HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-13-06City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building
Julie Clark & David Bosley
3821 Holland Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Case No. "VGA -13 -06
7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge. CO 80033-8001 P: 303135,2846 F: 301235.2857
Dear Mr. Bosley and Ms. Clark:
Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance and staff report. All variance approvals
automatically expire within 180 days of the date approval unless a building permit for the variance
is been obtained within such period of time. 'rhe expiration date for this variance approval is
November 19, 2013.
Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions.
Sincerely,
Lauren Mikulak
Planner 11
www.6m heatridge.co.us
WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 3821 Holland
Street referenced as Case No. WA -13 -0 / Bosley; 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 I'-7V variance from the maximum fence height
standards resulting in a 7'-7!/2" tall fence with 8'-7!/,." tall fence posts, and a 2-foot side setback
variance from the 15-foot setback requirement for a minor accessory structure on property in the
Residential-One (R -1) zone district (Case No. WA -13 -06 / Bosley), is granted for property located at
3821 Holland Street, based on the following findings of fact:
With the following conditions:
1. The design of the fence and pergola shall be consistent with the provided exhibits.
2, The fence height variance applies only to those portions of fence along the southern property
line and those which are parallel to Holland Street.
3. A building permit shall be tained for the pergola and all portions of the fence over 6 feet in
height. r
Johnstone,
Date
1* � 4 41
1W W, / k- iry or
Wh6atPi:Ldge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Community Development Director DATE: May 14, 2013
CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak
CASE NO. & NAME: WA -13 -06 / Bosley
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of two variances on property located at 3821 Holland Street and
zoned Residential -One: A) a 1' -7' /z" variance from the maximum fence height
standards resulting in a 7' -7' /i" tall fence with 8' -7' /z" tall fence posts, and B) a
2 -foot side setback variance from the 15 -foot setback requirement for a minor
accessory structure in the R -1 zone district.
LOCATION OF REQUEST
APPLICANT(S):
OWNER(S):
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
3821 Holland Street
David Bosley
David Bosley and Julie Clark
13,873 square feet (0.32 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 -06 I Bosley
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an
administrative decision.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of two variances requests:
Request A: Approval of a I' -7' /z" (27 %) variance from the maximum fence height standards
resulting in a 7' -7'/2" tall fence with 8' -7'/z" tall fence posts, and
Request B: Approval of a 2 -foot (13 %) side setback variance from the 15 -foot setback
requirement for a pergola (minor accessory structure) in the R -I zone district.
Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of
Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict
application of the zone district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the
standard.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicant, David Bosley, is requesting a variance as the property owner of 3821 Holland Street.
The property is one lot north of W. 38` Avenue (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The variance is being requested so
the property owner may complete the installation of a new perimeter fence and a pergola on the north
side of the property.
The parcel has an area of 13,873 square feet and currently contains a one - story, single - family home
with a partially finished walk -out basement. According to Jefferson County records, the house was
constructed in 1961. The property is zoned Residential -One (R -1) and meets all development
standards for a single - family home in the R -1 zone district.
The applicant would like to construct a fence at a height of 7' -7'/�" with posts at a height of 8' -7' /Z"
(one foot taller) along the southern property line and at the northeast and southeast corners of the
house. Elsewhere on the property (along the western and northern property lines) the fence will
comply with the 6 -foot maximum height standard (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). Each component of the
variance request is summarized below:
South: To account for topographic changes, the entire southern property line (112 linear feet)
is proposed to have a taller fence. Although the fence design is not a solid privacy fence, the
additional height in this area would provide screening from the neighboring property
(9433 W. 38` Avenue) where the back patio is about 6 feet higher than the subject lot. The
applicant is also seeking additional screening from vehicular and pedestrian traffic on
W. 38` Avenue (Exhibit 3, South).
SE Corner: In the southeast corner of the property, a taller fence is proposed to make a
smoother visual transition between the front of the home and the fence on the southern property
line. A higher fence in this area will also provide screening from W. 38`' Avenue which is at a
higher elevation and within eyesight. This section of fencing will include a series of two wide
gates that are 6' -4" tall and are flanked on either side by the 7' -7' /z" fence. The lower height of
the gates will reduce the visual impact of the taller fence (Exhibit 4, SE Corner).
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -13 -06 /Bosley
NE Corner: In the northeast comer of the property, a retaining wall has been installed to
accommodate a garden bed. On top of the retaining wall, a fence is proposed to be 5 feet in
height which clues not require a variance. The retaining wall terminates about 4 feet from the
northern property line. In order to provide a continuous rail height, the applicant has proposed
a 7' -7' fence between the retaining wall and the northern property line .
