HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-94-10The City of
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION
Wheat
~Ridpre Department of Planning and Development
L~ 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Phone (303) 237-6944
Applicant ~~mh,~r-( .P l~p,~~ Address Si'lfl T~~xs(~' Phone~~
Owner ~y~,ryl a Address ~,1~~~ {~, ~~~ Phone
Location of request ~~'~«~j '`(l~~p~ ~-C~~T
Type of action requested (check one or more o~ the actions listed below
which pertain to your request.)
Change of zone or zone conditions Variance/Waiver
Site development plan approval Nonconforming use change
Special use permit Flood plain special exception
Conditional use permit Interpretation of code
Temporary use/building permit Zone line modification
Minor subdivision Public Improvement Exception
Subdivision Street vacation
Preliminary Miscellaneous plat
8 Final Solid waste landfill/
[~ ** See attached procedural guide mineral extraction permit
for specific requirements. ^ Other
Detailed Description of request GL~rnvl.t1 GL VGr-tlAn u -lay Qllo~~
q~j~}. ~,nt e t.~i - 1 ~~ o ~ uv~L nlrvila~~~~rl~r rrl ~~ l-,nrk,
List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real
property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee, etc.
NAME n _ ADDRESS PHONE
~tm~7P~'P~ ~ r'P~ ~ Cllnn~~-e
-`~Ys~cl k L~ t-4a ,~~~ A'~iDr~
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-attorney from the owner
which approved of this action on his behalf.
Signature of Applicant
Subscribed and savor to me this ~ day of _~}j~ly ~ 19
Notary P blic
SEAL '' `` CC
My commission expires ~ -a.`l'~J
Date Received - Receipt No. Case No.
.<are aa........_._d.r a............ A. v. ta,.,...... a....._.........o d:........ u.
No......._.........._...,........_
THIS DEED. Made this2lst day of April Js89. I FILING STAMP
betty<[^ Vernon Lee Gaines, Jr. and Pamela J. Gaines
of the Said County of Jefferson and $tat<of
Colarndo.af the tint part. And Kimberl ee Reed and
frank M. Losito, Jr.
whw<IRRal address is 5170 Tabor Street
4lheatridge, Colorado 80004
plihe Said Canntynr Jefferson anasta<nr
Colorado, of the xronA Part:
R9THESSETH, th¢t the said party of the tint part. for nnJ in rnnsideretian of the sum of
Ninety-One Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Eight and no/100-----------------
DoLLnrts
And other xvod ., m! valunh'.e •'+nsidern tinny'.n the said party of the firrt Pxrl in hanA paid by the raid pnraiex of the
urund part. the receipt whereof m hera•by confessed xnd neknowledged, hen Rrnnted. Largmnrd, sold and rom'ryed. And
by throe prrxnq Avrs Rrnna Lxrgnin. nail. convey and cantina vote the naid par tier of nrrond part. their heira and
nanigm farevrr, not intennncy mrmnmorr hat iulaint tenancy. all the (olluw'in¢drarrihrA lua or parcel of
I¢nd. aiUUh•, IyinR And beinxmth« $d1d ('aunty of Jefferson and Rtnte of Celorade, to wit:
All of the south 127 feet of the north 228.2 feet of the west 91 feet of Lot 16,
and all of the south 127 feet of the north 228.2 feet of the east 15 feet of
Lot 15, Standley Heights, county of Jefferson, state of Colorado.
•lanknr,w•naxxtr'retnar,lnt.nrl,rr 5170 Tabor Street
TOr.F.TII F.R with all vnd xinRUlnr the herrditnments and uppurtennnres thereunto belonging. or in anywise npperv
taininR xnA the rer<rvion vnd r n rr s, •enmindvr and rrmnindm's, vento-. iesuen and profits thereon and all the
estate. rixht. title, interest. claim anA drruuuul o9mtam•rer of the naid Pnrp~ of t he firm Pnrt. either in La' ur egviry', of. in
and to the Whore bnrRxined Premixes, pith th<hvreditnmrnta nnA appurtenxnres.
Tfl li At'F..\NII if11101.U r Lr nanl Ivrminrx nhova• IvareniurA :sal air w riln•d. with Un ::PPartennnrex. onto th« raid
partier of the xvennd pxrt. their hairs uul xxniRUr forever. And the naid party of the first P¢rt, far himaelr, hie. heira,
exeruton, and mlrniniaarvvnts. Auee envenom. Rrxnt. h:u'Kxin anA agree to and with the avid parties of the second Part.
lhei r heirx and anxigna, that rat t h< r imr of the emrnlinK rand d<lirrry of thane presentx. b< is well sei[ed of the premises
share vnnvrr<d• nn of Road, sure. Perfect. nhn¢IV tr and indefenxihle astute of in heritanre. in law, in fee simple, and has
RnuA right. full power and lawful avthmity to Krant. barxsin, .aa•11 and convey the aan,e in ,Wanner and form aforenid.
¢nd tlmt the .nxme are Or•a• nml rhev from rtll farmer and rat her Rrxntn. bnrxnins. sales. lienx, taxer, naaemments and
rnnrnrhr'nrrrrn rar wlrntrra.. kind rar a~;rwr«nnrrr~'. except general taxes and assessments for the
year 1989, and subsequent years and subject to any easements, restrictions,
reservations, covenants dad rights of way of record or in existence, if any and
except a first deed of trust recorded August 13, 1985 under Reception No.
