HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-11-11Cit of
Wheat P
COMMUNrry DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building
September 1, 2011
Mr. Nick Freeman
2903 Reed Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Case No. WA -11 -11
Dear Mr. Freeman:
1 , 0 �
V'
Attached l
Attached please find notice that your requests for A) a 2.5 -foot variance from the 5 -foot side yard
setback requirement and 13) a 1.4 -foot variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback were approved
for the purpose of constructing a minor accessory structure on property at 2903 Reed Street.
The only condition on the approval is that the design and architecture of the structure be similar in
character to the existing house.
Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance and staff report. The City does not require a
building permit for sheds smaller than 120 square feet. Thus, you will not need to apply for a
permit prior to constructing the structure.
Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions.
Sincerely,
Lauren Mikulak
Planner I
7500 W. 29' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
mvwxi.wheatridge.co.us
7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857
®� ®� City of
A� WheatPQidge
Approval of Variance
WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 2903 Reed
Street referenced as Case No. WA -11 -11 / Freeman; 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 2.5 -foot variance from the 5 -foot side yard
setback requirement and a 1.4 -foot variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement —
resulting in a 2.5 -foot side yard setback and a 3.6 -foot rear yard setback —for the purpose of
constructing a minor accessory structure on property in the Residential -Two (R -2) zone district
(Case No. WA -11 -11 / Freeman), is granted for property located at 2903 Reed 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 unusually small lot size results in a unique challenge that makes it difficult to construct
an accessory structure that meets the setback requirements.
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.
6. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification
period.
With the following conditions:
The design and architecture of the accessory structure be similar in character to the existing
house.
Fenneth 9ohnstony, AICP
Community Deve opment Director
9 -1--11
Date
A 4 1
® City of
W
TO:
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Community Development Director
DATE: August 31, 2011
Lauren Mikulak
WA -11 -11 /Freeman
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of a (A) a 2.5 -foot variance from the 5 -foot side yard setback
requirement and (B) a 1.4 -foot variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback on
property located at 2903 Reed Street and zoned Residential -Two (R -2)
LOCATION OF REQUEST:
2903 Reed Street
APPLICANT (S):
Nick Freeman
OWNER (S):
Nick Freeman
APPROXIMATE AREA:
4,141 (0.1 Acres)
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential -Two (R -2)
PRESENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Site
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
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 two variance requests: (A) approval of a 2.5 -foot (50 %)
variance from the 5 -foot side yard setback requirement and (B) approval of a 1.4 -foot (28 %) variance
from the 5 -foot rear yard setback. The purpose of the variance request is to allow for the construction
of a 90- square foot shed in the northwest corner of the property.
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, Nick Freeman, is requesting two variances as the property owner of 2903 Reed Street.
The variances are being requested so that the applicant may construct a 7.5' x 12' shed in the backyard
of the property in the northwest corner (Exhibit 1, Aerial).
The property 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 parcel is surrounded by properties
that are also zoned R -2 and contain single- and two - family homes (Exhibit 2, Zonin�.
The parcel has an area of 4,141 square feet and currently contains a two- story, single - family home.
Previously, the only structure on the lot was a 400 - square foot garage. In 2005, the garage was
converted to a single family residence, and was expanded. The home now has 1,600 square feet of
living space and an attached two -car garage.
The backyard of the property is about 840 square feet, the middle third of which is consumed by a
paved patio area. Based on aerial imagery, the patio existed before the applicant purchased the lot in
2009. The southern third of the backyard is a useable grassy lawn, and the northern portion is an
unimproved area consisting of dirt and a tree stump. This northern area is about 10 feet wide and 20
feet long. The applicant is proposing to locate the 90- square foot shed in this northwestern corner of
the property (Exltbzt 3, sites Photos);.
The proposed shed is 7.5 feet wide and would be located next to the existing patio as far from the
northern property line as possible — resulting in a 2.5 -foot side setback. The length of the shed is
proposed to be 12 feet. If it was constructed to meet the 5 -foot rear setback, only 3 feet would remain
between the house and the shed, and it may not be possible to open the doors and access stored items.
In its proposed location, the shed would encroach 1.4 feet into the rear setback, resulting in a 3.6 -foot
rear setback {Ezhibrt 44, S {te plan).
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
There are currently no accessory structures on the property, and the home has neither a basement, nor
an unfinished storage space. An attached garage is located at the front of the home. It faces Reed
Street and is 20' x 20' which accommodates two vehicles, but allows no extra space for storage.