Pergola: A 48- square foot pergola structure is proposed over the gate on the northeast corner
of the property ,� f ft t ME, " The pergola is classified in the zoning code as a minor
accessory structure, and in the R -1 zone district requires a 15 -foot side setback. The applicant
is requesting a 2 -foot (13 %) variance allowing the pergola to be constructed at a 13 -foot
setback from the posts to the property line. The purlins will overhang into the setback an
additional 18" which is permitted by Section 26-611.
Based on the proximity of the house and minimum acceptable gate widths, there are no
alternative designs that could meet the minimum setback. Given that the structure is open on
all sides and relatively small in size, it is not likely to have a significant visual impact.
The primary reason for the variance requests is based on the topography of the lot. The change in
elevation on the site is about S feet from north to south. From W. 38 Avenue to the north property
line of the site, the grade change is nearly 24 feet
During the public notification period, no objections were received regarding the variance request. The
neighbor immediately to the north (:3835 Holland Street) expressed support for the request and the
investments that the applicant has made in the property.
Administrative fiariance
C ase Xo, TV,'4- 1 -()6 r'Bos1ev
HUM
In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine
that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been
met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance
f allowing review and analysis of the
criteria q eqygg). Staff provides the f
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 locality.
The design of the fence is unique, but is not in conflict with any design standards in the zoning
code. Instead of a traditional privacy fence, applicant has proposed horizontal rails which are
spaced apart with 3 1 /�" gaps. The open design of the fence may reduce the visual impact of the
fence height variance.
As described above, the reason for the variance request is based primarily on the topography of
the lot. There will be no impact on the property to the south (9433 W� 38"') where the back
patio is at least 6 feet higher than the subject fence. For tile taller sections offence which
parallel Holland Street, the visual impact will be limited by the relatively short spans of these
sections.
Staff finds this criterion has been rnet.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
While the proposed fence is an investment in the property, it would be possible to build a
perimeter fence at 6 feet, without the need for a variance. A shorter fence would comply with
height standards and would offer some—albeit less—visual screening.
Staff finds this criterion has not 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.
Administrative Variance 4
Case No. IVA-13-06 / BosleY
While the size and shape of the property are not irregular, the topography of the lot is unique.
The attached topographic map shows a change in elevation of 14 feet fi•om W. 38 Avenue to
the northern property line. This negates the effectiveness of 6-foot fence along the southern
property line and in the southeast comer of the lot. The taller fence in the northeast comer is
also a result of elevation change and the location of a retaining wall.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
I i IIIIIII 1�11111� �pI III plippiII11111111
The hardship described above is based largely on the topography of the lot. Because the owner
has little control over the elevation change, the hardship was not created by the applicant or any
person currently having an interest in the property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The topographic conditions of the subject property are also present elsewhere along Holland
Street. The elevation drops from W. j8" Avenue to Clear Creek and is most dramatic at the
south end of the street by the subject property. Most of the properties in the neighborhood have
6-foot fences, but privacy is diminished in some areas because of the grade change M* 6"
7�kA*-
Staff finds that this criterion has been met.
Administrative Variance 5
CaseNo. TPA-13-06IBosle.Y
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 aDnlicable.
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.
If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The
property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of
the variance request.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The design of the pergola would not alter the character of the neighborhood and is compliance
with the intent of the zoning code. The structure identifies the entry into the backyard and
complements the design of the fence. It provides visual interest, and because it is open on all
sides, the setback encroachment is not likely to result in a significant visual impact.
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 proposed pergola is an investment which would be impossible to build without a variance.
The design feature is located over a 4-foot wide gate into the back yard. This is a standard
width for a gate and it is located as far from the property line as possible 04 i�j, E
The separation between the gate and the home is 2'-6" which is a minimum
acceptable distance to accommodate roof eaves and the pergola purlins.
Administrative Mariance 6
Case No. WA-13-06/BosleY
As described above, Section 26-611 of the zoning code allows for porches and patios which are
open on two sides to encroach into a minimum side yard up to one-third of the setback.
Because the pergola is a freestanding structure it does not qualify for this exception, however
the variance results in no greater impact than would be allowed for an open porch.
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.
While the size and shape of the property are not irregular, the hardship in this instance relates to
how the structure is classified in the zoning code. The pergola represents a design feature
which would be acceptable (with no need for a variance) if it were attached to the home.
Despite similar impacts, it requires a variance because it is a fteestanding structure.
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 hardship relates to the freestanding nature of the pergola design which is being proposed
by the property owner who has an interest in the property.
Staff finds this criterion has not been net
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and is not expected to injure
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result
of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The pergola would not impede the sight distance triangle
and would not increase the danger of fire. 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 properby.
