HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2002go] y rut 11 WIM 19 F"
AGENDA
June 27, 2002
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment
on June 27, 2002, at 7:30 p.m., 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-02-04: An application filed by Victor Olson for approval of a 16 1 /2 foot side
yard setback variance from the required 30 foot side yard setback when adjacent to a public
street, resulting in a 13 V2foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a garage on
property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 2620 Upham Street.
B. Rehearing of Case No. WA-02-02: An application submitted by Jeff Petty for approval of a
600 square foot variance from the 12,500 square foot minimum lot area requirement to allow
an additional dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4695
Wadsworth Boulevard.
C. ' Case No. WA-02-05: An application filed by Jim Dent for approval of a 10 foot rear yard
setback variance from the required 10 foot rear yard setback resulting in a 0 foot rear yard
setback for the purpose of constructing a garage on property zoned Residential-One C
(R-IC) and located at 3235 Ames Street.
!i
C:\Kathy\BOA\Agendas\2002\020627.wpd
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING. June 27, 2002
DATE PREPARED: June 13, 2002
CASE NO. & NAME: WA- 02- 04 /01son
CASE MANAGER: Michael Pesicka
ACTION QUESTED:
Request for approval of a 16.5 foot side yard setback
variance from the required 30 foot side yard setback when
adjacent to a public street, resulting in a 13.5 foot side yard
setback.
LOCATION OF QUEST:
2620 Upham Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S):
Victor A. Olson
2620 Upham Street
Wheat Ridge, CO
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S):
Same as above
9,100 square feet
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential- Two (R -2)
PRESENT LAND USE:
Single - family residential
SURROUNDING ZONING:
N, S, E, & 3Y: R -2
SURROUNDING LAND USE;
N, S, E, & 3V: moderate - density residential
June 13, 2002
DATE PUBLISHED:
DATE POSTED:
June 13, 2002
DA'Z'ED LEGAL NOTICES <SENT:
June 13, 2002
ENTER INTO CO
{ ) COMPREHENSIVE PL
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
( ) SLIDES
( ) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
(X) EXHIBITS
OTHER
JURISDICTION:
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met,
therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
1. REQUEST
The property is located at 2620 Upham Street and is currently being used as a single family residence.
The property is zoned R-2, Residential-Two. Twb r • . N
The applicant (owner) is requesting approval of a 16.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required
30 foot side yard setback when adjacent to a public street, resulting in a 13.5 foot side yard setback.
(f*W Z The purpose of the variance request is to allow for a new
attached garage.
The applicant has submitted a survey showing the proposed location of the attached garage that will
store the RV (E) `bit 4, Suryey).
It could possibly have an affect on the character of the locality. The garage may block the
views of adjacent residents and will not be in character with the rest of the houses in the
neighborhood. The proposed garage would • noticeable due to its size and height. A mature
tree on the west side • the house would need to be removed in order forthe garage to be
MR
3. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the
specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were
carried out?
The lot in question is rectangular in shape and relatively flat. At approximately 9,100 square
feet, the parcel exceeds the minimum lot area requirement for a single family home in the R-2
zone district. The property Meets the minimum lot frontage requirement of 80 feet for a comer
lot in the R-2 zone district.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
The hardship has been created solely by the applicant. The applicant started construction
without a permit. A City building inspector noticed a concrete slab had been poured at the
property in question and notified the applicant that a building permit would needed. There may
be other alternatives for locating the structure elsewhere • the property.
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 1 f a person with disabilities?
H
To be filled out by stuff:
I
V-4 (
UM
z
0
I
cn
Z
,7Z
0
o
tn
Lr
cry v LJ f-t
0 0
4 V
to o a zz 0
r 14 4
r4
to
> E
co 0
b
Z ta C� -
Z C >
tic
7 2
tc v
�a Q
cr
2L
"
Z . w+
ii w?
p, 0
ai
L V
ti
:z 5 k
•
ts
tr
z
4406
NAN
33-1 kHVINIA300 hVi
cc
ts
tr
z
4406
NAN
33-1 kHVINIA300 hVi
IMPROVEME,NT LOCATION CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT 4 LOT 7, COWDEN - AMMON SURD I V I S I ON
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
WEST 26TH PLACE DESCRIPTION:
45* RIGHT-OF-WAY
34' GUTTER TO GUTTER LOT 7, COWDEN - AMMON SUBDIVISION, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, COLORADO,
EXHIBIT 5
E
:1
rn
.k
o'
r.�
m
n!
0
v
s
�3
OLSON PROPERTY AT 2620 Upham St. Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 303 - 238 -4114
East Elevation Back Yard Showing different rooflines
A VIEW OF THE ENTIRE WEST ELEVATION. NORTH ON THE LEFT HAND. SOUTH ON THE RIGHT HAND.
