HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2012City of
Wh6atf?,iAe_
AGENDA
February 23, 2012
-'9 wtir rWfirA
of Adjustment on February 23, 2012, at �.00 P.M., in the City Coun Chambers of the
Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Individuals ivith 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 yore are interested in participating and need inclusion
assistance,
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on
the agenda.)
A. Case No. WA-12-01: An application filed by Leroy Kuczek for approval of a 5
foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement
resulting in a 10 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One (R- 1)
and located at 10561 West 38 Avenue.
B. Case No. WF-12-01: An application filed by Tony Douglas for approval of a
Class 11 Special Exception Floodplain permit for property located at 8955 West
44 Avenue to allow for construction of a 4,000 square foot structure in the Clear
Creek 100-year floodplain.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of minutes — April 28, 201
B. Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Notices of Public
Meetings
City of
Wheat I�dge
TO:
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME:
ACTION REQUESTED:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: February 23, 2012
Lauren Mikulak
WA -12 -01 / Kuczek
Approval of a 5 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback
requirement to allow for a new single- family home on property zoned
Residential -One (R -1).
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 10561 W. 38` Avenue
APPLICANT (S):
OWNER (S):
APPROXIMATE AREA
Leroy A. Kuczek
Leroy A. Kuczek
17,000 Square Feet (0.39 acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential -One (R -1)
PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant land with one -story garage
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Site
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA- 12- 01 1Kuczek
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this
case.
REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 5 -foot (33 %) variance from the required 15 -foot side yard
setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for a 1.720- square foot manufactured home to be
located on the property at 10561 W. 38 Avenue Na 111 an).
Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of
Community Development to decide upon applications for a variance from the strict application of
the zoning code, if the variance request is not in excess of fifty (50) percent of development. If the
applicant is denied administrative approval by the Director of Community Development, the
decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.
The applicant was denied administrative approval by the Director of Community Development,
therefore the Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide upon the variance request at a
public hearing.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicant, Leroy A. Kuczek, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 10561 W. 38
Avenue. The variance is being requested so that the applicant may install a 1,720- square foot
manufactured home on the property. The home is a three - bedroom, single - family home that is 57'-
4" wide and 30' deep.
The applicant received approval from the Board of Adjustment for an identical variance request in
2009, per Case No. WA -09 -10 N. Section 26- 115.C.5 of the City
Code states that variance approval automatically expires 180 days after the approval is granted,
unless a building permit is obtained or an extension is granted prior to the expiration date. The
previous variance approval expired on April 20, 2010. No building permit was issued, nor did the
applicant seek an extension. The proposed home may not be constructed on the property with a
reduced side yard setback until the applicant receives a new variance approval.
The property at 10561 W. 38 Avenue is zoned Residential -One (R -1), a zone district established to
provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low- density residential neighborhoods, and which
prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low- density residential character.
The subject property is located on the north side of W. 38 Avenue, between Miller and Nelson
Streets; and is surrounded to the north, west, and east by properties that are also zoned R -1 and
contain single family homes
Across W. 38 Avenue to the south are properties zoned Commercial -One (C -1) and Residential -
Three (R -3) which include the Jefferson County Library Service Center and a low -rise apartment
complex. The surrounding neighborhood includes a variety of zone districts, including Planned
Residential (PRD) to the east, R -3 to the west, and Residential -One B (R -1 B) to the north.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -12 -01 Kuczek
The subject property has an area of about 17,000 square feet (0.39 acres) and currently contains
only a two -car garage on the north end of the property . At the time that the
applicant sought approval of a variance in 2009, the property also contained a single- family home.
The home was originally constructed in 1936, and was in a state of disrepair. The applicant had
determined that economically it made more sense to demolish the home and rebuild. He purchased
a manufactured home, attained variance approval in 2009, but did not immediately move forward
with the project. In the summer of 2011, the applicant demolished the home (under buildin permit
#110692), leaving the site in its current state, largely vacant and unimproved
Now that the variance has expired the applicant is seeking a new variance approval for essentially
the same reason as in 2009. The primary reason for the variance request is based on the fact that the
applicant has already purchased the manufactured home that is intended for the property —
Manufactured Home .
Because the lot is relatively large, it is possible to construct a home on the property that meets the
setback requirements. In this case, however, where the applicant has already purchased a
manufactured home, the size and dimensions of the home cannot be changed.