85076893, which the parties of the second part hereby agree to assume and pay.
SEE ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A" FOR FURTHER TERMS
and thr nbore Lm'RninrJ prenvxer m the quiet and penrenble',axnrrdm, of the nmd parties of the second p¢r4 the
w rvivnr of rhenr. Uunr nrrignn rout rhr heira and ,rrnrprx of r ui n vnr n¢ninar all and every nenon rar Imnone
Inn'lullr rhrimmR rar lurlninn by n'hrlr•n'n ^•nrtlhvreaf.lLa•vnirl Pnrtp a'rf tbn first lmrl nlu.ll and will WARRA\T ANU
FOR ECER DF.FES n. Th< ninqulnr nwnber nhnll inrludv the Idnrnl. the plural the vinR,dnr. enA the uer of say Render
shall hr npPlior hie to all Rendn'a.
IK W'ITR EES WHEREOF the axid ynrty of the first pxrt hen herrunur azt his hand and real the day xtld year first
abov< written.
Signed. Sealed nnA ^<Iiverrd in the Prescott of ~ SEAL1
croon ee a Wes, r.
Pa1~~'-Cosines ISEALI
15EAL1
STATE OF COLORADO
,y, ~ as
Said Capnerer Jefferson
TheforrgninK in.atrumeat was scknnwlNRed befor<methia 21st day rar April ,tP89
by Vernon Lee Gaines, Jr. and Pamela J. Gaines
:11y Cnnunianien exyirea May 13 .ul 9D .W9Ina•sn ram Lxnd amt nfflrialaeal.
-. - - - nrnw wear
NO, RIA, COMPUTER WARAANTY DEED-TO Saint Trnanla-,n[c r. ao[crcn co.,omvcn aveaaa
~,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the
Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on July 28, 1994, at 7:30 P.M.;
at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested
citizens are invited to speak at the'Public Hearing or submit
written comments. The following petitions shall be heard:.
1. Case No WA-94-8: An application by Roger W. Walker for a 5'
variance to the required 30' side yard setback to allow the
construction of a residence 25' from the side property line.
Said property is located at 3701 Pierce Street and is legally
described as follows:
That part of the NE1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 26, Township 3
South, ,Range 69 West, described as follows: Beginning
on the East line of said NE1/4 25.5 Rods (420.75 feet)
South of the northeast corner thereof; thence West 31 Rods
6 feet (517.5 feet); thence South 10.2 Rods (168:30 feet);
thence East 31 Rods 6 feet (517.5 feet); to said East line
of said NE1/4; thence North along said East line 10.2 Rods
(168.30 feet) to place of beginning, except the East 25
feet thereof, except that part described in warranty deed
recorded May 6, 1974 in Book 2619 at Page 709, except that
part described in warranty. deed recorded September 28;
1955, in Book 953 at Page 126, except that part described
in warranty deed recorded January 11,-1956 in Book 973 at
Page 90, except that part described in Book 865. at Page 134
and in Book 665 at page 234, County of Jefferson, State of
Colorado.
2. Case No WA-94-9: An application by James W. Stuart for
approval of a variance to lot size and width and to allow two
main structures on property zoned Residential-Two. Said
property is located at 3255 Harlan Street and is legally
described as follows:
The north 75 feet of the south 150 feet of the east 150 feet
of the north 1/2 of Block 1, Highland Gardens, County of
Jefferson, State of Colorado.
~..
3. Case No WA-94-10: An application by Kimberlee Reed for
approval of a 5 foot fence in the front yard for property --
located at 5170 Tabor Street and is legally described as
follows:
All of the South 127 feet of the North 228.2 feet of the
west 91 feet of Lot 16 and all of the South 127 £eet of
the North 228.2 feet of the East 15 feet of Lot 15 0£
North 228.2 feet of the East 15 feet of Lot 15 of Standley
Heights according to the recorded plat thereof, County of
Jefferson, State of_Colorado.
1
Mary L u Chapla, Secretary
ATTEST:
...
Wanda Sang, City Clerk
To be published: July 12, 1994
Wheat Ridge Sentinel
~ a3 .g a
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
Planning & Development Department ~ a~
Invoice
R-~ C~31
Re: Case No. ~elA-q~-1® Date: ~-15'q~ _
Applicant rn~~Sl~~r ~CC~ _..
