Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-12-12• City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W 29' Ave, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235-2846 F: 303,235.2857 September 20, 2012 Mr. Bill Rickman 4090 Field Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Case No. WA - -12 Dear Mr. Rickman: Attached please find notice that your request for a 7.5-foot variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement has been approved for the purpose of constructing an addition on property Located at 4090 Field Drive. Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance and staff report. All variance approvals automatically expire within 180 days of the date of approval unless a building permit for the variance is obtained within such period of time. The expiration date for this variance approval is Tuesday, March 19,2013. Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions. Sincerely, f aavjLt� Lauren Mikulak Planner I www.ci.wheatridge.co,us 7500 West 29th Avenue City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 ]��Wh6atP e 303.235.2846 303.235.2857 WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 4090 Field Drive referenced as Case No. WA - -12 / Rickman; and WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance, relying on criteria listed in Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and on information submitted in the case file; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has properly notified pursuant to Section 26- 109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and WHEREAS, there were no registered objections regarding the application; NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 7 V2-foot variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement, resulting in a 7 '/m -foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing an addition on property in the Residential-One (R- I) zone district (Case No, WA -12 -12 / Rickman), is granted for property located at 4090 Field Drive, based on the following findings of fact: Date Community Devetopment Director City of .A rWhcat idle CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: September 12, 2012 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA -12 -12 / Rickman ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 7' /z -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement for property located at 4090 Field Drive and zoned Residential -One (R -1) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4090 Field Drive APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: Bill Rickman Bill Rickman 18,125 square feet Residential -One (R -1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Administrative Variance 1 Case No. WA -12 -12 /Rickman 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 7 '/Z -foot (50 %) variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement, resulting in a 7 %2 -foot side setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for an addition with an attached garage on property at 4090 Field Drive. 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, Bill Rickman, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 4090 Field Drive. This variance application is an amendment to the variance approved per Case No. WA- 12 -08. The new variance will allow the applicant to construct a modified design for an attached 2 -car garage on the west side of the subject property. The site located at 4090 Field Drive is zoned Residential -One (R -1) and is located in the Bel Aire Subdivision. Based on Jefferson County records, the subject parcel has an area of 18,125 square feet and currently contains a one - story, single- family home with an attached two -car garage. The existing home was constructed in 1951 and is located in the southwestern corner of the property (Exhibit 1, Aerial Map). The property is surrounded by other parcels zoned R -1 and containing single - family homes (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The applicant submitted the original variance request when he was under contract to purchase the home. At that time, the applicant was proposing a 7 '/2 -foot variance for an 800- square foot L- shaped addition with an attached two -car garage (Exhibit 3, Original Site Plan & Elevations). During the public notification period, the neighbor to the west submitted a letter of objection necessitating a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment (BOA). The BOA ultimately approved the request with two conditions: 1. Design and construction of the addition will be generally consistent with Exhibit 3 [site plan and elevations] subject to review and approval through review of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan working cooperatively with city staff to have an approved plan which will serve as a buffer to the neighbors to the west based on testimony heard during the meeting. (Exhibit 4, BOA Approval) The applicant purchased the subject property based on the approval of Case No. WA- 12 -08. Since that time, the applicant has completed value engineering, moved into the neighborhood, and ultimately reconsidered the design. The variance request is the same dimension (7 'h feet), but a new application is being processed because the design is not consistent with the original site plan. Administrative Variance 2 Case No. WA -12 -12 /Rickman A primary concern of the neighbor to the west had been related to the length and mass of the wall within the setback area. The modified variance request includes a smaller building footprint which responds to the neighbor's concerns. By extending the garage in -line with the home (instead of using an L- shaped footprint), the modified design reduces this wall length by nearly half from 44 feet to 24 feet. Additionally, the modified design may allow the applicant to save a mature tree in the front yard (Exhibit S, Modified Design). As with the original design, the applicant will to continue use the existing driveway and will extend the existing roofline such that the addition is aesthetically cohesive with the rest of the home. Brick and complementary materials will be used to match the existing home. It may be possible to construct additional garage space without a variance, but the alternatives are less desirable for several reasons. Given the size of the property, one alternative would be to construct a garage on the east side of the property. There are currently no accessory structures on the lot, so the applicant could construct a 1000 - square foot detached garage. This option could have significantly more impact, however, than the proposed configuration. A detached garage would result in a second driveway. The zoning code would require a horseshoe drive, and the additional paved area could negatively impact the aesthetics of the property due to the large amount of hard surfacing in the front yard. This alternative would also consume a significant portion of the useable yard space and may require the removal of mature trees. A garage on the east side of the property could be located at the 30 -foot front setback which would be significantly closer to the street than the home is currently located. A second alternative would be to extend the depth of the existing garage. The additional space is being requested to store vintage vehicles that do not require frequent access or use. This would avoid the visual impact of new garage doors, but it is not a viable option because there is not enough space between the home and rear property line. The existing garage is only 24 feet deep and is located at the back of the lot only 15 feet from the rear property line —this is the minimum setback required in R -1. Despite the setback encroachment, the proposed location represents the most logical alternative and the modified design is more sensitive to neighborhood concerns. While the proposed elevation results in the new garage doors being more visible, the impacts are offset by a front setback that exceeds the minimum 30 -foot requirement —the garage doors will be about 80 feet from the edge of the street (Exhibit 6, Site Photos). The variance would result in a 7 '/z -foot side yard setback, and the proposed single - family home would meet all other development standards including maximum lot coverage. The following table compares the required R -1 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R -1 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 12,500 square feet (min) 18,125 square feet Lot Width 100 feet (min) 150 feet Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -12 /Rickman Home w /Addition: Required Proposed Building Coverage 25% (max) 16.7% Height 35 feet max ±15 feet Front Setback (north) 30 feet (min) ±70 feet Rear Setback south 15 feet (min) 15 feet Side Setback west 15 feet min 7 %z feet Side Setback east 15 feet (min) 38 feet The City notified all adjacent property owners of the new variance request, and the property was posted for 10 days. The applicant conducted outreach to explain the change to adjacent neighbors, and has provided documentation (Exhibit 7, Applicant Outreach). During the public notification period, no objections were received. The neighbor to the west (who had objected to the original request) contacted staff via phone and had no objections regarding the modified design. No additional comment or inquiry has been received. 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 an explanation for the modified design (Exhibit 8, 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 applicants have expressed that they are requesting the variance in order to provide the most aesthetically appealing and least impactful end product. The addition is proposed to be about 70 feet from the front property line, and mature landscaping will provide a visual buffer from the nearest home to the west. The addition will be designed to complement the house; the garage will extend the existing roofline. The design associated with this request has specifically been designed to minimize impact to the surrounding area. The modified design will also increase the chance of saving a mature tree in the front yard which would have been removed under the previous design. Administrative Variance 4 Case No. WA -12 -12 / Rickman Several properties in the R -1 neighborhood have primary or accessory structures that encroach into minimum setbacks, including 4 approved variances. While approved variances and nonconforming setbacks do not necessitate approval of the current request, they are indicative of the physical character of the area. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that would not be possible without the variance. The Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) encourages investment in property and supports thoughtful and well - designed upgrades of older homes. Approval of the variance could ensure that the substantial investment being proposed results in the most attractive and highest quality end - product which is more consistent with the goals of the NRS. Without approval of the variance, a detached garage could be built on the east side of the property but may have a less positive impact on the neighborhood and property value. 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 hardship on the property relates to the location of the home in relation to the property lines. Rather than being centered on the lot, the home is located in the western corner (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The unusually large front setback restricts any addition to the rear of the home. The majority of the usable yard space is on the east side of the property, so any addition on the eastern side would effectively eliminate the usable yard and could have a negative impact as documented in the case analysis. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The alleged hardship relates to the location of the home in relation to the property lines. Because the prospective owner neither platted the lot, nor constructed the home in its current location, the difficulties have not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 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 Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -12 /Rickman 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 modified design will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by minimizing the impact on the neighboring lot and by 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 only unique condition in the neighborhood that may support the variance request is the existence of several homes in the block that are also zoned R -1 and have nonconforming or reduced setbacks. There are 24 properties within 300 feet of the subject lot —half of these lots include primary or accessory structures that encroach into minimum setbacks either as nonconformities or through approved variances. It should also be noted that the curvilinear streets, rolling topography, and abundance of mature trees make this neighborhood unique in Wheat Ridge and may help to minimize the impact of the setback encroachment. 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 -12 /Rickman IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 7 %Z -foot (50 %) variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. 4. The unusual siting of the home in the western corner of the lot, reduces viable alternatives. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public safety or welfare. 6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as several R -1 properties in the area have primary or accessory structures that encroach into side yard setbacks. 7. The modified design reduces the visual impact on the neighboring property. 8. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. With the following conditions: The original variance approval per Case No. WA -12 -08 is voided by this approval of Case No. WA- 12 -12. 2. The design and construction of the addition be generally consistent with Exhibit 5 subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. 3. That applicant shall submit a landscape plan with the building permit to provide a buffer along the western property line. This landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the garage addition. Adnzinishative Variance Case No. WA -12 -12 /Rickman EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL r r w r 5 Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -12 / Rickman EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP The subject property and surrounding neighborhood are entirely zoned Residential -One (R- I) as indicated by the light yellow overlay in the zoning map excerpt below. Administrative Variance q Case No. WA -12 -12 /Rickman EXHIBIT 3: ORIGINAL SITE PLANS The following site plan, roof plan, perspective drawings were provided with the original variance request (Case No. WA- 12 -08). The hatched area in the site plan indicates the addition as it was originally proposed. i I i I I 1 ' ( I � I i I I f I I ' Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -12 / Rickman EXHIBIT 4: BOA APPROVAL CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION �'Uvy 1, Ann Lazzeri, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, on the 24th day of May, 2012. CASE NO: WA -12 -08 APPLICANT'S NAME: William L. Rickman LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4090 Field Drive WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -12 -08 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were protests registered against it; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 12-08 be, and hereby, is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 7 -1/2 foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 7 -1/2 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential - One. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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 unusual location of the home in the western corner of the lot reduces viable alternatives. The request would not be detrimental to public safety or welfare. 6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area as several R -I properties in the area have primary or accessory structures that encroach into side yard setbacks. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -12 -12 /Rickman Board of adjustment Resolution No. WA -12 -08 Page 2 of 2 7. Staff noted that 13 properties in the area have encroachments, 8 of which have some record of a variance or administrative review. 8. Some other alternative proposals would actually be detrimental to the property itself and to adjacent properties. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Design and construction of the addition will be generally consistent with Exhibit 3 subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan working cooperatively with city staff to have an approved plan which will serve as a buffer to the neighbors to the west based on testimony heard during the meeting. VOTE: YES: BANGHART, BELL, GRIEGO, HOVLAND, PAGE, HEDDON, WALTER NO: ABBOTT DISPOSITION: A request for approval of a 7 -1/2 foot variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 7 -1/2 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential -One was APPROVED. ADOPTED and made effective this 24th day of May. 2012. omas Abbo ; Chair Board of Ad tstment Ann Lazzeri, Secret Board of Adjustment Administrative Variance 12 Case No. WA -12 -12 / Rickman EXHIBIT 5: MODIFIED DESIGN The modified design entails a smaller building footprint (highlighted in yellow) with a knee wall along the perimeter of the driveway. Administrative Variance 13 Case No. WA -12 -12 / Rickman EXHIBIT 6: SITE PHOTOS Administrative Variance 14 Case No. WA -12 -12 I Rickman 4090 Field Street, looking at the front fagade. The proposed addition will extend from the right side of the existing garage and is designed to match the existing materials on the home. A garage on the east (left) side of the property could result in significantly more hard surfaced area in the front yard and the possible removal of mature trees. In addition, a detached garage on the east (left) side of the property could be constructed at a 30 -foot setback —in closer proximity to the street than the rest of the home is located. The white arrow indicates the approximate location of the property line between the subject lot and the neighbor to the west. The setback encroachment will be adjacent to the neighbor's backyard and may be offset by the presence of existing and proposed landscaping. Administrative Variance 15 Case No. iVA -12 -12 / Rickman 4090 Field Street, looking south at front fagade. The side setback variance may be offset by the unusually large front setback. The front of the existing garage and proposed addition would be about 70 feet from the front property line and nearly 80 feet from the edge of pavement. EXHIBIT 7: APPLICANT OUTREACH 4090 Field Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 I have reviewed the amended garage design for the above address that reduces the footprint of the addition, and support the Rickman's amended design and variance amendment request Nam Address 44 O �y 1 Name Name Name Ad dress /Sl ./ Address s�7 1 v /Z• Address L i o S z FN.,; (:) v Name &,, I" ? ��� Address Name LG Address `�� / Name Address Name y(, 4 4 Address � 09 3 Afc 4 02. Address Name Address ` � rC � - 0 Name Address (G ( (,L i 2 Name K �L14UL- Address U Administrative Variance 16 Case No. WA -12 -12 / Rickman EXHIBIT 8,* LETTER OF REQUEST aTj I IM 4 a Z•l it We are making application for an amendment to our approved variance for a design change to our garage addon. The change will still allow us to garage our vehicles and create additional storage for our home, but result in less visual impact to the home and street. The following are considerations guiding our decision: In summary, the new design, although not as preferable from a size and functionality standpoint, retains the architectural integrity of the existing home and garage, but is closer to our original budget and most importantly is more acce -- 1 11 Ill I MiX . — ff—M- TV all surrounding neighbors. Thank you 3, Administrative Varianc e 17 CaseXo. T-VA-12-121 Ric k-man C ity of h6a R�e MELIA= DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: September 10, 2012 (it a m e) residing at - 7 ° ' - TD K? I V (address) as the applicant for Case No. A - -12 _ hereby certify that I have posted the sign for Public Notice at 4090 Field Drive (I o c a t i o n) on this 24 day of A aril, 20I 2 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 pos&ion shown on the map below. Signature: I x NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Community Development Department for this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file. MAP City of Wh6atlwd City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 301235.2857 CERTIFIED LETTER NOTICE August 31, 2012 mzssm��� This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 1 2-12, a request for approval of a 7.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 7.5 foot side yard setback for an addition on property zoned Residential-One located at 4090 Field Drive. The applicant previously filed a similar request, but Case No. WA- 1 2-12 is an amended design that reduces the footprint of the proposed addition. Because the all adjacent property owners are being notified of the change. can Ms case is rc an alininistrative variance review will allows no more than a fifty percent (50%) variance to be granted by the Zoning Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a decision, all adjacent grogeLty owners are required to be notified of the reque by certified mail. an TMTOU ==787=or if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in writing by 5:00 p.m. on September 10, 2012. tmwm wwwA.wh eatridge.com s //oc HALL DENNIS J THOMPSON JANE E ?012 1010 0001 ?2?? 2642 4052 FIELD DR WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SPANO CARLO SPANO MARTHA 4070 FIELD DR 1 010 0001 7277 2659 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 RICKMAN WILLIAM L RICKMAN GAIL 7012 1010 0001 7277 2666 4090 FIELD DR WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 VANBLERKOM MERRILL VANBLERKOM PALMA E 7012 1010 0001 7277 2673 4092 FIELD DR WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ROMANO ANTHONY J ROMANO DIANE E 7012 1010 0001 7277 2680 4091 FIELD DR WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GARCIA MARK A GARCIA VALERIE R 7012 1010 0001 7277 2697 mw 4087 FIELD DR WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 THOMAS NO A 7012 1010 0001 7277 2703 THOMAS ARLEN L 4083 FIELD DR WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 rr LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 29"' Avenue # Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 * Phone (303) 235-2846 (Please print or type, all information) 01 - /! .' I r - Address 4 ? � -tAF,41) Dfi)V Phon6 - Ir- 0,�-5t)71&-;l4 Applicantliz City 4� State C4 Fay_ Owner Address City State 0 Phone Fax---- Contact Address Phone Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): ,Application sabinittal requirements on reverse side 0 Change of one or zone conditions 0 Special Use Permit 13 Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) 0 Consolidation Plat 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) 0 Flood Plain Special Exception 0 Site Plan approval 0 Temporary Use, Building, Sign M Lot Line Adjustment 0 Concept Plan approval >-f-Variance/Waiver (from Section 71 Planned Building Group 0 Right of Way Vacation 0 Other: Detailed description of Required information: I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application. I am acting ith the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above. without whose consent the requested action ca iot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney from the o)y*q , ich approve W"If4iT- ,a;� fiction on his behalf. Signature of Applican To be filled out by staff: lm�wl 2 p lion expires Date received Fee 6 Receipt No.(!p*0 Case No. Comp Plan Zoning_,, Quarter Section l ap Related Case No� Pre- App Mtg, Date A "— -- . . ....... . ..... Case Man,, ,_, ...... I have reviewed the amended garage design for the above address that reduces the footprint of the addition, and sup rt the Rickman's amended design and variance amendment request. Nampcuol --- QULA ( A, J (-&AA Address n ( Y f Z Name Address —�Y Name Address — Address 44 0 (1 I have reviewed the amended garage design for the above address that reduces the footprint of the addition, and support the Rickman's amended design and variance amendment request. Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address We are making application for an amendment to our approved variance for a design change to our garage addition. The change will still allow us to garage our vehicles and create additional storage for our home, but result in less visual impact to the home and street. The following are considerations guiding our decision: In summary, the new design, although not as preferable from a size and functionality standpoint, retains the architectural integrity of the existing home and garage, but is closer to our original budget and most importantly is more acceptable to our neighbors. Attached to this letter are signatures of support from surrounding neighbors. Thank you Xgljeld'APAI From Efevatton d � I i t i . � Y r I f I ' jv NO " Case No, ' i Date Received Ml' t2 2j Related Cases 2l:iB "TasePlannef ikutak .. .... . Case Description 7.S ft. side yard setback (am'e'nding design" for approved variance, per Case No. WAI AAr* 08/31/12 8:23 AM CDRA NameHam E Ric'k' man Nam Ph one �(303) 817-1829 ANOUNT . . ........ ....... ... Address City- Wheat Rrdga .. ......... ... .... ... - – -------- -- ---- - ----- - Z' State in ip i80211- ZONE 90WOr kv i fxkrirr PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CK 3063 Name *#iarn' L, Rickman Name Phone i Address z city State zp t—J .... ... ... Name - man ....... ... ... .. . ........ Name phone Address City . ...... ... state Z' I . . . . .. .......... ....... .. ... ......... Zip Address Street D rive coy at M idge late GO W zip S Location D esc riplion Project N ame Parcel No ; ... ... ... . ----_._.w, - - - - --- Parcel No. Qtr action. 0 S D E22 D istrict No': 39224 IV ..... ... .... ... Pre App Date Neighborhood Meeting Date App No: Review Type Review Body Review Date Disposition Comments Report iA.£ R eview dmin Dea dine to object 9716A J Case Disposition i ... ..... .... ..... .. . ..... . . ................. ......... Disposition Date Conditions of Approval s - - --- ------ 1 Notes Status �iOpen Res# Ord# i. A Storage: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 08/31/12 8:23 AM CDRA BILL RICKMAN RECEIPT NO.-CDAB ANOUNT FMSD ZONING APPLICATIODN F 200.00 ZONE PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CK 3063 200.00 TOTAL ---------------------- :1