Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-12-07City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29"' Ave, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P. 301235-2846 F: 303,235.2857 Ezara Sauter 4755 Simms St. Please be advised that at its meeting of April 26, 2012, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request for a 2-foot variance from the 4-foot maximum fence height standard within a front Fard resulting in a 6-foot fence on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 4755 Simms Street for the following reasons: With the following condition: I Given the fact that the front door of this property looks out into a yard that is adjacent to a private cul-de-sac, and because it would appear that the side of the house is the one that is facing the front yard as defined • the regulations and by the lot, it seems that based on this confusion the compromise is to place a condition that the six-foot fence cannot be extended beyond its present location. w'ww.ci.",heatridge.co.us Ezara Sauter Page 2 Mav 11, 2012, I ULM I MMA to Lmm n wran a it rw i # t;k% I #[g!x=A#jNIE • I I 11MIN ggi IMESSEM0 IMM Kathy Field Administrative Assistant Enclosures: Certificate of Resolution Draft of Minutes cc: WA-12-07 (case file) CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION CO 1, Ann Lazzeri, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was duty adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, on the 26th day of ARV�,l 2011 CASE NO: WA-12-07 APPLICANT'S NAME: Ezara Sauter LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4755 Simms Street WHEREAS, application Case No. WA- 12-07 was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WAEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12-07 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there was one protest registered via an anonymous complaint, and a letter submitted to the City in support of the fence as it stands now as long as it is not enlarged any ftirther; and 1. The subject property will continue to yield a reasonable return in this case and will function as a two-family dwelling if the variance is approved, 2. Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood as a six-foot privacy fence within a residential front yard will not create a visual impact since it does not extend the full length of the front yard. 3. There are no physical conditions or other irregular conditions present on the prop or in the neighborhood that would preclude a fence from being constructed in a manner that complies with the fence height regulations. Due to the confusion upon the initial inquiry to the city and • the lack of understanding ♦ the part of the 1 Board of adjustment Resolution No. WA-12-07 Page 2 of 2 applicant, this situation has been created. Only a portion of the "front yard" is involved with the construction of the present six-foot fence. 4. The noncompliant fence was constructed by the property owner and, therefore, the lack of understanding and confusion from communications with city staff has resulted in the need for a variance. 5. An anonymous complaint was received and a letter of support was received. 6. A six-foot fence previously existed and, although placed further back on the property, it was still ble. Further, a new fence stands out more but will eventually weather and will not be as noticeable. I III Thomas A ort, iMalr Ann Lazzeri, Secretary T_ Board of %i Board of Adjustment 11 Lis its I IM141MG 60TWO lu=l a UI I NO 910-2=0 A -- I N wM WWI p.m, in the City Council te, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. M No 4. PUB] A. Im KI H I It WWI# ON 9 ra 1 7: An application ffil •• Ezara Sauter for approval Board of Adjustment Minutes - 1 , — April 26, 2012 at 4755 Simms Street, The purpose of the variance request is to allow the 6-foot fence to remain in its current configuration within the front yard. Having found that the application is not in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommended denial. N - fraxl - w-af C-dTrv- ence citing a NOMMIR • joins and house burglaries in the area. III OMNI FN public street which it is not. Meredith Reckert stated about a year and a half ago a task force looked at certain situations that wouldn't require a building permit including residential fences. This has re i i i Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2 — April 26, 2012 Ms. Sauter stated that they are looking at having children in the near future and the lower fence would be a security issue for them, Linda Lauff 32 d Avenue, Wheat Ridge Ms. Lauff was sworn in by Chair ABBOTT. She stated that she is a Wheat Ridge resident with similar issues and is supportive of the applicants. Moving the fence back would present the same view as it is now. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and following resolution was stated: # # WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment -?iff _1 1 I 1 1 . .97 recognition that there was onci • 10 A A, I-Xjkliowju be, and hereby, is APPROVED. UER km I granted without detriment to the public ig the intent and purpose of the mx�1� # I G Iman Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3 - April 26, 2012 1. Given the fact that the front door of this property looks out into a yard that is adjacent to a private cul-de-sac, and because it would appear that the side of the house is the one that is facing the front yard defined by the regulations and by the lot, it seeiltui at based on this, confusion the wing the neighborhood, he - hood. There was nothing icant's fence. entedA"e was talking about the impact on people a-&i ',+rc subject fence. S ' IM77RITUr TTM I- neighborhood. 141 Board Member BELL commented that she might feel differently if the fence extended the full length of the property. There was also confusion about what is allowed and, therefore, after this case is decided, she suggested that steps be taken by staff to avoid such confusion in the future. Board Member HEDDON agreed that changes need to be made. Board of Adj ustment Minutes -4— April 26, 2012 Board Member GRIFFITH commented that the applicant perforrned due diligence by contacting the City and the City thought they gave a good answer. The applicant tried to do what was right and, due to confusion, the situation exists. Based upon the information the applicant received, he believed the fence should stand. He was in favor of placing a condition that the fence may not be extended. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the citizen did the best she could to understand the code as it was explained to her. Even to people who live on the street, the front yard seems to be the side of the house and only 40% of that yard is affected. A four-foot fence could have been built with no need for • variance. He fildher commented that the Board's decisions should be based on the effect on th i neighborhood. Offift 1lai t was received, however.. 11W I W ed. No other complaints [i JUTMM Ms. Mikulak stat' roperty owners were notified of this application by certified letter, -1 1 M 1 * 111 111111 , iwll 110 mmenallstolinglon,11011 __ M M- set • precedent, however, a variance does go with the land. Board of Adjustment Minutes -5— April 26, 01 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the • A. Approval of minutes — March 22 1912 It was moved by Board ; #IVLAN,D and secondW by Board Member GRIFFITH to appro lfuff 1—ta Motion carried TT cornind0ed staff for making a correct appraisal in — and apprising the Board of the logic involved. The Board c�&Iusion that staff would not be able to do because of the w r A � ZE DeflJ13,311NI #Journ the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried 8-0. Thomas Abbott, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes -6— April 26,2012 f �� i t t 5/3/2012 City of Wh6atPLdge TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: April 26, 2012 Lauren Mikulak WA -12 -07 /Sauter Approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -foot maximum height standard for a fence within a residential front yard, resulting in a 6 -foot fence in the front yard on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4755 Simms Street APPLICANT (S): Ezara Sauter OWNER (S): Ezara Sauter & Justin Sauter APPROXIMATE AREA: 16,422 Square Feet (0.38 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Two (R -2) PRESENT LAND USE: Residential Duplex ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore,, there, is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 2-foot (50%) variance from the 4-foot height standard for a fence within a residential front yard. The applicant has constructed a 6-foot privacy fence within the front yard and along the front property line at 4755 Simms Street. The purpose of the variance i nest . the 6-foot fence to remain in its current configuration within the front yard Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for a variance from the strict application of the zoning code, if the variance request is not in excess of fifty (50) percent of development and if the request is in substantial compliance with a majority of the criteria for review (see, 26-115.C.4). The applicant was denied administrative approval by the Director of Community Development because the request is not in substantial compliance with a majority of the criteria for review, therefore the Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing. 11. CASE ANALYSIS Board 4#'.44justment Case N'o, HA-12-0 7Saider Prol)eqy ffisloi:y The southern yard on the subject property is shared by the two units within the duplex, and fences delineate the area allotted to each unit. Building permit records indicate that a fence permit was in 1997 to the former property owner for a 6-foot rivacv