Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2012City of h6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA April 26, 2012 (A dinner training meeting will be held in the 2"d floor conference room beginning at 6 P.M.) Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on April 26, 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 Meyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week- in advance of meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) F A. Case No. WA-12-07: An application filed by Ezara Sauter for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 4 foot maximum fence height standard within a front yard resulting in a 6 foot fence on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4755 Simms Street. JIMMELSIR A. Approval of minutes — March 22, 2012 City of qrWh6atP,ge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: Apri126, 2012 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA -12 -07 /Sauter ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -foot maximum height standard for a fence within a residential front yard, resulting in a 6 -foot fence in the front yard on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4755 Simms Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Ezara Sauter Ezara Sauter & Justin Sauter 16,422 Square Feet (0.38 acres) Residential -Two (R -2) Residential Duplex ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Site Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 2 -foot (50 %) variance from the 4 -foot height standard for a fence within a residential front yard. The applicant has constructed a 6 -foot privacy fence within the front yard and along the front property line at 4755 Simms Street. The purpose of the variance request is to allow the 6 -foot fence to remain in its current configuration within the front yard 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 request is in substantial compliance with a majority of the criteria for review (sec. 26- 115.C.4). The applicant was denied administrative approval by the Director of Community Development because the request is not in substantial compliance with a majority of the criteria for review, therefore the Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Ezara Sauter, is requesting the variance as a property owner of 4755 Simms Street. The variance is being requested because she is seeking to retain a 6 -foot fence within the front yard and along the front propert line that was recently constructed in violation of the residential fence height standards The property is located at 4755 Simms 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 in the northwest quadrant of the City, and is surrounded on all sides by properties that are also zoned R -2 and contain single- and two - family dwellings &&bit 3. 4fi & . The parcel has an area of 16,422 square feet and currently contains a one -story, two- family home. According to Jefferson County records, the house was constructed in 1971. The property meets all development standards for a two- family home in the R -2 zone district. The house on the subject property has an atypical configuration which may have contributed to a misunderstanding of the fence height standards. The front doors of the duplex do not face Simms Street, but rather face to the north and are oriented toward the driveway. Access to the home comes from a wide drivewa that is shared with the duplex to the north whose front doors also face this drive Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter Property History The southern yard on the subject property is shared by the two units within the duplex, and fences delineate the area allotted to each unit. Building permit records indicate that a fence permit was in 1997 to the former property owner for a 6 -foot privac fence in the side and rear yards and a 4 -foot chain link fence in the front yard Vhibit ,Building This configuration is visible in the City's 2010 aerial imagery and in the Google Streetview image dated October 2007 lJf�xhi ` orical Ima The 1997 fence permit resulted in private yards for both units, but the eastern unit of the duplex was allotted a smaller area enclosed by the 6 -foot privacy fence (about 40' x 45') because of front yard fence height is limited to 4 feet within the front setback (the front 25 feet from Simms Street). In December 2011, staff received an anonymous complaint regarding a 6 -foot fence in the front yard of the subject property. Staff responded to the property owner with a letter indicating that the fence exceeds the height limit for a front yard fence. In order to retain the fence at its current height, the property owner would require a variance The applicant resides in the eastern unit with the smaller fenced yard. She wanted to replace the 4 -foot front yard fence with a 6 -foot fence to provide a larger yard for her dogs. The property owner has expressed that she called the Community Development Department in August 2010 to determine current fence regulations Based on that phone conversation with staff, the applicant has stated that she believed that the eastern portion of the property adjacent to Simms Street was eligible for a 6 -foot fence because the home's front doors face to the north. As part of the phone conversation, the applicant was also informed that the City no longer requires building permits for residential fences that are 6 feet in height or less. After calling the Community Development Department. the applicant obtained one of the