There is only one alternative configuration that would allow the applicant to meet the setback
requirements and still use the home he has already purchased. This would require turning the home
90 degrees such that the length of the home is perpendicular to W. 38` Avenue. The applicant has
expressed several reasons why this alternative is less desirable:
• The majority of windows are on the long side of the house, and the applicant would prefer
the windows to face south, thereby capturing the winter sun and not intruding on the privacy
of a neighboring lot.
• The gable style roof could accommodate a solar array, but to allow for a flush -mount
installation of photovoltaic panels, the roof would need to be south facing.
• If the length of the home is parallel to W. 38` Avenue as proposed, a larger portion of
usable backyard space would be preserved, and the home may serve as a more effective
noise barrier between the street and backyard.
Ultimately, the variance request would result in a 10 -foot side yard setback on the east of the lot.
The home would meet all other development standards. The subject property exceeds the minimum
R -I lot size of 12,500 square feet for a one - family dwelling, but is considered a nonconforming lot
of record because the width is only 85 feet —I 5 feet shy of the I00 -foot minimum. The
nonconforming width does not require a variance, but does have an effect on the developable area.
With a 15 -foot setback on the east and west sides, only 55 feet of developable width remain. The
following table compares the required R -1 development standards with the proposed conditions:
One-Family Dwelling in R -1:
Required
Actual
Lot Area
12,500 square feet min
17,000 square feet
Lot Width (corner lot)
100 feet (min)
85 feet
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA- 12- 01 1Kuczek
One-Family Dwelling in R -1:
Required
Proposed Home
Building Coverage
25% (max)
15.7%
Height
35 feet (max)
±15 feet
Front Setback
30 feet (min)
50 feet
Side Setback (west)
15 feet (min)
17.6 feet
Side Setback east
15 feet min
10 feet
Rear Setback
15 feet (min)
tl 15 feet
The public notification period is currently in progress, and to date no property owners have
contacted the City with questions or objections.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
The Board of Adjustment shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the
applicant demonstrates that a majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the
City Code have been met. The a licant has rovided an analysis of the application's compliance
with the variance criteria Staff provides the following review and
analysis.
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. The
site is currently vacant, and regardless of the outcome of the request the property would so I I
be able to accommodate a new single- family residence.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance request is not likely to alter the character of the locality. Adjacent properties
are also zoned R -1, and half of these properties have primary or accessory structures which
do not meet the 15 -foot setback requirement exhibit 3. Zoni Architecturally, the
proposed home is a single story ranch that is consistent �% ith the types of homes in the
neighborhood to the west and north.
With the exce tion of the arage at the rear, the lot appears vacant and unimproved from the
street If the variance is not granted, the lot could remain vacant for
an indeterminate amount of time. This could have substantially more impact on the
character of the neighborhood as compared with the proposed setback encroachment.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA- 12- 01 1Kuczek
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this
application, which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which would not be
possible without the variance. The home that previously existed on the site needed
substantial renovations, the high cost of which resulted in the applicant's decision to scrape
the lot and purchase the manufactured home.
The applicant has already made a substantial investment including the removal of the
previous home and the purchase of the manufactured home. Although investment in
alternative home designs could be made without the variance, approval of this variance
request will support the investments that have already been made, rather than invalidate
them.
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 appears to be no unique hardship related to the physical surrounding, shape or
topographical conditions of the subject site. The lot is flat and exceeds the minimum lot size
for a single- family residence in R-1.
The applicant purchased the home before realizing implications of the setback requirements.
Ultimately, the applicant's situation is considered an inconvenience rather than a physical
hardship created by the conditions of the property.
Staff finds 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 difficulty relates to the fact that the applicant purchased a manufactured home
that is too wide to meet the 15 -foot minimum setback requirements. This hardship has been
created by the applicant.
Staff finds this criterion has not 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.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA- 12- 01 1Kuczek
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 properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a
result of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. Nor would it cause an
obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance
triangle. The home would not increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The
proposed home may in fact have a positive effect on the neighborhood by developing what
is now a largely vacant and underutilized lot.
Staff finds 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.
The only unique condition in the neighborhood that may support the variance request is the
existence of several homes in the block that are also zoned R -1 and have nonconforming or
reduced setiiAia"- bject property, there are eleven lots in the block that are
zoned R -1 At least seven of these properties have primary or
accessory structures that are located within the 15 -foot side setback.
Staff finds that this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person -*+-ith
disabilities.