Address ~~Z~~~~" ,
1. Publication Date(s) - BOA 1~-Q
Number of lines; ~ _ _,
Amount due: ~ ~ ~1 a
2. Publication Date(s) - PC
Number of lines:
Amount due:
3. Publication Date - CC
Number of lines:
Amount due:
4. Certified mailing No.~ X $2.60 =~ lay a~
5. Recordation charge:- _ _. _.
7500 W 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge CO 80215
(303)235-2846
?500 WES- 23TH AVENUE
P.C. sox 63a The Crty of
WHEAT RiuGE. CC 30C34-0638 (303) 234-5900 ~ =T~ea+
City Admir. =ax ~ 234-5924 Police Dep?. Paz r 235-2949 " ~/~~/ idge
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. V(,Jf}_q~--~~
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNC
HEARINGS~ ))DATE: "j -
I . }'C 1 MIl1~? r'~+C1r . C
- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (~i:Fcle One)
n a m e
residing at
5
a d d r e s s
as the applicant for Case No. w ~} '- ~ t{.-- ( ~ hereby certify
that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at
c'Y - C.r.-n ~ l.-'e
l o c a t i o n
S'
on this ~S day of t}l~ ~ 19 Q ~ , and do
hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place
for fifteen ('15) days prior to and including the scheduledkday 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 th ublic hearing on this case
and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the
Department of Planning and Development.
--------------
--r-----------
M A P
<pc>postingcert
rev. 05-19-94
~~ n.. ~.. r„r ruo~*
P.O. BOX 638 - TELEPHONE: 303/237-6944 - The City 01
7500 W,~ST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 _ heat
Ridge
July 13, 1944
This is to inform you that Case No. WA-94-10 which is a request
for approval of a variance to allow a 5` high fence to be located within a
front yard.
for property located at _ 5170 Tabor Street
will. be heard_by the Wheat Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT in the
Council Chambers of the. Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue
at 7:30 P.M. on July 28, 1994
All -owners and/or their legal counsel of the, parcel under
consideration must be present_at this hearing before the BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT.
As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to
attend this Public Hearing and/or ,submit written comments.
It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other
persons whose presence is desired at this meeting.
If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please
contact the Planning Division. Thank you.
PLANNING DIVISION
"The Carnation City"
~~ '~~
~~
I - 1~ v
F a !1'~
i
A ~ :_ ~(~ ~"1 -
r,,
e "y : - '~\
lli g ~~~iii L"` ,
J L~
~ 7 v=
i .. ~
1 G
~ ~ ~
~ a ~
.r
c` ~
(~ t
Q
~ ~ssaac
= Ol 3dOl3AN3
3
O ~
~~
~ i~J~ ~
1
~
1
N
^ ~ N
~. ~b
.
,a > w
> a~ v
I
~~~
RJ /wV
YL
~ ~
o
~
- .m o ~~
m U ~M~~ ~~a
a w 3r'~• \ w
o- ~ ~ ~ ~ y
z ~~ w ~
d ~
I ~z e z
~ oo w
~ w ~
W I ~~ ,`~,
m
m
0
m
o°
0
0
a
0
0
~..+ w
m (7
o ~ ~ ~~
~
~ .Li m w
~ ~/ O2
~
G^ a3
oy o
a u
~~~~
O
W H
~ ~ ° Z..
m
2
~ 4' ~
0
~*Q~~ ~
~ V
3
ra
~ H
M ~
~ .t .~,
`C4~ 2h2 8.Z6 d
(.__ _. ' -
§ `
t~
WJVlaOdWl _'
J
a
W
FLL
K
W
U
O
a
W
U
w
o°
m
tY
O
a
J
o.
(n am-i~> vnnz
>_ ~_- ~ ~_ 'off g o
~_. °o.n ° a3v
P 91g 242 87^ I -- -- ~' =,n '~,~N ~~~..
CJ m m' a"~ '33
_. _. 1 ~- ~ I I I y ~ 31 ° u..n
~ U) m m m-O m aHp g m°D5 inn
O -I m ~ ~ i 3 ~ ~ ~'~' ~ f ~ ~ H ~°,
2J O m' ~ ~ oao =p
W ~ Q ~o~ ~ a
m ~^' I °~. B a
o R i o n of o° '- VJ ji. Fyn y m
~+~~ o~~ m °~ ~ ~p ~ coo
m° WI
j'j~ °a g m ~c I ~. ~ '..ki ~4$ ° F ~ 3
~_ 014 ~g ~ `7'n m ~ am i .-. `7 ~ gym" 5
e =4 t+. ~ U a ~ w ~ _.:
m; q
CS f4 ~ v my I ~3%
m a, r - ~~ I .. a
m o tt ' ~ I ~ _ -- s
is ~ ~ ~ -
o ~ ( o za o ~ D
~ r ~
I N _~ y ~ ~ N ~ N ~ N -. O
SI ~ '-n .Q ~i (7 D~ ~ l3n ^ ~ tp N
m ~ ___
o y l - c ~y m r ~`°~^o
_D a Z a ~ ~ ~ o m- ° ~
is I - 7] ~o y v m,
r a m °' ~~Q=`m
s _ C~ ~ ~ ~G ~ X ..
ti ~ m ~ ~ ~ N d ~
m ~ ~
'-~ t"o
IMPORTANT! PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO
THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS.
7]
W
W
O
7J
w
m
0
-- _ o
7J
w
m
0
rn
n
m
v
1
m
O
S1
n
m
'17
m
v
D
r
_ IMPORTANT!
P 918 242 912
!T"1r fl
~ ua
N
~ n a
iI
o ~ n~ $ !
~ ~ m
~ o~om.1
~~ _
P 918 242 916
ss
~ `'
:~~.
P 918 242 869
f0 9 3]
~ n -~
m p
m y ~
s m 'ooz o
r m~>
a oyom.
