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