Single - family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes
pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in
the Architectural and Site Design Manual.
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single- and two - family dwelling
units.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA- 12- 011Kuczek
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff
recommends APPROVAL of a 5 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement.
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.
3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
4. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as several R -1
properties in the area have primary or accessory structures that encroach into side yard
setbacks.
With the following conditions:
1. The property shall comply with the landscape requirements of section 26 -502 for new
single- family residences, including those requirements related to landscape coverage and
street trees.
2. The property shall comply with the vehicle access requirements of section 26-501Y for
single - family dwellings, specifically that the first 25 feet of driveway area from the existing
edge of pavement into the site be surfaced with recycled asphalt pavement (RAP), concrete,
asphalt, brick pavers, or similar materials.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA- 12- 011Kuczek
EXHIBIT 1: SITE PLAN
:•i
x(
WE
r
1
ml �
s
"'
!
� � I
f�
1
i
1 � 1
of 1, 2 �i
4
`'T
I
d
i
N
�I
�
I
Board of . l tljuslmcnl 8
(•use.Au. li.l -1? -0/ %- nc•_ek
EXHIBIT 2: BOA MEETING MINUTES
1 4. 4 l WheatRigge
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
October 22, 2009
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order
by Chair Bucknam at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 West 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
Janet Bell
Bob Blair
Alan Bucknam
Ryan Fisher
Bob Howard
Betty Jo Page
Board Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
Tom Abbott
Paul Hovland
Larry Linker
Adam Tietz, Planner I
Kathy Field, Admin. Assistant
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not
appearing on the agenda.)
There was no one present to address the Board at this time.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WA -99 -10 An application filed by Leroy Kuczek for approval
of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback
requirement resulting in a 10 foot side yard setback for property zoned
Residential -One (R -1) and located at 10561 West 38th Avenue.
The case was presented by Adam Tietz. He entered all pertinent documents into
the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to bear the case. He
Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 22, 2009
-1—
Board of . ici /i�sJmenl
Ouse :Vo. 11:142 -01 Kue_ek
reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval
for reasons set forth in the staff report.
In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Tietz stated that no
negative comments had been received conceming this case.
Leroy A. Kuczek
10561 West 38` Ave.
Mr. Kuczek, the applicant, was sworn by Chair BUCKNAM. He stated that he
has been working with the Manufactured Home Building Center of Colorado to
select a model that would fit on his lot. Because the company its going out of
business, he is able to purchase a better quality home for the same price as the
first home he planned to buy. He believed. the home would be an asset to the
neighborhood. The utility poles in question are on his neighbor's property,
however it is necessary to provide room for utility vehicles. Shifting the structure
five feet to the east would accommodate this purpose.
Board Member BUCKNAM asked about structural issues associated with the
existing house. Mr. Kuczek stated that the house was constructed around 1900
using a flooring system on top of unfired red brick that has resulted in an unstable
foundation. The house also suffered significant damage from the storm that
occurred this summer. He stated that he ordered a survey of the property which
showed uneven boundaries.
There were no other individuals present who wished to address the Board. Chair
BUCKINAM closed the public hearing.
Upon a motion by Board Member BELL, and second by Board Member
BUCKNAM, the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -09 -10 is an appeal
to the 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, and with substantial
compliance with recommendations of the Neighborhood Revitalization
Study.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 22, 2009
-2—
Board of Adjustment
Case No. NFA- 12- 011Kuc_ek
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment application Case No.
WA -09 -10 be, and hereby is APPROVED.
Type of Variance: A 5 foot side yard setback variance to the required 15 foot
side yard setback requirement resulting in a 10 foot side yard setback to
allow for a single family home zoned Residential -One.
For the following reasons:
1. The side yard setback variance would not alter the character of the
neighborhood.
2. There would be no negative impact to the public welfare or other
properties in the area.
3. The request would not substantially increase the congestion in public
streets, encroach into the sight distance triangle, increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety.
4. The conditions necessitating the request are present in the
neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
5. Staff recommended approval.
Board Member FISHER stated that he believed the reasons for erecting a pre-
fabricated home are justifiable.
Board Member BUCKNAM commented that he believed the house will add value
to the neighborhood.
Board Member BELL expressed appreciation to the applicant for providing room
for utility vehicles.
The motion carried 6 -0.