~93I
YS
~~
[S' ~ A
~ *°tm
~ r~r a°
p
IY
II6
a
t°a
w
o~
a m
mo NO
m 0=
m m a0
~o
o m ~>
m A 3g
z
N D
n
y Oa
°a ~~
m ~I
:i<ER A7' TOP OF ENVELOPE TO -I
OF RETURN ADDRESS.
0
-_
- - w
J
0
N
o.
,,
~~ O
.--- - -~
W
-~
n
mi
m
,. ``°I
1_
r ~
0
3
} W
-y
3
O
m
3
m
-m
-I
C
Sl
Z
31
m
m
v
1
d
m
N _.
~'
w
~
'.°
~ ~ u~
D I
N
N ~ ~J
~ Q
~ A
N
~^
~. _ . .
~~
_. ~
c' ~,(
w C
N ~'
I ~ O M
!`h ~
a ~ b
v w *.s
) ~~
r®e
0
~+
I r-
W
I
1" gM6.14
M O:i
R f7
F$
v'o
~ ~ ~
~ ~
1'~
•
!.3
m
~~ o
_~' )o
~~
m C7
~ ; 9J~ m
y d ~.~
a N ~ ~
~ m
a~ p
~o
v
- --~~..
z~=~ a c~nz
__ ?O9m
=_ °~~
a3o ~~w
nD'3
Wr
a°sz a3~
^~° a~~ I
E_~o rypaN
3mo ?o
nom n
~ a'
~m3 < _
• ~ • 1y
~~a~~~ni
q1°^ 3~93m
'~3 gmma
~a3 ~w~
_ au~
n~ n~~
Dm-1~y~vop2
3o~~y, 333¢
m aa9- ~°m~
a~3ch ry'--
a~0 ywH
w nA3 1Dw,
N An_
4 9~'~ ~a~
T~_
o ~am~ goo
~~a
€ ~ a. ~ -
s3
°-p'. ~ c r
mA~ ~
~~; N
30~ o
9F , 3
m'e'w ~'
qmF
O (£ /~ S
F-3 m 6w
~aa ~
a~
a
~ $ -
~ 3 ~
D '
o o
v
Z O N J ~ -
-n 3 y ^ ^ io w
0
6 ~ 37 D~
O= m m a
~ a ~ < ~.
N ti m N ~
m
r ~' o
N m py- o~
~ O ~ a a <
~, m a m m
N `G N ~ S
~ ~ N ~ m
m
yn 242 915
f
GI
V
V1
O
G]
O
m
n
m
1
71
31
n
m
'11
m
v
~_
r
P 918 242 871
P 918 242 905
E ~ ~
~ ..., .y
r ~. ~
~~ o. ~
V
~~
W
w
l
~~
1
Y
N 31 a
m m m
~ m v
m ~..Z
~ii
~l
N a a J
m c ~ y
2 I
m y
}l ~I
I
~ m o`
=' o
Q
mt ~
O P
o u0
5 m
~
m m m
g a ~o
T
~
Km ~
y Z Z
A
n
\
~ ~
~~ i
y
<
O I
H
~~~
loi
m
~
``
I
To
o .
y _.-~
a
9 1
I I I~
IMPORTANT! PLACE STICKER AT 70P OF ENVELOPE TO
THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS.
ry ~
a
- ~
-->
-~_
3
v
m
ro
-_ 'D Ol
~ ti
o ~
J
w
~ w
i D
i
Q
a
r- .
M
V
d /.~
M ~a'"I'S
90 }4
(~} r~~
(7 •
N
d7
to
ttl
m ~ ~ ...
a^ ~mm..
a ~~~H ~_'
'm a~O ~n~
H ^m3 N~
a 9v'O aa~
~~5
o °am nmq
£'~~ ~wN
.n?a
a°~
m66~~
a'
~3~ ~ _
a,D
__° o ~
° ° _ ~m
~~~
of m' 3
~~° $
RmF
~~H
W~• •6• m
DiT~D '0" Z
o rv~dg:'3~m
a`' ~ a
Nmm--I"~.=. gmma
n '~~°32in'
~ ~'o w3
H _ 3®
op3 p'd'
O '~'O 6~~
s ~CA~ ~g~
£N~ PLO
°a yo Pm
app
~5 ~3 ~
mo° m T
Ns,~ o
G~x
egg N
a
°£~ 3
~~r4 "o
~'Sa m
~°~ °
boa
~"
axe
3 a
D o
n N ~ ~ _
...D C N ^ ~ (p y
~Q~~~~o
o `m o w
^ ti N ~
f1J
r ~ m m ~°
N Q ~ O N
IL N O y n
m w ~_.
.D o' ~ ~'~
m a m
O ~ m .x.s
Ul m w w ~
m
m
N
(n ,
«l .
~ ^; ...
.a/
Y
~' . ~~(((
~"
g9 as
~:
{L Mk
6
~
w
g
W
W
OJ V
0 d ~
Z a m
< y o
~. N Q
r ~ N
n
B y f ~ m
a ~ ~
4 y ~ T
Q N 1
~~
O:
wA -~ 4 -d-
~°na-63-oao ~~t\~~~.,~., V.~ ~ti~ 1033
~ E. C.a.~o~.,s
1~~, ~ A-u,ro~.
