HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1999, w*d Of:L TP 6661 'SZ kwniqD4 of INj
8661'otjiquj-i3,?(Ipu :sojnuijNjoj -
ss2tNisf1ff Mali L
' JE *AA Oogg JV P;DIL'aOl PUR -'d*pun I-D pouoz si Sliadoid ppeS -qsum
im puv Iiiuipl!nq pUnlej 'NOTS ODUOIUOAUO3 P lll!M 2UOIU XdouLD uOtims sv u i-,)njlsuoa
01 luatuaimboi -,jorqlas pnX luoij og aqj tuoij aouvm'A PJPX JUOIJ JOOJ gZ'g I L jo
I joj salmoossV pu-e oiatuoN Xemollul) Xq uoilvoilddu uV :T asg� Palua(l
JOWIS �-IJPVMS S qt ILI PaIL PUP Z-W PaUOZ
si Kpadoid p!rS 'aRejois Xvq joj ands ajow mollp of Imqjos p 1p!S oql 01 a3UP11
)1 pm apls,,6 U pur spaqs Joi P;Dmojju;)Beiooj airnbs tunLuixutu,00t;Dqj Ujoij
a3UVIIJVA,OOE UJO JUAojddvioj ouaioW pg Xq uoijumIdde uV: - ONasRJ
ft panunuo-
-muoAV ,6Z A 0 1 1 L It' POW
pur Z- pouoz si,�jjadwd p!vS - poqs a2mois,01 x,8 urjoosodind aqixoj juatuojinbai
j,o PJPX IU04,0� Oql UJOJJ 03UMPA,�'8 ur put ivawojinboj)javqjas pi opls,g OT suo!l!puoa
WOIJ;D3UUIIVA,� UJO IL'AoiddL ioj Xaj sninD Xq uoilUoildd uV - -.Zf-S6-VA* v -oN asv�j W P4Aojddj
(Ppuoft otp uo 2umoddr
jou 1 Sur uo jeods ol auoXur joj owil otp si siql) Wfl-ao,4 �)Irlftfld T
V(tNJ9V 3HJL AO W3(tHO 3HJL 3AO)ldcfV 7
*op*ejoloD 'aBp!X jv;aq1 'anu;DAV ql6Z ISOA '*W*d Of:4 IL"6661 '8Z A' aenuvf uo juatuisnfpv
jo pjuoq �Igp!W jvoqA� jo X11D oqj ajoj;Dq pl;Dq aq oi 2utivaq iilqnd v jo UZIAl2 Sq;Djaq sloolloN
6661
VGN39V
tm,l-
9 blB
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Curtis Krey
7110 West 9` Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
APPROXIMATE EA:
12,500 square feet
PRESENT ZONING.
Residential -Two
PRESENT LAND USE:
Two - family Residence (duple)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
N:, E., W. and S. Residential -Two
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N:, E: and S; Single-family; : Two - family
DATE PUBLISHED: January 8, 1999
DATE POSTED: January 15, 1999
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: January 4, 1999
ENTER INTO RECURD:
As the Board is aware, Mr. Krey hired a contractor to build the shed on his property. The contractor and
Mr. Krey were unaware that a building permit was required and that minimum setback requirements had
to be preserved. Because • this misunderstanding, the shed was built and placed within the required
setbacks.
11. SITE PLAN
The property in question is a rectangular property located in a relatively flat section of Wheat Ridge.
2 dered an interior lot
(no other right-of-way abuts the side or rear lot lines). Therefore, there is no access to the rear property
by a vehicle.
The property in question, is a two-family (duplex) residential structure located approximately 30' from
the front property line. Each unit has a single-car garage located on the sides of the structure leaving just
over the required side yard setback.
Board of Adjustment Page 2
WA-98-32/Krey
PA -3
6. Is the purpose of the variation based e xclusively upon a desire to make money out of the
property
No. The purpose • this request is to allow for a small storage shed to safety lock up a bicyc e
trailer which is medically beneficial to the applicant and recommended by his doctor.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
No. The hardship was created by the combination of the applicant's medical condition and the
physical layout of the residence. A second difficulty was created by the shed contractor who
misinformed the applicant regarding the need for a building permit and regarding setbacks,
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?
t I t N ar
No. With the location of the shed on the side yard, no detrimen a impact o the public velf e or
neighborhood would occur. In addition, there would be no impact to the driveway sight-triangle
for visibility to on-coming traffic.
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«
to the applicant's property or the property to the west. A minimum distance of 10 feet will
remain between the ap• licant's shed and the closest structure to the west.
