Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-12-05City of / Wheat I�j,dge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 March 15, 2013 Theresa & Carl Flageolle 8249 Estes Court Arvada, CO 80005 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Flageolle: This letter is in regard to your request for approval of an extension for a variance granted pursuant to Case No. WA- 12 -05. In March 2012, you were granted a 12.5 -foot variance from the 25 -foot front yard (western) setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a new single - family home on property at 3440 Jay Street (Lot 2, Flageolle Subdivision). In September 2012, an extension of this variance approval was granted. This variance approval will expire again on March 18, 2013. Pursuant to Section 26- 115.C.4, extensions for good cause shown may be approved by the Community Development Director if a request is made in writing prior to the expiration date of variance approval. The Community Development Department acknowledges your request for extension received March 15, 2013 and hereby grants an extension for 180 days. Please be advised that if a building permit is not obtained by Monday, September 16, 2013 your variance will expire. Sincerely, t Kenneth Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director cc: Case File WA -12 -05 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Lauren Mikulak From: tflage @comcast.net Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:32 PM To: Lauren Mikulak Cc: Carl Flageolle Subject: variance expiration Lauren, Hello, I just realized that the extension for the variance is about to expire and I need to see what we need to do to continue with the variance extension for Carl and Theresa Flageolle, 3440 Jay St. The sub - division is complete, our building plans are ready to go, utilites hare in process, but we are waiting on the deed to the land prior to submitting our new home plans. I thought that we would have the deed in hand by now, but due to minor type -os' we are still waiting for the final draft. So can you help me figure out what the next step is and how to go about it. Thanks Theresa Flageolle City of Wh6atl� _�jdg e COMMUNriy DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29' Ave, Wheat Ridge. CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 P 301235.2857 August 17, 2012 Theresa & Carl Flageolle 8249 Estes Court Arvada, CO 80005 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Flat eolle: cc: Case File WA - -05 wwwxi.wheatridgexoms September 12, 2012 To Whon'i It May Concern, We would like to have a 180 day extension granted on the variance proposal of Carl and Theresa Flageolle, Case No. WA- 12 -05. This is the construction of a single family home in the Flag eolle Subdivision, Lot 2 with the property address of 3440 Jay Street. The purpose for this extension is mainly for the following reason. The submission of the Flageolle Plat is in progress but is still not ready. It is in the final review with Mai-tin and Martin, who wants their easements recorded and represented on the PLAT before we submit building plans. We are anticipating this process to be complete by the end of September. The House Designs were completed by Bob and Star Maluoff in May of this year. No conceptual changed were made from the previous submission consistent with Exhibit 4 and 5. It is our goal to complete utilities to the property this fall, and then begin construction of the house this spring. 1� Carl & Theresa Flageolle 8249 Estes Ct Arvada, CO 50005 City of ' !,: ' �4 - W begat f)� COMMUNrry DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7.500 W, 29"' Ave, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 301235,M7 March 21, 2012 Theresa & Carl Flageolle 8249 Estes Court Arvada, CO 80005 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Flageolle: Attached please find notice that your request for a 12.5-foot variance from the 25-foot front yard (western) setback requirement has been approved for the purpose of constructing a new single- family home on property at 3440 Jay Street (Lot 2, Flageolle Subdivision). Please note there is one condition on the approval: 1. Construction of the home be generally consistent with Exhibits 4 and 5 [conceptual site plan and elevation], subject to staff review and approval through review of a building pen Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions. www.ci.%,heatHdgexo.us 7500 West 29th Avenue 91 City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 �Wh6atPLd C V IV 303.235.2846 303.235.2857 WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 3440 Jay Street referenced as Case No. WA - -05 / Fla gcol le; and WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance, relying on criteria listed in Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and on information submitted in the case file; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has properly notified pursuant to Section 26-109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and WHEREAS, there were no registered objections regarding the application; NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 12.5-foot variance fro the 25-foot front setback requirement, resulting in a 12.5-foot front setback for the purpose of constructing a single family home on property