~tZ
-03 -0°'1°°~ ~olx.,-~ ~,o~ Sl'7~ ~..~waq ~ X33
-o~-oog:
~-Gouw~r~ ~pv.~.s ic..~ '~ I°~S v.
--- ~`
~o~-«~ j (oa~tit ~0~~6~
--
~v lo°~
---
-C'c~.boc- ~ ~j l c~U \
_ - \ J
~ -
` ~
•-o=,-c~cr~ _~ ~U-~`O¢~c~ ~ ~ 5120 ~- ~
7 -- -_ __.._.... __ __
-os,-oct
L ~oc-c `jG.~~ l
~
-- - -
(~O
__ _..____~_._____~__
K
--
__.
-
---
_~-~~ ~ ~4~e~-~' _ _. -. _ .
Cl~iB _ --
-
c~5z"`a
~~
r
---, ..- -
---- -
--1--- -- ---___ . ___
.
_
_. _ ._.
._ ...
..
7 -- - - .~.. .. ..... __ .
_. _
i
i
~_
_. _.._
.
_~. _. _ _
.:i ~_~------
1
- i
~ _ . _ ...
-
-- -- _. _.
_._ _
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNISIG DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Date of Meeting: July 28, 1994
Case No. & Name: WA-94-10/REED
Date Prepared: July 22, 1994
Case Manager: Greg Moberg
Action Requested: Approval o£ a variance to allow a five (5')
foot fence to be located within a front yard
setback.
Location of Request: 5176 Tabor Street
Name & Address of Applicant(s): Kimberlee Reed
5170 Tabor Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Name & Address of Owner(s): Same
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate Area: 13,750 square feet
Present Zoning: Residential-Two
Present Land Use: Single family
Surrounding Zoning: N, E, S: Residential-Two,
W: Residential-One
Surrounding Land Use: ,~ & 13: Single-family, ~nT: Vacant,
~: Two-family & Single-family
Date Published: July 12, 1994
Date to be Posted: July 14, 1994
Date Legal Notices Sent: July 14, 1994
Agency Checklist: ( ) Attached
Related Correspondence: ( ) Attached
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(XX) Not Required
(XX) None
( ) Comprehensive Plan (XX) Case File & Packet Materials
(XX) Zoning Ordinance (XX) Exhibits
( ) Subdivision Regulations ( ) Other
JURISDICTION'
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all
notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore
there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. wA-94-10
2. REQUEST
Page 2
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a
five foot high fence to be located within a front yard setback.
The applicant has suggested that the fence will be setback a
minimum of five feet from Tabor Street and will be of a
decorative construction. The type of fence that has been
suggested is a four foot high solid wood fence with an additional
foot constructed using some type of lattice design. Section 26-
30(2)(1) states: "Permitted fence, etc., heights: No fence,
divisional-wall or hedge above the height of 48 inches shall be
permitted within a minimum required front yard, or above the
height of 6 feet in instances not otherwise specified." Section
26-15(F) requires that the minimum front yard setback is 30 feet
for property zoned Residential-Two. Therefore, to allow the
applicant to place a five foot fence in the location requested, a
variance is required.
II. SITE
The subject site currently has a single-family residence and
detached garage located on it. The residence does not face Tabor
Street but faces south, thus the applicant's contention is that
the north half of the property is the rear yard. As other
residences can fence in their rear yard the applicant would like
to do so to hers.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in
use, service or income if permitted to be used only under
the conditions allowed by the regulations for the district
in which it is located?
The property is and has been used as a single-family
residence therefore it is reasonable to assume that if the
site is permitted to be used only under the conditions
allowed by the regulations for the district in which is
located, the property can yield a reasonable return in use;
and
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
As this site is under the same constraints as are all other
residential properties within the immediate area, the plight
of the owner is not due to unique circumstances; and
3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential
character of the locality?
The granting of this variance could alter the essential
character of the local neighborhood as there are no other 6
foot high fences located in residential front yards (the 6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. WA-94-10
Page 3
foot fence located on the property to the north is within
the property's side yard).
4. Are there any particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the property involved that would
result in a particular hardship?
There are no particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the property that would result
in a hardship that would necessitate the need of a 6 foot
fence to be located within the front yard setback; and
5. Are the conditions upon which the petition for a variation
is based be applicable, generally, to the other property
within the same zoning classification?
Because staff has not found a hardship nor any unique
circumstances, conditions upon which the petition for a
variation is based would be applicable, generally, to the
other property within the same zoning classification; and
6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a
desire to make more money out of the property?
The purpose of this variance is not based exclusively upon
the desire to make more money out of the property; and
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property?
No hardship has been created by any person presently having
an interest in the property; and
8. Will the granting of the variation be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is
located?
The granting of this variance will not be injurious to other
property or improvements in the neighborhood; and
9. Will the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase
the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety and substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood?
The granting of this variance will not impair the adequate
supply of light to the front yard of the property directly
to the north of the subject site.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. WA-94-10 Page 4
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Generally, the criteria used to justify a variance do not support
this request and Staff would recommend that Case No. WA-94-10 be
DENIED.