�4_ q
Board of Adjustment Page
WA- 98- 32PKrey
�-15-
•
i
i
a
a
i
E PENN
w
Present
Location
10 1
81
Pro Dosed
'Location
min
BLUE
SPRUCE
'
,�— I
September 29,1998
Wheat Ridge, CO
Planning and Development Department
7500 West 29th Ave
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215
Having this small shed on a concrete slab enables us to easily
wheel the trailer with the bikes already fastened to the trailer,
out and hook it to the cars trailer hitch. The shed would enable
us
• have both security for our bikes as well as a measure •
ease and convenience in getting the trailer hooked up to the car.
This may seem like a small thing to many but when you are so
handicaped it becomes a monumental chore to do some of the most
simple tasks.
I will await your reply with the hope of understanding and your
Sincerely,
VV—
Curtis R. Krey •
7110 R. 29th Ave (303)205-14
-17'0� 4W
K/ MM PERAAANE
September 2 8, 1998
RE; Kr y, Curtis R
ID: 011140221 }22I
._ •- III
Recorded at
Reception No.
I
M
�11
REU DED IN
cou.,,Y OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF COLORADO
RECEPTION NO. 90022868
WARRANTY DEED 03/2'1 /?0 '1 .30 -13.00
THIS DEED, Made this 19TH day or March, 1990 between
RALPH H.'WAGNER and EDNA F. WAGNER
of the: County of JEFFERSON and State of
COLORADO. grantor,'and
CURTIS R. KREV AND ELAINE L. KREY
whose legal address is 7100-7110 W. 29TI1 AVENUE,
LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215
of the County of JEFFERSON and State of COLORADO, grantecs:
WITNESS, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of EIGHTY THOUSAND AND 00/100ths
DOLLARS, ($80,000-00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. has granted, bargained,
sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, Convey and confirm unto the grantees, their
heirs and assigns forever. not In tenancy In coulnion but In joint leitaury. all the real property, together with
Improvements, if any. situate. lying and being in the County of JEFFERSON, and State of Colorado, described
as follows:
also known by street and number as 7100 W- 291'11 AVENUE, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 802
TOCETtIER with all and singul3c tile litredit3ments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anyw;--
appertaining and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, Issues and profits thereof. an
the estate, right. title. interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor, either in law or equity. or. In
to the above bargained premises, with the hereditasuents and appurtenances.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the
grantees, their heirs and assigns forever. And the grantor. for hi his heirs and personal representatives, does
covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the granters, their heirs and assigns, that at the time of the
trisealing and delivery of these presents, fit is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect,
absolute and indefeasible estate of Inheritance. in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful
authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey (fit sasne in manner and rovot aforesaid. and that the same are free and
clear from all former and other grants, bargains. sal li taxes. assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of
whatever kind or nature soever, except for tax" for the current year, a lien but not yet due or payable, casements,
restrictions, reservations, covenants and rights-of-way of record, It any, -
E F. WAGNER
STATE qlt -COLQRADO
1�
CO r4
The n
at(d ;-8 .1
M
�k
Notary's Address: 3575 Cherry Creek D Lve North, Denver, CO 80209
N #21A. R j-#s WARRANTY OF10
1 D
WHF4 LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
Planning and Development Department
7500 West 29th Avenue. Wheat Ridee, CO K033
Pane '3G3,'23Z--
fo
Applicant Curtis Kr�y Address 7110 W.29th Ave Ph
MA - �1 - �,** � �-#]
Owner Same Address Phone
City
Mill
L I I -;11111111al Y L L Mal x -
Detailed description of the request:
■
■
■
[all
70
Variance Waiver
01
Street Vacation
Other:
5' side yard setback variance
TO: Board ♦ Adjustment
January 28, 1999 DATE PREPARED: January 20,1999
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Edmond Moreno
4655 Swadley Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER: Same
APPROXIMATE AREA:
17,925 square feet
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential-Two
PRESENT LAND USE:
Single-family residential
SURROUNDING ZONING:
N:, W:, S: and E: Residential•Two
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.
15-1
The applicant is requesting approval of a 300 square foot maximum building coverage variance to the
400 square foot maximum building coverage requirement, and a 19" side yard setback variance to the 5'
side yard setback requirement to allow for an additional storage shed. The additional storage shed
would be used for the storage of hay.
Pursuant to Section 26-15(F), of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, the maximum building coverage
permitted for a storage shed in the Residential-Two zone district is 400 square feet. Currently, there are
two storage sheds out on the sight: a 350 square foot shed that the applicant uses to store bridal
equipment and a 200 square foot shed that will be removed upon completion • the shed in question.
11
� EMEM
11 SITE PLAN
The property in question is located in District lVthe "rural" section of Wheat Ridge. In the surrounding
neighborhood, the properties are contain around 20,000 square feet in lot area and'house various
agricultural uses. Therefore, the request for a ay shed" is not uncommon for this area. The property is
8,925 square feet in excess of the minimum 9,000 square foot lot area required for a single family
dwelling located in the Residential-Two zone district.