Administrative ["ariance
CaseiVo, W,1-13-06/Bashl,
There are no unique conditions present in the neighborhood related to the request for a setback
variance.
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 Rn2oLtq2p1iK4bk-
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site De.vign Manual
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling
units.
Staff finds this criterion is not
R2LWRLcable-
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with a majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 1'-7 variance from the maximum fence height standards resulting in a 7%7,f -" tall
fence with 8'-7 tall fence posts, and a 2-foot side setback variance from the 15-foot setback
requirement for a minor accessory structure. Staff has found there are unique circumstances attributed
to this request that would warrant approval of the variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for
the following reasons:
1. The variances will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The topography of the lot results in a unique challenge and justifies the request for a taller
fence.
3. The impact of the setback variance is less than certain setback encroachments which are
permitted by the zoning code.
4. The open design of the fence and pergola will reduce the visual impact of the variances.
5. The requests will not be detrimental to public welfare.
6. During the public notification period no objections were received regarding the variance
requests.
With the following conditions:
1. The design of the fence and pergola shall be consistent with the provided exhibits.
2. The fence height variance applies only to those portions of fence along the southern property
line and those which are parallel to Holland Street.
3. A building permit shall be obtained for the pergola and all portions of the fence over 6 feet in
height.
A (fin inistrative Variance
Cave No. IYA-13-0618osleY
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -13 -06 /Boslev
a
C : {r 1
j �{ { . t :.+��
.�
:.3
The green highlighting indicates
1 the locations of the va requests. ,
E RNER
, fi: � f ► i � I A4
I
SE COR
0
SOUTH .._ —_
/ - -- -- _ - - -- -- yam- a -
— 7L -1 /_n Hua
M
EXHIBIT 3: SOUTH LOT LINE
The
The applicant provided an image that shows what the taller 7' -7' /s" fence would look like from inside
the suhiect site_
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -13 -06 / Bosley
This image shows a 6 -foot fence which is at the same height as the patio on the adjacent property.
applicant is requesting to build a fence that is 7' -7' /z" in height along the southern property line to
compensate for the topography and provide privacy.
EXHIBIT 4: SE CORNER
The applicant provided an image that shows what the taller 7' -7' /z" fence would look like from W. 38`
Avenue. It would provide privacy and screen outside storage.
Administrative Variance 1 '
Case No. WA -13 -06 / Bosley
A 6 -foot fence and gate have already been constructed.
Elevation view of southeast comer. A series of two gates are proposed—one parallel to the front
faqade of the home (shown below) and a second parallel to the back facade of the home (see site plan).
4 *! , n i", ' kA J .. ,,
13'
4-d
77
;zjr-. D
A—
"tog
T-7
.........
s�
Administrative Variance 13
Case No. WA-13-06 IBoslei!
EXHIBIT 5: NE CORNER
��oposed 13' setback
xr
i Yl
Administrative Variance 14
Case No. WA -13 -06 /Bosley
EXHIBIT 6: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
W
Administrative Variance 15
Case No. WA -13 -06 /Bosley
EXHIBIT 7: LETTERS of REQUEST
April 11, 2013
To: Meredith Reckert, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department
7500 West 29"' Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
From: David D. Bosley
3821 Holland Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
RE: Application for Administrative Variance for residential fence height increase.
Ms. Reckert,
My name is David Bosley and I, along with my wife Julie Clark, would like to respectfully request an
Administrative Variance for increasing the allowable fence height from 6' -0 "to 7' -7'/:" in height above
existing grade for the fence around our residence at 3821 Holland Street.
I initially met with a planner of the day in early winter 2012, and obtained the variance criteria package
relative to our proposed request. With the permission of the owners of the properties adjoining our lot,
we have already begun to remove and replace the aging 4' -0" chain link fence that was falling into
disrepair, and began construction of a new 6' -0" high fence. This new fence is constructed of both 6x6
and 4x6 cedar fence posts, with four evenly spaced cedar 2x8 rails and galvanized welded wire fence
mesh. The posts have all been left long during construction as we needed to begin construction prior to
applying for a height variance due to weather constraints and the needs of our garden beds. It is
proposed that all fence posts will be cut to 12" above the final fence height per Municipal Code Section
26 -603, subsection C, pending the final determination of the Planning Department.
Administrative Variance 16
Case No. WA -13 -06 /Bosley
1211lowing are the review criteria atd -:::: I i rr,
mm,: i':t t
d!u, the Communitt Development Department,
,IT that is taller then
6'-W in height. David Bosley has already been in contact with Kirk Cadotte, Senior Inspector/Plans
Examiner, City of Wheat Ridge Building Department to discuss this process in detail.