OLSON PROPERTY AT 2620 Upham St. Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 303 -238 -4114
A BETTER VIEW OF THE WEST ELEVATION SHOWING THE TWO -STORY AT SOUTH END
North End Garage will match look, size and roof line except with door.
OLSON PROPERTY AT 2620 Upham St. Wheat Ridge. Colorado 80215 303 - 238 -4114
Picture looking west from our property - Neighborhood appearance
June 27th, 2002. The variance and proposed permit for a garage addition
at 2620 Upham St. causes us to have three main concerns; view, safety and
property values.
The large garage will block the view of cars coming into the cul-de-sac from Upham.
It's dangerous now when cars turn into the cul-de-sac and speed out as fast as they
come in. The blocked view will endanger our grandchildren, ages 4, 11 and 12,
playing and riding bicycles, scooters, etc. in our part of the cul-de-sac.
It is our opinion the property value of our house will be affected negatively
• this extra large garage addition. We have been told there's nothing
we can do about the pad that has been poured for the garage. We would rather
see the RV parked on the pad than to see the over-sized garage there after the
RV is no longer being used or is long gone.
•
Ken & Elaine Morgenson
7230 W 26th PI A
Lakewood, CO 80215
(303) 274-0180 EXHIBIT
ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 600 square foot variance from the 12,500 square foot
minimum lot area requirement to allow an additional dwelling unit on property zoned
Residential-Two (R-2).
4695 Wadsworth Boulevard
MMEMMMKCMM
N, Single-Family; 5, Single Family; E, Commercial & Single
Family; A, Single Family
DATE POSTED: April 11, 2002
IMMEMAU
JURISDICTION:
e. an a 1
It, Vie Citv *f W�eat ki -afiv,47,av
therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
contacted Staff Ridge Water District and was informed that the property was originally serviced
as a single-family home. Wheat Ridge Sanitation District was also contacted and informed staff that the
property one -• in 1952. owner purchased the property on
March 22, 2002 under pretense property met all the requirements o allow a duplex.
II. SITE PLAN
The property in question is not unique in shape, has frontage on W. 47a' Avenue to the north, and
Wadsworth Boulevard to the east.
The applicant is proposing to use the property in question as a duplex.. The property l -♦ R-2, but
,toes not w w of i 1 square feet for duplex
III. 'VARIANCE CRITERIA
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. i the property ► question a a reasonable r in use, service or i a
permitted a be used only under the a i a i allowed by regulation for the district in
which it is located?
If the request is denied, the property may yield a reasonable return in service and income. The
property can still be used as a single family residence.
2. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? -
The property in question has a typical rectangular shape and is relatively flat, The lot meets the
minimum lot frontage requirements for a duplex in the R-2 zone district. The R-2 district
requires a minimum of 100 feet of lot frontage. In addition, comer lots need a minimum lot
width of 80 feet for both street frontages.
4. Has the alleged diffleulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
IC If criteria a through e are found, then, would the granting of the variance resu t n 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
L �,�C
' �� r
5 }
1
E +
T t
AM ;
+{T�if
+ + ♦ t ! + t
r
S
i
ja
4755
4750
4T93
4790
4 775
+
W 48TH GAR
4755
M
4730
i 773
AM
770
[ {
J t . � v "
�" rr
4Ti5
f7S
47"33
?50
4705
4100
W 48TH AVE
4695
4490
4 g 6 .� "! p '5 .
Vii
0
4P
^
g #
1 1 E t
H T r
t�
tw,
P
Ar
46dc
4a$
8
� 4 y 660
in
��A
r
)))
4'
47Th{ A
466.5
47710
R"
400
4675.
467d
f62S
4 9
7676"3
Am
4670
W 47TH AVE
467.5
4666
4675
4645
4646
o
F
�
• aF
BP
iii
e76
4665
46'5
4660
•4625
46"
4696
^J
+ +✓
O
F:
49
7
4634
.+s�
AMZNP 1 �I - 3
/
464$
km
4645
W 48TH Pi
TEC#
�•
46M
11630
"�
R -
4fY33
4640
4 635
s
M
SLe
4625
4
4594.
4625
1 . ,
4625
i
46ii
4670
4611
4600
4605
46i0
e
R -C
Kq
4615 X n
W 46TH AVE 4600
4601
}.
pry
460f
390
4595
4390
' �� r
s
Q
H
be filled out by staff:
STATE OF COLORADO
Deputy Public Trustee
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
i ss.
)
/
* fote a ac tiwled ed before e this day aaf, _ a _ * . 2, by
�- the Public Trustee Jefferson
_ _ . of Coubty, State o' olorado.
My commission expires;
Witness my hand and official seaL
4,6bli.
w x 0.