in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district (Case No. WA - -0 / Flageolle), is granted for property located at 3440 Jay Street (Lot 2, Flageolle Subdivision), based on the following findings of fact: With the following conditions: 1. Construction of the home be generally consistent with Exhibits 4 and 5, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. AICP Date IEM= City of Wh6atPLdge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: March 19, 2012 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA -12 -05 / Flageolle ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 12.5 -foot variance from the 25 -foot front yard setback requirement for property located at 3440 Jay Street and zoned Residential -Two (R -2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3440 Jay Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Carl & Theresa Flageolle Carl & Theresa Flageolle for Flageolle Real Estate Trust 15,400 Square Feet (0.35 Acres) Residential -Two (R -2) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Administrative Variance Case No. TVA -12 -05 /Flageolle JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an administrative decision. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 12.5 -foot (50 %) variance from the 25 -foot front yard setback requirement, resulting in a 12.5 -foot front setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a new single family home on Lot 2 of the Flageolle Subdivision. Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. II. CASE ANALXSIS The applicants, C and Theresa Flageolle, are requesting the variance as the property owners of 3440 Jay Street. The riance is being requested so that the property owners may construct a new single family home on property (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The property is zoned Residential -Two (R -2), a zone district that provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate- density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character. Surrounding the property on all sides are other parcels zoned R -2. They contain single- and two - family homes. The property immediately adjacent to the west is undeveloped (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The subject lot is identified as Lot 2 of Flageolle Subdivision, which was approved by Planning Commission on February 16, 2012 per Case No. MS- 11 -07. The plat is not yet recorded, but the applicants are seeking the variance so they may continue designing a new home for the property. This variance request could have been processed as part of the subdivision application, but a conceptual site design had not yet been considered at that time. The lot is 15,400 square feet in size and is currently undeveloped, vacant land. The parcel does not have direct access from a public right -of -way. Jay Street is two lots to the west, and the terminus of the cul -de -sac bulb for Ingalls Street is adjacent to the southeast corner of the subject property. Ingalls Street has been approved for emergency access only. Jay Street will be accessible via a private drive. The access easement for the private drive is 25 feet wide and runs along the southern portion of the subject lot, terminating at the eastern boundary of the subdivision (Exhibit 3, Subdivision Plat). The subject lot is considered a flag lot, which is defined in the zoning code as: Lot, flag. A lot which is situated such that the front lot line does not abut a public street. Primary access is by a private or privately shared drive leading to a street. The front lot line of a flag lot is that property line most parallel to the street from which access is gained. (Section 26 -123) Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -05 /Flageolle By definition, the front lot line of the subject property is the western property line which is parallel with Jay Street, not the southern lot line which is parallel with the private drive. The applicant is planning to construct a new single- family home on the property and has expressed a desire to orient the home such that the "front yard" is parallel to the southern property line. Because the southern lot line cannot administratively be interpreted as the front property line, the only way to achieve the proposed orientation of the home is to request a variance from the front (western) setback. The applicant is requesting a 12.5 -foot (50 %) variance from the front (western) setback. The request is offset by the fact that the southern lot line will be treated as the front lot line with a setback over 35 feet (Exhibit 4, Site Plan). It may be possible to construct a single family home on the property that meets a 25 -foot setback off the western property line, but the applicants have expressed several reasons why this is less desirable. If the home faces west towards Jay Street and retains a 25 -foot front (western) setback, there are issues related to access, privacy, and energy efficiency: • Preliminary designs of the home include the front entrance and garage doors on the same facade (Exhibit S, Elevation). If the garage doors face west, access to the garage would require a tight turning radius which could present issues for navigating trailers or emergency vehicles. • If the home is designed to face west, there is less opportunity for energy efficiency than if it was south facing to capture the winter sun. • If Lots 1 and 2 of the Flageolle Subdivision are developed to be oriented to the west, the subject lot would be looking into an adjacent backyard, and it could feel as though the applicant is intruding on the privacy of the neighboring lot. If the home faces south towards the private drive and retains a 25 -foot front (western) setback, it could result in an illogical site layout. Traditional residential site design includes narrow side yards with larger, rectangular front and rear yards. If the home is oriented toward the private drive, the western side of the property is treated as a side yard and the 25 -foot long and narrow strip of land would likely result in underutilized space. The proposed orientation — facing south with a reduced western setback — results in a more logical relationship not only to the private drive, but also between the front and rear yards of properties in the neighborhood. With the proposed orientation, the rear yard of the subject lot would face the rear yards of the properties to the north. The front yard of the subject lot would face towards the Ingalls Street cul -de -sac. Although the lot does not gain access from Ingalls Street, it may be visible from the right - of -way and the front fagade may provide a more logical and aesthetic view for the neighbors to the south (Exhibit 6, Site Photos). If the property owner to the west develops and requests a similar variance in the future, it would make sense for both homes to face the private drive and have adjacent side yards. Alternatively, if both homes face Jay Street, the orientation could result in discord with consecutive adjacency of front and rear yards (Exhibit 7, Neighborhood Conditions). As mentioned, the proposed variance would be offset by an increased southern setback which is the result of easements that significantly reduce the buildable area of the lot. Extending along the southern lot line is a 10 -foot wide drainage easement and a 25 -foot wide access and utility easement which will accommodate the private drive. The combined effect of the standard R -2 setbacks and the easements reduces the buildable area of the lot by 51.9 %. The table below summarizes the buildable and unbuildable areas of the lot and Exhibit 8 illustrates this impact (Exhibit 8, Buildable Area). Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -05 /Flageolle The applicants have expressed that approval of the variance would enable a more logical site design given the significantly reduced buildable area. Even if the variance was granted, the buildable area of the lot would only increase by 1,425 square feet -57.4% of the property would be considered developable. Ultimately, the variance request would result in a 12.5 -foot front yard (western) setback, and the proposed single - family home would meet all other development standards including height and maximum size. The following table compares the required R -2 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R -2 Development Standards: Square Footage Percent Total lot area 15,400 sf 100.0% Total buildable area 7,410 sf 48.1% Total unbuildable area 7,990 sf 51.9% Front yard west 2,850 sf 10 feet Rear yard east 1,140 sf ±50 feet Easements south 3,500 sf >_ 35 feet Side yard north 500 sf The applicants have expressed that approval of the variance would enable a more logical site design given the significantly reduced buildable area. Even if the variance was granted, the buildable area of the lot would only increase by 1,425 square feet -57.4% of the property would be considered developable. Ultimately, the variance request would result in a 12.5 -foot front yard (western) setback, and the proposed single - family home would meet all other development standards including height and maximum size. The following table compares the required R -2 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R -2 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 9,000 square feet (min) 15,400 square feet Lot Width 80 feet (min) 154 feet (north/south) 100 feet east/west Single Family Home: Required Proposed Building Coverage Height 15 feet max 10 fee Front Setback (west) Rear Setback (east) 10 feet (min) 10 feet Side Setback north 5 feet min ±50 feet Side Setback south 5 feet min >_ 35 feet During the public notification period neither inquiries nor objections were received regarding the variance request. A letter of support was submitted with the application from the owner of the property immediately to the west. That lot is currently undeveloped, but the property owner intends to construct a single family home in the future and will likely request a similar variance at that time (Exhibit 9, Letter of Support). III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 10, Letter of Request). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -05 / Flageolle 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would still be able to accommodate 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. A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality, as the request would result in a more traditional residential site design. The home is proposed to be oriented to face the drive from which it receives access —in this case a private drive. Most lots in the neighborhood are longer than they are wide and have narrow side yards with large, rectangular front and back yards. Through the variance request, the property owner is essentially requesting that the subject lot be treated similarly. The applicants would treat the southern portion of the lot as the front yard. A reduced western setback would result in a site design that is similar in character to other properties in the neighborhood. As described in the case analysis, the variance would also result in a more logical relationship between the front and rear yards of properties in the neighborhood which preserves the character of the area (Exhibit 7, 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 is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which may not be possible without the variance. The applicant has already made a significant investment having recently completed a subdivision application. The proposed custom -built home exhibits high- quality architectural design and will be another substantial investment. The setback variance is proposed to accommodate a home with a 3 -car garage, which is commonly seen in custom built homes and is increasingly desired by today's modern home buyers. Although investment in alternative designs could be made without the variance, approval of this variance request will result in a more logical site design. An illogical site layout could have a real or perceived effect on the value of the property. 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. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -05 /Flageolle The unique hardships on the property relate directly to the shape of the lot in relation to its street access and easements that encumber development. The easements along the southern portion of the property consume 22.7% of the lot area and significantly reduce the buildable area of the property (Exhibit 8, Buildable Area). The definition of a flag lot requires that the front property line be considered the western lot line that parallels Jay Street. Literal interpretation of this definition results in a less desirable development scenario, particularly because the easements are effectively result in a minimum 35 -foot setback requirement from the southern lot line. 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 alleged hardship relates to the shape of the lot and platted easements. The applicant was also a party to the Flageolle Subdivision application (Case No. MS- 11 -07), and therefore the hardship has been created by a person having interest in the property. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised 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 new home 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 circumstances present in the neighborhood that necessitate the variance on the subject property. The variance request is based on the applicant's desire to provide a high quality home and site layout that relates logically to other properties in the neighborhood. A Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -05 / Flageolle literal interpretation of the zoning code could result in site development that is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Thus, the conditions of the area justify a variance so that site design an be more harmonious with the neighborhood 7 gn g od (Ezhtbtt , Neighborhood Conditions). Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design: Manual 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 4'ard review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 12.5 -foot (50 %) variance from the 25 -foot setback requirement fbr a sitte t. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. Easements on the property significantly reduce the buildable area of the lot. 4. Literal interpretation of the front lot line would result in a site layout inconsistent with neighborhood conditions. 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. Construction of the home be generally consistent with Exhibits 4 and 5, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Administrative Variance Case No. t-VA -12 -05 /Flageolle EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL 4 1 10 1 1 Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -05 / Flageolle The subject property (3440 Jay Street) is outlined in red. The adjacent lots and tracts outlined ill yellow are also part of the Flageolle Subdivision. EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP R-1 C R-2 cn j7* 35TH AVE 6A I f 34TH A .ak A N Administrative Variance Case No. WA-12-05 1FIageolle EXHIBIT 3: SUBDIVISION PLAT Flageolle Subdivision was approved by Planning Commission on February 16, 2012. The plat has not yet been recorded, but the enclosed minutes indicate approval of the plat, the most recent version of which is also enclosed. Language regarding the easements is being finalized prior to final recordation. 1. " ' City of Wheat Putdge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 16, 2012 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BUCKNAM at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman Alan Bucknam Dick Matthews Scott Ohm Steve Timms Commission Members Absent: Marc Dietrick Tracy Guildner Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 2, 2012 It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to approve the minutes of February 2, 2012 as presented. Motion carried 5 -0. 6. PUBLIC FORUM No members of the public wished to address the Commission at this time. Administrative Variance 10 Cask No. TVA-12 -05 % Flageolle 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. MS -11 -07 (conrinued from February 2. 2012) An application filed by Carl Flageolle for a 3 -lot subdivision plat on property zoned Residential -Two and located at 6130 -6160 West 35` Avenue. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The applicant was requesting approval of the plat to legitimize an existing house's accessory structure and to create two parcels for single family construction. Staff recommended approval for reasons and with conditions as outlined in the staff report. In response to questions from Commissioners OHM and BRINKMAN, Ms. Reckert explained that the city is comfortable with access from Jay Street serving two properties. Further, the bulb at the end of Ingalls Street is to be used only for emergency access. In response to a question from Commissioner MATTHEWS, Ms. Reckert explained that while the lot on 6138 is nonconforming in size, the use is not. Commissioner TIMMS wondered why consideration was not given to consolidating all of 6160 to avoid nonconformance. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the narrow lot of 6130 could be subdivided at some time in the future. Ms. Reckert explained that this piece by itself would require variances to allow a freestanding structure and that is why the city is requesting that it be combined with the other 6130 lot. In response to a question from Commissioner BUCKNAM, Ms. Reckert explained that the emergency access off of Ingalls would require a 20 -foot wide hard surface. If a gate were to be installed, a breakaway lock would be required. Those improvements would be the responsibility of the owner of the newly created parcels. The fire department is okay with that plan. There would be no city requirements for traffic control signs at the Jay Street access. This would be a matter for the HOA to decide. For example, they might want a sign that indicates a private drive. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the applicant could improve the access from the Ingalls bulb. Ms. Reckert explained that this would require an extension of right -of -way and other matters requiring city approval. There is also a utility easement and a water drainage channel that run perpendicular to the easement. In response to a question from Commissioner TIMMS, Ms. Reckert stated that the new lots will be addressed from Jay. Thirty -foot setbacks would be measured from the west side of each lot. Planning Conimission Minutrs -2- February 16, 2012 Administrative Variance Case No. lfA -12 -05 /Flageolle Commissioner MATTHEWS asked if there are appropriate setbacks for the accessory structures. Ms. Reckert explained that these have been determined to be existing conditions. Chair BUCKNAM opened the public hearing. The following individuals addressed the Commission: Jerome Flageolle 6130 West 35` Avenue Mr. Flageolle, the applicant, stated that he purchased his property in 1989. He explained the additional land purchases and progression of ownerships by members of his family. He noted that a previous owner built a "spite line" to prevent access from the Ingalls Street bulb into 6160. Claude Deandrea 3335 Ingalls Mr. Deandrea asked if the emergency access from Ingalls could be changed in the future. Ms. Reckert replied that it could not be changed without city involvement. Sue Gilmore 3363 Jay Street Ms. Gilmore asked for confirmation that single family homes would be built on the lots. Mr. Flageolle assured her that was the case even though the property is zoned as R -2. Jim Steadman 6154 W. 35 Mr. Steadman stated that he has been a neighbor to the applicant for the past twelve years and Mr. Flageolle has always made sure that his property was not negatively affected. He spoke in favor of the application and construction of single family homes. Ms. Reckert assured him that apartment houses could not be built on the property under the existing zoning conditions. Mike Hallicy 3345 Ingalls He expressed his desire that the emergency access from Ingalls would stay with the property so it can never be opened up to through traffic. He stated that if he ever sells his property, he would make a stipulation of sale that the access would stay as emergency access only. There were no other members of the public who wished to address the Commission at this time. Chair BUCKNAM closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Commissioner OHM concerning a lot merger with Tract A and 6160, Ms. Reckert explained that the city has no control over how land changes hands. Planning Commission Minutes - 3- February 16, 2012 Administrative Variance 12 Case No. IVA -1 Z -O5 / FIageoNe In response to a question from Commission MATTHEWS, Ms. Reckert stated that approval of the application will not create property lines without proper setbacks. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Ms. Reckert stated that even if the accessory structure on 6130 were to be removed, a permanent structure could not be built on this lot. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner OHM to approve Case No. MS- 11 -07, a request for approval of a three -lot minor subdivision on R -2 zoned property located at 6130 West 35`" Avenue and south of 6160 West 35 "' Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. AU agencies can provide service to the property with improvements installed at the developer's expense. 2. All requirements of Article IV of the zoning and development code have been met. With the following conditions: 1. The access easement from Jay Street be increased to at least 20 feet in width. 2. All appropriate off-site easements be recorded and reflected on the plat. 3. Above- ground construction cannot occur until utilities and access are in place. 4. Fees in lieu of park land dedication be provided prior to recording. 5. Minor language and typographical errors be corrected prior to Mylar recording. Commissioner MATHTHEWS requested a sixth condition be included, that the homeowners association covenants for common elements maintenance be required prior to recording. Commissioners BRINKMAN and OHM were agreeable to this additional condition. Motion carried 5-0. Administrative [Variance 13 Case No. TKA -12 -05 /Flageolle - ----------------------- VEXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN This site plan represents a conceptual plan. The applicant is in the process of working with an architect, and the home may be shifted north to south. Most importantly, this site plan illustrates the requested 12.5-foot encroachment into the front (western) setback. The home would the home meet the 10 -foot rear (castern) setback; roof eaves may encroach as shown. R Administrative Variance 15 Case,Nla MA-12-05ITlageolle 'EXHIBIT 5: ELEVATION The applicant is currently in the process of working with an architect, so this elevation drawing represents a conceptual—not final—rendering of the proposed home. Because the applicant is proposing to orient the front of the home toward the private drive, this elevation is the south facade. Administrative 1 CaseAlo. IVA-12-051Fhkgeolle In EXHIBIT 6: SITE PHOTOS Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -05 / Flageolle EXHIBIT 7: NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS The following two images show the orientation of front and back yards (green and blue, respectively) in the neighborhood. The subject site is marked with an X. Exhibit 7A This image shows the two undeveloped lots with front yards (green) oriented to the south toward the private drive and the back yards (blue) adjacent to the back yards to the north. This results in a more logical relationship between these lots and others in the neighborhood. Exhibit 7B This image shows the two undeveloped lots with front yards (green) oriented to the west, parallel with Jay Street and along the front property lines as they are defined in the zoning code. This results in an unusual site layout that is inconsistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood. Administrative Variance 18 Case No. WA -12 -05 /Flageolle I I `01 N O 11 8 LOT 1 Z BLOCKI LITTLEJOHN SUBDIVISICN r ' ZONED R -2 0 o 1 4.0' � 10' WATER EASEMENT , 15.0' REC.NO._ - - -- ' 15' ACCESS EASEMENT — 1 ,RE 1 C.NO. - -- , 10.0' . CNo. 83107609 ! Side Setback III —1 118.00' P.O.S. 3.75 i S89'46'1 5"W " I 1 10' TRACT 8 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT � � , , •1 ���'� PEC. No. 83107610 , 750 sq. ft. ACCESS/UTIUTY 3 7 Im ✓� g I 7 Exhibit 1A Z DEED LINE HEREBY REMOVED I This image shows the R -2 setbacks for a single L1 49'99 200.O Side a Is PLAT . ( family home as they apply to the subject a 100.01' , 0 Setback 0 0 LITTLEJOHN W property for which the front lot line is defined 1QO.o - i W as the western lot line. Note that in the R -2 , zone district, side setbacks must be a minimum 10' = I of 5 feet, but a total of 15 feet. This image Rear I shows the northern setback at 5 feet and the Setba k tG.o• � southern side setback at 10 feet. in W I t I N 15.0' REC.NO. _ I 15' ACCESS EASENENI� 25' /' Front Setback o - - -�- - _ - -_ -_ _ - -- - - Y 10' ORANAGE EASEMENJ - 36:6 10.0' . CNo. 83107609 ! Side Setback III —1 118.00' P.O.S. 3.75 i S89'46'1 5"W " I 1 10' TRACT 8 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT � � , , •1 ���'� PEC. No. 83107610 , 750 sq. ft. ACCESS/UTIUTY 3 7 Im ✓� g °0 100.01' b ' 10001 / N n ---- - - - - -- I -- 10 0 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 16.61 91 '.r. _ _ 118.00' P.O.B. -- 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT REC, No. 83107610 I� 200.01' Si 'v 25 Front Setback ck 10' Rear Setbac i 193.0( 303.01' �Ir �, UTILITY = EASEMENT REC.NO. DEED LINE HEREBY REMOVED 1 49.99' BY THIS PLAT -� �4 }u I 5.0' O LOT 1 Z BLOCKI LITTLEJOHN SUBOIVISI GN , ZONED R -2 ! b o , tG.o• � rI 10' WATER EASEMENT 15.0' REC.NO. _ 15' ACCESS EASENENI� °0 100.01' b ' 10001 / N n ---- - - - - -- I -- 10 0 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 16.61 91 '.r. _ _ 118.00' P.O.B. -- 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT REC, No. 83107610 I� 200.01' Si 'v 25 Front Setback ck 10' Rear Setbac i 193.0( 303.01' �Ir �, UTILITY = EASEMENT REC.NO. DEED LINE HEREBY REMOVED 1 49.99' BY THIS PLAT -� �4 }u I Access /Utility Easement Exhibit 1B This image shows the R -2 setbacks for a single family home and the applicable easements on the subject property. A 10 -foot drainage easement along the southern property line and a 25 -foot access /utility easement for the private drive further reduce the buildable area of the - property. These easements consume 3,500 d square feet or 22.7% of the total lot area. cp The remaining buildable area is 65 feet wide and 114 feet long for a total area of 7,410 41 square feet. The applicants are requesting a variance to the 25 -foot front setback to have a buildable width of 77.5 feet to accommodate a home that is oriented to face the private drive to the south. O'brairiage Eas>ment 19 3.00 - 1�1 1 L 3.75' , - j S89'46'15 W i TRACT B r- - - -- 1 750 sq. ft. 303.01' i UTILITY I \�� EASEMENT �AOCESSNTI Ty \ \_ REC.NQ. Q W f� I� 04 W 19 Case No. WA -12 -05 /Flageolle 5.0' O 0 Access /Utility Easement Exhibit 1B This image shows the R -2 setbacks for a single family home and the applicable easements on the subject property. A 10 -foot drainage easement along the southern property line and a 25 -foot access /utility easement for the private drive further reduce the buildable area of the - property. These easements consume 3,500 d square feet or 22.7% of the total lot area. cp The remaining buildable area is 65 feet wide and 114 feet long for a total area of 7,410 41 square feet. The applicants are requesting a variance to the 25 -foot front setback to have a buildable width of 77.5 feet to accommodate a home that is oriented to face the private drive to the south. O'brairiage Eas>ment 19 3.00 - 1�1 1 L 3.75' , - j S89'46'15 W i TRACT B r- - - -- 1 750 sq. ft. 303.01' i UTILITY I \�� EASEMENT �AOCESSNTI Ty \ \_ REC.NQ. Q W f� I� 04 W 19 Case No. WA -12 -05 /Flageolle r-jxHIBIT 9. LETTER of SUPPORT Administrative Variance 'fit) Case No. 61:4- 12-05 I Flcxge oll r,xHIBIT 10: LETTER OF REQUEST February 29, 2012 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development 7500 West 29 Ave Wheat Iidoe. Colorado 80033 To whom it may concern, ffi��M rII I I MMM MMMMIM =1141all auuress assiguct as UY yetj TvWi oyYY71 MMMM are Tr Ael - set back variance to be half of the 25 foot raininturarequired for the following hardship reasons. n 0,11 tne Prulmr woul" it Mrrt I)IM m 4 facing south for several reasons. I. Is for easier access for emergency and service vehicles. Ifthe front of the house 2. We want to have a three car garage not only for our cars, but we. have a boat that is a total of 24ft loaded on the trailer which will make it easier turning radius with access being fi-orn thesouth. 3. We want to keep aesthetic appeal for the neighborhood by not having the front of die house facing my sister back yard, therefore encroaching on their privacy. When and if Lot I is developed it wiH result in the same thing. We will then be looking into Administrative Variance 21 Case No. IT'A - 12-05 / Flagc?olle [Exhibit 10: Lettej- of ReqUest, continued] Ilill Pill I'lliqlIll Sincvrely, Carl and There-sa Flageolle AdministratAv Pariancv 22 Case,Nlo, PIA-12-051FIageolk, City of Wheatpg+e POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA -1 2 -05 DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: March 16, 2012 1, Ca (name) residing at qt ►Ta �f (address) as the applicant for Case No. WA -12 -05 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for Public Notice at Flageolle Subdivision, Lot 2 (SE corner W. 35 Ave and Jay St) (location) on this 7`" 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: 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 FLAGEOLLE JEROME J FLAGEOLLE REAL ESTATE TRUST 6160 W 35TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7409 DUGGANJAMESO 6138 W 35TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE • 80033 7409 STEADMAN JAMES J STEADMAN MARY LOU 6154 W 35TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7409 FLAGEOLLE, GERALD J FLAGEOLLE LAURA M 6160 W 35TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7409 HALLISEY MICHAEL J 3345 INGALLS ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7432 RECEN SHARON 3350 INGALLS ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7432 39-252-14-027 39-252-14-029 39-252-14-028 39-252-14-011 39-252-14-010 39-252-14-009 39-252-14-001 39-252-14-024 7010 2780 0002 5833 5625 7010 2780 0002 5833 5632 7010 2780 0002 5833 5649 1 7010 2780 0002 5833 5656 7010 2780 0002 5833 5618 7010 2780 0002 5833 5601 0 CERTIFIED LETTER NOTICE Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 12-05, a request for approval of a 12.5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback requirement resulting in a 12.5 foot front yard setback on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3440 Jay Street, The applicant for this case is requesting an adininistrative variance review which allows no more than a fifty percent (50%) variance to be granted by the Zoning Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a decision, all adjacent groperly owners are required to • notified of the request • certified mail. • lave any qTU=+ 3, picase comact t annin livision at if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in writing by 5:00 p.m. on March 16, 2012. www.d.wheatridge.co.us Vicinity Map The subject property -3440 Jay Street —is outlined in yellow in the vicinity map below. WES T 35 TH A WNW for ,ROW VNE TABLE k"' k"'W ` G CM! twIY I.} JOHN s a APE Mi.tkM ZONED R_2 Moon Wj"y OKA" air "s rs rs It` ,' _. 0 , s aawx §§ 04 �}y y _ f yy " � (jam; J O gq ,.. Ll z t 4 LOT I d 3 8 Mt # t,t7d 4t. )# '9f Iir �sfi.ff3CitWS�3G�``� A e "ttVS443fi .ice uWTY WEMENT t'AUQQl AmisAnomm � a kta RY €` t', "k -MENT ol'v t Iv f e . v r" `,1 14'" i,` om LINE • t t� >fi� 9'4 3 EE. , s � C Y.CSt' s BY TM5 PLAT LOT � 23,746 aq} h. rs rs It` ,' _. 0 , s aawx §§ 04 �}y y _ f yy " � (jam; J O gq ,.. Ll z t 9= I ACS c OAT, ter " v A, WAAMM Am 4w P S SCUTK f *10AMR C `OF ft4 ow PAC X * AR7 T, Ms TO STA"T STAITUTT, 0 p. bit , .. {3A *AL CowmwfE` 0 i2NAtiNAO AC�C$S AR TA A FU MEIAL z. vaa rI PWOO ftN Awt OF IS S, T M wo, oa KINT cam+ ASS a EA KUM INC MIT P At 4 LOT I t ct K # t,t7d 4t. )# '9f Iir �sfi.ff3CitWS�3G�``� A e "ttVS443fi .ice uWTY WEMENT AmisAnomm � Dt �....._. ..,_..�..�..„�_ Iv . v r" `,1 14'" i,` I 4 .? k • t t� >fi� 9= I ACS c OAT, ter " v A, WAAMM Am 4w P S SCUTK f *10AMR C `OF ft4 ow PAC X * AR7 T, Ms TO STA"T STAITUTT, 0 p. bit , .. {3A *AL CowmwfE` 0 i2NAtiNAO AC�C$S AR TA A FU MEIAL z. vaa rI PWOO ftN Awt OF IS S, T M wo, oa KINT cam+ ASS a EA KUM INC MIT P At 4 tr )# '9f e "ttVS443fi .ice uWTY WEMENT 9= I ACS c OAT, ter " v A, WAAMM Am 4w P S SCUTK f *10AMR C `OF ft4 ow PAC X * AR7 T, Ms TO STA"T STAITUTT, 0 p. bit , .. {3A *AL CowmwfE` 0 i2NAtiNAO AC�C$S AR TA A FU MEIAL z. vaa rI PWOO ftN Awt OF IS S, T M wo, oa KINT cam+ ASS a EA KUM INC MIT P At 1* 1 Ale City of t e ]��'Wh6a tA%JJA�dl LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Owner 6L ryc) 0 Phone Fax---- Contact Address Phone (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional itil'orniation when necessary, Post public hearing signs. will receive as copy of the stat"freport prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for fianvarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) Location of request (address): Required information: I certil)y that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney frornthe owner which approved of this action on his behalf. EMMEMM To be filled out by staff- / I Date received, -� 5 / 0— Corrip Plan lie sag Related Case No. A, Nis Note 01 jbi'=tt temy'; of Nt"t 6k-1 20j), expires �1­ OF COVP Receipt N,r ' " , .. "41/ Case No 1A Zoning Quarter Section Map Pre-App Mtg, Date ­­­­­ ...... Case Manager February 29, 2012 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development 7500 West 29" Ave Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 To whom it may concern, We the owners, Carl and Theresa Flageolle of lot 2 in the 'Flageolle Subdivision' (no address assigned as of yet) west of 3470 Jay Street in Wheat Ridge, are requesting a set back variance to be half of the 25 foot minimum required for the following hardship reasons. It is our intention to build a high quality custom home. in Lot 2 of the Subdivision within the near future. Because of the dimensions of the property, and where the private drive is located on the property we would like to have the fiont of the house facing south for several reasons. 1. Is for easier access for emergency and service vehicles. If the front of the house were to be facing west there would be a very tight turn on the edge of the property into our house that would make it difficult for emergency vehicles. 2. We want to have a three car garage not only for our cars, but we have a boat that is a total of 24ft loaded on the trailer which will make it easier turning radius with access being from the south. 3. We want to keep aesthetic appeal for the neighborhood by not having the front of the house facing my sister back yard, therefore encroaching on their privacy. When and if Lot 1 is developed it will result in the same thing. We, will then be looking into their back yard if the front of our property is to be facing west. 4. To provide more natural sunlight for quicker snow melt in the winter and to allow for a more energy efficient home. We would appreciate a timely response to this matter requesting an administrative variance to be decreased to 12.5 feet for the west property. Sincerely, Carl and Theresa Flageolle 5 IN I son I Timm= illimmilre -M."m 100" owl #os I LURK UN) A 02a h T L MQ9 A I A $A I t w4l W R 1 2 , R l I 'M 18 "1, 1 4 1 t 4 1 wQj 2 1 T 6 PXi, 1, M R MUM, PIRM "UP WMMR I ol I M 0 L and Use Data Foan CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 0318 9:12 an edbb THERESA FL46EDLLE City of ' hea LAND USE APPLICATION ATICtN F I M 1 , OMMU stT f +r�IXVMENT Case No. .LVAl205 ' Date Received 3t5t2Q12 Related cases . m ) Case Planner Mikulak Case Description 121/2 foot front yard variance ( � � arrtrnhv�rafi�rr Name [Carl Flageclle 1 Name Theresa Flageolle Phone i(303) 829-5855 ` Address 18249 Estes Ct City Arvada State iCo 005 Zip 80 Name ;Carl Fiageo!!e � Name Theresa Flageolle Phone (303j 829 5855 Address 8249 Estes Ct Crky Arvada _._ State CO t Zrp $0005 w E'rrnfac Name Theresa Flageolla ( Name Phone (303) 829-5855 Address ,8249 Estes Ck City Arvada State ! — 1 Zip 80005 t'rcryecf 1,rrtvr.�.�lr`c�rj Address 13440 S treet Jay Street City Wheat Ridge State `CO Zip 80033 Location Description Flageo {le Subdivision, Lot 2 � _ Project Name . Parcel No Qtr gection District No Parcel No. Qtr Section: ; District No: iNW25 I ..... /?evienPS Pre -App Date Neighborhood Meeting Date App No , Review Type Eieuievu Body Review Date Disposition Comments Report Review r Admrn , 31712012€ �.�, Deadline to object 3118112' 1 r '. Record. 1 4 3958 of 3458 ► ►i t t o iltered ; Search # i _.. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 0318 9:12 an edbb THERESA FL46EDLLE