As the owners Or si - I
granting a height variance for the new fence around our property.
F-MIM
Application checklist, phOtOgrapn IMMOTFIRMT1
Residence, sheets AI-AS & P1 and Survey C-1.
95213M
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
I
Mafffflah'� �m - �
J OHN ■. AND
3820 HOYT ST
WHEAT RI CO 80 033
700 2822 000 5198 $8:0
EUGENE WILLIAM MCMILLAN
385 GARRRISON ST
y.< . .<.
2 2820 0002 5 1 9 1 0822
R OBERT . FRID
!. : F RIDLUND
HOLL
WHEAT RI e
700 2820 000 5 198 011
&
\cam ""'� «
S{
Kim Waggo
From:
Lauren Mikulak
Sent:
Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:37 AM
To:
Kim Waggoner
Subject:
RE: Variance
Also, the posting period is May 3 through May 13 and letters go to all adjacent properties —in this case 9 lots. Are you
comfortable just pulling these addresses from Jeffco?
K
From: Lauren Mikulak
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:32 AM
To: Kim Waggoner
Subject: Variance
For the noticing letter, please use the language below and the attached exhibits.
...a request for a two variances: A) a 2 -foot side setback variance from the 15 -foot setback requirement for a
minor accessory structure in the R -1 zone district and B) a 1' -7Y2" variance from the maximum fence height
1
Lauren E. Mikulak
Planner II
Office Phone: 303 - 235 -2845
City of'
" W COMMUNITY DEVELOPENT
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 3, 2013
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 13 -06, a request for two variances:
A) A 2 -foot side setback variance from the 15 -foot setback requirement for a
minor accessory structure in the R -1 zone district; and
B) A 1' -7'/2" variance from the maximum fence height standards resulting in
a 7' -7%2" tall fence with 8' -7%" tall fence posts on property located at 3821
Holland Street.
The attached site plan identifies the locations of the variance requests.
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 adjacent 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 13, 2013.
Thank you.
WA 1306.doc
www.d.wheatridge.co.us
VICINITY MAP
The subject site is 3821 Holland Street which is outlined in blue in the map below.
6 N\
English Customer Service USPS Mobile
Qu SNP A-Plackage sanl Mali
GET EVAL UPWIES PRINT OFTALS
YOUR LABEL NUMBER SERVICE STATUS OF YOUR ITEM
. ... .. . ...... .. - ------
Dellivered
I
Y N", C,
DATE & TIME LOCA"On FEATURES
.. .. .. ........ .. ... .... ..
May 13,2013,119 pm WHEAT MGF- 00 80033 Ceddiati Mal'
Ddvered
May 4,2013,1:20 pm
WHEAT PMGF, CC) 80033
Certified Mill'
Delivered
May 4, 2013, 12:25 pro
WHEAT WGIE, 00 80033
r Certified W1
Delivered
May 13, 2013,117 pm
BROONIELD, 00 80021
Owtified Mail'
Davered
tiny 9, 2013,9:26 am
WHEAT RDGF, 00 80033
Certified NUN'
Delivered
May 6, 2013, 1:52 pro
WHEAT PJDGF- 00 80033
Cartified Nta'
Delivered
May 4, 2013,12:24 pro
DMEP, 00 $0260
Certified kbl'
Check on Another Item
WrIat's your label (or receipt) numberl
Fi rol,
14 MI
Flr,vacy Poky
Term, of Use
FOV, >
No FEAR Act EFO Data
ON USPS.COM
Gove"Vnent semces
Buy Stamps & Shop r
Print a Labe w ith Postage
Custorner Service r
DoNering Sokifions to the Last,%te
Site kidex ,
ON ABOUT.USPS,COM
About USPS Hwyv:>
New Broom s
Wait Servwe L*dates
Formia & Pubbea' ksts
Careers r
OTHER LISPS SITS
Business Customer GaW way)
N,MM bIspectors,
hspectar Gewat
Postai &;krer �
T 11 10MIMMI MMM �1! Ir 1!
M=Ill'l��i!��l��ili�l!'I��i���ililllllllllll�l!�
From:
Kim Waggoner
Sent:
Monday, May 13, 2013 4:47 PM
To:
Lauren Mikulak
Subject:
WA-13-06
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Dustin Maschari
3835 Holland St.
720-480-7035
Mr. Maschari called to express his full support of the request. David Bosley and Julie Clark are outstanding neighbors
and have improved the property since they have lived there.
