HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-13-07City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building
June 14, 2013
Linda Lauff and Dan Lopp
10565 W. 32"' Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Case No. WA - -07
7500 W. 29"' Ave. Wheat Ridge. CO 80033-8001 P: 303,235,2846 F: 3012352857
Dear Ms. Lauff and Mr. Lopp:
Attached please find notice that your request for a 2 -font variance from the 4-foot maximum fence
height standard has been APPROVED to allow a 6-foot garden wall in the fi-ont yard at
10565 W. 32 " d Avenue.
Please note that there is one condition on the approval:
1. The design and orientation of the garden wall by consistent with Exhibits 4 and 5,
subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit.
Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the Approval of Variance and the staff report. All
variance approvals automatically expire within 180 days of the date approval unless a building
pen for the variance is been obtained within such period of time. The expiration date for this
variance approval is December 11, 201
Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions.
Sincerely,
f aawiL�
Lauren Mikulak
Planner 11
www.d.wheatridge.co.us
7500 West 29th Avenue City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Vvh6at'
303.235.2846 303.235.2857 f " 1 9 C
WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 10565 W. 32"
Avenue referenced as Case No. WA- 13 -0'7 / Lauff , 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 2-foot variance from the 4-foot maximum fence
height standard to allow a 6-foot garden wall in the front yard on property in the Residential-One
(R-1) zone district (Case No. WA- 13 -0'7 / Lauff), is granted for property located at 10565 W. 32 nI
Avenue, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicants are proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be
possible without the variance.
3. The proposed garden wall is consistent with existing conditions along W. 32" Avenue where
many properties have 6-foot fences or walls along the street frontage.
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and orientation of the garden wall be consistent with Exhibits 4 and 5, subject to
staff review and approval through a building permit.
Date
City of
Wh6atRi
TO
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME
ACTION REQUESTED:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Community Development Director DATE: June 5, 2013
Lauren Mikulak
WA -13 -07 / Lauff
Approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -foot maximum front yard fence height
on property located at 10565 W. 32 "d Avenue and zoned Residential -One (R -1)
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 10565 W. 32 Avenue
APPLICANT (S):
OWNER (S):
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
Linda Lauff & Dan Lopp
Linda Lauff & Dan Lopp
16,440 Square Feet (0.38 Acres)
Residential -One (R -1)
Single Family Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Site
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA-13-07I Lauff
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an
administrative decision.
1. REQUEST
The applicants are requesting approval of a 2-foot (50%) variance from the 4-foot maximum height
standard for a front yard fence or divisional wall. The purpose of the variance is to allow for
construction of a 6-foot garden wall in the front yard of the property at 10565 W. 32nd Avenue. The
material of the wall will have the appearance of stone.
Section 6- 11.5.0 (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.
11. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicants, Linda Lauff and Dail Lopp, are requesting the variance as the owners of the property at
10565 W. 32" Avenue. The site is zoned Residential-One (R-1) and is surrounded on three sides by
other properties which are zoned R-1. To the south, across W. 32 Avenue are residential properties
which are outside of the City of Wheat Ridge boundary and are located in the City of Lakewood
OPNWO".
The subject parcel has an area of approximately 16,440 square feet and currently contains a one-story,
single-family home. According to Jefferson County records, the house was originally constructed in
1961. The property meets all development standards for a single-family home in the R-1 zone district.
The home exceeds the 34 -toot minimum front setback and is located about 55 feet from the front
property line resulting in a substantially sized front yard WX
Administrative Variance
Case No. KA-13-07 'Laqf
The garden wall is part of ongoing site upgrades that the applicants have undertaken since purchasing
the property in 2002. Improvements have included installation of a stone coated steel roofing system
which gives the appearance of a clay tile roof, application of hard coat stucco to the exterior of the
home, replace_ ment of windows and exterior doors, and an upgrade of the electrical service.
The proped garden wall is part of front yard improvements which includes xeric landscaping. In
additionksing the proposed garden wall as a sound barrier, the applicants are proposing to install a
small fountain and plant material to help mask the noise produced by traffic. The applicants are
seeking to create a usable front yard space in spite of proximity to a minor arterial roadway.
The applicants have considered the visual impact of the proposed wall, and have proposed to mitigate
this impact in several ways:
• Setback – Because the primary purpose of the wall is to mitigate noise —not to create a
divisional barrier —the structure will be located inside the property lines and will not fully
enclose the lot. The proposed site plan indicates that the wall will be about 2 feet north of the
sidewalk and 10 feet from the eastern property line. On both front corners, the wall will be
angled to prevent conflict with a sight triangle and to minimize adjacency with the sidewalk
(Exhibit 4, Site Plan).
• Material – The applicants have selected a product made by Signature Stone that is made of
steel, fiber reinforced concrete and looks like natural stone (Exhibit S, Sample Wall). The solid
barrier will be more effective at reducing noise than a cedar privacy fence. The finished quality
of the material selection appears to be more appropriate for a front yard than a wooden fence
would otherwise be. The applicants have also expressed that the material and concept of a
garden wall complement the Mediterranean style of the home.