The property in question measures 75'in width and approximately 24n depth. Duetotheextreme
depth of the property, there is a large area of developable space where a structure could be built and not
affect any of the adjacent, habitable structures. The rear portion • most of these properties are used for
horse farmaculture.
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
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?
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
g 11
trwifM Mai I I # Rof I
ME
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. If approved, the storage shed should not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to
other properties or improvements in that storage sheds are a common structure found in the
Residential-Two zone district.
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 proposed storage shed will remain open on all but I side, the approval of the
variance should not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. Also,
because the shed will be located in the rear of the property, the shed should not increase
congestion in the pubic streets.
No. Approval of this request will not directly benefit or contribute to the neighborhood or
community. This request is purely for individual benefit.
4- J
VIL RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
I. The request is based are a self-imposed hardship."
i
DEPARTMNT OF R.AWNS AND MNEXReC - 2Z-=
ry •
S;4c OV
10
Z
r,4 r v" 4'-C J
i A
to tl.
I C a,- r-
f � Y " * I --------- I
A
arc r4 -re "A,"S
>1
' 9 4
1 t'
cs
40s
L fit
NOR
>
>;
< z
N
z
ry •
S;4c OV
10
Z
r,4 r v" 4'-C J
i A
to tl.
I C a,- r-
f � Y " * I --------- I
A
arc r4 -re "A,"S
>1
' 9 4
1 t'
40s
NOR
64
A
Z- �
SCHEDULE "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART IICREOF.
which has the address of 4655 IIORTH SUADLEY STRCEr WHEAT 910CE
IS~l Pryl
Colorado 80033—A000 ("Property Address - );
lzip CO&I
Type of action requested (check o�e or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.)
Subscribed and sworn to me this Efth day of�)�
I Notary
My commission expires
I
Change of zone or zone conditions
Variance / Waiver
Site development plan approval
Nonconforming use change
El
Special Use Permit
Flood plain special exception
El
Conditional Use Permit
Interpretation of Code
E]
Temporary Use, Buildings, Signs
Lot line Adjustment
E]
Minor Subdivision (5 lots or less)
Planned Building Group
Subdivision (More than 5 lots)
�
Street Vacation
0 Preliminary [] Final
Other:
Detailed
description of the request:,
P'lnn-J, nure
O-OV6red S
Subscribed and sworn to me this Efth day of�)�
I Notary
My commission expires
I
NAME etc ADDRESS OF OWNER:
Balmar Management Croup
7853 East Arapahoe Court
Englewood, CO 80112
APPROXIMATE AREA:
1,4 acres
PRESENT ZONING:
Commercial -One and Residential -Three
PRESENT LAND FUSE::
Vacant
SURROUNDING ZONING:
N: and : Residential- Three, W: and :
Commercial -tine
JURISDICTIQM
The property of • . • all notification and posting requirements
therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
I» REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval • a 16'3" front yard setback variance to the 50' front yard setback
requirement
• allow for the construction • a fuel station canopy. If approved the canopy will •
located 339" from the northern (front) property line.
11 SITE PLAN
As previously stated, this property is currently vacant. It is a relatively flat property, with access to two
public streets (West 38' Avenue to the north, and Depew Street to the east). Although it is located
within commercial zone district, many of the surrounding uses are residentially oriented. Therefore, the
proposed use • a gas station\ convenience store\ laundromat would be a viable addition to the
neighborhood.
The proposed development includes a 6,700 square foot retail building, 4-fiaeling island and a car wash.
The retail building will contain a convenience store and a laundromat.
Currently there is a 4' chain link fence atop a 4' retaining wall on the south property line. In addition to
C a-
the 25' landscape area, this stands as the only physical separation between the proposed commercial use
and the apartment building to the south. Staff would recommend that a 6opaque fence • placed • top
17
of the retaining wall to allow for additional sound buffering, at the expense • the developer.
III VARIANCE CRITERIA
No. The plight of the owner is due to the increasing changes in the motor fueling industry.
3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
0 M 112-
*, I n tne essential cnaracter o�ll tne
locality. Also, this site has historically been used as a motor fueling station.
6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the
property
•
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
Yes. The applicant, who has sole interest • the property, has created a self-imposed hardship •
maximizing the use
• the property, thus not providing enough space for all • the proposed
structures. There are other design alternatives that could be proposed to allow adequate setbacks
• all structures. However, due to the evolution of the motor fueling station, the proposed design
• this site is standard in the industry to allow for maximum convenience.
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. The request for the setback variance is based on the location ♦ the fuel station canopy.
Because the canopy will be open on all sides and located outside of the sight-distance-triangle,
there should be maximum visibility for passing motorists. Therefore, approval of this variance
should not be detrimental to the public's welfare.