Kim Waggoner
Administrative Assisstant
7500 W, 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Office Phone: 303-235-2846
Fax: 303-235-2846
www.ci-wheatLLdg_e,co.us
Cilly <0
Wheat
jdge-,
C'ommum-ry 1XVttopmrw-'t
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This c-mail contains business-confidential inionnation. It is intended only tor the rise ofthe individual or entity trained above. Ifyo
are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, corrying, distribution, electronic s or use of this communication is prohibited. Ifyou received
this communication in effor, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message front Your computer, and any
network- to which your computer is connected, 'Thank you,
1
A
City of
']�W
LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
Community Development Department
7500 West 29 Avenue * Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 * Phone (303) 235-2846
(Please print or type all information)
Applicant Address
52-
L Phone
City ---- State c.a Zip
LO C, Fax� t,,A
Owner
Address Phone
CitY--. State Zap Fax
Contact — Address Phone
CitY---. State — Zip_ Fax
(The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additi information when necessary, post
public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written
communication to applicant and owner.)
Location of request (address): (AOLLk `W
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request)-
Appficafion suhmiffW requirements on reverse side
0 Change of zone or zone conditions
0 Special Use Permit
C3 Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less)
0 Consolidation Plat
rl Conditional Use Permit
0 Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots)
CI Flood Plain Special Exception
0 Lot Line Adjustment
0 Site Plan approval
0 Concept Plan approval
0 Temporary Use, Building, Sign
M Variance/Waiver (from Section v t3
0 Planned Bung Group
0 Right of Way Vacation
0 Other:
description of request:
M
at the information and exhibits herewith slATrji1Zcd arn ir re#=r1.kc.1Vta"
Signature of Applicant,
IF "M11 4 4 #
01, Public
0 ommission, expires
Em W.0 1
To be filled out by staff.
Date received
Comp Plan Desig.
Related Case No.
1 - W 1.
Fee $ Receipt N"n c ase No. _hL4LL�`,"
Zoning Quarter Section Map_
Pre-Apj -Date Case Manager
03-MOEM
zmmlM« a # «• �
R I �i I IN I I pi I
I • i I I
My name is David Bosley and 1, along with my wife Julie Clark, would like to respectfully request an
Administrative Variance for increasing the allowable fence height from 6'-O"to T-7 W in height above
existing grade for the fence around our residence at 3821 Holland Street.
III-Vill we unclersttan� I ewe OwmM lvzX-Wa
that we would need to *,roceed with obt��vi�nq Wkvm�'-
6'-0" in height. David Bosley has already been in contact with Kirk Cadotte, Senior inspector/Plans
Examiner, City of Wheat Ridge Building Department to discuss this process in detail.
As the owners of the re:i:: Apqn,'I "'31
M=
V - - UP VU I KI M-Fostey
Residence, sheets Al-A5 & P1 and Survey C-1.
Fig. 01) View of 6' -0" tall mock -up panel from Holland at property line.
Fig. 02) View of 6' -0" tall mock up panel looking towards 38 ` Ave.
Fig. 03) View of 6' -0" tall mock -up panel from NW corner of 38` Ave and Holland Street.
Fig. 04) View of T -7 %" tall mock -up panel from Holland at property line.
Fig. 05) View of T -7 %" mock -up panel looking towards 38 "' Ave.
r
���
.�..
�r
+...
�✓
{
- .r � ..e. -° _-
ision
7500 W 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
I
7rMances �remaffl=
ol =7
0 Fit Noz F2m47
SPEOIAL WAMAN'ry 3tp —
we
93
A
•
ti
•
me ft_L4tb day of _2tatphepd)L by
r & Steven W. TObin, Asst. Vice pre]
0 I'lle F209347
SPECIAL WARRAN7YD9j&L&jggjW,,,,aj,
W T ':►
�,
! i
I I
I I
I !
I �-
� I
I I
I !
LOT 15
I I
I
I I
I i
5' UTILITY
EASEMENT
LOT 16
LOT 17
I r
I i
I "I
u C
oI
0
IC) C I
I G;I
G�
I I
I I
I I
I (
i I
I
LOT 20
147? !`,
A3. I ilOH A D 5TPRi ET
0.33 acres ±
s
42.
LOT 18
NF CCK ;D-
� T =22 (# PFF AR)
r
cf�
r�
o
FOUND N.E. COR.N0,
I.OT # ! c' (#3 FIFDAR)
cD
0
N.A V.D. 88 ELEVATION
54 2 9, 5
(60' R /W)
o jor
� rra�yy
�J
LAID SURVEY PLAT
OF IQ, RESUBDIVISION OF FERNWOOD, I3EING A SUBDIVISION
i
OF THE S.W. % OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE
69 WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE
OF COLORADO.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RECEPTION #200 7138114
LOT 19, RESUDDIVISION OF FERNWOOD, COUNTY OF ,JEFFERSON,
STA'L'E OF COLORADO.
