Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-12-06City oll'Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29"'Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235,2846 F: 303.235.2 Pinnacle Properties Attn: Wesley Fisbeck 4258 Tennyson Street, Suite ##1 03B Denver, CO 80212 Re: Case No. WA - -06 Attached please find notice that your request for a 5-foot variance from the 1 (1 -foot side yard setback requirement has been approved for the purpose of reconstructing a single-family home on property at 8980 W. 35 `x' Avenue. Please note there is one condition on the approval: 1. The properly shall comply with the landscape requirements of section 26-502 for new single-family residences. This shall include installation of two (2) street trees within the front setback if the existing trees are to be removed as shown on the demo plan. 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 26, 2012. Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions. Sincerely, fa Lauren Mikulak Planner I www.ci.NNheatsid e.co.us 'V 4 7500 West 29th Avenue City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 v v h6 at PSJ�-d i 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 09 WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 8980 W. 35"' Avenue referenced as Case No. WA - -06 / Pinnacle; 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; 6. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. With the following conditions: 1. The property shall comply with the landscape requirements of section 26-502 for new single-family residences. This shall include installation of two (2) street trees within the front setback if the existing trees are to be removed as shown on the demo plan. -3 D ate City of Wh6at�idge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: March 27, 2012 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA -12 -06 / Pinnacle ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 5 -foot variance from the 10 -foot side yard setback requirement for property located at 8980 W. 35"' Avenue and zoned Residential -One (R -1 A) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8980 W. 35` Avenue APPLICANT (S): Pinnacle Properties & Construction Services, Inc. OWNER (S): Donald Kasica APPROXIMATE AREA: 38,051 square feet (0.87 acres) / = 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres) excluding lake PRESENT ZONING: Residential -One (R -1 A) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle 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 5 -foot (50 %) variance from the 10 -foot side yard setback requirement, resulting in a 5 -foot side setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the renovation and reconstruction of a single - family home on property at 8980 W. 35`' Avenue. Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Pinnacle Properties & Construction Services, Inc., is requesting the variance on behalf of the property owner of 8980 W. 35` Avenue. The variance is being requested so that the property owner may reuse the existing foundation to rebuild a single- family home in the same place as the existing home (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The property located at 8980 W. 35th Avenue is zoned Residential -One A (R -1A). The parcel is located on the north side of Henry Lee Lake. The property lines extend into the water body, so the total lot area is 38,051 square feet (0.87 acres). The area of the parcel not including the lake is estimated at 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres). The property is surrounded by other parcels zoned R -1 A, including single - family residences to the east and west. Across W. 35` Avenue to the north is the undeveloped rear portion of the Wide Horizons nursing home facility (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The subject lot currently contains a one - story, single - family home with an attached two -car garage (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). According to Jefferson County records, the house was originally constructed in 1956. The residence is 1,763 square feet in size. The existing home is considered nonconforming because the western side setback does not meet the current 10 -foot minimum for a single - family residence in the R- I A zone district. Instead, the home was constructed with a 5 -foot setback. Prior to 2003, this was an acceptable setback. Side setbacks in the R -lA zone district were required to be a minimum of 5 -feet with a combined total of 15 for the two sides. This was changed with Case No. ZOA- 03 -09, increasing the side setbacks to the current standard of 10 feet on each side (Exhibit 4, Existing Home /Site Plan). Section 26 -120 of the municipal code addresses nonconforming structures. In this case, because the home legally existed when the zoning code was adopted, the residence may continue to exist. The code states, however, "If any structure or nonconforming portion thereof is demolished or reconstructed by the owner to an extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the applicable provisions [i.e. setback requirements] of this chapter" (26- 120.C.2). The property owner has been working with a contractor and architect to remodel the residence within the existing footprint of the home in an effort to reuse the existing foundation and subfloor. The Administrative Variance 2 Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle contractor has expressed that the most cost - effective method of remodeling the home would be to remove the entire roof system, all exterior masonry walls, and all interior walls. This would yield a superior final product based on modern construction techniques. Exterior walls would be constructed of 2x6 lumber allowing space for R -19 insulation, increasing the energy efficiency of the new home. If the entire vertical portion of the home is demolished and reconstructed, as is proposed, section 26 -120 of zoning code requires the new structure to meet the 10 -foot minimum setback requirement. To build at the 10 -foot setback would avoid a variance request, but it would also eliminate 5 feet from the width of the proposed home. This option is viewed by the applicant and property owner as the least desirable alternative as it would prevent the reuse of the existing foundation, and it would require an entire redesign. Another alternative that would avoid a variance entails not a change in setbacks, but a substantial change in construction methods to avoid demolishing the exterior of the home. This alternative requires all exterior walls to remain in place and the remodel to be retrofitted within the existing walls to achieve the proposed floor plan and elevations. This alternative would allow the structure to remain in its