• Stepdown – The eastern wing of the wall will step down to a height of 4 feet to minimize the
visual impact of the wall for the neighbor to the east. The applicants have incorporated this
stepdown at the request of the neighbor.
• Landscaping – The applicants have proposed installation of landscaping in the triangular areas
at the southwest and southeast corners of the property between the wall and the street. Plant
material will be low lying so as not to interfere with sight distance triangles at driveways.
The only alternative that would not require a variance is to construct a wall that is 4 feet in height or
less. The applicants have expressed that a 4 -foot alternative would not provide a sufficient noise
barrier.
During the public notification period no objections were received. The owner of the property to the
east (10535 W. 32 Avenue) contacted staff regarding the design of the garden wall with concerns
related to the height of the wall on the eastern wing and the proximity of the eastern wing to the shared
property line (Exhibit 6, Neighbor Comment). The applicants and neighbor met on site to discuss the
issues, and the enclosed site plan incorporates modifications which satisfy the neighbor's design
concerns. No additional comments were received.
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -13 -07 /Lauff
J U Nr.104 *11 #x
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 applicants have addressed the application's compliance with the variance criteria **
fit. 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 net been met,
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the l ocality.
A variance is not likely to alter the essential character of the locality.: Very few homes in this
area have common along the rm ht of- wa in this Ave
ortio of W. 32nd Avenue A venue as the run along �1� '� �� 1 v rear
property lines g
Most of the properties along the north side of the W. 2 "` Avenue are oriented toward local
streets. Only nine properties between Miller and Quail Streets —including the subject lot—
have front yards adjacent to W. 32nd Avenue. Three of these properties have been granted
variances to pen fa -foot fences in the front yard 4pt+t.
The properties on the south side of W. 32nd Avenue are outside of the City of Wheat Ridge and
are part of the City of Lakewood. The rear yards of these properties abut W. 32nd Avenue, so
6 -foot fences are common along W. 32 Avenue from Morningside Drive to (wail Street. In
one location near Morningside Drive, a fence is located on top of a retaining wall and appears
nearly 10 feet in height.
The proposed 6-foot garden wall is consistent with other fences and walls along the street, and
the visual impact in this location will be minimized by several elements of the design including
the setbacks of the wall, the angling of the wall at the corners and the proposed landscaping
within the front setback.
Staff finds this criterion has been meet.
Administrative Variance 4
Case Nor. TFA -.t 3 -(t7 / Lcrrfff
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 conditions that affect this property include the surrounding land uses and
topography. The subject property is adjacent to a well - traveled arterial road, and is one of the
few lots in this area with a front yard that faces W. 32 " Avenue. Additionally, the property
experiences a slight change in grade resulting in the home and front yard being slightly lower
than the sidewalk and street (Exhibit 3, Topo Map). In combination this results in an unusually
loud front yard, for which a 4 -foot fence or wall may be an ineffective sound barrier.
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 difficulty relates to the location of the fence with respect to the adjacent road and
elevation change. Traffic on W. 32 " Avenue has increased over the years and the property
owners feels they are unable to utilize the front yard because of the noise produced by vehicles
traveling through the area.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located,
by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or
impairing property values within the neighborhood.
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result
of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. The design of the wall would be
required to comply with sight distance regulations so as not to cause an obstruction to motorists
on the adjacent streets and driveways. The garden wall would not increase the danger of fire,
and it is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Administrative Variance
Case No. IVA -13 -07 / LauJ/'
The unusual conditions of the subject property are also are present in the neighborhood. As
described above most properties in the neighborhood have constructed a fence or barrier along;
the W. " Avenue that exceeds 4 feet in height.
While approval of a variance does not inherently set a precedent, it should be noted that three
properties in the area have been granted variances to the 4 -foot height maximum for a front
yard fence All three properties were granted variances to allow a 6-foot fence in the front yard
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 are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodatio
of persons with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion i not a w�cabl .
9. The a pplication is in substantial co( 1 t f
A rchitectural and Site Design M
1. The design and orientation of the garden wall be consistent with Exhibits 4 and 5 subject to
staff review and approval through a building permit.
Administrative Variance 6
Case No. ITA- I -07 !` Latftl
EXHIBIT 1: ZONING MAP
A
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA- 13- 07/Lauff'
EXHIBIT 2: AERIAL
A
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -13 -07 /Luufr
EXHIBIT 3: TOPO MAP
A
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -13 -07 / Lauff
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN
o,
The wall will step down to 4
in height for the last 8 linear - feet y 4
where adjacent to the property at
110535 W. 32 " Avenue
6 -'
/5
�
a�
cr
f
v
n f71�
Administrative
Case No. 6VA -13 -07 / Lau/f
s
Tr
4
w
r
s:
�a
x
w
C-4=1
EXHIBIT 5: SAMPLE WALL
The applicants have selected a product by Signature Stone for the proposed garden wall. The material
is a "steel, fiber reinforced and air - entrained concrete" that provides the look of stone.
