Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-12-03City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303,235.2846 F: 303.2352857 March 16,2012 Attached please find notice that your requests for a 7.5-foot variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement has been approved for the purpose of constructing a detached accessory structure on property at 10013 W.30`" Avenue. Please note there are two conditions on the approval: 1. The existing shed be removed when the proposed structure is built. I The design and architecture of the proposed addition be similar in character to the existing house, subject to staff review mid approval through review of a building permit. Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance and staff report. All variance approvals automatically expire within 180 days of the date approval unless a building permit for the variance is been obtained within such period of time. The expiration date for this variance approval is September 12, 2012. Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions, www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 7500 West 29th Avenue City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 V V Ldg 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at referenced as Case No. WA -12 -03 / Cruickshank; and to a 13 w- 3o"' Avf, K VVC,- 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 7.5-foot variance froin the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 7.5-foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a detached accessory structure on property in the Residential-One (R-1) zone district (Case No. WA- 12-03 / Cruickshank), is granted for property located at 10013 W. 30 Avenue, based on the following findings of fact: 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 existing shed be removed when the proposed structure is built. 2. The design and architecture of the proposed structure be similar in character to the existing house, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. &_ 11 Date Community,U4velopment Director ,I' City of Wh6at id CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: March 15, 2012 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA -12 -03 / Cruickshank ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 7.5 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement on property located at 10013 W. 30"' Avenue and zoned Residential -One (R -1) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 10013 W. 30' Avenue APPLICANT (S): Russ Cruickshank OWNER (S): Russ Cruickshank APPROXIMATE AREA: 13,153 Square Feet (0.30 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential -One (R -1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map u z .a..�►> R -1 - -- 3 0T H-A E S i i i rn z I '. Y I I Site Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -03 I Cruickshank RINUOU All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an administrative decision. MEMEMMM The applicant is requesting approval of a 7.5-foot (50%) variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement, resulting in a 7.5-foot side setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a detached accessory structure on the northeast side of the property. The applicant, Russ Cruickshank, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 10013 W. 30th Avenue. The variance is being requested so that the property owners may construct a 24' x, 24' detached accessory structure for a work-shop and storage in the northeast comer of the property W00WO". The property is zoned Residential-One (R-1). a zone district that provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low-density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low-density residential character. The subject property is surrounded entirely by 5 n other properties that are also zoned R - and contain single- family mily homes The parcel has an approximate area of 13,153 square feet and currently contains a one-story, single family home. According to Jefferson County records, the house was constructed in 1958 and includes a partially finished basement and an attached two-car garage. A shed located in the northeast comer of the property was in existence when the current owner purchased the property; it will be replaced by the proposed workshop. The proposed workshop will replace the storage shed, but new construction is required to meet current development standards including setbacks. The reason for the variance request is a potential conflict with the canopy of a mature tree in the backyard. A brick planter encircles the �tunk of the tree, the edge of which is about 45 feet from the eastern property line and 40 feet fi the western property line. The tree canopy appears to extend beyond the planter and could interfere with a structure built to conform, to the 15-foot side setback, Administrative f"ariance 2 Case. ITA-12-03 I Cruickshank Because the tree is located in the middle of the backyard, it appears it would equally affect a structure located on the western side of the lot. An attached addition is an alternative that