Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-94-4The Cify of ~Whe at ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION ~RidO~e Department of Planning and Development b 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone (303) 237-6944 Applicant ,,.,~,he isc° e~~~~_Address 5[~n Tc~dY,Phone ~Cj Owner ~,~,,~_ Address~_ Phone Location of request Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) ^ Change of zone or zone conditions Site development plan approval Special use permit Conditional use permit Temporary use/building permit Minor subdivision Subdivision 8 Preliminary Final ^ ** See attached procedural guide for specific requirements. Detailed Description of request Variance/Waiver Nonconforming use change Flood plain special exception interpretation of code Zone line modification Public Improvement Exception Street vacation Miscellaneous plat Solid waste landfill/ mineral extraction permit ^ Other List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee, etc. NAME ll . ^i ~ a _i_ - Q -_ ~ ADDRESS PHONE 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 SEAL - My commission expires ~ -~~ -qrj Rana 42>aA - "mot' ~ •~~.. case NO. swor~o me thisl~~} day of - 19 ~~ ma.n n~n .............aw a..................... a. o. Na .................................... THIS DEED. Mada this2l S't day of April ,1D89. I FILING STAhIP becween Vernon Lee Gaines, Jr. and Pamela J. Gaines arena Said cannty ar Jefferson and Staear Colorado, of the rira<Part.and Kimberl ee Reed and Frank M. Losito, Jr. whore legal address is 5170 Tabor Street 4lheatridge, Colorado 80004 of the $did County of Jefferson vnd State n[ Colorado, of the aeronA Part WITNESSETN, that the said party of the first part. for and in consideration of the sum of Ninety-One Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Eight and no/100----------------- UOLLARS rend other gaud and valuvb:e coneidnrations to the said party of the fire[ part in hand paid bp• the xaid parties of the secnnA ryv t. t he ureipt whercu(is hereby cnnfesseA and acknowledged, bas granted, bargained, sold rend conveyed, ¢nd by shave prexrnts does RrantJ bargain, selh convoy and cunfinn unto the said pnrtiex of second port. their heirs and vssignnforever. nut in tenancy in rommnn hvt in joint te•nanry, nllthv followingdexrilxd Wt or Parcel of land, siamte, lying and being in for Said Cunnb'ut Jefferson and State of Colorado. to wit: All of the south 727 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. also known una[reet oral number 5170 Tabor Street TOr. F.TtIF.R with all and sinRVlnr thv heredit nnrentn anti uppurtenanres thereunto belonging. or in anywise aPper raining xn<I the reversion en<I rcversinnx. renminder and n•mnindern, rents. issuer xnd profits thereon rend ell the entnte, right. title, internat. dvim anA drum red x~hnlsuerer..f lhr sxid party of t he first Pnrt. either in law or equit]'. af, in and to the above bargained premises. with lbc hereditn nu•nb and sypurlennnres. Tn IIN'F. ,\ND Ttl fltlhl, the .raid Prop,ixrx uhnre Ir;u~gninrA rend drseriln•d. with the nPpurtunvnres. unto for .void pnrtirc u! the xernnd part, their heirs and nxsiRnx louver. And the aniA Party of the. first Dart. far himself, his heir, executors, rend adminind~atnrs, doer rorennnt, grx nt, bnrgvin anA ngrve to and with lhr said parties of the second part, their heirs and xxsigns, that at the time of the vnxealing and dvlirerr ar thane presents, he is well seized of the premison short. ennveyed. ns of goad, sure, perfvrt. nbxolu tr and indefensible extnle of inheritaner, in law, in fee simple, an<I has Raml right, cult Power nnA inwful authority to grant„bargain, sell nnA convey the same in manner rend form nforeaaid. nail that the same are hnx• nnA dear Ovrm nil farmer uud other gruntt, bnrgnins, nnles. liens, taxes, nasesamenta rend eneumi;rnuersuf whatever kind rr nntnl'r .voever. except general taxes and assessments for the year 1989, and subsequent years and subject to ar>,y easements, restrictions, reservations, covenants and 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 rend the above bargained Iwemises in the. quirt xnd penrenble pnxsexxion of the xaid parties of the second Pm•t. Che survivor of [bent. their nxsignx rend Ihr bairn and nsxignx of xvrb nrirrivun ngninxt all +,nd ever). person or pervmn Imrrvllr rWiming nr to chrim the ,rhnlr or any .ores tOvnad. the xaid Pnrtq of Ibr fi rxt Pnrt xhnlt rend will R'A RRA N7 AND FOREVER DEFEND. The singvly~ number shall include the plau~nl, the plural the aingvlnn vnd the uxr of any Render shall be applicable to all genders. -. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the avid party of the first pxri has hereunto art his hanA and sent the dry xnd ,vent fiat above written. Signed. Se¢led rend Delivered in the Preaenre of J$EALI error ee a ne r: Paine ism-Gaines IseALI ISEALI STATE OF COLORADO ' r~ ss. Said Covntyaf Jefferson The forcgning instrument was acknowledged before me this 21St dar o[ APril ,1869 by Vernon Lee Gaines, Jr. and Pamela J. Gaines My Cornmisaion expiree May 13 .ur 9D.W'iUU•sx np~band nndnffielal seal. Nerorv l'vM1iic NO. H21A. GOMPOTER WARRANTY DEED-TO Saint Tenants-exec. r. xoeentt eo..oanvrn assns a r c r' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on, May 26, 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. TUP-9~1- An .application by Susan Holm for a Temporary Use Permit to exceed the number of household pets allowed (i.e., kennel) in a Residential-One zone district. ,Said property is located at 2655 Newland Street and is legally described as follows: The North 1/2 of the South 1/3 of Lot 1, Block 8, Amended plat of Henderson's Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado 2. Case No. WA-94-4: An application by Kimberlee Reed for approval of a 6' 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 feet of the 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. 3. Case No. WA-94-5: An application by Diana and Terry Olson for approval of a 20' variance to the 30' required side yard setback adjacent to a public street in a Residential-Two .zone ~,.di,~strict. Said property is located at 2990-Saulsbury Street .and is, legally..described as follows: - - ...._....., . A parcel of land in the SE quarter of Section 26, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning a point 227:5 feet west and 25.0 feet south of the NE corner of Lot 3, Block 2, Barth's Subdivision, as filed in the records of Jefferson County, Colorado; thence South 89.0 feet; thence East. 101.5 feet; thence North 89.0 feet; thence West 101.5 feet to the Point of Beginning. City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. P.O. BO%630 TELEPHONE: ]0]/237.6914 The Ci(y al 7900 WEST 29TH AVENUE • WFIEAT (i1DGE. GOLO(IADO 80077 `'Wheat ~~ Ridge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE N0. ~A - 9 ~ - ~- PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE: ~~ , YY1aV , q .1 n + n a m e residing at a d d r e s s . as the applicant for Case No. ~/~ -qt.~-~ , hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at -- c a t i o n• ) on this 14 day of _ /~ Q~,,~ , ~q~~ and do e 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 the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Community Development. u (Circle One) • P.O. BOX 638 TELEPHONE: 303/237-6944 _ _ _ThB Cffy Of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 cWheat Ridge This is to inform you that Case No. WA-94-4' which is a_request for approval of a variance to allow a 6' 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 MaY 26, 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" flit i.,. •!fl I I L7 ~ II~G[ ~~ i _~ c~a ~ ~.a „~i~, ~:~ ,rr :~.~~ __. r~ ~~ ~, ~ ~. __ m m'-_ ~I~ Y i1i i;,~. a m ~_~.~ ..~ Nt dld~o~~ ~~ - \w w Y s~ ~ ~ ~;en~ ~ ~ € ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ w w w ~ ¢ ¢ m ens v s t~+ v aim s'a+ o °° chi ~ ~ n rd , 26'd L99 E'C6 d a o ~o ~ w S ~ bD `' Gib ~°- x ~¢ d- ~ ~~ a3 a ~ ~- ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn o ~ssaaaon Naru3a ~o laola alu ~ ~p ~ ~ ( Ol 3dOl3AN3 d0 dOl 1Va3AONS 30tl1d 11NV1a,OdWl - ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ . ..~ Q 1 ~ _ ... - ( s Q W LL W U O it F a w U W o: O O o] c+~ !r O a •- - - . - - ; P 9Z3 667 866 -... . - - - ~ n I ~ m x y 'n Z ~ `" a Q -I m ~ ~ Q W ~._ ~ __ ~ .. v r.. ~ 4 >,v P~913 667 867 Q Q (a ~ LR L1 O [) M FO m ~ m m c x n -mi i 9I P 913 667 89~ m n m v '.'