I
THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR OF THE PROPERTY
SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON TO DETERMINE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TRACT,
COMPATIBILITY OF THE DESCRIPTION WITH THOSE ADJACENT TRACTS, RIGHTS OF WAY,
EASEMENTS, CIVIL COURT ACTIONS OR ENCUMBRANCES OF R ;CORD,
THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT OR POLICY,
A TITLE COMMITMENT MAY DISCLOSE FACTS NOT REFLECTED IN THIS SURVEY.
! NOTICE:
ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED
UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AF`I`ER YOU FIRST DISCOVER
E SUCH DEFECT, IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE
COMMENCED MORE TILAN 1.0 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I CHRISTINE K. BRANING, A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE �iIATE OF COLORADO
DO HEREBY STATE TO DAVID BOSLEY THAT THE SURVEY REPRESENTED
BY THIS PLAT WAS DONE UNDER. MY SUPERVISION AND THE MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON ACTUALLY
EXIST AND THIS PLAT ACCURATELY REPRESENTS SAID SURVEY.
i
CHRIST INE K. BRANING RL.S. 27941 DALE FEBRUARY 6, 2013
! BRANING LAND SURVEYING 303-278— 1782
THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE PERSON, PERSONS, OR ENTITY
NAMED IN THIS CERTIFICATE HEREON. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
UNNAMED PERSON WITHOUT A RECERTIFICATION NAMING SAID PERSON,
THIS SURVEY IS VALID ONLY IF THE PRINT HAS THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR.
THIS IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT.
VALUES IN PARENTHESES ( ) DENOTE RECORD DIMENSIONS
NOTES:
1. LANDSCAPING AND ANY UNDERGROUND FEATURE SUCH AS SPRINKLERS OR
BURIED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN AND ARE NOT PART OF THIS CERTIFICATION.
LEGEND
0 FOUND #5 REBAR AND ALLOY CAP, L.S. 2928
® SET #4 REBAR AND ORANGE CAP , L.S. 27941
FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I
DATE: April 26, 20113
SUBJECT: Potential Administrative Variance for 3821 Holland Street
The applicant would ideally like to construct a fence at a height of 7' -7' 2" with posts at a height
of '- 7 1 / , ." ( one foot taller) around the entire perimeter of the site. At a minimum the applicant is
requesting a taller fence in three areas: along the southern property line and at the northeastern
and southeastern corners (Exhibit ?, Site flan),
Regarding the post height, Section 26 -643.0 allows support columns, poles or pasts to be
"constructed up to one (1) foot higher than the permitted fence heights." The applicant's final
design proposes posts that are 1 -foot taller than the final fence height around the entire perimeter.
For those sections of fence which are limited to 6 feet in height, posts can be 7 feet tall. For
1c, k o /t I
r
those sections of fence which are proposed to be 7'-7 tall, the applic t is proposing posts
which would be 8'-7 tall. [Note: Would the post height require a va iance, or is 7-7%
considered the "perinittedftnce height " and the taller past is there ,fore allowed ky code?]
The applicant has already constructed a 6-foot fence around the perimeter of the backyard, and
the Community Services Team has been in touch with the applicant because the posts currently
exceed the maximum pen height. The applicant has indicated that posts will be cut down
once a variance has been decided upon and permitted fence heights have been determined.
Variance Analysis
The applicant has supplied site plans and responses to the variance criteria; below is an initial
analysis of how each criterion is fulfilled. For clarity, the variance request is separated into six
components—each is identified on the attached site plan and described below. A more
traditional criteria analysis will be completed if the applicant submits a fon variance request.
It appears this request does meet a majority of the criteria:
El No return in use w/o WA
0 Substantial investment not possible w/o
Hardship not self-imposed
Conditions in neighborhood (topo)
Z WA doesn't change character
WA Unique physical hardship (topo)
WA not detrimental
It appears this request does meet a majority of the criteria:
No return in use w/o WA
Substantial investment not possible w/o WA
Hardship not self-imposed
Conditions in neighborhood (topo)
WA doesn't change character
Unique physical hardship (topo)
WA not detrimental
NE Corner: In the northeast comer of the property, a retaining wall has been installed to
accommodate a garden bed. On top of the retaining wall, a fence is proposed to be 5 feet in
height which does not require a variance. The retaining wall terminates about 4 feet from the
P
northern property line, so in order to provide a continuous rail height, the applicant has proposed
a 7'-7!/-." fence between the retaining wall and the northern property line (Exhibit S, NE Corner).