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. As previously stated, due to the openness of tile fuel station canopy and the fact that the
canopy will be at least 130' from the nearest-adjacent habitable structure, approval of this
variance should not impair the adequate supply • light to the adjacent property. Also, because
the site will be constructed to comply with all Uniforin Fire Code standards for motor fueling
stations, approval of this request should not increase the danger of fire.
No. Approval of this variance will not directly benefit the community in that this property could
be developed without the approval of the setback variance.
The request is based on self-imposed hardship. There are other design altematives that would
allow ! r full compliance of !
p
r
CITY LIMIT LINE
--- WATER FEATURE
NE 25
k !
F
ter.
r
CITY LIMIT LINE
--- WATER FEATURE
NE 25
k !
F
$ it
, �
� { .
� �
� �
| .
.k ( ,
0
000 B661 2 ZE :EJ TZ 3aO UON fiAO'dS4; :H
t
$ it
, �
� { .
� �
� �
| .
.k ( ,
0
000 B661 2 ZE :EJ TZ 3aO UON fiAO'dS4; :H
Gafloway, Romero & Associates
Design Engineering Plmning
5350 DTC Parkway
(303) 770-8884
(303) 770-3636 fax
E-mail: david
1#111. � &"IMUM
City of Wheatridge
7500 W. 29 Avenue
Wheatridge, CO 80215
Re: Letter of Intent/Request for Setback Variance
Southwest Comer of West 38 1h Avenue & Depew Street
1761MIPM
The variance is requested in order to locate the canopy 33.75 feet from the front property
line (West 38 1h Avenue). We feet that the request meets the criteria for granting a setback
variance according to section § 26-6(D)(2)C 1. -9. Of the zoning ordinance, and offer the
following justification:
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
The unique conditions of the property are established by the fact that this is a
comer lot, thereby increasing the setback requirements from public streets. The
'2--f
Is thepurpose of the variation based a-cclusively upon the desire to 111ake money
out of the property?
No commercial property is developed without consideration • it's economic
potential. However, without approval of a variance for this property, we could
not develop this type of proposed project on the particular site.
David C. White, AICP, ASLA
Project Manager
CC: Balmar Management Group
2014
Page 3
From Richard Onesiager To: Da White . Date: 12129198 Time, 11:53,08 AM Page 2 of 5
I
Filed for record the *#_,A.D. 19 at
Rocept icon No. by_
SPECUL WARRANTY DEED
r4rontorts),
Arid
RICHARD D, ONESLAUEK, Jlt.
uhaso 169,11 addroxv Is: 7853E.ARAPAHOZ CT, 03 a�ENGLMKOODCOSOM
of the arantoe(s)-
IN WITNESS WTIERZOP the OrAPIt0t(s) We Vtocut*d th deed on the dote stt forth •ta4v*.
Cowty of
the fQr10q4% iftttrU"At VAK *Ck'r0Q1"r4 trefor* me on thj% d a y of DeCombotos, l"s
try KEVW IOLLBRN,6S MAN6�08_R OP SeC MOMSPI CM" Uj!—W7M
Ry cortsfallon expires
wftoes
E LINDA R. HULL
NOTARY PUKIC
STATE OF COLORADO
M tpen 2 C-2col
ESCrolwO AC18092 Mken Recorded Return t4: RIC%AXD 0. ot4eSLA"g, jjl,
title# ABC630125
735 3 1. ANAPAROC CT. 03700, IMiaLEWOOO CC
forty No. COW. SW *^1tl
From: Richard Oneslager To: David White Date: 12129/98 Time: 11:53.018 AM Page.. 3 of 5
THE N ORTH # FEET t OF • OF i " • '
N ORTHEAST THE • 2 SECTION 25 TOWNSHIP SOUTH o
MERI PAINCIPAL • OF JEFFERSON STATE UP CVGORADO
EXCEPT THE N ORTH 30 PEET FO
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY IN GEED RECORDED XAlY 10, 1962 U"Elt
RECEPTION NO. 82031SI3, AND
EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
°•' s s
A PARCEL OF • zZINq A PART or or N
N ORTHWEST OF •' OF SUCTION • SO UTH, RANCE 69
WEST OF X IAN COUNTY OF t' OF i t' • t
RUING M ORE DESCRIBED AS rOLLO
MS sonTHwuaTzRuy ALono A CURYS TO THE LEFT HAVING A MZUS Of 13.00
CENTRAL ANGLE t' 811 DEGREES 56 NINUT23 32 SECONDS DISTANCE OF
PEET, TUB CHORD 07 SAID CURVE SEARS NORTH 4S DEGREES 09 XIw=S 50 SZCO�MS
REST, A DISTANCE Of i FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENT OF SAID CU RVE,
POINT 13 09 INS SOUTH RICHT-OF-WAY LX249 07 WZST 38TV AVENUE AJ�W WHICH POINT IS
30.00 PEET SOUTH Of THE NORTH LINE OP THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25;
R k tl t# f •' t. • •
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY:
ABC630125
n_�
* �." .. ! !
