HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/1998I
ESHOOM
III! E
1 it l
1 1,1 11GUMM-M., WO4
Approved w/ A. Case No. TUP-98-02: An application by Wheat Ridge 52 Investments for
conditions approval of a temporary use permit for additional parking for tenants. Parking will
be on a vacant parcel of ground immediately adjacent to 12060 W. 52 Avenue.
Said property is zoned A-2 and located at Lot 13 of the Standley Heights
Subdivision.
Denied, D. Case No. WA-98-17: An application by Lorraine Brown for approval of a
variance to Section 26-30(Q) to allow a 2x Thome business freestanding sign for
a Class I home occupation and an eight foot sign Setback variance to the 10'
requirement. Said property is zoned R- I and located at 4430 Tabor Street.
Referred
• E. Case No. WA-98-18: An application by Tom Radigan for approval of a 15' front
P.C. yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement for Lots 1, 2 and 3
of the Marvel Minor Subdivision. Said properties are zoned R-I and located at
10845, 10855 and 10865 West 32 d Avenue.
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes: May 28, 1998
S. ADJOURNMENT toJuly23,1998
CABarbara\B0A\980625agcnda.wpd
TO: Board of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING:
CASE NO. & NAME:
mmu` ■�
Woug a a X6141 WN
TUP-98-02/Wheat CASE MANAGER: Susan Ellffl
Ridge 52 Investments I
Request for approval to surface a vacant lot for use as temporary employee
parking for the tenants of 12 100
NAME &.ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Sarne
----------
APPROXIMATE AREA: 24,000 square feet
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural-Two
PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant Lot (parking)
DATE PUBLISHED: June 5, =
DATE POSTED: June 11, 1998
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 3, 1998
ENTER INTO RECORD:
0
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(X)
CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X)
ZONING ORDINANCE
N
SLIDES
0
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
(X)
EXHIBITS
use by right in the near future if approved.
11. SITE PLAN
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a Temporary Use Permit
request.
1. Will this request have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety
and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the
proposed use?
No. This proposed temporary use would help to alleviate parking problems within the
development.
2. Will this request adversely affect adequate light and air, cause significant air, water or
noise pollution, or cause drainage problems for the general area?
3. Will this request result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe parking,
loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to be determent of persons whether on or off the
site?
4. Will this request be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking bulk,
buffering, screening and landscaping, so as to be in harmony and compatible with the
ch I aracter of the surrounding areas and neighborhood, especially with adjacent properties?
Yes. The property in question is surrounded by commercial uses. If the lot is paved and striped,
it will help to eliminate parking bulk,
5. Will this request overburden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks schools,
and other public facilities and services?
No. The number • vehicle parked within this development will not change. It would just
the placement of the parking that would change, therefore not causing an overburden of the
capacities of the existing streets. - I
V. RE COMMENDED MOTIONS
- I
Option A: "I move that Case No. TUP-98-02, a request for a temporary use permit for additional tenant
parking on Lot 13 of the Standley Heights Subdivision, be APPROVED for the following reasons:
Board of Adjustment Page 3
TUP-98-02/ Wheat Ridge 52 Investment
11 Conidcvkplanning\REPORTS\tup9g-2,wpd
Board of Adjustment
TUP-98-02/ Wheat Ridge 52 Investment
L: \DRAWINGS \PLANNING \GG \G17
The City of
Department of Planning and Development
7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
- Phone (303) 237-6944
Applicant ,Wheatridq - 52 Investment AddreSS6025 S. Quebec Ste. 220 Phone
Associates F-nqlewooZ!; CO M7171
Owner Same as _Applicant Address Phone
I Location • request 12060 W. 52nd Avenue
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below
which pertain
• your request.)
or request allow surface parking
List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real
property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee, etc.
I certify that the information and exhibits - herewith submitted are true '' a , nd
correct to the best of my kn'owledge'and that in filing this application, I
am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above,
without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished.
Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney from the owner
which approved of,,,,this action on his behalf.
