Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-12-02i CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Building Inspection Division (303) 234 -5933 Inspection line (303) 235 -2855 Office • (303) 237 -8929 Fax INSPECTION NOTICE Inspection Type e�vzlQTF54 Job Address N3/5 AV S% T A f Permit Number , ?TS/ f1i41 fX T7, XCA1,,470 TS tk -. S£�+i!TE 6r4S rrlfT���, �''y2�iIL'FS. �liTc'��ryS rAOSkOX 7/ tr fX S TS 4Av F.W. 5 rf 0 f�� ic/y.y�F�oys f�A�s f1Pf��ovf� ft� f} No one available for inspection: Time //-,?� ' AM /PM Re- Inspection required: Yes No * When corrections have been made, call for re- inspection at 303 - 234 -5933 Date: 611 Inspector: DO NOT R EMOVE THIS NOTICE • City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303,235.2846 F: 303.235.2851 U-2HUMME Armond Azharian 4315 Balsam St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 14 , 14 Please be advised that at its meeting of March 22, 2012, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request for a variance to the minimum lot size and lot width requirements to allow an additional dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 4315 Balsam Street for the following reasons: Enclosed is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution, as well as a draft copy of the minutes, stating the Board's decision which became effective the date of the meeting, March 22, 2012. This variance shall automatically expire within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date it was granted, September 18, 2012, unless a building permit has been obtained. www.6wheatridge.co.us Armond Azharian Page 2 April 10, 2012 Z= Kathy Field Administrative Assistant Enclosures: Certificate of Resolution Draft of Minutes cc: WA-12-02 (case file) WAl201doc CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION Board of adjustment Resolution No. WA-12-02 Page 2 of 2 3. A separate address may be assigned to the second dwelling unit (either a unique number or "Unit B.') VOTE: YES: ABBOTT, BANGHART, BELL, BLAIR, GRIFFITH, HOVLAND, PAGE, WALTER DISPOSITION: A request for approval of a variance to the minimum lot size and lot width was APPROVED. Thomas Abbott, 1 7 hair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board • Adjustment Board • Adjustment Em# !' � The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT at�* p.m. Board Members Present: T N Is 1W loam 9 I I , 9 A. caie, vari ai 2: An application filed by Armond Azharian for approval of amum lot size and lot width requirements to allow an unit on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 4315 Board of Adjustment Minutes - I — March 22, 2012 the County has record of two units on the property. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, as contained in the staff report. Board Member BANGHART asked if other duplexes on small lots in the neighborhood have variances. Ms. Mikulak stated they did not have variances and not all are zoned R- 2. The structures and/or properties could be considered legal nonconforming. This is often the case when County Assessor records indicate a property is multi-unit, and the building was constructed before the City was incorporated. '' Will owned the property for twenty years and during improvements to the property. The rental while she was in college. After that tim NMI! " M Stacy Lancaster 4260 Balsam Ms. caster:Nv",IMyMJ ' n by p I or eprope y at would better acco 0 full- i variance process. Code enforcement can address unrelated people living together is exceeded, This ial units whether or not they are single or multi-family. The c s e parked on a public street or how many cars a multemaIMILiaLstral"M NI Hill Im Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2 — March 22, 2412 Board Member BELL commented that the lot size does not meet current requirements for subdivision. In response to Ms. Gleason's concern that the existing structure could • scraped and replaced with larger duplex, Ms. Mikulak explained that staff is recommending a conditio igii i i [ I . r., 11 Z, ii i 11 1;; 1 Chair ABBOTT asked if there were others nM response. 1"jung ItTaml Whereas, Case No. WA-1 # # Type ofV,7firiance: A v'#'#"ance to the minimum lot size and lot width requirements to allow a ional Iling unit on property already zoned Residential-Two. [rim Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3 — March 22, 2012 RIWRAW i a i indicate to + • i ♦• nat i MINOR i IL I D# IN if . I I MIS NON I ! I= LVI Irrattl 1 i •t i+ ►i. i i Z NM M w I i i • # III.. W • . ; they might also w' ewill validate the • i public hearing portion of the meeting. Board of Adjustment Minutes -4— March 22, 2012 ^ �r y, a r �� � $n �''��t ° . �,. �u°,.��;� t'�� t in. �, �'�"� ��� °'"�� z ° "'`� "'�'�, r�,.<f: "f� �,'�• ¢,. �c:"„'t"� i ' * °w�• �""s... �" t. �'��$•� ` ^ � `' �' d �,,..��.:. n�- y r u f , a � a� ,mot s°a�a ,,', �•�• � � � y. ^ r TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I DATE: March 22, 2012 No objections have been received, however some neighbors have expressed concern that the variance may allow a future property owner to remove the existing home and replace it with a duplex in a different configuration. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to address this concern, such that any future development of a new two-family home on the property would require a new variance request. Surnraga of public input since March 15, 2012: 4385 Balsam :: Property owner submitted a letter of support. 4380 Balsam :: Property owner submitted a letter of support. 4365 Balsarn :: Property owner submitted a letter of support. 4295 Balsam :: Property owner inquired as nature of the request, and expressed concern if there would be an increase in traffic and on-street parking. A letter of support was submitted. 4275 Balsam :: Property owner had no concerns because no physical changes are associated with the variance request. 4230 Balsam :: Property owner inquired as nature of the request and how it would affect property values in the neighborhood. No objections specifically related to the variance request. 4245 Ammons :: Property owner had concerns related to the fact that the home does not meet current standards for front setback. The front setback is nonconforming because the home was originally constructed in 1922. If the property is ever entirely redeveloped, a new home would need to meet the front setback requirement. No objections specifically related to the variance request, Lauren Mikulak From: Kathy Field Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:05 AM To: LaDarlene Bahr Cc: Lauren Mikulak Subject: RE: per our conversation regarding certified letter sent to D. LaDonna Bahr in relationship to 4315 Balsam Street. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Kathy Field Administrative Assistant Office Phone* 303-235-2846 0 Date F RO M : REGARDING. m [IRL- &11�tm[D HMO 4/9/2012 4/9/2012 .7M AVE � wit 4/9/2012 mumml MEMO 4/9/2012 4/9/2012 TM CARD IS FOSM ON THI Pnom im I lE OWRED f ML KTKM WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7M WEST M AVENUE M4 N1 EIL M INSPECTION RECORD Yes R19 4R1{II 5 ID k vi ' E.Aff LEG E WD ;L L.., 12.4tW4 W& U& Ent- - vp ' TM CARD IS FOSM ON THI Pnom im I lE OWRED f ML KTKM WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7M WEST M AVENUE M4 N1 EIL M INSPECTION RECORD Yes R19 4R1{II 5 4/9/2012 r e ■irKT10M Tlaw •oe.cu 'yam /�� /r.o. .ioc. cart.. E m 6 IMf ►ECTION �E011[fT[D Fr. •• • «•"• INfr[CTIOMI YAD[ CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TaTi os r...wt Omm ......