~ 77 n m T m v D O 0 0 fNrl Z 1 o m m m c m x m =~ ~ I I ~°~ s~~ ~ ° ~ m ~ a~ S~ $ n 1 O O NO O ~ T m O T O~ ` ~¢ 9T O + A L C~ 11iD W ~° m ~ y tm I W w ~ < 2T N ~ m \ ° n £ ~ ~~ s g ~~ 1 H ~° ~~ a I ° ~ I i.i 0 1 ~I 3 9 ~I ~ ~ d) N W ~~~~p •~~N m D _ mti a m z ° ~ g O 3 3 (~ n > "~8y 3 m y x ~mm~ ~'m 5 ... .. J l I ~ ! ^~yW ~{ ''~ N ~n~ m x3 ` i ~ j $, B Y ~ !~ ^-" Z q ~ !^ N ~ :~ Iwt 6 99.0 @~' O mR~N £~ ~ Q m ~ ~ C K'3 ( ado 0 ~ ~_~ ~ a : a± ~ ~ ~m~ m m ~v ° __ = ~. -~~ - ~, 0 3 f 6 0 o ~- d_ v w ~ m' n m ~ Di I i 0 O N Q < ,~.. N m w 3- m P v D °a ~ y -. ~, ~_ N .~ a ~a ~' w ~ N Q a- Q trt 6! bl M ~+ ~4 ~ H ~. ~~. ~. R d'1° do n Q ~( N lol ~ N n ~7 m 0 O ~x,3 ~LR F~? 'PN ~, o 0$4 S0S j ~m. ~ .{. __ . ~Y~ .~'-~ pro m ~~ N A ~3 ~ . ~~3 o, ~xS f~~ ~~~ ~a° ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~d ~ ~~~ ~~ O d~ ° ° ~ ' °E ~ 3 33 ~N~ O p6F o ~~~ m _~ a' o ~ 3 ~ a p' ~ ~ 3 a D ~ n _ 4 ~ ~ N J f _ -~= ~ =^ ^~y Q lAJ m '~ .-JJ m D ~o D n 6 < O T y_-. y. ~ ~s ~' p~1 (D ~ ry N O N ~ (1 m O vi ~ n a~ Q~ ~ ~p ~ N .K.n S N y m ~ IMPORTANT. PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS. -_ _. _._. --I P 9Z3 b67 Ba4 ~ m m m m ~ m T ~ - Z -i 9 m -~i z O ~ ~ ~ LA o ~ gi °o "' a i >~ AS ~'! ~ o ~m m ~ ~ w ~j fa. ~+ og '" n ~ ° r 7l Q pp » E'9 ~ ~o y m~ w afi C -o r n ~ o m ~ ~ 1 \ O n ~ n Fl m 11 m a ~ ~ 3 a r °x i i ~~ IMPORTANP. PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS. 9 ~ ~ T ~ O ~ _ 3 W c OJ _ ~ I ._1 D S -tom p 77 m n rn Y7d' •~o• ~m~ Q P'~ O Q ~i cY N d 9 N.O n ~O~ ~~ N ~y+rt' ~ M ' ~ f~a N„N ~ QO ~ N, _ a g s a . ~ w~ ~~~ ~ S ~' ~d m r q'~ .~ O C ~' ~ & S ~ ~, ~ ` P' o ~s- ' °& F m 3 y ~~$ o dp ~ ~~F. d ° a = ' ~_3~ _ m°6 ~~~ ~ o ~ ~ W v Q ~ ' d ~ O a w° ~ D m ~ o < y „ m O O ~y~ n. l~l m ~ Z N C O O F. _ B y ~ m m w ~ ~-. 7JDyo Q K ~ ~ y ~ y ¢ d m > -~ D' , n ~ n ~ ~ ~ a o -`] N O N' O n . ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ '~ m y w m 77 G1 O O m n m -o 1 m 0 O W 8 77 m n m 1 '17 n m m D r P 913 667 89Z Cn m m m fll ~ m c -i m -~i z o (n t5' !n m' i D n m~~~ ~ z ~ ~-~~~^ 1 ~ cd m m ~mm~ g_~a t - . . c c ~ icy ~.~°. ~c _ ... 0] J " a `° ° ~ a' a ~~~ 1 j I I ~ ~ ff w om3 ~, Cr m o 0 a ~ _ <o a ® ~ M n ~ T__ ~ I ~ .; ~ r m~ n o v"io m ~~l~+ m s m ~ m o ~ Q# a ~~ wt m g m g ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 2~ g (+(~ N a o -9 ~m ~ - i ~ g ~O ~ p i ~ P 913 667 893 fn A m n m y z As Gk e} ~' ~ °~ 77 ~ - c', - O ~ NO 7 ~ ~ O {' ' ,~' m m o o ©'~ v ~ a 0 v s 0 i ~" ~m ~ m z ~ N 13 H y a n t7 ~ p E '~ CN TI ~ r5ia ~ - r ~~ ~, Ci I ~ w olal~I ~I 0 ti 9 9C 9 9 m IMPORTANP. PLACE STICKER Ai TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS. c a CY ~M: ~ ~~~ ~$ . . 8 £ ~ ~3 m - r'9] R3 A ~_"' ~ a <D 1 8 '~~G, ~ 'm O ,R { ~ ~m A' ~ ~ 'S a m o ~ rl gym= ^ r} Q cc~ ~ ' 4F~ 3 ~ ~~~ ~ sn °~_ d °`°g ~3m rv mm°a n~ R o ~ _ m _ a O o a m on ~ N ~ ( o ~ a ~_ N ~ O (~/5~ _ ~ ~ ~ N ~ "'D Z ~ ~ n F, . O J 1 ^ ^ ~ N _ ..-~. a .~ ~ ~ w6 ` ~va~ .::. ~..'c$~4 1 o q a q~. ~ ~~~ , ~N - m ~ o ~a l ~ /Q- W m~ ~ m m m ~ - -1 ____ y ~ __._ -__ _ ____- _ _ ~ n a,_ v,_- ~ ~~3 ?~ ~a n ~ ~ ° ~ ~ f( • d Y! A ~o g~ i ' m a ~ a ~ ; o ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ a $ q y ftl P!b ~ d. `~ d ~ d µ ~ p ~d,~y~ is 5 lllppp=iiirrr? . c i6 ~'~ Q ° ~' ft Eon G [ Q 4Fr~ 3 ! W ~~F ~" ~a gg _ ~ ~a ~ { ~3 ~' 11 ~~~ olo ~ '~ ~. a o g ~ D ~ m ~y Cr~o ~ ~. ~m N~o '/~ "' ~j N l~ f _ _ " ~ y } 'C1 m m m wQ ~~D~o ~ ~A O \`G ~ ~ p b1 O. G m. . ~ n ~~~ o r m ~ Q m ~ ~ 1d 1w ~ _ N ~ y '.S m w m _ m 3 m CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT 9T0: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Date of Meeting: May 26, 1994 Date Prepared: May 17, 1994 Case Manager: Greg Moberg Case No. & Name: WA-94-4/REED Action Requested: Approval of a variance to allow a six (6') foot fence to be located within a front yard setback. Location of Request: 5170 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: S & N: Single-family, T1n: Vacant, E• Two-family --------------------------------------- Date Published: May 10, 1994 Date to be Posted: May 12, 1994 Date Legal Notices Sent: May 12, 1994 Agency Checklist: ( ) Attached Related Correspondence: ( ) Attached ENTER I O 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-94-4 I. REQUEST Page 2 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a six foot high fence to be located within a front yard setback. Section 26-30(I)(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 6 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 foot fence. located on the property to the north is within the property's side yard). 80ARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO. WA-94-4 Page 3 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-94-4 Page 4 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the preceding findings of fact, staff has reached the following conclusions: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. Therefore, staff would recommend that Case No. WA-94-4 be DENIED. - - W 52ND AVE 0 0 0 °o rn rn N m ~ ~ °~ ~ u) ~ 0 * 1f7 5~ ~ O `r k 5160 5137 ,n * M z o ~ _* ..................... * ~ ~, ~ ~ •~. 0 ui ~ N N N o i-F J N ~ ~N~ .~ y WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 26, 1994 Page 12 /,. B. Case Ho. WA-94-4: An application by Kimberlee Reed for - approval of a 6' fence in the front yard for property located at 5170 Tabor Street. Greg Moberg presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman ROSSILLON accepted. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked why is staff recommending denial, and Mr. Moberg replied the definition indicates no fence shall be permitted above the height of 48 inches within a front yard. A yard front is defined as "that portion of a lot lying between a public street and the nearest parallel front setback line of such lot". The R-2 regulations states anything within 30 feet of that front property is considered the front yard. By code, no fence over the height of 48 inches is allowed within the front yard or 30 feet, and to be able to place that fence in the front 30 parallel feet along Tabor .Street needs a variance. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the side of the house along Tabor is considered the front, and Mr. Moberg answered_yes, it technically is considered her front yard and she cannot build anything within 30 feet of that front property line. It happens to be aside of her property, but by code her side yard is to the north and to the south. Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned the house to the north of the applicant having a 6 foot Fence that runs the length of the house, and Mr. Moberg replied that house faces 52nd Avenue and therefore, the front yard is on 52nd and the side yard is on Tabor Street and you can have a 6 foot fence on the side yard. Board Member ECHELMEYER said her front door • faces the 'driveway and is that not considered the front of the house, and Mr. Moberg replied not by our code.' Chairman ROSSILLON questioned if the house was turned 90 degrees and her front door was at the back of the lot she could build her fence, and Mr. Moberg said if that were the' case the applicant would not need to be here because she would be allowed to fence in her rear yard. Mr. Moberg added the front yard is the area within the 30' line that runs parallel with the front property line regardless of how the building is situated on the property. Board Member HOVLAND asked if we knew the approximate distance from the street to the house, and Mr. Moberg said he did not receive a survey so that would have to be asked of the applicant. No further questions were asked of staff.. WEiEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 26, 1994 Page 13 The applicant, Kimberlee Reed, 5170 Tabor Street, was sworn in. Ms. Reed's primary concern is she is single and has three children who play in the back yard and there are about 200 cars a day that go by on Tabor Street. The existing fence is only 48 inches in height and people have literally come by and picked up her baby. She has to stand there at all times and be at arm's length or someone could just take her kid and that really frightens her. The children are also at the age to climb over the fence and .she can't keep the yard safe for her family. People come by and throw garbage in her yard and look in the windows. She