Case No. WA- 09 -11 An application filed by David & Kathy
ontgomery for approval of (A) a 600 square foot variance to t.h
min' 12,500 square feet, and (B) a 10 foot minimum dth
variance _t_
80 foot lot «ridth requirement to allo or a 3 family
dwelling unit on erty zoned Residential- ee and located at 4000 Jay
Street.
The case was presented by A tetz. He all pertinent documents into
the record and advised th oard there was jurisdictionto hear the case. He
reviewed the staff oh and digital presentation. Staff re ended approval
for reasons with conditions, as set forth in the staff report.
Kathy Montgomery
31001 Clubhouse Lane, Evergreen
Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 22, 2009
-3—
Board of Adjustment
Case .Vo. NSA- 12- 01 1Kuczek
EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP
Board of Adjustment I
Case No. WA- 12- 01 1Kuczek
EXHIBIT 4: AERIAL
2010 Aerial
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA- 12- 011Kuczek
2012 Aerial, courtesy of Google Maps
EXHIBIT 5: SITE PHOTOS
Board ofAdjustment 14
Case No. WA- 12- 01 1Kuczek
EXHIBIT 6: MANUFACTURED HOME
ho
This image shows the rear of manufactured home that the applicant has purchased.
Board of Adjustment 15
Case No. WA- 12- 011Kuczek
[EXHIBIT 6: MANUFACTURED HOME, continued]
.�J
N/-
J
n
W
A
"L
r
{Hutt 16, L/
A
Z
W
2
U
H
m
m
0
x�
a
A
Z
W
tY
Q
W
Board of Adjustment 16
Case No. 1,VA- 12- 01iKuczek
[EXHIBIT 6: MANUFACTURED HOME, continued]
>A
r W
W ,NJJ
L7
PAGE 2.0
n
:Z
W �
Q r W
N p
u
w
cc ;
ztj
9W
U
W h O
I "
r
M
W
J
J
H
H
Q' Z
W
F- }
Q Q'
W O
S F-
U
0: Q
W la.
F
4 V9
w
q Q
Z
d cj�
W =
U ~
Q W
Z�
OC q
�Z
t. q
_ V1
W �—
F- U
Z q
x�
Cr
f+.
Board of Adjustment 17
Case No. KA- 12 -01, Kuczek
EXHIBIT 7: LETTER of REQUEST
The applicant has submitted Ihe_following cover letter to provide a project update and an
explanation for the re- request of the variance. The project description and response to criteria that
_follow were originally composed in 2009 and submitted for Case No. WA- 09 -10. The applicant's
request and rationale have not changed, thus the same criteria analvsis has been submitted. Please
note that any reference to the existing house is obsolete as that home was removed in 2011.
27 January, 2012
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Planning and Development Department
7500 W. 29"' Ave.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
To whom it may concern:
Please find attached my package of information for consideration by the Board of Adjustments at their February 23
meeting. This is a reapplication for a variance previously granted by the Board on October 22, 2009, case number WA -09-
10. For a variety of reasons, I was unable to complete my project at 10561 West 38` Avenue within the 180 -day variance
period. i am now prepared to move forward to completion and am reapplying.
To summarize my plan, the existing house will be demolished and replaced with a manufactured home in approximately the
same location on the lot. The new house Is a rectangular ranch style with a long side of 57 feet 4 inches and a short side of
30 feet. I would like to position it with the long side east -west across the lot. My lot is 85 feet wide. Section 26 -205 of the
zoning regulations requires 15 -foot setbacks on both sides, which allows a maximum width of 55 feet for any new structure.
I am requesting that I be allowed to reduce the east side setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. This will provide room for the
new house while maintaining all other setback and area requirements.
The above orientation on the lot is preferred for several practical reasons.
• The long sides of the house contain almost all the windows. Placing the house as requested will orient the largest
windows so they face south for maximum winter sun exposure.
• The same holds true for half of the roof, making photovoltaic or other solar deployment more feasible.
• Other orientations place windows so they look into neighbors' yards rather than my own. There would be privacy
concerns.
• Contiguous backyard space is maximized, providing the most flexibility for garden, landscaping, play areas, or any
other reasonable use.
• And finally, as much street noise as possible Is blocked from the back yard. 38` Avenue Is busy now and traffic
volumes are not expected to decrease over time. I would like to protect to whatever degree is possible backyard
quiet. Wise choice of landscaping is helpful but not nearly as effective as putting the house in the way.
