Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/20101/' 1. City Of W heat �iclge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA July 22, 2010 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303 -235 -2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA- 10 -07 An application filed by Barbara Sileo for approval of a 10 foot variance to the 15 foot required rear yard setback and a 5 foot variance to the required 15 foot side yard setback per Section 26 -205 resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback and 10 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential -One (R- 1) and located at 3845 Dudley Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes — January 28, 2010 B. Training Video: Preventing Public Officials' Liability 8. ADJOURNMENT City of w CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE: July 22, 2010 CASE MANAGER: Sarah Showalter CASE NO. & NAME: WA- 10- 07 /Sileo ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 10 foot variance to the 15 foot required rear yard setback and a 5 foot variance to the 15 foot required side yard setback, resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback and a 10 foot side yard setback. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3845 Dudley Street APPLICANT (S): Barbara Sileo OWNER (S): Barbara and James Sileo APPROXIMATE AREA: 13,068 SF (0.3 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential One (R -1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map 1 �' Site JURISDICTION• All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance of 10 feet (67 percent) from the required 15 foot rear yard setback for the R -1 zone district. The applicant is also requesting a variance of 5 feet (33 percent) from the required 15 foot side yard setback. The purpose of both variance requests is to allow for the construction of a single -story addition to the existing single - family home. The proposed addition would total approximately 800 square feet and include a second bathroom, third bedroom, and storage area. The applicant would like to construct the addition due to constraints on the size of the existing home and medical conditions that require Mrs. Sileo to live on one level. Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50 percent from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment. The variance request from the rear yard setback is over 50 percent. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Barbara Sileo, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 3845 Dudley Street (Exhibit 1, Aerial Map). The variance is being requested in order to construct a one -story addition at the southwest corner of the home. Mrs. Sileo suffers from arthritis and fibromyalgia and her physicians recommend that she live in a home with one story only so that she does not have to use stairs (Exhibits 2 and 3, letters from doctors). While the current house is single- story, it is relatively small (1,482 square feet) and lacks a second bathroom, family room, and storage area. The current house does not have a basement. The proposed addition would allow the applicant to reconfigure the home, construct a bathroom with a fully - accessible walk -in shower, and enable the applicant and her husband to age in the home while living on one level. The property is located on a cul -de -sac on the west side of Dudley Street and is zoned Residential -One (R -1), a zone district established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low- density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low- density residential character. The property is surrounded by other single - family homes to the north, south, east, and west, although there is R -2 zoning on the east side of Dudley Street, across from the home (Exhibit 4, Zoning Map). The house is approximately 1,482 square feet and has a 621 square foot attached two -car garage. There is a wood fence along the south (side) and west (rear) property lines. There is a significant grade different between the applicant's property and the property that adjoins their lot to the south (Exhibit S, Site Photos). The lot is conforming and meets the minimum area and width requirements for the R -1 zone district. The lot size is approximately 13,068 square feet. The minimum lot size for a single family home in the R -1 zone is 12,500 square feet. The R -1 zone district allows for 25 percent maximum building coverage. The site currently has a 1,482 square foot single family home and a 621 square foot garage. The current lot coverage with the home and garage is 16 percent. The proposed addition, which would be around 800 square feet, increases the lot coverage to 22 percent (Exhibit 6, Site Plan). The proposed addition would not exceed the maximum lot coverage of 25 percent for the R -1 zone district. Board of Adjustment 2 Case No. WA- 10- 07/Sileo The R -1 district requires a minimum side and rear yard setback of 15 feet. The house, constructed in 1955, meets the required side and rear setbacks. However, due to its angled configuration, there are limited options for a viable first -floor addition to the home. The majority of open space available for the addition is behind the home, along the north -west face of the house. The proposed addition generally utilizes this space, but also wraps around the southwest corner of the home, where the attached garage is located, to include a narrow addition on the south side of the home. (Exhibit 7, Conceptual Floor Plan for Addition). It would be possible to design an addition that is on the rear of the home only, with no portion on the south side, thus eliminating the need for a variance to the 15 foot side yard setback. However, this configuration would still require a variance of 5 -10 feet from the required 15 foot rear yard setback and would remove a significant portion of the backyard. The proposed design ensures that an adequate portion of the backyard area can be maintained as open space. In addition, the location of the proposed addition enables the applicant to attach on to the garage wall, minimizing obstructions to windows and in the livable (non - garage) portion of the home. A second -story addition to the home is not possible since the applicant's medical condition prevents use of stairs. While the proposed addition requires two variances, it is a logical location based on the configuration of the existing home and lot. The portion of the addition that would come within 5 feet of the rear property line would be adjacent to the property addressed 8715 W 38` Ave. There are no structures on this lot in the area that would be close to the proposed addition and there is a wooden fence that would help shield the view from the neighboring property. The owner of 8715 W 38 Ave has expressed support for the applicant's proposal (Exhibit 8, Letter from Owner of 8715 W 38` Ave). The proposed addition would also have a minimal visual impact on the property to the south. This is largely due to the significant grade difference between the two lots, as well as the existing wood fence that helps to shield the view. The owner of the lot to the south has expressed support for the applicant's proposal (Exhibit 9, Letter from Owner of 3815 Dudley Street). The proposed addition should have very little aesthetic impact on the neighborhood since it would not be visible from the street. Allowing the proposed variances would increase the value of the property, enhancing it through the addition of a second bathroom, an additional bedroom, and additional storage area. It would increase the floor area of the home without having a visual impact from the street and by having a very minimal visual impact on two adjacent properties. The applicant was granted variances for the same property in 1996 by the Board of Adjustment, pursuant to Case Number WA- 96 -25, in order to build a new attached garage. At the time, the applicant was proposing to add the new garage in order to convert the existing garage into the needed additional living space and bathroom. The variances approved in 1996 allowed for a zero lot line setback for both the side and rear yard setbacks (a 15' variance from the required 15' side yard setback and a 10' variance from the required 10' rear yard setback that was required at the time in the R -1 zone district). Although the variances were approved in 1996, the applicant was not able to make the modifications to the home and no changes were made, therefore the variance has expired. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff utilizes the following criteria to evaluate variance requests and shall determine whether the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided responses to each criterion (Exhibit 10). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Board of Adjustment 3 Case No. WA- 10- 07/Sileo REQUEST A: A request for approval of a variance of 10 feet (67 percent) from the required 15 foot rear yard setback in order to construct a one -story addition. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would still function as a single family residence regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The addition will not be visible from the street, and it would have a minimum visual impact on adjacent properties. With the existing fencing and landscaping along the rear property line, visibility of the addition should be quite low for the lot to the west (8715 W 38` Ave). Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The proposed addition is a substantial investment that would not be possible without a variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback. It is possible that the applicant could construct a one -story addition that would require less of a variance from the required rear yard setback. However, it is not likely that a one -story addition with reasonable square footage could be built without encroaching at least partially into the 15 foot rear yard setback. An addition with a different design might encroach less. into the rear yard setback, but it would also significantly detract from the backyard of the home. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. There are no unique physical surroundings or topographical conditions. The request is more closely related to an inconvenience from the strict letter of the regulations. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The alleged hardship relates to the existing configuration and floor plan of the house, which is set at an angle on the lot. If the home were constructed in a different configuration, it would be much easier to construct an addition without encroaching into the required rear yard setback. Additionally, if the original home already contained a second bathroom, it could be possible for the applicant"to meet her Board of Adjustment 4 Case No. WA- 10- 07/Sileo needs by doing an internal remodel only. The applicant purchased the property in 1972 and did not have any interest in the property when the home was built in 1955. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not 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, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent property and, it is not likely to impair adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. It would have no impact on congestion in the streets and should not increase fire danger. It is very unlikely that the request would have an impact on property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There are no unique or unusual circumstances present in the neighborhood that are also present on the property that necessitate the need for a variance. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Approving the proposed variances will allow the applicant, who has disabilities due to her medical conditions, to remain in the home since it would provide additional space and a walk -in shower on the same level, without requiring use of the stairs. This is a reasonable accommodation for a person with disabilities. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable as the variance request involves a detached garage for a single family dwelling. REQUEST B: A request for approval of a variance of 5 feet (33 percent) from the required 15 foot side yard setback in order to construct a one -story addition. Board of Adjustment 5 Case No. WA- 10- 07/Sileo 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would still function as a single family residence regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The addition will not be visible from the street, and it would have a minimum visual impact on adjacent properties. With the grade change, existing fencing, and landscaping along the side property line, visibility of the addition should be quite low for the lot immediately south (3815 Dudley Street). Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The proposed addition is a substantial investment. However, it is possible that it could be constructed without encroaching into the 15 foot side yard setback. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. There are no unique physical surroundings or topographical conditions. The request is more closely related to an inconvenience from the strict letter of the regulations. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The alleged hardship relates to the existing configuration and floor plan of the house, which is set at an angle on the lot. If the home were constructed in a different configuration, it would be much easier to construct an addition without encroaching into the required rear yard setback. Additionally, if the original home already contained a second bathroom, it could be possible for the applicant to meet her needs by doing an internal remodel only. The applicant purchased the property in 1972 and did not have any interest in the property when the home was built in 1955. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not 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 Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 10- 07/Sileo things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent property and, it is not likely to impair adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. It would have no impact on congestion in the streets and should not increase fire danger. It is very unlikely that the request would have an impact on property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There are no unique or unusual circumstances present in the neighborhood that are also present on the property that necessitate the need for a variance. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Approving the proposed variances will allow the applicant, who has disabilities due to her medical conditions, to remain in the home since it would provide additional space and a walk -in shower on the same level, without requiring use of the stairs. This is a reasonable accommodation for a person with disabilities. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable as the variance request involves a detached garage for a single family dwelling. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance, especially for the variance from the rear yard setback. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. If Board of Adjustment 7 Case No. WA- 10- 07/Sileo 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. 5. The request would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 6. The proposed addition would have minimal impact, if any, on adjacent properties and the two abutting properties that would be most impacted are supportive of the request. Board of Adjustment 8 Case No. WA- 10- 07/Sileo