may not require any variance requests, but this option is likely a cost-prohibitive investment. The applicant submitted a request for a preliminary analysis of side and rear setback variance requests. Based on the preliminary review, it appeared that the location of the tree has a more significant impact on the side setback than the rear setback. The rear setback variance request did not meet a majority of the variance criteria, so this application is for a side setback variance only MWIMMUM. R-1 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 12,500 square feet (min) 13,15L-s(lcare feet Lot Width 160 feet (min) ±98 feet During the public notification period neither inquiries nor objections were received regarding the variance request. In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.0.4 of the City Code have been met. The * t h their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria iawigfi"". Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitteM 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 leer. 1fA-12-031Cruickvhank 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A side setback variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The R- I zone district allows for detached accessory structures, and several homes in the area have detached storage sheds. The elevations of the proposed structure has been dkesgdd to com, Ile .. cent the house with similar windows, roof pitch, and material selections "Mai" 1. The structure will be in the backyard of the property and would not be visible from W. 30" Avenue. MGM= 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which may not be possible without the side setback variance. The location of the mature, tree in the backyard results in about 30 to 35 feet of open space between the tree canopy and the eastern property line. This width may not provide enoug 1 clearance to accommodate a 15-foot setback mid a 24-foot wide structure. 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 were inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The location of the mature tree in the middle of property's rear yard restricts alternative site arrangements for the proposed structure. The property owner is reluctant to remove a healthy tree. Alternative placement on the western side of the property is equally affected by the tree and may be unable to meet the side setback requirement. 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 relates to the location of the proposed structure with respect to an existing mature tree and the side setback. Since the tree was planted prior to the current owner's purchase of the home in February 20 10, the hardship has not been created by the applicant. 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 A(Irninistrative Variance 4 CaseAlo. JE4-12-O3 I Cruickshank impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and is not expected to injure neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised, as a result of this request, The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. 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. There are no unique or unusual circumstances present in the neighborhood that are also present on the property that necessitate the need for a variance. f Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. S. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not gpplicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the A rchitectural 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. Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 7.5-foot (50%) variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. Administrative Variance Case No, (VA-12-03 I Cruickshank With the following conditions: 1. The existing shed be removed when the proposed structure is built. 2. The design and architecture of the proposed structure be similar in character to the existing house, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building penuit. Administrative f"ariance 6 Case No, fVA-12-03 I Cruickshank EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Image A (top) is taken from the City's 2010 imagery data; image B (below) is courtesy of Google Maps and helps to illustrates the canopy of the mature tree in the middle of the backyard. A111� = l - r• Administrative Variance 7 Case No. WA -12 -03 / Cruickshank EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP D0039 DDD441 D40 00037 -Amio ILI 10001 j 00037 000 38 10021 1� OIL 31ST -AVE - D0035 00034 10022 Mill 10002 00033 V* R-1 . 014 00031 00032 10033 10023 100?'s '0003 16 I I Ll Administrative Variance Case No. WA-12-03 I Cruickshank 3(ITKAVE- rD2 1 00028 ro 10034 10026 10414 10004 IL A b Awl 00026 10035 1OD25 10 015 I I Ll Administrative Variance Case No. WA-12-03 I Cruickshank EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS Administrative Variance Case No. WA -11 -03 / Cruickshank Administrative Variance 10 Case No. WA -12 -03 / Cruickshank EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN The following site plan was submitted by the property owner. The shaded red square indicates the location of the proposed structure if the side setback variance is approved. The square with the solid line indicates the location of the workshop if it met the required 15 -foot side and rear setback requirements, and it illustrates the conflict that would arise between the tree canopy and the structure. The dotted square indicates the location of the workshop which would have required side and rear setback variances. The following page includes a "clean" site plan showing only the location of the structure per this variance request with a 7.5 -foot side setback and the required 15 -foot rear setback. 1� cAr•ry LAL1 TRFE i /3G -7 a� • 0013 w 30 M W C S 91 ,0 Administrative V ariance Casa No. W.4 -12-03 / Cruickshank ><F J pc0 Cwsr7 t LAILI TP-EFE jo .lTD�4 {F 3 ►!c0 � !3G / 00/3 w 3o' "�Qt.E w � S Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -03 / Cruickshank EXHIBIT 5: CRITERIA RESPONSE A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. - I :/A I --) I '_ ) 4 rU e . B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 7-1/1t cj i I''D +V C— C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. - TM 1 `n- 1 WLA e . 1 0 CA(fi 4t o-ill 4-0 � f �cer, ia.t ej- )OCLk - 6 oil fit/ O 00 d �,o Otxttck -�14e - LAC >~W D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and uniqug hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. W l AAA 0 L A�O e VLA- v'l wvVC e— LA- u- k- C� exf vL 4 v r c c � rCC t� u ld� t~e E. If there is a particular or unique hardship the alleged diff ulty or hardship has not been crated b � by any person presently having an interest in the property. T ' v i l er l .( I r U C- F. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public sati ty, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. "! X11 h 1.5 irLt -C' G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. JJ � II L 1 (S j `� t n- C t v "I e c s C- iJ a VA e r-1 U S � ���ci � `�G t ,{ to � ✓1 h !,�'✓ �� 1 " H. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. I. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Administrative Variance 13 Case No. TKA -12 -03 / Cruickshank EXHIBIT 6: ELEVATION Administrative t iari ancc Case Nn, IVA- 12-03I Cruickshank K City of W heat Roge CASE NO. WA -12 -03 POSTING CERTIFICATION DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: March 14, 2012 (name) residing at as the applicant for Case No Public Notice at (address) WA -12 -03 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for 10013 W. 30` Avenue (location) on this 5` day of March, 2012, 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: , j , V � j 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 I M- ... �. "10022I t+ 1o�012� r a�t3 db23 1Q 1M� • s f { 3 ©THAVE S � I � I z i � I i I I I A t °Cc t d € ..,w.. CRUICKSHANK RUSSELL S 7010 2750 0002 5835 544 QUINTANA SHELLY R 10013 W 30TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80215 JOSEPH VECCHIO TRUST 7010 2750 0002 5833 5458 10003 W 30TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80215 GONZALEZ CLAUDIA 2 7 80 14CI 5 545 9776 W 22ND PL LAKEWOOD CO 80215 MC COLLOM ROY M MC COLLOM MYRNA M 7010 2780 0002 5833 5 4 c 10012 W 31 ST AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80215 BRUNSON THAYER R 7010 2780 0002 5833 5489 10023 W 30TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80215 MOORF WILLIAM R MOORE BERNADEAN L 7010 7 I 0002 5 8 3 3 5496 1 nn),t w 'znTU d cry City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 301235,2846 F: 303.235.2851 EMEMEIM This is to inform you • Case No. WA-12-03, a request for approval of a 7.5 foot in a 7.5 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 10013 W. 30' Avenue. The applicant for this case is requesting an administrative variance review which allows no more than a fifty percent (50%) variance to be granted by the Zoning Administrator without need for a public bearing. Prior to the rendering of a decision, all adjacent gropel:11 owners are required to be notified of the request by certified mail. 7Y'77r. MvU7My7 picase contact T anning or if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in writing by 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2012. IIEUM www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 0 A As 0 I i - I # . - (Z) 0 �CXI 7,'�Yl MTMFM�� DEPARTMENT OF MAP ADOPTED: June 15,1994 PLANNING AND DEVELOrMENT Last Revision: September 10, 2001 A � C. i ty 0 f W heat Pj:,d LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 29"' Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846 (I lease print or type all infi-n-niation) 12 1% pplicant Address Phone City__Z Sta Zip —.Z Fix A1 - Owner Address State,---------.,., ------ I-- ------- I Zip Phone Fax E Contact­SAA11,� Phone (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer (lucstions 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 torwardirig, all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) Location of request (address): Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): Application stibmittal requirements' on reverse side 71 Change of zone or zone conditions 0 Special Use Permit 71 Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) 0 Consolidation Plat M Conditional Use Permit C.17 Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) 7-1 Flood Plain Special Exception M Site Plan approval L eniporary Use, Building. Sign C1 Lot Line Adjustment 7-1 Concept Plan approval ;KV�anance/Waiver (from Section ...... I Planned Building Group I Right of Way Vacation M_ Other'.­­ ------- I certify that the infiwi 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 subtrift power-of-attorn�5y from . the ovvner,,xyhicf4 ap ' )ved of this action on his behalf Required information: Assessors Parcel Size of Lot (acres or square Current Proposed — ----- Current Proposed VI City Ol . 4" � Wheafl� ge COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 Submittal Checklist - Variances (administrative and non-administrative) Project Name- Applicant: ' /rk Project Planner: Rev. 4/1 Project Location: Date: Fee Paid: oF r P ,-)I OA,l 7" w I I/ ,2t www.ci.wheatridge.co.us A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. I 1. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. City o II ', LAND USE APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY D V�RC3t�MENT Case No. WAl283 i Date Received 3/112812: Related Cases Case Planner Mikuiak Case Description i 7.5 ft side yard sel6ack variance (50 %i Name .Russ Cruickshank _ Name w j Phone { ?20j 244 8830 { _...._r m.... ..... _..., Address 7 8013 W. 30 #h Ave. city Wheat Ridge w M State CO Zip 88215 l *WWlnsfrarWafi>< V Name Huss Cruickshank µ 3 Name Phone ,( ?20j 244 083p Address 10813 38th Ave. City Wheat Ridge '.. j State' CO Zip ,80215 d. ..__....._. C07facf lrrh�t�afivft Name Fuss ks Cruisha k_ Name Phone one (720) 244.8830 m h Address 18813 atRidge W 30th Ave City Whe �. j State ;CO =; Zip 80215 _ ... ... ._._.._......._. Address 18813 ; Street West 38th Avenue City Wheat Ridge State CCt Zip .88215 __.. Location Description € w Project Name { k . _ P arcel No Qtr Section istrict No , Parcel No. Qtr Section District No. 3828489009SE28 3 �„ ___.__ ___.._ _..... a flerfer�ar Pre -App Date Neighborhood Meeting Date App No NJ Review Type Review Body Review Date Disposition Comments Report Rev�w ,Admin 315!2892 € Record: 14 ;4 39% of 3956 ► Ft K" Unfiltered `. Sear ch CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE @3/01/12 18 -13 AN ed RUSSELL CRUICKSHANK From: To: Subject: Variance Follow-up Date: Friday, January 27, 2012 10:51:33 AM Attachments. 2U2_@ArdALAWU9MWJFJLF Ldad_12� lWip EM is einall MrMllow-up to our is morning regaraing your variance requests or 10013 W 30 Avenue, As I mentioned on the phone, based on preliminary analysis staff would support a side setback variance, It appears that a rear setback variance request would not meet a majority of the criteria, so staff would be unable to support that request, Option 1 Apply only for a side setback variance. The request would be processed administratively, requiring a $200 application fee and a 10-day posting period. Public comment notwithstanding, staff would support the request. If you have neighbors that are willing to submit letters of support, we could include those in the case file. If we receive an objection, you would be notified, An objection can require that the variance request be heard at a public hearing and decided upon by the Board of Adjustment (BOA). The documents you have already submitted can be used for your formal application. The additiono items we would require include� I J*_= ♦ City of "� W heat (A C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I DATE: January 23, 2012 SUBJECT: Potential Administrative Variance for 10013 W. 30 Avenue The owner of the single family residence at 10013 W. 30th Avenue has proposed construction of a major accessory structure to serve as a backyard workshop. The proposal includes the request for two setback variances: Request A: Approval of a 50% (7.5 -foot) variance from the required 15 -foot side yard setback, and Request B: Approval of a 50% (7.5 -foot) variance from the required 15 -foot rear yard setback for an accessory structure in R -1. The requests would result in 7.5 -foot side and rear setbacks; the proposed workshop would meet all other development standards including height and maximum size (Exhibit 1, Site Plan). 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. Summary of Existing and Proposed Conditions The property is located at 10013 W. 30th Avenue and is zoned Residential -One (R -1). The parcel has an approximate area of 13,153 square feet and currently contains a one -story, single - family home. According to Jefferson County records, the house was constructed in 1958 and includes a partially finished basement and an attached two -car garage. A shed located in the northeast corner of the property was in existence when the current owner purchased the property; it will be replaced by the proposed workshop. The property meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for single - family homes in the R -1 district. The total building coverage with the proposed workshop would be 20 below the maximum 25% allowed in the R -1 zone district. The proposed structure is not yet designed, but will likely be about 24' x 24' and will serve as storage and workshop space. It is not proposed to accommodate vehicles, as there will not be a driveway to access the structure; rather the purpose of the building is the provide storage and work space. The existing attached two-car garage is about 500 square feet and does not accommodate ample workshop or storage space. The 200-square foot shed in the backyard is nonconforming because it does not meet rear or side setback requirements. There are no pen on file for the construction of the shed, but it does appear to be an older building and is visible in the earliest available aerial imagery, dated 1993. The proposed workshop would replace the storage shed, but new construction is required to meet current development standards including setbacks. The reason for the variance requests is a potential conflict with the canopy of a mature tree in the backyard. A brick planter encircles the trunk of the tree, the edge of which is about 45 feet from the eastern property line and 40 feet from the western property line. The tree canopy appears to extend beyond the planter and could interfere with a structure t+W confomA to the 15-foot side setback 61k� +1 It appears the location of the tree may have a more significant impact on the side setback than the rear setback, as there is no mature landscaping along the rear of the property, nor are there any unique topological conditions It may be possible to construct the workshop in a location that meets the 15-foot rear setback requirement, but a side setback variance may still be warranted in this scenario. Because the tree is located in the middle of the backyard, it appears it would equally afTect a structure located on the western side of the lot. An attached addition is an alternative that may not require any variance requests, but this option is likely a cost-prohibitive investment. Variance Criteria The potential applicant has supplied a site plan; below is an initial analysis of how each criterion is fulfilled. REQUEST A: Approval of a 50% (7.5-foot) variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback. 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. 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. 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. Staff finds this criterion has been met. S. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship described above relates to the location of the proposed structure with respect to an existing mature tree and the side setback. Since the tree was planted prior to the current owner's purchase of the home in February 2010, the hardship has not been created by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion has been met. material selections. The structure will be in the backyard of the property and would not be visible fi-orn W. 30 Avenue. An encroachment into the rear setback would be largely screened by a 6-foot privacy fence that exists along the rear property line. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, but it may be possible to construct the proposed structure without a rear setback variance. As mentioned in the case analysis above, it appears that the location of the tree has a lesser impact on the rear setback requirements. Staff finds this criterion has not been met 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. There are no unique physical surroundings that create a hardship and necessitate a rear setback variance, There is no mature landscaping along the rear of the property, nor are there any unique topological conditions. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficul" or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. There is no alleged hardship that necessitates a rear setback variance. Staff finds this criterion not gpl2licable. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements, It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. Exhibit 1 —Site Plan The following site plan was submitted by the property owner. The dotted square indicates the preferred location of the workshop which would require side and rear setback variances. The solid square indicates the location of the workshop if it met the required 15 -foot rear and side setback requirements. The property owner has illustrated the potential conflict that would arise between the tree canopy and the workshop if the structure met the 15 -foot setbacks. . - o . • . rpm& • �wr ct�.cF T"FE ; i /34 / 0013 w 30' -"`� 9e S i / 0013 w 30' -"`� 9e S Exhibit 2—Site Photos equally affect the side setback on the east and west sides of the property. existing shed will be removed and replaced by the proposed structure. The edge of the planter is about 45' from the eastern property line, but the tree canopy extends even further. Exhibit 3— Aerial Image A is taken from the City's 2010 imagery data; image B is a Google Maps angled aerial that helps to illustrates the full tree canopy in the middle of the backyard. A I - I L! J O. Y r r� I J WWI w w r • +�� ' F r down 1 � ' W 3�th