Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/2002MI&I *1 OKI 11111. No I my AGENDA May 23, 2002 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on May 23, 2002, at 7:30Pm., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) A. ' Case No. WA-02-03: An application filed by Gordy & Kathi Jack for approval of a 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3360 Independence Court. B. ' Case No. WA-02-04 to be continued to a date uncertain): An application filed by Victor Olson for approval of an I I foot side yard setback variance from the required 30 foot side yard setback when adjacent to a public street, resulting in a 19 foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 2620 Upham Street. C. Request for a rehearing of Case No. WA-02-02 which was denied by Board of Adjustment on April 25, 2002. 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT C:\,Kathy\BOA\Agendas\2002\020524.wpd RI DICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, The applicant (owner) is requesting approval of a variance for a 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback in the R- 1 zone district, resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a storage shed (E H. SITE PLAN The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the proposed location for the storage shed and future landscaping hit 0 The property is rectangular in shape, and has a slight grade change. The property meets the minimum lot size requirements in the R-1 zone district. The is approximately 14,060 square feet, and has a lot width of 100 feet. VAMANCE CRITERIA if the request is denied, the property may yield a reasonable return in service and income. The property may still be used for a single family residence. 2. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality' Granting • the variance could potentially alter the essential character of the locality. The shed is only 160 square feet in size, but is • feet tall. The lot in question has a typical rectangular shape. The lot meets the minimum standards for size and width for a Residential-One (R-1) zone. The property does slope from north to south, but is not particularly severe. Placement • the shed • the south side of the property could be a problem because of the slope, 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Granting the variance could possibly impact the property to the north due to the fact that th shed will sit significantly higher than the adjacent structure. The variance would not increase the congestion in public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, or affect or impair property values within the neighborhood. 6. If criteria a through e are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The requested variance would result in an individual benefit for the property owner, and would not produce a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood • community. Approval of this request would notresult in the reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. I -i I L- rl I EXHIBIT I OW22 lu cv m be filled out by staff: (A ! Y U1- WHOA T RIDU PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE - EFFECTIVE 4116/01 - re- Application $150 Annexation and Zoning Application Fee $500 + $50 /acre Publication /Public Notice Fee $500 Variance Administrative or Regular Application Fee $200 Publication /Public Notice Fey $90 Temporary Permit 30 -Day Application Fee $150 Publication /Public Notice Fee $90 One -Year Application Fee $200 Publication /Public Notice Fee $90 Minor Subdivision Without Dedication Application Fee $500 + $30 /lot SFR $500 + $100 /acre Nan SFR Publication /Public Notice Fee $150 '1th Dedication Application Fee $500 + $30Aot SFR $500 + $100 /acre Non SFR Publication /Public Notice Fee $300 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application Fee $500 + $30 /lot SFR $500+ $100 /acre Non SFR Publication /Public Notice Fee $300 Final Plat Application Fee $300 + $1 /lot SFR $300 + $100 /acre Non SFR Publication /Public Notice Fee $300 Lot Line Adjustment, Plat Amendment, or Consolidation Plat without Dedication Application Fee $200 Publication /Public Notice Fee $0 Consolidation Plat With Dedication Application Fee $300 Publication /Public Notice Fee $300 R_p -W Vacation, Street Width Designation Aoplication Fee $300 licationiPublic Notice Fee $300 0� I of the *County of JEFFERSON and State of Colorado, grantor, and GORDON C. JACK AND KATHLEEN M. JACK also known by street and number as 3360 INDEPENDENCE COURT The grantor shalt and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above- bargained promises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, against alland every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof, The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders, IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor has executed this dead on the date set forth above, ffU TAYE day of August STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF JEFFERSON Tice foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st by DOUGLAS KENT TAYLOR If in Denver, insert 'City and.' A .0 # % 0 TF O'� WARRANTY DEED (To Joint Tenants) ,2001 14 AN �ffl Witness my hand and official seal. Mycommisoi5peras ' Auly Ist 1E P` p 0 1 RT DA ii/2006 FEl9D-0D- joao0D=2",a_ + A ARVADA, COLORADO 80002 WARD EXHIBIT 6 May 15, 2002 Kathi and Gordy Jack 3360 Independence Ct Wheat Ridge CO 303 - 274 -5959 We are requesting a variance of 10 feet 6 inches from the north side property line, in order to build a storage /garden shed. This would place the shed 4 feet 6 inches from the north property line. Below are several points that we ask you to consider and use as the basis for your decision. 