Board of Adjustment is
Case No. WA- 12- 01,Kzrczek
[EXHIBIT 7: LETTER OF REQUEST. a011tinued)
Since the previous hearing, there have been changes. First, the old residence was demolished. The lot Is empty except for
the garage, which I intended to keep. Updated pictures of the lot as it is now are Included in the package. Second,
financing was changed. There is a new deed, a copy of which is also Included. Please let me know if you need clarification
or additional information on any item. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Le y A. Kuczek
3790 Independence Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
(303) 425 -5965 home
(720) 635 -8532 mobile
(303) 939 -6682 office
Board ofAdjustmeni 19
Case No. WA -12 -01 l:uezek
[EXHIBIT 7: LETTER OF REQUEST. continued]
Leroy A. Kuczek
10561 West 38 Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Review of Request for Variance
Proiect Description
The property is located on 38"' Avenue between Kipling and Youngfield. It is on the
north side of the street, second lot east of Nelson. The subdivision directly adjacent to
the north is labeled Wheat Ridge Manor on city and county maps.
The property contains two structures: a residence and a detached garage. The garage
has one level with a storage loft. It was built in 1984 and is in good shape. The
residence is a two -story, parts of which were built in the early 1900s. It is in need of a
major remodel and I have been evaluating alternative ways to address this need for
some time. The conclusion drawn is that best long term plan involves removing the
existing residence, leaving the garage intact, and replacing it with a manufactured home
in approximately the same position on the lot.
I have been working with a builder on choosing the best model that suited my needs
and fit my budget. Progress was slow until recently when the builder offered one of his
model homes (installed at a viewing site in Colorado Springs) at a substantial discount.
Prior to the offer, we had been focusing on houses in the 1200 to 1400 square foot
range. Floor plans were comfortable but always had some attribute that didn't quite
match needs. The model home offered is just over 1700 square feet and has a floor
plan that is much better suited to my long term needs. It is an Energy Star home with R-
21 wall insulation, R -SO roof insulation, % -inch Thermal Pane windows, and other
features intended to maximize energy efficiency. It is also being offered at a price
approximately equivalent to the smaller houses being considered.
Variance Request
The lot is 85 feet wide and 200 feet deep, excluding the right of way for 38`" Avenue on
the south end. Applying 15 -foot setback rules to the east and west sides, a maximum
width of 55 feet for any structure is allowed. The width of the proposed residence is 57
feet 4 inches: slightly more than fits the lot without variance.
The east side of the property has no concerns. There is a fence separating me from the
adjoining lot, but nothing else. The west side of the property, however, has a row of
Leroy A. Kuczek — Review of Request for Variance Page 1 of 4
Board of Adjustment -)o
Case No. WA- 12- 011Kuczek
utility poles which are used to supply electricity and communications to residences on
that side. While these poles are on my neighbors' side of the property line, they are in
small back yards with no access for trucks or other machines. Common sense dictates
that I allow room for such maintenance operations when I make changes on my side.
Clearly, I need to place the new residence so as to maintain reasonable separation from
the east neighbor while maximizing access to the back of the lot.
I am requesting that the east side setback be reduced from 15 feet to 10 feet for the
new residence, leaving 17 feet 8 inches on the west. This will provide enough width for
the larger house and address the other issues described above.
Variance Criteria for Review
A. 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.
How does one define reasonable in this case? The proposed residence represents the
best balance of cost and utility found to date. It has more room and a better layout
than smaller alternatives. And, it could be considered more attractive and enhance
property values in the area. All benefit the homeowner. That said, it is worth pointing
out that the city could benefit also. One would expect a new, slightly- larger house to
generate higher tax revenues which, while probably not dramatic, still contribute to the
neighborhood. So, it would seem that reasonable in the context of the proposed project
means better results for a given investment without significant impact to surrounding
properties. I believe the quality of those results would be diminished if the variance is
denied.
B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
While multi -unit dwellings are present, the neighborhood surrounding on north, east,
and west sides consists primarily of single family residences. The architectural style is
predominantly ranch. Floor space in surrounding properties ranges from approximately
1000 square feet to 1800 square feet: some with basements, others without.
The existing residence is a two story enclosing approximately 1370 square feet. The
proposed residence is a ranch style of 1720 square feet, which is consistent in size and
shape with surrounding properties. The new structure's position on the property will be
about the same as the old. The driveway will remain in its current location and there
will be no increase in traffic on /off the property. Other than the change from two story
to ranch, there will be little difference in overall appearance.