fence in the side and rear yards and a 4-foot chain link fence in the front yard This configuration is visible in the Cit 's 1 010 aerial imagery and in the Google Streetview image dated October 2007 The 1997 fence permit resulted in private yards for both units, but the eastern unit of the duplex was allotted a smaller area enclosed by the 6-foot privacy fence (about 40' x, 45') because of front yard fence height is limited to 4 feet within the front setback (the front 25 feet from Simms Street). In December 2011, staff received an anonymous complaint regarding a 6-foot fence in the front yard of the subject property. Staff responded to the property owner with a letter indicating that the fence exceeds the height limit for a front yard fence. In order to retain the fence at its current height, the property owner would require a variance NOMOUNNOW. The applicant resides in the eastern unit with the smaller fenced yard. She wanted to replace the 4-foot front yard fence with a 6-foot fence to provide a larger yard for her dogs. The property owner has expressed that she called the Community D- clopment Department in August 2010 to determine current fence regulations iiaiiiiiw Based on that phone conversation with staff, the applicant has stated that she believed that the eastern portion of the property adjacent to Simms Street was eligible for a 6-foot fence because the home's front doors face to the north. As part of the phone conversation, the applicant was also informed that the City no longer requires building permits for residential fences that are 6 feet in height or less. After calling the Community Development Department, the applicant obtained one of the City's informational handouts regarding fences The diagram demonstrates sight triangle requirements and fence height standards for a typical residential lot. Because the configuration of the subject lot does not match the lot layout on the handout, the applicant misinterpreted the diagram and erroneously believed the handout confirmed that a 6-foot fence would be permitted along Simms Street. In July 2010, the Building Division exempted several types of projects from building permits— among those are residential fences. Because no building permit is required for a fence that is 6 feet or less in height, no site plan was ever reviewed or approved by stafT~ If a site plan had been reviewed, it is likely that staff would have noted that the proposed fence was in violation. Based on the timing of the anonymous complaint and the dates of aerial imagery, it appears the 6-foot Fence was installed about a ear after the applicant contacted staff, sometime between May and December 2011 161111W a y ear 111. VARIANCE CRITERIA The Board of Adjustment shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that a majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.0.4 of the City Code have been met The applicant has provided an analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria iiaiiii"i. Staff provides the following review and analysis. 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 two-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not after the essential character of the locality. A variance may alter the character of the locality. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow approximately 100 linear feet of 6-foot fence to stay within the front yard. About 45 linear feet are located along the Simms Street frontage, adjacent to the attached sidewalk Board qfAdjusiment Cave ,Yo. 14'4-12-07 Sauler The purpose offence height regulations is not only to provide for safety and privacy, but also to minimize potentially negative visual impacts. The visual impact of a front yard fence is shared by the neighborhood, and the noncompliant 6-foot fence has the potential to alter the character of the area. Staff finds this criterion has not 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 has made some investment of time, energy, and money by nature of the fact that the fence has already been constructed. Without the variance request the applicant would need to reduce the height of the fence, which may not require substantial investment, but could negate some of the investment already made. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The unique condition that affects this property is the orientation of the home away from Simms Street. The primary entrances are on the north side of the property, and the front yard is perceived by an occupant as a side yard or rear yard, This orientation appears to have contributed to a misunderstanding and resulted in an incorrect interpretation of the fence height regulations. Despite this misunderstanding, there is no physical hardship that necessitates a 6-foot fence in the front yard. The only unique hardship relates to the fact that the fence already exists. Ultimately, the burden of responsibility lies with a property owner to comply with regulations outlined in the code of laws. 