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
► ,.
TO: Board of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: January 28, 1999 DATE PREPARED: January 24, 1999
SURR OUNDING LAND USE: N:, :, : and : Light. Industrial
DATE PUBLISHED: January 8, 1999
DATE POSTED: January 14, 1999
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT. January 7, 1999
i
juris met, therefore, there is
� -1
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 2' fence height variance to the 4' maximum fence height
requirement to allow the construction of a 6' chain link fence along the front property line. If approved,
the proposed 6' fence would be used for extra security and employee protection. The proposed front
enclosure is not intended for storage.
MIT e7pressm M77M.77 in constriMing two service ays on
The intent will be to bring the boats to the north side of the building and bring them into the service bays
to be repaired. While the boats are awaiting repair, they will be kept in this "staging" area. It should be
stressed that this area may not • used for storage of any sort,
11 SITE PLAN
The property in question is located in the industrial section of Wheat Ridge. It is located directly south
*f Jolly Ranchers and has other storage facilities as adjacent neighbors. The property measures 325'
wide by roughly 278'deep (on the east property line) and 372'deep on the west property line. The
reason for the request is not based on the irregular shape of the property.
West 501h Place is located directly north and is not a through street, as it comes to an end on the eastern
property line of the property in question.
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. If the request is denied, the property may continue to be used as a boat repair shop.
However, the owners are intending on reconfiguring the property to allow for two service bays to
be located on the north side of the building (where the proposed fenced area will be located), and
they will be using the fenced area as a staging yard for the soon-to-be repaired boats.
2. Is the plight of owner due to unique circumstances?
• plight of owner is • ° to the proposed for of property. According
to the attached improvement location plenty of development
remaining on the property. However, the applicants are seeking the most cost effective solution
to re-using the existing structure and therefore require • for ! protection,
3. if the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality's
• previously stated, this property is located in the designated Industrial area of
Ridge, where uses vary from light manufacturing to candy production to specifically outside
storage. Also, most of the properties 6chain link fences
that are located in the front • setback. Staff is uncertain whether any of been
in place prior to the establishment of •
a. '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 can a case -by -case bans thereby changing the outcome for
each request.
1)3
driveways.
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. Approval of this request will not directly benefit or contribute to the neighborhood or
community. This request is purely for individual benefit.
Option A: "I move that Case No. WA-99-02, a request for approval of a 2' fence height variance to the 4'
maximum fence height requirement for a property zoned Light Industrial and located at 12098 West 50"
Place, be APPROVED for the following reasons:
1, Approval of this request should not be detrimental to the public's welfare.
2. Approval of this request will not alter the essential character of the locality..
3. Staff recommends approval.
"I -S�
RTMeiT OF RAW" *0 DEVELOPMW - 235-2852
88-4 50.0
IN,
WALK
I.
"cxrlok
m
7.;a*
PLACE
3 00*
25.
E.
r��
r
•
m
0
0
V
9
81 19 NOY Aft057
No. 34, W.%RRANTY taF.F.tI —Shot Form.
8'18 86118
THIS D EED. :it#airthia 19th iayo£ November .Ii8l' .between
TOM McK E and KILIAN H. ilAUZ, as tenants it common,
rfthr County of Jefferson and State ofC ..iarsdo,afthe first part, end
WILLIAM D. HAX,'SEN xnd DOROTHY C. HARlS N, as tenants in common,
of I In. City and colintyor De nver
Three Hundre4 Thousand and z • DO LLAR.
1'. t fir -a n I pit rii e S ofthe first part in hand paid b)r the Paid part ies Of the second port, the tootitif
cronted. bargained. sold and tonveyed. and by these preeristo
ir-ant. horvain, -01,etinvey and confirm, unto the said part ies oftheset:*n4p*m their
ht,rr. and a—ign. forever. all the following il�*rrilled lot or par"I of land, *ltuatt. lying end toring
in thr County of Jefferson and State o(Clilorado. to wit:
That part of Lot 18, STAN DLEY HEIGHTS described as follo
p oint BEGINNING at a « 25 feet Vlest
of the Northeast corner of said Lot 19,
thence South, parallel with the East line of « Lo
o
r which point lies 26 feet S outhwesterly •.
of « Lot • a So
« Lot 18 a distance of . a po int,
thence N or th , parallel with the East line of s Lo
distance of a a point o '
North line of e Lo
thence East parallel with the North of r Lot d is-
tance t o the POINT O
EXCEPT right o f wa descr i Boo at P 3
i 10867 10 i
'atl of
alsoknowna sxtreetanlinumber'1 or 12120 V. 50th Pl., Wheat Ridge, CO 8003 .