City's informational handouts regarding fences The diagram demonstrates sight triangle requirements and fence height standards for a typical residential lot. Because the configuration of the subject lot does not match the lot layout on the handout, the applicant misinterpreted the diagram and erroneously believed the handout confirmed that a 6 -foot fence would be permitted along Simms Street. In July 2010, the Building Division exempted several types of projects from building permits — among those are residential fences. Because no building permit is required for a fence that is 6 feet or less in height, no site plan was ever reviewed or approved by staff. If a site plan had been reviewed, it is likely that staff would have noted that the proposed fence was in violation. Based on the timing of the anonymous complaint and the dates of aerial imagery, it appears the 6 -foot fence was installed about a year after the applicant contacted staff, sometime between May and December 2011 ( Code Analysis Section 26 -603 of the municipal code is entitled "Fences, walls, and obstructions to view," and includes standards related to fence height, material, and location. Subsection A establishes limits on fence height, and states, "no divisional fence, wall or hedge above the height of forty -eight (48) inches shall be permitted within a minimum required front yard." Fences up to 6 feet are permitted in a front yard only if they are decorative and 80% open, such as wrought iron. Board ofAdjustment ; Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter A "front yard" is defined in section 26 -123 (Definitions) as "that portion of a lot lying between a public street and nearest parallel front setback line of such lot." Only in the case of a corner lot is the front lot line determined by the location of the principal entrance (definition of "lot line, front in sec. 26 -123). Therefore, regardless of the orientation of the front door on the subject property, the front yard is definitively the 25 -foot wide area west of the Simms Street right -of -way bibibit 9, Front mod). Variance Request Prior to paying an application fee, staff offered to conduct a preliminary review of the request to determine if the application was in substantial compliance with the review criteria. After a preliminary review, it was determined that a majority of the criteria were not met and that staff, therefore, would be unable to administratively approve the variance request. The applicants were provided with a copy of the preliminary review —the preliminary analysis resembled the analysis contained in this staff report. The applicants were advised that because the request is not in substantial compliance with a majority of the criteria for review, the variance application would need to be heard and decided upon by the Board of Adjustment. The public notification period is currently in progress. As of April 18, 2012 one out -of -state property owner has contacted the City to get more information regarding the request; no objection was stated. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA The Board of Adjustment shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that a majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided an analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria LExhibit 1.1 Criteria R, . Staff provides the following review and analysis. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a two - family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A variance may alter the character of the locality. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow approximately 100 linear feet of 6 -foot fence to stay within the front yard. About 45 linear feet are loca ted along the Simms Street frontage, adjacent to the attached sidewalk Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 1Sauter The purpose of fence height regulations is not only to provide for safety and privacy, but also to minimize potentially negative visual impacts. The visual impact of a front yard fence is shared by the neighborhood, and the noncompliant 6 -foot fence has the potential to alter the character of the area. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant has made some investment of time, energy, and money by nature of the fact that the fence has already been constructed. Without the variance request the applicant would need to reduce the height of the fence, which may not require substantial investment, but could negate some of the investment already made. 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. The unique condition that affects this property is the orientation of the home away from Simms Street. The primary entrances are on the north side of the property, and the front yard is perceived by an occupant as a side yard or rear yard. This orientation appears to have contributed to a misunderstanding and resulted in an incorrect interpretation of the fence height regulations. Despite this misunderstanding, there is no physical hardship that necessitates a 6 -foot fence in the front yard. The only unique hardship relates to the fact that the fence already exists. Ultimately, the burden of responsibility lies with a property owner to comply with regulations outlined in the code of laws. 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. An alleged difficulty is the fact that the fence has already been constructed, and the variance is being requested to legitimize a nonconforming fence. The applicant constructed the 6 -foot fence, and therefore the hardship was created by a person having an interest in the property. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate Board ofAdjuslmew Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter 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. A 6 -foot fence in the front yard is unlikely to increase traffic congestion or the danger of fire. It may be perceived as impairing the supply of light and air, and the noncompliant height may also be perceived as a nuisance that could negatively affect property values. Ultimately, however, the fence is not considered a public safety hazard. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There are no unique or unusual circumstances present in the neighborhood that are also present on the property and necessitate the need for a variance. The neighboring duplex to the north has the same configuration in which the front doors do not face Simms. This situation, however, does not justify a variance as the property to the north would not be permitted by code to have a 6 -foot fence in the yard adjacent to Simms Street. The property owner has included in her request letter the addresses of several properties that have 6 -foot fences along a public right -of -way Eight of the ten addresses refer to properties that are corner lots or through lots in which a 6 -foot fence is permitted in the side and rear yard along a public right -of -way. One of the addresses could not be field located, so it is difficult to confirm if this property represents a similar situation. Only one of the examples appears to be a similar situation with a mid -block property and an illegal six -foot fence in the front yard. The possible presence of other nonconforming or illegal fences in the City, however, does not justify a variance for the subject property. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single- family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single- and two - family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable Board of Adjusiment 6 Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Not having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends DENIAL of a 2 -foot variance request from the 4 -foot maximum height standard for a fence within a residential front yard. Staff finds there are not unique circumstances attributed to this request to warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: 1. The subject property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use and function as a two - family dwelling if the variance were denied. 2. Granting of the variance could alter the character of the neighborhood, as a 6 -foot privacy fence within a residential front yard creates a visual impact. 3. There are no physical conditions or other irregular conditions present on the property or in the neighborhood that would preclude a fence from being constructed in a manner that complies with the fence height regulations. 4. The noncompliant fence was constructed by the property owner, and therefore this hardship has been created by a person having interest in the property. 5. An anonymous complaint was received from an area resident which initiated this variance application. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter EXHIBIT 2: SITE PHOTOS 6 -foot fence In front yard Board oj.-1 djuslment Case ,1 o. 11;1 -12 -07 /Sauter 4755 Simms Street :: Looking south at the front yard of the subject property and the 6 -foot fence. 4755 Simms Street :: Looking north: the orange colored fence is the newly installed, noncompliant 6 -foot fence. EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP Bound g1'.14justmeuf 10 Fuse .Vo. IV-1-12-0-Sauter EXHIBIT 4: 1997 BUILDING PERMIT T6ii0 WEST ;�8,)A}IIEt�ItJR� YMlAT RID!$E �C►Q- &Et216 ..ark ir.rrM+ ��+r...��r.■�..�.. �. Pnaperty owner: Property Address: 4755 SIMMS ST Contracior`License No.: 17821 Company Eicar Fence & Supply Co. Phone : 828:6223 Phone: 755.5211 OHMERJCQNiRJ1 $IGNATURE OF UNOERSTANDMG AND AGREEMENT COr�ltlllCUprt 1latrN ) hereby�rrtI�r tA�t ttrs fda11e1c dMbnasr osW�4FSnrdt a � �ppV N arr � «, Prlfttf)k e0 5 26.5 W4 dtf wt!itrlrr ged►eserers, a tR a vrat oovaAnd,.�Mra.nFr or ab�o6mt a redone; a�iR a� igswur�n.a shown .nd N�paaona Plan Ravfliw F66' $0X00 rradeare nritttaw► .fa .etas Wr ar t srwenr fudo• tea Uiavw : $82.00 ( sK)Wo , ToW : S200.10 Dascriptfan : V V40M AND 4. t iUW FENCE DEPARTMENT USE ONLY sic : Sq. Ft. Approval : 3M SM7 A'.PldVACY FENCE AROUND SIDE AND WART s "POM Vl IN Zonitq : R -2 FRONT YARD APPf'� APproVat : Occupancy: walls. Roof: Stories: P4m*br*W Units EieC6ical blr ttse Nkr : Pparr)birg Llowas No: AAAL6"$* Company: Company: (gany Expiration Date: Fotpin1d; DIY Expifatitln D**: Approval; Appemo , (1) Tw - a eomHrar w1e1 YM yo nt ft* ft* IN pu b Cb w d codr of VOW N�r� WON 0A'6— Ap cky. - (2) . aEredon bllerltrlia�l llfi �sdMtl�n> t& fY( aDdMfanYwearh «ShcbhgfArnieMlalrpMllYda Ia) RO" o7lt rf"bra mrro. br►rso/on"wnr Moto nom.gM**.r+w'dw-r air iflM Md hO�dr+e�arMnd+nY asflydaat Irs nor �ae�ded ar (1) yrrr. If drwgb am nrds ar►wef rerr�do�r ' b10r� ortr Nlow, fM bN fdu/ M pMd r nYr W4 1 ( � f ho Nak av • tlfr n� pOd/�R (b) p a�aab000r q 'wawno+h to �IM1"* arpecw mw* W) nwa b.er.ess ror rM .,e .►r1,.arr� NNW r(v� on fD•pidlai cr a b.bre (e) 1M Wwior of r� �r�NI1a fib� rrwo dnwri^7� rn0 �roMeMkrr WW na ba awdWad b be . pww br, na en appew►d. w►J ri�len a rnr pea+�tloK orWb�ra4q �t � at+y�emNMr, rN, ni ana�fon. V THIS PERMR VALID ONLY WHEN 810 ED BY THE Otl IpACTOR AM MYOR CALL: 234 5533 24 HOURS PRtORTUN ICTlA1 MT Building Permit Number: 5042 Deft ? 