If however the Board finds justification to allow the request.
Staff would recommend the following conditions:
1. The fence should be setback a minimum of ten feet and some
type of landscaped treatment should be placed between the
fence and right-of-way line to help soften the obtrusiveness
of a five foot fence located within a_front yard and;
2. The fence only be allowed in the location that the applicant
has shown on the site plan.
- hl 52ND P.VE -'
.RK
f
1
~'
i'
MOUNTAIN VISTA ~ ~
o
o
_-r-
1
~ ~
m
--- -+
--F+~---
d
c
d~
L
I
M
f
1
'~
.~a~ .~
,t ~
s r„..,:
:.~ ~.
~.
t f;__
<. ..
f ,
'~
~@Ip~ ~NNN
~O~J , ~ ,'
l
S
7
A
z
t
f
¢t
i
i
;I
~~
I~ i
,~
~~
~t~~
~~'1
~G
X~
%~
~,~
~P-Q~4-lb
~xt~`(3~
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REQUEST
5170 TABOR
1. IS THE PURPOSE OF THE VARIATION BASED EXCLUSIVELY UPON A DESIRE TO MAKE MORE MONEY OUT
OF THE PROPERTY?"
"The purpose of this variance is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more
money out of the property"
2. HAS THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY OR HARDSHIP BEEN CREATED BY ANY PERSON PRESENTLY HAVING AN
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY"
"Na hardship has been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property„
3. WILL THE PROPOSED VARIATION IMPAIR THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO ADJACENT
PROPERTY OR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREETS OR INCREASE THE
DANGER OF FIRE OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH OR IMPAIR PROPERTY
VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
"The granting of this variance will not impair Lhe adequate supply of light to the front
yard of the property directly to the north of the subject site."
4. WILL THE GRANTING OF THE VARIATION BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO
OTHER PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED?
"The granting of this variance will not be injurious to other property or improvements
in the neighborhood"
5. IS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES?
'As this site is under the same constraints as are all other residential properties within
the immediate area, the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. "
This property is not in the same set of circumstances as are other residential properties in the area:
most of the other properties in the neighborhood front to "local" streets; the subject property fronts to a
"collector" street. In the immediate area, most of the neighboring properties front to the street; the house
on the subject property fronts to the side (and the only other house in the immediate area not fronting to
the street has a 6 foot fence along the Tabor St. right-of-way}.
6. ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE
PROPERTY INVOLVED THAT WOULD RESULT IN A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP?
"There are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of
the properly that would result in a hardship that would necessitate the need of a 6 foot fence
to be located within the front yard setback; "
Yes. The back yard of the home is currently is currently exposed to up to 10,000 vehicles per day
by virtue of being paralleled by a collector street.
7. CAN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION YIELD A REASONABLE RETURN IN USE, SERVICE OR INCOME IF
PERMITTED TO BE USED ONLY UNDER THE CONDITIONS ALLOWED BY THE REGULATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT
IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED?
The properly is and has been used as a single family residence therefore it is
reasonable to assume that if the site is permitted to be used only under the conditions
allowed by the regulations for Lhe district in which is located, the property can yield a
reasonable return in use.
The property has been, and continues to be, used as a single family residence. However, the nature
of the "neighborhood" in which it is located has changed by virtue of the designation and use of Tabor
St as a "Collector" (from 5,000 to 10,000 vpd) street, rather than a "Local" (2,000 vpd} street, as would
be true for most residentially zoned properties.
$, ff THE VARIATION WERE GRANTED, WOULD IT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALTTY?
"The granting of this variance could alter the essential character of the local
neighborhood as there are no other 6 foot high fences located in residential front yards (the
6 foot fence located on the property to the north is within the property's side yard). "
No: in general, the purpose for fencing a backyard off from the front yard accomplishes three
purposes: (1) it provides privacy for the owner; (2) it provides security for the owner; and (3) it provides
the public with a less "unkept" look than if the results of all the houses' family lives were exposed to
public view. The variance being sought would accomplish all three of these objecfives, and would,
therefore enhance the residential character of the neighborhood.
9. ARE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE PETITION FOR A VARIATION IS BASED BE APPLICABLE,
GENERALLY, TO THE OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
"Because staff has not found a hardship nor any unique circumstances, condition upon
which the petition for a variation is based would be applicable, generally, to the other
properly within Lhe same zoning classification; "
No. Generally, the properties in residentially zoned areas are fronted by local streets (up to 2,000
vpd), and the houses front to the street, so that the back yard is removed from street access. The subject
property is on a collector street (up to 10,000 vpd), and the house fronts to the side: resulting in the back
yard being exposed to that [exaggerated] street access.
N ".
WIiEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: July 28, 1994 Page 12
Motion for denial carried 5-1 with Board Member CLARK
voting no. Resolution attached.
C. case No. WA-94-10: An application by Kimberlee Reed for --
approval of a 5 foot fence in the front yard for property
located at 5170 Tabor $treet_
Greg Moberg presented the staff report. All pertinent
documents were entered into record, which Chairman JUNKER
accepted.
No questions were asked of staff.
Vern Evans, 2755 Indiana Street, Golden, CO, was sworn in.