M
TVf—
A /
sworn to me this 13 day of % y 19
1_ A
O
MY commission expires
Receipt No. case No.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING. Juno 25, 1998 DATE PREPARED: June 1, 1998
CASE N4. & NAME: WA- 98 -15/ Feeney
CASTE MANAGER: Sean McCartney
ACTION QUESTED: Request for approval of a 9% building coverage variance to the 25%
maximum building coverage requirement.
LOCATION OF QUEST:
3869 Union Court
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
George Feeney
3295 Parfet Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER:
Laura. Leprino
3295 Parfet Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
APPROXIMATE AREA:
12,680 square feet
PRESENT LAND USE:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
Iml
N: Agricultural -Two; :, :, and W,
Residential One
N: : E: and W. Vacant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: L ow Density Resid
DATE PUBLISHED: June 5, 1998
DATE POSTED: June 11, 1998
property The of Ridge, • all notification and posting requirements
6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the
property
No. The sole purpose of the request is to allow for a larger than normal single-family dwelling.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
Yes. The applicant knew, at time • purchase, that the maximum building coverage was 25% 1 - '
lots located in the Residential-One zone district. Also, within this same development, there are']
two lots which are I acre in lot area and allow a maximum building coverage • 25% (10
square feet • building coverage)
S. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
- bther property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located?
No. Approval • this request should not be detrimental to the public welfare as the proposed
property should comply with all other development requirements. However, approval of this
request may
• injurious to other property improvements as the intent of the low-density
residential area is to provide for large, as lots.
9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
No. The proposed request is purely for individual benefit and will not benefit the community or
neighborhood.
I. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Option A: "I move that Case No. WA-98-1 5, a request for approval of a 9% building coverage variance
3869 Union Court, be APPROVED for the following reasons:
I Approval of this request will allow for the construction of a single-story, ranch-style home th
will allow for adequate viewsheds of the mountains for the proposed structures to the east." i
Option B: "I move that Case No. WA-98-15, a request for approval of a 9% building coverage variance
to the 25% maximum building coverage requirement for a property zoned Residential-One and located at
3869 Union C4 urt, • DENIED for the following reasons:
^` f it ?P i ` 4 \. •, '"" v�?� �" A
r W AYE° t1dw.' ! #'.3'' l�*�11� -.+.
W�4ZV AVM!
IL
rt ° -! Q — 2
'
.
♦mil r•�� ! ` y.. A
t .t.
t t at 1.t .' .`•, t a.
I
,A rI.
A - 1
1� aa. ... -"` `I F . � r 6 i y �.�. tt
i I a 1 .*
0 ST
MOORE
J
MINOR °� -
LAW
' } , �'Ax
1Ir
4�r
11�d
LO 5
VACANT LOT
i2,697 SO,=T
!0' !
UTILITY �
EASE
PREPARED BY: LANE [
A� •
;S (30 233-40
A CUSTOM RANCH
m p
LEPRINO RESIDENCE
z z
COLAIANO M. ASSOCIATES
11 10
L
M
v
�-4
r
0
0
t
u
-
CU STO M �fl Ipl III �q �I
R A N C H
�
• 7S1 G M
I L �
I ,,,
* O.
VK I33
PG z/?
� CC-0
CURVE
DELTA AAMOLt
otwus ARC
CHORD
CHO00 KARING
C I
71'51"37`
15.00 20, IV
11.67*
C I
OrOI'23
iS-00' 20,97'
23, As
C 3
TO* 3 t '44,
1 SlOO* i #, 44,
14 34 $6 52
PROSPE
C A
IW3 I 'A4'
191.71'
A RESUBDIVI IC
PROSPECT RIDGE MI
TOWNSH I
W.
MAX i Na
0 13 TA)MCE
ti
t
m 59* 36 11 "E
L 2
9 76' S7' W Ll
L A
4
13. 04'
L 6
02' 11 v
4 4 3 OO'E
20 00,
LOT I
4 9.223 WFT, �4
1 "X 1' CW4CRETE
SCALE W* 60'
-- — - — - — - — - — - — -
SOUTH 114 CORNER SECTION 10
ftoltrw If4 CORNER SECT 0" 29
3 # 14 " #*AS$ CAP 14 RANG{
0 11 1 4T sox l.S 1 3212
A* I ZO" t M*
Rat Z0NIN0
st CO*W* SECTION to
HE CORNEA SECTION 29
3 t 1*A33 CAA I IN
RANGE POINT #OX LS 13242
A
* —42-Y-4
rJ
0
Applican
�'i--'; I 1" 4�
Z—' Address
17/ -
City
Address Phone
City
Location of request (address) -T" %"' <'��
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.)
