Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/2012City of hurt dg v AGENDA March 22, 2012 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on March 22, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge, Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Of ,ficer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting zfyou 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-12-02: An application filed by Armond Azharian for approval of variances to the minimum lot size and lot width requirements to allow an additional dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4315 Balsam Street, 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes — February 23, 2012 B. BOA Resolution Templates ♦� W City of 9rWh6atP e g CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: March 22, 2012 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA- 12- 02/Azharian ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of (A) a 23 -foot variance from the 100 -foot lot width requirement Location Map Site Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA- 12- 021Azhanan and (B) a 1,736 - square foot variance from the required 12,500- square foot lot area for a two- family dwelling on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4315 Balsam APPLICANT (S): Armond Azharian OWNER (S): Armond Azharian APPROXIMATE AREA: 10,764 Square Feet (0.25 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Two (R -2) PRESENT LAND USE: Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA- 12- 021Azhanan All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of two variance requests: RequestA: Approval of a 23% (23 -foot) variance from the 100 -foot lot width requirement, and RequestB: Approval of a 14% (1,736 - square foot) variance from the 12,500 - square foot lot area requirement for a two - family dwelling in R -2.. The purpose of the variance application is to legitimize a second dwelling unit on property located at 4315 Balsam Street (Exhibit 1, Aerial). 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 and if the variance request does not result in an additional dwelling unit. The application is not eligible for administrative review because the request would result in the approval of a second dwelling unit. Therefore, the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction to hear and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Mr. Armond Azharian, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 4315 Balsam Street. The applicant is requesting the variance approvals because he is seeking to legitimize an existing duplex after he became aware of the fact that neither the City nor the County has record of two units on the property. The property is located at 4315 Balsam Street and is zoned Residential -Two (R -2), a zone district that provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate- density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character. The subject property is located three lots south of W. 44 Avenue, and is surrounded on all sides by properties that are also zoned R -2 and contain single- and two-family dwellings (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map)'. The parcel has an approximate area of 10,764.6 square feet and currently contains a one - story, two- family home. According to Jefferson County records, the house was originally constructed in 1922 and includes a 200 - square foot basement and an attached two-car garage (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). Currently, a small second dwelling unit is located behind the attached garage with access from within the garage and from a walkway along the south side of the property (Exhibit 2, Aerial). The I A 14% variance from lot size represents a conservative estimate. Three different sizes are provided by different sources: the Jefferson County Assessor lists the lot size at 11,519 square feet, the property deed and subdivision plat indicate the lot area is 10,820.52 square feet, and a 1984ILC shows the property to be 10,764.6 square feet. The variance request is based on the smallest possible lot size, as indicate by the ILC. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 021Azhanan applicant has expressed that when he purchased the home in 1993, it was represented to him as a legitimate two- family dwelling. He has lived in the main portion of the house and has rented out the second unit for nearly 20 years. The applicant came into the office of the Community Development Department in January 2012 seeking property information and was surprised to learn that neither City nor County records recognize the property as a duplex. Research into the property history suggests that the residence was converted to a duplex sometime in the 1980s. The timeline below has been assembled based on information from building permit records which provide some indication that the conversion occurred before the current owner purchased the home. Exhibit 4 includes excerpts and site plans from the permit files that correspond with this timeline (Exhibit 4, Property History). 1984, Feb An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) shows the original configuration of the home and a detached garage (Exhibit 4A). Today, the second dwelling unit is located in what was originally the detached garage, and is akin to the size of a studio apartment or mother -in -law suite (an estimated 700 square feet). 1984, Mar Building permit #2827 was issued for additions on the northwest and southwest corners of the home and for a new carport (Exhibit 413). A comment on the plans states that proposed carport "must be at least 30' from the front lot line," but the files do not include a modified site plan to show this comment was addressed. Existing conditions suggest that the comment was likely addressed at this time, since the front of the existing garage is now located 30 feet from the front lot line (Exhibit 4C). 1986, Apr The final inspection ticket associated with building permit 92827 is dated 4/15/1986 and is difficult to read (Exhibit 4E). It appears to state "finals on garage conversion" which could indicate the garage was converted to living space. There is no indication of a conversion in any other documents. 1986, Apr A Certificate of Occupancy (C.0) was issued one day after final inspections (4/16/1986) for the "addition to residence and add carport" (Exhibit 4F). As is standard, the description of work on the C.O. matches the description of work as it appeared on the original building permit issued two years prior in March 1984. It is unclear if a change in the scope of work occurred during the two years between issuance of the permit and C.O. that may have resulted in the addition of a second unit. 1993, Feb The current owner and applicant purchased the property. 1995, Aug The applicant was issued a homeowner's permit ( #95 -1674) for a residential remodel. The permit was valued at $5,000 and the description of work states: "drywall in the garage, skylights, plumbing, concrete floor in basement, siding, doors - general remodel." There are no scanned plans and no inspection tickets in the City's digital files, but ADG (the City's building permit tracking program) indicates that the permit was closed and a C.O. was issued on February 14, 1996 (Exhibit 4G). There is not enough detail in the building permit files to definitively determine if the City has ever recognized two separate dwelling units on the property. The applicant has stated that his 1995 building permit included work on both units. He also stated that he personally accompanied the Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 021Azhanan building inspector into both dwelling units for inspections throughout the duration of the remodel. For this reason, the applicant thought that the City and Building Division must be aware of the existence of the two dwelling units. Aerial images provide some clues as to the timing of the conversion from a single- to two - family dwelling. A 1985 aerial image from the City's archives indicates that the footprint of the home has not changed since that time. This supports the line of reasoning that a previous property owner made modifications to the property, for which a final site plan does not appear in building permit files (Exhibit 2, Aerial). The applicant and Neel have confirmed that there are separate Neel gas meters for the property that are labeled A and B (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The address (4315 Balsam) and electric meter are currently shared by both units. The applicant has expressed that the second unit has been routinely occupied over the last two decades with no complaints from the neighborhood. There are 22 properties in the neighborhood that contain duplexes including the properties immediately to the north and northeast of the subject lot (Exhibit 5, Neighborhood Conditions). The subject parcel meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for single - family homes in the R -2 district, but does not meet the current standards for atwo- family dwelling. The following table compares the existing and required conditions for a two -unit dwelling in R -2. Two - Family Dwelling in R-2: Required Actual Lot Coverage 40% (max) ±28% Lot Area 12,500 square feet (min) 10,764.6 square feet Lot Width 100 feet (min) 77 feet Front Setback 25 feet (min) f8.5 feet Side Setback —north 5 feet (min) f8 feet Side Setback— south 5 feet (min) 5 feet Rear Setback 10 feet (min) 3.6 feet Height 35 feet (max) ±15 feet Ultimately, if the variance requests are both approved, the second dwelling unit would be legitimized, and the property would be considered a legal duplex. If one or both of the variance requests are denied, the second unit would need to be used as an extension of the single family dwelling. Currently, the second unit is occupied by a tenant, and the property has been on the market. The property owner is seeking a conclusive determination of whether or not the property can be recognized as having two dwelling units. The public notification period is currently in progress, and to date three people from the neighborhood have contacted the City by phone. A property owner on the opposite side of Balsam Street had questions regarding the nature of the request; she has stated neither support nor objection at this time. A neighbor from Brentwood Street to the west has stated that he has no concerns with the proposal. The tenant of the second dwelling unit has been in touch with staff to express his support for the request. No written statements from the public have been received. The Board will be updated if any additional public comment is received. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 021Azhanan IIl. 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 applicant has provided an analysis of the variance criteria (Exhibit 6, Criteria Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis. Please note that although the applicant has submitted two variance requests for lot size and for lot width the two requests need to be considered together to legitimize a second dwelling unit. For that reason, there is only one analysis of the criteria set presented below, instead of analyses for each variance request. 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 cease to yield a return in income. The current property owner purchased the home with the understanding that it was a legitimate two - family dwelling. Since the mid -1990s the second dwelling unit has provided a rental income to the current owner. If the variance was denied and the property was required to be used as a single - family dwelling, there could be a notable loss of income. In addition, the determination of a single- or two - family dwelling could affect the value of the home. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A granting of the variance will legitimize a use that appears to have existed for at least two decades, but it will not result in any noticeable change in use or in any physical modification to the property. The property owner has stated that the home has been a two - family dwelling for at least 20 -25 years, and the footprint of the home has been unchanged in the same period of time. A two - family dwelling is a permitted use in the R -2 zone district, and there are several existing two - family dwellings within the neighborhood. This includes the property immediately adjacent to the north which does meet the minimum standards for a duplex in R -2 (Exhibit 5, Neighborhood Conditions). Additionally, there is sufficient parking to accommodate two units. The property has atwo car garage, the driveway can accommodate at least two vehicles, and there is enough space for two vehicles to park on Balsam Street in front of the home. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azhanan The applicant invested substantially in the property after purchasing the lot; a 1995 building permit for a residential remodel was valued at $5,000. The owner lives in the home and has maintained the property and the second dwelling unit since purchasing the home. The applicant has expressed that if the two - family use cannot continue, further investment in the property may be less likely due to the loss in value and loss of rental income. 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 hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping. 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 hardship relates to the apparent establishment of a second dwelling unit by a previous property owner. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to determine when the second unit was created, and if the City or County has ever been aware of the second dwelling unit. A two - family home is permitted in the R -2 zone district, and the applicant is trying to legitimize the duplex by obtaining the necessary approvals to allow it to remain. Since it does not appear that the applicant converted the home or built the additional unit, he did not have an interest in the property when the hardship was created. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and is not expected to injury 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, as there are no physical changes proposed for the property. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The structure would not impede the sight Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azhanan distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The unique circumstance that is present in the neighborhood that may justify the variance request is the presence of several duplexes on properties that are also smaller than 12,500 square feet in size. Exhibit 5 shows the location of 22 duplexes in the neighborhood that the City and County currently recognize (Exhibit 5, Neighborhood Conditions). Six of these properties are smaller than 12,500 square feet and narrower than 100 feet in width. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single- and two- 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 IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of (A) a 23 -foot variance from the 100 -foot lot width requirement and (B) a 1,736- square foot variance from the 12,500- square foot lot area requirement for a two - family dwelling on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2). 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. If the property was required to be used as a single - family dwelling, there could be a loss of income resulting from the loss of a second dwelling unit. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant invested in the remodel of both units and has maintained the property as an owner - occupied landlord. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azhanan 4. There is no evidence that the applicant is responsible for the conversion of the home or the construction of the second dwelling unit. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as there are several duplexes in the area that are also on properties less than 12,500 square feet. With the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall schedule a courtesy inspection with the building division to confirm that the home meets applicable building codes for a two - family dwelling unit. 2. A separate address may be assigned to the second dwelling unit either a unique number or "unit B." Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azhanan EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Second dwelling behind the garage Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azhanan A 2010 aerial (top) shows the current footprint of the structure. The dark square in the backyard is a water feature. A aerial image from April 1985 (below) indicates that the footprint of the structure has not changed over the past two decades since the applicant has been the property owner. EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP o F, z m A N BoardofAdNslmeN Case No WA 12 021 Vhm'Imv EXHIBIT 3': SITE PHOTOS d mi a, 4,smrem GseN, WAl2 TAMrbn 4315 Balsam Street z Front of the house bolting north west The primary dwelling unit is visible hereon the right side of the garage The second dwelling unit is tooled behind the garage and is accessible either through the garage or From a walkway along the sound side of the property. A view of the north side of the home where two gas meters are located EXHIBIT 4: PROPERTY HISTORY Exhibit 4A :: An Improvement Location Certificate dated February 1984 shows the building footprints of the original improvements on the property. ,h f � r S /Z 21 -� , ;7a + ` W h4 Exhibit 4B :: Building permit #2827 was issued in March 1984 for additions to the northwest and south west corners of the home, and for a new carport. The dark yellow shading below shows the locations of the proposed additions. 7 .? - 7.7 - L. 0�27'Lc K 1r a � # � 135 ' Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian Exhibit 4C:: This site plan was submitted in 1984 for building permit #2827, and a comment on the plan (outlined in red) indicates that the proposed carport "must be at least 30' from the front lot line." There is no amended site plan in the building permit files to show that this comment was addressed. Existing conditions suggest that the comment was likely addressed, since the front of the existing garage is now located 30 feet from the front lot line. - w . d 4 � 1 ton e 4 4 t I S s r . W 1 � Board of Adjustment 1 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian Exhibit 4D:: The permit card that was issued for permit #2827 describes the scope of work consistent with the original proposal: "add to residence and add carport." Two years elapsed however, between the framing and the final inspections, and it unclear if the scope of work may have changed at some point during that time. + t 1i INSPECTIONS WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS - _.THIS CARD IS POS ON THE BU ILDING SITE 2 ,40JOURS NOTICE REQ UIRED FOR INS, ICTIONS WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 WEST 29th AVENUE 2374M4 Ed. 255 INSPECTION RECORD _ add ��� uuoA27 uen.6 toAd >� Al• Rat lBi rIl 1� � � � � • INSPECTOR MIST SIGN ALL SPACES PERTAINING TO THIS .108 IIdPaCi1011 DATE -- - - - iGAUNID{aNt IW It MOVE 'rks R-ttt SMKD DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD Z' OCCUPANCY NOT PERMITTED UNTIL CERT'SICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED ■� PROTECT THIS CARD FROM THE WEATHER Board ofAdjustment 14 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian Ih NoT POUT FLOOR LWTIL ABOVE HAS BEEN SIGNED mough tl Toot ar. I L01" ■owh n•atlnq i ventilation (above m6t be aigud to 6 UM4A in•ptetioK) 77 3r— am n - 0 11 naili ••s!i c iao Nleetrieal Underground Final: • Wt gaatllatiea I job opopleted 77 ffff DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD Z' OCCUPANCY NOT PERMITTED UNTIL CERT'SICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED ■� PROTECT THIS CARD FROM THE WEATHER Board ofAdjustment 14 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian Ih NoT POUT FLOOR LWTIL ABOVE HAS BEEN SIGNED Exhibit 4E:: The final inspection ticket associated with building permit number #2827 is dated 4/15/1986 and is difficult to read. It appears to state "finals on garage conversion" which is not consistent with the original scope of work. INSPECTION REQUESTED OY I MADE -) -I CTM T eT ADDRE i DATE: y /�J"PG_ TN PERMITR SLOG. C 1 SUSCONTRACTOR w INSPECTION REQUESTED ~Q • w REMARKS .,R. V0604 a. 1• Exhibit 4F:: A Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) was issued one day after final inspections (4/16/1986) for the "addition to residence and add carport." As is standard, the description of work on the C.O. matches the description of on the original building permit card (Exhibit 41)) issued two years prior in March 1984. It is unclear if the scope of work changed at some point during the two year project that may have resulted in the addition of a second unit or a garage conversion. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE hoW MAhM FRO MW w. :MI AVMW Ora Wo n NOW. Cdereft MRS 1 V& =MOWN va WdW that 1M building oonVnuUd undW OWN pwwdt nwnbw and on prop" d se ibud brlow, dM @ply woo tM NIA" liidp Building Cade. ODNTIIACT+OA Pal D. Ford Apps 4315 dale St. t.EM� OElCltl/T10N: sau FM THE r4m to s� tal a. aee1Mt 4315 Males 9t. - oboe lid. m 811133 w dow d" No E■ab ii tea � of fs bA t wi�Mwt PWW on" a■/ awe 6000 aw cif %low 4M �1 omo"WM 0 401 1 - Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian 15 Exhibit 4G:: The applicant was issued a homeowner's permit ( #95 -1674) for a residential remodel, but there are no plans or inspection records in the permit files. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Building Permit Number: 95-1674 \ BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION - 235 -2855 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE -Date :6/16/95 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 - Property Owner: AZHARIAN ARMOND Property Address: 4315 BALSAM ST Phone: 238 -4900 Contractor License No.: - Company. Phone: OWNER /CONTRACTORSIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT Construction Value:. $5,000.00 1 hereby codify that the setback distances proposed by this permit appplication are accurate, end do not violate applicable ordinances, mice or regulations of Ma C (y of Wheat Rlage Permit Fee : - $72.00 m covenants, easements or restrictions of recpm; that all measurements shown, and allegations . Plan Review Fee: - $0.00 made are acr er a; that I have read and agree to abide by all conditions printer on this application, and timtl assume full responsiil pprcanpbance wkh the Wheat Ridge .Building - USE TBX: $125,00 Code.(U.B.C.) and all Mierapplicable -a @geominances, torvrorkuMer this permit (OWNER)(CONTRACTOR) SIGNE PATE Total: $197.00 Description : DRYWALL IN GARAGE, SKYLIGHTS, PLUMBING, CONCRETE FLOOR IN BASEMENT,SIDING, - DOORS - GENERAL REMODEL BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Electrical License No - Plumbing License No: Mechanical License No: Company - Company: Company: Expiration Date: Expiration Date: Expiration Date rApproval: Approval Approval: - 11WEIRMP11M 21 '(i) Thls pemalwas lo uea'nadomame ofthM p mio Indent, i n yossapokoffon and lssub�ctb the Iowa of Na ahte dCOl a antl to lbe ]Hong - Re9ula4onaeMe Many Code olWheat PMge C IMbpw w yovan. lm able wd nancesof the. Th pehahaliwiprelf W ihawork m a mrpm cedwllhln a4ty (60) dr, tssu C l lew(B) the Wilding arthis s sundial or bete redrme i M rt2odeyx (a) xlha partnR ap pe Il meycea{Iea loref9e of on4h9MMe amour om6lty required @one dno Meneash b Ilb mane ntM1e - a ll pl. dap fi lions and airy sonsinornorabanaonmuiF MEd ai notaxo one(1)year II h gesaremada rasuspen9onwO0 donmem d e(1)yee fullf enallb rem lwa �exo n - (( No work of a�lym aM1 llbadoneth twllinhan, henablfalflmdwa@ m I gaerainMepmblam (5). Col GwsM1ell gy Building Ire, oecW fwpNy -four( hour: in advancelwall lns aln"fl pecti0rls and shall ritlen agencies o Inepectlon cam before - y eo flhe l - (e) . of he or the fpprn f aftera n , aad detlflWtlons Shall not be consul to be a damn fm nor an eppm I dr any eslalion mthe proWelood fthe il oralry el de. law, hale orroalel hief Building Inspector THIS PERMIT VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED BYTHE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR CALL: 234593324 HOURS PRIOR TO INSPECTION �S76 Board ofAdjustment 16 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian EXHIBIT 5: NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS Bomd oJAdjusiment CaseNa WA 12 02wzhs na In the map below, the subject lot is shaded in yellow. The purple shade indicates the 22 prop zones in me neighborhood that me County recognizes as multi family dwellings, all are duplexes. The six highlighted duplexes are located on properties that are smaller than 12,500 square feet in size EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE Response to Criteria for Review -4315 Balsam Street A. For the past approximately 30 years, this location has been used as a two-fam fly property, in accordance with R -2 zoning. The Applicant wishes to continue this long-standing usage, and non - approval would result In a substantial loss of income R. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality due to the 25 -year usage. C. The Applicant and subsequent owners would not see value in making ongoing investments due to its reduced value. D. The surrounding neighborhood was developed in the 1950's priorto the City of Wheat Ridge's Incorporation, and it would be impossible to acquire the additional 981(7.8%) feet required to bring the site into conformance. E. The applicant was not aware of the square foot deficiency at the time of purchase, and was not informed by the City when Improvements were made in 1995. F. Due to the long - standing existence of the structures and landscaping, the approval of the variance would not result in any change that would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. G. Th is property is adjacent to other R2 properties. The neighborhood was subdivided under Jefferson County subdivision qpd zoning requirements. Therefore, there are numerous properties in the area with minor non-u cinferming issues such as the one encountered by the Applicant. Ou7n.�r Board ofMp&mert Case No. WA 12021Aharoan I KININIPMV20 144MIUM MUM01243:63 a Iq�� ;� ;�� 11111 !11! 11 1 1 1 1021 1 ;1 11 Z 1 1!, 1 WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA - -02 was not eligible for administrative review; and !! I there [were / were no] protests registered against it; and welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-12-02 be, and hereby is, [APPROVEDIDENIED]. a 0 3. ... • • • ! 1. 4 -nt was called to order by of the Municipal Building, I Staff Membeis� ,Present: S d , ,,m Th ti 3. LI I F01 (Thi spe I s No c Aft to A 11 4. PUBLIC ACING time far anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on A. Case No_Y44,1_01: An application filed by Leroy Kuczek for approval of a 5- foot side ya tback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a I 0-foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One and located at 10561 West 3 8 Avenue. This 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 reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The purpose of the variance is to allow for a 1,720 square foot manufactured home to be located on the property at 10561 West 38 Avenue. A variance was granted in 2009 but expired after 180 days because the applicant had not Board of Adj ustment February 23, 2012 obtained a building permit. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Ms. Mikulak stated that staff had not received any comments, inquiries, or objections from neighbors regarding the variance request. Leroy Kuczek Independence Street and 38 th Avenue, Wheat Ridge V AN y-C1kw--t- LIN raised by the Board, Mr. Kuczek explained there is anO T. In response to a question -1 easement along the west side. " Mr. Kuczek stated that he is by cel. Board Member GRIEGO asked why the T he received the previous variance. -NO increased complexity of attaining and retl uncertainty with job security all led to employment situation is nowsccure an e the project. He also stated th si enc no response. I I a. I int had not pro I cec explained that hii construction mon the pMgpt. He s' ' se ,'." 01 general with his plans when Kperience, the he economy and AM his to oversee Board Member PAGE, the not eligible for administrative review; Whereas the e relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the pubic welfare and , 'wit ' hout substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing, , the City of Wheat Ridge; apPT=ffU To. WX-' 12-01 be, and hereby is approved. Type of variance: A 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 10 foot side yard setback on the east side of the house. For the following reasons: Board of Adjustment - 2 - February 23, 2012 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 wit iquirements of Section 26-502 for new single-family residenc f ments related to I 'A, landscape coverage and street ion that drought resistant plant material be ex�i e land Ritistoog. 2. The property shall comply with the'vehicle access requirements of Section 26-501.F for single family,dwellings, spec fically that the first 25 feet of '` " I driveway area from the existin edg f l# " ement into the site be surfaced o i with recycled asphalt pay mcrit�2.AP), coucre e, asphalt, brick pavers, or similar materials. ' This is R-1 lot at 85 feet of width as opposed to the 100 fl46 1111 . wid th ereby creating an anomaly germane to the requested variance. Condition No. 3: A western side yard setback shall be 17.5 feet as proposed by the applicant. Condition No. 4: The building permit shall not be issued for less than the lzpplicant's offered 50 feet. Board of Ad i ustinent -3- February 23, 2012 Reason No. 7: There were no objections from the neighborhood. l 1111��Jll;�Il 11�111111111 Will! I lql�11111111 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 `x' Avenue to allow for construction of a 4,000 square foot structure in the Clear Creek 1 00 -year floodplain. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The new building would replace two existing structures on the site. Staff recommended.:, approval of the application for reasons, and with conditions, outlined in the staff rqp Henry Hoflender 9201 West Tennessee Avenue, Lakewood Mr. Hollender, engineer for t applicant, was sworn in by Chair ABBOTT, of fit Y openj; on me Comer 01 4- J ants are bothered by fumes from idling g would keep power washing activities Mr. Dough ,returned to the podium to state that power washing will take place in the new buildirg"." There will'be sand traps inside the building to lessen the impact of power washing soaps and chemicals going back into the floodway. In response to conc&fi expressed by Board Member BELL, Ms. Reckert stated that Wheat Ridge is a Title IV City and participates in state and federal stonn water regulations. Mr. Hollender stated the storm water drainage design will meet Urban Drainage standards. Whereas, application Case No. WF-12-01 was not eligible for administrative review; 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 # # # # 1 4 . # Ill 11 1111 004111a" 1 11 1 1i'l I * I I ,jurul [#J ujimi till 11!1 #1 Ilow, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Ad* t application Case No. WF- 12-01 be, and hereby is, approved. !M Type of Variance: A Class 11 Special Exce pt nn Flobdolain permit for property p located at 8955 West 44' Avenue to " "'r constructions a commercial Or structure on property zoned C-2 in th"i ear Creek 100-ye'a'i'floodplain. For the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. With. 1. 2. I pq RS, All site imp i ccurI flood it .,yements Will Pc area. t a i t I iiiiiiiii 111111111 M I I MM ill The applicant villillflikinsure that """ htidin g construction will adhere to the highest design standillf ds for water quality facilities as required by the City. flIii level of 5,538 feet. The first floor elevation must be verified by an elevation survey after the foundation has been poured prior to other construction commencing. Dill 11 1i'll! 1 ;1:1 L I 1 1 ill I I i i I IiEZMMHE. I i t� Condition No. 3: The two existing ancillary structures will be removed from the property. Board of Adjustment - 5 - February 23, 2012 Purse ant the Colorado OpenMeefirk Link, Section 24-6-402(2)(C), Board of Adjustment is required to desigoatc,at its first meeting of each calendar year a 11 l cmber BLAIR and seconded by Board M Member GRIEGIS gs,� 01IUD111011211i 8:30 p.m. The motion carried 8-0. M I Thomas Abbott, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment - 6 - February 23, 2012 10 1 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I DATE: March 15, 2012 !111 1 1IR 1! 1101 11110NEW6.707 M,11`1111`1�511=1F'11 111 I Other City entities, including the Planning Commission and City Council, currently use templates for approving or denying land use applications. The Board is invited to provide input on the format and effectiveness of the attached template. If useful, staff will provide a resolution template along with the report for each future land use case. Isalka CASE NO: III lippiIIIIIII 111!111111!1� Pill I 111�11p 1 11 1 1, � � ii i 11f�� 38MM= WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there [were / were no] protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for [may / may not] 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 be, and hereby is, [APPROVEDIDENIED], 1. �. .'. �^ .,.