�.. —rails. -+n. T.r r.r r► ww w r... w.sr .r..... r.r ..r r .� �.n row .r... r ODlrtl{.C'ITM .a . .bT. 1rORR1T' sm rrl .Trl�N /O!. r a.� r r ✓, r r r � rr r+r�.+r. errrrr �_� �w.�.. 1 r 4/9/2012 n � ion s•w 1984 1985 1 �01 rev 2010 7 4/9/2012 E-1 4/9/2012 Staff Recommendation With the following conditions: — The applicant shall schedule a courtesy inspection with the building division to confirm that the home meets applicable building codes for a two - family dwelling unit. — A separate address may be assigned to the second dwelling unit — either a unique number or "unit B." — Any future development of a new duplex on the property would require a new variance request. 1 * , A 4 City of .A 9 Wheat�idge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: March 22, 2012 CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: Lauren Mikulak WA -12 -02 /Azharian ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of (A) a 23 -foot variance from the 100 -foot lot width requirement and (B) a 1,736 - square foot variance from the required 12,500- square foot lot area for a two - family dwelling on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4315 Balsam APPLICANT (S) OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: Annond Azharian Armond Azharian 10,764 Square Feet (0.25 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Two (R -2) PRESENT LAND USE: Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -02 /Azharian JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of two variance requests: Request A: Approval of a 23% (23 -foot) variance from the 100 -foot lot width requirement, and Request B: Approval of a 14% (1,736- square foot) variance from the 12,500- square foot lot area requirement for a two - family dwelling in R -2." The purpose of the variance application is to legitimize a second dwelling unit on property located at 4315 Balsam Street (Exhibit 1, Aerial). Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for a variance from the strict application of the zoning code, if the variance request is not in excess of fifty (50) percent of development and if the variance request does not result in an additional dwelling unit. The application is not eligible for administrative review because the request would result in the approval of a second dwelling unit. Therefore, the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction to hear and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Mr. Armond Azharian, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 4315 Balsam Street. The applicant is requesting the variance approvals because he is seeking to legitimize an existing duplex after he became aware of the fact that neither the City nor the County has record of two units on the property. The property is located at 4315 Balsam Street and 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 located three lots south of W. 44` Avenue, and is surrounded on all sides by properties that are also zoned R -2 and contain single- and two - family dwellings (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The parcel has an approximate area of 10,764.6 square feet and currently contains a one -story, two - family home. According to Jefferson County records, the house was originally constructed in 1922 and includes a 200 - square foot basement and an attached two -car garage (Exhibit 3, Site Currently, a small second dwelling unit is located behind the attached garage with access from within the garage and from a walkway along the south side of the property (Exhibit 2, Aerial). The A 14% variance from lot size represents a conservative estimate. Three different sizes are provided by different sources: the Jefferson County Assessor lists the lot size at 11,519 square feet; the property deed and subdivision plat indicate the lot area is 10,820.52 square feet; and a 1984 ILC shows the property to be 10,764.6 square feet. The variance request is based on the smallest possible lot size, as indicate by the ILC. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azharian applicant has expressed that when he purchased the home in 1993, it was represented to him as a legitimate two - family dwelling. He has lived in the main portion of the house and has rented out the second unit for nearly 20 years. The applicant came into the office of the Community Development Department in January 2012 seeking property information and was surprised to learn that neither City nor County records recognize the property as a duplex. Research into the property history suggests that the residence was converted to a duplex sometime in the 1980s. The timeline below has been assembled based on information from building permit records which provide some indication that the conversion occurred before the current owner purchased the home. Exhibit 4 includes excerpts and site plans from the permit files that correspond with this timeline (Exhibit 4, Property History). 1984, Feb An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) shows the original configuration of the home and a detached garage (Exhibit 4A). Today, the second dwelling unit is located in what was originally the detached garage, and is akin to the size of a studio apartment or mother -in -law suite (an estimated 700 square feet). 1984, Mar Building permit #2827 was issued for additions on the northwest and southwest corners of the home and for a new carport (Exhibit 4B). A comment on the plans states that proposed carport "must be at least 30' from the front lot line," but the files do not include a modified site plan to show this comment was addressed. Existing conditions suggest that the comment was likely addressed at this time, since the front of the existing garage is now located 30 feet from the front lot line (Exhibit 4C). 1986, Apr The final inspection ticket associated with building permit #2827 is dated 4/15/1986 and is difficult to read (Exhibit 4E). It appears to state "finals on garage conversion" which could indicate the garage was converted to living space. There is no indication of a conversion in any other documents. 1986, Apr A Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) was issued one day after final inspections (4/16/1986) for the "addition to residence and add carport" (Exhibit 4F). As is standard, the description of work on the C.O. matches the description of work as it appeared on the original building permit issued two years prior in March 1984. It is unclear if a change in the scope of work occurred during the two years between issuance of the permit and C.O. that may have resulted in the addition of a second unit. 1993, Feb The current owner and applicant purchased the property. 