T0GFTtt£it with all mut .inritlor the tarrralitnnarn "ta and appurtrnanera threrunta hetdnaiti�. or in any wt#r
oppo airs in¢:.. and tt o rover -wo an-t revrr.ia.nx. renuaan and remainders. rrnts. i#aue +. and profit# the at: and -lithe
e t,tte; ratrht, interr rtann and det a tul what.,".Ver of the .aiat part ies of t he first part, either In law or eq utty,
�+ aaf. to anal to t hr atwaa haary;aner.l t.rrtni +r., witty t tta� to *rralitamrnts an.l appurtrnrtrece!#,
I
To W%VF %N*t) TO itttt.l► the .dint twranaixa•x at .-re harttai.trat and.drreNtaral, with the appurtenance# unto the acid
part f e g aaC tha•.rrnnal tatart' their heirs anal asi.hrn# forever. And the said part le s
ofthefarxttaart.fa.r them sel their larira ,exrrutar#.and#dminiatratnn.do eveenaat.'
i arrant. hnritant atilt surer t.. an,l with thr laid part ies aft he #fron part, their heirs and a#sittna.
f tF. otat tile tinn• oftlu• rn xrralnutanai delivery o fihrxepre+ents they are well srixrddithepremisesabove
rvanrey °cal. a# of thaw(. xurr, p erfert. ataxaalute an.t inrirfr#sihte estate of inhrritanrr, in Iaw, in fee simple- and hak WOW
right, fatiE power and lawful authority to arrant, taarwain. sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid. and
that tttr #ame are tree anal clear from all former and other grants. bariralea. ogles. litn#, taxes, aa#rssmenta and
enrunahratires : fwh#trerrkinalaarnaturexoevrr. except the cieneral property taxes for
1931 payable January 1, 1982; and subject to building and zoning
regulations,
t
E
and the allove barirainevl premix in the quirt and peareable p i niession ottha said parties ofthe speond part,
their heirmland *11 and evvry poroan or por000lt lawfully rljtimiagor to claim tho whole
L USE C P A
Planning s Development D epartment
7500 West 2 Avenue. Wheat Ridge. CO 80033
Phone 203', 233-2�46
City tv r .- ".
Owner .f Address C) 41e rw �1-
City'
.. - Z -i
' •
(
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.)
Change of zone or zone conditions
Z J Waiver
Site development plan approval
1" onconforming use change
Special Use Permit
Flood plain special exception
(
Conditional Use hermit
Interpretation of Code
Temporary Use, Buildings, Suns
Lot line Adjustment
E]
Minor Subdivision (5 lots or less)
Planned Building Group
El
Subdivision (More than 5 lots)
E]
Street Vacation
Preliminary Final
E]
Other:
Detailed description of the request. 1
Zel l s l ` r 1C 7` C t s 7 7`
ya , ,.
Gtr' 7 rJ . rc' ' J 0
AWA
4 • • • •
s • s a•
11 •! •
arter S 7 ction 1 M
,a
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Study Session Notes
December 2, 1998
6:00 p.m.
Board Members Present: Linda Mauro
Tom Abbott
Bob Howard
Bill Echelmeyer
Staff Members Present:. Gerald Dahl, City Attorney
Alan White,, Director of Planning & Development
Sean McCartney, Planner
Ann Lazzeri, Minutes Specialist
Mr. Dahl briefly reviewed his memorandum outlining the role and authority of the Board of
Adjustment. He reminded the Board that the ten criteria for granting variances are subjective, but
decisions should ultimately be made upon the basis of an established hardship to the applicant.
He cautioned the Board members to avoid ex parte contacts
Mr. Dahl explained that cross examination is not permitted during Board of Adjustment hearings;
however, rebuttal witnesses may be called after the applicant has presented his case. He advised that if
the Board and the applicant appear to be at an impasse, the Board should not feel pressured into
making a decision at that time. The option exists to make a motion to close the public hearing to give
the Board a chance to discuss the matters with the City Attorney before deciding the case. He
suggested taking all testimony before closing the hearing and then continuing to a date certain for
action only.
Mr. McCartney asked for advice concerning a situation where the applicant gave testimony concerning
a specific variance when it became apparent he had a need for an additional variance. He asked if it
would be necessary to reconstruct the findings of fact, etc. and to take new testimony for the additional
variance at the new hearing.
Mr. Dahl replied that since testimony was taken on an application which had not yet been applied for
or published, it would be necessary to go over all of the findings of facts, etc. again at the new hearing.
He stated that this would avoid the appearance of the staff and Board having prejudged the situation.
Regarding example #1 on the staff memorandum, Mr. Dahl advised that the Board may grant a smaller
variance during a hearing but may never grant a larger variance than stated in the application. He
explained that this was due to publishing and posting, requirements which give interested citizens
sufficient time to consider the matter. If a smaller variance should be granted than was published, it
would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
'In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Dahl replied that the Board may place
restrictions on the types of buildings to be constructed.
In response to a question from Mr. McCartney regarding elevations, Mr. Dahl stated that the applicant
can be advised that drawings will be a part of the hearing process. Most of the time the applicant
brings in plans which are sufficient for making a decision; however, the Board may require more
detailed drawings from the applicant, if necessary. He advised that there were three options available
to the Board in this circumstance: (1) deny the application; (2) continue until such time as the
applicant brings in sufficient drawings; or (3) approve the application with condition that architectural
drawings be supplied before a building permit is issued.
Mr. Dahl advised the Board that they have more options than to simply grant or deny a request in that
certain conditions may be imposed. He stated that it is permissible for the Board to ask some questions
and explore alternatives with the applicant; however, he cautioned against implying that the Board's
decision would be based upon the applicant's answers to these types of questions.
Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if there were regulations that required the granting of a variance
based upon an applicant's physical handicap.
Mr. Dahl replied that the law is changing in that area. He stated that if a public building is involved,
the Board has an obligation to grant reasonable requests. He encouraged the Board to take physical
handicap situations into account when determining a hardship. He stated that he felt a physical
handicap would constitute a fair hardship claim; however, just because a handicap exists does not mean
the Board has to automatically grant the variance.
Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern that when a variance is granted, it stays with the property
forever.
Mr. Dahl stated that the Board has the right to determine whether the variance runs with the land or it
does not. He suggested placing a condition that the variance would no longer apply when the applicant
loses title to the property and that this condition would be recorded on the title.
Mr. McCartney asked if the granting of a variance for a shed would apply to all future structures on
the property. Mr. Dahl replied that the Board should be careful to set conditions in these types of
situations.
In reference to example #2 in the staff memorandum, Mr. Dahl stated that conditions can be imposed to
lessen the impact of a variance; for example, not allowing a circle drive. He advised that it is important
that the conditions be directly related to the impact caused by granting the variance. He again
cautioned the Board to be careful that denial of variance never be based on the fact that an applicant
would not agree to a condition requested by the Board. He stated that conditions can be imposed as a
reason for granting a variance but can never be used as a reason for denial.
In response to a question from Board Member ECHELMEYER regarding use of proposed structures
associated with variance requests, Mr. Dahl replied that use is addressed in the zoning code and is not a
matter to be considered by the Board of Adjustment.
Board of Adjustment Page 2
12!2198
Mr. Dahl advised the Board members to reduce the amount of dialogue (such as "have you considered
this alternative...... ") with an applicant because it can lead to a situation that leads the applicant to
believe if he doesn't "deal," his application will be denied.
Discussion ensued about Board members trying to assist the applicant by suggesting other solutions.
Mr. Dahl replied that it is okay as long as it doesn't get to the point that it appears the Board will
approve or deny the application on the basis of the suggestions.
In response to a question from Chair MAURO, Mr. Dahl replied that an applicant has thirty days to
reconsider his application.
Board Member ABBOTT asked about applying common standards for 1990 to structures built in the
1950's; for example, two bedrooms were standard when houses were built in 1950 while three
bedrooms are standard in 1990.
Mr. Dahl replied that he felt this was not a strong reason to grant a variance. It was his opinion that the
absence of a third bedroom does not constitute a hardship.
Mr. White asked if the City could entertain a variance request for something that is prohibited.
Mr. Dahl replied that if it is in the zoning ordinance, the Board of Adjustment can hear it and could
waive or vary a condition that is part of the zoning ordinance. He stated that zoning has prohibitions
until individual cases are considered.
Mr. McCartney asked if a variance were granted for a carport and the owner later decided to convert
the carport into an enclosed garage, would the variance still apply to the garage.
Mr. Dahl replied that if the carport was enclosed it would change the visual impact and the applicant
should come in with a new application.
The study session was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Linda Mauro, Chair
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
CABarbara \BOA\ 1998M1NS \981202.wpd
Board of Adjustment Page 3
12/2/98
The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of
December 10, 1998. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office o d in
the Department of Planning and Development • the City of Wheat Ridge.
Board of Adjustment Page 1
12/10/98
Board Member THIESSEN asked if she would be permitted to vote on this matter since
she was absent when the case was initially presented. Mr. McCartney replied that the
entire case would be heard again at this meeting and she could therefore vote on the
application.
Board Member HOWARD asked if another residence could be built on the subject parcel.
Mr. McCartney replied that there is no stand-alone access which would allow for a
residence to be built, and that the lot is essentially land locked.
Board Member HOWARD asked if a variance would be needed for a 1,000 square foot
structure. Mr. McCartney replied a variance would be necessary because the applicant had
used the maximum allowable detached garage space on the property.
