Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-11-04s' City of I WheatR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building November 15, 2011 Mr. Christopher Walters 4465 Yarrow Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Mr. Walters: 7500 W. 29` Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 This letter is in regard to your request for approval of an extension for a variance granted pursuant to Case No. WA- 11 -04. On May 18, 2011, you were granted a 2 Y2-foot variance from the 25 -foot front yard setback, resulting in a front yard setback of 22 '/� feet for construction of an addition on property located at 4465 Yarrow Street. On November 18, 2011 this variance approval will expire. Pursuant to Section 26- 115.C.4, extensions for good cause shows may be approved by the Community Development Director if a request is made in writing prior to the expiration date of variance approval. The Community Development Department acknowledges your request for extension dated November 14, 2011 and hereby grants an extension for six months. Please be advised that if a building permit is not obtained by May 16, 2012 your variance will expire. Sincerely, I Kenneth Johnstone, MCP Community Development Director cc: Case File WA -11 -04 wwwxi.wheatridgexoxs Lauren Mikulak From: Christopher Watters <christopherawatters @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 14, 20118:42 AM To: Lauren Mikulak Subject: Variance extension Hi Lauren, As we discussed on the phone yesterday, I am formally requesting a variance extension in the event that my building permit is not at the point in the process necessary to meet the variance criteria. My variance is scheduled to expire November 18, 2011. I will be attempting to pull the permit this morning and hope to stop in and follow up. Thanks, Chris Watters CAW City of WheatjQidge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. October 17, 2011 Mr. Christopher Watters 4465 Yarrow Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Mr. Watters: Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 This letter is a courtesy reminder concerning the expiration of your variance approval. In May 2011, the Community Development Director approved your request for a 2 ' / -foot variance from the 25 -foot front yard setback, resulting in a setback of 22 % feet for construction of an addition on property located at 4465 Yarrow Street (Case No. WA- 11 -04). Section 26- 115.C.5 of the municipal code states that all variance requests automatically expire within 180 days of approval unless a building permit for the variance has been obtained within such period of time. Our records indicate that no building permit for the project has been issued, and your variance request will expire on November 18, 2011. I can suggest the following options: • Obtain a building permit before November 18. Building permits expire one year after the date of issuance; the building official is authorized to grant one or more extensions if justifiable cause is demonstrated. Submit a request for an extension of the variance approval. Extensions of time may be granted by the Community Development Director for good cause shown, but only if a written request for the extension is made prior to the expiration of the variance (November 18, 2011). • If no action is taken and the variance expires, a new variance application, including all applicable documents and fees, would need to be submitted for the project. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, Lz W Yom' Lauren Mikulak Planner I www.ei.wheatridge.co.us 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 City of N"6at�idge Approval of Variance WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 4465 Yarrow Street referenced as Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters; and WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance, relying on criteria listed in Section 26 -115 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and on information submitted in the case file; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has properly notified pursuant to Section 26 -109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and WHEREAS, there were no registered objections regarding the application; NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 2 %2 -foot variance to the 25 -foot front yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a 74- square foot addition on property in the Residential -Two (R -2) zone district (Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters) is granted for the property located at 4465 Yarrow Street, based on the following findings of fact: 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 alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as a majority of the homes in the area have front yard projections and covered entries. 6. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. With the following condition: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed addition be similar in character to the existing house, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. enneth Johns ne, AICP Community Development Director S (t Date ®A 4' City of Wh6a - tRioge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Case File DATE: May 10, 2011 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA -11 -04 / Walters ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 2 '/2 -foot variance from the 25 -foot front yard setback requirement on property located at 4465 Yarrow Street and zoned Residential -Two (R -2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4465 Yarrow Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: Christopher A. Watters Christopher A. Watters- 10,050 Square Feet (0.23 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Residential -Two (R -2) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Administrative Variance Case No. WA- 11 -04I Watters All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an administrative decision. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 10% (2 %2 -foot) variance from the required 25 -foot front yard setback for a single - family home in R -2, resulting in a 22 %2 -foot setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a covered entry and a 74- square foot addition on the front of the existing home. Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. Il. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Christopher A. Watters, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 4465 Yarrow Street (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The variance is being requested so that the applicant may construct a 74- square foot addition on the front of the home. The applicant would like to locate the addition on the front of the property to provide architectural interest and a covered entry to an existing two- dimensional, plain fagade. The property is located on the west side of Yarrow Street, four lots north of W. 40 Avenue. It is zoned Residential -Two (R -2), a zone district that provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate - density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character. The subject property is on the south end of a block that is predominantly comprised of single - family homes with R -2 zoning. On the south end of the block are properties that front W. 44 Avenue and are zoned Commercial -One (Exhibit 2, Z6n ngMap). The parcel has an area of 10,050 square feet and currently contains a one -story single - family home with a one -car attached garage (Exhibit 3, Aerial). According to Jefferson County records, the house was originally constructed in 1948 (adjusted year built is 1951). The home includes 1,553 square feet of living space, 3 bedrooms, and 1 bathroom. At some point, the northeast corner of the home was converted from a garage to abedroom! The conversion was never fully finished, resulting in an enclosed, unfinished space. For example, no subfloor was installed over the un- insulated concrete floor. The applicant is proposing a 74- square foot addition to extend this room to the east as part of a plan to finish the space. The architecture of the home is typical of mid - century ranch style homes in Wheat Ridge, but with very little articulation and visual interest on the fagade. The front of the home is constructed in the same vertical and horizontal plane and is entirely two - dimensional —even the eaves project less than a foot from the walls of the home (pxhabat 4;_ Site photos). . Based on information provided by the homeowner, however no building permits could be located in City files. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters There is no precedence of similar variance requests in the neighborhood, but of the 26 residences along Yarrow Street, the applicant's home is the only one without a 3- dimensional front fagade. The other 25 homes on the block have either front yard projections or recessed and covered entries (Exhibit 5, Neighborhood Chdractex). The applicant describes his home as "the only one on the street that has a bald plain face, minimal roof character with no aesthetic entry." The proposed addition will accomplish two objectives. On the interior, it will provide additional living space and allow for a master bedroom and possibly a second bathroom. On the exterior, it will add a covered entry and considerable architectural interest, improving the curb appeal of the home and the image of the neighborhood. The proposal will require changing the roofline at the front of the home to accommodate a hip or gable over the addition and entry. The front of the home is currently 28 'h feet from the front property line, so a 3 %2 foot addition would be possible without a variance request. An addition of this size, however, would only increase the interior living space by 43- square feet. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that is supported by the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. To justify the cost of the roof work, the applicant is requesting a 2 '/2 -foot variance to the minimum front yard setback resulting in a front setback of 22 Meet (Exhibit 6, Proposed Site: Plan Elevations). The property meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for single - family homes in the Residential -Two district. The total building coverage with the proposed addition would be 19 %—well below the maximum 40% allowed in R -2. During the public notification period no objections were received. One resident from Zephyr Street contacted staff to learn more about the proposal; she expressed support for the application. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve an administrative adjustment, the Community Development Director must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 7, Criteria Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 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. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The requested encroachment into the front setback is minor (10 %), and the proposed architectural design of the addition is Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters compatible with the character of the area. Except for the applicant's home, every other residence on the block has a change in plane along the front fagades and a covered entry. The material selections for the addition will match the existing structure, and the positive visual impact of the addition is expected to offset the impact of the variance. 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 addition and fagade articulation are expected to add value to the property. While a smaller addition would be possible without a variance request, to work within the minimum front setbacks would only yield an additional 43 square feet of interior living space. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. Without a variance to the front yard setback, it is difficult to justify the cost of the required roof work associated with a front fagade bump -out. 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 applicant has expressed design - related hardships in the context of the neighborhood character. All the homes along Yarrow Street, except the applicant's home, have either front projections or recessed and covered entries (Exhibit 5, Neighborhood Character). Despite the design challenges of the subject home, there appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or landscaping of the property. The conditions of the lot do not create unique hardships, and the request appears to result from an inconvenience of design. 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 design challenge described above was not created by the current property owner or any person currently having an interest in the property. The current owner purchased the home in June 2009, and thus is not responsible for the existing conditions of the property or the location of the home in relation to the setbacks. Prior to the applicant purchasing the home, the property was in disrepair and neighbors report that the property was largely unoccupied for the past 15 years. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -04 / Waiters 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 the 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 neither impede the sight distance triangle, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; conversely, the addition will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by enhancing visual interest and upgrading an aging ranch home. 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 variance request is based on the applicant's desire to improve the architectural appeal of the home with a project that is financially viable and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The majority of homes in the neighborhood were built in the mid -1900s and exhibit architectural styles that are typical of mid - century ranch homes in Wheat Ridge. The design of the subject property is currently inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Thus, the conditions of the area justify a variance that makes the home more harmonious with the neighborhood. 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. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters 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 Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 2 '/x -foot variance from the 25 -foot front 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 alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as a majority of the homes in the area have front yard projections and covered entries. 6. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. With the following condition: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed addition be similar in character to the existing house, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters EXHIBIT 1: LETTER OF REQUEST PROJECT NAME. AWNING PROJECT LOCATION: 4465 Yarrow St 80033 APPLICANT: Christopher A. Wafters DATE: April 5, 2011 PHONE: 303.880.2728 Written Request To All Those Concerned: 1 Attached is my application for 45 foot variance including an awning and an adding to an existing bedroom at the front (EASTside) of my residential property. The existing plain, bald face of my home has no dimension and is poorly oriented to its neighborhood. The two 3 computerized sketches are two of my ideas of designs, hip roof or gable, both of which, I researched, are present in my neighborhood and on my block_ Thank you for your time and effort in this courtesy review for variance Administrative Variance 7 Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters EXHIBIT 2.- ZONING MAP Administrative Variance CaseNo. WA -11 -0 ?