Leroy A. Kuczek — Review of Request for Variance Page 2 of 4
Board of Adjusbnew
Case No. IFA -12 -01 Kuc_ek
C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
Investment associated with this project is expected to be on the order of $200,000. This
constitutes the upper limit on what I can sustain long term. The builder offers other
floor plans that would fit on the lot without a variance. Unfortunately, these
alternatives all carry substantially higher price tags. I have has delayed the project for
months searching for an appropriate balance between utility and cost. These efforts
were unsuccessful until the builder made his current offer. If this variance is denied, the
project cannot go forward as planned. The search for a solution will resume.
D. The particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical condition of the specific
property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished
from a mere inconvenience.
The primary obstacle to progress is the property's shape. It is deep but not very wide.
Current minimum lot width for R -1 zoning is 100 feet. The width of the lot under
consideration is 85 feet. For reasons explained in item C, compliance would impose a
financial hardship.
E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been
created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
No, the hardship was not created by the current owner. With the exception of the
detached garage, the property is as it was when purchased 31 years ago. No
subsequent changes, such as lot modification or subdivision, have occurred.
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.
I believe I have made choices in terms of size, shape, placement, access, and cost that
make the answer to all question no. Supporting information has been given above.
G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present
in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Leroy A. Kuczek — Review of Request for Variance Page 3 of 4
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -12 -01 /Kuczek
Yes, this is a correct statement. Lots throughout the area north of 38` Avenue are
typically deeper than they are wide when viewed from the street they face. Of course,
there is variation. Most of the homes in the Wheat Ridge Manor area were built in the
late 1950s and individual properties change over the years. Nevertheless, side setbacks
are frequently less than code requires now. I would not consider my request atypical
for the area.
H. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
Not applicable.
1. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in
the Architectural and Site Design Manual.
Not applicable
Leroy A. Kuczek — Review of Request for Variance
Page 4 of 4
Board of Adjusimeni 23
Case No. HA -12 -01 Knc_ek
City of
W heat jdle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment
CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert
DATE OF MEETING: February 23, 2012
CASE NO. & NAME: WF -12 -01 /DTI
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a Class II Floodplain Permit to allow construction of
a commercial structure on property zoned C -1
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8955 W. 44`" Avenue
PROPERTY OWNER: Tony Douglas for DTI Trucks
PRESENT ZONING: C -2, Commercial -Two
CURRENT USE: Vehicle sales and service
ENTER INTO RECORD:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
ZONING ORDINANCE
CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
DIGITAL PRESENTATION
Board of Adjustment
WF -12 -01 /DTI Trucks
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this
case.
I. REQUEST
The 2.86 acre property is located at 8955 W. 44` Avenue and is zoned C -2. The applicant is
requesting approval of a Class II Special Exception Floodplain permit to allow the construction of a
commercial structure roughly 4900 square feet in size.
Section 26- 808(D) (Floodplain Control) of the Wheat Ridge zoning and development code empowers
the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide appeals of Class I special exception permits which have
been denied by the floodplain administrator and requests for Class Il special exception permits as
provided within these regulations.
Prior to construction of the new building, a Planned Building Group plan to allow multiple structures
on the property and a building permit must be obtained. These are both administrative approvals.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The property at 8955 W. 44 Avenue is bounded to the south by W. 44` Avenue and to the east by
Clear Creek and the Clear Creek bike path. The surrounding area is a mix of commercial and
residential zone districts. Residential areas are to the north and east and are a mix of single family
homes, duplexes and four - plexes. The properties to the west are zoned Commercial -One (C -1).
Across W. 44` Avenue is Anderson Park which includes sports fields, basketball courts, a skate park,
outdoor pool and indoor facilities. (Exhibit 1, aerial photo)
The subject property is currently occupied by DTI Trucks, which sells light -, medium - and heavy -duty
work trucks. The site includes a 10,500 square foot main building that has a north -south orientation.
The building contains offices and a garage in which vehicles are reconditioned. Two smaller
accessory structures have an east -west orientation in the middle of the site. The remainder of the
property is paved parking for display of vehicles.
The majority of the site lies within the Clear Creek 100 -year floodplain. (Exhibit 2, aerial photo with
floodplain delineation)
III. CASE ANALYSIS
The areas comprising floodplains are typically classified differently based on proximity to the water
way and the type of flood flows within these areas. The flood storage area is the fringe area in which
flood flows are characteristically backflow and have shallow flooding. The floodway is usually the
area closer to the water body and functions for conveyance of the floodwaters (versus ponding areas).