1995, Aug The applicant was issued a homeowner's permit ( #95 -1674) for a residential remodel. The permit was valued at $5,000 and the description of work states: "drywall in the garage, skylights, plumbing, concrete floor in basement, siding, doors - general remodel." There are no scanned plans and no inspection tickets in the City's digital files, but ADG (the City's building permit tracking program) indicates that the permit was closed and a C.O. was issued on February 14, 1996 (Exhibit 4G). There is not enough detail in the building permit files to definitively determine if the City has ever recognized two separate dwelling units on the property. The applicant has stated that his 1995 building permit included work on both units. He also stated that he personally accompanied the Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian building inspector into both dwelling units for inspections throughout the duration of the remodel. For this reason, the applicant thought that the City and Building Division must be aware of the existence of the two dwelling units. Aerial images provide some clues as to the timing of the conversion from a single- to two - family dwelling. A 1985 aerial image from the City's archives indicates that the footprint of the home has not changed since that time. This supports the line of reasoning that a previous property owner made modifications to the property, for which a final site plan does not appear in building permit files (Exhibit 2, Aerial). The applicant and Xcel have continued that there are separate Xcel gas meters for the property that are labeled A and B (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The address (4315 Balsam) and electric meter are currently shared by both units. The applicant has expressed that the second unit has been routinely occupied over the last two decades with no complaints from the neighborhood. There are 22 properties in the neighborhood that contain duplexes including the properties immediately to the north and northeast of the subject lot (Exhibit 5, Neighborhood Conditions). The subject parcel meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for single- family homes in the R -2 district, but does not meet the current standards for a two - family dwelling. The following table compares the existing and required conditions for a two -unit dwelling in R -2. Two - Family Dwelling in R -2: Required Actual Lot Coverage 40% (max) ±28% Lot Area 12,500 square feet (min) 10,764.6 square feet Lot Width 100 feet (min) 77 feet Front Setback 25 feet (min) f8.5 feet Side Setback — north 5 feet (min) ±8 feet Side Setback — south 5 feet (min) 5 feet Rear Setback 10 feet (min) 3.6 feet Height 35 feet (max) ±15 feet Ultimately, if the variance requests are both approved, the second dwelling unit would be legitimized, and the property would be considered a legal duplex. If one or both of the variance requests are denied, the second unit would need to be used as an extension of the single family dwelling. Currently, the second unit is occupied by a tenant, and the property has been on the market. The property owner is seeking a conclusive determination of whether or not the property can be recognized as having two dwelling units. The public notification period is currently in progress, and to date three people from the neighborhood have contacted the City by phone. A property owner on the opposite side of Balsam Street had questions regarding the nature of the request; she has stated neither support nor objection at this time. A neighbor from Brentwood Street to the west has stated that he has no concerns with the proposal. The tenant of the second dwelling unit has been in touch with staff to express his support for the request. No written statements from the public have been received. The Board will be updated if any additional public comment is received. Board of Adjustment 4 Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azharian III. VARIANCE CRITERIA The Board of Adjustment shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that a majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided an analysis of the variance criteria (Exhibit 6, Criteria Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis. Please note that although the applicant has submitted two variance requests —for lot size and for lot width —the two requests need to be considered together to legitimize a second dwelling unit. For that reason, there is only one analysis of the criteria set presented below, instead of analyses for each variance request. 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 cease to yield a return in income. The current property owner purchased the home with the understanding that it was a legitimate two - family dwelling. Since the mid -1990s the second dwelling unit has provided a rental income to the current owner. If the variance was denied and the property was required to be used as a single- family dwelling, there could be a notable loss of income. In addition, the determination of a single- or two - family dwelling could affect the value of the home. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A granting of the variance will legitimize a use that appears to have existed for at least two decades, but it will not result in any noticeable change in use or in any physical modification to the property. The property owner has stated that the home has been a two - family dwelling for at least 20 -25 years, and the footprint of the home has been unchanged in the same period of time. A two - family dwelling is a permitted use in the R -2 zone district, and there are several existing two- family dwellings within the neighborhood. This includes the property immediately adjacent to the north which does meet the minimum standards for a duplex in R -2 (Exhibit_5, Neighborhood Conditions). Additionally, there is sufficient parking to accommodate two units. The property has a two car garage, the driveway can accommodate at least two vehicles, and there is enough space for two vehicles to park on Balsam Street in front of the home. 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. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian The applicant invested substantially in the property after purchasing the lot; a 1995 building permit for a residential remodel was valued at $5,000. The owner lives in the home and has maintained the property and the second dwelling unit since purchasing the home. The applicant has expressed that if the two - family use cannot continue, further investment in the property may be less likely due to the loss in value and loss of rental income. 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. There appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship relates to the apparent establishment of a second dwelling unit by a previous property owner. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to determine when the second unit was created, and if the City or County has ever been aware of the second dwelling unit. A two- family home is permitted in the R -2 zone district, and the applicant is trying to legitimize the duplex by obtaining the necessary approvals to allow it to remain. Since it does not appear that the applicant converted the home or built the additional unit, he did not have an interest in the property when the hardship was created. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and is not expected to injury 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, as there are no physical changes proposed for the property. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The structure would not impede the sight Board of Adjustment 6 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The unique circumstance that is present in the neighborhood that may justify the variance request is the presence of several duplexes on properties that are also smaller than 12,500 square feet in size. Exhibit 5 shows the location of 22 duplexes in the neighborhood that the City and County currently recognize (Exhibit S, Neighborhood Conditions). Six of these properties are smaller than 12,500 square feet and narrower than 100 feet in width. 