HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/13A .
V, City of
V Vh6atPLdge
AGENDA
July 25, 2013
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on July 25, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the
Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by
the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public In
,formation Q#icer at 303-235-2826 at
least one week in advance of meeting fyou 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.)
r�RN
11111MI 11111MR1
"V. t tol #,I% if VXM usis- I gtya a
�t�lj
�. 0301111114LNMINM
City of
Wh6atPLdge
TO:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment
MEETING DATE: July 25, 2013
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME
Lauren Mikulak
WA -13 -13 / Wilson
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a three variance requests: (A) approval of a 300 - square foot
variance from the 25% maximum building coverage, (B) a 10 -foot variance
from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement, and (C) a 12 -foot variance from
the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement for property located at 2845 Otis
Court and zoned Residential -One (R -1).
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2845 Otis Court
APPLICANT (S): Frank Wilson
OWNER (S): Frank Wilson
APPROXIMATE AREA: 13,750 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 of Adjustment
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
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 three variances:
(A) Approval of a 300 - square foot variance from the 25% maximum building coverage resulting
in 27% building coverage,
(B) Approval of a 10 -foot variance from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement, resulting in a
5 -foot setback, and
(C) Approval of a 12 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement. resulting in a
3 -foot side yard setback.
The purpose of the variances is to allow for construction of a single -car detached garage on property
located at 2845 Otis Court
Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of
Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district
development standards. Because this application includes variance requests of over 50% from the
development standards, the application is not eligible for administrative approval and is required to be
heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicant, Frank Wilson, is requesting the variance as the owner of the subject property. The
property is located at 2845 Otis Court and is zoned Residential -One (R -1). The R -I zone district is
established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low- density residential neighborhoods, and to
prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low -densi residential character. The
subject property is entirely surrounded by other lots zoned R -1
Based on the subdivision plat for the neighborhood, the parcel has an area of 13,750 square feet. The
lot currently contains a one -story single - family home, which according to Jefferson County records
was constructed in 1954. In addition to the home, the property includes a detached two -car garage and
a storage shed.
The current owner purchased the property in 2001, and is seeking to construct a second detached
garage in the northwest corner of the property to accommodate storage for additional items. These
would include a vehicle or trailer which are otherwise in the driveway and visible from the right -of-
way. The proposed garage would be 12'x 24' (288 square feet) which is considered a standard size for
a single car garage. The applicant has not yet proposed any architectural details regarding the
materials or roofline — maximum height for a detached garage would be 15 feet to the midpoint of a
gable roof or to the top of a shed roof.
Because the northern property line extends northwest at an 18 angle from the front property line, the
garage will have a 3 -foot setback at the closest point and will get increasingly farther away from the
Board of Adjustment 2
Case No. WA -13 -13 / Wilson
north lot line. It will have about an 8 -foot setback at the northwest corner. Regarding the rear setback,
the applicant has proposed the setback to be between 3 and 6 feet. A 1978 site plan indicates a 5 -foot
easement along the western property line. To align with the easement, staff recommended that the
applicant apply for a variance resulting in no less than a 5 -foot rear setback.
Although the proposed garage would be relatively close to the property lines for the R -1 zone district,
several factors reduce the impact on neighbors. An existing 6 -foot privacy fence will provide some
visual relief. Properties to the west also have vehicle storage and garage uses along the shared rear
property line —the properties at 2850 and 2860 Pierce Street both appear to have garages with
nonconforming rear setbacks that will buffer the respective back yards from the proposed garage
It may be possible to construct the new garage immediately west of the existing garage with no need
for setback variances. The applicant has expressed, however, that this option is less desirable for
several reasons. This scenario would mean the new garage door faces to the north and would result in
an acute turning angle from the existing driveway. This could be difficult to navigate, particularly with
a trailer in tow. In addition, this location would consume usable yard space and may require the
removal of at least one mature tree. It is not practical to put the proposed garage elsewhere in the
backyard or on the southern side of the property since this would require a second driveway to be
installed
There is no alternative design that will eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance since the property
is currently at the 25% maximum. In 1978, a former owner proposed a home addition and detached
garage. This included two setback variances that were approved by the Board of Adjustment to allow
reduced setbacks from the northern property line for the garage and addition (Case No. WA- 78 -35).
Since the construction of the addition and the garage in the 1970s, building coverage on the lot has
been the maximum 25 %. Any new improvements regardless of size require a lot coverage variance.
The following table compares the required R -1 development standards with the actual and proposed
conditions:
R -1 Development Standards:
Required
Actual
Lot Area
12,500 square feet min
13,750 square feet
Lot Width
100 feet min
90 feet
Proposed Detached Garage
Required
Proposed
Building Coverage
25% max
27%
Side Setback north
15 feet min
5 feet
Rear Setback west
15 feet min
3 feet
Front Setback east
30 feet (min)
±90 feet
The 15 -day notification period for the public hearing is currently in progress. As of July 16, 2013 no
objections or inquiries have been received.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -13 -13 / Wilson
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 a licant has rovided an analysis of the application's compliance with the
variance criteria . Staff provides the following review and analysis.
For the purpose of this analysis, the first set of criteria address the two setback variances and the
second set address the building coverage variance.
Request A: Request for approval of a 300 - square foot variance to allow 27% building coverage in R -1 .
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 single - 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.
In 2009, the City reviewed and amended residential development standards. The Residential -
One (R -1) zone district is the only district with a maximum lot coverage as low as 25 %. This
standard is central to regulating the density and intensity of development in this large -lot zone
district. Staff is sensitive to the fact that the lot coverage standard was deliberately left
unchanged in 2009 at 25 %.
That said, a building coverage variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The
maximum building coverage in the R -I zone district is 25 %; this translates to 3437.5 square
feet on the subject property. Proposed lot coverage is 27% or 3727 square feet which will
likely be imperceptible.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which would not be
possible without the variance. Building coverage on the property is currently at 25% so no
additional structures of any type — including the proposed garage —can be built without a
variance.
Staff finds this criterion has been met
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
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 relates to the shape of the lot. As mentioned
above, the northern lot line is slanted resulting in a lot width of 90 feet at Otis Court and 130
feet at the rear lot line.
The triangular area that results from the slanted northern lot line results in a lot that meets R -I
lot size standards, but it doesn't provide significantly more useable square footage. If the
northern and western lot lines were perpendicular, the site would be a regular rectangular shape
with a lot area that may not require a building coverage variance.
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 difficulty relates to the shape and size of the property with respect to existing
improvements. It was a previous property owner that built out the lot to the maximum 25%
building coverage. For this reason and because the current owner did not plat the lot, the
difficulties have not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located,
by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or
impairing property values within the neighborhood.
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result
of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. It would not cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets, nor would it impede the sight distance triangle. The portion
of the garage within 5 feet of the northern property line will need to be fire rated, so it will not
increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The garage
may in fact have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered storage of large
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the public 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.
Because Otis Court and Newland Court were constructed as a looped road, there are six lots in
the neighborhood with unusual shapes and irregular lot lines. It does not appear, however, that
any of these lots have been built out to the maximum 25% building coverage.
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
Request B: Request for approval of a 10 -foot (66 %) variance from the 15 -foot rear setback
requirement for a detached structure in R -1.
Request C: Request for approval of a 12 -foot (80 %) variance from the 15 -foot side setback
requirement for a detached structure in R -1.