516/87 Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter EXHIBIT 5: HISTORIC IMAGES The Google Streetview image below, dated October 2007, shows the previous fence configuration that was approved by the 1997 building permit. It included a 4 -foot chain link and split rail fence within the front yard. The 6 -foot fence in this image (indicated by the arrow) complies with fence regulations because it is located 25 feet away from Simms Street. This fence was extended toward Simms into the front yard and is now noncompliant. Google Earth aerial imagery indicates that the nonconforming fence was constructed in 2011, sometime after this image was taken in May 2011 and before a complaint was received in December 2011. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter EXHIBIT 6: VIOLATION LETTER Z= ' t W j,dge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. December 27, 2011 Justin Sauter 4755 Simms Street Wheat Ridge. CO 80033 Dear Mr. Sauter: Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 Please let this letter serve as a follow -up to a warning violation regarding a fence built on your property at 47.55 Simms in violation of the City of Wheat Ridge zoning and development code for fence height. More specifically, the fence is 2' in excess of the 4' fence height standard in the regulated front yard of your property. See attached exhibit. I understand through conversations with Azara that there may have been some confusion with information provided by the planning staff as to what is considered the regulated front yard. Unfortunately, while a building permit is not needed to erect a residential fence, it still has to be compliant with the City Code of Law Section 26 -603. At this point there are a couple of options to remedy the violation: 1. Reduce the height of the fence to 4' in the front yard area between the east side of the house and Simms Street. 2. Reduce the opaque portion of the fence to 4' in the front yard area and extend additional fencing which is 80% open to a height of 6'. This is typically done with wrought iron. 3. Apply for a fence height variance. A variance is a formal application which can be used to gain relief from the regulations in the zoning and development code. There are two types of variances: administrative variances which can be approved by the Director of Community Development and von - administrative variances which are heard by the Board of Adjustments. Typically, an administrative variance is one which is less than 50% of the amount of a particular regulation: for example, if a homeowner applies for a 50% variance from the 10' required setback or 5': it is considered an administrative application and can be approved by the Director of Community Development. Likewise, a 2' fence height variance to the 4' maximum fence height for a 6' high fence could also be approved administratively. Attached to this letter is additional information regarding the variance process. As I mentioned on the phone to Azara. there is the option for a courtesy review prior to paying fees and making a formal application to gauge whether staff would the support the request. This courtesy review usually takes two weeks or so. To begin this process, we would ask that the minimum for the following submittals which can be submitted via email. 13 www.cLwbeatridgt.co.as • A brief written narrative of the request. • A response to criteria A -G fiom the attached variance packet. • A dimensioned site plan sketch that includes the fence in relationship to the house and yard. The attached criteria are used to evaluate all variance requests. Criteria A -G applies to residential projects. and the request would need to meet a majority of the criteria to receive staff support. in particular. we look for a unique hardship (as opposed to an inconvenience) that explains why the City-wide standards should be waived for an individual property owner. Once we receive these items we can submit a memo to the Community ity Development Director and advise you whether staff supports the request and you may then choose to proceed with a formal application. If you decide to move forward with a formal application. keep in mind that there is a comment period whereby the property is posted to allow for comments from the neighborhood. A letter notice is also sent to adjacent property owners so they may comment. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so we can continue our discussion. I can be reached at 303 -235 -2848 or mreckert@ci.wheatridge.co.us ci.wheatridge.co.us Sincerely. Meredith Reckert. AICP Senior Planner Bound (?I'Adjuslmeni 14 Case .Vo. fl: t -11 -0% Strider EXHIBIT 7: LETTER OF REQUEST January 6, 2012 Ezara Sauter 4755 Simms St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 720.394.8448 E_sauter @yahoo.com To: Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge Dear Meredith, I am requesting a variance for a six foot fence on my property to run parallel to Simms St. I had originally requested a quote for said fence from a fence company out of Arvada, CO and asked for this quote to include the price of any permits and asked that they verify the fence was within city ordinance since our duplex does face North along Simms Street which does run North - South. When they returned the quote to install this fence I found it to be too expensive, however they did say a six foot fence was allowed along Simms