/Waiters EXHIBIT e AERIAL Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -0? / Watters Administrative Variance 10 Case Na. WA -II -04 / Walters EXHIBIT NEIGHBORHOOD .. 4465 .`, Ing _ YARROW ST s 4400 -4500 block of Yarrow Street The 25 homes highlighted in red have at least one change in plane along the front fagade. Those facades that appear to be unipianar in this graphic actually have recessed entries beneath straight rooflines. The subject property is the only home on this block without a three - dimensional front fagade. Administrative d'ariance Case No. WA -Il -04 / Watters EXHIBIT 6: PROPOSED PLANS Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters a �o O o � N oy f� �II� T --1 8 12 EXHIBIT 7: CRITERIA RESPONSE PROJECT NAME: AWNING PROJECT LOCATION: 4465 Yarrow St 80033 APPLICANT: Christopher A- Watters DATE: April 5, 2011 PHONE: 303.880.2728 Written Request RE: Variance Evaluation Criteria A 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 purpose of the awning and addition would be to improve the aesthetics of the home and provide for a practical use of the interior space in the bedroom. The present front view is a plain, flat building with no depth among other homes that have designs with dimensions that match the proposed drawings provided, i.e. bedrooms that extend away from the home (versus a flat, bald house front). The curb view of this address would be improved to provide shelter at entry and beautification with awning, patio and match with the neighborhood. This plan will later lend to the building of a floor in this north bedroom which is presently carpet over a previous garage floor. The work and change to home should not contribute to an increase in yield due to traffic, income or service and would not exceed the current property use in this single family dwelling. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. According to my neighbors, the previous owner lived at this home only on occasion and it has mostly been uncared for and unlived in for approximately 15 years. The interior of the home is beautiful and with some revious restoration and continued care of mine will bring outthe character and integrity of the 1953 home. I have owned the house for less than i years and have rewired all but the remaining bedroom, new roof and gutters, new beautiful cedar fence and you should see the cleanup in the backyard. The new dimension to the curbview and entry matches the neighborhood and isn't the present harsh, bald face. The variance ofXfeet is modest. Bringing out the beauty of my home and the essential character has certainly been my intention throughout. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial Investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. Yes, a variance is required to advance the East borders of my home).5 feet. I stand to make a substantial investment in this process of home improvement. D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results In a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere Inconvenience. The home is the only on the street that has a bald plain pace, minimal roof character with no aesthetic entry. An awning or additional or change to the home beyond 2.5 feet would require a variance. This change would truly improve the presentation of a beautiful Administrative Variance 13 Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters Criteria Response, continued property and the quality of the neighborhood. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest In the property. No, 4465 YARROW had been let go before I got bought it. This is my solution that I think makes the best sense. F. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to Lhe 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 appro priate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of Ight and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the wngestion In public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing properly values within the neighborhood. These detriments would not be incurred, in my opinion, by this variance. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The proposed design change 15 present in the neighborhood and would not be unique to the property. The variance however would be UNLIKELY to be a repeated request, again, due to the unusual bald face on my home compared to the other houses in the neighborhood with more dimensional designs. H. Granting of the variance would .result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. N /A. I. The application Is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. N/A- Administrative Variance 14 Case No. WA -11 -04 / Watters COBB WARREN F COBB CLAUDETTE S 14749 HARRISON ST BRIGHTON CO 80601 SCHENCK RORY 5000 PLANO PARKWAY CARROLLTON TX 75010 GARRETT LLOYD R JR 3145 XENON ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80215 NIMROD MARY ANN 4460 YARROW ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WATTERS CHRISTOPHER ALFRED 4465 YARROW ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 RAEL ANTHONY P 4470 YARROW ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 VOMVAS MICHEAL W VOMVAS BEVERLY JEAN 4430 ZEPHYR ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DUARTE JESUS G DUARTE SUSANA P 4450 ZEPHYR ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 RHODES TAMARA C 4460 ZEPHYR ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 0290 0001 3035 2335 7010 0290 0001 3035 2328 70 0 290 0001 3035 2311 7010 0290 0001 3035 2304 7010 0290 0001 3035 2298 7010 0290 0001 3035 2281 7010 0290 0001 303 2274 7010 0290 0001 3035 2267 7010 0290 0001 3 f - _ A City of '� WheatPdge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29` Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 CERTIFIED LETTER NOTICE April 29, 2011 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 11 -04, a request for approval of 2.5 -foot (10 %) variance from the 25 -foot front yard setback for an addition to a single - family home on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2) and located at 4465 Yarrow Street. The applicant for this case is requesting an administrative variance review which allows no more than a fifty percent (50 %) variance to be granted by the Zoning Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a decision, all adjacent property owners are required to be notified of the request by certified mail. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303 - 235 -2846 or if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in writing by 5:00 p.m. on May 9, 2011. Thank you. WAl 104.doc www.ci.wh eatridge.co.0 s OW 14 N N W z OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO PARCELILOT BOUNDARY (DESIGINATES OWNERSHIP) WATER FEATURE * DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES [� 100 -YEAR FLOOD PLAIN t. • (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) 23 QD 0 100 200 .0 400 poet L n N W rz I � F c WX R oEPARTMENTOF MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 PLANNING ANP DEVELOPMENT Last Revision: September 10, 2001 04/07/2011 Property Information 1 OF 3 Next GENERAL INFORMATION Property appraisal system Schedule: 026108 Parcel ID: 39- 232 -99 -010 Status: Active Property Type: Residential Property Address: 04465 YARROW ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3251 Mailing Address: SAME ADDRESS AS PROPERTY Neighborhood: 2406 - BEL AIRE,HILLCREST HEIGHTS, MELROSE MANOR AREA PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Subdivision Name: 347400 - HILLCREST HEIGHTS Print Help Owner Name(s) WATTERS CHRISTOPHER ALFRED Block Lot Key Isection ITo wnship Range 'lQuarterSection Land Soft 003 0042 00C 23 '.3 1 69 NW 5925 1.8300 84048124 152 23 '3 Special Warranty Deed - Joint Tenancy 69 'NW 4125 152,500 Warranty Deed 2009060512 iEATRIDGE FIRE DIST. 7.5000 Tota I 1100 50 Assessor Parcel Maps Associated with Schedule mau39 232pdf PROPERTYINVENTORY Property Type RESID Year Built: 1948 Design: Ranch Improvement Number . 1 v!.. Item Quality No. MAIN BEDROOM 06 -16 -1977 3... FULL BATH Average 1 MAIN FIREPLCE.. Average 1 SALE HISTORY Adjusted Year Built: 1951 Areas Quality Type Reception 06 -16 -1977 39,900 Assessed Value qq 06 -17 -1977 Average M 'Land Characteristics ] Typical Sale Date Sale Amount 'Deed Type Reception 06 -16 -1977 39,900 Assessed Value CONVER02 06 -17 -1977 39,900 hool CONVERO' 09 -18 -1981 0 1.8300 84048124 03 -08 -2006 O Special Warranty Deed - Joint Tenancy 2006031298 06 -19 -2009 152,500 Warranty Deed 2009060512 TAX INFORMATION V 2010 Payable 2011 I 2011 2010 Actual Value' Total 198,700 3139 Assessed Value Total 15,817 Treasurer Information :w Mill Levy Detail For Year 2011 2010 10 Mill Levy Information x District 3139 unty 24.3460 hool 48.2100'. i EAT RIDGE 1.8300 GIONALTRANSPORTATION DIST. 0.0000 :BAN DRAINAGE &FLOOD CONT DIST 0.5230 .BAN DRAINAGE &FLOOD C SO.PLAT 0.0530 iEATRIDGE FIRE DIST. 7.5000 Graphic Parcel Mao Ma UOuest Location ... jefferson .co.us /ats /displaygeneral.do... 1/2 PROJECT NAME: AWNING PROJECT LOCATION: 4465 Yarrow St 80033 APPLICANT: Christopher A. Watters DATE: April 5, 2011 PHONE: 303.880.2728 Written Request RE: Variance Evaluation Criteria A. 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 purpose of the awning and addition would be to improve the aesthetics of the home and provide for a practical use of the interior space in the bedroom. The present front view is a plain, flat building with no depth among other homes that have designs with dimensions that match the proposed drawings provided, i.e. bedrooms that extend away from the home (versus a flat, bald house front). The curb view of this address would be improved to provide shelter at entry and beautification with awning, patio and match with the neighborhood. This plan will later lend to the building of a floor in this north bedroom which is presently carpet over a previous garage floor. The work and change to home should not contribute to an increase in yield due to traffic, income or service and would not exceed the current property use in this single family dwelling. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. According to my neighbors, the previous owner lived at this home only on occasion and it has mostly been uncared for and unlived in for approximately 15 years. The interior of the home is beautiful and with some previous restoration and continued care of mine will bring outthe character and integrity of the 1953 home. I have owned the house for less than z years and have rewired all but the remaining bedroom, new roof and gutters, new beautiful cedar fence and you should see the cleanup in the backyard. The new dimension to the curbview and entry matches the neighborhood and isn't the present harsh, bald face. The variance ofi/5feet is modest. Bringing out the beauty of my home and the essential character has certainly been my intention throughout. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. Yes, a variance is required to advance the East borders of my homes feet. I stand to make a substantial investment in this process of home improvement. D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. The home is the only on the street that has a bald plain pace, minimal roof character with no aesthetic entry. An awning or additional or change to the home beyond i.5 feet would require a variance. This change would truly improve the presentation of a beautiful property and the quality of the neighborhood. E. If there is a Particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. No, 4465 YARROW had been let go before I got bought it. This is my solution that I think makes the best sense. F. 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. These detriments would not be incurred, in my opinion, by this variance. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The proposed design change Is present in the neighborhood and would not be unique to the property. The variance however would be UNLIKELY to be a repeated request, again, due to the unusual bald face on my home compared to the other houses in the neighborhood with more dimensional designs. H. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. N /A. 1. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. N /A. PROJECT NAME: AWNING PROJECT LOCATION: 4465 Yarrow St 80033 APPLICANT: Christopher A. Watters DATE: April 5, 2011 PHONE: 303.880.2728 Written Request To All Those Concerned: 2 Attached is my application for a X.5 foot variance including an awning and an adding to an existing bedroom at the front (EASTside) of my residential property. The existing plain, bald face of my home has no dimension and is poorly oriented to its neighborhood. The two 3 computerized sketches are two of my ideas of designs, hip roof or gable, both of which, I researched, are present in my neighborhood and on my block. Thank you for your time and effort in this courtesy review for variance. COLORADO ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. N Survapng CWmado Some 1971 www.copl%com 3470 So. Sharman SL, Suite 2 Englewood, Colorado 80112 SCALE 1' = 20' PHONE: (303)761 -8055 FAX: (303) 761 -0841 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A THE SOUTH 75 FEET OF THE NORTH 107.35 FEET OF LOT 42. BLOCK 3, HILLCREST HEIGHTS. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON. STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 8: THE SOUTH 75 FEET OF THE NORTH 107.35 FEET OF THE EAST 49.75 FEET OF THE EAST 168 FEET OF THE WEST 536 FEET OF THE SOUTH 519 FEET OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO ALSO KNOWN AS: 4465 YARROW STREET D A A w0 �V• � ! m m penbpi. x w xmom riooa ..aao i+oaan z ,hb anaua, memo ibxbwN x n. x.,mal ama x..ac. swan _ l i i.a.r a.eb ma u. awro eoaxm nv.a�� N.me .aa.. nw imve mimmn. Gnm X 1 a�4n w m. mea aema road .®eie m. nw /'emA pme q uv rmwa amgw.s mm,.a.n MmY ('oM) 1Nea �e n� 6/17/63 aamwy maw Oa0390 p.� .,,� 0214 E ALISA BIVINS N1 9's M n 1s4 n^aY Vx� K 4 nP.^r�e anN' Va. atl tivl i b M w p ,eW W4^ b W WM,lume a1 .ma. Wlx9. v alm 1Nae lnpennml am. M1n,. wnq uo1 e. NgmwnmN m a.. ae,. 8770x.8 wui e. tle, euN MAEOH 241H. 2009 mp dab m.+cuas. w. muM •iuN W meeamin s b �i. �1 m aro.n tlM We ae m mumilmmY ym Ns 4vNN gmrYm q Nwmmmb m vy ae}AnGq pmJna. Rapl m ii5mh6 ed Yel Ycv b m aµmmA a�bul a i9n a aY amrneM amWp x Cv %rvq nnY ON N mil oaf � m MY Wry PIe1. otl "v .u4lml N 770' ivme¢h W�� 1 v�.m,N� bwwwvl 9..V:Lb1 .00b dWwa lM ,aaF vcba m .a.mb m ,ql ®�wM1n anv1M1iY�fe�m atl aW IaoYm N rtloltw w me ma4ar ma Ynm .pc'rmy am4 Evieem. m.e w e.wnnim ua aomranl eme N� m . .m.n ab .Nxa m m. maaq m "roan. a m aa�n ..a laud a e. am>.a aw.% w avaml dal N.. ..a o�no9 a wnn m nmMNa waiaNn e.b.® . =.vmm m., m wa mn>..m.+. lev✓m s aid. ww Mb -n-..r Nw .x. camwo oww¢xrw e: sumnec. wn w xaaan.a amy rid my rNb me.w aw. Reeore 1BN. 77..77 .b i...n oma:a:...�. m'..uamora..m ,�y' w caaaao u�vinwn �.w�� m vu, .m,.n .m mmwe q os M MmMb b MC 6m and snstl..� d•M lNU tl� nvadJ tl✓. aVO an..w wNe s4 MeW q ma aoem.M N aaoam o.l.. w w.. a u,. rm.w mnrHe Al 177. uo.%y e.m m1 a ud u. ew1 m ar, .MARCH 26M , 2009 No. 2009 -1277 S S S i c � s S a� jv El s � c � c � s S a� jv El LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone(303)235 -2846 (Please print or type all information) Applicant C. 5`o r. A _ (.