The property is a non - conforming lot of record that is substantially smaller than the minimum
standards for a single family home in R -2. The area of the subject property is 46% of the minimum lot
size, and the lot width is 54% of the minimum width. Despite its small size, lot coverage with the shed
would be 26 11 /o—well below the 40% maximum for R -2. The following table compares the required
R -2 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions:
R -2 Development Standards:
Required
Actual
Lot Area
9,000 square feet (min)
4,141 square feet
Lot Width
75 feet (min)
41 feet
Minor Accessory Structures:
Required
Proposed Shed
Building Size
400 square feet (max)
90 square feet
Side Setback
5 feet min
2.5 feet
Rear Setback
5 feet min
3.6 feet
Front Setback
25 feet (min)
±80 feet
Height
10 feet (max)
9.5 feet
During the public notification period neither inquiries nor objections were received regarding the
variance request.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve an administrative variance, 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 5, Criteria Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the
variance criteria.
REQUEST A: Approval of a 2.5 -foot (50 %) variance from the 5 -foot side yard setback requirement
for a minor accessory structure.
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.
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance is not liki Ay to alter the character of the locality. The R -2 zone district allows
sheds, and se veral horr es in the neighborhood have existing accessory structures. More
importantly, I he location of the proposed shed is in the northwest corner of the property and it
will not be vi 3ible fron i the public right of way. The shed will also largely be concealed from
the view of n ighbors because of existing fencing and landscaping (Exhibit 3 Site Photos).
The applicani has expr ssed that he has contacted his neighbor to the north, and they have not
expressed any objectio to the side setback encroachment.
Staff finds this criteri
3. The applica
t is pro
which would
not be
The applicani
is props
the variance.
The are
meet the side
setback
4.
5.
narrow width. The wi
side setback ould be
Staff finds th s criteri<
has been met.
a substantial investment in the property with this application,
without the variance.
ing an investment in the property, which would not be possible without
between the patio and the north property line is only 10 feet wide. To
shed would have to be no wider than 5 feet which is an unusually
, to accommodate a standard small -size shed without encroaching in a
o locate the shed on the patio.
has been met.
The particular physi al surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguishei I from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out.
The unique h
irdship o
the subject property relates to the unusually small parcel size for the R-
2 zone district.
The to
is 4,141 square feet in area —less than half the minimum size
established b
the R -2
development standards. The parcel does not meet minimum lot size for
any residents
1 zone di
trict in the City.
In addition, the
lot width
is only 41 feet just over half the minimum width for a lot in R -2.
The combinco
hardships
of substandard width and size result in a unique challenge that makes
it difficult to
onstruct
a 90- square foot shed within the side setback.
Staff finds th#s criterion has been met.
The alleged Oifficultylor hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in t e propeilt
The hardship described above was not created by the current property owner or any person
currently ha g an in rest in the property. The current owner purchased the property in
February 200 9, and thi s is not responsible for the existing conditions. The current owner did
not create the lot, cons ruct the home, or build the patio in its current configuration.
Staff finds "s criterioh has been met.
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
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 for a side setback variance 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, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The shed would not impede the sight distance triangle and
would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property
values in the neighborhood.
The shed is proposed to be located adjacent to a utility pole, but the applicant has submitted a
letter from Xcel Energy that states no objection to the shed encroaching into an easement
owned by Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) (Exhibit 3,; Site Photos).
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.
There are no unique or unusual circumstances present in the neighborhood that are also present
on the property and necessitate the need for a variance. Most other lots in the neighborhood
appear to meet minimum standards for lot size and width.
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
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
REQUEST B: Approval of a 1.4 -foot (28 %) variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement
for a minor accessory structure.
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 R -2 zone district allows
sheds, and several homes in the neighborhood have existing accessory structures. More
importantly, the location of the proposed shed is in the northwest corner of the property and it
will not be visible from the public right of way. The shed will also largely be concealed from
the view of neighbors because of existing fencing and landscaping (Exhibit 3, •Site Photos).
The applicant met with the neighbor to the west, and they have not expressed any objections.
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 an investment in the property, which would not be possible without
the variance. The area between the house and the rear property line is 20.5 feet (Exhibit 4, Site
Plan). If a shed was constructed to meet the rear setback, 15.5 feet would remain. This may
not be a large enough area to accommodate the length of a small shed with sufficient room to
open the doors on the east side. The only alternative placement would be on the south side of
the backyard. A shed in this location may meet the rear setback requirement, but it would
consume the only portion of green yard space.
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 hardship of the subject property relates to the unusually small parcel size for the R-
2 zone district. The lot is 4,141 square feet in area —less than half the minimum size
established by the R -2 development standards. The parcel does not meet minimum lot size for
any residential zone district in the City.
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
In addition, the lot width is only 41 feet just over half the minimum width for a lot in R -2.
The combined hardships of substandard width and size result in a unique challenge that makes
it difficult to construct a 90- square foot shed within the rear setback.
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 hardship 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 property in
February 2009, and thus is not responsible for the existing conditions. The current owner did
not create the lot, construct the home, or build the patio in its current configuration.
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 for a rear setback variance 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, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The shed would not impede the sight distance triangle and
would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property
values in the neighborhood.
The shed is proposed to be located adjacent to a utility pole, but the applicant has submitted a
letter from Xcel Energy that states no objection to the shed encroaching into an easement
owned by Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) (Exhtbit 3 Site Phofos).
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.
There are no unique or unusual circumstances present in the neighborhood that are also present
on the property and necessitate the need for a variance. Most other lots in the neighborhood
appear to meet minimum standards for lot size and width.
Staff finds that this criterion has not been met.
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
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
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 2.5 -foot variance from the 5 -foot side yard setback requirement and a 1.4 -foot
variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback for a minor accessory structure. 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 unusually small lot size results in a unique challenge that makes it difficult to construct a
shed that meets the setback requirements.
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.
6. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification
period.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and architecture of the accessory structure be similar in character to the existing
house.
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Administrative Variance
CaseNo. 6VA -11-11 /Freeman
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
Administrative Variance 10
Case No. WA -ll -ll /Freeman
EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS
Proposed
location of
shed
Administrative Variawce
Case No. {VA -1 / -11 /Freeman
Proposed
location
of shed
Administrative Variance 12
CaseNo. WA-11-11/Freeman
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLANS
,9s�b
r
0
Co
b
O
40
O
4}
i
r1�'
V
d
9
10
>
s
.I
R
O
T
Administrative Variance 13
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
EXHIBIT 5: CRITERIA RESPONSE
August 15, 2011
Sarah Showalter
City of Wheat Ridge
7500 W.24 Ave
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Subject: Variance Criteria Response
Dear Ms. Showalter,
We request a variance to construct a shed at the following address: 2903 Reed St. Wheat
Ridge CO, 80033. We would like to construct a shed near our property boundaries in the
backyard We would need a variance to build 2.5 ft. from the northem property boundary
and 3.66 ft. from the western property boundary on the northwest comer of the lot.
Criteria:
A. If we were to build a shed within the conditions allowed by the regulations, we
would be left with a relatively small area in which to put a shed. This small area
would not yield a large enough shed to justify the cost and desired use.
B. The requested variance won't alter the essential character of the property. We
would be constructing the shed out of the same materials (siding, paint, trim) and
pouring a concrete pad (house is build on a concrete slab). The shed will have
the same basic shape as the house.
C. The shed would be a substantial investment in the property. The property does
not have a basement, crawlspace, or attic storage capability. The property has
very limited storage capability, and a shed would add substantial value and utility
to the property.
D. Our lot is long and narrow. This creates a unique hardship because there are
limited locations in which to construct a shed. The other portion of the yard is
landscaped with trees, bushes, etc. and if a shed was placed in this location, it
would greatly limit the use of the back yard. We believe this would be a decrease
in the value of the property and use of the property (see attached pictures).
E. The house and landscaping were designed and built by the previous owner. The
sprinkler system was placed along the south and west property lines. The
sprinkler system can't be moved easily because portions of the lines run
underneath the cement pad in the backyard. It would be prohibitively expensive
to reroute the sprinkler system. There is no sprinkler in the northwest portion of
the backyard where the proposed shed is to be built. If the shed were to be built
in the south west corner of the lot, it would also require the removal of a large
Administrative Variance 14
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
tree whereas there is only a dirt patch in the northwest comer which is the
location of the proposed shed.
F. We have obtained approval from Xcel Energy to build the shed in the proposed
location as long as the roof of the shed is 4 feet from the overhead power lines
(see attached letter). The shed will be contained within the property lines behind
a 6 foot fence. The view of the shed from outside our property will be limited
and will not restrict light, air, impair congestion, or be a fire hazard. It will be
relatively small structure and will not impede use of adjacent property. Because
the shed will be built of materials similar to the house and of similar quality, it
will not decrease the value of our property or the property values in the
neighborhood.
G. This neighborhood is an older neighborhood and because of this, the lots sizes
vary. The use of the neighborhood has also changed through the years. Because
our house was originally a bam, our lot size reflects this and limits the use of the
property.
Thank you for your consideration and please contact us with further questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Freeman & Anna Freeman
n0? 0 o nikrnismlivm l br ar)ick o n i o n i o ni o n „ n ®nAn ®n0 i 0 ®n0 i n ®n ®nn i nn i nn i nn i nn o npnn0 i n0 o nO J 5 nR
Case No. WA -11 -11 /Freeman
ari of
WheatR d e
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. WA -11 -11
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: August 29 2011
1, ��,��o�u s Fr-reof an
n (name) /
residing at 2'/0 K e ea 5j W 4 e,
as the applicant for Case No.
(address)
WA -11 -11 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for
Public Notice at 2903 Reed Street
(location)
on this 19` day of August, 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 map below.
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
02980
06925 08925
07100
02953
....,...
.. ...........
j 07057
}
1
..�._., ..,..,_.....
K F-
02903 m ?
02920
0 }
1 08915
r W
S
f 02901
07101
`E
07057 07096
08905
02901
�.
_...
.. ._.. .
29TH AVE
07110 07090 t
07002
02890
06900
W A-- /t- 11 / - Fr z,e hlVati.
FREEMAN NICHOLAS A 39- 264 -10 -020
CARPENTER ANNA E 7011 0470 0002 3336 1886
2903 REED ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
KAT CUSTOM HOMES LLC 39- 264 -10 -022 7011 0470 0002 3336 1893
12311 IVANHOE ST
BRIGHTON CO 80602
BONZERMARJORIEE 39- 264 -10 -008 7011 0470 0002 3336 1909
11348 W 27TH AVE
DENVER CO 80215 7192
LABRUCHERIE SYLVIA M 39- 264 -10 -009
WEIS JEANNE MARIE 7 0 4 7 0 0 3336 1916
7057 W 29TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
LEHR RAYMOND A 39- 264 -10 -017 7011 0470 0002 3336 1923
LEHR GWEN M
9490 W 37TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 5745
VINYCH VICTOR SS r� 39- 264 -01 -021 7011 0470 0002 3336 1930
VINYCHNAI % 1 11 v 1
2902 OAK ST V�/
LAKEWOOD CO 80215 7161
0
City of
WheatP dge
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
August 19, 2011
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 11 -11, a request for approval of a 2.5 foot
side yard setback variance from the 5 foot side yard setback requirement and a 1.4
foot rear yard setback variance from the 5 foot rear yard setback requirement on
property zoned Residential -Two (R -2) and located at 2903 Reed 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 August 29, 2011.
Thank you.
WAl l l l.doc
www.ci.wheatridge.co.0 s
,Ts
�n
ro
u
m
I
10
v
Y
cr
3
c�
c�
C6
v
0
3
1�
S
C
w
I
�' Plod Sobs
OOJ=IEIP
`v
N
r
a
i
r O
O
ails
U)
Z
W N O
a O
Aingslneg
0 r
r
U
Q C
a
rn
N
v
N
> � O
r
� Coj
r
City of
'� W heati<109e
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)
Applic /y IG Address .2 qo 3 Reed It. Phone Sq+2/o2
City 1 +/17.4! 4C State Leloi-aalo Zip Yow Fax
Owner F7eeoyom Address eeo( J Phone 3o3 S8q - Zlo2
City w!ect�idgt State Go /org Z) Zip Adl7? Fax
Contact i reem Address2yol RGe*I SA. Phone 3a2-$$4-1102
City WAea,-F R;dgc State Zip o0 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): 2 3 0 3 Reed( S'
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
❑ Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less)
❑ Consolidation Plat
❑ Conditional Use Permit
❑ Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots)
❑ Flood Plain Special Exception
❑ Site Plan approval
❑ Temporary Use, Building, Sign
❑ Lot Line Adjustment
Cl Concept Plan approval
JU Variance/Waiver (from Section )
❑ Planned Building Group
❑ Right of Way Vacation
❑ Other:
Detailed description of request: B u , I d 4 9 0 SQ 64 $�k* se -rk - Fa P Alo e
� °-rf�r Ideuadory as»f 3 66 F+ ri-om wes{tr a ProPG�v i?ov�dar y
Required information:
Assessors Parcel Number: 3+ 2 & Size of Lot (acres or square footage) ,-
Current Zoning: Q {e i* f ; 4 ( Proposed Zoning:
Current Use
C; y 5
t Fa wr31 Y DWe l h n y Proposed Use: A / /sF
I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above,
without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners
must submit power -of- attorney from the owner which approved of this action on lf.
ROO Gq
.. •.y y
Signature of Applican �.rtt .,_�, �;2<0 /
Subscribed and sworn to me this v O� 20 ! Z
Notary Pub '° N
My commissio
To be filled out by staff:
Date received � Fee $ ,a60 o � Recei,P,t No.0 �Dd��Case No. L'Y 4/ -
/
Comp Plan Desig. Zoning /C ' �. Quarter Section Map
Related Case No. Pre -App Mtg. Date Case Manager An tYG' l Co%
August 15, 2011
Sarah Showalter
City of Wheat Ridge
7500 W. 29 Ave
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Subject: Variance Criteria Response
Dear Ms. Showalter,
We request a variance to construct a shed at the following address: 2903 Reed St. Wheat
Ridge CO, 80033. We would like to construct a shed near our property boundaries in the
backyard. We would need a variance to build 2.5 ft. from the northern property boundary
and 3.66 ft. from the western property boundary on the northwest corner of the lot.
Criteria:
A. If we were to build a shed within the conditions allowed by the regulations, we
would be left with a relatively small area in which to put a shed. This small area
would not yield a large enough shed to justify the cost and desired use.
B. The requested variance won't alter the essential character of the property. We
would be constructing the shed out of the same materials (siding, paint, trim) and
pouring a concrete pad (house is build on a concrete slab). The shed will have
the same basic shape as the house.
C. The shed would be a substantial investment in the property. The property does
not have a basement, crawlspace, or attic storage capability. The property has
very limited storage capability, and a shed would add substantial value and utility
to the property.
D. Our lot is long and narrow. This creates a unique hardship because there are
limited locations in which to construct a shed. The other portion of the yard is
landscaped with trees, bushes, etc. and if a shed was placed in this location, it
would greatly limit the use of the back yard. We believe this would be a decrease
in the value of the property and use of the property (see attached pictures).
E. The house and landscaping were designed and built by the previous owner. The
sprinkler system was placed along the south and west property lines. The
sprinkler system can't be moved easily because portions of the lines run
underneath the cement pad in the backyard. It would be prohibitively expensive
to reroute the sprinkler system. There is no sprinkler in the northwest portion of
the backyard where the proposed shed is to be built. If the shed were to be built
in the south west corner of the lot, it would also require the removal of a large
tree whereas there is only a dirt patch in the northwest corner which is the
location of the proposed shed.
F. We have obtained approval from Xcel Energy to build the shed in the proposed
location as long as the roof of the shed is 4 feet from the overhead power lines
(see attached letter). The shed will be contained within the property lines behind
a 6 foot fence. The view of the shed from outside our property will be limited
and will not restrict light, air, impair congestion, or be a fire hazard. It will be
relatively small structure and will not impede use of adjacent property. Because
the shed will be built of materials similar to the house and of similar quality, it
will not decrease the value of our property or the property values in the
neighborhood.
G. This neighborhood is an older neighborhood and because of this, the lots sizes
vary. The use of the neighborhood has also changed through the years. Because
our house was originally a barn, our lot size reflects this and limits the use of the
property.
Thank you for your consideration and please contact us with further questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Freeman & Anna Freeman
303 -589 -2102
nfreeman9l I@yahoo.com
Enclosures: 2
i
�n
00
V
s
H
N
a
no
0
00
v
�r
�
3
cv
(Y)
T
v
N
0
C--%+,
s
a
3
F
-6' M3 Sobs
+/,� DATE 10/26/200 110.00 JOB# 03-2
MORTGAGE CO. WRZAT RIDGE BLDG -DEPT.
LAND S U R V E Y I N G ADDRESS 2903 REED ST_
5460 WARD ROAD . SUITE 160 BORROWERS NAME KY LAM
ARVADA COLORADO 80002
(303) 420 -4788
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Attn: PATRIC& IVFR CUENn
Beginning at apoixrt lehioh se 15 fee-tYeet and 120 feet ltoith of the nvutiheaBt7
oa¢uer of-Lot 3, Stook 2, barth,s subdiallalons theme stasth a distance of
30 teats thence Rest a distance of 10 feet; thence NUCth a distance of ll Feet;
thence Yeat a distance of 101 feats thence South a distance of kl feet
thence )East a distance of 111 feet to the point of beginning,
City of Wheat Ridge, COUmty of Jefferson, State of Colorado.
Scale: 1"-20
Is
� Z (C
Z
J
i0 {.0
20.5' t. N
v
b
30.2'
50.3' �
v
10.0 N
b Two Story
o
y Frame Garage
b
O
�"
zD
U
Of
30.2'
Port
lof Lot 3
ZD
O
1 -
cn.
Lo'
_'
is
1
Southeast Corner
t
of Los 3
I
XcelEnergy
5460 W. 60 111 Ave.
Arvada, CO. 80003
August 11, 201
Nicholas A. Freeman
2903 Reed St.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Subject: Encroachment Request
Dear Mr. Freeman:
Regarding your inquiry related to a shed you plan to build that will encroach into a utility easement
in the rear of your property at 2903 Reed Street, Wheat Ridge, CO part of Lot 3, Block 2, Barths
Subdivision (for a legal description of the property see warranty deed recorded with Jefferson County
at reception number 2009013479)).
As a Land Rights Agent for Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) I have reviewed your
request with Pete Backo, the PSCo electric designer for your area. Pete and I reviewed PSCo facility
maps and identified overhead electric lines within the easement area. We have no objection to your
encroachment into the easement as long as you maintain a mininmm spacing of at least 4 feet fiom
the electric lines to the roof of the shed. You do need to be aware that at some time in the future,
Public Service Company may have to perform work within the easement and that if the shed is
damaged the owners of the property may be responsible for the cost of restoring the shed to its
existing condition
For clarification of the Company name, Xcel Energy is only the holding company or "brand" for
Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo). ALL utility facilities and related land rights including
fee property, easements, permits, etc., are owned and operated by Public Service Company of
Colorado, a Colorado Corporation. Call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
V
Frank Grady, Sr. Laud Ri its Agent
Right of Way & Permits
Public Service Company of Colorado
Office: 303-425-3874
ce
W
a
W
m
O
Q m
0 3
0
O�
0 L
O
OF
F
rFi] p
m
C
C
R
C
.o
N
.n
i
R
0
L
a
ti
m
m
w
m
O
E
3
s
U
N G
v T
yp m
. C
y L
3 E
o �
G. y
N =
� R
3 �
c t°
U T
� Y
G eL.
R
eGD 4
O L
� F
m
w =
0
F x
Y
e
SC
x
y
O
a
a
m
s
T
e
h
CJ
J
S
Q
F-
0
2
'a
v
r
O
Q o
¢ o
o m
O fl
X
m
LL c
o m
Ui M
E
0
Yv
n
T
0
n
.T.
z
O
z
U
¢i
3
ro« m
c ro
3
E2
O
u
O
p, m m
« y m •L R
'p
m
p
m
W a o c
�
N
Cwt
M ooro
r'�`°Y c-wWo
CIF
d
0 �Y'
am d y mEa�=
T v,
c G.
LO
bD w'
m i y S 0 0
.Cy L
'm
A
o
R
U
ai c T
0
A
ri
m
bD d u o
'o N c
3 y d
m om« C
y
G
O
O N
.-
C � �'
R m
•� R O
LL N y
0
0.i
m
G a G.
C F N
W✓ m U O
y„^
R R
W y G
Fr
c o o
W m a
un
>
m
F
«
m
a
v
c
w c E
O R
o
a
Y
C
OA L
t
b0 O
E m
t° �' m m E w
v s 4° L
z s o m
N .c
a
3
�
ny
y C y
w
C7 O
°„
U
L m
U
H
o e-
S Q
N
w w w w 4. w U U
.
C IO
O p O D O w
S
�
o i O
3
m m
O 'o
o
yN y
m',
a p
i6 A R O
-
'Q a 'p aa y N
OL C
G `°'' a
m +�"
R
Es- p a m
a
eC
Q
O y 'm
$aU
.6
cC
od t6 a
o 3z3 o
p
7 °W F
R L
C?