Street to replace the existing chain link fence. In August of 2010 we called the City of Wheat Ridge zoning and permit office to price a building permit for above mentioned fence. We spoke to someone on staff named Kathy and stated to her that our duplex does face North instead of East (like the rest of the duplexes on the street do, and that we do have a shared driveway with the duplex directly North of us) she stated that our front yard was out of our front door and a fence could not be installed any further North than the North most wall of our house but it would be ok along Simms Street since that was technically our backyard. She also informed us that permits for fences were no longer needed and the city stopped issuing them in July of 2010. We proceeded to install said fence to run East from the Southeast corner of our house to our property line along Simms Street and we then replaced all chain link along Simms as well as all chain link along our South property line with six foot privacy fence. We are now requesting a variance to keep our six foot privacy fence that is outlined in the attached document as we have already invested the time and money to improve our property and expand our backyard. We have also driven around our neighborhood and found the following addresses that have fences that are similar if not identical to ours: 4683 W. Swadley St. 4620 W. Swadley St. 11790 W. 46' Ave. Board of Adjustment 15 ('use .%'o. 11A- 12 -(I7 Sauter 4785 Robb St 11400 W. 45"' PI. 10690 W. 47' PI. 10605 W.47"'Ave 4750 Oak St. 4700 Parfet St. 10911, 10913, 10915 and 10917 W. 44 "' PI. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ezara Sauter Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA- I2- 07.5auter EXHIBIT 8: FENCE HANDOUT Cit of W heat ic3�e FENCES COMMUNITY DEVELOP MEN l NOTE: Fences 6 feet in height or less, except where screening a trash storage area or when attached to a commercial building, do not require a permit but still must meet the zoning code requirements. Fences include: hedges. woven wire, chain link, wood. and ornamental iron Step 1: Check applicable fence regulations for the property. These can be found in Section 26 -603 of the Municipal Code. You may also contact a planner in the Community Development Department at 303 - 235 -2846 to discuss the regulations. The illustration on the back of this handout provides an overview of the regulations. Step 2: Check if the property is located wdhin the 100yearfloodplain. Properties within the 100 year floodplain must obtain a floodplain special exception permit before any fence can be repaired, replaced. or newly constructed. Please contact a planner in the Community Development Department at 303 - 235 -2846 to obtain information on a floodplain special exception permit. If the fence is 6 feet in height or less, is not in the floodplain, is not screening a trash area, and is not attached to a commercial building, you may construct the fence without a building permit For fences screening a trash storage area, attached to a commercial building, or enclosing swimming pools: • Step 3: Submit building permit application. Supporting information required with the application includes a site plan showing the location of the fence relative to streets, existing structures and property lines as well as a description of the fence — including the height. materials, and length of the fence. A survey is not required for fences. but the permit does specify that you are responsible for locating your own property lines. • Step 4: Review and referral. The Community Development Department reviews and approves, approves with conditions, or specifies required corrections for the applicant. Step 1: Check fence regulations Step 2: Check floodplain status of property In floodplain I I Not in floodplain F000dplain special exception permit required Fences 6 in height or less Contact Community Development Construct fence in accordance with regulations (no permit required) Community Development Department 303 - 235 -2846 (v) 303 - 235 -2857 (f) www.ci.wheatodge.co us NOTE: Residential fences and most commercial fences may be a maximum of 6 feet tall. Fences above the maximum allo height will require a variance. Fences screening trash storage areas attached to a commercial building. or enclosing swimming pools Step 3: Submit building permit application and supporting documentation Step 4: Community Development Review 17 OL 0 n 4 8 � 4 Ln o A 3 y 0 r_ i44 er i \ \1L Y , I" If bT 5 SL J r r�l F : cm CD n M CL a V) Board of.4djustmew 18 Case No. N,A- 12- 07ISauter 47 m�a aR� bT 5 SL J r r�l F : cm CD n M CL a V) Board of.4djustmew 18 Case No. N,A- 12- 07ISauter EXHIBIT 9: FRONT YARD A "front yard" is defined in section 26 -123 (Definitions) as "that portion of a lot lying between a public street and nearest parallel front setback line of such lot." Only in the case of a corner lot is the front lot line determined by the location of the principal entrance (definition of "lot line, front" in sec. 26 -123). Therefore, regardless of the orientation of the front door on the subject property, the front yard is definitively the 25 -foot wide area west of the Simms Street right -of -way as shown in the image below. Board ojAdjustment y Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter EXHIBIT 7: CRITERIA RESPONSE The applicant has submitted the response to the variance criteria. As described in the case analysis, staff provided a preliminary review of the variance request prior to accepting