The floodway is considered hazardous with significant flood depths and velocities. No construction
should occur in the floodway.
On Exhibit 2, the flood storage area is designated in turquoise. The floodway is shown as being purple.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the two ancillary structures located east of the primary
structure and replace them with a new building approximately 4900 square feet in size. Location of
Board of Adjustment 2
WF- 12- 01/DTI Trucks
the new structure will be in the general vicinity of the demolition but as far away from the Floodway
area as possible. In order to meet the requirement for first floor elevation, about three feet of fill and a
small retaining wall at the northeast side of the new structure will be required. Again, all of the
improvements are located outside of the floodway (Exhibit 3, flood plain permit drawing).
The required drainage analysis was prepared by a registered engineer which concludes that the lowest
floor of the structure will be at least one foot above the base flood elevation of 5538'. The study has
been approved by the floodplain administrator (Exhibit 4, Paranto memo)
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the proposed new structure will not have a
negative impact on the 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed construction will not negatively impact the flood water elevations in the areas.
2. All site improvements will occur in the flood storage area.
3. The floodplain administrator has reviewed and supports the findings of the floodplain analysis.
With the following conditions:
1. The lowest floor elevation of the proposed structure must be constructed one foot above the
base flood level of 5538'.
2. The first floor elevation must be verified by an elevation survey after the foundation has been
poured prior to other construction commencing.
Board of Adjustment
WF- 12- OI/DTI Trucks
i U)
LU
LLJ
4
c 45TH PL... 1
A
ON
4
4A
0
r
r
4 0
. •
_ fit••:: p .
t
r '
EXHIBIT 1
V
L
"Aw
77�
vo
a
W7 77
Flood Hazard (FHAD) Area
Floodway
1 00 -Year Floodplain (Flood storage area)
500-Year Floodplain
ma
Wv w
14
0
EXHIBIT 2
Tr r-r
Virg."
rr
V
L
"Aw
77�
vo
a
W7 77
Flood Hazard (FHAD) Area
Floodway
1 00 -Year Floodplain (Flood storage area)
500-Year Floodplain
ma
Wv w
14
0
EXHIBIT 2
FLOOD PERMIT DRAWING
LOT 2, DTI SUBDIVISION
'LT
8955 WEST 44-TH AVEN )E
WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
SHEET 1 OF 1.
Topoq,upNc SuNey plovd�d by Fioli,ojq, !nc
0 tj� aY MI.. M Mv o' ww.�A'
A",
46M M (ROM, VAWIM)
... . .. ..
7
.. ... . — — — — — —
m
4-
Q411
J
J�
'k
"
-
11'�11 —7,
0
f
as
PRELMNARY
H, H,
HA
Scale 1'=20'
F� T
EKXX Q02, PAii 4 7,
j i
C5
94
ts
4
� ""* � ��� sew "^w� "' �„ � �, � ��° � : �� � �„
E-;
Cy
10 0- GRAPHIC SCAJE
A &I LN rum
P4 r i-b - 40
City of Wheat. Ridge
Department of Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
FROM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works
CC: Dave Brossman, Development Review Engineer
DATE: February 8, 2012
SUBJECT: Class II Special Exception Permit, 8955 West 44 Avenue
A floodplain analysis and a grading plan for the proposed improvements at the DTI Trucks
property at 8955 West 44`" Avenue were submitted on February 1, 2012. The proposed
project would remove two existing buildings and replace them with one new building. The
new building would be elevated to one foot above the 100' floodpain, with all adjacent fill
placed outside of the stream floodway. A short retaining wall is also proposed along the back
of the new building to facilitate drainage.
The 100 year flood elevation is approximately 5338 feet at the location of the proposed new
building. The new structure must be protected to an elevation of 5339 feet, as shown in the
report and grading plan.
I find that the flood study, grading plan and structure elevation are acceptable. The current
location of the building with the retaining wall and grading are satisfactory to support a Class
II Special Flood Exception Permit. As you are aware, the Board of Adjustment must issue all
Class II Special Exception Permits.
The Flood Permit Drawing also indicates that the existing stormwater retention pond will be
converted to a stormwater detention pond. At this location, stormwater detention is not
required. However, stormwater water quality facilities must be included in any building permit
application. Review and approval of the drainage system will occur at the time of building
permit application.