Notary Add ress
graxp +1 1AFtY PUBLIC
A "A 14 OF COLORADO
6# Arty
A SXtrtf
x
CITY OF 1
MEMEMMUL WIN
1. REQUEST i
The property in question is located at 3235 Ames Street and is currently being used as a single family
residence. The property is zoned R-IC, Residential-One C.
The applicant (owner) is requesting approval of a 10'rear yard setback variance from the 10'rear yard
setback requirement in an R- I C zone district, reducing the setback to 0 (zero) feet. qpo#M
Application and Exhibit 3, Dee• ). The purpose • the variance request is to allow for the construction •
a detached garage.
SITE PLAN
parcel exceeas me mimmum tot area reqllrernents tor a SiTiSic iditiny 11*47sr, M u1c I"- i �_' �V#11 •
The property has a lot width • 50 feet, which meets the minimum lot width requirement for a single
family home in the R-lC zone district.
If the request is denied, the property may yield a reasonable return in service and income. The
property is currently used as a single family residence and this use may continue.
2. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
If the detached garage is built, the essential character of the locality would not be altered
substantially. There are several existing garages that are built up to the edge of the right-of-
way, and the proposed garage would have roughly the same setback as existing structures on
adjacent properties.
3. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the
specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were
carried out?
The lot in question is rectangular in shape and is relatively flat. The lot meets the minimum
standards for lot size and width for a Residential-One C (R- I Q zone district. The small front
yard does not lend itself to the construction of a garage. A garage the size the applicant is
proposing would violate the front yard setback.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
Yes, the hardship has been created by the applicant. The applicant is proposing a structure
which does not meet setback requirements for the district. The garage could be placed
elsewhere in the rear yard and meet the 10 foot rear yard setback.
The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties. It
would not impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, substantially
increase the congestion in public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
I
If. 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 a benefit solely for the applicant and would not
contribute to the neighborhood or community. Granting of the variance would not result in
reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities.
H
To be filled out t., -,tpff-
i
91Y 4
A
i
N
i
s
•
s
i
w i
•
■
i
� • AF
M 1
a
U
C"
� I
V}
54}
a_
c>
m
c
p
it
U
fR
C4
tb
'O
0
N
?y
Gn
i9
m
m
m
it
4
2
P
a
f
yy ,
d
W
CS
ip
r
.
y46
Sz
� #00 #611
* ;
a
U
C"
� I
V}
54}
a_
c>
m
c
p
it
U
fR
C4
tb
'O
0
N
?y
Gn
i9
m
m
m
it
4
2
P
a
f
yy ,
91
CS
ip
r
.
y46
� #00 #611
* ;
S�
�
v
�
CS
2
�
v
N
C
C}
cc
Q
�
tl
ttf
C
C%
Gf
} Q CLS
W
(j
to Z
Q1
E
N
'� a
„ j
LU
C 1tJ
cc 0 - .
2.
z
h”
N m Qt
C
} Q?
w
.0 °�
0 IV
to
'
0
w 0
41
cr
a
U
C"
� I
V}
54}
a_
c>
m
c
p
it
U
fR
C4
tb
'O
0
N
?y
Gn
i9
m
m
m
it
4
2
P
a
f
yy ,
91
CS
ip
r
.
y46
� #00 #611
* ;
to
f�a"J
91
CS
N
S�
�
v
�
CS
2
�
v
to
f�a"J
N
rn
AM
o'
0; ti't
>0
ra
0
.�"u."
�
p
4L V
$
in
z
a x
z
n z c
we
!
iA
m m
�
a
�
�
O
'�
o
„ °i
• i
�.
�
o
K
ai
w
41
1
aP«
z
{tl
0
G"
AM
o'
ra
0
�
p
$
in
aP«
z
{tl
0
G"
AM
ra
0
�
p
$
in
z
1
ci m
rn « r"
a
w c
iA
m m
x
4
tn
<m
o
ft
o
a $
ai
w
aP«
z
{tl
0
G"
4 .!
to I
ay
V V
PU
AM
tj
W w
0
0
iA
tn
ft
V
>
x
M
C
rs
.°
�>
tn
w
•
}}
C?
Ul
t1t
4 .!
to I
ay
V V
PU
AM
V
C
rs
.°
�>
w
•
}}
C?
Ul
t1t
C7 _
CT3
�^3
}w
I
w
hJ
h.