M
M
III I 1 11 r � 1� 11%1
Current Zoning,:
Size of Lot (acres • Q ' sEO
Proposed use:
Assessors Pai:cel Number:
Planning and Development Department
7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ri&e, CO 80033
Phone(303)235-2846
(Please
or type all information)
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment
:DATE OF MEETING: June 25, 1098
DATE PREPARED: June 1, 1998
CASE NO. & NAME: A- 98 -16/ Bunger
CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney
ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of
' fence height variance to the 4' maximum fence
height requirement to allow a 6' fence in the front yard.
LOCATION OF QUEST:
6900 West 38 " Avenue
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
Brad and Marcia Bun er
6900 West 38" Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER:
Same
APPROXIMATE AREA:
1.49 acres
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential- Three
PRESENT LAND USE:
Single- family
SURROUNDING ZONING:
N: Commercial -One, & E :, Residential-
Three, and ': Restricted - Commercial One
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
N: Restaurant (commercial), : and E:
Single- family residential and : Mutti-
family residential
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA:
Low Density Residential
DATE PUBLISHED:
June 5, 1998
DATE POSTED:
June 11, 1998
DATED LEGAL, NOTICES SENT:
June 3, 1938
ENTER INTO RECORD:
() COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X)
CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAL
(X) _ ZONING ORDINANCE ()
SLIDES
() UBDIVI ION REGULATIONS ()
EXHIBITS
O OTHER
Ii
The r roverty is within the Citv of Ridge. and • w ♦ sr • s
met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
MENRUMUM
III III ��
0 T
1 tag I I I I to aud I'l a (42 1 lmw wn U-1 Omm I gatITIM I mal I I WE ma MIS,
11 SITE PLAN
As previously stated, the property in question is located at 6900 West 3 8" Avenue, just behind Marc's
Restaurant. According to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, this property is referred to as a "flag lot" (se
above definition). I
4
A tell
There is an alternative access to West 37' Avenue, located on the southwest portion of the property.
The applicant has stated that they use this t secondary access.
1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if
permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in
which it is located?
Yes. If denied, the property may continue to be used as a single-family residential dwelling.
However, due to the existing non-compatible land use (single-family residential adjacent to
commercial establishment), the market value of the property could be deflated without adequate
screening.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
No. Although the applicant has interest in the property, the hardship has been established
through an existing incompatible land use. ,
WIN - ffilliningongli
IIIII11I 11111t I I i I I l ifI l in liI I mil !III vv I 011111111� In
priperLy imprT771perlis in tilat Luc T MUCt; Will VC MUdWIL *11 Lilt; U4111L 11K HIM Vi it Hag lot, willcil
has the same physical attributes as a regular rear lot line. The fence will be located
approximately 200' from the nearest public right-of-way, therefore this should not hinder the
bility for motorists or pedestrians.
9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
No. The proposed request is purely for individual benefit and will not benefit the community or
neighborhood.
I :
Trom
a flag lot. Although the property is located approximately 200 from the nearest public right-of-way, the
northern property line is still considered the front lot line, and therefore must abide by the front yard
requirements.
