscape
buffer along the northern property line for property zoned Restricted
Commercial.
For the following reasons:
1. The full six-footbuffer in this location would seem to serve no
practical purpose as to the intent of the ordinance.
2. The inclusion of the fuil six-foot landscape buffer precludes the
required hventy-foot drive path around the north side of the building
addition as required by the fire department.
With the following conditions:
Boazd of Adjushnent _ 3 _
09-22-OS
1. Any property remaining along the north property line of 7331 W. 44th
Avenue after provision of the required fire department access
required parking dimensions will require landscaping.
Board Member HOVLAND commented that the building seemed to be too deep
to accommodate buffering and pazking. He asked if the building was redesigned
to be lazger when the applicant thought the landscaping buffer was not required.
Mr. Roach replied that the initial plan was drawn up with space for the landscape
buffer. After meeting with the fire department where he was told he didn't need
the buffer because of the six-foot fence, he and the azchitect proceeded on that
basis.
The motion failed 3-2 with Board Members HOWARD and HOVLAND
voting no.
Chair BLAIR advised the applicant that his request regazding the landscape buffer
along the north property line was denied.
Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member
PAGE the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-17(B) is an
appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
vJhereas, ihe properiy tias been posied Qne €if4een days requirea uy iaw, 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 regulationsgoverning the City of Wheat Ridge.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-05-
17(B) be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: A partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscaping
Requirements) specifically related to the ten-foot landscape requirement
abutting 44th Avenue for property zoned Restricted Commercial.
For the following reasons:
Boazd of Adjustrnent - 4 -
09-22-OS
1. The variance does not aiter the essential character of the
neighborhood as there is currently angled parking adjacent to the
street.
2. It would not be detrimental to the public welfare and, as designed, the
landscaping that the applicant has included can be perceived as a
possible benefit to the neighborhood by increasing some of the
landscaping as seen from the public view.
Board Member ABBOTT offered the following friendly amendment:
Reason No. 3: It is not in the best interest of the city or its citizens that this
commercially zoned property remain a vacant, paved and otherwise
unimproved parcel.
The amendment was accepted by Board Members HOVLAND and PAGE.
Board Member HOVLAND requested an amendment to add two conditions
to his motion as follows:
1. Landscaping will be required as shown on the review with planters
and trees as approved by the city.
2. Parking spaces in front that lack adequate depth must be addressed
and approved by the city.
Board Member PAGE agreed to the amendment to add the two conditions.
Board Member ABBOTT offered another friendly amendment as follows:
Condition No. 3: Landscaping of the 171 square foot triangle at the corner of
44th and Vance, as proposed in the applicant's letter, be required.
The amendment was accepted by Board Members IiOVLAND and PAGE.
The motion passed 5-0.
(The meeting was recessed from 9:10 to 9:17 p.m.)
B. Case No. WA-05-18: An application filed by Michael Pusateri for
approval of an 8 foot rear yazd setback vaziance from the 15 foot reaz yazd
setback requirement for a swimming pool on property zoned Residential
One and located at 3201 Nelson Street.
This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the
record which were accepted by Chair BLAIR. He advised the Board there was
Board of Adjushnent - 5 -
09-22-OS
jurisdiction to hear the case and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation.
Staff recommended approval of the request for reasons oudined in the staff report.
In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Meredith Reckert
explained that the easement refened to in the staff report is an 8-foot utility and
drainage easement. The pool would encroach into the easement by one foot.
Approval from appropriate parties would be required for this encroachment to
occur.
Michael Pusateri
3201 Nelson
Mr. Pusateri, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He is requesting an 8-
foot reaz yard setback to build a 16-foot by 36-foot swimining pool.
In reply to a question from Board Member PAGE, Mr. Pusateri stated that there is
a sump pump that would pump any water away from the perimeter of the
property.
Kyle Lynch
1621 Iris Street, Lakewood
Mr. Lynch, the applicanY s contractor, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. In
response to a question from Boazd Member ABBOTT, Mr. Lynch stated that any
overflow from the pool would be accommodated by a sump pump. He also stated
that, from a structural standpoint, the pool could be built no closer than four feet
from the house.
Chair BLAIR asked if there were others present who wished to address this case.
There was no response.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member
HOWARD, the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administraHve officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-18 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 welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of
the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge.
Boazd of Adjustment - 6 -
09-22-OS
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case
No. WA-05-18 be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: An 8-foot rear yard setback variance from the 15-foot
rear yard setback requirement for a swimming pool on property zoned
Residential One.
For the following reasons:
1. The request will have a minimal effect on the essential character of
the locality.
2. There are very limited options for placement of a swimming pool of
the size proposed without the need for a variance or variances. The
property is a corner lot and thus subject to more stringent setback
requirements. Without the benefit of the variance, the pool could only
be eight feet wide.
3. The intent of the classification of swimming pools as structures
subject to setback requirements is more applicable to above-ground
pools. The applicant is proposing an in-ground pool.
4. The pool can be located no closer to the house due to structural piers
on the house itself.
5. A letter of approval for the variance was received from a
representative of the Applewood Reserve Subdivision.
With the following condition:
1. The pool shall be in-ground and not be an above-ground pool.
2. i his variance aciuiowiedges tbe one-foot drainage easement
encroachment and final approval is subject to review by City of
Wheat Ridge Department of Public Works.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair BLAIR closed the public heazing.
6. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Board.
NEW BUSINESS
• Approval of minutes - August 25, 2005
Board of Adjustment - 7 -
09-22-OS
B.oard Member BLAIR requested the following amendment to the minutes:
Board Member Howard should be listed as present at the August 25, 2005
meeting.
It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board
Member PAGE to approve the minutes of August 25, 2005 as amended.
The motion passed unanimously.
. Jeff Hirt reported that Janet Bell is working on changes to the Board's bylaws
regazding appointrnent of alternates and has asked that Boazd members e-mail
any suggestions to her. Meredith Reckert commented that she is also working
on Section 2-61 of the Codes of Laws relating to Board of Adjustment powers
and duties.
8. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member
HOVLAND to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Bob Blair, Acting Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
i
Boazd of Adjustment - 8 -
09-22-05