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. An alleged difficulty is the fact that the fence has already been constructed, and the variance is being requested to legitimize a nonconforming fence. The applicant constructed the 6-foot fence, and therefore the hardship was created by a person having an 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 Board q1AqjusImenI Case A'a IVA-12-07'Saute• 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. A 6-foot fence in the front yard is unlikely to increase traffic congestion or the danger of fire. It may be perceived as impairing the supply of light and air, and the noncompliant height may also be perceived as a nuisance that could negatively affect property values. Ultimately, however., the fence is not considered a public safety hazard. 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. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single-family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural aril Site Desigit Manual. 'rhe Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single- and two-family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not aonlicable. Board qf'.44justment Case No. H-A-12-07 Sauter IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Not having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends DENIAL of a 2-foot variance request from the 4-foot maximum height standard for a fence within a residential front yard. Staff finds there are not unique circumstances attributed to this request to warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends dellial for the following reasons: I. The subject property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use and function as a two - family dwelling if the variance were denied. 2. Granting of the variance could alter the character of the neighborhood, as a 6-foot privacy fence within a residential front yard creates a visual impact. 3. There are no physical conditions or other irregular conditions present on the property or in the neighborhood that would preclude a fence from being constructed in a manner that complies with the fence height regulations. 4. The noncompliant fence was constructed by the property owner, and therefore this hardship has been created by a person having interest in the property. 5. An anonymous complaint was received from an area resident which initiated this variance application. Board q1',44juslinew Cave No, 11A-12-t)? e)S auter EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter EXHIBIT 2: SITE PHOTOS 6 -foot fence In front yard Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 1Sauter 4755 Simms Street :: Looking south at the front yard of the subject property and the 6 -foot fence. 4755 Simms Street :: Looking north: the orange colored fence is the newly installed. noncompliant 6 -foot fence. EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP Board ojAdjustment Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter lnxrlx r-4,AlllBlT 4*- 1997 BUILDING PERMIT Board qfA4#uslntenl Case No- IIA- 1x'-07 Sauter• EXHIBIT 5: HISTORIC IMAGES The Google Streetview image below, dated October 2007, shows the previous fence configuration that was approved by the 1997 building permit. It included a 4 -foot chain link and split rail fence within the front yard. The 6 -foot fence in this image (indicated by the arrow) complies with fence regulations because it is located 25 feet away from Simms Street. This fence was extended toward Simms into the front yard and is now noncompliant. Google Earth aerial imagery indicates that the nonconforming fence was constructed in 2011, sometime after this image was taken in May 2011 and before a complaint was received in December 2011. Board of Adjustment I Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter ArIX EIVIIII11T 6: VIOLATION LETTER 4 4 ' W1=tRjg -]�� �COMMON17Y DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Mufticipzd Building 750OW,29 Justin Sauter 4755 Simms Street Wheat wdge� co 8001 Wheat Ridge. CO $0033-8001 P: 303,235,2846 F: 303,235.2857 Please let this letter serve as a follow-tip to a warning violation regarding a fence built on your t -R�MMWI • compliant with the City Code of Law Section 26-603. Attached to this letter is additional information regarding the variance process. As I mentioned on the phone to Azara, there is the option for a courtesy review prior to paying fees and making a formal application to gauge whether staff would the support the request. This courtesy review usually takes two weeks or so. To begin this process, we would ask that the ininimum for the following submittals which can be submitted via email. 