— 1
VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
Option A: "I move that Case No. WA-98-16, a request for approval of a 2' fence height variance to the 4'
maximum fence height requirement to allow a 6' fence in the front yard for a property zoned Residential- i
Three and located at 6900 West 38 be APPROVED for the following reasons:
r up
all
WE
I
sf. PAR .. V I . R
J }tt.✓ i L1V�V^�4 1
RS y
145i `IA 1 t..`S tlt', `41'S t iIP7
may+'{ �^
N 1 P� �VVi'"�.i..S
O 4? lW 0 ��047
t
p R t tl t �•
tf M °
mom
1
�
I II
j
sf. PAR .. V I . R
J }tt.✓ i L1V�V^�4 1
RS y
145i `IA 1 t..`S tlt', `41'S t iIP7
may+'{ �^
N 1 P� �VVi'"�.i..S
O 4? lW 0 ��047
t
p R t tl t �•
tf M °
gyp« Zi DATE 5 `38F'EI- 85 --0 Joe# 82 -2056
MORTGAGE Co. AUSTIN MORTGAGE ,KIP}
,F LAN C7 S U V�YtN
ADDRESS
6900 W. 38TH AVE'.
5480 WARD ROAD • SUITE 1 60 � BORROWERS NAME A BLINGER .
ARVADA, CC}4..ORAOO 80002
(303) 420 -4788
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE Jam°""' � EGA { MO C�ta[bf
A A NDRE A OTERO # .. »..
1 Mt #ttit tt fti $kit#i}kk Qk #RY {t at ittftk$A #S. 4!pfkttS#
f0"
F dH##
164$1 is k14i 0} #t0 f,4., 40i 4 tttkk4}ft
0l4tft4I4 #4 #0[4444« t444t4ttN At iR0 NPfKV#fY to 44i4 .. • •. �r �} x I1
{# ##t♦ i1S #iP# ; #p ttttkl 4qf tdkr #tA #i i }# a{ttV
4f;{ #itto*k if. # 4lr t4ktd Pf ltt.i4 # /trp ftittt {PgJ4 'r #«
4r'It "f !a1 10.144 #ai ft #a tit #40f Off! N a 4T4 tftrt{4 !t,
i tt4FUt! of i } #.. ## ttVf fi tit V4ta# 44 !.44gf'1a, •T
KtdO tOP #tkOtPP 0 tacit ° ; {` 4. }
0 14ttat4 Pt aa4 t} ff it.
dtat kt4i 4 t!a #4at4 Pf !i #, r; itri. faikt$ 4 S# #1'a #` 4.
# *t it a 1r.4r tat#, " ... "at t 4dif #414 {J tt,i/
rK4rt rdrf4K i 44.1a• }.• t, # 414ta4it it4.f! rt4t« }t;4ef '
I'M i {141 1111 Pr t /.tt 1141« # w a4.r 4 + #t'f, < p
#titt*41 4# lr,t4 tilt« igkkti tt Pf.. # 4111 i #k4 tx #tl «ft '
#44a P40 A4 114# TA 144 tt4t 141ar 0t l /4tkttt0, #4fa m
a4tf* to fiat at tits 1. t. } 444 t 41 4441114 q #NttC Risk. �,� Ja
i
4/ft/4 #44 944wtl, t#k4$.oC t4 itt{ Y #StV4# 4 flit£ 4k #444 Car <> G VJ
;P to V ##t #i. ltttt44 at 4 It, Vtt# a4t# t#ttiiflti#S
. 4 #at t4f4i 44 t4tM40 "At # #i #0 41 a t41aa 41t# to 11 #,18
it,, 44 tf 41 414 4; t,tf JV#t 0{414 0t 4i4 i i a444f1 tt W
#4a. ; #, tt#, #4tf« 100 4ttt 4 4t #f ##td N t 4i t14r �[''' x ,{y+ / Y5t
4414, {{ 4a t0 iP 4 — 44 tlf Vast 4444 {t #4f f 4NtR1i �C.�fT.- wf f0.FMVtntf CS I I N
4P44itlif 4qy #4gltkf tool. it4M fti tzar t«aa sr a.a..ww
LAND - Usl] CASE PROCESSING APPLiCATION
Planning and Development Department
7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
nzn Phone (303)235 -2$43
USISM
Owner — si —
(Please print or type all information)
Address
ILIANILI, Phone
J
City
City
I
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.)
=.go
Mg,
Fill out the following information to the best • your knowledge.