said ali she really would like you to consider is for her to fence the side of her yard so she can have some_protection from the street and public, to keep the kids and dog in and the strangers out. Chairman ROSSILLON asked if the applicant had ever thought of fencing in the back corner of the house to the north, and Ms. Reed answered yes, but that way she could not use a whole quarter of-her property. Ms. Reed said the way the house is situated they would not be able to use the yard at all plus she thinks it would look ridiculous. She said her neighbors have no objection to this request. The fence will be a five foot privacy fence with design on the top. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if a 4 foot fence would do what she wanted it to do and if no, then why not. Ms. Reed replied no, because of the children and dogs. She said she has no privacy at all. She has been robbed once and people can see in her house. Tabor is a very busy street. <.. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if sYie had given any thought to shrubs and trees because because of the no restrictions on them, Ms. Reed said that would not keep the children in. She has not thought of shrubs, however it isn't something she particularly would want to do. Ms. Reed said they have a beautiful view of the mountains and enjoy the llamas and alpacas that live across the street. Board Member HOVLAND said even though it would still require a variance would a 6-foot fence to the rear corner of the house (making it L-shaped) be a possibility, and Ms. Reed said it is a possibility but she would not want to do it _- because she could not see the property from where they usually set and she thinks it would look pretty silly. Ms. Reed said this house used to be a barn and is in line with all the other barns on country property that is there. In 1922 the barn was built into a house. Ms. Reed feels this fence would add to the property and neighborhood value. ~/ WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 26, 1994 Page 14 The main reason however, is the safety of the children. It would only take her youngest one second and he would be dead, and sooner or later there will be an accident. Board Member ECHELMEYER s foot wire fence that runs Tabor and then goes north south. Ms. Reed replied fence to the front of the height. Again, the fence wood. gated the from the on Tabor she is j, property would be applicant now has a 3 back line of the house to and then comes back xst asking to bring the line and raise the 5 foot high and solid Board Member ECHELMEYER commented he was amazed how busy Tabor Street is, and Ms. Reed added one reason is Tabor Street is the only cut through street from Kipling to Ward .Road. There is only about a few feet of shoulder and cars and fire trucks come hauling by at a very good speed and it will be a matter o£ time before someone gets hurt. Board Member HOWARD asked the applicant if she has thought of running the fence to the north from the rear corner then south from the front corner approximately 20 feet toward the garage and tying it in to the garage, thus making up for the space that would be lost in front. Ms. Reed said there is not much space in back of the garage, only a walkway, and besides what would she do with the Front yard, and Board Member HOWARD answered leave it the way it is. Ms. Reed said it is just not acceptable the way it is. Board Member HOVLAND asked the applicant if she knew the distance from the house to the street, and Ms. Reed said about 20 feet. Mr. Moberg said there is an exemption that allows you to build a fence in-line-with 'the existing setbacks. Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned Mr. Moberg about other 6 foot fences around the City and how did those variances come about. Mr. Moberg said on one of the properties the Board did deny a variance for the front yard and the owner had to remove some of the top part: In this particular case, some of the fence. is in the right-of-way but was allowed to remain by the Director of Public Works. The other properties in question i am not aware of but were probably old fence or was done illegally. Mr. Moberg said to his knowledge no variances for 6 foot fences in the front yard have been granted. No further questions were asked. _- WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 26, 1994 Page 15 Motion was made by Board Member HOVLAND, that Case No. WA- 94-4, an application by Kimberlee Reed, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The site could be considered unique because of the orientation of the house on the property. 