a ,formal application. The preliminary analysis resembled the analysis contained in this staff report. The applicant was provided a copy of the preliminary review memo dated January 20, 2012; it is that memo to which the applicant refers in the following narrative. The attached photos were submitted by the applicant. A. No the property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income. B. No the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. We disagree that this criteria has not been met per the Memorandum prepared by Ms. Mikulak to Ken Johnstone, Development Director on January 20, 2012, Ms. Mikulak states that the 6 -foot fence has the "potential" to alter the character. We believe that this criteria has been met because it does not take any character away and we also believe that it adds to the character of the street. The location of Simms St. is off of the Interstate 70 Frontage Road and does not have an outlet. The only purpose of this street is for residential access and is not a heavily trafficked area such as other localities in Wheat Ridge where streets have more character. According to the Jefferson County Assessor's Office, 80% of Simms Street is tenant occupied. Because of this we believe that tenants do not have a vested interest in the neighborhood or area. It is also off Interstate 70 and greatly reduces noise. C. Yes this fence would be an investment in the property and it would not be possible without the variance. A monetary investment was made due to the fact that the City of Wheat Ridge told us that the fence we were proposing was within the code. A diagram was sent and the fence was built according to that diagram and information received from the City of Wheat Ridge. We incurred a great financial, time, and labor expense. Had they given us the correct information, we would not have incurred the financial expense to build a fence we couldn't have. Technically the way the fence was built, surrounds our backyard. Also, in August when we began to plan the fence, we received quotes from local fencing companies that looked at the also consulted with the City and were given the same information we received. We determined that in these hard economic times that it would be too costly for us to contract the work and decided to undertake the project ourselves. We contacted the city directly in August 2011 and received the information that we did not need a permit and that the fence we proposed was within the code. Therefore, we believe that this criteria has been met. D. Yes there is a hardship that was created in us spending the money to put up a fence we were told we could have, there could also be a potential hardship if we are forced to cut our six foot privacy fence down to four foot as it does contain our dogs and keeps them from being able to not only get out of the yard, but also restrains them from being able to see anything going on the other side of the fence therefore preventing them from barking. If they either get out of the yard or become nuisance barkers this could be a potential hardship. Another potential hardship Board ofAdjusrnient ?p Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter is the increase of crime in the area over the past year that we have lived at this residence. In just the last two months, the police have been on our street twice. Once for cars that were being broken into and a burglary that occurred March 23, 2011 in which the burglar ran through the neighbor's yard as well as through our yard in a portion of fence that had been knocked over due to high winds. We are two women residing in a residence where we do not have the advantage of knowing a majority of our neighbors due to most of the street being rentals and the high turnover of tenants due to the economy. Cutting down the fence is a huge concern for our safety as it prevents intruders from coming in our backyard. Also, we are exploring the possibility of starting a family and think that the fence the way it is protects our future children's safety from being seen playing in the backyard. We do not feel that we would have that freedom with a shorter fence. The City of Wheat Ridge responded back to our original request for review with the following taken from the Memorandum dated January 20, 2012: "The orientation appears to have contributed to a misunderstanding either on behalf of Staff or the property owner and resulted in an incorrect interpretation of the fence Height regulations." We disagree with the City. During the initial inquiry for information from the City, we were told that the fence we were proposing conformed to the current regulations. We then informed the staff member that the residence did not face Simms St., and in fact faced North in which the staff member put us on hold while she looked up the property and came back and said it was okay. If staff members cannot appropriately define their own code, how do they expect the average citizen to? The misinformation from the city is contributing to the hardship. E. No it has not been created. F. Granting this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements. Once again, the property is located on a dead end street off of the I- 70 frontage road. It's not as if it was a property on the nicer end of Wheat Ridge where owners actually live on their properties and have an interest in the aesthetics of their neighborhood. We feel that the fence added an improvement to the neighborhood. We also spent a lot of money on landscaping to improve the property for the neighbors. During this work last spring, several people stopped and commented that the landscaping was a huge improvement (the previous owner let the weeds overcome the property). G. Yes there are unusual circumstances, as there are at least two duplexes on each street that do not actually face the street to which they are assigned; instead they face each other with a common driveway. Every house in Wheat Ridge is allowed to have their backyard fenced Board of.44justment 21 Cuse .Vo. 1VA -12 -07 Sauter according to the specifications we were given by the City of Wheat Ridge; when we met with Ms. Reckert and Ms. Mikulak in March 2012; we were told they allowed the owners of 4620 Swadley St. to keep their fence since it was determined to be their backyard; however their duplex also sits facing 46` Ave and their address is actually on Swadley St. and the City of Wheat Ridge determined their side yard was actually their backyard so they could keep their fence. Technically we fenced our backyard according to the direction and information received from the City. We are also discouraged by the fact that the complaint about our fence was initiated by someone who knows a city councilman. If we knew a city councilman, would we be allowed to have the fence without having to have a variance hearing? H. N/A I. N/A In short, we should have never have had to even have this variance hearing. As property owners, we purchased this residence with the intention of making it our home, not as an income generating investment property. We have made significant improvements to the interior of the home as well as to the exterior. As property owners, we understand the need for zoning and land use codes, however, we also expect that when we inquired of the existing zoning regulations, that we would receive the correct information from the City of Wheat Ridge. We feel that we incurred a significant expense and should be allowed to keep our fence because we were not given the correct information from the City and because of our unique issue, the plan that we were originally given has been removed from the information on the City's website. The need for the fence far outweighs any negative impact to the street. If we are forced to cut down the fence to four feet, we would have to install an appendage that is 80% open that would creative a hideous addition to the street in comparison to the current existing fence that adds to the aesthetics of the neighborhood, not take away from it. Not only for our family's safety, but also the safety of our pets, and being a good neighbor and reducing the impact of barking dogs. We feel like we are being penalized for being responsible. According to the guidelines for requesting variances, we wish to be granted our request because of the burden of the current development standards. There should have been clearer regulations due to the way the residence sits on the street. Board of'.ldjustment 22 Cuse No. HA -12 -071 Sauter Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter Attachments (Examples of other six foot fences in the city of Wheat Ridge that are being allowed): Board ofAdjustment 2 4 Case No. K,A -12 -07 /Sauter Board of Adjustment 2 5 Case No. RA -12 -07 /Sauter Board ofAdjusiment Case No. WA -I2 -07 %Sauter Board ofAdjustment 1 7 Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter l 9 I � � Nom;` � a.a.�r rrwe - -0 too AN R"t R��.�1 A S Ar OA � %�.rk �i�.RR�'3i.A- i�'d�! Board ofAdjushnent 29 Case No. 14!9 -12 -07 /Sauter 1 99 V WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA-12-07 was denied permission by an administrative officer; and M ! Ili U law anu in recognition that there J�vere / were nol protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for m - .no t 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 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-12-07 be, and hereby is, DENIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 2-foot variance from the 4-foot maximum height standard for a fence within a residential front and resulting in a 6-foot fence in the front and on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2). 1. The subject property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use and function as a two-family dwelling if the variance were denied. m 91 an 11 9 LIM x IM I x a I kT#S The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT at 7:00 p.m. I Board Members Present: T s Jo PC �r W 0 Staff Members mmm for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on wished to speak at 0 M A. Case No. WA-1.2-02:, 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 and located at 4315 Balsam Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes - I — March 22, 2012 the County has record of two units on the property. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, as contained in the staff report. Board Member BANGHART asked if other duplexes on small lots in the neighborhood have variances. Ms. Mikulak stated they did not have variances and not all are zoned R- 2. The structures and/or properties could be considered legal nonconfortning. This is often the case when County Assessor records indicate a property is multi-unit, and the building was constructed before the City was incorporated. Armond Azharian 4315 Balsam Mr. Azharian, the applicant was sworn in by owned the property for twenty years and dur improvements to the property. The rental un while she was in college. After that time he purchased the property, it was eprefr of the street are duplexes. Be noted that ,,'O', h"',is i residence than a duplex with the entrance` o Chair ABBOTT asked to Stacy Lancaster 4260 Balsam Ms. Lancaster wt, street from t" concern that the rather siz"64wlilies, it would probI6 iat occur it V would aj*to any resi city has no'oq#rol how person may owt..' M a full dupt i would be i "' ,in, on the "hair ABBOTT. He stated that lie has ig that time has invested in many [was occupied for awhile by his daughter unit leas been rented to good tenants. When t , as a duplex. Most of the houses on his side roperty looks more like a single family ae secoq,u ,_ ... . .... nit on the side of the structure. FT. She stated at she lives across the rated that she considered his unit as a The property is for sale and she expressed .e rental units which could result in an )erty as well as increased traffic in the area. ("t,hyp, zoning t change. Staff has recommended that if a pret for the property that would better accommodate two full - subject ,- a variance process. Code enforcement can address ' nunibei4 unrelated people living together is exceeded. This Dial units whether or not they are single or multi-family. The Oiy cars are parked on a public street or bow many cars a In response to a question from Chair ABBOTT, Ms. Lancaster stated that while she has concerns, she is not opposed to granting the applicant's request. MUM IMIJIM Ms. Gleason was sworn in by Chair ABBOTT. She stated that she lives across the street and one door north of the applicant. She commended Ms. Mikulak on her assistance when she called for clarification about the request. Ms. Gleason asked if the variance would leave the door open for the property to be subdivided resulting in a decrease in Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2 — March 22, 2012 surrounding property values. Ms. Reckert explained that there is an avenue for people to own their half of a duplex, however the land itself could not be subdivided. Board Member BELL commented that the lot size does not rneet current requirements for subdivision. In response to M. Gleason's concern that the existing structure could be scraped and replaced with larger duplex, Ms. Mikulak explained that staff is recommending a condition that a variance process would be necessary if someone wanted to build a new duplex on the lot because it is too small. The Board of,"A" ustment would have to judge such a case on its own merits. Chair ABBOTT asked if there were others no response. Upon a motion by Board Member P GRIFFITH, the following resolution Whereas, application Case ' No. WA-I and Whereas, Case No. WA-1 Whereas, the property has been recognition there were 010,prote! Whereas, the relief applic#for may therefore s hereby I Pan required by law and in and M III D9111 (Qu wilitts 1111illin-14MM of Adjustment application Case No. WA- Type of Variance: A VVp - Jance to the minimum lot size and lot width requirements to allow an itional rl lling unit on proper" already zoned Residential-Two. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3 — March 2 2, 2012 Chair ABBOTT asked for discussion on the motion. Board Member BLAIR commented that he to indicate that this is an inappropriate requ change the nature of the community. " Board Member HOVLAND indicated ul$S", convoluted set of circumstances that got I well-maintained by the owner for the past Board Member BELL comn matter that involves use of a commended the neip-liborho( consider est, existence of Board Member R1 NM III M End area and hasn't noticed anything a reasonable request that doesn't It is an existing situation and a �n,*this point. The property has been the lid" dwork and research that went into this ished bef i,.'e 1,be City was incorporated, She )gether and `s-g"*ested they might also vrow ThJ`Z riance will validate the the record to reflect that after the current building the City visited the property as witnessed by a 1985 panty signed by the chief building inspector and the public bearing portion of the meeting. Board of Adjustment Minutes -4-- March 22, 2012 0 A. Approval of minutes — February 23, 2012 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member GRIFFITH to approve the minutes of February 23,2012 as written. Motion carried 7-0 with Board Member BANGHART abstaining. Meredith Reckert presented a revised template for difference from the past is that staff xvould fill in c each case including name and address of applicant conditions of approval. Meredith Reckert presented an updat It was moved 'I HOVLAND to ,otions and resolutions. The bn on the template for variance and reasons and decision on the should be included in rrnat at the next p.m. Motion carried 8-0. Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes - 5 -- March 2 2, 2012 City of COMMUNiTy DEVELopmr TO: Board of Adjustment am 11111 INS 111111 11 '1111 � 1!1111 In addition to the video, CIRSA in collaboration with the Colorado Municipal League (CML) have prepared a "Public Officials Liability Handbook " . This handbook is intended to provide an overview of some of the liability issues facing public entities, as well as some suggestion for avoiding and reducing liability. A copy is enclosed for newer members only. (If you can't find your handbook, please let me know so I can make you one by next Thursday.) The video, which is 17 minutes long, will be played for Board of Adjustment at the April 26th pre-meeting beginning at 6 p.m. in the 2" floor conference room. Dinner will be provided.