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 single - family residence, regardless of the outcome of
the variance request.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
Board ojAdjustment
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. While the proposed setbacks are
narrow especially for the R -1 zone district, the impacts to neighbors is expected to be minimal.
As described above, adjacent properties also have detached garages with reduced setbacks
along the shared rear property line.
The proposed structure will not be very visible from Otis Court, but may improve the character
of the street by allowing enclosed storage of large items that are currently stored on the side of
the property and visible from the public right -of -way.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which would not be
possible without the variance. The existing home has no basement, and the existing garage is
just large enough for two cars with minimal additional storage (23.5' x 24'). It is typical for the
contemporary homeowner to desire storage space and off - street covered parking, so the
proposed structure may serve these needs and add value to the property.
As documented in the summary above, alternative locations for the garage are less desirable. A
structure on the west side of the existing garage would eliminate useable yard space, may
require the removal of mature trees, and may be more difficult to navigate into. In this scenario
the triangular area in the northwest corner of the lot would continue to be underutilized.
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 relates to the shape of the lot. The northern lot
line is slanted resulting in a lot width of 90 feet at Otis Court and 130 feet at the rear lot line.
The angled lot line results in a triangular area that helps the property to meet R -I lot size
standards but ultimately results in an unusually shaped lot with an underutilized northwest
corner. Because the structures on the site are all parallel with Otis Street and not with the
northern property line, it is especially difficult to meet the 15 -foot side setback along the
northern property line and maintain adequate separation from existing structures.
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.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
The alleged difficulty relates to the location of the proposed garage with respect to the existing
structures and R -I setback requirements. Because the current owner neither platted the lot, nor
constructed the existing home and garage in their current locations, the difficulties have not
been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located,
by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or
impairing property values within the neighborhood.
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result
of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. It would not cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets, nor would it impede the sight distance triangle. The portion
of the garage within 5 feet of the northern property line will need to be fire rated, so it will not
increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The garage
may in fact have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered storage of large
items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the public 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.
Because Otis Court and Newland Court were constructed as a looped road, there are six lots in
the neighborhood with unusual shapes and irregular lot lines. The subject lot is among the
smallest of these sites, so it is particularly constrained.
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
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -/3 -13 /Wilson
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Mattual.
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling
units.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REQUEST A:
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 300 - square foot variance from the 25% maximum building coverage requirement to
allow 27% building coverage. 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 building coverage variance is not expected to 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 unusual shape of the lot results in a unique physical hardship.
4. A previous property owner built out the lot to the maximum building coverage, so the alleged
hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
With the following conditions:
1. The location of the garage be consistent with Exhibit 1 subject to staff approval through review
of a building permit.
2. The architecture and design of the garage be consistent with the scale, massing, and roof pitch
of the home and existing two -car garage, subject to staff approval through review of a building
permit.
REQUESTS B and C:
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 10 -foot rear setback variance and 12 -foot side setback variance. 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 setback variances are not expected to 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 angled north lot line results in an unusual lot shape and an underutilized northwest corner
of the property.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
With the following conditions:
1. The location of the garage be consistent with Exhibit 1 subject to staff approval through review
of a building permit.
2. The architecture and design of the garage be consistent with the scale, massing, and roof pitch
of the home and existing two -car garage, subject to staff approval through review of a building
permit.
3. Any portion of the garage within the 5 -foot setback will need to meet building code
requirements related to fire- resistant construction.
Board of Adjustment 10
Case No. WA -13 -13 / Wilson
EXHIBIT 1: SITE PLAN
3 -foot side setback
d
5 -foot
rear setback BRICK
r' GARAGE
in
M
N N
SGA LE 1 ZO
CaUC 4F �`` 0 y
VIE 9
i N ✓ CON C. ' �J
2-4
I
r Y
W M-
I W
(Y �
I V 4
l 2
• LOT 8 3
is
S
0
�S M EI :S F-D
I2S'
33 °
aN
• N
4 r �
0 m 34 I
I
I3q
I7
13 N g3 3' °-
3
V O
Q" Q
tj1 v
N
Board ofAdjustrment
Case Ago. WA-13-13/ Wilson
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
ON,
ph ,
Board of Adjustment 12
Case No. WA -13 -13 / Wilson
The subject property is outlined in blue and is zoned Residential -One (R -1). The surrounding
properties are also zoned R -1; to the northwest and west are parcels zoned R -2.
EXHIBIT 3: AERIAL
A
Board of Adjusbnenl 3
Case ;Vo. 11:4 -13 -13 - Wilson
The subject property at 2845 Otis Court is outline in blue in the image below.
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS
View of 2845 Otis Court looking west; the location of the proposed garage behind the
existing garage is indicated by the white arrow. It would be minimally visible from the street. (The
gray roof in the background is associated with a garage on the property to the west.)
Board of Adjustment 14
Case No. WA -13 -13 / Wilson
Another view looking west at the existing garage. The applicant has not proviaea eievauons or aesign
details, but staff is recommending a condition of approval that the proposed be garage be consistent
with the scale, massing, and roof pitch of the existing home and garage to ensure compatability with
the area.
View from the backyard, looking north from behind the existing garage. The proposed location for the
garage is where the two trailers are located. The less desirable alternate location is in the foreground
behind the existing garage, but this would likely require removal of the mature tree (left).
View from the backyard, looking west at the rear property line. The proposed location would consume
an otherwise underutilized corner of the property. This image also shows the proximity of a
neighbor's garage (behind the fence) which also has a reduced setback.
Board of Adjustment 15
Case No. WA -13 -13 / Wilson
EXHIBIT 5: CRITERIA RESPONSE
Lauren Mikulak, here is my brief Narrative. I would like to build a single car garage on my property at
2845 Otis Court. Why, I want to park a vehicle in it!
Answers, for Variance Criteria for Review.
A. It would yield a reasonable return, if we were to sell. We own our home and have no intention
of leaving. Just want a third bay to park a vehicle.
B. Correct, this part of our backyard is vacant and void of any landscaping/grass. It would be the
only place I could drive another vehicle into a garage.
C. Correct, we cannot add a third bay to park a vehicle anywhere else on the property
D. See Attached ILC (Improvement location certificate). We have a diagonal property Line on the
north side of our property. I would be the only place we can add a garage and Drive a vehicle
Into Itl
E. The Two Car garage existed when we moved in. Now we want 3!!
F. No, this garage would be setback from our existing garage. (No effect on public streets.) It
would have no effect on our neighbors. As a matter of fact our neighbor to the northwest has a
garage approximately 8' from my property line and our neighbor to the west has a garage
approximately 8' from our property line. From the street people driving by would now see a
beautiful home with three garage doors (maybe) vs. two. In my opinion it would increase
property valuel
G. Not Sure, I have a 90' property line in front of my home and a 130' property line in the rear.
Only place I have room to build a single car garage (that I can drive into)
Regards,
Frank Wilson
2845 Otis Court
Wheat Ridge, CO 80214
303 - 506 -1800
Board of Adjusthnent 16
Case No. IVA -13 -13 ff Olson
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE)
CASE NO: WA -13 -13 (Request A)
APPLICANT NAME: Frank Wilson
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2845 Otis Court
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -13 -13 (Request A) 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 / were no] protests registered against it; 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; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-
13-13 (Request A) be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 300 - square foot variance to allow 27%
building coverage in R -1 for the construction of a detached garage.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The building coverage variance is not expected to 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 unusual shape of the lot results in a unique physical hardship.