13 WWW.d.Wh**trt4g#.r0.US Board of ,14jusiment Case Vo. tt 4-C? -OT Sauter --------- - EXHIBIT 7: LETTER OF REQUEST Mmzz�� Ezara Sauter 4755 Simms St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 720.394.8448 E,_sauter@yahoo.com City of Wheat Ridge We are now requesting a variance to keep our six foot privacy fence that is outlined in the attached document as we have already invested the time and money to improve our property and expand our backyard. We have also driven around our neighborhood and found the following addresses that have fences that are similar if not identical to ours: 9MURNMEEM Board qf"Idjustawnt 15 Case No, [J`,A-12-071Sau1er 4785 Robb St. 11400 W. 45"' PI 10690 W. 47"' PI 10605 W. 47`" Ave. 4750 Oak St. 4700 Parfet St. 10911, 10913, 10915 and 10917 W. 44" PI Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ezara Sauter Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA- 12- 07iSauter EXHIBIT 8: FENCE HANDOUT ► A I City of FENCE S � �( - , - ,, w h e at Pj� , Og e- UNITY DEVELOP MENl NOTE: Fences 6 feet in height or less, except where screening a trash storage area or when attached to a commercial building, do not require a permit but still must meet the zoning code requirements. Fences include: hedges, woven wire. chain link, wood. and ornamental iron Step 1: Check applicable fence regulations for the property. These can be found in Section 26 -603 of the Municipal Code. You may also contact a planner in the Community Development Department at 303 - 235 -2846 to discuss the regulations. The illustration on the back of this handout provides an overview of the regulations. Step 2: Check if the propertyis located w#Nn the 100yearfloodplain. Properties within the 100 year floodplain must obtain a floodplain special exception permit before any fence can be repaired, replaced. or newly constructed. Please contact a planner in the Community Development Department at 303 - 235 -2846 to obtain information on a floodplain special exception permit. /f the fence is 6 feet in height or less, is not in the floodplain, is not screening a trash area, and is not attached to a commercial building, you may construct the fence without a building permit For fences screening a trash storage area, attached to a commercial building, or enclosing swimming pools: • Step 3: Submit building permit application. Supporting information required with the application includes a site plan showing the location of the fence relative to streets. existing structures and property lines as well as a description of the fence — including the height. materials, and length of the fence. A survey is not required for fences. but the permit does specify that you are responsible for locating your own property lines. • Step 4: Review and referral. The Community Development Department reviews and approves. approves with conditions. or specifies required corrections for the applicant. Step 1: Check fence regulations Step 2: Check floodplain status of property In floodplain I I Not in floodplain Floodplain special exception permit required Fences 6' in height or less Contact Community Development Construct fence in accordance with regulations (no permit required) Community Development Department 303 - 235 -2846 (v) 303 - 235 -2857 (0 www ci wheatndge.co us NOTE: Residential fences and most commercial fences may be a maximum of 6 feet tall. Fences above the maximum allo ✓able height will require a variance. Fences screening trash storage areas, attached to a commercial budding, or enclosing swimming pools Step 3: Submit budding permit application and supporting documentation Step 4: Community Development Review 17 a O „I CI A z 04 0 Lq Ln i g a a � i yC l 0 r m nip 4l a � oor � +- Ul 1 T a aYt SL NY Fl tr r F F. c� ca' d CL N Board of Adjustnnen! 18 Case No. WA- 12- 071Sauler EXHIBIT 9: FRONT YARD A "front yard" is defined in section 26 -123 (Definitions) as "that portion of a lot lying between a public street and nearest parallel front setback line of such lot." Only in the case of a comer lot is the front lot line determined by the location of the principal entrance (definition of "lot line, front" in sec. 26 -123). Therefore, regardless of the orientation of the front door on the subject property, the front yard is definitively the 25 -foot wide area west of the Simms Street right -of -way as shown in the image below. Board of Adjustment 19 Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter EXHIBIT 7: CRITERIA RESPONSE The tipplictint has submitted the, ollowing response to the vm-kince criteria. As described in the arse ein(jlysis, slqff 'provided ti prelitnintiry review qf'lhe wn-iance i-equest priot to accepting a . f6i-inal qpplicwhm. The preliminm� y on(ilysis i-evembled the antil j?.vis contained in this .staff The cipplictint was ptwvided (i copy cif the preliminary review memo dwedlanuoly 20, 2012; it is that memo to which the tippliciant re . fors in the ,1611owink narivive. The altachedpholos were submitted bl, the qppheant, B. No the