In response to a question from Member AN"T"t - ,71r. C artney
applicant had consolidated his two lots into one. I
Board of Adjustment Page 2
12/10/98
because acquired the additional lot, he didn't realize that it would become a part of the original lot
the house t t subdivision ! the additional • t ther subdivisio
Board Member ABBOTT stated that he felt it was pivotal to this case as to whether t
the lots had been consolidated.
Mr. McCartney replied that even if the lots not i y consolidated the City would
not • • on • • t ' - I A zone district, primary
residential and there cannot be a stand-alone structure, such as a garage, on a lot.
Board member ABBOTT d that, while he could rationalize the size of building,
was concerned with the size of the setback. He asked the applicant if his reason for
t t ! t i • ! ♦" t ! r
zs well as the neighbor's driveway to the north.
Board Member WALKER asked if the applicant sold the lot back to the neighbor on the
north, could the neighbor legally put the same building on it. Mr. McCartney replied that
the setback • ! remain the same, but ! uare footage would depend t
structures on the lot.
Beard Member `fHIESSEN stated that she was inclined to ovate for denial because of the
neighbors' opposition, the size of the variance being requested, and the absence of
hardship.
Board of Adjustment Page 3
12/ 10/98
Board Member WALKER stated that he found it difficult to accept that this is a flag lot
because he thought flag lots applied to residential lots and this is merely an extension of
the back yard in an L-shape from the applicant's primary lot.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT, and second by Board Member WALKER, the
following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and
Whereas, Board • Adjustment application Case No. WA-98-29 is an appeal to this Boar4l
from the decision of an administrative officer; and
eas, tie proper
four protests registered against it; and
# # I
1 IMO NETE - 4 1
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98-
29 be, and hereby is, denied.
Type of Variance: A variance from the 1,000 square foot lot coverage requirement and a
24' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement for the purpose of
adding another 1,440 square foot detached garage. Said property is located at 3885 Depew
Street and zoned R- IA.
Even though the proposed location is in the back yard out of the view of passing
motorists, the existence • the structure would be considered to be out of character
with the neighborhood. There are no other properties in the immediate vicinity
which exceed the maximum building coverage requirement for detached garages.
2. If the request is denied, the applicant may continue to use this property for single
family occupation.
3. Even though the property is considered odd in shape, the request of the variance is
• increase the maximum building coverage to allow for additional garage space.
The individual hardship created by the applicant does not have anything to do with
the shape
• the property.
4. The City will require that the two lots be consolidated before issuing a building
permit; therefore, it can no longer properly be considered as two building lots.
Board of Adjustment Page 4
12/10/98
5. The City received four calls requesting denial, including two from previous signers
of the petition for variance submitted to the Board.
Board of Adjustment Page 5
12/10198
Board Member HOWARD commented that he felt the wells had nothing to do with the
granting of a TUP - which is being requested to give the applicant time to get everything in
order to proceed with their planned commercial development.
Board Member ABBOTT asked if the resident's concern about lighting from the parking
lot had been addressed. Mr. White replied that the lighting issue had been modified and
resolved.
status • screening in regara to concems
who were asking for more perinanent type screening such as landscaping. Mr. White
replied that the additional screening was an issue connected with the outline development
plan.
Board of Adjustment Page 6
12/10/98
Board Member THIESSEN commented that this is the fifth time this case has come before
the Board and this was the first time that she had heard • removing the building envelope
from the PCP.
Board Member THIESSEN asked if Chesrown would continue with their plans if the TUP
were not granted. Mr. Scheurer replied that they would continue.
Commissio-t,.
11 1! �i 1 1 1 11 11 41HIRS301t][08A
Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. TUP-98-08 is an appeal to this Board
from the decision • an administrative officer; and
11111100111111
• • ** . 6
Board of Adjustment Page 7
12/10/98
2. The requestmeets the requirements set forth in the established criteria 11
temporary use permits.
3. Denial could be expected to recreate the previous problems on Yukon Court with
employee parking.
4. The City Council has postponed final action on the related PCD pending ftu-ther
information on several questions; therefore, a permanent permit for this lot cannot
be practically approved outside of the PCD process.
6. This TUP shall be effective for a period of one year from this date.
Board Member THIESSEN offered a friendly amendment to include the restrictions
contained in the original TUP in regard to vehicle storage being limited to excluding all
inventory, and limited to employee's cars and vehicles awaiting service.
61111111111111�� 9 ''1 F11-
I oar : 1 an
as follows:
The - motion passed by a vote of 54
AND JUNKER absent.
Board of Adjustment Page 8
12/10/98
LINDA MAURO, Chairperson Ann Lazz Secretary
Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment
C:�Barbam\BOAXI"SMINS\981210.wpd
Beard of Adjustment Page 9
12/10/98