Mr. Evans is the attorney representing the applicant. He
entered into record a drawing o£ the proposed fence, labeled
Exhibit 'A', and a re-write of the conclusions, labeled
Exhibit 'B'. Mr. Evans explained their format of the re-
write.
Mr. Evans said they do agree with
staff uses to analyze issues like
the purpose of the variance is no
make money, they have not created
granting of the variance will not
of light or will not be injurious
improvements in the neighborhood.
4 of the 9 questions 'that
this; they do agree that
t based upon the desire to
any hardship and agree the
impair the adequate supply
to other property or
Mr. Evans feels this particular house is a unique property
and the uniqueness is what is causing them to have to come
before the Board. Most. properties zoned residential are on
local streets but this property is on a collector street.
The structure was built around 1900 and the dormers were
added in the mid-20's. The property predated all
surrounding properties and even the street. The character
of Tabor Street has changed over the years and that is the
main cause of their problem.
Mr. Evans disagrees with staff regarding the physical
surroundings. In 1926 the neighborhood did not look like it
does today and the street as developed created a hardship.
He feels the property can yield a reasonable return. There
is also concern with the property across the street from the
applicant being developed as commercial.
Mr. Evans continued saying he felt the variance would not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The
ordinance says the front of the property is defined as being
parallel. to the right-of-way. Mr. Cordon's house faces 52nd
and therefore, there ,is already a 6' fence on the right-of-
way of Tabor Street. Mr. Evans believed the fence is in the
front yard, staff feels it is on the side yard. Discussion
followed regarding the applicant's prior request.
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MYNUTES OF MEETING: July 28, 1994
Page 13
Mr. Evans asked Board Member HOWARD to explain his comment
on the 100$ variance, and Board Member HOWARD clarified
saying he was referring to the 100$ variance to the 30'
front yard setback. Mr. Evans and the applicant went back
to staff and tried to work something out and that process is
the result of them being here tonight. They will ask for
approval of a variance that will allow a lower fence than
what was asked before and setting the fence back further
from the right-of-way. The applicant has indicated she will
place some plantings in so that people coming up Tabor
Street will not have the feeling of nothing but wall. The
granting of the variance wil-1 help the neighborhood maintain
a residential character and they feel this is important to
the neighbors as well as the City itself.
Mr. Evans said they find hardship in that they are dealing
with a collector street and not a local street. The City
rated this street for 5-10 thousand cars a day, and they
agree that backing out onto a collector street is a hazard.
Tabor Street is used at times for a drag-strip and the fire
departments use Tabor as a route back and forth from fires.
They are trying to be responsive to staff's and the Board's
concerns and are asking for approval of this variance.
Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if he knew that this street is
designated as a collector street, and Mr. Evans said yes, it
is currently 45 feet in width, however they were informed by
staff that when development occurs to the west it will go to
60 feet.
Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned why the house next door
would have an address on Tabor Street when the front door
exits on 52nd Avenue.
Board Member ECHELMEYER said he set there on three different
occasions for a half hour each and picked up 120 cars in a
half hour and said that is a busy street, but is a long way
from 10,000 cars a day. Discussion followed.
Board Member ECHELMEYER asked what is the applicant's
setback from the fence to the edge of Tabor`s right-of-way,
and Mr. Evans replied roughly 17 feet.
Board Member HOVLAND stated he feels the issue o£ a
collector street is a moot point. Mr. Moberg added that
Tabor Street is designated as a local street and not a
collector. Taft Street might be designated as a collector
street but it does not exist. Mr. Evans apoligized saying
they were informed by staff that-Tabor Street wa> a
collector street.
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: July 28, 1994
Page 14
Board Member ECHELMEYER stated it is the only street that
connects the bridge over the interstate and to make any
other street a collector, he felt they would have to build
another bridge. Mr. Moberg said the width of the street is
the only thing to deal with when constructing a collector
street. The width gives people the sense they can drive
faster and a collector is a 35 mile an hour street. It is
built wider so people can park on either side and people
feel. comfortable going with the collector speed. If people
parked on both sides of Tabor Street, they would not feel
comfortable going collector speeds. When and if this
corridor is bu31t out, Mr. Moberg feels Taft .Street will not
be a collector either., The City has made some major changes
in terms of where the collectors are located and this is up
in the air because there is no development there at this
point.
Board Member ECHELMEYER spoke in favor of this variance and
compared fences in the area saying a number of houses on
that street have fences and it is obvious why. Mr. Evans
commented saying this property is unique because the area
south is the play area for the kids.
Board Member ROSSILLON wanted to know what kind of fence
this would be, and Mr. Evans replied it will be a solid wood
(Redwood or Cedar) with lattice work on top.
Board Member HOVLAND said he has the same concerns as last
time being even though there is a unique situation with the
way the house is oriented, there are still other options.
Mr. Evans said there is not much room in the back of ,the
garage and explained the hardship of placing the fence in
the rear. This option would cut off the front of the house,
and take away from the property and neighborhood. It would
not be very aesthetic and he could see no benefits to anyone
from the alternatives.
No further questions were asked of Mr. Evans.