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 - and two- 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 Manuah 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) a 23 -foot variance from the 100 -foot lot width requirement and (B) a 1,736- square foot variance from the 12,500- square foot lot area requirement for a two- family dwelling on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2). 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. If the property was required to be used as a single - family dwelling, there could be a loss of income resulting from the loss of a second dwelling unit. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The applicant invested in the remodel of both units and has maintained the property as an owner - occupied landlord. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azharian 4. There is no evidence that the applicant is responsible for the conversion of the home or the construction of the second dwelling unit. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as there are several duplexes in the area that are also on properties less than 12,500 square feet. With the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall schedule a courtesy inspection with the building division to confirm that the home meets applicable building codes for a two - family dwelling unit. 2. A separate address may be assigned to the second dwelling unit — either a unique number or "unit B." Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL A 2010 aerial (top) shows the current footprint of the structure. The dark square in the backyard is a water feature. A aerial image from April 1985 (below) indicates that the footprint of the structure has not changed over the past two decades since the applicant has been the property owner. Second dwelli unit is located Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP W �. ` I V i W to m 44T H -AV x - r . N Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian i K r . N Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian 4315 Balsam Street :: Front of the house, looking north west. The primary dwelling unit is visible here on the right side of the garage. The second dwelling unit is located behind the garage and is accessible either through the garage or from a walkway along the south side of the property. A view of the north side of the home where two gas meters are located. EXHIBIT 4: PROPERTY HISTORY Exhibit 4A :: An Improvement Location C;ertittcate ctatea renruary iyu4 snows the ouiming footprints of the original improvements on the property. � '7 -- - y �►r ► 7 hR Glr4' p L� - _____ -r - - - -- - - - -- Exhibit 4B :: Building permit #2827 was issued in March 1984 for additions to the northwest and south west corners of the home, and for a new carport. The dark yellow shading below shows the locations of the proposed additions. / t' -74 Board o/'Adjustment 12 Case No. WA- 12- 02 1A_harian Exhibit 4C:: This site plan was submitted in 1984 for building permit #2827, and a comment on the plan (outlined in red) indicates that the proposed carport "must be at least 30' from the front lot line." There is no amended site plan in the building permit files to show that this comment was addressed. Existing conditions suggest that the comment was likely addressed, since the front of the existing garage is now located 30 feet from the front lot line. _ w At J 1V 4- 1� 1 � � 1 � r 0 Z W • Board q Adjustment Case No. NVA- 12 -02 14zharian 6-7 F' �� t O F ,. - fAL A 3 g y w • db Exhibit 4D :: The permit card that was issued for permit #2827 describes the scope of work consistent with the original proposal: "add to residence and add carport." Two years elapsed however, between the framing and the final inspections, and it unclear if the scope of work may have changed at some point during that time. INSPECTIONS WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS _. THIS CARD IS PO STED ON THE BUILDING SITE , 2,A&I4OURS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INS, XTIONS WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 WEST 2lt11 AVENUE n74W Ed. INSPECTION RECORD w I�rr a •..•�•�, ww �■ wrt ►d= w . 1N VECTOR MET SIGN ALL SPACES MffAINING To 7NIS ja Iwwr lcm IME 1 NVWM ABOVE HAS &W i on p�ettle.l �n6.rpzou=d h nal: t VWtl •lion opl eted DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD OCCUPANCY NOT PERMITTED UNTIL CERT'I:ICATE OI OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED PROTECT THIS CARD FROM THE WEATHER Board of Adjustment 14 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian Ib IbT PbLa FLOM Lkff I L ABDVE MIAs BEEN SIGNED Exhibit 4E:: The final inspection ticket associated with building permit number #2827 is dated 4/15/1986 and is difficult to read. It appears to state "finals on garage conversion" which is not consistent with the original scope of work. INSPECTION REQUESTED For INSPECTION MADE ir 1,0 7 L2 Exhibit 4F:: A Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) was issued one day after final inspections (4/16/1986) for the "addition to residence and add carport." As is standard, the description of work on the C.O. matches the description of on the original building permit card (Exhibit 413) issued two years prior in March 1984. It is unclear if the scope of work changed at some point during the two year project that may have resulted in the addition of a second unit or a garage conversion. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE h�d WAWA FM MW W. MW &A� D 401r4l IA ' J%k aweincom ventm root Ve bus" consvuaEd urdw &M Pw nun bw Erd on prop wtv dRwriDDd bMar, 46M e mVIV wM Mn VW" Rfdp SuNdki Cade. CONTRACTOR ?al D. Ford p=pg 7'Y AWVA= 431S dalss St. Law OOORI/ rm: aaaa f� 11fff q LOaROQ wrieE ,.f aiiitioa to tresi��0oa aad add 2MIM �a ftal �_ Fad •eof�ic 4315 /alsaa St. - Mat Rigs. m fun O. +=W w be Ere ii r of Ok boNAM .idwO am 1 4 , -.-IL. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian I Y NOPECTMIN TKKET ADwcu DATE.- ►ERWTS ~ ' d ' . 7 &LOG.COMM WKOMTRACTOR "NotcTON REOUEITED �Q r Exhibit 4F:: A Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) was issued one day after final inspections (4/16/1986) for the "addition to residence and add carport." As is standard, the description of work on the C.O. matches the description of on the original building permit card (Exhibit 413) issued two years prior in March 1984. It is unclear if the scope of work changed at some point during the two year project that may have resulted in the addition of a second unit or a garage conversion. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE h�d WAWA FM MW W. MW &A� D 401r4l IA ' J%k aweincom ventm root Ve bus" consvuaEd urdw &M Pw nun bw Erd on prop wtv dRwriDDd bMar, 46M e mVIV wM Mn VW" Rfdp SuNdki Cade. CONTRACTOR ?al D. Ford p=pg 7'Y AWVA= 431S dalss St. Law OOORI/ rm: aaaa f� 11fff q LOaROQ wrieE ,.f aiiitioa to tresi��0oa aad add 2MIM �a ftal �_ Fad •eof�ic 4315 /alsaa St. - Mat Rigs. m fun O. +=W w be Ere ii r of Ok boNAM .idwO am 1 4 , -.-IL. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian I Exhibit 4G :: The applicant was issued a homeowner's permit ( #95 -1674) for a residential remodel, but there are no plans or inspection records in the permit files. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Building Permit Number: 95 -1674 BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION - 235 -2855 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Date : 8/18/95 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 Property Owner: Property Address Contractor License No. Company : AZHARIAN ARMOND 4315 BALSAM ST Phone: 238 -4900 Phone: OWNERICONTRACTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT Construction Value: $5,000.00 1 hereby certify that the setback distances proposed by this permit application are accurate Permit Fee ; $72.00 and do not violate applicable ordinances, rules or regulations of the City a Wheat Ridge or covenants, easements or restrictions of record; that all measurements shown, and allegations Plan Review Fee: $0.00 made are arcuate; that I have read and agree to abide by all conditions printed on this applicatior, and that I assume full responsi I t [ r compliance with the Wheat Ridge Building Code (U.B.C.) and all other applicable a for work under this pernit. Use Tax: $125.00 ( ordinances, (OWNER)(CONTRACTOR) SIGNED x(4'7 t -- DATF Total ' $197.00 Description : DRYWALL IN GARAGE, SKYLIGHTS, PLUMBING, CONCRETE FLOOR IN BASEMENT,SIDING, DOORS - GENERAL REMODEL BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY it Approval: 7_oning : Approval II J ilt' Approval : Occupancy: Walls: Roof : Stcnes : Residentia! Units: Electrical License No: Plumbing License No: Mechanical License No: Company: Company: Company: Expiration Date : Expiration Date : Expiration Date Approval: Approval : Approval: Mi El RU NNINMEM (1) This permit was iee sled in accordance with the provisions set forth in yopur applicalon and Is subject to the laws of tie State a Colorado and to the Zoning Re guladons uW Building Code orwheal Ridge, Coorado or any other Applicable ordwances of a Cl (2; This permit shall exnlre if (A) the work authorized is not commenced within efxy (60) days from Issue date or (B) l7e tx,.idfng aumonzed is suspended or abanticned for a period of 120 days. (3) If this permit expires, a nave permit maybe acquired fora fee of one -half the amount normally requited. provided no changes have been or will be made in the ong nal plans and specifications � mid suspension for now abandonment has not exceeded are (1) year. If changes are made w it suspension or abandonment exceeds ((4 No wort of art) manner rW be dotty that pull change Me natural flow of water causing a drainage problem (6; Contreclor she$ nobly the Buil kapsclor twentylour (24) hours ih advahce for all inspections and shat receive written approval or Inspection pro before rip with etrccaasrre of are 1�ob (a) bNwrlCa era pwnit a aRroval of drawings and speGfkatlons shall not be corstima to be a permit lot, nor an approval of, any violation of the provisions rt►wpullspp ogppa amrypitwagmance, law. rule or reguiatior. ,( Chief Building Inspector THIS PERMIT VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR CALL: 2345933 24 HOURS PRIOR TO INSPECTION ,t X 2:: Board ofAdjustment 16 Case No. WA- 12- 02/Azharian EXHIBIT 5: NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS Board of Adjustment 17 Case No. WA- 12- 02 1Azharian In the map below, the subject lot is shaded in yellow. The purple shade indicates the 22 properties in the neighborhood that the County recognizes as multi - family dwellings; all are duplexes. The six highlighted duplexes are located on properties that are smaller than 12,500 square feet in size. EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE Response to Criteria for Review — 4315 Balsam Street A. For the past approximately 30 years, this location has been used as a two - family property, in accordance with R -2 zoning. The Applicant wishes to continue this long- standing usage, and non - approval would result in a substantial loss of income B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality due to the 25 -year usage. C. The Applicant and subsequent owners would not see value in making ongoing investments due to its reduced value. D. The surrounding neighborhood was developed in the 1950's prior to the City of Wheat Ridge's incorporation, and it would be impossible to acquire the additional 981 (7.890) feet required to bring the site into conformance. E. The applicant was not aware of the square foot deficiency at the time of purchase, and was not informed by the City when improvements were made in 1995. F. Due to the long- standing existence of the structures and landscaping, the approval of the variance would not result in any change that would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. G. This property is adjacent to other R2 properties. The neighborhood was subdivided under Jefferson County subdivision 4pd zoning requirements. Therefore, there are numerous properties in the area with minor non-conforming issues such as the one encountered by the Applicant. Board of Adjustment Is Case No. WA- 12- 021Azharian 56, ARELLANO ROSS J ARELLANO TAMMY A 8 100 W 44TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 70102780 0002 5833 5755 BAHR D LA DONNA 4375 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 a780 0002 5833 5748 7010 2780 0002 5833 5762 619, CO I- BUCKNAM PETER D 4235 BRENTWOOD ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BUERKLE MARGARET M BALMORES STEVE MARIN BUERKLE MARGARET M PERS REP GAITAN 4380 BRENTWOOD ST 11555 CHIMAYO CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 APPLE VALLEY CA 92308 7010 2780 0002 5833 5731 7010 2780 0002 5833 5724 7010 2780 0002 5833 5717 DIMATTEO CHRISTOPHER G DIMATTE0 LAWRENCE A DICARLANTONIO DOMENIC DIMATTE0 DEBRA J DIMATTE0 CORA LEE DICARLANTON10 MARYANN 4382 BALSAM ST 4380 BALSAM ST 4285 BRENTWOOD ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 5700 7010 2780 0002 5833 5694 7010 2780 0002 5833 5687 5885 ELENBAAS R L GIBBS MICHELLE ELENBAAS MARLENE S GARDNER MARIANN GIBBS BRUCE 4285 AMMONS ST 4230 BRENTWOOD ST 6872 INDEPENDENCE CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80004 7010 2780 0002 5833 5670 7010 2780 0002 5833 5854 7010 2780 0002 5833 5847 GLAZER SHAWN E GLEASON LYNN HEIL GULMAN PAUL J 4205 BALSAM ST 4230 BALSAM ST 4315 AMMONS ST W14EAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 5823 7010 2780 0002 5833 5809 7010 2780 0002 5833 5816 HOFF GLENN R HUWALDT MICHAEL H 4290 BRENTWOOD ST 4385 BRENTWOOD ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 5793 JBI 44TH LLC 8151 W 44TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 ;- 7010 2780 0002 5833 57 4y 6 JOHNSON CHAD M JOHNSON ERIC KOSTER MARNA JOHNSON DEBORAH L 4265 BRENTWOOD ST 4275 BALSAM ST PO BOX 1081 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80001 7010 2780 0002 5833 5892 7010 2780 0002 5833 5885 7010 2780 0002 5833 5908 KELLF7MrTnT KIESLER TINA MARIE MASON BRIAN S KELLEY JOEL M 4305 AMMONS 4215 BALSAM ST 4250 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 5861 7010 2780 0002 5833 5878 7010 2780 0002 5833 5953 7A CASTER CHRISTOPHER �R BALD AR DUANE ----- Mr7fRS MARJORIE A' LANCASTER STACY M W MARES JOSEPHINE P KOKKELER SARAH J 4260 BALSAM ST 4385 AMMONS ST 4220 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 5946 7010 2780 0002 5833 5939 7010 2780 0002 5833 5922 MC CURDY MATTHEW S NICHOLS VICKI A MC CURDY MARY JO 4335 BRENTWOOD ST 4305 BRENTWOOD ST 4345 BRENTWOOD ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 6011 7010 2780 0002 5833 7010 2780 0000 5833 5915 6004 MILLER