� ,� �
�:
From the home of Jim and Jan Dent
3235 Ames Street
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80212
11 1 AIFKMXI]Dftlljff-wwl��� Isom=
•.►� _� .. fix. °'s.
i. � `
OPWRI
,� no
a zss" fl Mies
se-+
our- Am � LiAlf-
J ske,4
rkoriq o Cm
c�A
C
6AW
Ex,k t o + C
3 235 4 rmes a
3 A"Q,e- L I I kfte- some- p; +ck on1 (400 - � s g"e -
w� be- pyq `fi s,�rW
co
ho S e- 7qN of
i
/
i � t
� qJ�
.76 I
1 I
°° `O
C� p( AA:
�o F'rart� ��Ce
10
Our P lAtO :
c�A �A-� s�i4rf r
�I� Te�� iuslae
�eNc e o { A
w
, T
F-XhIbit F
Ir-MM
3235 Ames Street
Wheat Ridge Colorado 80212
M�#
Jan and I would like to build our garage on our property fine, six feet from the
alley. We feel that the additional ten feet of concrete in the alley would be unsightly and a
nuisance area where trash could be deposited. We already experience people dumping
trash in the alley behind our property. The ten feet the City requires would also rob us of
ten feet of our back yard, which many of you know is a garden paradise.
F 7 and Jan Dent
Signed:
cpf I 1"A 4X-N'Qj
Address:
3235 Ames Street
Wheat Ridge Colorado 802121
MM322mm
C�-
3235 Ames Street
Wheat Ridge Colorado 80212
Jan and f would like to build our garage on, our property line, six feet from the
alley. We feel that the additional ten feet of concrete in the alley would be unsightly and a
nuisance area where trash could be deposited. We already experience people dumping
trash in the alley behind our property. The ten feet the City requires would also rob us of
ten feet of our back yard, which many • you know is a garden paradise.
Sincerely,
A �n and Jan Dent
Signed:
J , r
Address:,,
MW%VALR-- - 1
3235 Ames Street
Wheat Ridge Colorado 80212
Emma=
Jan and f would like to build our garage on our property line, six feet from the
alley. We feel that the additional ten feet of concrete in the alley would be unsightly and a
nuisance area where trash could be deposited. We already experience people dumping
trash in the alley behind our property. The ten feet the City requires would also rob us of
ten feet of our back yard, which many of you know is a garden paradise.
3235 Ames Street
Wheat Ridge Colorado 80212
Dear Neighbors,
Sincerely,
J and -Jan Dent
Signed: ov
Address:
WA- 02-03: •• • by • Kathi Jack for
approval of i . 5 foot side yard setback variance from • '• IS foot r
yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot •' yard setback for purpose of •
storage shed on i f ' Residential-One # located at 3360
Independence Court.
This case was presented by Travis Crane. He reviewed the staff report and gave a Power
Point presentation depicting photographs and layouts of the subject area. All pertinent
documents were entered into the record and he advised the Board there was jurisdiction
to hear the case. Criteria • in the evaluation of r variance request reviewed.
Board of Adjustment Page 1
OS /23/02
Staff determined that the variance criteria did not support approval of the variance
request and therefore recommended denial.
In response to a question from Vice Chair ABBOTT, Travis Crane stated that no letters
of opposition to the request had been submitted to staff. Further, there was no one signed
up to speak in opposition to the request.
indicating they were in favor of the variancc, Alan White entered this document into the
record.
Board Member BLAIR asked about construction materials. The applicant stated it would
be wood frame with greenhouse windows on the south and a shingled roof • the north.
They plan to paint the shed a pale green, Ms, Jack submitted a catalog showing a picture
of the shed they plan to build. The catalog was entered into the record.
Board of Adjustment Page 2
05/23/02
FATNITME iii 09MI » BM=;
Board Member HOWARD stated that he believed the applicant had presented a very
good project and he would vote in favor of the variance.
B*g,ri
and would look better than the vacant concrete pad.
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-02-03 is an appeal to this
Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and
Whereas, the relief applied for MAY 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.
For the following reasons:
W=
With the following condition:
lip I I II I I I I I I I !IIIIIII I II I I I I I y I IIII I II I III! I I �� mom
Vice Chair ABBOTT opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to spea k to
this matter.
Bolam of Adjustment Page 4
05/23/02
M 'M
presented at this meeting. The motion passed 4-1 with Board Member HOWARD
voting no.
Vice Chair ABBOTT advised the applicant that his case would be reheard.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Vice Chair ABBOTT declared the public hearing closed.
Ifi. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Board.
A. Variance Decisions - Board Member DRDA questioned whether or not cases
should be decided • whether or not neighbors like or dislike a certain project.
Alan White commented that findings should be based upon facts and evidence
presented during the hearing and public comment should be considered based
upon relevance to the variance criteria.
B. 2941 Chase Street - Board Member ECHELMEYER asked about the status of
the house at 2941 Chase Street. Alan White explained they have worked with the
owner and the project is in compliance with code.
Board of Adjustment Page 5
05/23/02
f
a
ECHELMEYER to adjourn R' If t motion passed
Board of Adjustment 'age 6
05/23/02