The landscaping between the sidewalk and this Signature Stone wall is similar to what the applicants
would like to do at the southeast and southwest corners of the property.
Administrative Variance 11
Case No. WA -13 -07 /Lauff
EXHIBIT 6: NEIGHBOR COMMENT
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Caren Leaf <caren.leaf @gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Subject: Garden Wall on 32nd Ave
To: lmikulak@ci.wheatridge.co.us
Lauren,
When I met with Dan and Linda we discussed my concerns about visibility from our driveway with a 6
ft wall. I was most concerned about the area that will loop around from the front to the side of the
property that borders on my west boundary. Just for the record I am not happy about the front wall
either as I think it will be fairly ugly as front yards are normally not walled from the curb at that height.
I wont however stop the project if the agreements on spacing and the graduated decline are met.and
included in the plan.
What we agreed to was the wall angling down to 4 ft and then maybe 2 ft (my preference) at the curve.
This will start about even to the end of their house line and not go to the fence line. I am not sure how
many feet that is from my driveway but it was around where the small rocks are around the side of
their yard near the sidewalk. When you are looking at the house from the street the wall would not go
past the end of their house and not be much longer then where the big tree on the corner of my
property by the driveway ends.
Please let me know if this description makes sense. If not I will try and draw it and scan to you with
some landmarks indicated. They had not had anyone draw a design plan yet to the best of my
knowledge.
Administrative Variance 12
Case No. WA -13 -07 /Lauff
EXHIBIT 7: LETTER OF REQUEST
Wheat Ridge Variance Criteria Response
by Linda Lauff & Dan Lopp
10565 W. 32nd Ave
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
303 - 477 -6865 (lindalauff @comcast.net)
A. A 4 foot fence made of any material would serve no purpose for us. A 6 foot sound
barrier against 32nd Ave traffic is needed. The fence will be on the front property line„
apx A feet from the sidewalk. It will be landscaped with evergreens
on both sides which would increase the sound barrier effect and be very attractive on
all sides. A local example is the brick wall of Applewood Reserve along 32nd starting
at Nelson St.
A recent variance permit we noted on 32nd at Miller (3225 Miller) is a 7 1/2 foot cedar
fence that is about 6 feet from the sidewalk with only rocks for landscaping.
B. This fence will be on the property line apx Ifeet from feet the sidewalk with
evergreens in front, facing the street. It will be as attractive as a stone house - see
photos.
C. This fence will cost about $5,000 including installation.
D. Our home faces 32nd Ave. During the 10 years we have lived here the traffic
volume continues to increase. The city has not installed a speed warning signal, so
the speed limit is rarely obeyed as cars travel west from Kipling - the result is that our
front yard is very noisy and unusable for any conversation and the traffic noise can
also be heard inside in the house
E. The "hardship" is the volume, noise, and speed of traffic on 32nd Ave.
F. This wall is very attractive and has been installed for its looks as well for its sound
barrier. The city of Greeley has installed miles of this fence along a busy street for
local residents - blocking the looks and sound of the traffic (the city is paying for it). A
new subdivision we visited in Greeley has installed the wall along the street leading to
the homes.
The engineering for the wall has been done by CTL Thompson and is available on the
web site. You may also call the company in Greeley. No foundation is required and
the weight is similar to a cedar fence. Contact Signature Stone, Greeley
877 - 854 -7300 www.signaturestone.net
G. Every homeowner along 32nd Ave must endure the noise and dust from high
volume traffic. As you drive west from Kipling, note ail the high fences along the street
- one is on top of a retaining wall making it over 10 feet high.
(doc: WR fence permit 5/21/13)
Administrative Variance 13
Case No. IVA -13 -07 / Lauff
EXHIBIT 8: SITE PHOTOS
Looking west down W. 32 Avenue; the front yard of the subject lot is on the right side of the
image with mature landscaping. A slight change of grade is visible as the elevation gradually drops
away from the street.
Administrative Variance 14
Case No. WA -13 -07 / Lauff
This fence is located on the property immediately to the west of the subject site. The applicants
have proposed a similar step down of the garden wall as it gets farther away from W. 32 " Avenue
on the east side.
Administrative Variance 15
Case No. WA -13 -07 /Lauff
Looxing east towaras the neignnormg property; the garden wall ends well within the front yard
(approximately where the star is located) and will preserve a relationship between the two properties
rather than creating a solid barrier.
Luuxi►ig west uuwn w. -)/ Hvenue; o -root privacy tences line the south side of the streets where
all the properties in Lakewood have rear yards abutting W. 32 " Ave.
Six -foot fences and walls are also somewhat common on the north side of the street; this masonry
wall runs along rear property lines west of Nelson Street.
The following image shows the orientation of lots along W. 32 "d Avenue between Miller and Quail Streets.
There are 23 lots with frontage on W. 32 Avenue. All of the lots on the south side of the street are in the City
of Lakewood and are oriented toward local streets with rear or side yards adjacent to W. 32 " Avenue.