2. This request would not alter the essential character of the locality as there is a six foot fence on the adjoining property. 3. The orientation of the house could be considered a hardship. 4. The variance is not based on the desire to make money. 5. No hardship has been created by any person presently having interest in the property. 6. Granting this variance will not be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 7. Granting this variance will not impair the adequate supply of light to the front yard of properties directly to either side. Motion was seconded by Board Member CLARK. Board Member HOWARD pointed out this application is for a 100$ variance on a front yard setback. He does not believe i.t is in the realm of the Board to grant a 100$ variance and would be fool-hearty to consider this. He believes there are other alternatives so he will be voting against this. Chairman ROSSILLON will be voting no also because he feels there. are other alternatives and even though there are unique circumstances this is still a front yard. Board Member ECHELMEYER will be voting-no on this even though he does recognize the problem the applicant has but we do have to live with the definitions. The applicant does have alternatives. They have similar problems in his neighborhood, but people taught their children not to climb over the fence, so perhaps restraint is needed. Ms. Reed said that will not stop passers-by from reaching in the yard and taking her children and if one of them gets hurt, she will be back. Motion denied 5-0. Resolution attached. C. Case No. WA-94-5: An application by Diana and Terry Olson for approval of a 20' variance to the 30' required side yard setback adjacent to a public street in a Residential-Two zone district. Said property is located at 2990 Saulsbury Street. PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE N0: WA-94-4 DATE: MaY 26, 1994 REQUEST: An application by Rimberlee Reed for approval'of a 6' fence in the front yard .for property located. at 5170 Tabor Street. ~ ; Position On Request; ~ ; (Please Check) ; ~ -- SPEAKERS NAME & ADDRESS (PLEASE PRINT) i IN FAVOR i OPPOSED i __ i ~ i i i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ .. ~ ~ i ~ i ~ i i i _- ~ i i i ~ ... ~ i i i i i ~ i i ~ _ } i i ~ i ~ i ~ i i ~ ~ i i ~ _ ~ i i i ~ i i ~ i i i ~ i i ~ i . ~ i i i i ~ ~ ., ., 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 26th day of May 1994. CASE NO: WA-94-4 APPLICANT'S NAME: Kimberlee Reed LOCATION: 5170 Tabor Street Upon motion by Board Member HOVLAND seconded by Board Member CLARK the following Resolution was stated. WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an Administrative Officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-94-4 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-94-4. be and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: To allow a six foot fence to be located within a 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. This request would not alter the essential character of the locality as there is a six foot fence on the adjoining property. 3. The orientation of the house could be considered a hardship. 4. The variance is not based on the desire to make money. 5. No hardship has been created by any person presently having interest in the property. 6. Granting this variance will not be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 7. Granting this variance will not impair the adequate supply of light to the front yard of properties directly to either side. VOTE: YES: None NO: Clark, Echelmeyer, Hovland, Howard and Rossillon DISPOSITION: Motion failed by a vote of 0-5. Variance denied. DATED this 26th day of May, 1994 EDWIN ROSSILLON, Chairman Mary L u C apla, Se retary Board of Adjustment Boar- o Adjustment