1. Last fall (early October, 2001) in anticipation of our shed construction, we contacted the city to inquire about needs for permits and required setbacks. We stated that we intended to build a shed in our backyard. We were told that the setback requirements were: • Front yard: 30 feet • Side yard: 15 feet • Rear yard: 5 feet Side yard, to us, meant the area on the side of the house — between the front yard and the back yard. Never had we heard the term used to describe the side property line. Since we had asked about the back yard setbacks and were told that the rear yard setback was 5 feet, we moved forward with our project comfortable that the required setback was 5 feet. Apparently we misunderstood the term "side yard" and subsequently the required setback. In late October, a retaining wall was constructed to create a level place for our shed. When constructing the wall, the contractor discovered that the slope of the yard was more than he had anticipated. Not only was the wall on the north side of the shed location required, but now it was determined that an additional wall on the south side of the shed would be required in order to retain the slope of the remaining yard, create a level surface and to maintain proper drainage. A rectangular area was built keeping in mind the approximate 10 -foot depth of the anticipated shed but not leaving room for adjustments and it was just shy of 5 feet. We had the concrete pad poured in late March 2002 and ordered the shed kit. When looking at the instructions for building the shed, we determined that while the 10' X 16' shed was a several inches shy of the advertised 16' length it was exactly 10' in width. Additionally, the trim on the building would add another scant 1" bringing it that much closer to the property line. We now realized that due to these unanticipated minor errors in measuring and actual finished size and we would be approximately 4 feet 6 inches from the side property line instead of 5 full feet. We completed the application for our permit, delivered it to the city offices and asked up front what we should do about the 6- inch problem. We were told we would need to file for a variance. We completed the variance paperwork and submitted it. The following day we were told that we needed a variance of 10' 6" not just 6 ". During our conversations with the city employees in those two days, there was additional confusion with the terms "Side Yard" vs. "Side Property Line." Now, approximately 7 month into the project we were fully and painfully aware of the 15 foot set back requirement and the misunderstanding of the term "side yard ". 2. In response to the 6 criteria which the board of adjustments bases it's decision: a. Yes, the property in question can 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. b. No, if the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Our street is a dead end street about 2 blocks long. There are 14 home on this street and three of them have storage /garden sheds clearly visible from the street, which are well under the 15 -foot setback requirement. Whether variances were requested for these we do not know, but thev do exist. 2 On 32 " Ave within two blocks there are two other properties with sheds not meeting the 15 -foot or 30 foot set backs. Additionally, there are an unknown number of sheds on other properties that are not meeting the setback requirements but they are not visible from the street. In fact, several of the homes on our street do not meet the 15- foot setback requirement. The home to the north of us is approximately 8 feet from our property line and our own home is 14.5 ft from the other property line. I point these out simply to show that it is not out of character in our neighborhood (our street and the adjacent street) to have a storage or gardening shed a few feet from the side property line. c. Yes, the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique 3 hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Our property slopes significantly from the south down toward the north (side to side) and from the east down toward the west (back to front). Additionally, there are a large number of mature trees and shrubs on the property that enhance the neighborhood, create some barrier between our home and Wheat Ridge Senior High School, but restrict the possible locations for a storage /garden shed. Across the back of the property the slope is approximately 6% (droppong about 6 feet across the 100 ft length). From the center of the rear property line moving west toward the house the slope is about an 11% grade. There are other places in the yard where the grade is up to 20 %. The location where we would like to construct the shed has only about a 3% grade from east to west (the 16' length of the shed) and an average 6% grade from south to north (the 10' width of the shed) making it the ideal location. To construct the shed in a different location than requested, would not only require removal of the retaining wall and concrete already in place for this specific purpose (the cost of these is about $3,000) but would require removal of mature trees, an additional significantly higher retaining wall(s) to be built and additional concrete to be poured. All of the locations on the property that do not already contain large trees, except for the requested location, present further issues and difficulties. Either the slope is in excess of 15% or a brick patio is in place or building a shed would make access to the back yard very difficult. (The property survey showing the existing trees at the time the project commenced in October 2001 and the grade % is