nonconforming location without a variance, but the applicant has expressed that it represents a less desirable alternative for several reasons. Primary among these reasons is the substantial increase in construction cost and the inefficiencies that result from a retrofit. Please see the submitted letter of request for details regarding the specific construction techniques that are affected by this alternative (Exhibit 5, Letter of Request). The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that is supported by the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. Ultimately, the outcome of the variance request determines not where the home is constructed, but how it is constructed — namely, whether or not it is a total remodel or a retrofit and whether or not it can be constructed in the most efficient and cost- effective manner. The variance would result in a 5 -foot side yard 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 -1 A development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R -IA Develo tent Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 9,000 square feet (min) 38,051 sf 15,000 sf (excluding lake) Lot Width 75 feet (min) 80 feet Single Famil Home: Required Proposed Building Coverage 30% (max) 14.5% (excluding lake) Height 35 feet (max) ±15 feet Front Setback (north) 25 feet (min) 25 feet Rear Setback (south) 10 feet (min) > 100 feet Side Setback west 10 feet min 5 feet Side Setback (east) 10 feet min 10 feet During the public notification period neither inquiries nor objections were received regarding the variance request. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle 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 S, Letter of Request). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a single - family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The requested 5 -foot setback will result in the remodeled residence staying in the exact same location in which the home has been located since 1956. With no substantial change to the footprint of home, the character of the neighborhood is not expected to change. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. The house will remain a single -story ranch style residence with a gabled roof style. There will be a vaulted ceiling on the south side of the house, but this added building height is not located within the setback encroachment. The updated fagade is expected to have a positive visual impact on the neighborhood (Exhibit 6, Proposed Home /Site Plan). Building permit records confirm that over half of the homes in the block have reduced side setbacks, therefore this variance request is consistent with building placement patterns in the area. The distance between the subject home and the neighboring home is one of the wider separations in the block which reduces the visual impact of the variance request (Exhibit 3, Site ft". 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. With the proposed remodel on the existing foundation, the applicant will be making a substantial investment in the property which may not be possible without the variance. A total remodel of the home is expected to add value to the property, and the proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. Administrative Variance 4 Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle As stated in the case analysis, the outcome of the variance request ultimately determines not where the home is constructed, but how it is constructed— namely, whether or not it is a total remodel or a retrofit and whether or not it can be constructed in the most efficient and cost - effective manner. Without the variance, the home could end up in the same location with a 5 -foot setback, as a result of a retrofit. Approval of the variance, however, could ensure that the substantial investment being made results in the most attractive and highest quality end - product which is more consistent with the NRS. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The applicant has expressed that if the variance is not approved there will be construction and cost related hardships related to a retrofit within the existing exterior walls. The preferred and most cost - efficient alternative is to remove all walls and build upon the existing foundation with a 5 -foot variance. Despite the construction and cost challenges of a retrofit versus remodel, there appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or mature landscaping on the property. The lot meets the minimum size and width requirements for a single- family home in the R -1A zone district. The physical conditions of the lot do not create unique hardships, and the request appears to result from an inconvenience of design. 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 current owner is trying to reuse the existing foundation which has a nonconforming 5 -foot side setback. The current owner purchased the property in November 2010, and thus is not responsible for the location of the existing foundation or its location in relation to the property line. 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. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle 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 or impede the sight distance triangle. The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Conversely, the proposed remodel will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by upgrading an aging ranch home and promoting investment in property. 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 variance request is based on the applicant's desire to reuse the existing foundation to upgrade the home with a project that is financially viable and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The subject lot is one of eleven single- family homes along the south side of W. 35` Avenue between Everett and Garrison Streets. Site plans and ILCs in the building permit files confirm that seven of the properties on the block have at least one nonconforming side setback. Based on field work and aerial images, two additional properties appear to also have reduced setbacks. Only two of properties in the block definitively meet the 10 -foot setback on both sides; these properties are on the western side of the block (Exhibit 1, Aerial). This being the case, the proposal to keep the home in its current location with a 5 -foot setback is consistent with the conditions in the neighborhood. 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 Administrative Variance Case No_ WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 5 -foot (50 %) variance from the 10 -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. 3. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as a majority of the homes in the area have reduced side yard setbacks. 6. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. With the following conditions: 1. The property shall comply with the landscape requirements of section 26 -502 for new single - family residences. This shall include installation of two (2) street trees within the front setback if the existing trees are to be removed as shown on the demo plan. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Administrative Variance Case No. TVA -12 -06 /Pinnacle EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP IS, Y. R-2— V 4 F-- -' L _ . 35T 11 AVE R-IA in uj� Lu l l -Z 7- Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle R.2. EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS Existing home at 8980 W. 35` Avenue, looking south. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- ------ LAKE SHORELINE (PROF"TY UNE LUILM E)OSnNG EXIEWS INTO LAM) HOVSE OF DECI( AE07M INRLL--\ -------------------------------------------------- ------------------ — — - — — - — — - — — - — — - — — - — — DEMON RM I CaselVo, WA-12-06 Pinnacle w EXIST04 MUAL FRAMM WE" WAU& FACE SROX ON EXIS NORL�j ELEVA-nON 4 4* * OLM W/ EXISTNG MST UVA11ON I*X2 FMW. I /r CA"ALL ON #4n" W,*U EXHIBIT 5: LETTER OF REQUEST Pinnack ProprutiEs & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. 4258 TENNYSON STREET, SUITE # 1 03B DENVER, CO 80212 (970) 290 -3773 - WWW.PPOFCO.COM March 6, 2012 Ms. Sarah Showalter, Planner 11 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development 7500 West 29` Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Ms. Showalter, This letter is in reference to an upcoming project located at 8980 West 35 Avenue Wheal Ridge, CO 80033. The existing residence is a 1,763 square foot ranch style brick home that was constructed in 1956. Donald Kasica purchased the home on November 30, 2010. Mr. Kasica is going to remodel the home this spring in order to accommodate the current needs of his family. The current zoning requirements for this property include 10' -0" side yard setbacks. The existing residence was originally constructed with a 10' -0" side yard setback on the East side of the home, and a 5' -0" side yard setback on the West side of the home. From a construction standpoint, there are two ways that the remodel can be performed that will produce an identical finished product from a zoning perspective. The first of these two methods would require a variance to be granted by the City of Wheat Ridge, while the second method would not. First, the remodel would be performed by removing the existing exterior masonry walls. The existing foundation and subfloor would remain, and new wood framed walls would replace the existing masonry walls. Second, the remodel would be performed leaving the exterior masonry walls in place. Although these two methods would yield an identical finished product from a zoning point of view, removing the exterior masonry walls and constructing new wood framed walls on the existing foundation would provide Mr. Kasica with a superior finished product, as well as construction cost savings. Therefore; we are requesting that an administrative variance be granted for a waiver of 50% of the side yard setback on the West side of the home to allow the construction of the new wood framed walls. City of Wheat Ridge Variance Criteria for Review: 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 12 which it is located. Response: The reasonable return in use for the remodeled property can be evaluated by summarizing the differences in the two construction methods that yield the same finished product from a zoning perspective: leaving the exterior masonry walls in place vs. removing the exterior masonry walls and constructing new wood framed walls on the existing foundation. Option # 1: Leaving the exterior masonry walls in place Using this method, the existing (8" wide) exterior masonry walls would be left in place, and window openings would be modified as required to meet code requirements for egress windows in the bedrooms. This requires adding new steel lintels above the new window openings, cutting the brick walls to the new opening dimensions, and wrapping the inside of the new window openings with dimensional lumber to provide a place to attach the windows. The top of the masonry walls would have a dimensional lumber plate added at the top of the masonry, shimmed to achieve a level bearing point for the trusses, and anchored down into the existing masonry walls. On the interior of the home, the masonry walls are furred out into the room, which allows for the installation of insulation, accommodates the electrical wiring to be put in place (so floor outlets are not required) and provides attachment points for the drywall. The most cost effective insulating solution is installing halt insulation. The dimension the walls would need to furred out into the home depends on the depth of the insulation. For example, to achieve an R -value of 13 with bat( insulation, the exterior walls would need to furred out 3 1 /2" inside the exterior walls. Therefore; in order to achieve an R -13 level, Mr. Kasica would be required to sacrifice 3 W' of finished space around the entire perimeter of the home. Option #2: Removing the exterior masonrywlls Using this method, the exterior masonry walls would be removed, and the home would be constructed using new construction techniques built up from the existing foundation. The new wood framed walls would be constructed with 2x6 lumber where the masonry walls were removed. The window openings are framed into the new walls, so the additional work required in option #1 to add new steel lintels above the new window openings, cutting the brick walls to the new opening dimensions, and wrapping the inside of the new window openings with dimensional lumber to provide a place to attach the windows is no longer necessary, helping Mr. Kasica to realize construction cost savings. Since the new exterior walls would take the place of the existing masonry walls, Mr. Kasica can achieve a more efficient R -19 insulation level (based on the 5 1 /2" deep cavities created by the 2x6 studs) without having to sacrifice any finished space around the perimeter of the home that was necessary in option #L In summary, the property would not yield a reasonable return in use if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed compared to the return in use if the variance were to be granted. If the property is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed Mr. Kasica would be required to sacrifice insulation efficiency (R -13 vs. R -19) and finished square footage (3 W' around the perimeter of the home), which are sacrifices that would not have to be made if the variance were to be granted. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Administrative Variance 13 Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle Response: The footprint and the exterior appearance of the home will be identical whether or not the variance is granted. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. Response: While this project can be completed without a variance being granted and the existing masonry walls left in place, Mr. Kasica is proposing a substantial investment in the property and the variance would allow Mr. Kasica to utilize the investment money to the fullest extent possible by increasing the interior finished square footage and improving energy efficiencies for the home with a higher insulation R -value in the exterior walls. This translates to a superior finished product for Mr. Kasica that is identical in terms of the zoning requirements for the property. D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the Owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Response: If the variance is not granted, the remodel cannot be constructed using the most appropriate construction method for this project, which places a unique hardship on Mr. Kasica. Granting the variance would allow Mr. Kasica to reap all the benefits of new construction for his home while also allowing him to utilize the existing foundation and keep the footprint of his home the same as it has been since 1956. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Response: The home was originally constructed with a 5' -0" side yard setback on the West side of the property. This hardship is an existing condition, and was not created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 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 safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Response: Granting the variance would not change the side yard setback on the West side of the home. The 5' -0" side yard setback would remain unchanged, as it has been since the home was constructed in 1956. The adjacent properties would not be impacted if the variance is granted. The supply of light and air to the adjacent properties would remain unchanged. This request for a variance would have no impact on the congestion of public streets and would not endanger the public safety in any way. Administrative Variance 14 Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle Mr. Kasica will be investing a substantial amount of money in his home, which will increase property values within the neighborhood, not diminish them. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Response: The original home was constructed in 1956, prior to when the city of Wheat Ridge incorporated in 1969; therefore, the home was not constructed to the side yard setbacks required by the city. Based on the aerial photography of West 35` Avenue for this block (below), it appears that many of the surrounding properties do not meet the current 10' -0" side yard setback requirement. The unusual circumstances necessitating this variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. When reviewing the City of Wheat Ridge variance request log provided on the City of Wheat Ridge website, it appears that a side yard setback is one of the most common types of variance requests. Many of these variance requests have been approved by the City of Wheat Ridge for similar situations in surrounding areas; specifically for the properties located at 3810 Cody Street, 3860 Allison Street, 3740 Independence Street, and 3900 Holland Street. i 1 In conclusion, granting this side yard setback variance would not permit the residence to encroach into the side yard setback any more than it has since 1956, nor would it change the exterior appearance of footprint of the home. Instead, granting the variance would allow the remodel to be constructed using new construction techniques, which would provide Mr. Kasica with a superior finished product that would be identical (from a zoning perspective) to the home if the variance is not granted and the home was completed using the remodel method. Since both methods would produce the same end result from a zoning point of view, and the exterior wall on the West side of the property would remain in the same location it has been in since 1956, we feel the request for a variance is warranted. Sincerely, R ! i ,4L/ W i .. Wesley Fisbeck Pinnacle Properties & Construction Services, Inc. Cc: Donald Kasica, Owner & Mark Fitzwilliam, Fitzwilliam Architects, P.C. Administrative Variance 15 Case No. WA -12 -06 /Pinnacle 2' W RAFTER ow XULME 011 11111 ®111�I i'�IIIIII'IIIIIII � r tom' 111 r BOARD AND BATTE SIDING 7 COAT STUCCO HORIZONTAL TRIV CULTURED STONE SOUTH PERSPECTIVE �1 a W V1 W O A W O a 'O a �o A4 x W m Case No. WA -12 -06 / Pinnacle NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE P&S.AUGN wm HOUSE BASE NORTH ELEVATION City of W heat Rdge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA -12 -06 DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: March , 2, & , 2012 (n a m e) ` residing at q (/� 3 S lqy e. 1 O� S L C, ji r S s (address) as the applicant for Case No. WA -12 -06 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for Public Notice at 8980 W. 35 °i Avenue (location) on this 1,5 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: 'I NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Community DVelopment Department for this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file. MAP , -. 08300 KASICA DONALD 8980 W 35TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 5806 NOCTON DENNIS L NOCTON LOIS K 8940 W 35TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 5806 JONES TiMOTHY D MORRIS SHARON P 9000 W 35TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 5808 7010 2780 0002 5833 6080 7010 2780 0002 5833 6097 7010 2780 0002 5833 6103 PULA JENNIFER R KIMBALL JOANNE PORCELLI PULA RICHARD J 7010 2780 11002 5833 6110 3290 FIELD ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WIDE HORIZON INC 8900 W 38TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 39-271-07-006 39-271-07-005 39-271-07-007 39-271-07-031 39-271-99-003 7010 2780 0002 5833 6127 as CID ,o r t { 10 ' lig 24 C UA BEL LE SUB, ODE a 6 CD§ a BEASLEY mlNORI SUB. 's �y� E Chi I _R J.� 34th, A March 15, 2012 % i� This is to inform you of Case No, WA- 12-06, a request for approval of a 5 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot si yard setback for a single-family home on property zoned Residential-One A • I A) and located at 8980 W. 35" Avenue. The applicant for this case is requesting an administrative variance review which allows • 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 properly owners are required to be notified of the request by certified mail. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846 or if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in writing by 5:00 p.m. on March 26, 2012. USE= WA I 206.doc www.d.wheatridge.coms A �( V, City of _]�9rWh6atR,i:jgc LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 29"' Avenue * Wheat Ridge, CO 8 00 33 # Phone (303) 235-2846 (Please print or type all information) Applicant Address 11 ' 7 Phone 2?0 Ct State 0_ ip ' Proposed Use: Q Faxji�� L- 6f ! — OwnerDvina Id— kck,51_(CA- Address g f Lo JAJ 14VC- Phone-7Z±- 317 City State Zip 003-2 Fax ,4/ 4 Contact Address 7 5 i� 7ek w YSO" 50L" -tt P hone To be filled out by staff. State co Zip .1- Fax 1Lqq 5v (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) Location of request (address): Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): Appheation sub matal requirements on roerse side ■ Change of zone or zone conditions ■ Special Use Permit ■ Subdivision. Minor (5 lots or less) ■ Consolidation Plat ■ Conditional Use Permit • Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) ■ Flood Plain Special Exception • Site Plan approval 0 Temporary Use, Building, Sign ■ Lot Line Adjustment ■ Concept Plan approval 21'Variance/Waiver (from Section ■ Planned Building Group 0 Right of Way Vacation ■ Other: Detailed description of a r d -Ck,.%CC Of 4_ � 1 0 44 1-1-i O'e-, - — J c � b M Required information: Assessors Parcel Number. Lc� X07� 5t cf�Ovx z r?, ,IE�"ej? Size of Lot (acres or �quare to Cur-rent Zoning: Proposed Zonin& I& k Current Use:__� Proposed Use: Q 1 Cemly Unallon ank-T x 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 fl in th a rove r a f this action on, his behalf. Signature of Applicant ubscribed and sworn to me this day • 20__J� CAITLYN GRUNIME NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORACIO c hAv (nroMiSSion Expiros 05/22/2014 - com ssl expires q To be filled out by staff. Date received Fee $A L6r­::� Receipt No Case N , 14 Comp Plan Desig._ Zen Quarter sc�;i P �Relate Case No. Pre-App Mg. Date r d Case ManagcA� - A I m m PARCEULOT BOUNDARY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) WATER FEATURE # # - . a . - NE 27 I DEPAKTMENT OF MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Last Revision: Se ternber 10, 2001 Pinnacle es & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. (970) 290-3773 — WWW.PPOFCO.COM March 6, 2012 City of Wheat Ridge Variance Criteria for Review: 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. Response: The footprint and the exterior appearance of the home will be identical whether or not the variance is granted. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance, D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique, hardship (upon the Owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, Mr. Kasica will be investing a substantial amount of money in his home, which will increase property values within the neighborhood, not diminish them. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property, Sincerely, A 7 � �/, /, "' "' W State of COLORADO )ss. County of JUVERSON "WlNrVLl" xvmajtlt% 8980 WEST 35TH AVENVE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 Form 13084 WNW wd.odt Warranty Deed (Photographic) K70289066 (10728248) March 13, 2012 City • Wheat Ridge Community Development 7500 West 29'� Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Our upcoming remodel project at 8980 West 35 Avenue will require a variance based on the current City of Wheat Ridge zoning requirements. Please accept this letter as my authorization for Pinnacle Properties & Construction Services, Inc. to apply for the variance and prepare the variance submittals on my behalf. ("It Y0 - Ilk h6- C'C)MMUNrry Drvttc)PmrN'T' Cit y of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 301235,2846 F 303.235.2857 Submittal Checklist - 'Variances (administrative and non� I. I Project Name: 65 �((k & V"Ode t Project Locati V 0 bO �S Ion Applicant: tw-k() Date: -; ( '-/ / Project Planner: LOk&rt vx M Z)6 Fee Paid: A'Ury v M As applicantfor this prqject, 1 hereby ensure that all !f o the above requirements have been www.ci.wheatridge.co.us c` tk W 16 't idge �CO LAND USE APPLICATION FORM Case No. VJAl2d6 Date Received Related Cases Case Planner Case Description ... ........ - . .............. ..... . .. .. .. . ........... Name Pinnacle Praperhes Name Phone (970) 290 3773 J Address ,4258 Tennyson city . ........... ..... 'Denver State 1C0 Zip �80212- —1 Name asica Name . . .. ...... � Phone (720) 317-7494 Address City ------- !Wheat Ridge State ..... ...... .......... Name !Wesley Fisbeck Name Phone (970) 290-3773 --------- ------- Address 4258 Tennyson St., #103 City - --------------- . ..... 'Denver I State 1 zip td . 8021 2- .... . ....... Ile$liws Pre-App Date Neighborhood Meeting Date App No 3/15/201 r-H V CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 03115112 1&48 An CDBB Pinnacle Properties RECEIPT NO:CDB@07245 AMOUNT FMSD ZONING APPLICATION F 200.00 ZONE PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CK 2399 200.00 TOTAL 280.08 -------- --------------------------- - ♦ , A I - City of Wheat Midge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I DATE: March 9, 2012 SUBJECT: Potential Administrative Variance — 8980 W. 35 Avenue On behalf of the property owner, Pinnacle Properties & Construction Services, Inc. is proposing the renovation and reconstruction of a single - family home on property at 8980 W. 35th Avenue. The proposal requires a 50% (5 -foot) variance from the required 10 -foot side yard setback for a single - family home in R- IA. Before submitting a land use application and fee, the applicant has requested a courtesy review 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 a 50% (5 -foot) variance from the required 10 -foot side yard setback. Summary of Existing and Proposed Conditions The property located at 8980 W. 35th Avenue is zoned Residential -One A (R -IA). The parcel is located on the north side of Henry Lee Lake. The property lines extend into the water body, so the total lot area is 38,051 square feet (0.87 acres). The area of the parcel not including the lake is estimated at 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres) (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The property is surrounded by other parcels zoned R -IA, including single- family residences to the east and west. Across W. 35 Avenue to the north is the undeveloped rear portion of the Wide Horizons nursing home facility (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The subject lot currently contains a one - story, single- family home with an attached two -car garage (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). According to Jefferson County records, the house was originally constructed in 1956. The residence is 1,763 square feet in size. The existing home is considered nonconforming because the western side setback does not meet the current 10 -foot minimum for a single - family residence in the R -IA zone district. Instead, the home was constructed with a 5 -foot setback. Prior to 2003, this was an acceptable setback. Side setbacks in the R -1 A zone district were required to be a minimum of 5 -feet with a combined total of 15 for the two sides. This was changed with Case No. ZOA- 03 -09, increasing the side setbacks to the current standard of 10 feet on each side (Exhibit 4, Existing Home /Site Plan). Section 26 -120 of the municipal code addresses nonconforming structures. In this case, because the home legally existed when the zoning code was adopted, the residence may continue to exist. The code states, however, "If any structure or nonconforming portion thereof is demolished or reconstructed by the owner to an extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the applicable provisions [i.e. setback requirements] of this chapter" (26- 120.C.2). The property owner has been working with a contractor and architect to remodel the residence within the existing footprint of the home in an effort to reuse the existing foundation and subfloor. The contractor has expressed that the most cost- effective method of remodeling the home would be to remove the entire roof system, all exterior masonry walls, and all interior walls. This would yield a superior final product based on modern construction techniques. Exterior walls would be constructed of 2x6 lumber allowing space for R -19 insulation, increasing the energy efficiency of the new home. If the entire vertical portion of the home is demolished and reconstructed, as is proposed, section 26- 120 of zoning code requires the new structure to meet the 10 -foot minimum setback requirement. To build at the 10 -foot setback would avoid a variance request, but it would also eliminate 5 feet from the width of the proposed home. This option is viewed by the applicant and property owner as the least desirable alternative as it would prevent the reuse of the existing foundation, and it would require an entire redesign. Another alternative that would avoid a variance entails not a change in setbacks, but a substantial change in construction methods to avoid demolishing the exterior of the home. This alternative requires all exterior walls to remain in place and the remodel to be retrofitted within the existing walls to achieve the proposed floor plan and elevations. This alternative would allow the structure to remain in its nonconforming location without a variance, but the applicant has expressed that it represents a less desirable alternative for several reasons. Primary among these reasons is the substantial increase in construction cost and the inefficiencies that result from a retrofit. Please see the submitted letter of request for details regarding the specific construction techniques that are affected by this alternative (Exhibit S, Letter of Request). The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that is supported by the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. Ultimately, the outcome of the variance request determines not where the home is constructed, but how it is constructed — namely, whether or not it is a total remodel or a retrofit and whether or not it can be constructed in the most efficient and cost - effective manner. Variance Criteria The potential applicant has supplied site plans and responses to the variance criteria; below is an initial analysis of how each criterion is fulfilled. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a single - family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The requested 5 -foot setback will result in the remodeled residence staying in the exact same location in which the home has been located since 1956. With no substantial change to the footprint of home, the character of the neighborhood is not expected to change. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. The house will remain a single -story ranch style residence with a gabled roof style. There will be a vaulted ceiling on the south side of the house, but this added building height is not located within the setback encroachment. The updated facade is expected to have a positive visual impact on the neighborhood (Exhibit 6, Proposed Home /Site Plan). Building permit records confirm that over half of the homes in the block have reduced side setbacks, therefore this variance request is consistent with building placement patterns in the area. The distance between the subject home and the neighboring home is one of the wider separations in the block which which reduces the visual impact of the variance request (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). 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. With the proposed remodel on the existing foundation, the applicant will be making a substantial investment in the property which may not be possible without the variance. A total remodel of the home is expected to add value to the property, and the proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. As stated in the case analysis, the outcome of the variance request ultimately determines not where the home is constructed, but how it is constructed — namely, whether or not it is a total remodel or a retrofit and whether or not it can be constructed in the most efficient and cost - effective manner. Without the variance, the home could end up in the same location with a 5 -foot setback, as a result of a retrofit. Approval of the variance, however, could ensure that the substantial investment being made results in the most attractive and highest quality end - product which is more consistent with the NRS. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The applicant has expressed that if the variance is not approved there will be construction and cost related hardships related to a retrofit within the existing exterior walls. The preferred and most cost - efficient alternative is to remove all walls and build upon the existing foundation with a 5 -foot variance. Despite the construction and cost challenges of a retrofit versus remodel, there appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or mature landscaping on the property. The lot meets the minimum size and width requirements for a single - family home in the R- I A zone district. The physical conditions of the lot do not create unique hardships, and the request appears to result from an inconvenience of design. 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 current owner is trying to reuse the existing foundation which has a nonconforming 5- foot side setback. The current owner purchased the property in November 2010, and thus is not responsible for the location of the existing foundation or its location in relation to the property line. 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 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 or impede the sight distance triangle. The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Conversely, the proposed remodel will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by upgrading an aging ranch home and promoting investment in property. 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 variance request is based on the applicant's desire to reuse the existing foundation to upgrade the home with a project that is financially viable and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The subject lot is one of eleven single- family homes along the south side of W. 35 Avenue between Everett and Garrison Streets. Site plans and ILCs in the building permit files confirm that seven of the properties on the block have at least one nonconforming side setback. Based on field work and aerial images, two additional properties appear to also have reduced setbacks. Only two of properties in the block definitively meet the 10 -foot setback on both sides; these properties are on the western side of the block (Exhibit 1, Aerial). This being the case, the proposal to keep the home in its current location with a 5 -foot setback is consistent with the conditions in the neighborhood. 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 Based on an initial analysis, it appears that an application to allow a 50% (5 -foot) variance from the required 10 -foot side yard setback for a single - family home in R- I A would meet a majority of the criteria. If the variance is approved, the following condition is recommended: - The property shall comply with the landscape requirements of section 26 -502 for new single - family residences, including installation of two (2) street tree within the front setback if the existing trees are to be removed (as shown on the demo plan). EXHIBIT 1 :: Aerial of 8980 W. 35` Avenue Aerial of neighborhood I I EXHIBIT 2 :: Zoning Map wwwwrmmt _ - 35T H AVE 09160 3180 09140 49120 09100 09080 ' 09010 i + 09000 0E980 091601 a 09180 to : 0.',_00 03405 03390 OF520 R2 - 03500 ►1 Z 03405 Q 03100 to : 0.',_00 03405 Q 03100 0 a - . a L 03405 ,h 03390 OF520 R2 - 03500 ►1 EXHIBIT 3 :: Site Photos Existing home at 8980 W. 35` Avenue, looking south. Existing home at 8980 W. 35` Avenue, looking southeast at the subject side property line. This is the fagade that is located at a nonconforming 5 -foot setback. The distance between the subject home and the neighboring home is one of the wider separations in the block. This image provides an example of the nonconforming setbacks that exist on the block between Everett and Garrison Streets. There appears to be only a 10 -foot separation between the homes at 9040 and 9080 W. 35` Avenue (instead of the 20 feet that are currently required in the R- IAzone district). ORCH I �4- f4NT :W AreLAn(w ...OUTLINE OF PORCH ADOITION 1 I t 1 1 EXISlING SITE PLAN TH '�"} (�; (�( 7 f ( EXISTING METAL FRAMED EXTEMOR WALLS, I I l� N OR i V i t I?O .TYP. 4' BLOC K ON X a° BLOCK N 1 /2 ' DRYWALL ON INTERWR WALL LAKE - LAKE SHtR 9N£ j (PROPERTY LIKE TIN EAS � E IENOS INTO El ! DECK A€ NnCN —POR °H MMLL ORCH I �4- f4NT :W AreLAn(w ...OUTLINE OF PORCH ADOITION 1 I t 1 1 EXISlING SITE PLAN TH '�"} (�; (�( 7 f ( EXISTING METAL FRAMED EXTEMOR WALLS, I I l� N OR i V i t I?O .TYP. 4' BLOC K ON X a° BLOCK N 1 /2 ' DRYWALL ON INTERWR WALL EXHIBIT 5 :: Letter of Request Pinnacle Properties & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. 4258 TENNYSON STREET, SUITE # 1 03B DENVER, CO 80212 (970) 290 -3773 -- WWW.PPOFCO.COM March 6, 2012 Ms. Sarah Showalter, Planner 11 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development 7500 West 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Ms. Showalter, This letter is in reference to an upcoming project located at 8980 West 35` Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033. The existing residence is a 1,763 square foot ranch style brick home that was constructed in 1956. Donald Kasica purchased the home on November 30, 2010. Mr. Kasica is going to remodel the home this spring in order to accommodate the current needs of his family. The current zoning requirements for this property include 10' -0" side yard setbacks. The existing residence was originally constructed with a 10' -0" side yard setback on the East side of the home, and a 5' -0" side yard setback on the West side of the home. From a construction standpoint, there are two ways that the remodel can be performed that will produce an identical finished product from a zoning perspective. The first of these two methods would require a variance to be granted by the City of Wheat Ridge, while the second method would not. First, the remodel would be perfonned by removing the existing exterior masonry walls. The existing foundation and subfloor would remain, and new wood framed walls would replace the existing masonry walls. Second, the remodel would be performed leaving the exterior masonry walls in place. Although these two methods would yield an identical finished product from a zoning point of view, removing the exterior masonry walls and constructing new wood framed walls on the existing foundation would provide Mr. Kasica with a superior finished product, as well as construction cost savings. Therefore; we are requesting that an administrative variance be granted for a waiver of 50% of the side yard setback on the West side of the home to allow the construction of the new wood framed walls. City of Wheat Ridge Variance Criteria for Review: 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. Response: The reasonable return in use for the remodeled property can be evaluated by summarizing the differences in the two construction methods that yield the same finished product from a zoning perspective: leaving the exterior masonry walls in place vs. removing the exterior masonry walls and constructing new wood framed walls on the existing foundation. Option # 1: Leaving the exterior masonry walls in place Using this method, the existing (8" wide) exterior masonry walls would be left in place, and window openings would be modified as required to meet code requirements for egress windows in the bedrooms. This requires adding new steel lintels above the new window openings, cutting the brick walls to the new opening dimensions, and wrapping the inside of the new window openings with dimensional lumber to provide a place to attach the windows. The top of the masonry walls would have a dimensional lumber plate added at the top of the masonry, shimmed to achieve a level bearing point for the trusses, and anchored down into the existing masonry walls. On the interior of the home, the masonry walls are furred out into the room, which allows for the installation of insulation, accommodates the electrical wiring to be put in place (so floor outlets are not required) and provides attachment points for the drywall. The most cost effective insulating solution is installing batt insulation. The dimension the walls would need to furred out into the home depends on the depth of the insulation. For example, to achieve an R -value of 13 with batt insulation, the exterior walls would need to furred out 3'/2" inside the exterior walls. Therefore; in order to achieve an R -13 level, Mr. Kasica would be required to sacrifice 3' /x" of finished space around the entire perimeter of the home. Option #2: Removing the exterior masonry walls Using this method, the exterior masonry walls would be removed, and the home would be constructed using new construction techniques built up from the existing foundation. The new wood framed walls would be constructed with 2x6 lumber where the masonry walls were removed. The window openings are framed into the new walls, so the additional work required in option #I to add new steel lintels above the new window openings, cutting the brick walls to the new opening dimensions, and wrapping the inside of the new window openings with dimensional lumber to provide a place to attach the windows is no longer necessary, helping Mr. Kasica to realize construction cost savings. Since the new exterior walls would take the place of the existing masonry walls, Mr. Kasica can achieve a more efficient R -19 insulation level (based on the 5 1 /i' deep cavities created by the 2x6 studs) without having to sacrifice any finished space around the perimeter of the home that was necessary in option # 1. In summary, the property would not yield a reasonable return in use if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed compared to the return in use if the variance were to be granted. If the property is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed, Mr. Kasica would be required to sacrifice insulation efficiency (R -13 vs. R -19) and finished square footage (3' /z" around the perimeter of the home), which are sacrifices that would not have to be made if the variance were to be granted. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The footprint and the exterior appearance of the home will be identical whether or not the variance is granted. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. Response: While this project can be completed without a variance being granted and the existing masonry walls left in place, Mr. Kasica is proposing a substantial investment in the property and the variance would allow Mr. Kasica to utilize the investment money to the fullest extent possible by increasing the interior finished square footage and improving energy efficiencies for the home with a higher insulation R -value in the exterior walls. This translates to a superior finished product for Mr. Kasica that is identical in terms of the zoning requirements for the property. I). The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the Owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Response: If the variance is not granted, the remodel cannot be constructed using the most appropriate construction method for this project, which places a unique hardship on Mr. Kasica. Granting the variance would allow Mr. Kasica to reap all the benefits of new construction for his home while also allowing him to utilize the existing foundation ,uid keep the footprint of his home the same as it has been since 1956. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Response: The home was originally constructed with a 5' -0" side yard setback on the West side of the property. This hardship is an existing condition, and was not created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 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 safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Response: Granting the variance would not change the side yard setback on the West side of the home. The 5' -0" side yard setback would remain unchanged, as it has been since the home was constructed in 1956. The adjacent properties would not be impacted if the variance is granted. The supply of light and air to the adjacent properties would remain unchanged. This request for a variance would have no impact on the congestion of public streets and would not endanger the public safety in any way. Mr. Kasica will be investing a substantial amount of money in his home, which will increase property values within the neighborhood, not diminish them. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Response: The original home was constructed in 1956, prior to when the city of Wheat Ridge incorporated in 1969; therefore, the home was not constructed to the side yard setbacks required by the city. Based on the aerial photography of West 35` Avenue for this block (below), it appears that many of the surrounding properties do not meet the current 10' -0" side yard setback requirement. The unusual circumstances necessitating this variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. When reviewing the City of Wheat Ridge variance request log provided on the City of Wheat Ridge website, it appears that a side yard setback is one of the most common types of variance requests. Many of these variance requests have been approved by the City of Wheat Ridge for similar situations in surrounding areas; specifically for the properties located at 3810 Cody Street, 3860 Allison Street, 3740 Independence Street, and 3900 Holland Street. In conclusion, granting this side yard setback variance would not permit the residence to encroach into the side yard setback any more than it has since 1956, nor would it change the exterior appearance of footprint of the home. Instead, granting the variance would allow the remodel to be constructed using new construction techniques, which would provide Mr. Kasica with a superior finished product that would be identical (from a zoning perspective) to the home if the variance is not granted and the home was completed using the remodel method. Since both methods would produce the same end result from a zoning point of view, and the exterior wall on the West side of the property would remain in the same location it has been in since 1956, we feel the request for a variance is warranted. Sincerely, ly Wesley Fisbeck Pinnacle Properties & Construction Services, Inc. Cc: Donald Kasica, Owner & Mark Fitzwilliam, Fitzwilliam Architects, P.C. 111 � � 111 � 111 311 ■ ■ 11! I1 � � 111 Ff on'