HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/2012City of
XAJh6a - tf<i0gc
V T
BOARD OF ADJUSTIVIENT
AGENDA
May 24, 2012
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on May 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the
Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Indh4duals i.vith disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by
the Citt qffflheat Ridge, Call Heather Geyer, Public InIbrination Qf -235-2
. ficer at 303 826 at
least one week in advance of 'a meeting 4you 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.)
11
A. Case No. WA-12-08: An application filed by William L. Rickman for approval of
a 7 112 foot variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a
7 1/2 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential -One (R-1) and located
at 4090 Field Drive.
A. Approval of minutes -- April 2, 2012
City of
Wh6at1<iL!jge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: May 24, 2012
CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak
CASE NO. & NAME: WA -12 -08 / Rickman
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 7 %z -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement
Location Map
Site
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA -I2 -08 / Rickman
for property located at 4090 Field Drive and zoned Residential -One (R -1)
LOCATION OF REQUEST:
4090 Field Drive
APPLICANT (S):
Bill Rickman
OWNER (S):
John Ziska
APPROXIMATE AREA:
18,125 square feet
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential -One (R -1)
PRESENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Site
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA -I2 -08 / Rickman
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there isjurisdiction to hear this
case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 7 '/,-foot (50%) variance from the 15-foot side yard setback
requirement, resulting in a 7'2 -foot side setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for an
addition with an attached garage on property at 4090 Field Drive.
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 no
objections are received during the public notification period.
The applicant was denied administrative approval by the Director of Community Development because
an objection was received during the public notification period. Therefore, the Board of Adjustment is
empowered to hear and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing.
11. CASE ANALYSIS
Board qf,44justment
Case No. IIA-12-08, Rickman
This option could have significantly more impact, however, than the proposed configuration, A
detached garage would result in a second driveway. The zoning code would require a horseshoe drive,
and the additional paved area could negatively impact the aesthetics of the property due to the large
amount of hard surfacing in the front yard. This alternative would also consume a significant portion
of the useable yard space and may require the removal of mature trees. A garage on the cast side of the
property could be located at the 30-foot front setback which would be significantly closer to the street
than the home is currently located.
A detached structure on the east side may also result in the new garage doors facing Field Street and
visually dominating the fai;ade of the home. The applicants have proposed the new doors to be
perpendicular to the home precisely to avoid this effect.
A second alternative would be to extend the depth of the existing garage. The additional space is being
requested to store vintage vehicles that do not require frequent access or use. This would avoid the
visual impact of new garage doors, but it is not a viable option because there is not enough space
between the home and rear property line. The existing garage is only 24 feet deep and is located at the
back of the lot only 15 feet from the rear property line—this is the minimum setback required in R-1.
The variance would result in a 7 '/ -foot side yard setback, and the proposed single-family home would
meet all other development standards including maximum lot coverage. The following table compares
the required R -1 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions:
R-I Develol)nient '5tandartls:
Required
Actual
L ot A rea
12,500 square feet (min)
18,125 sqyare feet
- Lot Width
100 feet (min)
150 feet
Home iilAtAlition:
Required
Prol)osed
Buildilli Cov raige
25% (max)
18.6%
Height
35 feet {max)
X 1 5 feet
- Front Setback (north)
30 feet (min)
±50 feet
- Rear Setback (south)
15 feet (min)
15 feet
- Side Setback (west)
15 feet JT���
7'/2 feet
- Side Setback (cast)
15 feet (min)
38 feet
This variance request began as an administrative application. During the required 1 0 -day public
notification period, two neighbors inquired as to the nature of the request but stated no objection. A
w ritten oNection was received from the property owner at 4070 Field Drive Illj1§111filiffiff
9W:
in addition. that property owner collected signatures from 12 other neighbors. None of
these neighbors have independently contacted staff regarding the variance request.
Board (#'Aqjas*nen/
Case,Vo. TV-1-12-08 Rickman
The 15-day public notification period for the public hearing is currently in progress. As of
May 16, 2012 no additional objections or inquiries have been received.
111. 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 26-115.0.4 of the City Code
have been met. The applicant has provided an analysis of the application's compliance with the
variance criteria 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 therequest were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The
property would continue to function as a single-family residence. regardless of the outcorne of
the variance request.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The applicants have expressed
that they are requesting the variance in order to provide the most aesthetically appealing and
least impactful end product. The addition is proposed to be about 50 feet frorn the front
property line, and mature landscaping provides a visual buffer from the nearest home to the
west. The addition will be designed to complement the house; the garage will extend the
existing roofline and the new garage doors will be perpendicular to Field Drive.
As described above, a detached garage on the cast side of the property could be constructed
without a variance, but this alternative is more likely to negatively impact the character of the
neighborhood—it would result in more hard surfacing in the front yard. closer proximity to the
street, garage doors that are more visible from the street, and the possible removal of mature
trees from the front yard.
It should also be noted that while the entire neighborhood is zoned Residential- Cane, several
properties in the area have primary or accessory structures that encroach into minimum
setbacks. There have been 4 approved setback variances for properties within 300 feet of the
subject site. Pert records, aerial imagery, and a field survey indicate that all additional 9
homes have setback encroachments.
While approved variances and nonconforming setbacks do not necessitate approval of the
cut request, they are indicative of the physical character of the area. It should also be noted
that 8 of the 13 properties a party to the letter of objection are those which also have setback
encroachments
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Board qfAttiusintent 4
Case No 1"-12-08 Rickman
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that would not be possible
without the variance. Without the variance, a second garage could be built can the east side of
the property but may have a less positive impact on the neighborhood and property value,
The Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) encourages investment in property and
supports thoughtful and well-designed upgrades of older homes. Approval of the variance
could ensure that the substantial investment being proposed results in the most attractive and
highest quality end-product which is more consistent with the goals of the NRS.
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.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
The alleged hardship relates to the location of the home in relation to the property lines.
Because the prospective owner neither platted the lot, nor constructed the home in its current
location, the difficulties have not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
Board of ,44justment
Case No, 1FA-12-08 / Rickman
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result
of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. Nor would it
cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets or impede the sight distance triangle.
The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Conversely,
the proposed addition will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by promoting
investment in property and providing covered storage of vehicles that would otherwise be
visible Born the right-of-way.
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.
The only unique condition in the neighborhood that may support the variance request is the
existence of several homes in the block that are also zoned R- I and have nonconforming or
reduced setbacks. There are 24 properties within 300 feet of the subject lot - --half of these lots
include primary or accessory structures that encroach into minimum setbacks either as
nonconformitics or through approved variances.
It should also be noted that the curvilinear streets. rolling topography, and abundance of mature
trees make this neighborhood unique in Wheat Ridge and may help to minimize the impact of the
setback encroachment.
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 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 qf,44justinent
Case .Vo, HA-12-08,'Rick-man
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 7 V2-foot (50%) variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement. 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. 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 proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other
documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements.
4. The unusual siting of the home in the western corner of the lot, reduces viable alternatives.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public safety or welfare,
6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as several R I
properties in the area have primary or accessory structures that encroach into side yard
setbacks.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and construction of the addition be generally consistent with Exhibit 3 subject to
staff review and approval through review of a building permit.
Board qfAdjusiment 7
Case No. IIA-12-08 Rickman
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Board of Adjuslineni
Case No. WA -12 -08 Rickman
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
The subject property and surrounding neighborhood are entirely zoned Residential -One (R -1) as
indicated by the light yellow overlay in the zoning map excerpt below.
`r 4 1 " A - 111&
R y
:�. 4
Board of Adjustment 9
Case No. WA -12 -08 ! Rickman
EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLANS
DESCRIPTION:
Lot A5, and that portion of Lot 26, Bel -Aire, described as follows: Beginning at the
c er coninon to Lots 25, 26, 28 and 29 of said Bel -Aire Subdivision; thence north -
est
erly ly along the line cocmnon to Lots 26 and 28 of said subdivision 50 feet; thence
northeasterly midway between the easterly and westerly lines of said Lot 26 to a point
on the southerly boundary of Field Drive; thence easterly along the southerly boundary
of said Field Drive to the corner common to Lots 25 and 26 of said subdivision and the
southerly boundary of said Field Drive; Thence southwesterly along the line common to
Lots 25 and 26 of said subdivision to the point of beginning. County of Jeff*r6 on,
State of Colorado.
Found
die. pipe
NR 4
4092
FY�
SCALE 1 " -
DATE: 10/3/73
REVISION:
OQ
' —_
so'
50'
04090
i -story brick i l
I 1
I
i LOT 25 rASTE1tLY
WESTERLY
of LOT 26
of LOT 26
, rros
l
Found l !
? 50
• dia. pipe A.
o�
/ i
7�C! Field Drive d�
Proylijl
mirk, t+ ! 40' R.O.W.
10381
F R,#
044 180111 NIkL
I hereby certify that a field survey was conducted, under my
supervision on this date of the above described buildings and
that all improvements, easements, rights -of -way in evidence or
known to we are correctly shown on the above plat. i further
certify that there are no encroachments by and /or on this
property, unless otherwise noted. This plat has been prepared
from prior survey data and should not Se used for the location
of future permanent is*rc�
/ n
Registered Land- Su :vayor
!TILL SURVEYING Buyer: Pullen
P.O. BOX 594 Order No. 1st. Fed. North
BROOWIELD, COL "Do Job Not 872
80020 Closer: Voroth
1
, A-
Board of Adjusimen:
Case No. HA -12 -08 Rickman
The hatched area in the site plan
above indicates the proposed
addition.
7\ 0 /
, rhe roof' plan to the right shows
r 6 \\
LA4
how the addition will be unified
with the existing rooflines on the
home.
Case No. IVA23082 Rickman
1
Board cif `Attjtrstrrrc rrt
Case No. IIA-12-08 'Rickman
ON
�s
u
C:
ON
� � *
. �
Boar qfAeffiistment !3
» , !! g2-08 Rickman
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS
Board of Adjustment 14
Case No. WA -12 -08 / Rickman
4090 Field Street, looking at the front fagade. The proposed addition will extend from the right side
of the existing garage and is designed to match and balance the gabled projection that exists on the far
left side of the home.
A garage on the east (left) side of the property could result in significantly more hard surfaced area in
the front yard and the possible removal of mature trees. In addition, a detached garage on the east
(left) side of the property could be constructed at a 30 -foot setback —in closer proximity to the street
than the rest of the home is located.
unusually large front setback. The front of the existing garage is currently about 70 feet from the front
property line and nearly 80 feet from the edge of pavement. The proposed addition would extend from
the west side of the house towards the street and would have a front setback of nearly 50 feet.
Board of Adjustment 15
Case No. WA -12 -08 / Rickman
re� �
'n
The white arrow indicates the approximate location of the property line between the subject lot and the
neighbor to the west. The setback encroachment will be adjacent to the neighbor's backyard and may
be offset by the presence of mature landscaping on both properties.
Board of Adjustment 16
Case No. WA -12 -08 / Rickman
on the subject lot and the mature landscaping to the west that will help provide screening.
EXHIBIT - 5: ' LETTER OF OBJECTION
r 1 YW" 5 FxT# ,1 ' ,
4070 Field Drive
W
Lauren Mikulak
75M W. V' Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Dear Ms. Mikulak:
Thank you for providing me with the information regarding the proposed variance at 4090 Field Drive.
As we discussed on the phone, we are lodging this letter of dissent regarding the requested variance.
We purchased our home last year in this neighborhood partly because of the layout of the
neighborhood and the large variances between buildings. The proposed variance and garage addition
«« ««
to do similar additions thereby diminishing the overall appearance of the area.
variances set out for this neighborhood and preserve the beauty of the area.
Please feet free to contact me with any additional information or for further input. Thank you for your
time and attention.
Sincerely,
Carlo & Martha Spano
4070 Field Drive
Board ql',44jusunent 17
Cave ;Vo IV4- 12-08, RicAman
Lauren Milikulak
7500 W 2e Avenue
Wheat Rid . CO
The undersigned residents are opposed to the proposed variance cited above. We feet that negating the
45J
a whole and will set an unwanted precedent for similar variances in the future.
IM=
Sincerely,
I G, �-, *
4 . ,
TAHIBIT 6* LETTER OF REQUEST
MMMMM
To: Community Development Department
City of -. Ridge, CO
«
•- : Zoning Variance Request
For •t Field Drive
We are underoontract to purchase 4090 Field Drive on June 5, 2012. We are
moving from Denver and this will be our new permanent home. The home and
neighborhood are wonderful «« # # to our # and
becoming long term residents.
owners, As a condition or our purchase we are applying, in coorperation with the current
# receive a variance to increase the size of garage s
accommodate a small car collection we have owned for a number of years. To
increase the garage capacity and to maintain the architectural integrity of the
home # site, it require that encroach on « setback «
of the original home and garage and attached to this application are preliminary
drawings explaining our concept.
We took forward to working with the City and adjoining neighbors to accomplish
the variance, # intend to start the design, planning, review and building
process ## ownership.
Ir.41VI - 11BIT 7: CRITERIA RESPONSE
March 12,2012
To: Lauren Mikulak
City of Wheat Ridge
Zoning and Planning
Zoning Variance
il I'll Ildn-
Board qfAttjusiment 21
Case No, WA-12-08 Rickman
Nome-Una 05-1�= ��
MEN 112=1 luml a WiLVIIE
CASE NO: WA - 1 -08
I I IMMAkIrl
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA - -08 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 protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS the relief applied for n1a 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.
M=rzfl"
TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 7 '/2-foot variance from the 15-foot side and setback requirement for
property located at 4090 Field Drive and zoned Residential-One (R-1).
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.
111111�pp I 111��11 1111�1 111�11�111 ��!!
• I ivi�fflffl�
4. The unusual siting of the home in the western corner of the lot, reduces viable
alternatives.
6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as several
R I properties in the area have primary or accessory structures that encroach into side
yard setbacks,
7.
91
a
IM
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The design and construction of the addition be generally consistent with Exhibit 3 subject
to staff review and approval through review of a building permit.
91
1.
2. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
N
am
03
ckert,_Sr. Planner
flak, Planner I
, Recording secretary
to speak on any subject not appearing on
M An application filed by Ezara, Sauter for approval of a 2-
the 4-foot maximum fence height standard within a front yard
t fence on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 4755
Board of Adjustment Minutes - 1 — April 26, 2012
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.
Having found that the application is not in compliance with the majority of the review
criteria, staff recommended denial.
Ms. Bacii stated that safety concern is another reason they want a six-foot fence citing a
vehicle theft vehicle bre4k-ins and house burglaries in the area.
Urrusymisle to a
only way the fenced'pbrtion could be considered a side yard is if the driveway were a
public street which it is not.
Meredith Reckert stated about a year and a half ago a task force looked at certain
situations that wouldn't require a building permit including residential fences. This has
resulted in some fence height violations in certain cases as no city review is required to
verify code compliance. Board Member BANGHART commented that while this is a
good idea, the city should make planning rules clearly understandable to the citizens.
Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2 — April 26, 2012
Ms. Sauter stated that they are looking at having children in the near future and the lower
fence would be a security issue for them.
, 1 , i ��illilli�illillillill���1111111�1111111111111����111111111� 1111111111
i'l� I'I!II'IiFff@MPMM� I&
Linda Lauff
32 d Avenue, Wheat Ridge
Ms. Lauff was sworn in by Chair ABBOTT. She stated that she is a Wheat Ridge
resident with similar issues and is supportive of the applicants. Moving the fence back
would present the same view as it is now.
Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and
following resolution was stated: a I
WHEREAS, application Case No. W
administrative officer; and
WHEREAS, the property has
recognition that there was on(
a letter submitted to the City 1
not enlarged any further; and
IQ Mrs ff I
1b7_MfIMIJIFWV,
FOR THE F14
M
, all I
that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-
tIANC variance from the four-foot maximum height
fence wi a residential front yard resulting in a six-foot fence in
�n prop t y zoned Residential-Two (R-2) located at 4755 Simms St.
Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3 — April 26, 2012
1. Given the fact that the front door of
is adjacent to a private cul-de-sac, ai
of the house is the one that is facing
regulations and by the lot, it
compromise is to place a con
beyond its present location.
AWT IU_VWP_U_mLUQ_( i
would appear that the side
? 7 11 as defined by the
this confusion the
driving the neighborhood, he
)orhood. There was nothing
)-olicant's fence.
ember HEDDON commented that he was talking about the impact on people
on Simms Street between the frontage road and the dead-end where there is no
)n with the ex'ception'41he subject fence.
s
Board Member
neighborhood,',
SwI POnded that the neighborhood extends well beyond Simms
pt of the entire neighborhood.
)N agreed with Board Member BELL's definition of a
, he again expressed concern about Simms Street.
IWWWWWOOTWO, Offlin ..' — I
full length of the property. There was also confusion about what is allowed and,
therefore, after this case is decided, she suggested that steps be taken by staff to avoid
such confusion in the future. Board Member HEDDON agreed that changes need to be
made.
Board of Adjustment Minutes -4– April 26, 2012
Board Member GRIFFITH commented that the applicant performed due diligence by
contacting the City and the City thought they gave a good answer. The applicant tried to
do what was right and, due to confusion, the situation exists. Based upon the information
the applicant received, he believed the fence should stand. He was in favor of placing a
condition that the fence may not be extended.
Ii
Board Member BELL commented that an
a letter of support was received as long as
were received from the neighborhood.
WON a
TUrU1Uf_f'UJCK_01Y_U1U PrOPURY It was SL111 V
lww'*�
Board member`.
approval that a
on the Provert-v
is complaint was received, however,
is not extended. No other complaints
six-foot fence existed. Although it was
He also pointed out that a newer fence
),tiQeik" 'as it eventually 'Weathers.
to add a reason for
ted and, although placed further back
a new fence stands out more but will
initially during the
WWWM;
Ms. Mikulak
letter.
:al though one anonymous complaint was received
no letters of opposition were received.
d that 80% of residents in this neighborhood are tenants.
owners were notified of this application by certified
I
WWMA W OWWRIRM . .
set a precedent, however, a variance does go with the land.
Board of Adjustment Minutes -5— April 26, 2012
•
#• TT comifi6W staff for making a correct appraisal in
6d apprising the Board of the logic involved, The Board
Cooplusion that staff would not be able to do because of the
riiik