included) d. No, any person presently having an interest in the property has not created the alleged difficulty or hardship. The mature trees and severe slopes of the property were not created by us but were part of the existing property when we purchased it in 2000. While it might be argued that beginning construction of the retaining wall and pad were our own doing, it was our intention to follow the guidelines of the city. It was our understanding that we were under the 5 -foot setback requirement; based on the information we were given. Had we been fully aware of the accurate setback requirement prior to commencing, we may still have requested the variance given the topography of the property, but the damages would have been less (very likely up to $6,000) 4 e. No, granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. We discussed the our plans with our closest neighbors who felt that building the shed 4.5 feet from the property line was not a problem. In fact the neighbor most affected, to the north, was very enthusiastic about our plans. Our plan to construct a shed is part of an overall landscape improvement plan which will improve the overall look of our property and the neighborhood. Given the existing sheds in the neighborhood and their locations in relation to their property lines, granting this variance would simply be consistent with what already exists, neither improving or harming the neighborhood. f. No, granting the variance would not benefit or contribute to the neighborhood specifically. We thank you for your time in considering this variance request and will do our best to answer any questions that you might have. 5 East - Rear Side of Property Slope from South to North is 6% grade 9 i9 1' 3% Grade ij r, 0 ko L V j r � U O I V s 4 Q 4- k f ♦ Pm° Shed I Ox I T /o Grade C) `Y r5 s� C�\ !s'l - T a0 tb N ^' J 2 a IL r � U O I V s 4 Q a UL y }` ll• t 4,,n yp w pow i i i City,of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum ............. . 'TO: Board of Adjustment Due to insufficient information provided to staff, we recommend that case WA-02-04 be continued indefinitely until a complete submittal is received. TCOCC i 7PCtC* Qt)!QT 7PO7/qO/CCI f s't , t Board of Adjustment Fags 3 04 -25 -0 in reply to a question Tro the owner of the Petty property, Morton Silverman, gave power attorney to Jeff to represent him at this hearing. He also explained that, in 1959, owners of the property conveyed 2100 square feet of the lot to • used for highway right-of-way. Mr. Petty stated that the main floor studio area is handicapped accessible. He stated that fifteen years ago, two different families lived there and as recently as three years ago. Presently, there is only one address. In the past two years, there has been a renter in the downstairs apartment and Ron Rice and his partner were living in the other side of the 2 Board of AdjustTnent Page 04-25-02 Shair MONTOYA asked to he?-r I Patricia Fisher 7609 West 47 Ih Avenue Ms. Fisher was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She submitted copies of papers concerning a 1991 lawsuit regarding neighborhood covenants in relation to a rezoning. She stated that when Mr. Rice bought the property, there was extensive remodeling during which time the separate entrance for the second floor was added. She stated that cars park on the lawn and often drive directly from the lawn onto Wadsworth. She urged the Board to deny the request for variance and require the owners to clean up the property. She stated that she has lived in the area for 37 years and was never aware of apartments being rented in the subject structure. Chair MONTOYA reminded Ms. Fisher that Carmen Berry had earlier informed the Board that the lawsuit Ms. Fisher referred to could not be considered in this case. He also informed Ms. Fisher that she should contact the city's code enforcement office in regard to the condition of the property. Tara McAden 7650 West 47 Avenue Ms. McAden was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She spoke in opposition to the variance. She expressed concem about cars parked on the property as well as a dumpster which obstructs the view for drivers exiting onto Wadsworth. She submitted a photo of the dumpster into the record. M she could not build any other kind of structure on the half acre. Alan White clarified that this was a condition placed by the Board of Adjustment at the time the variance was granted. Mark Fisher 7645 West 47 Avenue Mr. Fisher was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. He spoke in opposition to the application. He does not want to see the property used as a duplex. Shawn Steigner 7640 West 47 Avenue Mr. Steigner was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. He spoke in opposition to the application because it would have a negative effect • surrounding properties. • EMMEE= Fge 4 Board of Adjustment a 04-25-02 Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas. the ai Iie Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-02-02 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and For the following reasons.- 1. No evidence was submitted that government entities of city, county, state or local utility providers have ever recognized this structure as a legal or nonconforming two-family use. 2. There was evidence that a previous owner conveyed for value a portion of the originally platted lot to the State of Colorado thereby creating an R-2 lot undersized for duplex use. I Numerous neighbors testified in opposition to the granting of this variance board or Adjustment Page 5 04-25-02 ril M Board Ad justment AM Laa s ' Bo ard �I A Board of Adjustment Wage 04 -25 -02