As always, I am available to answer any questions in this matter.
EXHIBIT 4
The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustriii6rit was called to order
by Vice Chair BELL at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Charnbers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 West 29' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Col'orad I o,
Paul
Lily
Russ
MM
Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
L a r n Mikulak, Planner I
K y Field, Administrative Assistant
I'll
3. rift' his 1� the time for anyone to speak on any subject not
app� %da.
A. Case No. WA-11-02: An application filed by Ken Relyea with Affordable
Garages for approval of a 12' variance to the 15' side yard setback
requirement for a detached garage on property zoned Agricultural-One (A-
1) and located at 4675 Parfet Street.
The case was presented by Lauren Mikulak. She entered all pertinent documents
into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She
Board of Adjustment
April 28, 2011
reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval
for reasons outlined in the staff report.
Board Member GRIEGO asked staff if there were any agricultural uses on this
property and if the two sheds were to remain on the property. Ms. Mikulak
deferred these questions to the applicant and owner who were both in the
audience.
Ken Reylea
1771 W. Alameda Ave., Denver, Colorado
Mr. Relyea, contractor for the property owner, was
Mr. Relyea stated that if he were to turn the 1
not meet setbacks; or if he were to center the
access to the rear of the property
Board Member GRIEGO asked Mr. Rplk6a, if the
agricultural uses to which he replied-a hdr and
GRIEGO asked if the two accessory structuf6�5,,V
to which he replied, yes. Approving this would""
portion for agricultural uses and keep all the acre;
location.
• IMMITWI
staff. A901hL
that were received by
and second by Board MemboF
=� I . ..... .. ... .
stated:
permission by an administrative officer;
9 # # ' Wjustment application Case No. WA-1 1-02 is an appeal
#
ffiam e decision of an administrative officer; and
i I
I If III I 1 11 A Ii fill Itm Iks gil
. ta (4 i1q# lu 1w I I I : I I I M. I #'IM�
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.
'ITIM I en ica ion se Ao.
WA- 1 1-02 be and hereby is APPROVED.
Board of Adjustment - 2 —
April 28, 2011
Type of Variance: A 12 foot variance to the 15 foot side yard setback
requirement for a detached garage on property zoned Agricultural-One.
For the following reasons:
1. Similar variances appear in the neighborhood.
2. This building will be a substantial investment in the property.
3. The owner did not create the hardship.
4. It does not alter the character of the area.
reasons:
5. Staff recommended approval. A, 111 11
6. Three of the neighbors had writtepfif Ili
Vice Chair BELL closed the
s .
im
hers to attend the second public meeting
ea Plan will be held at the Wheat Ridge
, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m,
ct One, was welcomed to the Board as an
B. Approval of Minutes — January 27,2011
It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board
Member BLAIR to approve the minutes of January 27, 2011 as
presented. The motion carried unanimously.
Board of Adjustment - 3 —
April 28, 2011
alternate member.
C. Future Training
Ms. Reckert indicated that because we have eight permanent members on
the board that a training session would be desirable. The training would
probably take place in June.
D. Election of Officers
Tom Abbott was elected to serve as Chair of the Board of Adjustment.
Betty Jo Page was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Board of
Adjustment.
E. Carnation Festival
Board Member PAGE asked if the
the Carnation Festival again. Boot
contribution to the cost of the banr
all the details and forward that int(
Board Members.
Led to sponsor a banner for
would each make a small
lember PACE gill attend to
Ms. Field to email the other
Kathy Field, Acting Secretary
Board of Adjustment - 4 --
April 28, 2011
City of
I g e
v T h4calt
C00MMUNny DEVELOPT,T
THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant
DATE: February 17, 2012
SUBJECT: Resolution Designating a Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public
Meetings
Attached is Resolution 01, Series of 2012, which identifies the lobby of the Municipal Building
and the City's website as the designated place for posting of meeting notices.
Attachment
I . Resolution 01, 2012
WHEAT AIDGE B*ARD OF ADJUSTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 01
Series of 2012
---- - - NO
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, deems it in
the public interest to provide full and timely notice of all of its meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws,
Section 24 -6 -401, et seq., C.R.S. to require all "local public bodies" subject to the requirements
of the law to annually designate at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar
year, the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the
holding of the meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City
of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that:
DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of 2012.
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Tarl c *OaTA TIMM
eAp1anning\forTns\rescc