Most of the 21 properties along the north side of the street are also oriented toward local streets. Nine
properties — including the subject lot —have front yards adjacent to W. 32 Avenue. Three of these properties
(those indicated in purple below) have been granted variances to permit 6 -foot fences in the front yard.
y
31ST.AVE.
" Fences that exceed 4 feet along W. 32nd Avenue
Property with front yard oriented to W. 32nd Avenue
Variance approved for 6 -foot fence in a front yard
I
= , i
30TH PL . ,
WW
of
ti
1 } \
c' _ .• :tit. F
V1
0
C
A
0
A
0
0
�1
0
W
i-�
i
w
E City of
Wheat j�dge
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
CERTIFIED LETTER NOTICE
May 22, 2013
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 13 -07, a request for a 2 -foot variance from
the 4 -foot maximum height standard for a front yard fence or divisional wall,
resulting in a 6 -foot garden wall in the front yard of property zoned
Residential -One (R -1) and located at 10565 W. 32 " Avenue. The attached site
plan identifies the location of the variance request.
The applicant for this case is requesting an administrative variance review which
allows no more than a fifty percent (50 %) variance to be granted by the Zoning
Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a
decision, all adiacent property owners are required to be notified of the request
by certified mail.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303- 235 -2846 or
if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in
writing by 5:00 p.m. on May 31, 2013.
Thank you.
WA 1307.doc
ww w.ci. w h eatridge.co. u s
VICINITY MAP
The subject site is 10565 W. 32 Avenue which is outlined in blue in the map.
The yellow line shows the approximate location of the proposed 6 -foot tall garden wall.
Ik I
0
lZil"AN
A �09 IRS011"1110
7 009 2820 0003 5198 108
LILE CURT A
BRECO JOSEPH W TRUSTEE
LILE JENNIFER K
BRECO MARILYN M TRUSTEE
10627 W 3 1 ST PL
10647 W 3 1 ST PL
LAK FWt)C)D M RM I
LAKEWOOD CO RO? I'S 106A7
)003 5198 1096
7009 2820 0003 5198 11■2
BROWN SIDNEY P
BEDELL STEVEN K
BROWN BARBARA J
BEDELL ROSALIND L
3212 NELSON ST
10560 W 32ND PL
WfT T RI » rn RMT1 T) Il
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
.,2■ 0003 5198 1126
7009 2820 !»a2 »!& 1133
SUTTON JAMES B
LEAF CAREN MICHELE
10550 W 32ND PL
WALDMAN LEE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
10535 W 32ND AVE
7009 2820 ■003 5198 1157
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
7009 2■ 20 0003 5198 1164
ci
a
rs �i
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
4
'd
�z
IN
fV
C's
I
V
a
�M r
LLI
a,
C-1
4 r
�t
r-
u,
u,
n
C3
u,
Lauren Mikulak
From: Caren Leaf <caren.leaf@gmail,corn
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:12 PM
To: Lauren Mikulak
Subject: Fwd: Garden Wall on 32nd Ave
Please let me know that you received this. I had your name spelled incorrectly on the first one I sent.
Caren
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Caren Leaf <caren.leqf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:04 •
Subject: Garden Wall on 32nd Ave
To: lmikulakc@ci.wheatridge.co.us
What we agreed to was the wall angling down to 4 ft and then maybe 2 ft (my preference) at the curve. This
will start about even to the end of their house line and not go to the fence line. I am not sure how many feet that
is from my driveway but it was around where the small rocks are around the side of their yard near the
sidewalk. When you are looking at the house from the street the wall would not go past the end of their house
and not be much longer then where the big tree on the comer of my property by the driveway ends.
Please let me know if this description makes sense. If not I will try and draw it and scan to you with some
landmarks indicated. They had not had anyone draw a design plan yet to the best of my knowledge.
Caren Leaf
303 588-6688
10535 W 32nd ave
Wheatridge.
City of
WheatRidge
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. WA -13 -07
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 31, 2013
I,
v V-Do
I (name) 1
residing at 1(� e (,�, 5Q
(address)
as the applicant for Case No. WA -13 -07 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for
Public Notice at
10565 W . 32nd Avenue
(location)
on this 22 day of May, 2013 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
iton shown on the map below.
NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Community Development
and will be placed in the applicant's case file.
for this case
MAP
Q
M
Case No. WA1307 Date Received 5/21/2013 Related Cases Case Planner Mikulak
Case Descriptior Request for a 2 -foot height variance for a 6 foot garden wall in front yard
AAo&" /mUwa6m
Name Dan Lopp
Name Linda Lauff
Phone (303) 477.6865
Address 10565W. 32nd Ave.
City Wheat Ridge
State CO Zip 80033 -
amy?er 1AA7JM06?n
Name Dan Lopp
Name Linda Lauff
Phone (303) 477.6865
Address 10565 W. 32nd Ave.
City Wheat Ridge
State CO Zip 80033 -
Ccarrf `act /rnlornevJ&W
Name Dan Lopp
Name Linda Lauff
Phone (303) 477.6865
Address 10565W. 32nd Ave.
City Wheat Ridge
State CO Zip 80033 -
FIX*vt /nhair dbi9 r
Address 10565
Street W. 32nd Ave
City Wheat Ridge State CO Zip 80033
Location Description
Project Name
Parcel No Qtr Section
District No
Parcel No.
39- 281- 18•018 Qtr Section: NE28 District No.: III
3928118018 NE28
3
//erriavrs
Pre-App Date
Neighborhood Meeting Date
App No:
I Review Type Review Body Review Date Disposition Comments Report
I Review O Admin 0 �'
I o o a IN
n*—
Case Disposition W Disposition Date
Conditions of Approval
Res # Ord t#
1 -07
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
001 1:20 PM cdbb
I- . E. Lauff
{ECEiPT NO:CDB008905 AMOUNT
FMSD ZONING APPLICATION F 200.00
ZONE
PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT
CK 1844 200.00
TOTAL 200.08
--------------------------------- - - - - --
Notes
Status Open
Storage:
IV
F -
City of
_]��Wh6a'tB�iLd
,ge
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 infim
ApplicantD_/•. Li 1 Address
q_A�9_1 7 U) �� AU t— Phone
C i t.v A State_Q,
Fax
Own e Address
State
0
Prix --_
Contact i Address Phone joa7q77-0�
City_ State Z' Fax
(The Person fisted as contact will be contacted to answer questions regar application, provide additional inforination when necessary, post
public hearing signs. will receive a cop) ofthe slalf report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible l'br lor-warding all verbal and written
communication to applicant and owner.)
Location of request (address
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to YOUT'request):
Application submitral requirements on reverse side
Detailed description of request:
Required information:
I certify that the infort and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above,
without whose consent I the'ie4ttested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners
must submA 1011�
iipt!i"�*ttorncy from the Ty ner wh j " approved of this action on his behalf.
OfA
PUBLIC 0
o r C 6v
to me this c, I day of
20
/ 7
#Notryv Publie
My commission expires
Date received Fee $ Q Receipt Nod 95-wxviq_
C ws, c No,
Conip Plan Zoning r S ap, 4
------ Quarte M _j
Related Case No ---- --- ------ --- Pre-App x1tg. Date Case Manager
0 Change of zone or zone conditions 0 Special Use Permit Cl 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 .
0 L.ot L,ine AdJustment 0 Concept Plan approval VarianceAVaiver (from Section AU'6
�5 LOO
0 Planned Building Group 0 Right of Way Vacation 0 Other-
Lauren Mikulak
From: Lauren Mikulak
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:12 PM
To: lindalauff@comcast.net
Subject: Variance Application
Attachments: 10565 W 32nd - Site Plan.pdf, Land Use Application.PDF
RM
The other documents you submitted—including images and proof of ownership—I have and will add to your application
when you bring in the above documents. After the documents are received, the next step is a 1 0-day posting period, We
will prepare a sign for the property (2'x 3'corrugated plastic, similar to a real estate sign). We will also prepare a mailing
that is sent • immediately adjacent property owners. You and I will coordinate a day to start the posting period, such that
the mailing is sent and the sign is posted on the same day. You are welcome to start the posting period at any time—
before, during or after the time you are out of town.
Assuming no objections are received during this 10-day period, the variance for a 6-foot wall can be approved by the
Director • Community Development. If a valid objection is received, the request cannot be approved administratively, but
would rather require a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment.
Tk
associated with the garden wall, They may be able to give you an estimate of the permit fees for the wall and let you
know what documents may need to be submitted after the variance process is completed. You will want to mention to
them the type • garden wall you are proposing, • if you come into the office, you could show them the construction
documents provided • the supplier (located here if you are still using Signature Stone.
httD://sianaturestone.net/dc 0400.htmi),
Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions, or when you are ready to move forward with an application.
Be well,
(""ity of
dgel
PM f" N T
COMMUNITY INNI 1.0
ROLLING HILLS BLOCKS 6,7ANo8
A 5UBDIV15ION OF -A PORTION OF THE 5W4 NE 4 OF 5 E CTI ON 28, T35, R 69W OF THE 6T —" PM
m WEST 3 2 t v o A -NVE
• • UNJVdO /V /OED
All rodii at block corners are 15' in /en 1h
o Five foot easements are reserved along a/f side and rear /o/ 11i7eJ.
R! _, 5e 1backs on /ndicoled /o/s /o provide m/;171lnum 104a' =I.6Y4ntoge,
DE DI CAT ION
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESEN TJ; That SUBO/VIOXAL -T , /NCORPORATEO
Owner of the Wesl 20 Acres of the fosl 30 Acres of Me .SOU /hWe5t Ouar/er of the Northeast Ouorier of Section 2B ,
Township -9 South, Ronge 69 West of the 6 th Principaj Meridian, except 16e /Yon/1 2Sief •arho.`.lhC lYest l6i.�4rel thtreef subject.
to ditch righ/s of way, o / //n Jefferson County Colorado, Aed_' p out anal toid ou and subdivided same into 101j , blocks, streets,
avenues, cour /s and as shown hCileon, under the name and style of ROLL /NG H/LLs Bboc/rs 6, 7 one B; and dq/,
by These presents, " grant and ded /cart kb ✓ef,erson Count/yy Catorado,in fce s /mp /e, // such streets, avenues, courts one places;
and further certify That those certain Restrictive Covendnts recorded in Book -� Page .5R6 of the '/efferson Count
records shall app ly M a// tots in /his subdivision. y
-1N WirNess WHEREoF we have hereunto ,.subscribed our hand and seal th/s�ay
SURD /V /DERS, IWCORPO&ATED
BY
PROS /OE.vT S 'CRCTARY ,
STATE of C.—x Aoa
'
CITY AND 55 •
C ouNTY OF DEN7/CR
The above and foreyoing p lat and dedica/Ion of RoLL/NC H/Lis
/his Utt do of OatmlS A.D. /955 by .4'Gier ,�f af.a�1.
Wi /nets my hoed and officio/ seal. My Commission Expires
BLoc,rs 6, 7 and 8 were acknowledged before me
I 6o eooN SLAric /n/ an alfoen at low duly liaensed to proclise before courts of retard of Co /orodo, do hCTY - ,
by certify /ho/ l have examined the title a ey o// lands /he /nobove dedlcaled, and shown as / ovhhc ways, roods, 'Sy" -cels ,avenues, ,
cour /s andp /aces and hyal title to such /0/74!5 15 /n the dedicators Free and clear of all /lens •and encumbronces-
Dotrd 1h /s 1L of -C / A.D. 195$ A
ATTORNEY
R r /K£NNErw R. FCNw,cK o registered engineer in the Stale of Colorodo, do hereby certify hot the survey and plat OA
oLL/N6 N/LLs BLoc/rs '6,7 and B were mode under my supervision and tlol both ore accurate to my know /edge.
Doted th/s 11 day of I'p —L,&.0 A.D. f955. '
RE6 15TEREO EN61NECR
APPROVED .6 fhe Jefferso''n County Planning Commission /h /s day Of r� A.D. I953
e ��� w ✓�ld�J � B
C hoirmon ySccrclo
The foregoing plat is approved Mr filiny, and convebonce of the public ways roods, 571, , courts and p /aces
shown /hereon Is steepled by the County of Jefferson , Colorado MIS ZO day of AD plat ,
subject to the condition that The County shall undertn/te maintenonCe of any such public way ,road, street, avenue , court
and p /ace only after cons /ruction lheregf ho been completed solisfoclorlly by the subdiv /der
BOARD OF COaNry COMM /55 /ONERS
By Pll .•�_ -
- - CHA/
By M NJ.T
CLERK
Accepted For filing in /he office of the ✓el"fer-ron Cou Clerk and Recorder this—&— day o{
RECEPr/oN Numb --A 624008 T /ME � 3 s �• t
r.r K AND RECOR OER
'5 2 0. f _'�7e _ g l Pss
624425 x .1L ; ■,.
'0tY— A.D. 1955.
- f4S
�l7tawr��i �'��`�' j/�'t_+.. 3/, /ys 7• /yne,� /os:2- PrfC.F C7 �
:4•
i
i
3 MW
L- t vo orb. L a u- R e Covo -cast- ru
Wheat Ridge Variance Criteria Response
by Linda Lauff & Dan Lopp
10565 W. 32nd Ave _
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 3 o3- q 8 (9
A. A 4 foot or even 6 foot garden wall (fence) made of any material would serve
no purpose for us. An 8 foot sound barrier against 32nd Ave traffic is needed.
The garden wall would be 6 -7 feet from the sidewalk and also be landscaped with
evergreens and other bushes on both sides which would increase the sound
barrier effect and be very attractive on all sides. A local example is the brick
wall of Applewood Reserve along 32nd starting at Nelson St.
A recent variance permit we noted on 32nd at Miller (3225 Miller) is a 7 112 foot
cedar fence that is about 6 feet from the sidewalk with only rocks for
landscaping.
B. This garden wall will be 6 -7 feet from the sidewalk with evergreens & other
bushes in front, facing the street. It will be as attractive as a stone house - see
photos.
C. This wall will cost about $5,000.
D. Our home faces 32nd Ave. During the 10 years we have lived here the
traffic volume continues to increase. The city has not installed a speed warning
signal, so the speed limit is rarely obeyed as cars travel west from Kipling - the
result is that our front yard is very noisy and unusable for any conversation in
the yard.
E. The "hardship" is the volume, noise, and speed of traffic on 32nd Ave.
F. This wall is very attractive and has been installed for its looks as well for its
sound barrier. The city of Greeley will be installing 1000's of feet along a busy
street for local residents - blocking the looks and sound of the traffic (the city is
paying for it). A new subdivision we visited in Greeley (see photo) has installed
the wall along the street leading to the homes.
The engineering for the wall has been done by CTL Thompson and is available
on the web site. You may also call the company in Greeley. No foundation is
required and the weight is similar to a cedar fence. Contact Signature Stone,
Greeley 877 -854 -7300 www.signaturestone.net
G. Every homeowner along 32nd Ave must endure the noise and dust from
high volume traffic. As you drive west from Kipling, note all the high fences
along the street - one is on top of a retaining wall making it over 10 feet high.
privacy_fence_l.jpg 800x600 pixels 4/13/12 8:18 AM
http: / /www.sig naturestone.net/ images/ ic_content /ci_0400/ Ig /privacy_fence_ l.jpg
2 � ku�
V ICII— L «LP Page 1 of 1
Signature Stone
ABOUT US ° PRODUCTS • CASE STUDIES • IDEA CENTER * DOWNLOADS - CONTACT NEW PRODUCTS
OVERVIEW —
WARRANTY
PROUD MEMBERS:
i�;:�Y�i`; i
1„ iciatcd Lnndscap<'
Cuntractur, of Colorado
AMERICAN
SOCIETY Of
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
4/13/12 8:22 AM
e5� W,111 U,r
rQ--4e-1
77 -'�?5 - V 7 f o
� I G N C, PC t V AZ.: �&v
Today's homeowners expect a distinctive home
of unmatched quality. Incomparably rich in its
texture and moving in its artistry, nothing
expresses the beauty and personality of your
home quite like fine stonework.
LARGE ENOUGH TO HANDLE ANY JOB,
SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE.
http:// www. signaturestone.net /ab_0000.htmI Page 1 of 2
Signature Stone
A LEGACY OF BEAUTY WORTHY OF YOUR HOME
DESIGNS INSPIRED BY NATURE.
!� sca er Construction and Remodeling, LLC
Remodeling and New Construction
Quality Dependable Work
Insured
i
Jack Wyscaver
970 396 3101
4/13/12 8:22 AM
http:// www. signaturestone.net /ab_0000.htmI Page 2 of 2
L : LA (.L_ (�
",Ids C-of %
v
70 /V-d
t
I
I �
s
s
r, l
c�
i
v
yam
1,
1
v
�1>/- I �,f C-- 0 � �
'J
-;;ka�
Wheat Ridge Variance Criteria Response
by Linda Lauff & Dan Lopp
10565 W. 32nd Ave
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
303 - 477 -6865 (lindalauff @comcast.net)
A. A 4 foot fence made of any material would serve no purpose for us. A 6 foot sound
barrier against 32nd Ave traffic is needed. The fence will be on the front property line„
apx A feet from the sidewalk. It will be landscaped with evergreens
on both sides which would increase the sound barrier effect and be very attractive on
all sides. A local example is the brick wall of Applewood Reserve along 32nd starting
at Nelson St.
A recent variance permit we noted on 32nd at Miller (3225 Miller) is a 7 1/2 foot cedar
fence that is about 6 feet from the sidewalk with only rocks for landscaping.
B. This fence will be on the property line apx Ifeet from feet the sidewalk with
evergreens in front, facing the street. It will be as attractive as a stone house - see
photos.
C. This fence will cost about $5,000 including installation.
D. Our home faces 32nd Ave. During the 10 years we have lived here the traffic
volume continues to increase. The city has not installed a speed warning signal, so
the speed limit is rarely obeyed as cars travel west from Kipling - the result is that our
front yard is very noisy and unusable for any conversation and the traffic noise can
also be heard inside in the house
E. The "hardship" is the volume, noise, and speed of traffic on 32nd Ave.
F. This wall is very attractive and has been installed for its looks as well for its sound
barrier. The city of Greeley has installed miles of this fence along a busy street for
local residents - blocking the looks and sound of the traffic (the city is paying for it). A
new subdivision we visited in Greeley has installed the wall along the street leading to
the homes.
The engineering for the wall has been done by CTL Thompson and is available on the
web site. You may also call the company in Greeley. No foundation is required and
the weight is similar to a cedar fence. Contact Signature Stone, Greeley
877 - 854 -7300 www.signaturestone.net
G. Every homeowner along 32nd Ave must endure the noise and dust from high
volume traffic. As you drive west from Kipling, note all the high fences along the street
- one is on top of a retaining wall making it over 10 feet high.
(doc: WR fence permit 5/21/13)
a
0
A
A
a
0
m
z
v
CD
co
n
a
n
m
N
y
u
3
0'
0
CD
x
- o
CD
3
�-c
S
w
n
w
a
O
m'
CD
w
C) --1
c D
0 �
m
00
wT
mn
m0
mr
m
x
cn D
OO
z
cn
D'
cn
t
2 C
S
= v,
^
V '9n n •
v,n��. uvVUlVIr;IVI/i Jr t'tt , c' -C.�.- � $�
,,
- c 'o � ADDmxn5M 5'0 Q ? -I
a CD oOzC�Cm 3 CD cD cn 0 �'
?�� Nm�w r2�cn CD CD w 0 2
M o v �MW0c D ° = <
m 6. o co _ K m z a z c w a m
° ° wZ0M -r gy m a-i D
° m cn Z
�� N cn U m 3 cD v m f° �° O
CD m m . n � o _<X * = (D _ _ _ O
M ODX�OD- a° CD o 2
ma {�z�xv° 00
G7 O m c 3 cn r-
m �7cnCnS��W o ° -� =a`°
D O = Ocnw 0
CD D W� n n O m � a � m CD o a
D Zm�2DCcn w o_3_rn
1 0 Z>
w __ Cl cn m
aD m a CD m °y
D7 Z z Z -< CD Zr w cn �' y
O C�SWm �a0 �w
to mpmmp -,CDC m m o 0
0 O zcnz2cna)o ° 0 ° _.�<
�, mmmv 3 aD �3
m �X -jD0ADo wcn� y 0 -
^ � C)m - O i c lmg CD ^CD V) v
D m DC - iZs� - :3 -7.