CHRISTOPHER K ROACH IRVING RUTERBORIES J L MILLER SUSAN 4411 BALSAM ST RUTERBORIES MARGIE L 7479 S ECREST CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 4245 AM MONS ST ARVADA CO 80007 7010 0780 0002 5833 5984 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0003 5833 5991 010 2780 0002 5833 5977 RINE - L SCHWAB DOUGLAS W SE'YFER DONALD L 4300 BRENTWOOD ST SCHWAB KATHRYN F SEYFER CHRISTINE L WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 4260 BRENTWOOD ST 4225 BALSAM ST 701 :0 2780 0002 5833 5960 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 6073 7010 2780 0002 5533 6066 SAINT JAMES EPISCOPAL THOMAS ROBERTA AKA WILEY RITA J CHURCH THOMAS ROBERTA L WILEY WILLIAM C 8235 W 44TH AVE 4295 BALSAM ST 13556 DETROIT ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 THORNTON CO 80241 7010 2780 0002 5833 6059 7010 0780 0002 5833 6042 7010 2780 0002 5833 6035 SULLIVAN DENNIS G WILLIAMS JOHN A 4270 BRENTWOOD ST 4385 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 5663 7010 2780 0002 5833 6028 w i� This is to inform you of Case No. WA-1 2-02 which is a request for approval of variances to the minimum lot size and lot width requirements to allow an additional dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4315 Balsam Street. This request will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on March 22, 2012, at 7.00 p. m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information er Q/ �fic at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of meeting ifyou are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 3d3-235-2846. Thank you. -dffj I , ease cTmact =e fianning Wi vision at Planning Division. www.d.wheatridge.co.us N m R M OWN 2 ��` �. , � } � > � � v , �� ME Uri I ul BENI R .�.� @� �� ��� W iM \,�� I' �. �� : � :�������� ����, �� � � � � ` � « z . �.�`� � N m R M OWN 2 ��` �. , � } � > � � v , �� ME Uri I ul BENI R qw -4w— 4W4' — -4 'Wr- L ls,�-NMV tl Se U) > �., 0 000 IN 04 e CY IN cc) I . ( 4 300NUN3U Ps NNVO am IN UIR) M The full text of this notice is available in electronic forni on the City's official website, www.ci.wheatridge.co.us, Legal Notices. Copies are also available in printed form in the Community Development Department. Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript, March 8, 2012 MEIRM Case No. WA-12-02: An application filed by Annond Azharian for approval of variances to the minimurn lot size and lot width requirements to allow an addition dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4315 Balsal Street, Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant Property appraisal system a & ,,S= PROPERTY XNVE Year Built: 1922 Improvement Number: I zmmmcm — ------ ------------ ------------ a I z1 1 -1 PROPERTY XNVE Year Built: 1922 Improvement Number: I zmmmcm — ------ ------------ a I z1 1 -1 11 Pay �ble 2012 Actual Value lum ♦ I , im 111001 W �w Mill Levy Detail For Year 11 Mi �11.evy information 914al SEEM # =## i I �WHEATRIDGE FIRE DIST, 1WHEATRIDGE DIST. F- - WHEATRIDGE W. DIST. 1 M## jeffco.us/ats/displaygeneral.do?sch=025027&offset 112 �. t ' t i City of i�9rWh C ommunity LAND 4SE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Development D e p artment 75 00 Ridge O 80033 # Phone r (Please print or type all information) Applicant Address Phon City Zip_ Fax Owner Address — Igawe Phone City State Zip Fax 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, past 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.) Loc ation of request (address). Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request). Application submittal requirements on reverse side 0 Change of zone or zone conditions © Special Use Permit O Subdivision:. Minor (S lots or less) 0 Consolidation Plat 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Subdivision; Major (More than S lots) d Flood Plain Special Exception 0 Site Plan approval D Temporary Use, Building, Sign • Lot tine Adjustment 0 Concept Plan approval XVariance /Waiver (from Section � • Planned Building Group 0 Right of Way Vacation CI Other: Detailed description of request: To be filled out by staff. Date received Fee � "Receipt No 0Q, � '� � t� Case No. °�- Comp Play? I7esig. "Coning Quarter SeCtion Map �. u. Related Case loo. Pre -App Mtg. Date Case Manager t r ,�. �" : -- � � Ill I I I Ill! 111 11 1'; 1 il I'l A. For the past approximately 30 years, this location has been used as a two-family property, in accordance with R-2 zoning. The Applicant wishes to continue this long-standing usage, and non-approval would result in a substantial loss of income B. The variance would not after the essential character • the locality due to the 25-year usage. C. The Applicant and subsequent owners would not see value in making ongoing investments due G. This property is adjacent to other R2 properties. The neighborhood was subdivided under Jefferson County subdivision did zoning requirements. Therefore, there are numerous properties in the area with minor non-ccinforming issues such as the one encountered by the Applicant. eY .,jp trr A0. (VM,, P « i1 » yy s awam .. s w « AIMMwa.a'MM14 dam':, '�riiYdlw ,. rrr arrrrrri � � A r 40 go Am 0 1 11 1 load 40 40 *a Nowwarta of to oomm. a" W ! WA Oft 1 0 lmwW . a �, n � � 3 4 till Ytt u ,y I I N r 40 go Am 0 1 11 1 load 40 40 *a Nowwarta of to oomm. a" W ! WA Oft 1 0 lmwW mommasom J .G . p `..c � 00 c OA ' 0 1 14 r4 CU ': E + ° C? a '# «-y U G ° ?a # o ms c 0 o � ss � ax C7 0 a) w v A k a t# 4t :: CC as c ., UC a i H � sa � # Q 4-) n , o ct n w 73 p, t 0 as � � >4 S � � � 3: C> tt t 3 0 Q1 m va yr �""" QI Q) " w . X 64 to .L"" {),4 •F.k 'i ^+ m A G a RS a+ 4 Y ea O N 'N > } a• " ro w a) a5 r ( u a w i 44 Ci U) tll tcS s.4 >. Q) V U) +t o z7 c y z! ° 4) RS W x2 m " 0 4J 44 IL o p, �4 U) � a .. tJ to 4 4 1 0 w ae 0) V t �4 ct at w s M U as 4) E: $ 44 er ar n SC 4.4 d ra et � � CU 0 S-4 U) 0) to .� to to 44 � W � C) .'� $ � u E"1 5" C? acs 0^ t- 4-4 o c > o u v+ c ai q r 4) 4-) fi t7 w w '� S Z 4. -4 O +wi '"' w iat .,. /.,a .7 .ai M^1 S,'X X " wt ""'a ?1i S'i ed -4-) t 'i.t 0M t !y 4t 0 G� +d a Cy 4 + d o x. w, t« G3 C O E. m m C.? w� e C 9 c ° Tl o u °: aE+LJ u A *,�'.... ., "aJ ''CS ^+* m p U1 m + G? 40 10 W 4J fii {p 5 u ttl i w Z au # `` E-+ is co ►.+ a. cc tx C-+ a + C> a "✓ 4 a: rycs c �. y° rz? rn Q p "C Q� "d W in " j .!"^. #: .A ' M ' Cfy ', +«.. '.��: w w Gait o ° m o «, ti ,c cC m # v2 +°�. mt 47 • .M ° " 333 AUVIN WOO RVIS 6 - M i Map oat# 6201 1 City of LAND USE APPLICATION FORM �r,Wh&atpjdge C m rNT, CommuNm DEvucivmfNT Date Received Case No. VA1 202 2/24/20121 d Cases Relate Case Me mf ... . . ...... ....... ....... Mikulak Case Description Variance to lot size and lot width to allow a duplex in R -2 ...... . ....... .......... .. . ........ ; Name Name Phone 4303) 888-2973 Address 4315 Balsam St, city Wheat Ridge j State CO Zip ;80033- Name !Air o 4zharia Name .......... . Phone (303) 888-2973 i = Address 14315 Balsam SL city Wheat Ridge -------------- 1 S late CO Zip 180033- Name Xr Name Phone (303J 888 2973 . . . . . . .... .. . .. .......... Address 4315 Balsam St. City lWheat Ridge State CO Zip i8 , Address 'd Street am Street city V _h e at, R­idFe­­_] State CO z 1p M033 Location Description -- --------- -IJ i Project Name Pat No f Parcel No, Qtr Section: No.: 3923306014iSW23 — ----- ------ ........... .... . . .... . L Pre App D ate Neighborhood Meeting Date App Na f Review Type, Reyiew Body Revim Date Disposition Comments Report i AJ !Public Hearing BOA 3!2212012 ' - ----------- I L-3 ...... ..... ..... .... . .. . .............. . ..... .... i s CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 82, 1:44 PM CDBB RPA Management LLC RECEIPT N0:CDR@@717@ ANO FNSD ZONING APPLICATION F 308 ZONE FNSD ZONIN6 REIMBURSEMENT 180. zreis PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CK 6920 480.00 TDTAL 480.0@ City of Wheat�idge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I DATE: February 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Potential Administrative Variance for 4315 Balsam Street The owner of a two - family residence at 4315 Balsam Street is seeking to legitimize an existing duplex after he became aware of the fact that neither the City nor the County has record of a duplex on the property. The proposal includes the request for two variances: Request A: Approval of a 23% (23 -foot) variance from the required 100 -foot lot width for a two - family dwelling, and Request B: Approval of a 14% (1736- square foot) variance from the required 12,500 square foot lot area for a two- family dwelling in R -2. Before submitting an application fee, the owner has requested a preliminary evaluation 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 the variance request. Additionally, the variance requests are below 50% and could qualify for an administrative decision. However, any variance request that results in an additional dwelling unit is required to be processed by the Board of Adjustment. In this case, the second dwelling unit has existed for a T)�nrnx_imate�l�5 ors, and is therefore not a proposal to add a new dwelling unit. Please provide input as to how the variance should be processed. Summary of Existing and Proposed Conditions The property is located at 4315 Balsam Street and is zoned Residential -Two (R -2). The parcel has an approximate area of 10,764.6 square feet and currently contains a one -story, two - family home. According to Jefferson County records, the house was originally constructed in 1922 and includes a 200 square foot basement and an attached two -car garage (Exhibit 1, Site Photos). A 14% variance from lot size represents a conservative estimate. Three different sizes are provided by different sources: the Jefferson County Assessor lists the lot size at 11,519 square feet; the property deed and subdivision plat indicate the lot area is 10,820.52 square feet; and a 1984 ILC shows the property to be 10,764.6 square feet. The variance request is based on the smallest possible lot size, as indicate by the ILC. The property meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for single- family homes in the R -2 district, but does not meet the current standards for a two- family dwelling. The following table compares the existing and required conditions for a two - family dwelling in R -2. R -2 Development Standards for Two - Family Dwelling: Required Actual Lot Area 12,500 square feet min 10,764.6 square feet Lot Width 100 feet min 77 feet Lot Coverage 40% max ±28% Side Setback — north 5 feet min f8 feet Side Setback — south 5 feet min 5 feet Rear Setback 10 feet min 3.6 feet Front Setback 25 feet (min) f8.5 feet Height 35 feet (max) Single sto Currently, the second dwelling unit is located behind the attached garage with access from within the garage and from a walkway along the south side of the property (Exhibit 2, Aerial). The applicant has expressed that when he purchased the home, it was represented as a two - family dwelling. He lives in the main portion of the house, and has rented out the second unit for nearly 20 years. The applicant came into the office in January 2012 seeking property information and was surprised to learn that neither City nor County records recognize the property as a duplex. Research into the property history suggests that the residence was converted to a duplex sometime in the 1980s or 1990s. Exhibit 3, Property History includes excerpts and site plans from the permit files that help piece together the property history. The timeline below has been pieced together from building permit records which provide some indication that the conversion occurred before the current owner purchased the home. 1984 An ILC shows the original configuration of the home. Today, the second dwelling unit is located in what was originally a detached garage. 1984 A building permit ( #2827) was issued for additions on the northwest and southwest corners of the home and for a new carport. A comment on the plans states that proposed carport "must be at least 30' from the front lot line," but the files do not include a modified site plan that addresses this comment. Existing conditions indicate the comment must have been addressed at some point, since the front of the existing garage is located 30' from the front lot line. 1986 The final inspection ticket associated with the permit number #2827 is dated 4/15/1986 and is difficult to read. It appears to state "finals on garage conversion" although there is no indication of a conversion in any other documents. A C.O. was issued one day later (4/16/1986) for the "addition to residenc d add carport." This description of work matches the description on the original idle g permit issued in 1984. It is unclear if the scope of work changed at some poin ring the two years between permit and C.O. that may have resulted in the addition of a second unit. 1993 Current owner purchases the home. 2 1995 Current owner was issued a homeowner's permit (#95 -1674) for a residential remodel. The permit was valued at $5,000 and the description of work states: "drywall in the garage, skylights, plumbing, concrete floor in basement, siding, doors - general remodel." There are no scanned plans and no inspection tickets in the City's digital files, but ADG indicates that the permit was closed and a C.O. was issued on February 14, 1996. There is no printed or scanned version of the C.O. in the digital permit files. There is not enough detail in the building permit files to definitively determine if the City has ever recognized two separate dwelling units on the property. The applicant has stated that his 1995 building permit included work on both units. He also stated that he personally accompanied the building inspector into both dwelling units for inspections throughout the remodel. For this reason, he thought they must be aware of the existence of the duplex. Further, the applicant has expressed that there are separate Xcel gas meters that are labeled A & B. The address (4315 Balsam) and electric meter are shared. Aerial images provide few clues as to the timing of the conversion from a single- to two - family dwelling. Google Earth provides aerials as far back as 1993, but the low resolution provides little detail. It appears, however, that the footprint of the home has not changed since 1993 (Exhibit 2, Aerial). Variance Criteria The potential applicant has supplied responses to the variance criteria; below is an initial analysis of whether each criterion is fulfilled. Because the duplex already exists, the criteria apply similarly to variance requests A and B, so the criteria are analyzed only once below. 1. 2. 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 cease to yield a return in income. The current property owner purchased the home with the understanding that it was a legitimate two - family dwelling. Since the mid -1990s the second dwelling unit has provided a rental income to the current owner. If the variance was denied and the property was required to be used as a single - family dwelling, there could be a substantial loss of income. If the property is put on the market, the determination of a single- or two - family dwelling could affect the value of the home. Staff finds this criterion has been met. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. r6 It A granting of the variance will legitimize a use that has existed for up toE ears, but it will not result in any noticeable change in use or in any physical modification to the property. The property owner has stated that the home has been a two - family dwelling for 25 -30 years, and the footprint of the home has been unchanged in the same period of time. A two - family dwelling is a permitted use in the R -2 zone district, and within the neighborhood there are several existing two- family dwellings. This includes the property immediately adjacent to the north which does meet the minimum standards for a duplex in R -2 (Exhibit 4, Neighborhood Conditions). 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 invested substantially in the property after purchasing the lot; a 1995 building permit for a residential remodel was valued at $5,000. The owner lives in the home and has maintained the property and the second dwelling unit since purchasing the home. The applicant has expressed that if the two - family use cannot continue, further investment in the property is unlikely due to the loss in value and loss of rental income. 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. There appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping. The request is more of an inconvenience from the letter of the regulations. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship relates to the establishment of a second dwelling unit by a previous property owner. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to determine when the second unit was created, and if the City or County has ever been aware of the second dwelling unit. The applicant is trying to legitimize the two- family dwelling by obtaining the variance required to allow it to remain. Since it does not appear that the applicant converted the home or built the additional unit, he did not have an interest in the property when the hardship was created. 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 4 streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and is not expected to injury 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, as there are no physical changes proposed for the property. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The structure 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. 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 unique circumstance that is present in the neighborhood that may justify the variance 1%1,ce request is the presence of several duplexes on properties that are also smaller than 12,500 square feet in size. Exhibit 4 shows the location of 22 duplexes that the County and City recognize in the neighborhood. Six of these properties are smaller than 12,500 square feet and narrower than 100 feet in width. 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- and two- 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 5 Based on initial analysis, it appears that staff can support the variance requests: Request A: Approval of a 23% (23 -foot) variance from the required 100 -foot lot width for a two - family dwelling, and Request B: Approval of a 14% (1736- square foot) variance from the required 12,500 square foot lot area for a two- family dwelling in R -2. If the variances are approved, the following condition is recommended: - The applicant shall schedule a courtesy inspection with the building division to confirm that the home meets applicable building codes for a two - family dwelling unit. - Assign a separate address? C, Exhibit 1 —Site Photos H ; . 'A 1 r L :z 7 4315 Balsam Street :: Front of the house, looking north west. The primary dwelling unit is visible here on the right side of the garage. The second dwelling unit is located behind the garage. A view of the north side of the home where two gas meters are located. Exhibit 3— Aerial Images A 2010 aerial (top) shows the current footprint of the structure. The dark square in the backyard is a water feature. In a blurry 1993 aerial (bottom), shadow lines appear to indicate that the footprint of the structure has not changed over the past two decades. Exhibit 3— Property History ;W A 1 �-; � , _ ,� " . � � J 1 1 � - - -` - - - -- -- -• A 1984 ILC in the permit files shows the building footprints of the original improvements on the property. P 77jr ; r � 1 A 1984 building permit ( #2827) included additions to the NW and SW corners of the home, as E well as a new carport. The dark yellow above shows the location of the proposed additions. iLl - . North -__t3 To I END: kxa:l.w9 "113 pOSea Amrt -o" i L v, nA 1 9 eo w+ 16'X 11 �. 34 '&Aroorn ra Ce".nn r,�tti r - - - -- -- 1 ;; I a' - 1 $ �- II This site plan was submitted with the 1984 buidling permit application, and a comment on the plan indicates that the proposed carport "must be at least 30' from the front lot line." There is no amended site plan in the microfiche files, but it appears this comment must have been addresssed as the garage today is located 30' from the front lot line. v MlSCTgM TICW OAT /. ns.T1 .LY6.COIT.. MUVOa» •1"NKS The final inspection ticket associated with the permit number #2827 is dated 4/15/1986 and is difficult to read. It appears to state "finals on garage conversion" although there is no indication of a conversion in any other documents. A C.O. was issued one day later (4/16/1986) for "addition to residence and add carport;" this description of work matches the description on the original buidling permit issued in 1984. It is unclear if the scope of work changed at some point during the two years between permit and C.O. that may have resulted in the addition of a second unit. IN$pECTIOM AEOUESTED per INSPECTION MADE Exhibit 4— Neighborhood Conditions In the map below, the subject lot is outlined in green. The purple shade indicates the 22 properties in the neighborhood that the County recognizes as multi - family dwellings; all are duplexes. The six highlighted duplexes are located on properties that are smaller than 12,500 square feet in size. 0 0 �a �m , w" IN a a� r x ni ✓ II d , �III�/ .ti sy Ys ♦ : r w'+." N' #: a t Y ■�� f I yII�V {`� �III� X .1t a 'J ., if t. ➢ S b♦ ,+. x a a� a ru t a a MAY ; 40 P .Own* * g \ - lk x AMY a� ( .. : m � � � \ a� \ T �, t �a �, � d '� � ' v s^ ` � k"�'��" � s {y @Srcx., �y� � ��3 S do � J �4 `.. � .� t k t1 �� �� � ��:� �+ y* YID _..__ ,r•wnwR �� � }�' � !' yF ,�( u a• �t, 3 �_ ` IS ISSUED PR OTECT ,' 0 m Wix Ll . A iu� uM Ll DEPARTMENT COMWiNTY VELO N+ WEST tktw Avr-,uuE BUILDING WSPECTON DIVISON P:°F V iT t� 237 -6944 Ex 'r PC sox CITY AT RIDG i CE O f`#9 + �. � x i e x rU w gym. Y ..+nll�bllll�w `d� m •. a ,. . � .. s .... kiiMww4vxYv" wwxkw i wewxru "' I! III pill + �. � x i e x rU w gym. Y ..+nll�bllll�w `d� m •. a ,. . � .. s .... kiiMww4vxYv" wwxkw i wewxru "' F TOTAL FEE �y Description: DRYWALL IN GARAGE, SKYLIGHTS, PLUMBING, CONCRETE FLOOR IN BASEMENT,SIDING, DOORS-GENERAL REMODEL Oocupancy Walls : Roof : Stories -, Residential Units III i �II� pl� i�� IIIIV�II NIN I Company: Company