variance would not after the essential character of the locality. We disagree that this criteria has not been met per the Memorandum prepared by Ms. Mikulak to Ken Johnstone, Development Director on January 20, 2011 Ms M ikulak states that the 6-foot fence has the "Potential" to alter the character. We believe that this criteria has been met because it does not take any character away and we also believe that it adds to the character of the street. The I the project ourselves. We contacted the city directly In August 2011 and received the information that we did not need a permit and that the fence we proposed was within the code. Therefore, we believe that this criteria has been met. Board qJ' ' 4(ffialinent 20 Case Va JV4 - 1 2-0 T'Sauter taken from the Memorandum dated January 20, 2012: ''R. IM I Rot 02—M -V' W, I M1.1 .1 Height regulations." We disagree with the City. During the initial inquiry for information from the City, we were told that the fence we were proposing conformed to the current regulations, We then informed the staff member that the residence did not face Simms St., and in fact faced North in which the staff member put us on hold while she looked up the property and came back and said it was okay, If staff members cannot appropriately define their own code, how do they expect the 2verage citizen to? The misinformation from the city is contributing to the hardship. & Yes there are unusual circumstances, as there are at least two duplexes • each street that I not actually face the street to which they are assigned; instead they face each other with a common driveway. Every house in Wheat Ridge is allowed to have their backyard fenced Board qf' d A juslinew 21 Case AV If"11 - 12-0 TSauler ;; #j • Ite-&Law'p-a-lu I: ,, - -- - - - - - - • burden of the current development standards. There should have been clearer regulations due to the Board qf,It#usttnenI 22 Case A"o, RA-12-07S*auter Board ofAdjusiment Case No. WA- I2- 07- Sauter Attachments (Examples of other six foot fences in the city of Wheat Ridge that are being allowed): Board ofAdjustment 24 Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter Board of Adjustment_ Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter Board of Adjustment 26 Case No. N,A -I2 -07 /Sauter Board ofAdjustment 27 Case No. WA -12 -07 /Sauter �. P ` ` rte >� ����e A � • .I'r,, Sim'. � ';� A ' op 4 1 n t �I• f- �. ��� � 1 1L u? • ' f� ri � ► j l/Ai A lrl v' IL f Al pli _ S • •• 1 .w iA r� `4 � t i 'r w,� 1 u� �r ° .�►Y .._.- .i'.:� 't► 4 nP �_�a�6i'9 Board ofAdjustmeni 29 Case No. Id A- 12- 07/Sazrter City of W heat �dge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I DATE: April 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Case No. WA -12 -07 In the time since the staff report was prepared and distributed for Case No. WA- 12 -07, one additional comment from the neighborhood was received as part of the public notification period. The comment was received April 23, 2012 from the owner and resident of a property across Simms Street to the east; a copy of the letter is provided below. �-� � cam--.. -�- ��•-� `-.� � WAl207.doc i D\ C-3 \�- o� �� wwN.ci.whcatridge.co.us - IV City of " Wheat 1k � CtMUNITY DEVELOPMENT jge City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 • 1 2� CERTIFIED LETTER NOTICE (as required pursuant to Code Section 26- 109.D) April 12, 2012 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA -12 -07 which is a request for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 4 foot maximum fence height standard within a front yard resulting in a 6 foot fence on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2) and located at 4755 Simms Street. This request will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on April 26, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303 - 235 -2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 303 - 235 -2846. Thank you. Planning Division. V_ k 0' sL 6 L W �,� � n WAl207.doc ;CDC www.d.wheatridge.co.us � City of Wheat i ge CASE NO. WA -12 -07 POSTING CERTIFICATION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE I, EZa - 0- CL 7 (-� C °e 2 Thursday, April 26, 2012 (name) residing at (address) as the applicant for Case No. WA- 12 -07, hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at 4755 Simms S treet (location) on this 12` day of April 2012, and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. The sign was postecj.iff he position shown on the map below. Signature: NOTE: This form must be submitted at the publicrhear+g on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Community Developmdpt D partment. MAP 04985 - ; - i US �L= City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29"' Ave, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 301235,2846 E 301M.2851 CERTIFIED LETTER NOTICE (as required pursuant to Code Section 26-109,D) Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA -12 -07 which is a request for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 4 foot maximum fence height standard within a front yard resulting in a 6 foot fence on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4755 Simms Street. This request will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on Allril 26 2012, at 7:00 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. Individuals with. disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Jnformation Q1 ,rtcer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance, If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. www.chwheatridge.co.us BAILEY KELLY 5641 ASPEN LEAF DR LITTLETON CO 80125 7010 2780 0002 5833 7949 COSTER JAN BERNHARD 4668 SWADLEY ST WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 7010 278■ 0002 5833 7865 HOBSON IDLEWILD INVESTMENTS 8756 W ILIFF AVE LAKEWOOD CO 80227 7010 2780 0002 5833 783L' LATHAM LYNETTE G 210 MAGNOLIA TRL LUMBERTON TX 77656 7010 2780 0002 5833 7803 m - m 7010 2780 0002 5833 77 OESTE M 4640 SWADLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SAUTER JUSTIN SAUTEREZARA 4755 SIMMS ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BEEHLER DAVID RAY BUSHELL ARTHUR J BEEHLER ROSEANNE 10527 W 31 ST AVE 233 KIMBALL AVE LAKEWOOD CO 80215 GOLDEN CO 80401 7010 2780 0002 5833 7926 GRADY MARVIN F 4795 SIMMS ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 7827 Im amm-m- - pa mWel wl- 4664 SIMMS ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CHE AS AND CO T L 9 1 4197 W 1 W>ESST 080030 CLARK JOHN G CLARK KIM Y 4665 SWADLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 7797 LUETHY PHILIP E LAND WILMA 1350 AMMONS ST 6340 W 38TH AVE APT 701 LAKEWOOD CO 80214 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 7010 2780 0002 5833 7766 RICE REVOCABLE TRUST 6818 ROUTT ST ARVADA CO 80004 7010 2780 0002 5833 7735 SUNDANCE RIDGE LLC 12650 W 64TH AVE ARVADA CO 80004 7010 2780 0002 5833 7704 WRAYERMAJ FULLER PAULETT J 4605 ROUTT ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 8003,,,_ MINSTER RANDALL, . -�r 5551 CORNERSTONEbLLI FORT COLLINS CO 80528 7010 2780 0002 5833 7728 7110 2780 0002 5833 7674 I 0 OU 2(X) ! -ICO fe PEPARTMENT tai MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 PLANNING AND VEYFLOPMENT Last Revision: September 10, 2001 t kk�, FM sm. A6 lt� - MIAM 16 I h W 141 A d L..-, The full text • this notice is available in electronic form on the City's official website, www.ci.whqqtridggS2M, Legal Notices. Copies are also available in printed form in the Community Development Department. Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT oil April 26, 201 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written cornments. Individuals with disabilities are encour(�ged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the C its qI'T'VheaI Ridge, Call IYeathe• Geyer, Public li?16rtnation Qflcer at 303-235-2826 at least one week: in advance q meeting l'Y'ou are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. The following petition shall be hear& 1> Case No. WA-12-07: An application filed by Ezara Sauter for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 4 foot maximum tence height standard within a fi-ont yard resulting in a 6 foot fence on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4755 Simms Street. LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 23,5 7500 West 29 Avenue * Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 # Phone (303) �_2,81 (Plea's.- print or ty PC, all infomiation) Appfica" Address41 I phone wid''Nel''11 city state T ction requested (check one or orore of d* actions listed below which pertain to your request): Appficadm smhvx&d requiremno on reverse side nit Aw'! Signature of Applicant 111 j: ii 4,� .."�ffils — 2f&Y Of am expires s' ' ' ° caw No,: A- -,,- t 4 �,-o - 7 Quarter Section MaP CASC Managetp-,14r-&J M= Variance Criteria for Review 'I I 7707T—o TIF taken from the Memorandum dated January 20, 2012: f Staff or the property owner and resulted in an incorrect interpretation of the fence 'M G, Yes there are unusual circumstances, as there are at least two duplexes • each street that not actually face the street to which they are assigned; instead they face each other with a common driveway. Every house in Wheat Ridge is allowed to have their backyard fenced I % w J Attachments (Examples of ether six foot fences in the city of What Ridge that are being allowed ): p � t , yv: § \ < � � 4 �.� d I jr \�� �,. �. � « \� » . . r .. � � � a ! a r �,. �, �� � � , OFTERI'm �- SAUTER JUSTIN SAUTER EZARA 4755 SIMMS ST WHEAT RIDGE, CO $0033 so 1#11 Mil# I# I dilts lltt#ltll It$ III to I lots I#Itl I this #III$ Regular Offt" Hours: AREA NEIGHBOR HO] 02 2408 PROPERTY CLASS TAX DIST RESID-MULTI 1212 3109 SUB BLOCK LOT KEY SEC TWN RNG QS 464400 0017 OOC 20 03 69 NE DUPLEX/TRIPLEX INVENTORY: DESIGN: RANCH YEAR BUILT: 1971 ITEMS NO. AREAS CONST. SQFT MAIN BEDROOM 4.0 FIRST FLOOR FRAME 1920 MAIN BATH 2.0 ATTACH GARAGE FRAME 621 Ezara Sauter 4755 Simms St. Wheat Riclg-e- CO MOD 720.394.8448 E zma •� E .� We are now requesting a variance to keep our six foot privacy fence that is outlined in the attached document as we have already invested the time and money to improve our property and expand our backyard, We have also driven around our neighborhood and found the following addresses that have fences that are similar if not identical to ours: Name Name zaraSautef ' Phone 4�720) 394-8448 Pre-App Date i Neighborhood Meeting Date App No: Review Type Review Body Review Date Disposition Comments Report Case Disposition Disposition Date Conditions of Approval Notes f Status Res If Lauren Mikulak From: Meredith Reckert Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:02 AM To: Ezzie Sauter Cc: Lauren Mikulak Subject: RE: 4755 simms st Your materials have been forwarded to Lauren who is another planner in the office, She is preparing an analysis based • the criteria for our director to review to see if he supports it at the administrative level, I will go ahead and send her the application, Lauren's direct phone is 303-235-2845, Office Phone. 303--235-2848 City Cif J� r wh&at f * C le CMAMI)NIT'y DtVft,0rMrNT Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:06 AM To: Meredith Reckert Subject: 4755 simms st Hi, I have attached the notarized variance application. I am sorry for the delay in getting it notarized. Thanks again for all your help! —Ezzie- "Live With No Regrets" Lauren Mikulak From: Meredith Reckert Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:50 AM To: Lauren Mikulak Subject: FW: 4755 simms st variance Attachments: 4755simms.variance criteria for review.docx, 4755simms.2011taxstatement,pdf, 47 55simms. request letter.docx; 4755simms.mapoffence.pcif; 4755simms.variance application.pdf Follow Up Flag- Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Here is info regarding a potential variance resulting from code action at 4755 Simms. They would like a cursory review will forward my previous correspondence to them. Can you take a look and see if they need anything else? M Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2848 City of CommuNny Drvttoo,irt4T From: Ezzie Sauter Lmaftltcre saut r@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:14 AM To: Meredith Reckert Subject: 4755 simms st variance Hi Meredith, I have attached all of my documents that I think you will need. I need to have my application notarized and will do that next week if that is ok? 'Please let me know if I am missing anything or if you need any additional information. Thanks again for all your help! Ezara Sauter 720.394.8448 —Ezzie- "Live Wth No Regrets" City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29' ° ' Aye. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303135,2857 December 27, 2011 Justin Sauter 4755 Simms Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Mr. Sauter: Please let this letter serve as a follow-up to a warning violation regarding a fence built on your property at 4755 Simms in violation of the City of Wheat Ridge zoning and development code for fence height. More specifically, the fence is 2' in excess of the 4' fence height standard in the regulated front yard of your property. See attached exhibit. I understand through conversations with Azara that there may have been some confusion with information provided by the planning staff as to what is considered the regulated front yard. Unfortunately, while a building permit is not needed to erect a residential fence, it still has to be compliant with the City Code of Law Section 26-603. Attached to this letter is additional information regarding the variance process. As I mentioned on the phone to Azara, there is the option for a courtesy review prior to paying fees and making a formal application to gauge whether staff would the support the request. This courtesy review usually takes two weeks or so. To begin this process, we would ask that the minimum for the following submittals which can be submitted via email, www.d.wheatridge,coms • A brief written narrative of the request. • A response to criteria A-G from the attached variance packet. • A dimensioned site plan sketch that includes the fence in relationship to the house and yard. If you decide to move forward with a formal application, keep in mind that there is a comment period whereby the property is posted to allow for comments from the neighborhood. A letter notice is also sent to adjacent property owners so they may comment. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so we can continue our discussion. I can be reached at 303-235-2848 or nireckeil(&ciwheatridp-e.co.us. IMEM Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner