HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-13-13City of'
com
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303,235,2857
August 20, 2013
Mr. Frank Wilson
2845 Otis Ct.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80214
Dear Mr. Wilson:
RE: Case No, A- 1.3 -13
Please be advised that at its meeting of July 25, 2013 the Board of Adjustment APPROVED the
following requests to allow a detached structure on property zoned Residential-One (R -1) located
at 2845 Otis Ct.
Enclosed is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution, as well as a draft copy of the minutes, stating
the Board's decision.
Please feel free to contact me at (303) 235-2846 if you have any questions.
Enclosures: Certificates of Resolution
Draft of Minutes
cc: A -13 -13 (case file)
WA1313 Wilson.doc
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
UN
0500#11#141 EIRMIU
Board Members Present:
WReckert, Sr. Planner
, Planner I
�q,ggqgr
.Recording Secretary
A. ' Case No. WA-13-13 LRMuest & An application filed by Frank Wilson for
approval of the following requests to allow a detached garage on property zoned
Residential-One (R-1) located at 2845 Otis Ct.
The case (Request A, Request B & Request Q was presented by Meredith Reckert. Shi
entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was
jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Reckert reviewed the staff report and digital
presentation. Having found the application in compliance with a majority of the review
criteria, staff gave a recommendation of approval,
Board of Adjustment Minutes July 25, 2013
Board Member ABBOTT stated the northwest comer of the proposed structure is 3-
from the property line. The rear of the proposed structure would be 8-feet from the
property line. 1
Elise Kearney (Representing the applicant)
2845 Otis Gt.
The applicant stated the reason for the addition of the detached garage is because
additional parking space is needed for their vehicles and trailers. The detached garage
will match the house brick and siding.
owposing to store. The applic
=Mai
- SU 11:41-t U1 C
Vice Chair GRIEG called for
y board Member
"I'and secbn 6
s stated:
MR
the ap
tion " ,No. WA-13-13 (Request A) was not eligible for
welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the
regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge.
1, justment application
Case No. WA-13-13 (Request A) be, and hereby is APPROVED.
TYPE of VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 300-square foot variance to allow
27% building coverage in R- I for the construction of a detached garage.
Board of Adjustment Minutes July 25, 2413 2
For the following reasons:
#
#
#
#
#
fn Case No. (Requests B & C), app
W licant name
at 2W Ot
ase M-13 (Requests B & C) are not eligibl%.
NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED that the Board of Adjustment applicati
Case No. WA-13-13 (Requests B & C) be, and hereby are APPROVED. I
a detached garage in R-1.
Board of Adjustment Minutes July 25, 2013 3
For the following reasons:
1. The setback variances are not expected to alter the essential character
of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing substantial investment in the property that
may not be possible without the variance.
3. The angled north lot line results in an unusual lot shape and an
underutilized northwest corner of the property.
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently
having an interest in the property. 6
S. The request would not be detriment blic welfare.
6. Due to the angle of the north side line the setback variance
diminishes considerably to the
7. The application meets 5 of tbplica iteria.
8. It appears that 4 lots dire utti g 284 1. " I fis Ct. have significantly
encroaching structures
With the following conditions:
1. The location of the garage be
review and apy
2. The architectui
massing, and ri
subject to staff
Im
Vice Chair GR
feet. It impairs
no objections fi
population that
community inv
assamm
9M
In
Exhibit 1' u'bject to staff
MUMV-7MAAMMIPUPON-70
esistant construction.
is not in agreement with setback reductions to 3-
,nts and views of neighbors. She noted there were
he City of Wheat Ridge is looking to build a
activity such as boating. Home improvement and
[ant especially proceeding in this process.
agreed with Vice Chair GRIEGO's comments.
by a vote of 5-0.
B. Case No. WA- 13 -11 An application filed by Garrett Jones for approval of a I -foot
variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement to legitimize an existing
garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 8820 W.4 "' Ave.
The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She stated this case was initiated as an
during the required I O-day noticing period therefore, it was forwarded to die Board of
Adjustment for a public hearing. She entered all pertinent documents into the record
including two written comments which had been received and advised the Board there
Board of Adjustment Minutes July 2 5, 2013 4
A -4 &
PJAMM'' M = 1
KA --
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA- 13-13 (Request A) was not eligible for
administrative review; and
-777 1
f =11fieen clays required by law and in recognition
that there were no protests registereci 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.
11:111 110
M
MUMMA 10,
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 300-square foot variance to allow 27%
building coverage in R- I for the construction of a detached garage.
1. The building coverage variance is not expected to 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 unusual shape of the lot results in a unique physical hardship.
4. The previous property owner built out the lot to the maximum building coverage, so the
alleged hardship has not been created • any person presently having an interest in the
property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
1. The location of the garage be consistent with Exhibit I subject to staff review and approval
through review of a building permit.
Board of Adjustment
Resolution WA-13-13
Page 2 of 2
2. The architecture and design of the garage ► consistent with scale, massing, and roof pitch of
the home and existing two-car garage, subject to staff review and approval through revi o f
a building permit.
VOTE: YES: ABBOTT, BANGHART, BELL, GRIEGO and HOVLAND
NO: NONE
ABSENT: GRIFFITH, PAGE and KUNTZ
DISPOSITION: Request for approval of a 300-square foot variance to allow 27% buildi
coverage in R- I for the construction of a detached garage was APPROVED. I
.1 G e 0 Vice Chai
ustm t
J � 4 J
Lil G e o, Vice Chai
Board Adjustment
MPAMMUM
neat ATTge, County ot J ettersoif,
State of Colorado, on the 25th day of July 2013.
MMIR
I I R- A FA V L 0 LU a 0
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA- 13-13 (Request B & C) were not eligible for
administrative review; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition
that there were no 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 IT BE RESOLVED that the Board of Adjustment application Case No.
WA- 13 -13 (Request B & C) be, and hereby is APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval a I 0400t variance from, the 15-foot rear setback
requirement and a 12-foot variance from the 15-foot side setback requirement for a detached
garage in R- 1.
Board of Adjustment
Resolution WA-13-13
Page 2 of 2
DISPOSITION: Request for approval of a I 0-foot variance from the 15-foot rear setback
requirement and a 12-foot variance from the 15-foot side setback requirement for a detached
garage in R- I was APPROVED.
MM
A I
G cc Chair
Lily 0�iVit t
�
Lily G ' o, Vice Chair
U
Board Adjustment
m r-i
0
N
lD
N
00
O
u
O
Vl
00
N
a
v
Ate.
•{-J
s
y. .
v
+�
3
4::
N
m
-0
to
;4
- 0
c
d
a )
u
M
--
t
"
v
u
c
ru
o
0
ro
L
ra
V
u
,
v
L
�.
L
ra r
N
�--I
M
r-1 r4 N
u1
N
P
N
L
(
c
_
M
4-J
ul
O
Q
o
L
o
+.
-
-°
U.)
v
�
C37
p
Q
I
r
' rj ..
1J
�
C:
2
bio
C f
0
E
m
p
c
w
&
_
(U
c
@ F
'x
c
.N
p
a
2 LL
+1
r)
rl
°0
f`
V
a
a
• 3
41 r
�
N
m
O *
O
U
Cr
':
O
a`
o Ln
0
O
u
O
Vl
00
N
a
v
Ate.
•{-J
v
+�
a,
r
rL°
v
L
n r0
N
m
-0
to
o
- 0
c
d
a )
u
M
--
t
"
v
u
c
N
U
O V
L
O
N
ro
L
ra
V
u
,
v
L
>
v
L
ra r
c
>
o
4-
bn
0
0
(
c
c
+-
ul
O
Q
o
L
o
+.
-
-°
U.)
v
�
C37
a
I
Q
I
I
O
u
O
Vl
00
N
a
v
Ate.
t
7
O
U
O
N
00
N
Y
L
O
U
N
u
0
N
ICT
00
N
>
v
m
t
t
7
O
U
O
N
00
N
Y
L
O
U
N
u
0
N
ICT
00
N
r
L A
Y
O
U
.
0
Ln
V
00
N
>
v
m
N
y
v
oD
C
a
>
w
c
r0 Q
`oa
o
N
3
C
M
h OA
>
a
E
_O
_
_
4-J
@
O
CC
H
~
L
E
L°
.v
v
ao
N
>
N m
o��
o
_
Qom
a
J D
r`
O
C
Y
u Q1
E
.�
a j
> v
r
'3
E
o
- o
O
O U
V
N
v t
U
=c:°
o
v
v
'✓3
3
°
v
�v3�
o
Q fi}
Y
',�
,�,
O
U
Ym�
x
�-
:�
O
O
d
y
�
C
.3
C
Q O
y r
=
a
a
o
3
°
O
+�
E >
3
t
a
i
O
a
a s
E Ou
O
N
CO
_
O
v
V
7
O
�O
C 0
U w
O
p
-
Q
>
>
v
y
N
L
m
v - 0
�. C
6/
a
C
A
cc
Q
:D
a
�
C
�O
I
JO)
r
L A
Y
O
U
.
0
Ln
V
00
N
O
4-
ru
Q�
E
E
O
� )
I..L
4
4--
Ln
Ol
u
c
Z
O
N
v
C
v
E
v
cr
v
UJ
0
OD
.o
v
WE
T
CL
w
C
O
CL
v
O
v
£
°
v
T
c
N
V
N C
=
w
N
3
W
v
E
L
v
'3 N
QJ
Y
a
v
O
s
O
r
x
t 04
-
E
c
n
♦... C
.3
O
.0
u
p
C
N�
O
°
c
n
a
O
fi
m
e+
0
Q
O
s
N
v
�
N-0
O N
>
E
"S
C
o
0
O
T
'z
a
L
41 L
v
CC
m
c_
-0 o
C
3�
m
.�
cn
o
v
O
c u
on D
Q O
�"'
N
O
U
a+
N
- O x
i
o
C v
o
o
v
c
'§
c
O
o
C u
Q)
C
Q
0
C
O
=
u
O u
E
3
0
^
3
O
n
.ti
E
n
0
O
O>
a
L
N
N
v
O
o
u Y
O
a'
- '
Q
o
N
3
6
N
L
o
u
m
cr
'
O
Q
F--
2
2�'
m
V. v
V) N
Ol
u
c
Z
O
N
v
C
v
E
v
cr
v
UJ
0
OD
.o
v
WE
City of
Wheat R
U1113
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment
MEETING DATE: July 25, 2013
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME
Lauren Mikulak
WA -13 -13 / Wilson
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a three variance requests: (A) approval of a 300 - square foot
variance from the 25% maximum building coverage, (B) a l0 -foot variance
from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement, and (C) a 12 -foot variance from
the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement for property located at 2845 Otis
Court and zoned Residential -One (R -1).
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2845 Otis Court
APPLICANT (S): Frank Wilson
OWNER (S): Frank Wilson
APPROXIMATE AREA: 13,750 square feet
PRESENT ZONING: 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
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. W,9 -13 -13 /Wilson
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this
case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of three variances:
(A) Approval of a 300 - square foot variance from the 25% maximum building coverage resulting
in 27% building coverage,
(B) Approval of a 10 -foot variance from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement, resulting in a
5 -foot setback, and
(C) Approval of a 12 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement, resulting in a
3 -foot side yard setback.
The purpose of the variances is to allow for construction of a single -car detached garage on property
located at 2845 Otis Court ME& Site Plapj-
Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of
Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district
development standards. Because this application includes variance requests of over 50% from the
development standards, the application is not eligible for administrative approval and is required to be
heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment.
H. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicant, Frank Wilson, is requesting the variance as the owner of the subject property. The
property is located at 2845 Otis Court and is zoned Residential -One (R -1). The R -I zone district is
established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low - density residential neighborhoods, and to
prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low - density residential character. The
subject property is entirely surrounded by other lots zoned R -1 2, Zoning AM.
Based on the subdivision plat for the neighborhood, the parcel has an area of 13,750 square feet. The
lot currently contains a one -story single- family home, which according to Jefferson County records
was constructed in 1954. In addition to the home, the property includes a detached two -car garage and
a storage shed.
The current owner purchased the property in 2001, and is seeking to construct a second detached
garage in the northwest corner of the property to accommodate storage for additional items. These
would include a vehicle or trailer which are otherwise in the driveway and visible from the right -of-
way. The proposed garage would be 12'x 24' (288 square feet) which is considered a standard size for
a single car garage. The applicant has not yet proposed any architectural details regarding the
materials or roofline — maximum height for a detached garage would be 15 feet to the midpoint of a
gable roof or to the top of a shed roof.
Because the northern property line extends northwest at an 18 angle from the front property line, the
garage will have a 3 -foot setback at the closest point and will get increasingly farther away from the
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
north lot line. It will have about an 8-foot setback at the northwest comer. Regarding the rear setback,
the applicant has proposed the setback to be between 3 and 6 feet. A 1978 site plan indicates a 5-foot
easement along the western property line. To align with the easement, staff recommended that the
applicant apply for a variance resulting in no less than a 5-foot rear setback.
R-1 DeveloInnentStandards:
R e wired
Actual
Lot Area
12,500 S uare feet (min)
13,750
I - ) � oars feet 11 S
Lot Width
100 feet JLnin
-LIL
90 feet
C
The 15-day notification period for the public hearing is currently in progress, As of July 16, 2013 no
objections or inquiries have been received.
Board qJ'Attiusiment
Cave Afot WA - 13 - 13 ., Wihon
3
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
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 locali"r.
In 2009, the City reviewed and amended residential development standards, The Residential-
One (R -1) zone district is the only district with a maximurn lot coverage as low as 25%. 'This
standard is central to regulating the density and intensity of development in this large-lot zone
district. Staff is sensitive to the fact that the lot coverage standard was deliberately left
unchanged in 2.009 at 25%.
That said, a building coverage variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The
maximum building coverage in the. - I zone district is 25%; this translates to 3437.5 square
feet on the subject property. Proposed lot coverage is 27% or 3727 square feet which will
likely be imperceptible.
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, which would not be
possible without the variance. Building coverage on the property is currently at 25% so no
additional structures of any type—including the proposed garage—can be built without a
variance.
Staff finds this criterion has been met
Board o f At#ustme nl
'
Case No, IVA-13-13 ' Ifilson
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out.
The unique condition that affects this property relates to the shape of the lot, As mentioned
above, the northern lot line is slanted resulting in a lot width of 90 feet at Otis Court and 130
feet at the rear lot line.
The triangular area that results from the slanted northern lot line results in a lot that meets R- I
lot size standards, but it doesn't provide significantly more useable square footage. If the
northern and western lot lines were perpendicular, the site would be a regular rectangular shape
with a lot area that may not require a building coverage variance.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Board qf,44justment 5
Case,Vo, IYA-13-13 ,,'Wilson
items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the public right-of-
way.
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.
Because Otis Court and Newland Court were constructed as a looped road, there are six lots in
the neighborhood with unusual shapes and irregular lot lines. It does not appear, however. that
any of these lots have been built out to the maximum 25% building coverage.
Staff finds that this criterion has not been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes
pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion is not ppbra .
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
A rchitectural and Site Dt�vign Manual.
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling
units.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. 'fhe
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.
Board qf 'A etiustmeni 6
Case A"o. RA-13-13 Wi/son
2. The variance would not after the essential character of the locality.
A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. While the proposed setbacks are
narrow especially for the R- I zone district, the impacts to neighbors is expected to be minimal.
As described above. adjacent properties also have detached garages with reduced setbacks
along the shared rear property line.
Staff finds this criterion has been net
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.
Board qfAqjustment
Case, 11-A-13-13 JUIson
The alleged difficulty relates to the location of the proposed garage with respect to the existing
structures and R- I setback requirements. Because the current owner neither platted the lot, nor
constructed the existing home and garage in their current locations, the difficulties have not
been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. It would not cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. nor would it impede the sight distance triangle. The portion
of the garage within 5 feet of the northern property line will need to be fire rated. so it will not
increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The garage
may in fact have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered storage of large
items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the public right-of-
way.
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.
Because Otis Court and Newland Court were constructed as a looped road. there are six lots in
the neighborhood with unusual shapes and irregular lot lines. The subject lot is among the
smallest of these sites, so it is particularly constrained.
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 liornes 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.
Board qfA4juslinent
Case N`(,). 14 A -13 -13 fGhon
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 aplicable.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I
1. The building coverage variance is not expected to 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.
I . The location of the garage be consistent with Exhibit I subject to staff approval through review
of a building permit.
2. The architecture and design of the garage be consistent with the scale, massing, and roof pitch
of the home and existing two-car garage, subject to staff approval through review of a building
permit.
REQUESTS B and C:
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAI, of a 10 -foot rear setback variance and 12-foot side setback variance. 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 setback variances are not expected to after 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 angled north lot line results in an unusual lot shape and an underutilized northwest corner
of the property.
Board ofA4justment 9
Case No. PVA - 13-13 / Wilson
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
S. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
With the following conditions:
i . The location of the garage be consistent with Exhibit I subject to staff approval through revi
of a building permit.
2. The architecture and design of the garage be consistent with the scale, massing, and roof pit(
of the home and existing two-car gat subject to staff approval through review of a buildi
permit.
3. Any portion of the garage within the 546ot setback will need to meet building code
requirements related to fire-resistant construction.
Board qf'Adjustment
Case AV I1',1-13-13 lVilson
10
EXHIBIT 1: SITE PLAN
3-foot side setback il
• � SGALE 1 = 20
5-foot p
rear setback -HRlCK �E
� GARIuGE N
LOT 6
�Cn e
METAL 5WEL7
Board ofAdjuslmenl
Case No. «:4 -13 -13 Wilson
4
"2
Ai
N
N
ON
ILI
0 V1
M� I3
�7I �
31 0
N
I
r
I
7
�
I
4
"2
Ai
N
N
ON
ILI
0 V1
M� I3
�7I �
31 0
N
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
A
Board of.adjustment
Case .Vo. HA -13 -13 Wilson
The subject property is outlined in blue and is zoned Residential -One (R -1). The surrounding
properties are also zoned R- 1; to the northwest and west are parcels zoned R -2.
EXHIBIT 3: AERIAL
OA
Board of Adjustment 13
Case .1-o. IIA -13 -13 Neilson
The subject property at 2845 Otis Court is outline in blue in the image below.
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS
Another view looking west at the existing garage. The applicant has not provided elevations or design
details, but staff is recommending a condition of approval that the proposed be garage be consistent
with the scale, massing, and roof pitch of the existing home and garage to ensure compatability with
the area.
Board of Adjustment 14
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
View of 2845 Otis Court looking west; the location of the proposed garage behind the
existing garage is indicated by the white arrow. It would be minimally visible from the street. (The
gray roof in the background is associated with a garage on the property to the west.)
View from the backyard, looking north from behind the existing garage. The proposed location for the
garage is where the two trailers are located. The less desirable alternate location is in the foreground
behind the existing garage, but this would likely require removal of the mature tree (left).
View from the backyard, looking west at the rear property line. The proposed location would consume
an otherwise underutilized corner of the property. This image also shows the proximity of a
neighbor's garage (behind the fence) which also has a reduced setback.
Board of Adjustment 5
Case No. WA -13 -13 /Wilson
EXHIBIT 5: CRITERIA RESPONSE
Lauren Mikulak, here is my brief Narrative. I would like to build a single car garage on my property at
2845 Otis Court. Why, I want to park a vehicle in itl
Answers, for Variance Criteria for Review.
A. It would yield a reasonable return, if we were to sell. We own our home and have no intention
of leaving. Just want a third bay to park a vehicle.
B. Correct, this part of our backyard is vacant and void of any landscaping/grass. It would be the
only place I could drive another vehicle into a garage.
C. Correct, we cannot add a third bay to park a vehicle anywhere else on the property
D. See Attached ILC (Improvement location certificate). We have a diagonal property line on the
north side of our property. I would be the only place we can add a garage and Drive a vehicle
Into It!
E. The Two Car garage existed when we moved in. Now we want 3!!
F. No, this garage would be setback from our existing garage, (No eff ect on public streets.) It
would have no eff ect on our neighbors. As a matter of fact our neighbor to the northwest has a
garage approximately 8' from my property line and our neighbor to the west has a garage
approximately 8' from our property line. From the street people driving by would now see a
beautiful home with three garage doors (maybe) vs. two. In my opinion it would increase
property value!
G. Not Sure, I have a 90' property line in front of my home and a 130' property line in the rear.
Only place I have room to build a single car garage (that I can drive into)
Regards,
Frank Wilson
2845 Otis Court
Wheat Ridge, CO 80214
303 -506 -1800
Board of Adjustment 16
Case No. WA -13 -13 Ifilson
CASE NO: WA -13 -13 (Reauest A)
APPLICANT NAME: Frank Wilson
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2845 Otis Court
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -1 -13 (Request A) 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 / were no protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS the relief applied for MU 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; and
NOW. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-
13-13 {Request A) be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 3.00-square foot variance to allow 27%
building coverage in R- I for the construction of ajetached garage.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The building coverage variance is not expected to 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 unusual shape of the lot results in a unique physical hardship.
4. A previous property owner built out the lot to the maximum building coverage, so the
alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having all interest in the
property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
91
M
91
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The location of the garage be consistent with Exhibit I subject to staff review and
approval through review of a building permit.
2. The architecture, and design of the garage be consistent with scale, massing, and roof
pitch of the horne and existing two-car garage, subject to staff review and approval
through review of a building pert-nit.
City of
W heatlidge
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
(as required pursuant to Code Section 26- 109.D)
July 8, 2013
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA -13 -13 which is a request for approval for the following
variance requests to allow a detached structure on property zoned Residential -One (R -1) and
located at 2845 Otis Court. These requests will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of
Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on
July 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
A request for a 12 -foot (80 %) variance from the 15 -foot side setback requirement resulting
in a 3 -foot setback,
• A request for a l 0 -foot (66 %) variance from the 15 -foot rear setback requirement resulting
in a 5 -foot setback, and
• A request for approval of a 300 square foot variance to allow 27% building coverage.
As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and /or
submit written comments. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public
meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer
at 303 -235 -2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating
and need inclusion assistance.
If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at
303 - 235 -2846. Thank you.
Planning Division.
WA1313.doc
www.d.wheatridge.co.us
Vicinity Map
I
.I
3
RI
Iy
r
u
r
m
G
J O J
�1
GO►.l R ETE
�TRD
All
E?RiCK
i
1
� 0
N 0
y
w
o
A A �{ o
C
' fN
i I m n ► /
n � +
e /10 —
go --
28AS OTiS GOVRT
D
N
�6` U�
CAVANAUGH SANDY GUINN
6760 W 29TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
CO OVA JOE M
CORDOVA PAULINE E
2840 NEWLAND CT
2820 NEWLAND CT
WHEAT AWrx-g-*w
7005 0390 0003 7953 1529 WHEA T P Tnr�TZ rn RO? 1 7005 0390 00-0-3- 7953 1543
% 10 0 3 7 9 5 3
DREW JOSEPH S
DREW MARLENE F
6660 W 29TH AVE I
4 *, -To � C., QA 1 • A; 3, A
1
101 affyin "AlKsElf 110A
i , 10
HUGHES MYRNA J
2800 PIERCE ST
givoy,
7005 0390 0003 7953 1642
LARSON GWEN A
6645 W 28TH AVE
LITWEITILI-IGE CIA 8029
W=l
LACHMAN DONNA R
2855 OTIS CT
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
7005 0390 0003 7953 1666
LILLY BRETT R
6730 W 29TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
7009 2820 0002 5547 6513
LINDGREN PAUL H
MADRON PEARL A
MCGLOTHLEN CECIL T
6750 W 29TH AVE
2830 NEWLAND CT
MCGLOTHLEN SALLY D
LAKEWOOD CO 80214
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
2835 OTIS CT
,020 0002 5547 6520
-4
0 ,0112 r,54?
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
- 6s3?
�109 2820 0002 5547 6544
MCGRATH CATHERINE I
MCKELVEY RUTH M
— J 4 f(56 - f BRADFORD T
2751 PIERCE ST
JOHNSON MARLENA RAE
2830 OTIS CT
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
2765 PIERCE ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
?009 2820 0002 5547 6551
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
7009 2820 0002 5547 6575
RAU JOHN P
2820 0002 5547 6568
R DA
RENCEHAUSEN ARTHUR L
RAU BETTY L
2690 PIERCE ST
2810 PIERCE ST
2800 NEWLAND CT
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
20 000 2 5547-2508,---"��
-3 820 0002 5547 2515
' 0002 5547 6582
peter
Reprier a la 'hatbut* affn de
Utilisez legabarit AVERY 0 51600
Sens de
charooment r6v6ler le rebord P
www.av".<om
1 -800-GO-AVERY
DRE MARLENE ELLIS MICHAEL JR
6660 TH AVE 6800 W 29TH AVE
WHEAT GE CO 80214 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
7005 0390 0003 7953 1567
GLASER DANIEL R
GLASER DANIELE H
2860 PIERCE ST
WHEAT RIT)CM rn Rm I A
7005 0390 0003 7953 1598
HERGENRETER STAN R
HERGENRETER SHARON
2835 NEWLAND CT
WHEAT R IDGM ro Rn? 1 4
70050390 0003 7953 1628
INCIMCHICK KENT A
MUROVYCHZORYANA
2865 OTIS CT
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80?1,4
7005 0390 0003 7953 1635
KELLEIGH WALTER V
KELLEIGH FAITH
6680 W 28TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGF CO Ro? I A
1 190 0003 7953 1659
11W JOSHUA
2801 PIERCE ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
7005 0390 0003 7953 1680
easy Peel@ Labels
Use AveryO Tomplate 5
A Send along line to ' W
I -M AVERY0,51600
expose Po.p-up Edge'*
I f
,ttiqu#ttes fa A ciles A peter I Ripfibz A 14 I hathut* afin de www.avory.tam
I ens d charoeme
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY` & 5160 1 a r6v6ler le rebord Pop-upTm I I 1-800-GO-AVERY
I nt
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The full text of this notice is available in electronic form on the City's official website,
www.ci.wheatridge.co.US, Legal Notices. Copies are also available in printed form in the
Community Development Department.
Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript, July 8, 2013
The following petition shall be heard:
Km 2 Zm a A Mihistrative AmJstant
IIM
At
47
00
w
oa,
( 00
no
w
A 4
City of
Wh6atRj�idge-
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. WA -13 -13
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE: Thursday, July 25, 2013
r (name)
residing at
(address)
as the applicant for Case No. WA- 13 -13, hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of
Public Hearing at 2845 Otis Court
(location)
on this 11 m day of July 2013, and do hereby certify that said sign has been
posted and remained in place for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled
day of public hearing of this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on
the map below.
Signature:
NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the
applicant's case file at the Community Development Department.
MAP
Lauren Mikulak
From: Lauren Mikulak
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:29 PM
To: hicountrysales@comcast.net
Subject: Variance Update
Attachments: July 25 BOA Mtg Agencla.pc1f; WA1313 BOA Staff Report.pdf
Frank,
This email is an update on your variance request. As you know, we are scheduled for a public hearing this Thursday, July
25. The meeting begins at 7pm in City Council chambers (first floor), Based on our previous conversation, it sounded like
someone would be representing you at the meeting. This is fine and I have included below a quick description of the
order of events,
There are two cases being presented • Thursday, and yours is first on the agenda. For your reference, I've attached
copy of the meeting agenda and a copy of the staff report. The report was distributed to board members last week, so
they will make a decision based on this report and any testimony at the meeting. Please skim through to make sure tha
the facts are represented correctly.
At the meeting my supervisor, Senior Planner Meredith Reckert, will be presenting your case with a brief powerpoint
presentation. The Board will ask her questions after the presentation, then they will ask if the applicant has any
comments to make. They may have some questions for you/your representative. The board then discusses the case a
makes a motion. Once they have voted on your requests, you can leave, you don't have to stay for the second case.
Be well,
city 0(
Wfi;6
CoximuNrry Ofyr,
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business-confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any
network to which your computer is connected. Thank you.
Lauren Mikulak
From: Lauren Mikulak
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:25 AM
To: hicountrysales@comcast.net
Subject: Variance Follow-up
.6 W
In analyzing your request it became apparent that a third variance request would need to be included, The total amount
of buildings in the R-1 zone district cannot exceed 25% of the lot area. With the proposed garage, you would be at
27%. Additionally, there is a 5-foot easement along the back property line, and permanent structures cannot be located in
an easement area, Because you indicated a rear setback of 3 to 6 feet, staff can support a 5-foot setback which would
align with the easement.
I
Request A: Request for approval of a 12-foot (80%) variance from the 15-foot side setback requirement for a
detached structure in R-1 (resulting in a 3-foot setback),
Request B: Request for approval of a 1 0-foot (66%) variance from the 15-foot rear setback requirement for a
detached structure in R-1 (resulting in a 5-foot setback).
Request C: Request for approval of a 300 square foot variance to allow 27% building coverage in R-1
Please let me know if you have any questions. The next meeting of the Board of Adjustment is July 25 at 7pm. You (or a
representative) would need to be in attendance at this meeting, In order to be included on this agenda, I will need to know
that you are moving forward no later than July 8.
City r)f
]�P�Wfieatf,4* e.
CommuNrry Dt"N'tUMMUNT
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business-confidential information, It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. if you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited, if you received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any
network to which your computer is connected. Thank you.
Summary of Existing and Proposed Conditions
The property is located at 2845 Otis Court and is zoned Residential-One (R-1). Based on the
subdivision plat, the parcel has an area of 13,750 square feet. The lot currently contains a one-
story single-family home, which according to Jefferson County records was constructed in 1 954.
In addition to the home, the lot includes a detached two-car garage and a storage shed.
The following table compares the required R- I development standards with the actual and
proposed conditions:
R-1 Development Standards:
Required
Actual
Lot Area
12,500 square feet (min)
I,750 uare feet
Lot Width
100 feet Sp��
90 feet
_Pr 2 �osedDelached Garage
R trt, ed
Pro nosed
Building Coverage
27%
.Side Setback (north)
15 feet
jmin )_
5 feet
Rear Setback west)
15 feet
'min
3 feet
Front Setback (east)
±90 feet
In 1978, two setback variances were approved by the Board of Adjustment. These variances
allowed reduced setbacks from the northern property line for the detached garage and a home
addition (per Case No. WA-78-35). Since the construction of the addition and the garage in the
1970s, building coverage on the lot has been the maximum 25%.
The current owner purchased the property in 2001, and is seeking to construct a second detached
garage in the northwest comer of the property to accommodate storage for additional items.
These would include a vehicle or trailer which are otherwise in the driveway and visible from the
right-of-way. The proposed garage would be 12'x 24' (288 square feet) which is considered a
standard size for a single car garage.
Because the northern property lin e extends northwest at an 18' angle from the front property
line, the garage will have a 3-foo "et ack at the closest point and will get increasingly farther
away from the north lot line. It will have about an 8-foot setback at the northwest comer.
Regarding the rear setback, the applicant has proposed the setback to be between 3 and 6 feet. A
1978 site plan indicates a 5-foot easement along the western property line, and for this reason
staff is recommending a minimum 5-foot rear setback to align with the easement.
Although the proposed garage would be relatively close to the property lines for the R-1 zone
district, several factors reduce the impact on neighbors. An existing 6-foot privacy fence will
provide some visual relief. Properties to the west also have vehicle storage and garage uses
along the shared rear property line—the properties at 2850 and 2860 Pierce Street both appear to
have garages with nonconforming rear setbacks that will buffer the respective back yards from
the proposed garage (Exhibit -7, Aerial).
It may be possible to construct the new garage immediately west of the existing garage with no
need for a variance. The applicant has expressed, however, that this option is less desirable for
several reasons. This scenario would mean the new garage door faces to the north and would
result in an acute turning angle from the existing driveway. This could be difficult to navigate,
particularly with a trailer in tow. In addition, this location would consume usable yard space and
may require the removal of at least one mature tree. It is not practical to put the proposed garage
elsewhere in the backyard or on the southern side of the property since this would require a
second driveway to be installed (Exhibit 3,'' Sit e"Photos).
Variance Criteria
The potential applicant has supplied site plans and responses to the variance criteria; below is an
initial analysis of how each criterion is fulfilled. For the purpose of this courtesy review the first
set of criteria address the two setback variances and the second set address the building coverage
variance.
Request A: Request for approval of a I2 -foot (80%) variance from the 15 -foot side setback
requirement for a detached structure in R -1.
Request B: Request for approval of a 10-foot (66%) variance from the 15-foot rear setback
requirement for a detached structure in R- I -
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.
A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. While the proposed setbacks
are narrow especially for the R -1 zone district, the impacts to neighbors is expected to be
minimal. As described above, adjacent properties also have detached garages with
reduced setbacks along the shared rear property line.
The proposed structure will not be very visible from Otis Court, but may improve the
character of the street by allowing enclosed storage of large items that are currently
stored on the side of the property and visible from the public right-of-way.
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.
Staff finds this criterion has been met
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the
sR• cific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the
owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the
regulations were carried out.
The unique condition that affects this property relates to the shape of the lot. The
northern lot line is slanted resulting in a lot width of 90 feet at Otis Court and 130 feet at
the rear lot line.
The sloped lot line results in a triangular area that helps the property to meet R- I lot size
standards but ultimately results in all unusually shaped lot with an underutilized
northwest comer. Because the structures on the site are all parallel with Otis Street and
not with the northern property line, it is especially difficult to meet the 15-foot side
setback along the northern property line.
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 proposed garage with respect to the
existing structures and R- I setback requirements. Because the current owner neither
platted the lot, nor constructed the existing home and garage in their current locations, the
difficulties have not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
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. It would not cause all
obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets, nor would it impede the sight distance
triangle. The portion of the garage within 5 feet of the northern property line will need to
be fire rated, so it will not increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The
garage may in fact have a positive affect on the neighborhood by allowing covered
storage of large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from
the public right-of-way.
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.
Because Otis Court and Newland Court were constructed as a looped road, there are six
lots in the neighborhood with unusual shapes and irregular lot lines. The subject lot is
among the smallest of these sites, so it is particularly constrained.
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
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.
Request C: Request for approval of a 300 square foot variance to allow 27% building coverage
inR- 1.
I 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.
A building coverage variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The
maximum building coverage in the R-I zone district is 25%; this translates to 3437.5
square feet on the subject property. Proposed lot coverage is 27% or 3727 square feet.
This difference is so small it will likely be imperceptible.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with thi
application, which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which would not be
possible without the variance. Building coverage on the property is currently at 25% so
no additional structures of any type—including the proposed garage—can be built
without a variance.
Staff finds this criterion has been met
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the
specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the
owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the
regulations were carried out.
The unique condition that affects this property relates to the shape of the lot. As
mentioned above, the northern lot line is slanted resulting in a lot width of 90 feet at Otis
Court and 130 feet at the rear lot line.
The triangular area that results from the slanted northern lot line results in a lot that meets
R-1 lot size standards, but it doesn't provide significantly more uwable square footage.
If the northern and western lot lines were perpendicular, the site would be a regular
rectangular shape with a lot area that may not require a building coverage variance.
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 shape and size of the property with respect to existing
improvements. It was a previous property owner that built out the lot to the maximum
25% building coverage. For this reason and because the current owner did not plat the
lot, the difficulties have not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
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. It would not cause an
obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets, nor would it impede the sight distance
triangle. The portion of the garage within 5 feet of the northern property line will need to
be fire rated, so it will not increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The
garage may in fact have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered
storage of large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from
the public right -of -way.
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.
Because Otis Court and Newland Court were constructed as a looped road, there are six
lots in the neighborhood with unusual shapes and irregular lot lines. It does not appear,
however, that any of these lots have been built out to the maximum 25% building
coverage.
Staff finds that this criterion has not been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person
with disabilities.
Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building
codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth
in the Architectural and Site Design Manual:
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family
dwelling units.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable
Based on initial analysis, it appears that an application to allow setback and building coverage
variances for a detached single -car garage would meet a majority of the criteria.
If the variance is approved, the following condition is recommended:
- The design and architecture of the proposed garage be similar in character to the existing
house and garage, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building
permit.
Exhibit 1— Proposed Site Plan
RwEwPM
DATE M$ 27�20n 1 FIEF _ qn - nn JOB M g7 _
MORTGAGE CO DASU ML1 rGAGE
LAND S U R V E Y I N G
ADDRESS T�S rT
5460 WARD ROAD • SUITC 160
BORROWERS NAME -WILSM
ARVADA. COLORADO 80002
13031 420.4789
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Attn: CINDY S.
frew
LOT S.
CIRCLE V� EW F /;P=
COUNTY F JVF�EF:E:M
STATE OF CD�.r]ltr;t't�
`v JS I
SGALE. 1 ' ZO
�oJ9
BRICK
VE
.>A �
in GARACa�
�
-
CC'A
N
N .
N
3'S
I
r
•1
N
h
2
Y v l
-- o
t
nor s
a�
fi �~= _�
s'p
3
o m
Vi o
9
(/' 3•
I
Q Ol
` — Vol
�
1yn•
JJ
N
DI
O
�1
ry
soft
123
Exhibit 2—Acrial of 2845 Otis Court
-STH A,
lw_t
Exhibit 3 —Site Photos
Looking north from behind the existing garage. The proposed location for the garage is where
the two trailers are located. The less desirable alternate location is in the foreground behind the
existing garage, but this would likely require removal of the mature tree (left).
Looking west at the rear property line. The proposed location would consume an otherwise
underutilized corner of the property. This image also shows the proximity of a neighbor's garage
(behind the fence) which also has a reduced setback.
1
it
a
> l
a
1�
M
r
e
CERTIFICATION (IF RESOLUTION
I , Elsie tbrley necretar." to the City of Wheat Ri4te Board of Adjustment, do
hereby certify tbat the following rcs�Iution was duly held in the County of Jefferson,
State of Colorado on the daY of
CASE NO. ; NA
APPLICANT'S NAME- P 4 U41* Ai*110
LOCATION: 2945 Otis Court
MIEREAS the "lipf Annli^A frt — I.. .--.-A - , -
�r art
goard of Adjustment
Adjustment
M! UII ---
GENERAL INFORMATION
Schedule: 022586 Parcel ID: 39-253-15-023 Print HeI12
Status: Active Property Type: Residential
Property Address: 02845 OTIS CT
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80214
ILSON FRV L
KEARNEY ELISE
Mailing Address: SAME ADDRESS AS PROPERTY om
Neighborhood: 2405 - BARTHS, COULEHAN GRANGE, WHEAT RIDGE AREA
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Subdivision Name: 128400 - CIRCLE VIEW PARK
i
13YS /
PROPERTY INVENTORY
Property Type RESIN Year Built: 1954 Adjusted Year Built: 1971
Design: Ranch Improvement Number: J2
&N�' M1
1 M-
TAX INFORMATION
2014
�gDeed
ge
Actual Value�'
-- Assessed Va
in.
# ' E" dam �
mmymm.m.
TAX INFORMATION
2014
Actual Value�'
-- Assessed Va
in.
F 261 - 2 Payable 2013
7-
Asses ed Value
View Mill Levy Detail For Year
I
1 Mill Levy Information
Treasurer-laf maLian-
--- --- qL • ZWMZE !
LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
C
I ommunity Development Department
7500 West 29 Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846
(Please print or type all information)
Applicant I
I<— w Addres s Phone
Cit State Zi
P F ax
Owner,
City
Address
-----
State - Zip
■
Zip Fax
(The person listed as contact w o a
ill be contacted tnswer questions regarding this application, provide additioZi — in Fo�tnation
public hearing signs, will receive a cop) ol'the statTreport prior to Public }-fearing. and shall be responsible for fionvarding all verbal and written
communication to applicant and owner.)
Location of request (address):
f
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request)
Application subminal requirements on reverse sale=
0 Change of zone or zone conditions 0 Special Use Permit 0 Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less)
0 Consolidation Plat 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots)
771 Flood Plain Special Exception 0 Site Plan approval 01 Use, Building, Sign
0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Concept Plan approval X Variance/Waiver (from Section 2 (v ry
71 Planned Building Group 0 Right of Way Vacation 0 Other-
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 with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above,
without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners
MUSt Submit power-of-attorneyfrqrn the oNyno whicb, action on his behalf.
Signature of Applicant
To be filled out by staff-
day of
20 /3
runission expires
g �
Date received e7k,312-013 Fee S Reccipt loo , CascNo
Comp Plan Desig., Zonin
Quarter Section Map
Related Case Pre-App N4tg, Date____, A Case Manager
Required information:
Assessors Parcel Number
Size of Lot (acres or square f ootage):
�ootage):
Proposed Zonin i
Current g I kl
Current Use: Proposed Use: �r
Lauren Mikulak, here is my brief Narrative. I would like to build a single car garage on my property at
2845 Otis Court. Why, I want to park a vehicle in it!
A. It would yield a reasonable return, if we were to sell. We own our home and have no intention
of leaving. Just want a third bay to park a vehicle.
9=
Frank Wilson
2845 Otis Court
Wheat Ridge, CO 80214
303-506-1800
Lase N. W41 Data n--d 7/3/2013 Related Ca Case Planner Ki,dak
Case D c—pb- Ge W nrlovo 27% building Go A R-1,
Request A - Request for approval of a 12-faot(SO ) variance fromt he 15 -foot side setback requirement for a detached structure in R- I (resuking in a 3-foot setback)
Request B - Request for approval of a 14 -foot (66'ra' variance from the 15-foot rear setback requirement f6t a detached structure in R- I (resulting in a 5-foot setback)
.............. . ..... Request - Request for apprm-al of a 300 square foot variance to allow _ bdding coverage in R -1 . .......... ....................... ......................
Afipkwvrfr ImWm"R
........... . ................... -
Nam [ Wilson Name , Phone i'�
........................ .................. I ..............
Address I2845 oti" 6. City Wheat Prdye State 00 Zip 180214-
..............................
----------
anvwljwlbwadirry
Nernst Fradc Wism
. ............................
Nettle
...............................
. .........
Ptrorre
Address A45 Otis Cf.
city
.................
Whea 1 idge
..... .... .. .................
................
State ZP f1JJF2i4_ ..........
hW&vAAI*w
Name !
f2wsxi�i
Address 12��Otis D.
..........
City
.................. ............ ............
7
. . . . ............................
. .......
State Zip
..... ......
Address 2845
Street 'Otis Ct.
city at Ridge State CO Zip 80214
Location Description
-- - --------
Project Name
- __
Parcel No Qlt Section District No
Parcel No.
39.253-15-023 Qtf Section r SW25 District No 'I
3925315023.SW25
I
L_J
.......................
Reviavrr
- -_ - ------
......... ..
Pre-App Date
Neighborticrod Meeting Date 1
App No:
Review Type
Review Body
Review Date Disposition
Comments Report
Public Heag
BOA
..................... . ..
flispnriliovr
Case Disposition 0 isp-tion D ate
Z
Condttions of Approval
Res 4 Ord
. ... ...... .......... . ....
Notes
Storage:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
07/03113 8:37 AM edbb
Hi Country Sales
RECEIPT NO:CDB009064 AMOUNT
cMSD ZONING APPLICATION F 480.00
ZONE
PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT
CK 1992 480.00
TOTAL 480.00
...............................
M 'rAt- :S+AEb
� r
V e
R1G}<
tv
, IV,
tv
7
M 'rAt- :S+AEb
� r
Raw
.11
#
A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if
permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is
located.
B, The variance would not after the essential character of the locality,
C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which
would not be possible without the variance.
D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience,
E, If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created
by any person presently having an interest in the property.
0)
m
m
X
m
m
x
cn
m
m
�71
0
X
m
X
0
M
0
Z -n
z
m
x
cn
0
z
co
X
z
(7)
m
z
--4
X
m
--q
z
0
5
m
m J�l
M( ODTF
�Ozo
-Amz
oom;u
o MA
o
OD
Z -
C
om 0>
i
m
m
_0
X
0
m
X
w Q)
•
(OM
0 0)
m
•
•
f.
o cnvs
u 0 ftl ftl o s w c � n n
00 WPOOW< zx:z
u �4
v
tn 4 tj �< 0 t-4
4) 0 t
< w m
tq n n t! 0
x 0 U)
•
Vi
X
�! wO—o 3
CL
ko
W
C W
0 =4 4 0
0 •
0
c C ocoo w 0
-j
Q �
Oj
IQ
'0 0
Q*
C 0 CD C> 0 0
c
(A (nq
W
4
to
Pool
L
0
u
In
I
I
I
CT
C>
OD
CV
ko
W
>
m
-j
Q �
m 0 co kD w (.P --j (�n 0 C) �10
Q*
C 0 CD C> 0 0
z
In
I
I
I
CT
C>
OD
CV
ko
W
>
m
-j
; �, xh
c
z
W
4
In
I
I
I
CT
C>
OD
CV
AfYR/.E"f9 ifdE"d°a'
e`Y
+ a'
1C(7 31 let
..
4 ... ,...
Ac1gh bars
Por th
Wes+
Ge, co,5 c
corner%
of IT) y PrOPeir*01eA line
�Ue�9l� bars
ro the Wes}
tq�-$� F/bm ry1y
Pro pe,
fill I,v\�
to Foo ce. I V\ P�Gfi,rc�
" �_
Pmrose4 G tie
Proposes