It appears this request does meet a majority of the criteria:
EJ No return in use w/o WA 0 WA doesn't change character
El Substantial investment not possible w/o WA 0 Unique physical hardship (topo)
0 Hardship not self-imposed 9 WA not detrimental
R1 Conditions in neighborhood (topo)
Pergola: A 48-square foot pergola structure is proposed over the gate on the northeast comer of
the property. The pergola is classified in the zoning code as minor accessory structure, and in
the R- I zone district requires a 15-foot side setback. The applicant is requesting a 2-foot (13%)
variance to allow the pergola to be constructed at a 13-foot setback. The purfins will overhang
into the setback an additional 18" which is permitted by Section 26-611.
Based on the proximity of the house and minimum acceptable gate widths, there are no
alternative designs that could meet the minimum setback. Given that the structure is open on all
sides and relatively small in size, it is not likely to have a significant visual impact; however
there appears to be no physical features that result in a unique hardship as distinguished fi a
mere inconvenience (Exhibit 5, NE Corner).
It appears this request does not meet a majority of the criteria:
El No return in use w/o WA T WA doesn't change character
O' Substantial investment not possible w/o WA ❑ Unique physical hardship
hardship not self-imposed (V WA not detrimental
0 Conditions in neighborhood .1
West: A fence along the western lot line would be perpendicular to the elevation change on the
property, so topography does not necessitate a taller fence (Exhibit 1, Topo Map). This fence
would affect the character of the neighborhood.
3
4
Exhibit 1— Topographic Map
HIM
6' fence
Exhibit 2 - Site Plan 6' 4" to top (of gate
fa 6,vhrY. -- I
- �T 7.5 fen ce
co ri' Ni
rt
----
NE RNER
(eqw) iOLA
�' � � i - -t - -- - - -- -- FP�f 1#R-t� i � I
0
iS 7=
WEST
Lu
- Z
its i ,; �� !
tu~ WON
; A
SE CORNER
Ti
SOUTH
OWN M 1044�0
•
It 11, Y
X
-17
-7n
Exhibit 3 —South
The applicant provided an image that shows what the taller 7' -7'h" fence would look like from
inside the subject site.
n
This image shows a 6 -foot fence which is at the same height as the patio on the adjacent
property. The applicant is requesting to build a fence that is 7' -7%" in height along the southern
property line to compensate for the topography and provide privacy.
Exhibit 4 —SE Corner
The applicant provided an image that shows what the taller T -T/2" fence would look like from
W.38 Avenue.
7
A 6 -foot fence and gate have already been constructed.
Elevation view of southeast corner
- L t
-- i 13' —
w+
n Gar- r�Va7l oa
s s�
AA
n
I
S�
x �
q �
A-3 !1
r
9
Exhibit 5 —NE Corner & Pergola
v
° ;
13 setback
--
-�
--
K_
I j
9
Exhibit 5 —NE Corner & Pergola
Exhibit 6 —North
The grade change is less dramatic between the subject property and the neighbor to the north.
Because the property at 3825 Holland is lower, a 7' -7' /s" on the northern property line could
appear especially tall.
Lauren Mikulak
From: Lauren Mikulak
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 1:49 PM
To: David D Bosley (daviddbosley@q,com)
Subject: 3821 Holland - Variances
Attachments: Site Plan - variancesJpg
setback, a
For clarify, I separated your request into six components (see attached site plan). Based on initial analysis, it appears that
a request for a fence height variance would meet a majority of the variance criteria in three locations:
1. Along the southern property line
2. In the northeast corner parallel to Holland Street
3. In the southeast corner parallel to Holland Street
It does not appear that a variance is warranted for the periola setback or i i i 1C
f it
City of
-]��co
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:
David D Bosley <daviddbosley@q.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:51 AM
To:
Lauren Mikulak
Subject:
RE: Fence Height Variance for 3821 Holland Street,
I am glad to hear back from s in essence, you have highlighted the minimum amount • fence that we would like
• request a height variance for. However ideally, we would like to consider the variance for the entirety of the fence to
be 7-7 Y2" tall if possible?
Also, the fence that runs between the southwest corner of the residence due south to the south property line fence is
intended to be 7'-7 Y2" in height.
Lastly, I had not considered a gate/arbor to be an accessory structure, however as it is important to our desires, I would
like to include it as a variance request for a minor reduction of the north side yard setback, The arbor posts have already
�#een set, and encroach roughly 2'-0" into the north side yard setback requirement.
If necessarv, I can amenil J_P_tJPx_f#T ^ ;
I look forward to head aLwi
03�
David D. Bosley
382 1 Holland Street
Wheat Ridee. CO W#33
Cell: 303-668-1361
Email: daviddbosley@g.com
From: Lauren Mikulak [mailtojm&lak ci.whg4 rid e.co.0 ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:16 PM
To: David D Bosley
Subject: RE: Fence Height Variance for 3821 Holland Street,
David,
Thanks for following up. I'm looking at your request this week and wanted to confirm that I was reading your plans
correctly. In the attached site plan, I have color coded what I believe to be the proposed fence heights. The green would
not require a variance (6' or less), but the pink and red portions at the north east corner and along the southern property
line would require variances. Have I interpreted this correctly?
Regarding the pergola structure in the northeast corner, this does not require a height variance, but it is classified as a
minor accessory structure. Because the property is zoned Residential-One (R-1) all structures have a minimum side yard
setback requirement of 15 feet. Let me know if I should include this in the courtesy review or if you want to modify the
design.
Lauren E. Mikulak
Planner ll
Office Phone. 303-235-281
6
Sincerely,
David D. Bosley
3821 Holland Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Cell: 303-668-1361
riwc& ",#- '-66kA" m
Lauren Mikulak
From: David D Bosley <daviddbosley@q.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 11 AM
To: Lauren Mikulak
Cc: Mary McKenna; Julie Clark
Subject: RE: Variance request for 3821 Holland Street,
Thanks for the heads up. Again, I apologize if my request for an update seemed anxious, I was just trying to get an idea
of what could be expected,
NM=
David D. Bosley
3821 Holland Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
From: Lauren Mikulak [mailto:lmikulak(a)ciwheatridoe.co.usI
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 10:23 AM
To: David D Bosley
Subjeccit: RE: Variance request for 3821 Holland Street.
I apologize for the delay, but I will not have a determination for you until next week. Typically a courtesy review is
submitted prior to any construction beginning, and a request for relief from zoning standards is unfortunately not an
immediate process. If my director indicates that we can support some or all of your request, I have outlined the next steps
below so you have a better sense of timing:
•
Lauren E. Mikulak
Planner 11
Office Phone: 303-235-281
L:7TTZAI - - -I RILWWRI . .Iylin •
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 10:13 AM
To: Lauren Mikulak
tre-reauest for 3821 HoUand—Street--
zz���
ty, 441t A•. oixr yeliminam resxonse to offl
request for variances for the fence height and the minor incursion to the north side yard setback?
I am currently bullchng the gate 41 1 - it -1
remainder of the arbor as soon as I am able, once we have a cletermination.
David D. Bosley
3821 Holland Street
; . t e. CO 8003 3
Cell: 303-668-1361
tr - tic * ft
,I .d
Case No, WA1306
Date Received { 512,"2013
C fAtkUfafC_
Related Cases �+ ase Planner
Case Descriptio A)A 2 -foot silo setback variance from the 15400t setback requirement for a minor accessory structure in the R -1 zone district and i
iB) A Y -7311 variance from the maximum fence height standards resulting in a 7' -7311 tap fence with 8'-7311 tap fence posts on property
{
;tocated at 3821 Holland Street.,m
�
E "lo "'j t»3 N LuE
Name David D. Bosley
Name i
P t (303) 6681361
Address i3821 Hop Sk
city 1�/heat Ridge
e
State i Cp Zip X80033
Name IN vid D Bosley
Name
Phone x (303) 6681361
Address 43$21 Nopand 5t
s ,.....,,.. ...... ..... .. ..... .. ......
City 'vdheat Rrdge
... . ..... ,
State { CO Zip 80033
3_
Name David D Bosley i
Name
one (303)6681361
Address 1 3821 H St.
Cry ,Wheat Ridge
) State CEt Zrp 80033
t drar`
Address 3821 Street jHopand St
. .
.,_
City Wheat R ., Skate CCl Z? 80033
Location Description
Project Name }
Parcel No kr eotion
istr�k o i,�,
Parcel No.
3822309013 Qtr Section Sbtr22 District No, : :N
t
3922309013SW22
113
m.,._..,...r_ v
a
Pie•App Date 1
Neighborhood Meeting Date ) App No, }
"V
Review Type Review Body Review Date Disposition___
Comments Rat i
Review IAdmin i.....
1) -
Case Disposition
Disposikron Date
Cond+tions of Approve
's
t Notes ..e , .. .. _. .
...
3
Status Clean
Bess 11 3 t1r! # j
Storage
1 30�
GF WHEAT RIDGE
i F+ cdb
r_
e
PPP +,.
Z
E "lo "'j t»3 N LuE
GI AL
,