Current Zonin
Size of Lot (acres or square footage� 'i q rin C!?.S
Current use:,--
, F Maxosed use:
ors Paftel Number.-
Date received- Receipt No. K� =2 Case No. t
Related Case No, Zoning 1, 2 Quarter Section I'Vlap k2c'2Z6
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment
MATE OF MEETING: June 25, 1998
DATE PREPARED: June 2, 1998
CASE NO. & NAME: WA- 98 -17f Brown
CASE MANAGER: Senn McCartney
ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a variance to Section 26 -30 (Q) of the Wheat Ridge
Code of Laws, to allow a 2'x Thome business freestanding sign for a Class I home occupation, and an
8' business sign setback variance to the 10' business sign
setback requirement,
LOCATION OF QUEST:
4430 Tabor Street
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
Lorraine A. Brown
4430 Tabor Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER:
Same
APPROXIMATE A:
18,825 square feet
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential -=tine
PRESENT LAND USE:
Single- family
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Ill: Commercial -One, 5:, E:, Residential-
Three, and W: Restricted-Commercial One
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
N: Restaurant (commercial), : and E:
Single - family residential and : Restaurant
and Multi- family residential
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA:
Low Density Residential
DATE PUBLISHED:
June 5, 1998
DATE POSTED;
June 11, 1998
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT:
June 3 1998
ENTER INTO RECORD:
() COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X)
CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAL
(X) _ CANING ORDINANCE {)
SLIDES
() SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X)
EXHIBITS
() OTHER
JURISDICTION:
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been
met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
II SITE PLAN
III 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
which it is located'
Yes. All applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis thereby changing the outcome for
each request.
6. I9 the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the
property
Yes. The applicant has stated that without a sign, no one would be able to find their photography
studio.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
EM=
No. Approval of this request will allow the placement of a TH x 2V freestanding sign on the
southwest corner • the property, approximately 2' from the right-of-way and with adequate
separation between the adjacent residential structure to the south. Also, because the sign is only
2' tall, it will permit adequate sight visibility for passing motorists and pedestrians, therefore it
should not be detrimental to the public welfare • injurious to other properties.
9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
No. Because the sign will only ♦ 2' tall and located at the southwest comer of the property,
approval of this variance should allow for an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent
properties and should not increase the danger • fire, Also, because the sign will not impose •
the required sight distance triangle, approval • this request should not create increase traffic
congestion.
E
Staff concludes that the above criteria does support approval of the request. Although it has been stated
that affroval • the request will not benefit the community and is solely for individual benefit, this
property is located in a mixed-use neighborhood on a collector street and therefore should not alter the
essential character of the locality.
I . Approval of this request will not alter the essential character of the locality,
2. Placement of the sign, on the southwest comer of the property, will not be detrimental to the
public's health, safety and welfare.
3. The size of the sign does comply with the maximum residential sign requirements established in
Section 26-41 0(d) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (Freestanding-Residential signs)."
Option B: "I move that Case No. WA.98-17, request for approval • a variance to Section 26-30 (Q) •
the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, to allow a 2x Thome business freestanding sign for a Class I home
occupation, and an 8' business sign setback variance to the 10 business sign setback requirement, for a
property zoned Residential-One and located at 4430 Tabor Street, be DENIED for the following
reasons:
L:\DRAWINGS\PLANNING\GS\NE20
I • IX . "
" Not 93x36 -zz
a+xG+NG FXtli 40 -100"
otsc: 99236 ° az sot
NovrverR, 1993
Cto By OLN
.w a.
t� tt9'12`46` E'�' ]42.'X!5'
F
I
EAXWCHT
P
1 0' W IDE STRIP HEREBY
�
DEDICATED TO THE
'
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
i C
t
I
!
,
s
#
4 LOT
I
i
i
n x �.
ZONED A
< t AREA . 41496 54. i7.
5
1
a
E r4" 4X74431 4',
#
I
1
EASE�rtrt:�1
�
c
t
4
#
!
4 EA5E7AtH7
s
n� M t^v' �ir r r � 4 r i
«
r •
x:�t��
jk-zu 12 -L 142,2v-
I #
4
I
it
LOT P i
t
a wr i
bi
r X�Ep at -4 r s
A4KA . 46,625 SO FT.
I
E
t
r4 6413x'42' 4r rr4. I
°1
troln
4 s 6p 42'34" '« aAA.23
"OtwT ow 10ta"w4400
9w topvc.
• . $ r r No. 9 x +t. tt owsuko `
w1X4++St W. CAP STAAtX''E'4 JAMSL"Rr' Pt$ t SEL,.L.ARDS At GRTGG. INC.
itwLess Norco or++C+rM49ta �� !!!! oLT: C4?c RwIYO
t/A Qd15
*f14 wo"
VI's 13112.
a
City ( 0' e-
fj
Type
• action requested (check one • more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.)
Detailed description of the request:
Current Zoninq--/c - I
Size of Lot (acres or sL#juareA*i*aa,%'-)-
MM
Proposed use:
Assessors Pa6tel Number:
Subscribed and sworn to me this aS— day of , 19qE—
otary Publik
si
My commis ion expires
Date received Receipt No. (0 Case No. \KW\
Related Case No. Zoning—k Quarter Section Map
TO: Board of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: June 25, 1998
DATE PREPARED: June 10, 1998
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-98-181 Radigan
CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney
ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 15"
front yard setback variance to the 30" front yard
setback requirement for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Marvel Minor Subdivision.
LOCATION OF REQUEST:
10845-10865 West 32' Avenue
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
Tom Radian
5703 Xenon Way
Arvada, CO 80002
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER:
Same
APPROXIMATE AREA:
Lot I - 15,000 square feet
Lot 2 - 17,000 square feet
Lot 3 - 19,000 square feet
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential-One
PRESENT LAND USE:
Single-family, vacant
SURROUNDING ZONING:
N:, E. and W: Residential-One
S. Lakewood
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
N:, S: E: and W. Single-family Residential
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE ARE A:
Low Density Residential
DATE PUBLISHED:
June 5, 1998
DATE POSTED:
June 11, 1998
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT:
June 3, 1998
ENTER INTO RECORD.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X)
CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAL
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
SLIDES
-- SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X)
EXHIBITS
O OTHER
JURISDICTION:
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been
met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
1. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a 15' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement to
allow for three single-family residential units on three separate single-family lots. If approved, the
proposed structures will be located 15' from the southern property lines.
A few weeks ago, the applicant submitted plans for a building permit • Lot 2. During the review
• • 6 octi croaching into the front -, mrd setback -01* uirement
te wa"e
(south side). The applicant was under the assumption that the setback requirement had been waived by
approval • the Planning Commission.
It should be stated that there is an existing sewer line and easement, not shown • the plat, extending
from West 32" Avenue, that encroaches into the building envelope on Lot 3. The sewer line enters the
property from the southwest comer • Lot 3 and extends at a 60 degree angle northeast. Because of this,
the development opportunity on Lot 3 is hindered.
Also, because Lot 1 is located directly adjacent to West 32 Avenue and will need a 30' setback anyway,
staff would recommend that if approved, the variance should be applied to Lot's 2 and 3 only.
• 111 11��I
1 • ili��l���• �,��l���# = l�� 1, � • ME =4
II SITE PLAN
The 3 lots in question are located within the Marvel Minor Subdivision. The physical addresses for the
properties would be 10845 (Lot 1), 10855 (Lot 2) and 108• 5 (Lot 3) West 32nd Avenue. The properties
are located between Oak Street, extended, and Parfet Street.
Lot I is approximately 115'x 134or 15,409 square feet. Lot 2 is approximately 109' x 144' or 16,917
square feet. Lot 3 is approximately 109'x 154or 19,108 square feet. Each lot does provide adequate
room for development and they all are square in shape.
setback requirement from the south lot line.
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
No. There are several other flag lots throughout the City of Wheat Ridge and the single-family
dwellings on those properties have to comply with the same setback requirements.
(typical homes in the Resid zone district are only required a minimum of 30' between
structures). Also, there is a developmental hardship created by an existing sewer line which
extends at a 60 degree angle from the southwest comer of Lot 3 into Lot 4 (see attached plat).
5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable,
generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification?
Yes. All applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis thereby changing the outcome for
each request.
6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the
property
No, The purpose • the variance is to allow for a structure to be located only 15 from the sou
property line. The houses have been designed to allow for access on the south side of the
property, thereby allowing the homes to take advantage • the southern exposure sunlight.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
Yes. The applicant, who has interest in the property, has created the hardship. However, the
11,hysical constraints established in the flag lot definition may be considered a hardship, The front
lot line • a flag lot is usually the designated rear lot line of an adjacent property. For example,
the property owner of Lot I may build a • fence on the northern property line, but the property
*wner • Lot 2 may only build a 4' fence along that same property line.
8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located?
No. Approval of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare as the southermnost
structure, on Lot 2, will • located at least 13 0' from West 32' Avenue and out of the public's
circulatory path. Also, because the proposed structures will allow for a minimum 30'separation
between structures, approval • this request should not have a detrimental effect • other
property improvements.
9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair prope
values within the neighborhood. I
No. The proposed request is purely for individual benefit and will not benefit the community or
neighborhood.
Option A: "I move that Case No. WA-98-18, a request for approval of a 15' front yard setback variance
to the 30 front yard setback requirement for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Marvel Minor Subdivision, located in
the Residential-One zone district and at 10845-10865 West 32n Avenue, be APPROVED for the
following reasons:
1. Approval of this request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
1 The physical constraints establish
ed in the flag lot definition are unmitigated.
3. There will be a minimum 30'of separation between structures.
4. Due to the existence of the sewer line on Lot 3, the development opportunities are hindered.
With the following conditions:
I . The variance should only be applied to Lots 2 and 3.
2. All structures should retain a 20' setback from the edge of asphalt on the east side of the
- property-"
Option B: "I move that Case No. WA-98-18, a request for approval of a 15' front yard setback variance
to the 30' front yard setback requirement for Lots 1, 2, and 3 • the Marvel Minor Subdivision, located
the Residential-One zone district and at 10845-10865 West 32' Avenue, be DENIED for the followin
reasons: I
m
DRY-4 IZF-I#B=x
•
ljr�:�Jj
MEMO#=
Etc RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, CM -ORADO 10/04/9 14:12
a a 4«
t�
3... , J a } -t 1 9 1 55 71 111 101110 t *^to i
I
and the abeved bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of said party of the second part, his heirs and
assigns against alt and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the iAole or any part thereof, the said party
of the first part shall and will VARRANT AND FOREVER DEFERO.. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the
singular, and the use of any gender shat( be applicable to att genders.
(ililtTRESS WNEREOF, the said party of the first part has hereunto set his hand and seat the day and year first above
written.
STATE OF COLORADO
(SEAL)
ss.
The fo �9., t was acknowtadged before me on this day of � r 29, 1995
.EEO - for Photographic Attordi
B17814.509560 X509S
Tilts
A w
Ica
I fPlease print or type all information)l
city /--7
a 5;Q / ' ; � 7
Owner Address
OEM
2�
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.)
Variance / Waiver
M 47 A M
j —
Date received Receipt No. Case No. W14—"tY 16
Related Case No. Zoning '42-1 Quarter Section Map _LL
Plannina and Development Department.
7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ride, CO 80033
Phone (303)235 -2846
Minutes of Meeting
May 28,1998
Mr. McCartney concluded his presentation by informing that staff as well as the
City
• Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Department were in favor of the
request.
like to address the Board. The applicants responded that there was nothing they
could add to the staff presentation.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member
ECHELMEYER, the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98- 10 is an appeal ti
• • from the decision of an administrative officer; and
were
• protests registered against it; and
Whereas, the relief applied for may • granted without detriment to the public
welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the
regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge.
Board of Adjustment Page 2
05128/98
r ! # # # # R
8. The request was initiated by adjacent property owners.
The motion carried by a vote of -0, with Beard Member JUNKER absent.
Board of Adjustment Page
05/29/98
Mr. McCartney reviewed the ten criteria used in evaluating a variance request and
stated staff s conclusion that the criteria supported approval. He informed that it
was staff s recommendation that if the existing access and driveway were vacated,
that the applicant • required to replace the driveway with sod and a street tree.
Questions and discussion followed. Board Member WALKER expressed concern
that the proposed placement • a street tree would cause icy conditions on the
street during the winter.
Board of Adjustment Page 4
05/28/98
Itoard Member HOVLAND asked for clarification as to the type • restrictions —
required for the construction of driveways. Mr. McCartney replied that the permit
process to construct a driveway would be reviewed by the Public Works
Department for drainage, grading and access issues.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and a second by Board Member
WALKER, the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and
Board of Adjustment Page 5
05/28/98
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98-14 is an appeal to
this Board from a decision of an administrative officer; and
-Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and there
were no protests registered against it;
welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the
regul , ations governing the City of Wheat Ridge.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No.
WA-98-14 be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: • request for approval • a nine-foot front yard setback
variance to the thirty-f n f a
I .2ot front,%ard setback reguirement for the constructi o o
For the Following Reasons-
with the other residences in the neighborhood.
2. Because of the triangular shape of the lot and the location of existing
residential structure, the applicant would be unable to locate a detached
garage
• the property without the need for a variance.
There are other properties within the surrounding neighborhood which
have 25-fo• t front yard setbacks and most • the homes within a five-
block radius have ari enclosed garage. Approval • this variance would
bring this property into compliance with the residences of the surrounding
neighborhood.
4. The property was platted with a triangular shaped configuration with the
rear property I ine running west at 115.5 long to the east at 26.3 5' long.
The shape
• the property and the location • the dwelling on the property
creates a physical hardship for any development of this property.
Board of Adjustment Page 6
05/28/98
11
111=01 R4 1 rn N �Rfl E R �IWO: I •
7. Although request for this variance is solely for the benefit of the applicant,
there would be a resulting benefit to the neighborhood • allowing this
property to conforrn to the neighborhood character of having garages.
3. The new drive shall enter directly from the street with no substantial
. lateral extensions or circular access permitted.
4. Separation between structures shall be in compliance with building and/or
fire codes. #
Discussion followed. Board Member ECHELMEYER expressed his opinion that
the circular drive would • of benefit because it would eliminate the necessity of
parking any cars
• the street and that it would also increase safety for cars
exiting the property.
Further discussion followed.
Upav ion by Board Member HOVLAND and a second by Board Member
ECHELMEYER the following resolution was stated:
Board of Adjustment Page 7
05/28/98
111111�11II 11 11111111111111111111111 11RIIII! III III III IIIII 111111111 11111111111111 �illillilli 1
:1 & N I I III
IEE�111 II �
hN [let app ell • maj De g • _711I=7111 771 TITIM"
welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the
regulations governing the City • Wheat Ridge.
WA-98-14 be, and hereby is, approved
Type of Variance: • request for approval • a nine-foot front yard setback
variance
• the thirty-f•• t front riard setback res for the construction of a
two-car garage.
For the Following Reasons:
I The Board finds that, based upon all evidence presented, and based on the
Board's conclusions relative to the ten specific questions to justify the
variance, the evidence and facts in this case do support the granting of this
request.
2. The property was platted as an odd shaped lot creating a physical hardship
for future development.
This is only one of a few properties within the neighborhood that does not
provide enclosed parking on the site.
4. Placement of a two-car detached garage would allow an adequate supply
• light and air to the adjacent property to the rear and would not create a
significant encroachment to the front.
5. A garage on the west side of the property would require the removal of
existing ornamental trees.
• The Wheat Ridge traffic engineer states that access to the property should
• avoided near the intersection • 35th and Miller in order to prevent
traffic conflicts.
Board of Adjustment Page 8
05/28/98
# # I
The existing vacated access and driveway shall be replaced with sod and a
street tree per the City's requirements.
2. That the roof pitch and garage materials be compatible with the existirl
Board Member ECHELMEYER expressed his opinion that the motion only
allows the variance and it should be up I to the applicant to work out what he wants
Board of Adjustment Page 9
05/28/98
a
9
N
A
q 111 i
it
NEW BUSINESS
It was moved • Board Member HOVLAND and seconded • Board M
It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member
ECHELMEYER
• adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
LINDA MAURO, Chairperson
Board of Adjustment
El
Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
Board • Adjustment
Board of Adjustment Page 10
05/28/98