4. A previous property owner built out the lot to the maximum building coverage, so the
alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to Public welfare.
6.
7.
8.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The location of the garage be consistent with Exhibit I subject to staff review and
approval through review of a building permit.
2. The architecture and design of the garage be consistent with scale, massing, and roof
pitch of the home and existing two -car garage, subject to staff review and approval
through review of a building permit.
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE)
CASE NO: WA -13 -13 (Requests B & Q
APPLICANT NAME: Frank Wilson
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2845 Otis Court
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -13 -13 (Requests B & Q were not eligible for
administrative review; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that
there [were / were no] protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS the relief applied for may 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; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-
13 -13 (Requests B & Q be, and hereby are, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 10 -foot variance from the 15-foot rear setback
requirement and a 12 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side setback requirement for a detached
garage in R -1.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The setback variances are not expected to 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 angled north lot line results in an unusual lot shape and an underutilized northwest
corner of the property.
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in
the property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
R
7.
8.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The location of the garage be consistent with Exhibit 1 subject to staff review and
approval through review of a building permit.
2. The architecture and design of the garage be consistent with scale, massing, and roof
pitch of the home and existing two -car garage, subject to staff review and approval
through review of a building permit.
3. Any portion of the garage within the 5 -foot setback will need to meet building code
requirements related to fire- resistant construction.
4 1
Cit of
Wh6a tPad g e
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: July 25, 2013
CASE MANAGER: Wade Sanner
CASE NO. & NAME: WA -13 -11 /Jones
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 1 foot variance from the 5 -foot side yard setback requirement
to legitimize an existing garage on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2)
and located at 8220 W. 40' Ave.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8220 W. 40' Ave.
APPLICANT (S):
OWNER (S):
APPROXIMATE AREA
Garrett Jones
Garrett Jones
14,334 square feet (0.33 acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Two (R -2)
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- 13- 1118220 W. 40th
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 1 -foot (20 %) side yard setback variance from the required
5 -foot side yard setback requirement. The purpose of this variance is to legitimize an existing
detached garage located at 8220 W. 40' Ave. (Exhibit 1, Aerial) the garage structure was not
constructed by the current property owner, and was built without the required building permits and
inspections.
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.
Upon receiving public objections within the 10 -day posting period, the Board of Adjustments is
empowered to hear and decide upon the variance requests at a public hearing. During the 10 -day
posting period staff received 3 objections from adjacent property owners. The case of WA- 13 -11, a
1 -foot side yard variance at 8220 W. 40` Ave., was the turned over to the Board of Adjustments for
final determination of a decision.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicant, Garrett Jones, is requesting a variance as the property owner of 8220 W. 40 Ave. The
variance is being requested to legitimize an existing garage already on site built by the previous property
owner.
The parcel has an area of 14,334 square feet and currently contains a single - family home and detached
garage. The detached garage is approximately 865 square feet in size. The property is zoned
Residential -Two (R -2), a zoning district which provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable moderate -
density residential neighborhoods.
The current land use on the property is a single- family residential home, which is permitted use in the R-
2 zone district. Properties directly adjacent and across 40 Ave are all zoned R -2 (Exhibit 2, Zoning).
Table below outlines the Residential -Two District (R -2) development standards as they apply to detached
garages. The existing structure meets all standards except minimum setback:
Board of Adjustment 2
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
Maximum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Type
Maximum
Building
Minimum
Minimum
Front
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Height
Coverage
Lot Area
Lot Width
Yard
Setback
Setback
Setback
Accessory
15'
1,000 sf
N/A
N/A
25'
S'
5' if <_ in
Building
per unit
height; 10'
if > 10' in
height
Board of Adjustment 2
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
(Sec. 26- 209.13)
The current land use on the property is a single - family residential home, which is a permitted use in the
R -2 zone district. Properties directly adjacent and across W. 40` Ave are all zoned R -2 (Exhibit 2,
Zoning.
The current property owner, Mr. Jones, purchased the property in April 2013 from a public trustee due to
the previous owner being foreclosed upon. Unbeknownst to Mr. Jones, there were a number of code
violations existing on the property, which had been incurred by a previous property owner.
The current property owner began the process of renovating the home in an effort to put the property
back on the market to sell. To begin the process of renovating the home, the property owner contacted
the Chief Building Official with the city of Wheat Ridge to issue a building permit for renovations, and
to ensure that everything in the home was up to code. Staff, in an effort to issue a permit for the building,
required a walk through inspection to ensure the property was in compliance.
Through the course of the inspection, staff discovered the detached garage was in violation of the city's
setback requirement. Staff requested that an ILC be prepared to ensure setback requirements were
properly met. The ILC revealed that the detached garage was +/- 1 -foot inside the setback requirement
(Exhibit 3, ILC).
The exact date of the garage construction is unknown; it appears to have been built between July of 2007
and March of 2008 by a former owner. However based on aerial photos, the garage was constructed after
the original home, which was built in 1999, and matches the style and character of the home. No
building permit was issued by the city to construct the garage. In an effort to legitimize the location of
the existing structure the current property owner has applied for a 1 -foot variance to ensure the building
is meeting city code, and be able to sell the property.
If a variance is not granted, the only option the current property owner has is to demolish the
garage. A modification of the structure to bring it within the required 5 -foot setback would be cost
prohibitive due to shifting of the load bearing walls which would not be supported by the current
foundation. It would cost more to modify the structure than to simply demolish it and rebuild
according to city codes. If a variance is approved by the board, a retroactive building permit would
be issued to address any building code violations. The portion of the building within the 5 -foot
setback would need to meet codes related to fire resistant construction.
Public Notice Responses
During the 10 -day public posting period 3 adjacent property owners contacted the city in regards to the
detached garage (Exhibit 4, Public Comments). Written comments received are attached:
Adjacent Property Owner 1: The property owner at 3939 Brentwood St. (property to the south) owner
contacted the city via phone to express concerns about a number of issues with the subject property
besides the variance request. The property owner had questions about other improvements on the site but
did not object to the garage setback variance.
Adjacent Property Owner 2: The property owner at 3950 Carr St. (property to the west) contacted
the city via post mail and raised a number of objections to the variance:
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA -13 -11 1Jones
1. The garage setback appears to be less than 4 -feet from the adjacent property line.
2. The overall height of the structure.
3. The height and location of the pergola in the southeast corner of the property.
4. Request for the entire property to be inspected to ensure it meets current building codes.
Adjacent Property Owner 3: The property owner at 8210 W. 40`" Ave. (property to the east)
contacted the city via post mail and raised a number of objections to the variance. The property
owner opposes the granting of the variance and raised a number of objections:
1. The garage was built without a permit.
2. The garage is on top of the city's 5 -foot drainage easement.
3. The garage location is less than 5 -feet from the primary structure.
4. The garage was built on a thickened slab, no foundation, and the thickened slab is exposed
on the east side.
5. There are no gutters on the garage.
6. The second structure attached to the garage has venting and an underground gas line in the
easement and is not code compliant.
7. The location of a pergola in the southeast corner of the property is attached to a 6 -foot fence.
8. The variance is for only one foot, when the structure, according to the property owner, is 3
'/z feet from the fence.
The Chief Building Officer (Exhibit 5, Staff Comments) addressed these concerns via email.
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 (Exhibit 7, Letter of Request). 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.
The property in question would yield a reasonable return in use. If the accessory structure
were not present the primary structure would still continue to operate as a single- family
home with covered parking.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The existing detached garage fits the character and design of the current home with similar
material selection and roof pitch. The detached garage does not detract from the overall
nature and character of the neighborhood.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
4
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this
application, which would not be possible without the variance.
The existing detached garage represents a substantial investment in the property. If the
request were denied, the accessory structure would be demolished as it is not in compliance
with current setback requirements.
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 size and shape of the property are not irregular; the topography is not unique to specify
a particular and unique hardship for the property owner.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having
an interest in the property.
The hardship described above is due to the actions of the previous property owner who
constructed the garage in its current location without a building permit. Because the current
owner has little control over these elements, the hardship was not created by the applicant or
any person currently having an interest in the property. The applicant has tried to mitigate
the noncompliance with the property by contacting the various city departments to bring the
property into compliance. This hardship imposed is based largely on the previous property
owner building the detached garage without a proper pen
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing
the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in
public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or
substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood.
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and is not expected to injure
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of
the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a
result of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an
obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets.
Board ofAdjustnment
Case No. JVA -13 -11 /Jones
Staff has addressed concerns with fire danger by requiring upon granting of the setback
variance that the current property owner install a fire retardant wall on the east side of the
detached garage closest to the adjacent property.
it is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood.
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 unusual circumstance and conditions necessitating the variance request are unique to the
property due to the previous property owner constructing the garage without a building
permit.
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.
Accessory structures 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 - family dwelling units.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff
recommends APPROVAL of a 1 -foot variance from the 5 -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 garage represents a substantial investment in the property.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property. The garage was illegally constructed by a former owner.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -13 -1 Wones
5. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as several R -2
properties in the area have primary or accessory structures.
With the following conditions:
1. Upon granting of variance request, the property owner will comply with the Notice and
Order of Repair issued by the City of Wheat Ridge Building Division and obtains all
necessary building permits and inspections.
2. Property owner will comply with accompanying building permits issued by the City of
Wheat Ridge Building Division.
If the board chooses to deny the setback variance, the building will need to be removed from the
property.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones 7
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
M,
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. IVA -13 -11 /Jones
EXHIBIT 3: ILC
COLORADO ENGINEERING & NO. 2013 -145
SURVEYING, INC. JDI INVESTMENTS
Surveying Colorado Since 1972
www.copis.com
4750 South Santa Fe Circle p18, Englewood, Colorado 80110
SCALE 1' - 25' PHONE: (303) 761 -8055 FAX: (303) 761 -0841
FOUND FIN
0'
WEST 40TH AVENUE (40' R.O.W.)
ASPHALT ROADWAY
100'
CONCRETE
PORCH 13 •' ��,
7.2'
15 3 ^
TWO STORY
BRICK h FRAME
RESIDENCE
OB220
LOT I DECK
HOT
TUB
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
Of FENCE
oN .
DRIVE W'AY
Subject
Garage
r
2�2 _ AT
FRAME
GARAGE
230' ^0
LOT 2 spcc
/ voa 1 1
��7E �pOJND P!?Ot
AP PPDXIMATE LOCATION
OF FENCE
100'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 2, TEGELER SUBDIVISION,
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO
ALSO KNOWN AS: 8220 WEST 40TH AVENUE
a ..�. , .tea ••,•. _ JD` INVESTMENT
t 4�of a Imo Y ab1 >^P^.tr^�'I �+Y.Y pbt K 4 no, n ,W« Wm b w- of /roes WOnp v aO1tr Na YrOrOwnwl M
1 b11
I M u.t d....p.e..n,�.r. m a• m.r. ova on u� • DUNE 4, 7013
s br� v • � W C••c.4•e Pw.r n1 • ...Per.,v. • m mr Wp`M Ptr^r«. «nil rJaa1•a. sW Ma1 Nan b
awr,wl eraa•K,q e,revv.p mY P>1 er ps •+ m
I A.W a•r>EA m.1 a.• eo..aueti or \npo.,nwla ntra, on w a. r.,wan nr ,., u w a,. tract eti 11.01 ab \•o.n.,1 w
Rat. srX r r►M 10 nacvradr Ina a .lea.o..�1 .�ra.o...w�� s +r Prr .wa awo.a �.w�« •o .s..n1r s rv«�ealm ma a.`
N .I,o.n w0 Ma1.! m M4 tro.>,0 « X ro morwmml. w• IwnO al M• •ubKt ooprtY 1N• appartr,l u•0G iw O 2013
\a.a1 upm m marik cor.IOUen e.e.w annwalla^ wr w wH ...a.o...,.,1. lovaK \ o1.a1.)..s�l nTl -or -ws nn«..I�. ��EMa� w \ StiR.(
M \riOrM^.^I Sw «> Ra nwr Y�< ON�.n< rwrb C /
4mtG t - O �i
tTr rAVr�.011m to [.alPadn \ 3„r« ro Va• r.vcn m,tr.c1•a b CEs
N XNw1l I b OaaG ih« m! MN,aa Ra,� Ma MO Hal Waa. Mn�r iwta0 me atatW D
Tbr MYa� 4 PvNCIN Al Tnb bwlna rol M ,.a•J « fir N. drnt P ow
Mt 1. ANY aPa00• . um m.t .nle� K.• s....v .0. vw.a rn. ♦..no. n+ am .rm,a.a �1« v, .'„n.n,t..a u JUNE 5. 2013� rT NE1RRE1NT1
.+ratrsy�., 0wX ro erOMUSn unanw b M 00,>e^ wlln, w.a o.ar
m>
Board of Adjustment 10
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
EXHIBIT 4: PUBLIC COMMENTS
City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission "tq
Case Number WA -13 -11
Julyl, 2013
To Whom It May Concern:
1 would like to register my opposition to granting a variance to legitimize an existing garage located at
8220 W. 40th Avenue. The garage appears to less than 4 feet from the property line and is fairly high
such that it looms above the neighboring property. The house already has an attached garage and the
structure in question is an extra garage and not essential to the home. Although the additional garage
was a definite eyesore, at the time I assumed that the owners who built the extra garage had obtained
the necessary permits and built it according to Wheat Ridge code but apparently that was not the case.
I believe that this extra (and unnecessary) garage should be taken down so that the neighbors will have
their property rights restored. In addition, the property in question will be more attractive if it is not
made up of buildings from property line to property line.
Further, there is a wooden structure near the pool that is right next to the east side fence and is very
tall. I would ask that the city inspect that structure to see if it was built to code. It is an eyesore from a
distance all around as it sticks up above the surroundings. If it is not in accordance with law I would ask
that it be removed as well. Given the fact that the former owners built many things on the property
after they moved in, I would ask that the City inspect the entire property to see if the pool, deck, hot tub
and any other structures are within the law. I would also ask that any gas or water lines be inspected to
ensure that there is no hazard to the neighboring homes. It is not just a property line setback that is at
stake, but the safety of the neighboring properties as well.
My understanding is that the former owners were foreclosed upon and the home is now owned by a
speculator who is trying to flip the house. When such a speculator buys a property they also buy the
problems with the home. This is a problem that should be fixed before the home is resold. I respectfully
object to the variance and ask that the illegally built structure be taken down before the home may be
resold. I thank the City for pointing out this situation to the neighbors.
Sincerely,
Marilyn A. Domenick
3950 Carr Street
� i - :- L - •a
To: The City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission
Re: Case Number WA -13 -1 1
To Whom it may Concern,
would like to submit my objection to the variance at 8220 W 40` Avenue for the
following reasons,
I . The garage was built without a permit.
2. The structure is on top of the Cities Five foot Drainage Easement. There is a
storm sewer pipe that runs from the Brentwood Cul -de -sac through this property
to 41 Avenue. If you stand on the manhole in 41 Avenue the structure appears
to be very close to the storm drain. I would think your Public Works Department
would be concerned about this. I know 1 am.
3. The garage is less than five feet from the main house. It has neither fire proof
plywood on the exterior nor the required 5/8" drywall on the interior walls that is
required by code for fire protection. I would think the Fire department would be
concerned.
4. The garage is built on a thickened slab, no foundation, and the thickened slab is
exposed on the east side because the structure is about two feet higher than the
existing ground on my property.
5. There are no gutters on the garage.
6. There is a second structure attached to the garage that has venting in the roof and
an underground gas line which is also in the drainage easement and possibly
under the structure and not to code. I would think Public Service would be
concerned about this. 1 have no idea what this building is used for but it appears to
be the mechanical room for the pool. It is shown on the 1LC as a Shed. It was also
built without a permit.
7. There is a pergola at the southeast corner of the property attached to the six foot
fence. It is about ten feet high and right on the property line.
8. The variance is for one foot. The structure is 3 -1/2 feet from my chain link fence
that has been in place for more than twenty years and 1 believe is on my property.
The ILC says it's +/- 4 feet from the property line.
1 first reported this to the Wheat Ridge Building Department in February. The property
had gone in to foreclosure and a realtor informed me about the violations and didn't think
it could have been built with a permit. 1 went to the counter and asked if there was a
permit issued for the garage. I was told there was not. I informed the employee at the
counter about the setback violation and that the garage was too close to the house. Her
response was "Why didn't you tell us before ?"
Board of Adjustment 1
Case No. WA -13 -11 1Jones
After not hearing anything for several weeks 1 called and spoke to the same employee
and was informed that someone drove by and the garage had been there for several years
and there was nothing they could do. The next week there were people over at the house
remodeling. There was a dumpster in the driveway and electrical and plumbing vans and
lots of materials being taken in to the house. I called the City again. No permit. When still
nothing was being done, 1 called Joyce Jay, my council representative and explained the
situation to her. She was able to contact the Chief Building inspector. His initial response
was it appeared that the roof overhang was about 4-1/2 feet from the property line and the
structure was probably five feet away.
All this makes me wonder if anyone from the City had actually been on the property.
The last thing I heard from Joyce Jay was that there was an Improvement Location
Certificate done on the property and that the garage was shown to be four feet from the
property line and they were told to stop work until this was resolved. The ILC also shows
the second building as a "shed ". It has a gas line connected to it which is not to code. I
believe if Public Service saw the way it was done they would be concerned and so am 1.
There were still people working on the house as late as today.
It's hard for me to believe that the City would even consider granting a Variance for this
garage considering all these facts.
Si
� G,
�—
J n P. McGuire
8210 W. 40'" Avenue
Enclosures;
2 pages of photos
Copy of the easement
Cc;
Joyce Jay
Wheat Ridge City Council
Jerry DiTullio
Mayor
Ken Johnstone
City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Planning
City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Public Works
Wheat Ridge Fire Chief
Board ofAdjustment 13
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
Note: The following images were included with the letter from Mr. McGuire.
I
Board of Adjustment 14
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
GARAGE FROM MY PROPERTY
EXPOSED SLAB
I
Board of Adjustment 14
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
GARAGE FROM MY PROPERTY
VAS LINE
C:4220W 40th\vvieme kttcc.dc x
Board of Adjustment 15
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
Submittal by Mr. McGuire in regards to the drainage easement on the east of 8220 W. 40' Ave.
kl
RECEPTION 00. 811076051 OCI project No. PM83 -10 stcvr
11/00/83 1145 Location s. Brentwood
RECORDED LN
COUNly OF JEFFERSON _
S W E OF COLORADO
•230KAMZWT EAMEREYT
W KMW ALL HEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Grace I. Davies
W
V. j
> y 1255 Olive Street Denver, Colorado of
►-�� Denver County,State of Colorado,
W _ hereinafter called the [,idlS grantor for and in consideration
of the sun of Tim DO (10.00 and other valuable
consideration to her in hand paid by the city of
9 L Wheat Ridge, heretna ter cal ed 'City' gzantses', receipt
y of which is hereby acknowledged, has given and granted and
by these presents does hereby give and grant unto the said
4 grantees, their heirs, successors or assigns a PERPETUAL
n EASEKE on, along, over and across the following described
premises, to -wit;
The Last five feet of a tract of land recorded in Book 721
pages 518 -520 at Jefferson County as Lot 2. Tegeler
Subdivision, said lot being in the Southwest one- quarter of
the Southwest one- quarter of Section 23, Township 3 South,
Range 69 West.
for the purpose of a drainage way for storm water runoff.
Subject to the following terms and conditions:
And the Grantor(s) hereby convenant(s) with the Grantees
that it has good title to the aforedescribed pre,misea; that
it has good and lawful right to grant this easement; that it
will warrant and defend the title and quiet possession
thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, (I) 916 ha I,& hereunto set fi ✓
hands( this / /T` flay of c A.D., 1983. - �'
Grantor
Grantor
STATE OF Cp(-uX^Do )
) 66.
..........,County of .pgnVa )
A "-
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
c `-�. nTf�• ;� T day of A.D. , 1983, by
tnsss my nana and OttIcIal Bea
Hy commission expires my Commission Espies ttLtuary 6. 1966
L. Awe.
80220
Notary Public
Board of'Adjustment 10
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
Board of Adjustment 17
Case No. FVA -13 -11 /Jones
EXHIBIT 5: STAFF COMMENTS
Note: The Chief Building Officer provided responses to the concerns expressed by Mr. McGuire. It
should be noted that item 2 has subsequently been addressed. There is an easement /storm sewer in
this location, so the insurance risk leaving the structure in its current location.
Wade Sanner
From:
John Schumacher
Sent:
Friday, June 28, 2013 2:57 PM
To:
Wade Sanner
Subject:
RE: Message from KMBT- C652DS
Wade,
In response to Mr. McGuire's objections the Building Division submits the following:
The Building Division investigated a complaint from Mr. McGuire at the end of May and posted a Stop Work order at
that time. A meeting was conducted on May 30" with the owner to address the reported violations and other identified
code deficiencies. At that time and ILC was requested from the owner to determine the location of the garage in relation
to the property line and the required setback distance. An ILC was received and reviewed by the Building Division on
June 10, at which time the owner, Garrett Jones, was advised to contact the Planning Division concerning the setback
violation. Subsequent on -site meetings have been conducted by the Building Division to determine the scope of the
other violations and a list of those violations has been formulated and forwarded to the owner and prospective buyer. A
building permit was issued yesterday to the owner and his contractor, A -Shed, to allow work on an extensive list of
interior and exterior violations.
Concerning Mr. McGuire's list of objections:
1. This item has been acknowledged and rectified, with action(s) to be taken pending the results of the variance
process. The garage was not constructed by the current owner, but an owner prior to the home going into
foreclosure.
2. A Public Works review of the structure should be requested and included in the information submitted for
consideration of the variance.
3. The code required separation of the garage and residence is 3 feet, not 5 feet, with which the garage is
compliant.
4. The garage is permitted by applicable codes to be constructed on a thickened edge slab.
5. Gutters are not required by code.
6. A mechanical room for the pool was indicated in the documents submitted for the pool permit. The structure is
indicated as a shed less than 120 square feet in floor area, exempting it from building permit requirements.
7. The pergola is less than 120 square feet in floor area thus exempting it from building permit requirements.
8. The current owner of 8220 W. 40" Avenue obtained an ILC indicating that the garage is 4 feet plus or minus
from the property line, indicating the possibility that Mr. McGuire's fence is actually constructed on the
property at 8220 W. 40 Avenue.
The Building Division is working with the current owner, Garrett Jones, to rectify all other identified code deficiencies
with the main structure and will also work with him to identify and correct any code deficiencies with the garage
pending the outcome of the variance process. Please let me know if there are additional questions or additional
information is required.
John C. Schumacher, Jr., CBO
Chief Building Official
Office Phone: 303 - 235 -2853
Board grAdiustnrent 18
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
EXHIBIT 6: SITE IMAGES
lv~. -11A. JN *,
I *N
This image shows the existing 4 -foot side
yard setback in relation to the abutting
property to the east.
EK , 1%" W
Image of 8220 W. 40 Ave looking south courtesy of Google Earth. Image
illustrates that the garage matches architectural structure of the existing
single family home.
CA ,
Board ofAdjustment q
Case No. WA -13 -11 /Jones
EXHIBIT 7: LETTER OF REQUEST
6/17/13
To Whom It May Concern:
I purchased 8220 W. 40 ave, Wheatridge CO 80033 from the public trustee on 4/26/13.
The property was vacant and had been foreclosed on. The property is relatively new but
need some minor fix up. 1 began to fix it up, painting the interior, carpeting the home,
refinishing the hardwood floors and upgrading the kitchen cabinets and granite. 1
received a phone call from John Shumacher -chief building official wanting to schedule
an appointment to walk the home with me. He said a neighbor had called wondering if
one the garages of the home was built with permission. I met with John and he asked me
to order an ILC(enclosed) to verify set back requirements. The ILC reveals that the
garage is +/- 1 foot inside the setback requirement and John advised me to apply for a
variance which I am now doing. The garage that the original owner built matches exactly
the original home and appears to have been built the same time or shortly after the home
was finished originally. It has the same roof product, paint, trim, etc. The garage does
not impact in any way, views, public welfare or the ability for any neighboring properties
to fully develop. Please consider the variance as I have no idea how to possibly meet the
set back requirement.
Thank you,
Garrett Jones
Board QfAdjustment 20
Case No. WA -13 -1 Wones
(CRS §38.3 8-502)
Public Trustee's Foreclosure Sale No. .11202466
THIS DEED is made April 26, 2013 between Margaret T. Chapman as the public Trustee in and for the County of
Jefferson. State of Colorado, grantor and Cardinal Valley, LLC, grantee, the holder of the certificate of purchase whose legal
address is 1 .698 S. Federal Blvd., Denver, CO 80219. y
1111EREA.S, the Grantor(s) described below did convey to the'public trustee, in trust, the property hereinafter described
to secure the payment of the indebtedness provided in said deed of trust:
OnQinal Grantor(s)
Onginal Benefrciary(ies)
Current Holder of Evidence of Debt
Date of feed of Trutt
County of Recording
Recording Date of Deed of Trust
Recording Information (Reception Number)
Danean R Burke, and James M Burke
Mortgage Electronic Registrati on Systems, Inc., as nominee for
Amends Wholesale Lender
Bank of America, N.A.
March 31, 2004
Jefferson
April 22, 2004
1 16) 2
WHEREAS, a violation was made in certain of the terms and covenants of said deed of trust as shown by the notice of
election and demand for sale filed with the Public Trustee; the said property was advertised for public sale at the place and in
the manner provided by law and by said deed of trust; combined notice of sale and fight to cure and redeem was given as
required by law; said property was sold according to said combined notice; and a certificate of purchase thereof was made
and recorded in the office of said county Clerk and Recorder, and
WHEREAS. all periods of redemption have expired. t"
NOW. THEREFORE, the Public Trustee, pursuant to the power and authority vested by law and by the said deed of
trust, confirms the foreclosure sale and sells and conveys to grantee the following described property located in the County
of Jefferson, State of Colorado, to wit:
LOT 2, TEGELER SUBDIVISION. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS CORRECTED BY A SCRIVENER'S ERROR AFFIDAVIT RECORDED ON
APRIL 06,2012 AT RECEPTION NO, 2012036619 IN THE RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY,
COLORADO.
Also known by street and number as 8220 West 401h Avenue, Wheatridge, CO 80033
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS ALL OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY ENCUMBERED BY THE
LIEN OF THE DEED OF TRUST.
If applicable, a description of any changes to the deed of trust described in the notice of election and demand pursuant to
affidavit as allowed by statutes: THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS CORRECTED BY A SCRIVENER'S ERROR
AFFIDAVIT
RECORDED ON APRIL 06, 2012 AT RECEPTION NO. 2012036619 IN THE RECORDS OF
JEFFERSON COt?l`'TY, COLORADO.
To have and to hold the same, with all appurtenances, forever.
Executed on: April 26, 2013 ;
Margaret T Chapman, Public Trustee in and for the County of Jefferson State of . �*yC TRU
Cvl SS
�J f�
tr r
� D
0
v
By: Desiree Peterson, Deputy, for Public Trustee �h�bUN1"I �o
When Recorded Return to Jefferson County Public Trustee
Board ofAdjustnrent 21
Case No. WA -13 -11 1Jones
EXHIBIT 8: BUILDING DIVISION CONDITIONS
Note: The following in the notice and order o1 repair issued ny me c.iiy s DU11Utitg "tvt3trat t.
stipulations required upon granting of'the building permit for 8220 W. 40 Ave.
., 1
City of I
W heat Idge
COMMUN1Ty DEVELOPMENT
City of Vrheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 " Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.2351855 F: 303.237.8929
NOTICE AND ORDER OF REPAIR
We, the undersigned parties, do hereby acknowledge the existence of the following list of items identified as code deficient
during an on -site inspection conducted on June 25, 2013 at 8220 W. 40'" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033. We further
acknowledge that we have been made aware that the structure(s) is currently under a Notice and Order of Repair issued by the
City of Wheat Ridge Building Division through this document and that transference of ownership of the property cannot occur
without transference of responsibility for compliance with the requirements of this Notice and Order. By our signature and
provision of this document to the City of Wheat Ridge, we acknowledge transference of responsibility for compliance from the
current legal owner, W (c.YrE0 ; J to the new legal owner,
, and understanding that the City of Wheat Ridge Building Division shall
hold the new legal responsible for all issues related to compliance with the issues herein identified.
1. Complete variance process and abide by all requirements established during the process to legitimize the most easterly
garage under current planning and zoning regulations.
2. Contingent upon approval of the setback variance by the Planning Division for the most easterly garage, correct the following
deficiencies related to the garage:
a. Replace drywall screws in hangers at ridge beam with approved case - hardened screws or nails
b. Provide approved fasteners in all holes of rafter clips
c. Block at top, bottom and mid -span OSB roof sheathing installed with strength axis running
parallel to roof rafters
d. Strap top plates of walls where offset between plate breaks does not exceed 24 inches
e. Install anchor bolts of sufficient length to pass through bottom plates and penetrate concrete
footings a minimum of 3 inches. Bolts shall be located at a maximum of 6 feet on center, with
a bolt within 12 inches of the end of any plate and with a minimum of 2 bolts per piece.
3. Replace all existing drywall screws in joist hangers for exterior rear deck with approved case - hardened screws or nails.
4. Ensure newly installed electrical disconnect for rear hot tub is included in permit, inspected and compliant with all applicable
codes.
S. Ensure newly installed shower enclosure in main level bath is included in permit, inspected and compliant with all appl'cabtt,
codes.
6. Install hard -wired smoke alarms in all sleeping rooms, in hallways outside of sleeping rooms and on every level of the home.
7. Install carbon monoxide detectors in all sleeping rooms and in hallways within 15 feet of doors outside of all sleeping rooms
8. Ensure that adequate hot water is supplied as required by code to all plumbing fixtures throughout the structure.
9. label electrical panel in basement as required by applicable codes.
Board ol•Adjustment `-
Case No. IVA -13 -11 /Jones
10. Correct the following deficiencies at the newly installed bar sink area:
a. Ensure that all outlets in wet area are of an approved GFCI type and comply with code
required location
b. Install an air - admittance valve in accordance with code and manufacturer's installation 'Ut
instruction on drain for wet bar sink
11. In basement laundry room, correct the following deficiencies:
a. Install hammer arrestors on quick - closing valves at washer box
b. Install new trim on washer box to create and effective barrier between box and wall cavity
c. Install valves on existing water supply lines for laundry sink f
d. Compete wiring and outlet installation for 220V dryer outlet
e. Install plate on junction box for light on ceiling
12. In basement Jack and Jill bathroom, correct the following deficiencies:
a. Correct overflow drain cover to properly fit opening in tub and properly function as intended
b. Provide stopper for tub drain outlet
13. Close off existing basement mechanical room access that opens to bedroom and create new access through existing hall
closet. "+
14. No work shall be conducted without first obtaining the required building permits from the City of Wheat Ridge Building
Division. A Class 3 General Contractor licensed by the City of Wheat Ridge shall be required to obtain the require permit. All
persons or firms conducting work on the property and its' structure shall be licensed in accordance with the City of Wheat
Ridge Code of Laws and all work shall be conducted in accordance with applicable laws and codes.
I swear /affirm under oath that I have read the foregoing Notice and Order of Repair and acknowledge transference of
responsibility for compliance with the requirements set forth in this document from the Current Legal Owner to the New Legal
Owner.
Current Legal Owner /Representative Date
New Legal Owner /Representative Date
Address Address
a 01w to V `(
City, State, Zip Code
Subscribed and affirmed � or sworn before me
In the County of ) e+t e'SoV\
State of C o l o r-d o , this 7
Day of _) a c 20 1
Notary Public
BRANDON D ROCHELLE
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 20134020660
NY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 17, 2017
City, State, Zip Code
Subscribed and affirmed, or sworn before me
In the County of - e - f90 Yt
State of ice Lpfoa O this �OTAR�
Dwx 0'V J V 1 ; � 2013 =_
QA R .
Notary Pu I c' ��' CC9tiO�
Board ofAdjustntent 23
Case No. WA -13 -11 1Jones
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE)
CASE NO: WA -13 -11
APPLICANT NAME: Garrett Jones
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8220 W. 40 Ave. Wheat Ridge Colorado
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -13 -11 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 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
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No.
WA -13 -11 be, and hereby is, APPROVED
TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 1 foot variance from the 5 foot side yard setback requirement to
legitimize an existing garage on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2)
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The garage represents a substantial investment in the property.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property. The garage was illegally constructed by a former owner.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as several
R 2 properties in the area have primary or accessory structures.
b.
7.
8.
9.
10.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Upon granting of variance request, the property owner will comply with the Notice and
Order of Repair issued by the City of Wheat Ridge Building Division and obtains all
necessary building permits and inspections.
2. Property owner will comply with accompanying building permits issued by the City of
Wheat Ridge Building Division.
3.
4.
5.
tier{
City of
] 2eat -R e-
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
April 2 , 2013
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair GRIFFIT ` I p.m. in the City Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building, '7500 West � v enue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present. Torn Abbott
Janet Bell
Paul Griffith
Paul Hovland
till' David Fultz
F ill i tY1
-tty Jo Page
Alternates Present:,None n t,'
i alr
Board Members
Absent X11 nghart
L�f`�riego
��� „t t
5 Presenf , , �,� Mre�ecert, Sr. Planner
'�h ¢ itla 31i i
, La ' Mikulak Planner II
' Cim Waggoner, Recording Secretary
90
3. PUBS �C1RUM „`
lit 1 y*lt
No one wish k Y :, o speak,f his time.
4. PUBLIC
n
A. Case No. WA- 13 -03: An application Piled by Douglas Small for approval of a 34-
foot variance from the I00 -foot minimum lot width requirement to allow a two -
family dwelling; on property zoned Residential -Two (R-) and located at 4110 Upham
Street.
The case was presented by Lauren Mikulak. She entered all pertinent documents into the
record including two written comments which had been received and advised the Board
there was jurisdiction to bear the case. Ms. Mikulak reviewed the staff r and digital
Board of Adjustment Minutes .April 25, 2013
presentation, Having found the application in compliance with a majority of the review
criteria, staff gave a recommendation of approval.
Ms. Mikulak commented that the subject site was divided so it did not go
through a formal process to review its size and
11,�j istorically, in Wheat Ridge land
was transferred simply by writing a legal desq
Board Member KUNTZ asked if the
added to the conditions. Ms. Mikula
requirements for single and two-fam]
authority to approve the request with
Board Member ABBOTT aske
a dwelling unit, accessory strut
were no building peinlit record
confirm what the structure was
the neighbors
shed.
rc 0` . ta examp]MkAbc presentation can be.
" the zoning code Mlio architectural
Ifings, but the Bcaad o djustment Boa has the
Col S.
tti ti
the to the accessory structure as
ental and gu6t'housc M. Mikulak stated there
ie structure so t 'etc is no way to definitively
br. It has a front no and anecdotal evidence from
t was used as a ljvmgspace instead of a garage or
In response to a question from Board Member PAGE, Ms, Reckert stated the fence on the
north side is an encroachment on the property per the evidence the applicant provided.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 25, 2013
Board Member HOVLAND clarified a single family home can be built on the subject lot
without a lot width variance. Ms. Mikulak confirmed this is correct.
Board Member BELL commented that if the remaining structure had been used as a
rental space, the historical use of the property has been two dwelling units. The request
would not result in an increase in traffic on Upham since there had previously been two
dwellings on the property.
In regards to Board Member HOVLAND's question, Ms. Mikulak stated there is no
proof that the second structure was ever legally approvq&,
Doug Small
25950 Village Circle, Golden, CO 80401
The applicant was sworn in by Chair GR IF]
zoned R-2 which allows for construction of
developed with two dwellings on the pal plel
several years ago. With the exception of til
property easily meets all the development st
lot area, maximum building coverage and h(
dwellings on the property
em Id '
u nt be
a mixture of single-family and ',11,tin I* '6—mily
resale values for properties aroulill
it '
Ridge is focused on rchabilitat'Ill�
upg ra
variance a new
add v* to tr.