U U U U U �•'
•
f W
ai v v v U 3
o
Z
.
a a
0.l
W o
3 Qas ° ti
Mr i- FF - FWU
ce
W
a
W
m
O
Q m
0 3
0
O�
0 L
O
OF
F
rFi] p
m
C
C
R
C
.o
N
.n
i
R
0
L
a
ti
m
m
w
m
O
E
3
s
U
N G
v T
yp m
. C
y L
3 E
o �
G. y
N =
� R
3 �
c t°
U T
� Y
G eL.
R
eGD 4
O L
� F
m
w =
0
F x
Y
e
SC
x
y
O
a
a
m
s
T
e
h
CJ
J
S
Q
F-
0
2
'a
v
r
O
Q o
¢ o
o m
O fl
X
m
LL c
o m
Ui M
E
0
Yv
n
T
0
n
.T.
z
O
z
U
¢i
3
ro« m
c ro
3
E2
O
u
O
p, m m
« y m •L R
'p
m
o
"_' N Y
Y C
'-
Cwt
M ooro
r'�`°Y c-wWo
0 �Y'
am d y mEa�=
T v,
c G.
LO
bD w'
m i y S 0 0
.Cy L
'm
E n m
y
bD d u o
'o N c
3 y d
m om« C
.-
C � �'
R m
•� R O
LL N y
N
'° C.Q O
G a G.
C F N
W✓ m U O
y„^
R R
W y G
c o o
W m a
un
e
E m
t° �' m m E w
v s 4° L
z s o m
N .c
a
U
L m
U
H
o e-
ce
W
a
W
m
O
Q m
0 3
0
O�
0 L
O
OF
F
rFi] p
m
C
C
R
C
.o
N
.n
i
R
0
L
a
ti
m
m
w
m
O
E
3
s
U
N G
v T
yp m
. C
y L
3 E
o �
G. y
N =
� R
3 �
c t°
U T
� Y
G eL.
R
eGD 4
O L
� F
m
w =
0
F x
Y
e
SC
x
y
O
a
a
m
s
T
e
h
CJ
J
S
Q
F-
0
2
'a
v
r
O
Q o
¢ o
o m
O fl
X
m
LL c
o m
Ui M
E
0
Yv
n
T
0
n
.T.
z
O
z
U
¢i
3
R a�u s"' �: t','z7 c .0 ��„� aM"E+ is a n � r � � ✓ 3'&. �'a�o c a �q �Xro3t tt�r ��,' `u3 Y�'+�S'vCU -rn j�e"4�i'�:� �'S'✓ �"�'+S3F5i` 4 r�sr. -h ' '� F'� 4
`� �� utyof LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
Wheat�ge
C,t7li W1U'.Ill' 1)FVFI- pii4tFVT
i,. Case No. WA1111 Date Received C 8!18!2011 Related
Cases Case Planner k la k _ Ji -
{; Case Description
Variances from the side and rear yard setback
' Name Nick Freeman Name Phone
(303]589 -2102
Address 2903Reed St. 1 CO "!heat Ridge State CO Zip 8003
s avrmsrin/nvmafmn - -- - ---
—
.: Name. Nick Freeman Name Phone
(303] 589.2102
I Address 2903 Reed St. City Wheat Ridge
State CO Zip 8003 - 3
C. mr t /nfn�
- Name Nick Freeman Name Phone
(303) 589 -2102
Address F2903 RRee St. City Wheat Ridge
State [Ml Zip 80033 -
a Projeicflydn»�ra/mn
--
- Address 2903 Street IReed Street City Wh Ridge ( State ` Zip 180033 v
- - --- - -- --- ------- -- - - - - --, �� C— - - -J
Location Description
( Project Name L
„Parcel No. 139. 264 -10 -020 Qtr Section: SE26 District
r _ ..----- ------ -- ------:
No.: v1
Rovdiewy
Pre -App Date ;�� Neighborhood Meeting Date —
App No: v'I
Review Type ". Review Body Review Date. Disposition
Comments Report ^i
,Review v Admin v ff
v'. Deadline to object 8!29111
t
DispossFa�
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
88/18/11 12:19 PH DID
NICHOLAS A FREEMAN
RECEIPT NO:CDD886548 MOUNT
FMSD ZONING APPLICATION F 288.80
ZONE
t
4
PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT
CK 1198 288.00
TOTAL 280.88