✓ct Address yy 6 f « "mow✓ '� Phone 30 3 X ZIK City 1,v1, t 9 t,` d y e State Zip 5"033 Fax Owner City_ Zip Phone Contact Address Phone City State Zip Fax (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) Location of request Address ti��ew 50� L.. G.t «f Atd�.e C O bla33 Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): Application submittal requirements on reverse side ❑ Change of zone or zone conditions ❑ Special Use Permit ❑ Consolidation Plat ❑ Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) ❑ Flood Plain Special Exception ❑ Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Right of Way Vacation ❑ Planned Building Group ❑ Temporary Use, Building, Sign El Site Development Plan approval `Variance /Waiver (from Section ) ❑ Other: Detailed description of request: °Yr Fa�f Vangnit �o �ron� jt- F`ac�c Required information: Assessors Parcel Number: 3 - 2, 3 2 - 0 1 9 - L21 0 Size of Lot (acres or square footage): j ab $O SJ f t Current Zoning: r - 2 Proposed Zoning: in ti Current Use: St r t U fn vk' ✓vim . Proposed Use: C� I certify that the information and xh bits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the r e ed ction cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power -of -atto fr m he owner which approved of this action on his behalf. Signature of Applicant L To be filled out by staff: "m e, �• J n p and sworn this o l/dt� day of (Lp 1 20 1 Notary Public p � Puao •_ My commission expires Date received ti I Z to f I I Fee $ ZrO Receipt No. C DV9 Otol Case No. Comp Plan Desig. Zoning Quarter Section Mz W � Related Case No. Pre -App Mtg. Date Case Manager ///t City of LAND USE APPLICATION FORM wh��t com" UNF1Y IJEVELOPIhbJ'r � Case No ''WA1104 Date Received Case Description 2.5 foot front yard setbackvarianc Related Cases O. Case Planner Afiw .W 1 Name Christopher A. Wafters Name F Phone (303J 880.2728 Address 14465YaffowSt. City Wheat Ridge State CO Zip ©srv�erl�Jnrarafie� Name Christopher A. Wafters Name 0. Phone x (303]880.2728 3 Address 14465 Yarrow St. 1 City Wheal Ridge — �� State CO Zip x0033 - �elJ4fdCf lll�Y6Jdf/elf Name ChnstopherA. Wafters Name 0 Phone (303] 880 -2728 Address 14465 Yarrow St. City Wheat Ridge State CD Zip 80033- Pmjec!!ns<rxnaalmrr Address 4465 Street i Yarow Str eet City Wheat Ridge State M Zip 80033 v Location Description Project Name Parcel No. 39. 232 - 99.010 Qtr Section: District No.: II v Rerii�rs Pre -App Date Neighborhood Meeting Date [�= App No: Review Type Review Body' Review Date Disposition Comments CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 04/26/11 3.39 PM Cribb Christopher Natters RECEIPT NO:CDD006123 AMOUNT FMSD ZONING APPLICATION F 200.00 ZONE PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CR 1534 200.00 TOTAL 200.00 Report - - - = i ❑ city Of Wheat�dge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I DATE: April 18, 2011 SUBJECT: Potential Administrative Variance – 4465 Yarrow Street The owner of the single family residence at 4465 Yarrow Street has proposed construction of a 74- square foot addition on the front of the home and a covered entry. The proposal requires a 10% (2 '/2 -foot) variance from the required 25 -foot front yard setback for a single - family home in R -2. Before submitting a land use application and fee, the owner has requested a courtesy review of the variance request. This memo contains a summary of the existing and proposed conditions, as well as a brief analysis of the variance criteria. After reviewing this memo, please provide input as to the likelihood of approval of a 10% (2 %2 -foot) variance from the required 25 -foot front yard setback. Summary of Existing and Proposed Conditions The property located at 4465 Yarrow Street is zoned Residential -Two (R -2). The parcel has an area of 10,050 square feet and currently contains a one -story single - family home with a one -car attached garage 1, �ertl�. According to Jefferson County records, the house was originally constructed in 1948 (adjusted year built is 1951). The home includes 1,553 square feet of living space, 3 bedrooms, and 1 bathroom. At some point, the northeast corner of the home was converted from a garage to a bedroom. The conversion was never fully finished, resulting in an enclosed, unfinished space. For example, no subfloor was installed over the un- insulated concrete floor. The applicant is proposing a 74- square foot addition to extend this room to the east as part of a plan to finish the space. The architecture of the home is typical of mid - century ranch style homes in Wheat Ridge, but with very little articulation and visual interest on the fagade. The front of the home is constructed in the same vertical and horizontal plane and is entirely two - dimensional —even the eaves project less than a foot from the walls of the home. The proposed addition will accomplish two objectives. On the interior, it will provide additional living space and allow for a master bedroom and possibly a second bathroom. On the exterior, it will add a covered entry and considerable architectural interest, improving the curb appeal of the ' Based on information provided by the homeowner, however no building permits could be located in City files. home and the image of the neighborhood. The proposal will require changing the roofline at the front of the home to accommodate a hip or gable over the addition and entry. The front of the home is currently 28 '/2 feet from the front property line, so a 3 '/2 foot addition would be possible without a variance request. An addition of this size, however, would only increase the interior living space by 43- square feet. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that is supported by the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. To justify the cost of the roof work, the applicant is requesting a 2 '/2 -foot variance to the minimum front yard setback resulting in a front setback of 22.5 feet (Exhibit 1 Proposed Site Plan & Elevations). The property meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for single - family homes in the Residential -Two district. The total building coverage with the proposed addition would be 19 1 /—well below the maximum 40% allowed in R -2. Variance Criteria The potential applicant has supplied site plans and responses to the variance criteria; below is an initial analysis of how each criterion is fulfilled. 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. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The requested encroachment into the front setback is minor (10 1 /o), and the proposed architectural design of the addition is compatible with the character of the area. Except for the applicant's home, every other residence on the block has a change in plane along the front fagades and a covered entry (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The material selections for the addition will match the existing structure, and the positive visual impact of the addition is expected to offset the impact of the variance. 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 addition and fagade articulation are expected to add value to the property. While a smaller addition would be possible without a variance request, to work within the minimum front setbacks would only yield an additional 43 square feet of interior living space. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. Without a variance to the front yard setback, it is difficult to justify the cost of the required roof work associated with a front fagade bump -out. 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 applicant has expressed design- related hardships in the context of the neighborhood character. Of the 26 residences along Yarrow Street, the applicant's home is the only one without a 3- dimensional front fagade. The other 25 homes in the block have either front yard projections or recessed and covered entries (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The applicant describes his home as "the only one on the street that has a bald plain face, minimal roof character with no aesthetic entry." Despite the design challenges of the subject home, there appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping on the property. The conditions of the lot do not create unique hardships, and the request appears to result from an inconvenience of design. 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 design challenge described above was not created by the current property owner or any person currently having an interest in the property. The current owner purchased the home in June 2009, and thus is not responsible for the existing conditions of the property or the location of the home in relation to the setbacks. Prior to the applicant purchasing the home, the property was in disrepair and neighbors report that the property was largely unoccupied for the past 15 years. 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 It if this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. Nor wool t cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the si t distance triangle. The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; conversely, the addition will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by enhancing visual interest and upgrading an aging ranch home. 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 variance request is based on the applicant's desire to improve the architectural appeal of the home with a project that is financially viable and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The majority of homes in the neighborhood were built in the mid -1900s and exhibit architectural styles that are typical of mid - century ranch homes in Wheat Ridge. The design of the subject property is currently inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Thus, the conditions of the area justify a variance that makes the home more harmonious with the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. S. 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 Based on an initial analysis, it appears that an application to allow a 2 %x -foot variance from the required 25 -foot front yard setback would meet a majority of the criteria. If the variance is approved, the following condition is recommended: - The design and architecture of the proposed addition be similar in character to the existing house, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Exhibit 1 Aerial of 4465 Yarrow Street a 0 o � o � � } S Exhibit 2 Proposed Site Plan & Elevations Exhibit 3 Site Photos 4465 Yarrow Street Proposed addition is on the right side; the proposed roofline extend over the entry Exhibit 4 Neighborhood Character Architectural style typical of the neighborhood Neighbor to the north, front facade with change in wall plane 4400 -4500 block of Yarrow Street 4485 R M EX OR g l The 25 homes highlighted in red have at least one change in plane along the front facade. Those facades that appear to be uniplanar in this graphic actually have recessed entries beneath straight rooflines. The subject property is the only home on this block without a three - dimensional front facade.