w m �z O w c n.- m
m OODZZ cD CD CL
CD a) a w
CL Z ai m z -a cn CD p. � (0 n
w 7
p r_ 7r 0- R' d
CD X < m m O � m p m w a N m CD
CD .Z w mmm "C)
CD o m� DOUiX w a� � n
o CD mOOmmD°:w c ^a
O 0Dzz0rooc
O Z
z�ZCncn0 o CD 3 M
m CDCDc.�CDm CD
o -iOrZ �0 �� ° m�
0� r -
mc a g
`n m r- � �mocn Cr CD m ;L
cn �DZO?'?)rnm o o
CD (� c_
D {m :'y N
E T m nZmz�O = CL ac
.� m X�_ 9'w o
C) Z m - 0 -� co w CD CD 0 CL y o
m Q -
m a
CD w E: '� 2 m 7 w w p
C CL � Zccn aQCD cD d
? - ��)� cn
CD m�� z � p m p m 0 o m
O Z Cl) x Un CD cn _" '"' v,
w w ZD = ID - 1m' < m Er Q) =r
0 Q 0r- Sz2p � w o CD
r- Z M (D CD - CD f-
Sw - -1 w wn - 1rmmD� Xr c 0 ° crz
mpCDC: rn -gyp 2Z0� _U 0 00 _' @ ° o ° - � - ���
CD mO o DC mmC >G) �� co < <oz
CD a) ° m ° g 0 � c mm w m = G7 W zr C ) - i ,_ n r- CD
cn 0 - - C) - n - i2p�0� � o = n a)
w m < Ow > zco r- n c m v+
CD r 0 mr::q Cn� m �cm
W o 4 CD 0m m� =0Z= co O op �
CD CD °c < D v 0X m Omcn�= O M5'CD
n.
�om�. a �O mmco:E n T. moa
�3aD 0 Z �X -gym =m Cn �3 `��° m=
c. Cn�DZmO cno cD CD.o
(n
CD C L O 00 m- �
m �O D
W � o0 nw
m r,a
o n� � 00nm =� O cn
Z 0 °' �. a�.
W \'
CD m Dm�mO< O -w �' c ,.
-' ° C m, o���a CD
Sa3 D= n ° w cr
mm� > n, °w
3 cn U mO nfi °`< 3 0 0
CD w 0 w n =-1� D 3'�0
.w z m0M rj �g� ?m
c c z 0 � ° CD CD Cn c
m� p p C' a m o C 3
: Z ( 0
a 'T' m z -� W CD or
O z o 0 -�
°0m - m o c , x
w mm� _ 00__ i D � m 0 0
p. D c mm0 Cl) 'Q � cn
O O 0 -{ 00
CD c W CD z 0 D O_ a W
wwcp O =�� D 3� <m
m m 2 z cn o CD CD
o - 3' W
O< (D S O p Z 0 C D < w 7
0m° 0 mm�Or- 3�v
r- 3 ca �
BCD 00 y mN rn� v ° ^,c� ° c
m w r - mO CD
»-�a�
E. w �
CD �
Ca. m U) cl) m m - 0- a
CD n-im� <0•w<
3 m- �Z -nip (n CD 'n� m
000� v w CD
CD m C S z -j o
2 n a
�.cn m(
m ca -1 rn cn ( n a a
cn
= 0 a) m
CD 3 m = _ ° 7
C L as
mil, S
..
S
CD
C7
0
c
0
L_
m
m
m
m
rn
O
z
w
CD
o_
C)
0
0
n�
a
0
co :.�
CD Zr
0
°
W cn
W CD
m
cn
w
w
CL
CL
CD
cn
F
0
cn
m
cn
m
cn
w
N
z
O
A
S
2
m
O
O
m
O
O
r
Z
0
D
m
D
c
m
T
D
z
0
D
z
m
r
n
r
O
D
Fn
D
cn
cn
2
X
Z
v
m
m
v
rn
0
O
M
v
m
X
N
D
:no
0mro.�
7i
t=-Mm
m rrt C z
C m o 0
ru
HCr�ru
.
T - �
CO
G' eo
=CD -r;
nn
M.
CD n
c r+rn o
zmC�
i
0
0
n �
m�
L'I
t�
O