The e
shows three di"S Th
s.
duplex design
EM
atl Rp a TV4 lio""
ca w ef
an
1,4
ill at som Alk"
IT he a Jcant stated the property is
I duplex. The
prty was originally
y. The main ho
,t�, ** med down in a fire
minimum lot widtfi""
,41.4iren
nents, the
ndards associated wit%tbacks minimurn
A
ght Since there were orl 11 two
illy increase in traffic. T l1e 1 b orhoodis
esidences. The existing structure is hurting
', a target for vandalism. The city of Wheat
§ ,--older properties, and by granting this
Wil"'i h T e site plan submitted
-,,,rhood
vel n accommodate numerous
a stone wall with a fireplace. It has a
was and it has been plumbed. It has been
B 0 RR
N&Member KU9U tated" ,, structure looks like a shack and asked if it was
"'701M
salvag W'", e. The appht san lectrical and plumbing systems need to be
evaluatedot. it cannot 011, sed for living space, it may either be converted _,
live ed into a garage
or be demolf The JAI,
tr icant confirmed that parking should not be an issue since the
lot is big. Ile final site plan there will be parking spaces available in the
garages with a r ing in front of the garages.
In response to Board Member ABBOTT's inquiry the applicant stated the design would
be complimentary for the neighborhood.
Board Member PAGE asked if a duplex can be divided and sold to two separate parties.
Ms. Reckert confirmed that a duplex split allows for purchase of individual living units
without subdividing the land. This includes a party wall agreement and is processed
through the County.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 25, 201
Ms, Mikulak confirmed that detached dwelling units are not allowed; if two units are
constructed on the property they are required to be under the sane roof
Chair GRIFFITH opened the p ublic hearing, He swore in as a group those people in the
audience who wished to spe4�",',
Rolly Sorrentino
4175 Teller St.
Mr. Sorrentino stai he submitted aIetter an&' Board if they received a copy.
The Board acknowl I edged,receipt of the"'Ictter.''Mr. Sorrentino deferred to speak last.
John Clark
Lynne Martinelli
4240 Upham St.
Ms. Martinelli did not speak at the podium, but indicated that she agreed with reasons
already stated in opposition.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 25, 2013
Suzanne Ca r ra
7070 W. 43' Ave.
Ms. Capra expressed concerns that approval of the variance would establish a precedence
to allow duplexes. She expressed concerns with the amount of rental properties in the
City and neighborhood.
Ms. Reckert stated about 50% of residences are rented in Wheat Ridge.
Angelo Martinelli
4240 Upham St.
Mr. Martinelli did not speak at the podium, but indicated that he agreed with reasons
already stated in opposition.
Ted & Cindy Whaley
4100 Upham St.
ON
Mr. and Mrs. Whaley submitted for tl
concerns related to on-street parking
cars parked on the street make it diffi
They expressed a preference for a single to
multifamily residence would, increase their
Mr. Whaley had concerns
an existing fence. He reqi
Mr. Whaley explained
was used for the keenin i f
Board Member
a letter of opp(
1 along Upham
wncR
g packlng out
and did
They stated
,y explained that
heir driveway.
agree that a
of thf " waced property line in relation to
pleted 6 any decisions are made.
bl was not rented. Partofit
e �l
living spaces not a multifamily apartment
idence can have as many or more vehicles
Ms, Keckert stated,because of ly,25% of the lot is required to have landscaping, the
remainder of the open,area ca e
an 4 used for parking on site. Regarding the property line
and fence, Ms. Reckert suggested the neighbors participate in a survey; the City does not
require it or get involved in property line disputes.
Verna Shaw
4195 Teller St.
Ms. Shaw stated she originally was opposed, but she appreciates the applicant's plan and
his interest in developing the property. She stated her support for the proposal,
Al Leos
4221 Upham St.
Mr. Leos did not speak at the podium, but indicated that he agreed with reasons already
stated in opposition.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 25, 2013
Rolf Sorrentino
4175 Teller St.
Mr, Sorrentino provided a brief history of the property and stated that lie had previously
surveyed the property. Chair GRIFFITH reiterated a survey dispute is not part of the
variance request.
Chair GRIFFITH reiterated the Board will c
property meets the minimum lot size for a d
the subject property is the only property teal
further encroach on the property and reduce
Board Member BELL asked
being considered. Mr. Sorrc
Chair GR
42 nd Ave.
EM=
does no' t?N' u
00,000 per
I for a duplex
6c and in
Andy Hong at 7175 W
7 7 11,1111:1
to,, the podi bri "toaddf ss the neighborhood concerns. He stated a
a rental, and cit44 1 41exes in Wheat Ridge that are for sale for
n-
1-16iderred to a proposed site plan and stated the lot is large
tt J
plent'':' f
y space for grass and asphalt. He expressed a desire to
"c nronertv to add value.
Board Meffib, ABBOTT , there was a lot of discussion of the proposed duplex
being a rental. Jil a condo, duplex, or single family home c(
- )uld all potentially
be either renter- c , '' r-occupied.
Ms. Mikulak stated that the City cannot regulate and does not track whether someone
owns a property or rents a property.
The Board discussed the diversity of Wheat Ridge, the merit o f the variance, the fact that
the City doesn't control who rents or owns a dwelling, and the historical utilization of the
property in the past.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 25, 2013
Board Member BELL stated she supported the variance due to the historical use of the
property and because there will not be an increase in the use.
Board Meniber ABBOTT disagreed with the interpretation on the properties historical
use since the accessory structure evolved
Board Member PAGE stated she did not support the request for a duplex on the lot given
the narrow lot width.
Ms. Mikulak stated if a parking condition is added t%11; 1�5 ,, ion, the zoning code
requires four on-site parking spaces per unit if the h"O street parking available.
Board Member KUNTZ expressed concern
parking on site since there is street parking
a bout Pmaki 0,11dition that requires all
available.
and second by 13oai ll v eb er
stated:
-03, applicant name Doug Sm all, location
d hereby is APPROVED.
TYPE of VARIANCE: A 34-foot variance from the 1 00 -foot lot width requirement to
allow a two-family dwelling on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at
41 Upham Street.
For the following reasons:
I. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in an underutiliz
and blighted property which may not be possible without the variancl
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 25, 2013
With the following conditions:
1. All minimum setbacks for a two-family dwelling in the R-2 zone
district have been met.
2. The driveway be constructed in co ce with section 26-50LF of
city code. Specifically, the first Z-1' of driveway area from the
existing edge of pavement all be surfaced with concrete,
asphalt, brick pavers, or si%*Ia"
3. The property shall comp, th the lands -, l uirement of
section 26-502 for newo ate amil deuces.
an N
4. Space be allowed foring of four vehicles c property.
5.
6.
Y.
Chair GRIFFITH called for
votes would be required for
The motion was approved by
ti
and advis 11 er majority of 5" ffirmative
ZU18=
A. Approval of Minutes — February 28, 2012
It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member
HOVLAND to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 5-1 with Board
Member Kuntz a"ing.
B. Ms. Reckert provided a Board and Staff Update
1. Board Member David Kuntz was welcomed to the Board of Adjustment,
2. Chair Paul Griffith was congratulated for his first meeting serving as Chair.
3, Wade Sanner has taken the position with the City as Planner I and will be
relocating to CO at the end of May. He will be taking over presentations to the
Board of Adjustment.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 25, 2013
The meeting was adjourned at 9•43 p.m.
Paul Griffith, Chair
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 25, 2013
�.