Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-11-06City of `( WheatRI0ge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29" Ave. Shanon Hardi 8391 W. 38' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: Variance Case No. WA -11 -06 Mr. Hardi, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 Attached please find notice that your request for a variance 2 feet from the 4 -foot height maximum for front yard fences was approved. The only condition is that the portion of the fence that is 6 feet tall does not exceed the proposed 30 linear feet on the eastern end of the fence. The City does not require a permit for fences on residential properties that are 6 feet or less in height. Thus you will not need to apply for a permit prior to constructing the fence. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely,, r (( Sarah Showalter, AICP Planner H Cc: case file www.ci.wheatridge.co.us City of �WheatRiAe 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 Approval of Variance WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 8391 W. 38" Avenue referenced as Case No. WA- 11- 06/Hardi; and WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance request, 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 -foot variance from the 4 -foot height maximum for a fence in the front yard area (Case No. WA- 11- 06/Hardi) is granted for the property located at 8391 W. 38 Avenue, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. 4. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 5. There have been no protests submitted during the ten -day public notification period. With the following conditions: 1. The portion of the fence that is 6 feet in height shall not exceed the proposed 30 linear feet at the eastern-most and of the fence. Date TO CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME ACTION REQUESTED: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Case File DATE: May 23, 2011 Sarah Showalter WA -1 1 -06 /Hardi Approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -foot height maximum for a fence in the front yard area. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8391 W. 38' Avenue APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: Shannon Hardi Shannon Hardi 12,616 Square Feet (.29 acres) PRESENT ZONING PRESENT LAND USE: Residential Two (R -2) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Local JURISDICTION: 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 variance of 2 feet (50 %) from the maximum height of 4 feet (48 inches) for fences in the front yard area. The purpose of the variance is to allow for the construction of a wood fence that is primarily 4 feet tall, but that steps up to 6 feet to the east of the home at 8391 W. 38 °i Avenue. 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. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Shannon I-Iardi, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 8391 W. 38 °i Avenue. The applicant is proposing to construct a new wood fence along the front property line, which borders W. 38 °i Avenue (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The proposed fence would be 4 feet tall for 46 linear feet and then step up to 6 feet for the eastern 30 linear feet of the fence. The property is located on the north side of W. 38 °i Avenue, at the northeast corner of Carr Street and W. 38 ° ' Avenue. It is zoned R -2, a zone district established to provide high quality, safe, quiet, and stable low to moderate - density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character. The block is predominantly single- family homes with R -2 zoning. On the south side of W. 38 Avenue is Lutheran Hospital, which is zoned Planned Hospital District, or PHD (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The property currently contains a one -story single- family home and attached two -car garage, built in 1950. There is a paved driveway that provides access to the 2 -car garage from W. 38 °i Avenue. The site currently contains a 6 -foot tall wooden fence on the western edge of the property (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). There is no existing fence in the front yard area, which is defined as the area between the front property line and the front yard setback, which is 25 feet in the R -2 zone district. The house is placed on the lot so that the front wall is 25 feet from the front property line. The applicant would like to construct a fence along the front property line that is a total of 76 linear feet. The fence would begin at the eastern edge of the driveway and extend to the east property line. The first 46 linear feet of the fence, which runs in front of the home, would meet the height maximum of 4 feet. The eastern -most 30 linear feet of the fence would be 6 feet tall (Exhibit 4, Site Plan and Exhibit 5, Elevations). The portion of the proposed fence that is 6 feet in height corresponds to the portion of the lot that does not have any structures on it and is used as a yard. The applicant is requesting the additional 2 feet of height for the eastern portion of the fence in order to block views, noise, and trash from 38 °i Avenue. The applicant has stated a desire for privacy and to block noise from traffic on W. 38 °i Avenue, including ambulances going to Lutheran Hospital. The applicant could construct a fence that is 6 feet tall and at least 80 percent open without requiring a variance from the fence regulations in the zoning code. However, if the fence is largely open, it would not block sound from the street nor would it fulfill the applicant's desire for privacy from the street. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -06 111ardi The proposed fence height is consistent with other fences for residential properties along W. 38 °i Avenue. Several residential properties located on corner lots on W. 38`' face the side street, rather than W. 38` Because their side yard, rather than the front yard, faces W. 38 °i these homes are allowed to construct 6 -foot tall fences along W. 38th. Examples of nearby residential properties with 6 -foot tall fences on W. 38 °i include 3795 Dudley Street, 3828 Balsam Street, and 3795 Holland Street (Exhibit 6, 6-foot Fences on W. 38` Avenue). The proposed fence at 8391 W. 38 °i Avenue would not have a greater visual impact than these existing fences, especially since it would only be 6 feet tall for a portion of its total length. During the public notification period no objections were received. 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 his analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 7). 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 still function as a single family residence regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds that 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 fence would meet the height maximum of 4 feet for the majority of the lot. The portion of the fence that is taller than 4 feet is only proposed for 30 linear feet of the lot, does not block view of the home, and is not anticipated to have a major impact on the character of W. 38 °i Avenue. As documented above, there are other homes on comer lots on W. 38 °i Avenue in this area that face the side street, rather than W. 38 Because their side yard, rather than front yard, faces W. 38 °i these homes are allowed to construct 6 -foot tall fences along the street. Thus the proposed fence at the property in question would match some of the existing fences along W. 38 °i Avenue in this area. Staff finds that 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. While the proposed fence is a substantial investment in the property, it would be possible to build it even without the variance. Although the fence would not provide as much protection and privacy at a height of 4 feet or if it where at least 80% open, it would still be possible to build it without a variance. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. Administrative Variance CaseNo. W11-11-06 1Hardy 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. There are no unique topographical conditions and the lot is not irregular. While the physical condition of a corner lot with the front of the home oriented toward 38 °i Avenue created the hardship, there are other corner lots of a similar size that have the same physical condition in this area. Thus there is no unique hardship based on unique physical characteristics of the site. Staff finds that 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 difficulty relates to the configuration of the house on the lot, which orients the front of the home toward W. 38 °i Avenue, a major arterial, rather than Carr Street. If the house had its front access from Carr Street, a 6 -foot fence on W. 38 °i Avenue would be allowed since this would be the side yard. The configuration of the home on the lot was not created by the applicant since the home was built in 1950 and he purchased the property in 2008. Staff finds that 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 property nor impair adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. It would not increase traffic nor would it increase the danger of fire. It is very unlikely that the request would have an impact on property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds that 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. This neighborhood does have an unusual circumstance since there are several single - family homes oriented toward W. 38 °i Avenue, even on corner lots where the home could face a local residential street instead. W. 38' Avenue is classified as an arterial street and carries a high traffic volume, especially near Lutheran Hospital. The traffic and noise generated by an arterial are difficult to block with a 4 -foot tall fence. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. Administrative Variance Case No. Wit -11 -06 1Nardi S. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manua/. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the variance request. 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 alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. 4. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. With the following conditions: 1. The portion of the fence that is 6 feet in height shall not exceed the proposed 30 linear feet at the eastern-most end of the fence. Administrative Variance Case No. WA- I1- 06IHardi EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Administrative Variance Case No. WA- 11- 06/Hardi EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Administrative Variance CaseNa. WA- I1- 06 1Hardi EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS 8391 W. 38 °i Street: view of western side of property, taken from the corner of Carr Street and W. 38th 8391 W. 38 °1 Street: view of front of property from W. 38 ° ' Ave (looking northwest) Administrative Variance 8 Case iVo. {VA -11 -0G /Nardi 8391 W. 38` Ave: view of front of property from W. 38 °i (looking northeast) AdMinistrative Variance Case No. Wit -11 -06 /Nardi EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN Fli0P W M D%W WAY GPO O - 9a 9 as l HG _ /_ 3 smwW W. 38th Ave. SHEET t Administrative Variance 10 Case No. {VA- 11- 06/Hardi EXHIBIT 5: ELEVATIONS PROPOSED FENCE 8391 West 38th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO. 80033 k i-K Ave, ( E EVATION SHEET 2 Administrative Variance I 1 Case No. W11- 11- 06/Ha•di EXHIBIT 6: EXISTING 6 -FOOT FENCES ON W. 38 AVE 3795 Dudley Street Administrative Variance 12 CaseNo. WA -11-06 /Nardi 3828 Balsam Street 3795 Holland Str Adminisn•arive Variance 13 Case No. WA- 11- 061Hardi EXHIBIT 7: APPLICANT RESPONSE TO CRITERIA Request for Fence Variance 8391 West 38' Ave Wheat Ridge, Co. 80033 Respectfully submitted by home owners: Shannon Hardi.& Schwan ttardi We are requesting a height variance in our proposed fence to allow the height of the fence to be built at 6 -feet, protecting a small portion of the front yard. This will not obstruct the view of the home. The location and extent of the fence is outlined in the blueprint attached. Also below is the detail Information regarding the variance criteria of the fence. Variancecriteria:- 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 the district in which it is located. The fence will not only increase the value of the home but the neighboring properties. With the increased traffic, noise, pollution, and trash caused by 38' Ave and additional construction to Lutheran Medical Center, a.6-foot fence will help dramatically to reduce these and increase the value of the home. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The 6 -foot fence would run parallel to the side walk, extend from the eastern edge of my property line, then would taper down to a 4 -foot as it reaches the eastern edge of the home and finish at the driveway. This will not alter thecharacter of the location. There are multiple other homes-along 38 Ave that either have a trees, hedges or fences that are 6 feet and taller that run along 38'" Ave. We are requesting the 6 -foot portion of the fence to assist in backyard privacy, noise and trash reduction, which will also assist in the following areas: protection of our yard's grass, shrubs and trees from the magnesium chloride in the winter, and keeping strangers from entering our property. C: The applicant is purposing a substantial Investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The cost of this project will be close to $2,000 in materials and without the approval of this variance there will not be any investment made. The long -term value and protection of our family is invaluable. D: The particular physical surroundings shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Lutheran Medical Center is directly across the street and with the new additions being built It has brought new hardships. It has brought an increased amount of ambulances, fire trucks, general traffic, noise, trash and pollution (Le. — cigarettebuttsk On more than one- occa sian.tbere have beeniapatients on mental psychiatric holds that have left the hospital unexcused and wondered into our yard without permission. Upon approval of this variance, we strongly believe this will dramatically decreases the issues listed above. Administrative Variance 14 Case No. IVA -11 -06 111ardi 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. We believe the problem started when the city applied imminent domain to the property when expanding 38"' Ave in the 1990's giving the property less distance from noise generated by general traffic, the hospital, trash, etc. The problem seems to have intensified over the past three years, as we moved into the home early summer 2008, given the new additions to the hospital. F: Thegrantlng-of the varlam would nGtbe detrimentatto -the public welfare4w h4urlc;u&to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use of development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in the public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. This variance would not deter the public's view of my house, but more so increase the curbside appeal of my home and my neighbor's home. With approval of the fence variance the value of the home will go up and it will be more cosmetically appealing. With the increased value of my home it would also increase the value of the houses in my neighborhood. It will not affect the amount of congestion, hazards, light, or air to the adjacent property. G: The unusual circumstances of conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. In driving down 38' Ave, between Wadsworth and Dover since the expansion of 3e Ave, it Is evident that these homes have dealt with these same issues given the additions of yard berms build, shrubs and trees planted; and additional fencesbuilt.. There area multiple properties a.. rmrrreigirborhvodthaEhave 6 foot fences to shield themselves from 38 and the only difference between their homes and mine is that my address faces 38 Ave. In closing, we do appreciate your consideration of this fence variance. We are hopeful that the city will grant us this small request to address our concerns of our home and neighboring community. Please feel freetoca&us -with arty questions- eaeencems. Regards, Shannon Hard! Schwan Hardi 720 - 201 -0007 303- 949 -4178 Administrative Variance 15 Case No. WA- 11- 061Hardi ®® ® City of �N"6at iclge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA -11 -06 DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 20 2011 at 5pm i (name) residing at (address) as the applicant for Case No. WA- 11 -06, hereby certify that I have posted the sign for Public Notice at 8391 W. 38 Avenue (location) on this 11th day of May, 2011, and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for ten (10) days prior to and including the deadline for written comments regarding this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the m low. Signature: NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Community Development Department for this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file. MAP N U KIA - -1 / 6 4a rc1 HARDI SCHWAN 39- 233 -16 -033 HARDI SHANNON 8391 W 3 8TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SCHWAB DANIEL J PANTANO ` ,b 39- 233 -16 -034 3820 CARR ST U WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 4415 GREEN ROSE E 8301 W 38TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 6004 EXEMPLA INC 8300 W 38TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 39- 233 -16 -032 39- 262 -00 -045 70 0290 0001 3035 2 465 7010 0290 0001 3035 2472 7010 0290 0001 3035 2502 7011 0470 0002 3336 0018 GUNZNER KENT J 39- 224 -00 -065 GUNZNER NANCY ANN 7011 0470 0002 3336 0025 8425 W 38TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 6070 h "fi�Y 1 1 2Ql l s °E a City of °s Wheatl d, - 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 May 11, 2011 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 11 -06, a request for approval of a variance of 2 feet from the required 4 foot maximum height for a solid fence in a front yard setback resulting in a 6 foot solid fence in the front yard setback on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2) and located at 8391 W. 38 Avenue. 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 20, 2011. Thank you. WA1106.doc www.ci.wheatridgexo.us N W W S W U Ld LL- U) n j U LL n 6 0 > O Q � �O M �r) (5 , - 1 V V ' ! C ` Q) ry J 4 0, v 00 � S 1 c r� W N W° POOH UGJA 1 J Q O O M N N O 1 m ns Cli O a � � O pa City of I Wheat�idge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ur4t-�J llwj City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29" Avc Wheat Ridge. Co 30033 -8001 R 3032352846 F: 3032352857 Submittal Checklist - Variances (administrative and non - administrative) Project Name: Project Location: t/P Co Applicants S� ��o r�' _ Date: ?��� Project Planner: �� 4 n , ^ ham_ Fee Paid: Information to be submitted and accepted with variance applications Plan: _1. Completed, notarized application 2. Fee _3. Proof of ownership (deed) W 4. Power of Attorney (if an agent is acting for property owner) 5. Written request includingjustification for this request as responses to the evaluation criteria 6. Survey or Improvement Location Certificate for the piopcim— S t /�-- PL&A 7. Proposed {�g elevations As applicant for this project, I hereby ensure that all ol"the above requirements have been included with this submittal. I fully understand that if any one of the items listed on this checklist has been excluded, the documents will NOT be distributed for City review. In addition, I understand that in the event any revisions need to be made after the second (2"') full re �'ew, I will be subject to the applicable ie.subrnittal fee. Signature: Date: L z Name (please Rev, 4/10 Phone: 7�0 2v1 • 0007 www.ci.wheatridge.cu. us C ity Ol LAND USE APPLICATION FORM W at idge commr , DF.vELOPNIENT � Case No. WA1106 Date Received 5/9/20 Related Cases Case Planner Showalter Case Description fence height variance Avph lklormffi6m Name IShannon Hardi Name I Phone Address 18391 W. 38th Ave. I City JWheat Ridge State LCE Zip Name Name Phone Pm Address 8�W 3M Ave. City lWheatRidge State CO Zip E�6EOM-7 Name S hann Name Phone K72=0Ml-OWN Address L8391 W. 38th Ave. City MheafRdgce . .... ..... . State [(q:] Zip [60031 )UM //da1x.N%W Address K391 Street City RThat7f`li Rid State 1— co' 'W 0033 v� I J Zip Location Description r Project Name Parcel No. Qtr Section: SW23 District No.: II v Pre-App Date E= Neighborhood Meeting Date E= App No: Review Type Review Body Review Date Disposition Comments Report lReview =v R:m=in El El CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 05/09/11 9.81 AN cdba SHANNON J. HARDI RECEIPT NO-EDA885871 AMOUNT FMGD ZONING APPLICATION F 288.08 ZONE PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CK 1880 200.08 TOTAL 208.90 e� City of Wheat jdge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I (' US d �u"v Memorandum Pv kv C,_ 6 pgqp TO: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director � l� d ' FROM: Sarah Showalter, Planner II J DATE: May 2, 2011 SUBJECT: Potential Administrative Variance for 8391 W. 38` Avenue The owner of the single family residence at 8391 W. 38"' Avenue would like to construct a new wood fence along their front property line. Because the fence is in the home's front yard area, the maximum height per Section 26 -603 of the zoning code is 48 inches, or 4 feet. The majority of the proposed fence, directly in front of the home, would meet this requirement. However the eastern-most portion of the fence, to the east of the house, is proposed to be 6 feet tall. This portion of the fence would require a variance of 2 feet from the 4 -foot height maximum. Because this is a 33% variance from the standard, an administrative variance process would apply. Prior to submitting a variance application and paying the $200 application fee, the owner has requested an initial analysis as to the likelihood of the administrative variance being approved. This memo contains a summary of the existing conditions and the applicant's proposal, as well as a brief analysis of how the proposal meets the variance criteria. After reviewing the memo, please provide input as to the likelihood of approval of a variance of 2 feet from the 4 -foot height maximum for a front yard fence. Summary of Existing Conditions and Proposal The property, located at 8391 W. 3 W Avenue, is zoned Residential -Two (R -2). The total area of the lot is 12,616 square feet and contains a one -story home with attached two -car garage, built in 1950. The property is located at the northeast corner of Carr Street and W. 38 Avenue and is oriented so that the front of the lot faces W. 38 Avenue. There is a paved driveway from W. 38 Avenue that provides access to the 2 -car garage (please see the attached aerial and site photos). The site currently contains a 6 -foot tall wood fence on the western side of the property. There is no existing fence in the front yard area, which is defined as the area between the front property line and the front yard setback, which is 25 feet in the R -2 zone district. The house is placed on the lot so that the front wall is 25 feet from the front property line. The applicant would like to construct a fence along the front property line. The fence would begin at the eastern edge of the driveway and extend to the east property line. The first 46 linear feet of the fence, which runs in front of the home, would meet the height maximum of 4 feet. However the eastern-most 30 linear feet of the fence would be 6 feet tall (please see attached elevation and site plan drawing from the applicant). The portion of the fence 6 feet in height corresponds to the portion of the lot that does not have any structures on it and is used as a yard. The applicant would like a 6 -foot tall fence in this area to block views, noise, and trash from 38 Avenue. The applicant would like the fence to create privacy for their side yard area and does not feel that the maximum height permitted — 4 feet — is tall enough to block the noise and views of W. 38 Avenue, including ambulances and other traffic generated by Lutheran Hospital, which is directly across from the property on the south side of W. 38 Avenue. Variance Criteria The applicant submitted responses to the variance criteria, which are attached. Below is an initial an analysis of how each criterion is or is not met. 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 still function as a single family residence regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds that 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 fence would meet the height maximum of 4 feet for the majority of the lot. The portion of the fence taller than 4 feet is only proposed for 30 linear feet of the lot, does not block view of the home, and is not anticipated to have a major impact on the character of W. 38` Avenue. There are other homes on corner lots on W. 38` Avenue in this area that face the side street, rather than W. 38` Because their side yard, rather than front yard, faces W. 38` these homes are allowed to construct 6 -foot tall fences along the street. Thus the proposed fence at the property in question would match some of the existing fences along W. 38` Avenue in this area. Staff finds that 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. While the proposed fence is a substantial investment in the property, it would be possible to build it even without the variance. Although the fence would not provide as much protection and privacy at a height of 4 feet for the entire length, it would still be possible to build it in this manner. Staff finds this criterion has not 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. There are no unique topographical conditions and the lot is not irregular. While the physical condition of a corner lot with the front of the home oriented toward 38` Avenue created the hardship, there are other corner lots of a similar size that have the same physical condition in this area. Thus there is no unique hardship based on unique physical characteristics of the site. Staff finds that 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 difficulty relates to the configuration of the house on the lot, which orients the front of the home toward W. 38 Avenue, a major arterial, rather than Carr Street. If the house had its front access from Carr Street, a 6 -foot fence on W. 38` Avenue would be allowed since this would be the side yard. The configuration of the home on the lot was not created by the applicant since the home was built in 1950 and he purchased the property in 2008. Staff finds that 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 property nor impair adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. It would not increase traffic nor would it increase the danger of fire. It is very unlikely that the request would have an impact on property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds that 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. This neighborhood does have an unusual circumstance since there are several single - family homes oriented toward W. 38 Avenue, even on corner lots where the home could face a local residential street instead. W. 38`" Avenue is classified as an arterial street and carries a high traffic volume, especially near Lutheran Hospital. The traffic and noise generated by an arterial are difficult to block with a 4 -foot tall fence. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Staff finds that 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. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable as the variance request involves a fence for a single family dwelling. Based on an initial analysis, it appears that an application to allow a 2 foot variance from the 4- foot height maximum for front yard fences would meet the majority of the criteria, especially with the condition that the variance only applies to the 30 linear feet at the eastern end of the fence. Request for Fence Variance 8391 West 38` Ave Wheat Ridge, CO. 80033 Respectfully submitted by homeowners: Shannon blar&& -Sd ucanHardi We are requesting a height variance in our proposed fence to allow the height of the fence to be built at 6 -feet, protecting a small portion of the front yard. This will not obstruct the view of the home. The location and extent of the fence is outlined in the blueprint attached. Also below is the detail information regarding the variance criteria of the fence. Variancecriterla:- 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 the district in which it is located. The fence will not only increase the value of the home but the neighboring properties. With the increased traffic, noise, pollution, and trash caused by 38"' Ave and additional construction to Lutheran Medical Center, a- &foot fence will help dramatically to reduce these and Increase the value of the home. 8: The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The 6 -foot fence would run parallel to the side walk, extend from the eastern edge of my property line, then would taper down to a 4 -foot as it reaches the eastern edge of the home and finish at the driveway. This will not alter the character of the location. There are multiple other homes - along 38` Ave that either have a trees, hedges or fences that are 6 feet and taller that run along 38` Ave. We are requesting the 6 -foot portion of the fence to assist in backyard privacy, noise and trash reduction, which will also assist in the following areas: protection of our yard's grass, shrubs and trees from the magnesium chloride in the winter, and keeping strangers from entering our property. C: The applicant is purposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The cost of this project will be close to $2,000 in materials and without the approval of this variance there will not be any investment made. The long -term value and protection of our family is invaluable. D: The particular physical surroundings shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Lutheran Medical Center is directly across the street and with the new additions being built it has brought new hardships. It has brought an increased amount of ambulances, fire trucks, general traffic, noise, trash and pollution (i_e. — cigarette butts(- On more thanane- accasion- therehave been inpatients on mental psychiatric holds that have left the hospital unexcused and wondered into our yard without permission. Upon approval of this variance, we strongly believe this will dramatically decreases the issues listed above. 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. We believe the problem started when the city applied imminent domain to the property when expanding 38"' Ave in the 1990's giving the property less distance from noise generated by general traffic, the hospital, trash, etc. The problem seems to have intensified over the past three years, as we moved into the home early summer 2008, given the new additions to the hospital. F: The - granting of the variance- would not-be detrimental to -the public - welfare w injuraeus -w -other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use of development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in the public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. This variance would not deter the public's view of my house, but more so increase the curbside appeal of my home and my neighbor's home. With approval of the fence variance the value of the home will go up and it will be more cosmetically appealing. With the increased value of my home it would also increase the value of the houses in my neighborhood. It will not affect the amount of congestion, hazards, light, or air to the adjacent property. G: The unusual circumstances of conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. In driving down 38` Ave, between Wadsworth and Dover since the expansion of 38 Ave, it is evident that these homes have dealt with these same issues given the additions of yard berms build, shrubs and trees planted, and additional fences built: There are multiple properties - hymy-neighbvrhood - thathave 6 foot fences to shield themselves from 38` and the only difference between their homes and mine is that my address faces 38` Ave. In closing, we do appreciate your consideration of this fence variance. We are hopeful that the city will grant us this small request to address our concerns of our home and neighboring community. Please feel free to call us with any - questions -or concerns. Regards, Shannon Hardi Schwan Hardi 720- 201 -0007 303 -949 -4178 W W w z L 0 W Vl O I 0 IL 9 3 0 N 0 v Q 00 M