Kimberlee Reed, 5170 Tabor Street, was sworn in. Ms. Reed
said she felt the alternative would look terrible. The
proposed fence could be in line with the neighbor's and with
the driveway they could connect. The 5 foot fence would not
allow the kids out and would not allow people in. Noise,
traffic and garbage would stop and she would be happy with
that. Ms. Reed said the fence and shrubbery will look real
nice.
Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the fence was solid wood up
to 4 feet and then 1 foot of diagonal lattice, and Ms. Reed
replied it is more like wooden crosses.
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: July 28, 1994 Page 15
No further questions were asked of Ms. Reed.
Grant Gordon, 5190 Tabor Street, was sworn in. Mr. Gordon
is the neighbor to the north that faces 52nd Avenue. He has
no problem with the fence request. He has been lived there
for 10 years and stated the traffic has increased and feels
it is dangerous for the children. He understands from the
previous owners that his neighbors across the street on 52nd
Avenue are in Arvada and in order to be in Wheat Ridge he
had to have a Tabor address.
Board Member ECHELMEYER asked where is his mailbox, and Mr.
Gordon replied it is placed on 52nd Avenue.
Board Member HOWARD asked what is the age of your house, and
Mr. Gordon said it was built in the early 20's and to his
understanding Ms. Reed's house was the barn to his house at
one time: Discussion followed.
No further questions were asked.
Board Member ECHELMEYER commented he has a real problem with
other fences in Wheat Ridge that are over 6 feet and in the
front especially when there doesn't appear to be nearly the
need as this applicant is facing. Kids would probably climb
over a chain link fence and we have to look at this variance
for the reason and the need. There are. 20 foot Elm trees
planted so close together you can't see the house throughout
the City.
Motion was made by Board Member ROSSILLON, that Case No. WA-
94-10, an application by Kimberlee Reed, be and hereby is
APPROVED for the following reasons:
1. The site could be considered unique because of the
orientation of the house on the property.
2. The granting of this request will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood as there is a 6'
fence in the next lot.
3. The granting of this request will not be injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood.
4. Tabor Street has relatively heavy traffic and a'5' fence
would provide some degree of a sound barrier and would
be a safety feature for children.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The fence should be set back a minimum of 5' and
landscaping be placed between the fence and right-of-
way.
2. The fence shall only be allowed in the location the
applicant showed on the site plan.
Y .
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: July 28, 1994 Page 16
3. The fence be constructed similar to the fence depicted
in the artist's rendition.
Board Member HOWARD stated he would be voting against this
request as it is still about an 83~ variance to the front
yard setback and he feels this is too excessive.
Motion was seconded by Board Member ECHELMEYER. Motion
carried 5-1, with Board Member HOWARD voting no. Resolution
attached.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
1.' Approval of Minutes: June 23, 1994
Motion was-made by Board Member HOWARD, seconded by
Board Member HOVLAND that the minutes be approved with
the following corrections:
Change vote on WA-94-6 Resolution: ECHELMEYER voted yes.
HOVLAND voted no.
2. Discussion followed regarding Case No. WA-94-9,
and on the memo from Glen Gidley relating to the
above case.
3. A Study Session was scheduled for August 18, 1994 at
6:30 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Board Member HOWARD, seconded by Board
Member ROSSILLON that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting was
adjourned at-10:15 p.m.
. , ,« C~(l
Mary L 'u hapla, Secr~ta y
PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST
CASE N0: wA-94-10 DATE: July 28, 1994
REpUEST: An application by Kimberlee Reed for approval of a 5 foot fence
in the front yard for property located at 5170 Tabor Street.
j Position Qn Request;
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1 I
I i 1
,
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
I, Mary Lou Chapla, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of
Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was
duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson,
State of Colorado, on the 28th day of July 1994.
CASE NO: WA-94-10
APPLICANT'S NAME: Kimberlee Reed
LOCATION: 5170 Tabor Street
Upon motion by Board Member ROSSILLON seconded. by Board Member
ECHEL~MFYER _, the following Resolution was stated.
WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an Administrative
Officer; and
WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-94-10
is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an Administrative
Officer; and
WHEREAS; the property has been posted the required 15 days by law
and 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, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment
Application Case No. WA-94-10 be and hereby is APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: To allow a 5' high fence to be located within
the front yard setback.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The site could be considered unique because of the
orientation of the house on the property.
2. The granting of this request will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood as there is a 6' fence in the
next lot.
3. The granting of this request will not be injurious to other
property or improvements in the neighborhood.
4. Tabor Street has relatively heavy traffic and a 5' fence
would provide some degree of a sound barrier and would be a
safety feature for children.
r
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
WA-94-10/Page 2
WITH THE .FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The fence should be set back a minimum of 5' and landscaping
be placed between the fence and right-of-way.
2. The fence shall only be allowed in the location the applicant
showed on the site plan.
3. The fence be constructed similar to the fence depicted in the
artist's rendition. _
VOTE: YES: Clark, Echelmeyer, Hovland, Junker and Rossillon
NO: Howard
DISPOSITION: Variance granted by a vote of 5-1.
DATED this 28th day of July, 1994. `,~,~,~~ r-
SUSAN JUNKER, Chairman Mary L¢~u Chapla, Secretary
Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment