Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-06-06 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 The City of Wheat Ridge 20 June 2006 Holly Hall & Stephanie McNamara 3880 Everett Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 RE: Variance Case WA-06-06 Dear Ms. Hall and Ms. McNamara: As you are aware, the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment denied your variance requests (W A-06- 06) for an increase to maximum lot coverage, a decrease in side yard setback and a decrease in rear yard setback at their May 25th meeting. These variance requests were all related to the location of an existing shed. Because the variance requests were denied, in particular the lot coverage variance, the shed must be removed from the property. Please be advised that you will have thirty (30) calendar days from the date ofthis letter to remove the shed. An inspection has been scheduled for 20 July 2006 to ensure removal of the shed. If unusual circumstances prohibit the removal of the shed by 20 July 2006, please inform me in writing prior to the end of that business day. If the shed is still located on the property on 20 July 2006, code enforcement action will commence, which could include a summons into Wheat Ridge Municipal Court. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at 303.235.2849 or tcrane(cV,ci. wheatri dge. co. us Sincerely, T~ Planner II Hall & McNamara 3880 Everett St. ., 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Telephone 303/235-2846 FAX 303/235-2857 The City of Wheat Ridge June 13,2006 " Holly Hall 3880 Everett Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Holly: RE: Case No. W A-06-06 Please be advised that at its meeting on May 25, 2006, the Board of Adjustment DENIED your requests for (A) a 3.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback; (B) a 10-foot rear yard setback variance from the 15-foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5-foot rear yard setback; and (C) a 136 square foot variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R-l) and located at 3880 Everett Street. , Enclosed are copies of the Certificates of Resolution, as well as a draft copy of the minutes, stating the Board's decision. Should you decide to appeal the decision of the Board, you will need to notifY the Jefferson County district court in writing within 30 days ofthe Board's decision. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 235-2846 if you have any questions Sincerely, , f(~if~ Kathy Field Administrative Assistant Enclosures: Certificates of Resolution Draft of Minutes cc: WA-06-06 (case file) \\srv-ci-eng-OOl \users\kfield\Kathy\BOA \CORRESP\2006\wa0606deniaLwpd CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (COf'1 I, AnnLazzeri, 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 25th day of May, 2006. CASE NO: W A-06-06 (A) APPLICANT'S NAME: Holly Hall and Stephanie McNamara LOCATION: 3880 Everett Street WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-06 (A) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there WERE 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 ITRESOL VED that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-06 (A) be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 136 square foot variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The 136 square foot increase to maximum lot coverage is fairly insignificant given a lot size of15,000 square feet. 2. The lot is oversized at 15,000 square feet and the impact of the increase to lot coverage will not have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are several lots within the neighborhood which meet or exceed the 25% maximum lot coverage in the R-l zone district. The 136 foot increase is less than 1 % increase in total lot coverage making it less than 26%. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure and, as such, will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adj acent properties. Board of Adjustment Resolntion WA-06-06 (A) Page two (2) VOTE: YEs: NO: ABSENT: BELL, BLAIR, HOVLAND, REINHART ABBOTT, HOWARD, LINKER DRDA DISPOSITION: A request for a 136 square foot variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One was DENIED based on Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 2-53( d) of the City of Wheat Ridge Codes of Laws which states that Board of Adjustment motions not carried are thereby deemed denied. ADOPTED and made effective this 25th day of May, 2006. QL~ . .~ Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment . (C(QJf'\f I, Ann Lazzeri, 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 Jeffllrson, State of Colorado, on the 25th day of May, 2006. CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION CASE NO: W A-06-06 (B) APPLICANT'S NAME: Holly Hall and Stephanie McNamara LOCATION: 3880 Everett Street WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-06 (B) is an appeal to this Board from the decision ofan administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there WERE protests registered against it; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for may not be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without s)lbstantially 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-06-06 (B) be, and hereby is, DENIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 3.5 food side yard setback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential . One. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: The square footage lot coverage was denied. VOTE: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABBOTT, BELL, BLAIR, HOVLAND, HOWARD, LINKER, REINHART None DRDA DISPOSITION: A request for a 3.5 food side yard setback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential One was DENIED. Board of Adjnstment Resolution W A-06-06 (B) Page two (2) ADOPTED and made effective this 25th day of May, 2006. ~ ~x' Ann Lazzeri, Secre~ Board of Adjustment I CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (C(QJf'\f I, Ann Lazzeri, Secretary to the City of Whllat 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 25th day of May, 2006. CASE NO: WA-06-06 (C) APPLICANT'S NAME: Holly Hall and Stephanie McNamara LOCATION: 3880 Everett Street WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-06 (C) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and .' WHEREAS, the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there WERE protests registered against it; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for may not be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose ofthe regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-06 (C) be, and herllby is, DENIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10-foot rear yard setback variance from the 15-foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5- foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential One. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: The square footage lot coverage was denied. NO: ABSENT: ABBOTT, BELL, BLAIR, HOVLAND, HOWARD, LINKER, REINHART None DRDA VOTE: YES; DISPOSITION: A request for a 1 O-foot rear yard setback variance from the 15-foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5-foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential One was DENIED. " Board of Adjnstment Resolution W A-06-06 (C) Page two (2) ADOPTED and made Ilffective this 25th day of May, 2006. ~~" Ann Lazzeri, secret~ Board of Adjustment c. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WF-06-02 be, and hereby is approved. DRAFT For the following reasons: 1. The variance has been approved by the director of public works who is the city's floodplain administrator, and the project has been recommended for approval by staff. With the following conditions: 1. All the floors ofthe structure, includiug mechanical systems, must be placed at a minimum of one foot or more above the 100-year flood level as per city ordinance. . 2. No impairment ofthe floodway shall occur. Structures and site grade shall be built at a level as submitted by the applicant to the city, including the retaining wall. 3. Off-site grading of the site to the north must be approved by the city prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion passed 7-0. (Chair Bell declared a briefrecess at 8:00 p,m, The meeting was reconvened at 8:06 p.m.) ~C. Case No. W A-06-06: An application filed.by Holly Hall and Stephauie . McNamara for approval of (A) a 3,5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback; (B) a 10-foot rear yard setback variance from the 15-foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5- foot rear yard setback; and (C) a 136 square foot variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R-l) and locatedat 3880 Everett Street. Board Member HOVLAND disclosed that he is associated with the applicant through membership in the same homeowners association and that he has no financial interest in the case. The case was presented by Travis Crane, He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case, He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. He advised t)lat two additional letters of objection had been received by staff, These were entered into the record and reviewed by the Board, Staff recommended approval of all three variance requests for reasons outlined in the staffreport. Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 5 - ~ In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Travis Crane stated that he did not feel the hardship was self-imposed given limited lot coverage requirements in this zone district, larger setbacks and grade changes, Board Member HOWARD asked ifthere was any comment regarding the shed during the building permit process for the applicant. Travis Crane responded that it was not considered because the plans showed the shed would be demolished. Since then the applicant decided to keep the shed. Those individuals wishing to address this case were swomin by Chair BELL. Holly Hall 3880 Everett Drive Ms. Hall, the applicant, stated that she didn't intend to violate zoning ordinances. She made an assumption, based on adjacent properties, to keep the shed five feet from the lot line. Due to setback liniits, she had to change the design of her garage to a smaller one which eliminated storage space. Therefore, she decided to keep the storage shed. She entered into the record five documents depicting the site plan and photos of her back yard and the shed. Improvements were made to the grading of her back yard which preclude placement of the shed in the graded area. Paint and roofing on the shed were improved to match the house. She stated there are mature trees on the north and east sides of the shed, There will be . a 6' fence on the south, Her neighbor, Elizabeth Grant believes her property value would be decreased by the location of the shed; however, her property values have stayed the same in 2005 and 2006 according to county assessor's records, DRAfl , In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms, Hall stated the shed was 12-feet by 12-feet in size and 9-1/2 feet on the high end and 9 feet on the lower end, It is 2 feet higher than the fence on the low end and 2-1/2 feet higher than the fence on the high end. Bill Whitfield 4015 Everett Street . Mr, Whitfield lives across the street from the applicant. He spoke in support of the variance because he believed it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He is involved with Wheat Ridge 2020 and stated that the applicant's renovation of her house is a shining example of the type ofrenewal that Wheat Ridge is trying to foster. He believed the applicant's renovation to her property has added value to other properties in the neighborhood: The shed represents 2S,9% lot coverage which is only ,9% over city requirements, Elizabeth Grant 3881 Estes Ms, Grant lives directly behind the applicant and spoke in opposition to the variance request. The shed is next to her property line and is very visible and Board of Adjustment OS-2S-06 - 6- presents an obstruction to her property that will reduce her property values, She suggested that there were three other locations for the shed on the applicant's property affect her property, She did not agree with the city's staff report because the applicant was aware of the setback requirements before she started to build. The applicant also promised to remove the shed and then changed her mind. The location of the shed violates the R-l zoning regulations, She stated that she had been informed by the city that the applicant would be required to comply with setback regulations. She stated that the reason the applicant is asking for a variance is that she made her house too large. She commented that many older sheds are encroaching in the neighborhood and it's time to stop these situations from occurring and further degrading the neighborhood, Board Member HOWARD asked where the property line existed. Ms, Grant stated that she believed it was midway between the two fences Catherine Grant .' DRAFT 3881 Estes Ms. Grant is the daughter of Elizabdh Grant. She spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that there are no mature trees involved to screen the shed but scrub trees that are going to be removed, The shed will shade the area where her mother wanted to plant a garden, Jay Peck 825 Carmel Drive Mr. Peck stated that realtors and appraisers have indicated the shed would amount to a $S,600 econornic loss in property value to the applicant. , Holly Hall returned to podium to state that an ILC exists which shows that the chain link fence is on the property line, Board Member ABBOTT commented that the staff could have made an administrative variance for lot coverage, Travis Crane agreed and explained that the application is before the Board because of the other two variance requests, He commented that when city council modified setback requirements for accessory structures in 2003, the R -1 zone district was the only district which remained unchanged, There were no other individuals who wished to address the case. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment OS-2S-06 -7- Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-06 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were 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 Case No. WA-06- 06(A) be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: DRAfT 1. The 136 square foot increase to maximum lot coverage is fairly insignificant given a lot size of 15,000 square feet. 2. The lot is oversized at 15,000 square feet and the impact of the increase to lot coverage will not have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are several lots within the neighborhood which meet or exceed the 25% maximum lot coverage in the R-1 zone district. The 136 foot increase is less than 1 % increase in total lot coverage making it less than 26%. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure and, as such, will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Board Member REIHNART stated that he would support the motion because lot coverage is not the issue that would impact the adjacent property, Board Member ABBOTT stated he would not support the motion because he believed the property could still yield a return in use without the need for a shed or related variances; the variance would not result in a benefit or contribution to . the general neighborhood; and letters in opposition were submitted by three immediately adjacent neighbors, He believed the hardship was self-imposed by the applicant due to recent construction and landscape improvements, Since the shed is 12-foot by 12-foot by 9-feet in height a smaller shed could be built and still be within the ordinance, Board Member HOVLAND commented that if the variance is granted, there is still the option to move the shed elsewhere on the property, Further, the request only exceeds lot coverage reqUirements, which are the most restrictive in the city, by less than 1 % Board of Adjustment OS-2S-06 - 8 - L 6. 7. Board Member HOWARD offered a friendly amendment that if the motion is denied, the shed is to be. removed within thirty days. The amendment was not accepted by Board Members HOVLAND and BLAIR, . Motion failed 4-3 with Board Members ABBOTT, HOWARD... W ~ voting no. . DK~r' Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-06 (B) and (C) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and I Whereas the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not 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 Case No. W A-06-06 (A) and (B) be, and hereby is denied. For the following reasons: The square footage lot coverage variance was denied. The motion passed 7-0. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing, OLD BUSINESS . Chair BELL anllounced that new bylaws for the Board of Adjustment have been approved by City Council. . Travis Crane announced that Rob Osborn has been appointed as executive director of Wheat Ridge 2020. . Chair BELL commented that, since the new bylaws have been approved, members could now begin encouraging citizens to serve as alternates on the Board. ' 8. NEW BUSINESS Board of Adjustment 05-25~06 -9- ~S~h?z.,..?~ d ~ A ~4c~~ U",-4u./ - u? ~-/ . ~'/ ''-<L~y 'I )J'4-<j ;;{')~;;2iJo(", e~ '>k, 6),4 -o{,-{) (, ~1E(c1E~%7IE\D) MAY 2 3 ZUOfi Board of Adjustment The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29111 Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 May 23, 2006 Re: Case No. WA-06-06 Variance for 3880 Everett St. Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment, We have received the notice from the City concerning your May 25,2006 variance hearing. As we understand the situation, after the recent additions to the house at 3880 Everett, the shed was moved too close to the property lines of adjacent neighbors. In addition, the shed now surpasses the maximum square footage of structures allowed in R-l.. Therefore, even if the shed were to be moved to satisfY the setback requirements and give relief to neighbors, it would still be in violation, We are not in favor of this vanance. Yours truly, ~d~~ Eugenia Merkle 3891 Estes Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Case #W AfJ606 Concerning: 3880 Everett Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Planning Division / Board of Adjustment, I woUld like to apologize for not being able to appear in person. Please review the following questions and concerns. Questions: L 2. 3. Did the property owners' request for a variance derive from a complaint? Is there currently a zoning violation on the property, and if so, have the property owners been issued a violation notice? Was a building permit issued within the last two years that included the now requested variances and if so why was there not a public hearing? Ifa building permit was issued within the last two years tbat did not include the requested variances in what capacity were these logically (an obvious one is exceeding maximum sq. ft allowance) foreseen variances addressed? Do the requested variances concern an existing structure? If the requested variances address an existing structure, was this structure ever moved or torn down and rebuilt? If the requested variances do address an existing structure and the variances are granted can current or future property owners erect new structures or add to existing structures using these variances? 4. 5. 6. 7. Concerns: 1. Obviously Wheat Ridge zoning laws protect real property rights. assure proper land use for all the citizens and zoning variances are usually applied for and granted to alleviate foreseen problems. A possible concern lies within the application for variances to correct zoning violations. 'A complete overview of past applications and rulings would need to occur in order to assess if this is the historical norm. One or two in the past 10 to 14 years might not constitute a trend, yet the more recent of such a variance granting the more effective it is in arguing ones own case for a corrective'zoning variance. Ifsuch a recent precedent has not been set and is not the norm should an exception made? If a recent precedent has been or would be set would/could any applicant applying for a similar variance and being subsequently denied possibly/probably use such ruling/rulings in their appeal process within Jefferson County courts? Since this variance request directly impacts my property I would like to express some personal thoughts and observations. After Writing the above questions and concerns I was given a copy of the zoning/planning offices' recommendations. Many of my questions are answered in the docwnent, yet the questions are generic. They fit most situations where an owner applies for a zoning variance and in particular to a variance request to correct a violation. The zoning/planning office recommends that all variance requests be approved, My response to their approval justifications are: One piece oflogic behind their approval of the south side variance is that the shed will have little impact on my property value (or my daily living) because it borders a driveway and garage. I assume the logic is that I walk out of my house with blinders on until I get in my car or go into my garage. or I never look east while looking out my kitchen window. Or, in general, that most people do not care where a structure is located or how it looks or what zoning ordinances it violates just as long as it is located by their garage or driveway. Another reason for approval is that the shed blends in well with the rest of the property. It does. It is square, grey. and has a metal shed roof. May one then asswne that ifone builds a home that is three stories with the third story (as long as they do not exceed 23 ft in height) being a purple turret that they can build a shed (locate it in violation of zoning ordinance) that is also a purple turret sit back with no worries and if someone complains just apply for a variance and more then likely, the zoning/planning office of the city of Wheat Ridge will give their approval. . Yep, it seems so. Ignorance of the lawis not a defense and not having knowledge ofa zoning ordinance does not exclude one from following it. But it happens and allowances should be made in zoning cases. Exceeding the maximum allowed square footage and knowing- it is a different story. I believe this is the case here. How could one not know that they are exceeding the maximum sq. ft. allowance when one received a recent building permit stating that they were just 8 ft. under the maximum allowed? Again, just request a variance after the fuct and the zoning/planning department will once again agree. If! was to locate this type shed on my property I also would put it where I can not see it. That is why it is where it is. It has nothing to do with a 1% grade or not being able to find space for a 12 x 12 shed somewhere else on the property. I would like to suggest a couple of possible solutions. One solution might be to turn the shed a quarter of a revolutiort and 3.5 ft to the north. move it five feet (or a less in agreement with the neighbor to the east) to the west and the shed roofa quarter revolution to south. - The owners would still have access around the shed and access to the doors. Another solution might be to make the shed smaller! In both examples the sheds' placement would at least comply with the set back ordiIJance. Truly, I really do not care what the out come is for I am living with it as I write this and to me that reality is wrong, but yet everyone eventually needs to work on solutions with their neighbors. It is up to the Board of Adjustment to do what they feel is correct. As fur as the city Wheat Ridge is concerned, I believe they are in a losellose situation. Eventually someone will take this mess that has been created by the zoning/planning office to court on one side of the :fence or other (so to speak) and the city will have to defend their decision. I would think that most set back violations concern sheds or out buildings. Maybe the zoning office should review these requirements and adjust them to what is really going on. .' Thank you, Dave Petersen 3870 Everett Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Witness Signature:~-\L Date: ::;-~ .:;2 ,,~a:;.. ~ Printed n e ~:t:~tur~ . Hazel C. Crabb 4040 Everett St. WheatRidge, CO 80033 Friday, 11ay26, 2006 ~~~~~ Board of Adjustment City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Ave, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: Case #W A-06-06 To Whom It May Concern: In reference to the above case: I have been a resident of the BelAire Neighborhood since 1950, During this time I have seen many changes to the subdivision. I am not in favor of approving the 3,5 foot side yard setback and the 10 foot rear yard setback. I believe this to be a negative variance for the adj acent neighbors, and a precedent setting variance for the entire neighborhood. The property owners should have been aware of the existing requirements at the time of their construction. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion, ZcLlJ~ .~_' Haz&1C, Crabb y~~ /'Z'J/l o lJ1 lJ1 o o [J"'" [J"'" r-' <-..J()IJJ <0"1;:+0 ::r 0 '< Dl <1>00a. ~:;E-o ;:U<1>:;E- -. (J) ::r)> 0.,...... CO a. CO N Dl ~. CD CD ,...... C . :f;:u S!\- () -'3 0)>0.<1> <co;:, 0:>$1><1>..... o o "" "" -,J o o -'= -'= ru o en :i~il rr "'---~i", .rr'! ll.~'. / '-/) :' .I ~ 'c- i .~ ,~.! l" i\; ~\6i\!i ~ ", \'-'4'0',! . 2;~i~,\r.! iil \ !;';.'! l ~ \" "-''!.:!--:\i>.... ( i'-;.; :c;:~".~, ~'; 'i (..' ~ ~H.'l",e~.a{~l \ 'J ""&!-~1' ~". '<;;'1 ' lit c-.;:; ~;",\ ' (;,..., I~ I .)~~ ~ 1/ (}~ ~lli: ~ CJIl1i r"""l " jilt' ",- ~~~i~,.~-3_~~ ~" ,. , J .. Ja.A>?v~i:Z'-d ~ /~t<j fJ {k...L-C {lj '-f.u~~~ ri /7(~ d S-J ;] 00 Co UJ (! - 06 - 0 (, LOCATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH SITE WALL LOCATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH SLOPED GRADING """""lJE rf4"1O(XlfDlCf., "'"'" ~15'4 """...,"""" HlmtS lr-o- SU...,"""" EWJl.ll[&SlORf:Wf&.ef'E A 8 o .If'f'ROXIWEl..CX1JDI CfEXSTH::lmS &:Ell.S-ESc.lADJ,lOOfTf'lllHRlY o I I o 0 ~)(> I I '" 1"---\ I I I I I I I I i I REl.OOOQl CfsaDl I~~I I I iL C I I ~""""" """''''' .. . .. , IIlJ5I: PARTIAL SITE PI.AU Y.e,,,,"{I' C LOCATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH PATIO EXIT l~' 'in U') 11'-6" I " ,I " II " I " oonJE ro ~ RE-<IXl<ID<"",,, "/lIR-1S<J'1.\1Cl(S ~MSWo: """"''''''''''' .."'" ~15'-o" SU...,"""" """"""".." """ 0>ru:T 11TH""" 1OfN'I'U:"'" Q) '" u '" co <:) Q) <:) '0 ex> '00 0 Q) '0 ~ '" 0 - 0 - CO u ..r::: cD CJ) - :g CO :.... Cil CO Q) L E :;: - CO m :t:: s::: Q) (.) CD > E Q) <:) ex> ex> '" <D '" '" N ~ :;; u> N I- Z W :;; ?- m ::> ~ o <to CL o o c:: C3 al o I- o W I- Z w m w c:: a. <D 9 <D 9 ~ o z w (f) i3 McNAMARA/HALL RESIDENCE 3880 EVERETT STREET WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 VIEW FROM NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHED VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SHED CASE NO WA-06-06 . PRESENTED TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 25 MAY 2006 McNAMARA/HALL RESIDENCE 3880 EVERETT STREET WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 LOOKING EAST - SHED ROOF & TREES SHED ROOE HOUSE ROOF LOOKING EAST - HOUSE ROOF, SHED ROOF CASE NO WA-06-06 . PRESENTED TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 25 MAY 2006 McNAMARA/HALL RESIDENCE 3880 EVERETT STREET WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 SHED ROOE AERIAL VIEW OF BACKYARD PROPERTIES CASE NO WA-06-06 . PRESENTED TO BOARD OF ADjUSTMENT. 2S MAY 2006 McNAMARA/HALL RESIDENCE 3880 EVERETT STREET WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 -c:::::::~". , , SHED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS CASE NO WA-06-06 . PRESENTED TO BOARD OF ADjUSTMENT. 25 MAY 2006 3880 EverettDlive A request for approval ofa 5-footsetbackvariance, a3.5-footse tback variance and a 136 square foot lot coverage valiance to allow a shed in the R-1 :ronedistrict BoardofAdjustmenl Thursda.Ma25,200B 1 2 3 Variance requests: " 3.5-footside yard selback variance -10-footrearyardsetbackvariance . 136 square foot lot coverage variance Each variance will require a separate motion TheR-1 zone districl requires: -A 15.foot side yard setback -A 15-footrearyardselback . A maximum lot coverage of 25% 3 The subject property is 15,000 square feet in size 25% of 15,000 is 3,750 square feet Property recently received a building permit for an addition The 'new' house is 3,742 square feet in size The shed is 144 square feel in size Property will exceed the maximum lot coverage by 136 square feet 15' Setback Site Plan 4 Three lellers of objection have been submitted (one is included in p acket) One letter of support has been submitted Staff is recommending approval of each request with no conditions Each request will require a separate motion The Board should act on the lot coverage variance first, as it dictates the allowance oflhe shed 5 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjus1ment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: W A-06-06/Hall DATE OF MEETING: May 25,2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 3.5 foot side yard variance resulting in an 11.5foot side yard setback, a 10 foot rear yard setback resulting in a five foot rear yard setback and a 136-square foot lot coverage for property zoned Residential One. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3880 Everett Drive APPLICANT (S): Stephanie McNamara & Holly Hall 3880 Everett Dr. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 15,000 sq. ft. (0.34 ac.) OWNER (S): Same PRESENT ZONING: Residential One (R-I) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION Site ![j 0 ~ a; iO ~ 0 v v 0 ~ 00 ill 0 0 0 v v il v 0 v i;; IE ~ N v ~ ~ 0 ~ N v 0 ;;; v 0 0 ~ v 0 ~ ~ <Ji 0 0 v N N v 0 N v ... 0 '" v 0 ~, >l ~ N ~ ~ bI 0 N ~ N N ,.. v ~ ,Q ~'0' N g 0 '" 0 ~ v W 0 ~ ~ 0 N M Q Il ;1;1I- v 00 M 00 00 ;;; '00 00 N N 00 ~ 00 00 00 N N 0 ~ 00 N ~ 00 Location Map ~ ~ o v o <l v ~ ~ <R..1 o ... 00 00 i;; ~ 00 ""'" ~ M ~ t; N ~ ~ o ~ ~ o o ~ o o ~ r ~ ~ 00 ~ ;: 00 Board of Adjustment W A-06-06/Hall 1 All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of three variances, all of which are related to the location of a shed. The variances are: a 3.5 side yard setback variance resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback, a 10 foot rear yard setback resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback and a 136 square foot lot coverage variance (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). II. CASE ANALYSIS Request The property is 15,000 square feet in size, has a rectangular shape, and has a gentle slope from south to north. The applicant wishes to keep a shed in the southeast comer of the property (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). The applicants recently completed an addition to the existing single-family structure. The shed which is the focus of the variance requests previously existed on the property in a conforming position. During construction, the shed was moved to the southeast comer of the property. During the permit review stage, the applicants identified the shed as being demolished. Instead, the shed was relocated and consequently violated the side and rear yard setback requirements, as well as maximum lot coverage. The R-l zone district requires a 15 foot side and rear yard setback forany structure. The applicants wish to place the shed 11.5 feet from the side (southern) property line and 5 feet from the rear (eastern) property line. Additionally, the R-l zone district allows a maximum lot coverage of25% of the property. Lot coverage is defined as the area of the lot covered by structures such as houses, garages and sheds. The subject property is 15,000 square feet in size. Based on this,a maximum of 3,750 square feet may be covered by structures. With the new house addition, the lot coverage is 3,742 square feet, or 24.95 percent. The shed is 144 square feet in size. If the applicants wish to keep the shed, the total lot coverage would be 3,886 square feet, or 25.96 %. All other development standards will be met. The entire neighborhood is zoned R-l, and consists of well established single family homes. An analysis was performed of the neighborhood from W. 38th Avenue to W. 41't Avenue on the east side of Everett Drive and the west side of Estes Street. The analysis revealed that most of the properties are well below the 25% maximum lot coverage. All lots in the study area are at least 14,000 square feet in size. The minimum lot size in the R-l zone district is 12,500 square feet Only two of the properties in this study area were at or exceeded the maximum lot coverage allowed in the R -1 zone district. However, many of these properties did contain either outbuildings or main structures which do not meet the minimum required side or rear yard setback. In fact, more than half had at least one encroachment into the 15-foot side or rear yard setback area. Only two of the Board of Adjustment W A-06-06/Hall 2 properties received a variance to allow these encroachments. For most of the properties, there is no information located within the building permit files which would identify how or when these non-conforming structures were constructed. The shed would be located 11.5 feet from the side (southern) property line. The location of the shed would be adjacent to a neighbor's driveway and detached garage, and therefore would not impact the neighbor to the south. The shed would be 5 feet from the rear (eastern) property line, and located in an area which contains mature landscaping. This landscaping will screen the eastern elevation of the shed. A packet of information has been submitted by a neighbor who objects to the variance , request. This neighbor lives directly to the east (3881 Estes Street). This packet has been attached as Exhibit 3. A letter in support of the variance has been submitted from the property owner to the north (3890 Everett Drive). This letter has been attached as Exhibit 4. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Because there are three separate requests, staff will discuss each request independently. The first variance discussion will relate to the lot coverage variance, as it is the most integral to the three requests. Simply, if the lot coverage variance is not approved, the setback variances may not be approved. The side and rear yard setback variance requests can be approved (or denied) separately. Request A: Lot coveral!:e Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 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 regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains a single-family structure, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request "A". If the request were denied, the applicants would be required to remove the shed. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality would hot be altered. An analysis was performed for the entire block (from W. 38th to W. 41st on the east side of Estes Street and west side of Everett Drive), and the neighborhood has an average lot coverage of 15%. There are at least three properties which are close to or exceed the 25% maximum lot coverage. The property directly to the south of the subject property (3870 Everett Drive) has a lot coverage of23%, and a property to the north of the subject property has a lot coverage in excess of 25%. All of the lots within the immediate neighborhood are at least 14,000 square feet in size. A lot which is 14,000 square feet with 25% lot coverage does not have the impact of a lot of smaller size with 25% lot coverage. That is, a larger structure on a larger lot does not Board of Adjustment W A-06-06/Hall 3 seem as cramped or overbearing. The applicants are requesting an increase to lot coverage of 136 square feet, a fairly inconsequential increase above the maximum 25%. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The shape and physical characteristics of a property have no bearing on the request to increase the allowable maximum lot coverage. The R-l zone district allows a maximum lot coverage of25%. Based upon a lot of 15,000 square feet, a total 00,750 square feet of lot coverage is allowed. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? A person who has interest in the property has caused the hardship. The applicants constructed a house which occupied 24.9% of the property. By keeping the 144 square foot shed, the lot coverage is being exceeded. It should be noted that the R-l zone district is the most restrictive zone district in respect to lot coverage. The 25% maximum limitation is the lowest of all residential zone districts. 5. Would the granting ofthe variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fIre. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a ,benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with. disabilities? The request would not result a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the property owner. The request would n,ot result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Request B: Side Yard Setback Variance 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 regulation for the district in which it is located? Board of Adjustment W A-06-06/Hall 4 If the request were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains a single-family structure, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request "B". If the request were denied, the applicants would be required to either move or remove the shed. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. A visual survey and an analysis of the aerial photographs was performed for the entire block (from W. 38th to W. 41 sl on the east side of Estes Street and west side of Everett Drive), and there are numerous outbuildings which do not currently meet the required side yard setback. In the neighborhood, there are 10 structures which appear to violate the 15 foot side or rear yard setback requirement. Of these 10 structures, 2 received a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The lot has a gentle slope from south to north. The largest grade change comes from the separation betWeen the lawn and the patio. A grade change of approximately three feet exists in this area. Given the location of the new house expansion, coupled with thel5- foot side and rear yard setback requirement, the applicants have extremely limited opportunity to locate a shed in the rear yard. The applicants have also re-landscaped the backyard, complete with a patio which impedes the opportunity to place the shed in a conforming location. The side' and rear yard setback requirement alone severely restricts an opportunity to locate the shed in a conforming location. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? A person who has interest in the property has not caused the hardship. The hardship arises from the grade change between the patio and lawn area, coupled with the location of the structure addition. The area of expansion for the structure occurred to the east and south. The applicants constructed the house addition at or near the 15-foot setback line, leaving little room for location of the shed. " 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fIre. The IRe specifies that residential buildings that are within three feet of the property line must have a one-hour Board of Adjustment W A -06-06/HaIl .5 rated firewall. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request would not result a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the property owner. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Request C: Rear Yard Setback Variance 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 regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains a single-family structure, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request "C". If the request were denied, the applicants would be required to either move or remove the shed. If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. A visual survey and an analysis of the aerial photographs was performed for the entire block (p-orn W. 38th to W. 41st on the east side of Estes Street and west side of Everett Drive), and there are numerous outbuildings which do not currently meet the required rear yard' setback. In the neighborhood, there are 10 structures which appear to violate the 15 foot side or rear yard setback requirement. Of these 10 structures, 2 received a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The lot has a gentle slope from south to north. The largest grade change comes from the separation between the lawn and the patio. A grade change of approximately three feet exists in this area. Given the location of the new house expansion, coupled with the 15- foot side and rear yard setback requirement, the applicants have extremely limited opportunity to locate a shed in the rear yard. The applicants hilVe also re-landscaped the backyard, complete with a patio which impedes the opportunity to place the shed in a conforming location. The side and rear yard setback requirement alone severely restricts an opportunity to locate the shed in a conforming location. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Board of Adjustment W A-06-06/Hall 6 A person who has interest in the property has not caused the hardship. The hardship arises from the grade change between the patio and lawn area, coupled with the location of the structure addition. The area of expansion for the structure occurred to the east and south. The applicants constructed the house addition at or near the 15- foot setback line, leaving little room for location of the shed. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fIre or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The IRC specifies that residential buildings that are within three feet of the property line must have a one-hour rated firewall. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefIt or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefIt on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request would not result a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the property owner. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S) Each request will require a separate motion. If the lot coverage variance is not approved, the side and rear setback variances cannot be approved. Request A: Lot coveral!:e variance Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The 136 square foot increase to maximum lot coverage is fairly insignificant given a lot size of 15,000 square feet. 2. The lot is oversized at 15,000 square feet and the impact ofthe increase to lot coverage will not have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are several lots within the neighborhood which meet or exceed the 25% maximum lot coverage in the R-l zone district. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure, and as such will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Board of Adjustment W A-06-06/Hall 7 Request B: Side yard setback variance Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The shed will be located 11.5 feet from the southern property line, adjacent to a neighbor's driveway and garage, thereby lessening the impact of the variance request. 2. The expansion of the house and grade change between the new patio and lawn area restrict the opportunity to place the shed in a conforming location. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure, and as such will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. There are multiple structures in the neighborhood which encroach into the required 15 -foot side or rear yard setback area. 5. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Request C: Rear yard setback variance Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The shed will be located 5 feet from the eastern property line and will be screened by largeJmature landscaping. 2. The expansion of the house and grade change between the new patio and lawn area restrict the opportunity to place the shed in a conforming location. A newly planted tree on the west side ofthe shed further restricts the placement of the shed. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure, and as such will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. There are multiple structures in the neighborhood which encroach into the required 15 -foot side or rear yard setback area. 5. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Board of Adjustment, WA-06-06/Hall 8 MCNAMARA/HALL 3880 EVERETT STREET WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80033 303,940,5688 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7S00 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 March 3 I , 2006 This letter is a request for a variance to the zoning setback requirements for a shed in an area zoned R-I where a 15'~0" rear and side yard set back are required for a shed at the property of 3880 Everett Street, We applied and received a permit in June of 2005 for an addition and remodel to the existing house, During the construction process a neighbor submitted a complaint that the location of the shed was decreasing their property value, After receiving the notice of this complaint we learned that the set backs for a shed in our neighborhood are 15'-0" for rear and side yards, When we decided to move the shed we were unaware of these setbacks, All properties adjacent to us have a shed within 0' -0" to 5' -0" of rear and side yards, Because of the locations of sheds nearby our contractor made an assumption that the shed could be relocated within a five foot setback, which is typical for most municipalities, The new location of the shed is +/- 5'-0" from the rear property line and +/_11 '-6" from the south side property line, We have invested a lot in the improvements of the shed, We put a new roof with gutters on the shed, which lowered the roof line from what it was prior to the improvements, We had the shed painted to match the addition as well as re-Iocating the shed as inconspicuously as possible, There are bushes and trees on the east property line of the shed that create a screen as well as a new tree on the south side to act as a screen, The new landscaping of the rear yard does not allow the shed to be located within the R-I setbacks, Please see the attached documents and photos in review of this petition, 5i ncerely, Holly Hall Stephanie McNamara EXHIBIT 1 .-_._su ---- --......- EXHIBIT 2 ~ -- .~ ~- .- ~ ~a-." ~ G~~ r-o-lIXOltXl: G~~ o """'""" t>-()"1IOOlfDia. =x: K:lCUrs13'-()" IlENlYJJlOSOE/rCl( t()CI.ItS13'-O" S:cE:YAADsrra.lO: '- (:X!SlN;N'Pt!lIl!( '--'--'-=--'\-'--'--'-- """"" """ 101'-5" , ! I I i I ~-\ ~i i ~~, , .' i I'! , ., i 'i I I. i i "i ! /! I i ,I' , .' i 'I i : Ii i . , 'I i I. i Ii i ,- ! ,I! . , II i . , Ii I- i ,I I i IS'1;:CN;fl(l'f ="'" """"" """ """'""""'" """'''''''''' 1l!tHPm:lDllT i)l ,at"" '" ... IXlIII-t-llllllloU ~- ...... IS'CXN::ll(I'( ="'" '., . "<Xl" I' " " " " ,. " " " " " i , j , j , j ,at"" ... ,I --- i " " " " I , i , j , i , :! IB , I , " " 'I i , i , i ! ~"""\ i ! " " ,j """"W""""- Rr-lOCAlOll"Olm "/JIR-I'S[TSlO(S """'''''''''' ""'" 1OCI.ItS1S'-{I' "'''''''''''''' IlO.OCAlOlCESI6l """''''''''' """"" ....""''''' 0880 EVERETT STREET ffi11 .J EXISTING SITE PLAN I/a'..\'-o" Q) C') (.) C') c C> Q) C> "0 <Xl '(;5 0 ~ -0 ~ 0 - 0 m (.) .c oi 0> - "0 CO '<= ... 'lti CO Q) .J:: E ,. CO en "" C Q) U Q; > E Q) C> <Xl <Xl C') OJ.1I.06 ORA'oINBY: Hl,EH A001 SITE PLAN .~ .J MEMORANDUM TO: Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment Members: District I: Paul Drda, DavIs Reinhart District II: Robert Blair, Robert Howard District ill: Thomas Abbott, Janet Bell District IV: Larry Linker, Paul Hovland City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department City Hall 7500 West 29111 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 { FROM: Elizabeth G. Grant and family 3881 Estes Street Wheat Ridge Colorado, 80033 Phone: 3/420-2544 DATE: May 17, 2006 SUBJECT: Board of Adjustment Hearing on Mav25.2006-Case No. WA-Ofo-Ob Regarding the case concerning two variance requests by Holly Hall and Stephanie McNamara, owners of the propertv at 3880 Everett Street. which is directly in back of our property, (on 3881 Estes St), Wheat Ridge, CO, 80033. I still have not received the certified letter from the city outlining the exact wording of the hearing process to take place May 25. In general. the two variances beine: - requested bv the occupants of 3880 Everett St. are:- 1. To exceed the maximum percentage of square foot coverage ofland allowed, for structures on their size oflot; (by city ordinance )and 2. To be allowed to place their large shed about 5 feet from our property line. As you know, there is a rule in place providing for a 15 foot easement at homeowners' back property lines in my neighborhood. This rule was written by city planners many years ago, to protect neighbors from encroachment and obstruction by adjacent property owners placing a structure too close to a neighbor's back or side property line. With respect to the above subject. I request that the Board of Adiustment deny the requests for these.twO-variallCeS. The basis for my request is that this shed is an obstruction for our property. Also, the remodeled house at 3880 Everett Street already occupies the maximum space allowed on the lot, and the enlarged house already now comes within 15 feet of our back property line, which is as close as anv buildings on neighboring lots are supposed to be. .- Page 2. Letter to the Board of Adiustment The regulatious governimr the granting of variances states: These limits were set in place to preserve the attractiveness of the neighborhood, and neighbors' and the neighborhood's space, visually, as well as physically. "As a rule, a variance- should only be granted when there is a unique physical problem (such as topography or irregular lot shape) and when there would be no detriments to the neighborhood ." 1.) The topographv of the lot in this case does llill' impact this case. It is essentially flat. Nor is there an irregular lot shape. Ms. Hall might have left this shed where it was before they remodeled in 2005, but they built a verv large addition* which now covers the land where the shed used to stand. Additionally, the city told her they could only have structures on a certain percentage of their lot. The way it is placed now, it is as far out of the way for them as possible, clearing their own view of the small back yard they have left. But ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS only about five feet awav from my property line. OVERSHADOWING an area where I hope to landscape. The shed is so large and so close to our property line, it detracts from this area of my property. (*Labeled photographs are attached, showing these circumstances.) In fact, in her plans: submitted to-the city in June of 2005, in order to obtain a building permit, Ms. Hall specified that this shed was "to be demolished." The problem is, she didn't do this. Soon afterward, she proceeded to hire someone to remodel this shed instead. "- She then placed this shed. last August, 2005. five feet or less awav from our back property line. (please see attached. (1.) a copv of her plans submitted to the city in June 2005. showing the shed's location before the extra wing was added to their completeJv enlarged and rebuilt house: the accompanYing notes she wrote designating the shed was to be demolished. along with (2.) a letter she wrote to us. -describing how she had remodeled this shed (despite what she had told the city). and (3.) photographs. showing the shed's location. 2.) This shed is a detriment to us because it causes an obstruction for our property. My partner consulted with a real estate broker and appraiser, about this. He was told that this obstruction lowers our property value while it lowers the visual appeal of our back properly line. It also limits the effect we can achieve by enhancing the landscaping in this area of our property. There used to. be a beautiful rock garden in this area of our property and I had planned to restore it, now that I have the time. The shed in question is too close, and it visually encroaches on this area of our land, and the shadows cast late in the day, and snow, etc. would affect this area just as the garage did, shirting in 197&, to our south. ('~e. ha.ue OJ\ oseo... on our 50U.+'" pro!", r~ I in e. w\-'ere. a.. _ '3o..rct~e. -l:nc:>.-r WOo'; buil+ +00 close -tu Our :)ar-d cas-tS as haoow C<.H\cl. snow dDe>$r\+ YY\el-r GlUlcKI-.:Ji -l:he Clddecl Cold ,'.,., wlyyter K,'\\ed VY\~ pri?e Y'o,e 'bushes I. 1ncU:! '3 roW)".:') near m'j SOu..-th bo~de'(", )1:hf' ~hedfifQ.\\OLUW -to s4cu-i., is o.detrirY\en-t -to m.'j propert't evr.d i+'5 va.lue. - " PART'l . Re: Board of Adjustment hearing on May 25 Letter to the Board PART 1: Page 3 I have had 10 _ months (REPEAT/ten MONTHS) experience oflookihg at this large- waoden storage shed (the object of the variances) at 3880 Everett; behind the crnmbling six-foot high wood fence. I am starting to sense that Marv's ghost lives an. Aside from the visual unattractiveness of this structure being so close to us, it is a conscious reminder of the reduction in the quality of my life so near my hand yet again. and already _ canstantly with me, from 1978. Csee pc>.ri: 2..J The following additional consequences form the basis for my appeal to the Board of Adjusters, that the current Variance(s) in question, for 3880 Everett Street, be denied. What also cancerns me is that had I not spoken up about this shed's placement to. the city plarmers last August, I ~ would have known about this hearing for a variance in time to. research and gather the information and photographs, etc. which seem to be essential, in order to. present my point of view and my request for a denial. (I still haven't - received my letter, and the hearing is a week away, and this is the deadline (Mayl7 or 18)for me to. submit a letter and photos, for distribution to the Baard members, to give you a chance to look over the issues involved on my behalf, beforehand). I strongly support the notion that Wheat Ridge Building Department has rules and regulations for the benefit and protection of all its property owners. But I have misgivings as whether or not it was my concern over this matter last summer that sparked this matter or was it a violation of the department's rules? (I submit, that it is important to ask, which came first- the department's rules, or my concerns expressed to the city, because of the vialation of my easement rights?) Is it the rules or is it my concern, governing the department's actions? After I voiced my concerns, it was a full nine months or so, before anything was caused to happen. Ms. Hall ignored the city all this time, when she was told she was in violation of the rnles, last summer. I absolutely agree with the Buildin.g Department's contention, that the Wheat Ridge property owners have an absolute right to make improvements to their property. I further agree, also, that there are rules and regulatians that should be followed by everyone, regarding matters changing property attributes. The fence at the property line does not hide the storage shed. Having the shed so close to the property line fence for all to see does not enhanc~V:tue of my property. The storage shed is an obstruction and a detraction from my property value. The detraction will be lessened if the storage shed is moved back from my property to the legal easement line of 15 feet, or removed entirelv and demolished as Ms. Hall said she was going to do. " - PART :Z;. Re: the Board of Adiustment. for the Rearln!!: Mav 25. 2006 Page If ,. ~ ~ PART ;a. The following is a history/chronology of the factS and ckcumstmees that! have experienced with respect to the City of Wheat Ridge Building Department and Board af Adjustment, regarding the issuance and approval of building permits/variances, years ago, prior to the Hall & McNamara variance matter now before you. I fully understand there is absolutely nothing I can do about this pre-matter, however it describes the environment and the basis for the eleven (11) specifkobjections in Part 2 which I have listed, regarding Ms. Hall's two variance requests (the hearing), set for May 25. There is a 720 foot garage which towers above my south property line, only 4 feet away fram my yard, built in 1978. This garage is located at 3879 Estes and is located on approximately their narth property line. Because it is located on a incline that is higher than my property, this huge garage casts shadows on my lot as a two story building wauld. For the past 27 years it has limited my view, and limited the sunlight on this part of my property to where myoid rose garden will not grow since it was put up. It governs my free right and use of this area of my property, for any building purposes of my own, for the past and for the future. It is an ugly, dark structure, and looms over this part of my land. Itwould be very unaesthetic for me to place a comparable structure alongside it, for example, on my land. One can only wonder how and why this variance was ever granted to Marv. He claimed "the slope of his land" required that it be placed so close to my property . ,He also claimed ifhe put it further away from my property, (i.e. the required 15 feet) he'd have a hard time making the smaIl turn in his driveway this would necessitate! His reasons were pure hokum! The truth is, it would be ugly, to him, to have it block part of his view out his back windows, and so much betterJ1Orhim,*-oobstritc:trny So. pmrer-l::l.1 i (Ie i :I:-b raised the value of his property handsomely, while it diminished my property's appeal ,nSb?cid and visual aesthetics greatly. A nd my 1"1'"0 pert-v 1fa.\ue..I<>"" dIm)" \5~ed oue....."'" -\'r~1:;o" ' One of the beautiful features I fell in love with, about this neighborhood, was the 0 s = spaciousness of the lots, and the generous space between dwellings. This garage ruined this beauty for us in our backyard. I would have asked that it not be built, if I had been forewarned. I live in the shadow of this building, now and forever. There is (and was) nothing I could do about it now or then. I was never warned ahead of time. The old method of notice, namely an annauncement in the back of the Sentinel and a small sign in their yard, escaped my notice as an extremely busy, working divorced mother of two young children, at the time. Marvin AIms in 1978 owned this property to my south, at 3879 Estes. Marvin had been a major Wheat Ridge building contractor, for years, at this time. '. Letter to Board of Adjustment Page - Marvin wanted a big garage innnediately and so, applied for and received a variance on his North Property line to build a garage almost on top of the property line that separated our properties. (seephotas (o.e"<"\o.l \lieu.> ). The city, at that time, granted the variance, WITHOUT effective NOTICE TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE, which at the time upset the neighborhood, but there was nothing we could do about it. The building permit and variance were granted without due comment fram any of the neighboring property owners, and it was appraved quietly by a handful of people present, just enough were there to. pass the vote, totally unopposed. This garage was then erected in less than one week. Later on, we learned that the electrical wiring was nat put in to code, nor were certain other portions of this structure built correctly, as well. But it was all "approved". I tried to inquire of Marv about this huge garage practically on our boundary line, but I waS rebuffed. I was crushed. Marvin subsequently hinted, that he knew the building department staff and they "cooperated" to. help him get the garage put through. Furthermore, if a concerned property owner approached the building department, he then found his efforts were a waste of time and money, for persons there in years past could effectively stonewall or- influence these appeals. Marvin added that potential civil court appeals were a waste of time for neighbors. Consequently, Marvinwas.able to hold the neighborhood at arms length until he died about thirteen years later. My beautiful rose garden along the property line by his garage, died for lack of direct sunlight. Only those plants which do. not require direct sunlight, now grow there. In winter, snow drifts don't thaw readily due to. the shadows cast by this very tall structure. When it rains, the moisture does not evaporate, and causes the area to be wet and moldy, owing to the problems of drainage from his huge garage roof and the slope of his lot. Basically, I lost the free right and use of about 900 square feet of my prime southern exposure. As I've said, I lost the flower beds along more than half of my south property line and all I could do is to try to grow scrub oak/buckthorn and such to try to hide the encroaching 16 foot high garage wall from view. c Please, I am living today with Marvin's legacy. To. me, the shadow, facts and circumstances of 1978 are upon me again today, with the specter of yet another structure (the shed to my west)possibly becoming a permanent encroachment on our property. I ask you to please not allow these variances. The following is not just a speculative or prospective hardship to me, it is experienced, real, here and now. > Letter to the Board, Part 2. continued- Pae:e6 If the variances are issued, these will be hardship on me, and for any prospective buyer of my property. My realtor is experienced in property appraising. The storage shed is a visual obstruction and a definite item to. be listed on the appraisal worksheet as a deduction from the calculation where - average comps ate listed. (Where similar properties' values are averaged.) The overbearing garage encroaching on the south property line is a significant deduction already. The storage shed, if it is left there, would be a deduction on my property value too, estimated by one property appraiser to be at least ten thousand dollars since a variance would be required (since it would then be permanently allowed and have legal status.) I wish to apply for a bank loan to improve my property. I need a garage too, and expansion for the floor space and reamingement of the rooms and kitchen. The banlc loan officer told me to get an appraisal, submit an application and submit the particulars of my proposed building project. My realtor/appraiser walked the property and we did an initial worksheet of the comps and deductions to. arrive at a value of the property. This was not an official licensed professional appraisal; it was a tentative worksheet. This worksheet showed the details and the two variances' deductions (the garage and the potential storage shed if it were granted) and many other details. This was applied to my contractor's tentative cost workup of the construction I envisioned. My property value, under these circumstances, would not support the loan sought. The bank makes a further deduction, as a percentage to arrive at a figure that can be financed. This additional deduction is to cover the potential over-estimation in the property value by the appraiser. Under the new laws governing real estate property appraising, the basis for the itemized appraisal must be clearlv defined. each item added in or deducted out, to arrive at a value or price against a camp. The appraisers very license is at stake each time an appraisal is made, and every single point must be identified and justified and is subject to audit (and liability). Property appraising is now a semi-science and not the art form of a few years ago. Ms. Hall's storage shed, were it to be allowed to remain, is a clearlv identifiable reduction in the prospective value of my property and as a consequence I would be unable to get the loan I wanted. The contractor noted that it would be difficult or impossible for ME to get a variance to do work within the south property easement. (Where the huge garage looms four or five feet away, over my south property line.) " Letter to the Board of Adjustment, Part 2, Page 7 It is fair to say that I do not have the same equal opportunity as my neighbors to the south did; to improve the economic value of my property to the maximum extent because it has been limited by this one prior variance. Please do not inflict another encroachment such as the shed would cause, an my property to the west. Preemption has an economic value, there are wiIJrrers and there are losers, and it depends on which side of the property line you are on.And in Wheat Ridge I would hope it isn't still true that it is a matter of who gets there first! I would sustain an economic loss if this variance( s) were granted. It is arguable as to the amaunt ofloss. The sale price of my property at some point will reflect this loss. The prospective buyer of my property will be a loser too, for his aspirations are preempted, if:C: \lJe:re \:.0 selL - I have lived at 3881 Estes since 1974. Now, as a seuiar citizen, on a fixed income and retired, I wish to. look forward to preserving, protecting and perpetuating whatever quality of life I have left. A hO}lle and a nice garden where I can grow a variety of plants, is where whatever quality of life might be left for me. Please order the shed at 3880 Everett to be demolished, as the official plans called for. Very trn1y yours, -~~ .f4t2-H[, E' beth G. Grant and farmly Addendum to Letter to the Board of Adjustment, for hearing on May 25, 1006 The exercise of my future right to improve my property's economic value by asking for a variance either to the south or to the west, may be (or is) to some degree, preempted by these two existing structures. This preemption would not allow me to improve my property by a garage or shed in the future (should I choose to build one) outside the IS-foot easements.( With a set back, such as the extreme one Marv was granted.) I know it is speculation, but could you see yourself allowing me to build a future structure within 4 feet of the current garage or 5 feet to. the rear of the lot? Or imagine it as an aesthetic addition to our neighborhood, which has fought for a long time to preserve its rural (spacious) atmosphere? a. Using the new law and regulatious for determining a legal basis for a property appraisal or value, it is clear that the shed does not enhance my property _ values. The shed is not neutral with respect to either enhancing or degrading - values. The shed is. a definite item on the appraiser's list of "legal" considerations. The garage and/or shed are only seen as a DEDUCTION from the calculation of comparative real-estate value (comps). The only arguable item is the amount of deduction from the compo The appraiser is required to look at variances to present and adjoining properties. If they do not include this, there are legal remedies and room for subsequent appeals. b. It has already been arguably established, in my case, that the deduction caused by the garage being so close to my southem property line, already exists; lowering my potential resale property value. c. The potential for a second deduction. posed Dresently by the DroPOsed shed variance being requested bv Ms. Hall. is particularly onerous to me. It is arguable aswhat the amount of this deduction WILL BE but it is not arguable that there WILL BE a det:rinlental effect in achieving the highest possible loan value (or justified sale price) to. my property should I choose to get a loan to improve my property or sell the property. It is an obstruction to my property. It is also potentially a fire hazard. I would like to point out that two fires have occurred in the last ten or so years along my backyard property line. Both involved wires down, which sparked and caused fire threat. The last one was this March, and there are still charred remnants of that fire. The shed in question is too close to the property line from that standpoint as well. d. This deductible is not recognized (specifically) by the property tax assessors office on the grounds that as a percent of total value, a ten or 0- . . . twenty thousand dollar hit is inconsequential considering the method of overall calculable value factors. They average everything. However the assessor's office will include in the property file a natation to this effect (my complaint or concern if or when I register ane.). In other words, if ar when these neighbors add improvements of this variety to their property, it raises their property value, but I take the hit, unless I am allowedto-stapthem. e. If, the deduction (The lessening of my property value) is not being found on the assessors tax calculation, I will have to pay the full value and appeal (the admittance/allowance of the deductian)the assessment each year. It was explained that if everyone were granted these deductions, it would be in incalculable hardship on the county assessors staff just trying to keep up with the paperwork. f. A ten or twenty thousand dollar deduction is difficult to fmd in a percentage calculation. The best I can get is a notation in the file and an annual appeal. If and when I sell this property, no. matter what the assessor's office has said, patential buyers will look at these obstruction(s) to my property and either make a lower offer, or look for property which hasn't been corrupted by neighboring encroachments. g. I do not want further degradations to my own property, or to the general quality of our lovely Wheat Ridge neighborhaod. I have made annotated photographs of all aspects of this problem, which I have included, to assist in clarifying how important the denial of these proposed variances for the property at 3880 Everett Street are to me. I hope to remain on good terms with my neighbors who are involved in this hearing, and I look forward to a tour of their new hame. My concerns are strictly about maintaining the quality and value of my property. eth G. Grant 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 _ 303/235-2846 Fax: 303/235-2857 The City of lVheat Ridge May 16, 2006 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. W A-06-06 which is a request for approval of a 3.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback AND a 136 square foot - variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R -1) and located at 3880 Everett Street. This case will heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the MUnicipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on May 25, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning - Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. \\srv-ci-eng-OOl\users\kfield\Kathy\BOA \pubnotice\2006\wa0606.Vlpd ,,'-- - 3~S'O ~~; Dotted I, "I1e- Q.Pl?ro~in;~te~5"ze of. . en la~ed ,herne" al1d w n"fe s~ua.%. \?'9~ Y'ea.!:"". f?ense.'!.$t;,here. +he. she-ct l~sl'nc~Svl'tllY\et' Cif'2Pas::~1tyCF..''1''''._- ....200Fe. ,,'vi)J'A,Ac1Jb~ /Y'''Y f-'~ ~ cy M'e-~,> ~ OV~,J 5? Feet~~~,Jh Q006, rORY ,ICK ~80 '--" I CXl[Tl I I ~ () I '^ : I :2 7___J C))'&O . o ' GJ,CO 8.0' 0, 'V. '. CAR -' w ;AR. .GJ , ~2.8 LOT 1 7 ---,--..., r-- I. I 2' (j) I l~ I: I -n fTll I', 01 II I . ~ .LT--~~. <1 ----'- . ILL O :> d- O 1= ~ :~ i- I, if'! I I I S :3 " '" '" I X n '" t L ~1~- _~_~_o ,-,- L ,-,' ::J-' "50' LCONC. .STRIP , , GENFRAt INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3880 EVERETT STREET \VHEA T RIDGE. CO 80033 LAND AREA: 15.000 SF ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 R-3 OCCUPANCY EXIS11NG AREA: 1802 SF MAIN 437 SF GARAGE 2239 SF TOTAL EXISTING 299 SF AREA A 872 SF AREA 8 '332 SF AREA C 3742 SF < 3750 ALLOWABLE CONS:rnUCTlON TYPE: V-N NUMBER OF STORIES: 2 ABFlRFVlATlONS . (D) EXISTING ITEM TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) EXISTING ITEM TO REMAIN eN) NEW llEM . . AFF ABOVE FINISHED flOOR EQ EQUAL GFl GROUND-FAULT INDICATOR DC ON CENTER TYP TtPICAL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHER'iVlSE WI WITH GENFRAl NOTFS ~5heJ 1. ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL PROVIDE. A CERTIFICATE OR LIABILITY INSURANCE BEFORE STARTING WORK. 2. ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL PROVIDE A ONE-YEAR WRlffiN WARRRANTY FOR ALL NEW WORK. 3. DO NOT RUN ANY CONDUIT, REFRIGERANT LINES, WIRING .oR ANY OTHER UTIUTY LINE ON THE OUTSIDE OF A WALL. 4. FRAMER SHALL COMPLtTELY COVER WORK WITH TARPAULINS WHENEVER A CHANCE OF RAIN I, ~nR(,AC::T l:lV TU". MAT1""~'.' ""......,...,....~ SHEET rNrwx.. AO.O AO.1 AO.2 AO.3 AD1.1 AD1.2 A1.0 AU A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A2.1 A2.2 A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 E1.1 E1.2 50.0 81.0 S1.1 51.2 GENERAL INFORMATION & SPEC[FJCATlON~ EXISTING/DEMO SITE PLAN NEW BIlE PLAN 'NlNDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE EXISTING/DEMO BASEMENT PLAN EXISITNGj DEMO FIRST PLAN FLOOR BASEMENT PLAN FIRST flOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST flOOR RCP SECOND flOOR RCP ROOF PLAN ELEVA110NS ELEVATIONS BUILDING SECllONS WALL SECTIONS WALL SECTIONs POWER PLAN - FIRST FLOOR POWER PLAN - SECOND FLOOR GENERAL NOTES FOUNDATION PLAN MAIN FlOOR/LOW ROOF FRAMING PLAN UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLAN ~~~~ ____ _._.. _. m _.__ _. __________.___._.. ______~- _ _ . _22u_.1i~_.~aar..JL-. KATHRYN GRANT . ~ Me. &.:tv ~./ _ ./ ~ 3881 ESTES STREET . r/: re:. TnM WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 ttze. AUtzed -i.t., (WaV If 'hk , ~~cI II .-iI-~~-, ~ , M~. I am writing this letter for two. reasons. First is to apologize for the , . misunderstanding this summer, Our contractor had cut some tree i. branches and let them fall into your yard. Then when you were dropping i them back we responded thinking you were dropping your own branches i in our yard. I am truly sorry for this misunderstanding. During our i constructian we had a dumpster in our yard and had many mysterious i items left in it. Please understand why we responded the way we did and ! please accept our apologies. . MCNAMARA/HA.LL 3880 EVERETT STREET WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80033 303.940.5688 April 04, 2006 Dear Kathryn, i 1. . . Second, I understand that you filed a complaint with the City of Wheat I Ridge as to the location of our shed. We have done everything with the I shed to make it blend in with the. addition to our home. We have since I . discovered that the setback for a shed in this neighborhood is fifteen feet i from the back and side yard property lines, We have to applied for a vari- i ance for the new locatian of our shed. I do not believe that anyone on our i block has a shed that is in compliance with the City's zaning regulations. . i Unfortunately, we are now on their 'radar', Neither the Merkle's or the I Hansons's sheds are in compliance with.zoning, I would hate to have any. of our neighbors to have to go the variance board on this issue, It is costly and time consuming and has no guarantee of a pasitive outcome. . , \ ; I am asking you if you would please consider withdrawing your complaint i We have done our best to relocate the shed as well as put a new, lower i roof on it and painted it to match the new additian. We have also planted I a new tree to act as a screen. . Again we apologize for the misunderstanding this past summer and we i would welcome any further conversatian with you about this matter, In i the future, please feel free to. call us with any concerns. . Sincerely, I", . ~ .;.-.f Holly Hall v Y ~~ Stephanie McNamara y 3i~<O t,vex"':cc ~ Sho~in~ ~he.. shed i n ~oe!>-b'at\ o..i the.. So~eas"'t c.o.-ner 0 r -!:hiS properfy) r:,. ~ Cl-OsE: 1"0 our PRopERTY (ta.lkl'\ ~m ~y hacK ~ o..t 38BI €.s~ stru.-t:.. .) C th€~ photos 5 how \-IoU-' close i.\- i So to 0 ur "'\ pv-oper~ l-iht>..J $HWrHEr r' ffi (::.J.. \.> ~ ~ o E :r, o b' o 10 PA~E. ~~f\ T\o\e +oppt e+u re on po.ge 1. is Q. (:omposi+e. o~ :3 5ho+s,/ -t:he-se Q..Y& ~ of ~hem . PAf.:H::. ~ J?~ of sJ\ed. ~ 346go f:ueretl; slreek :wJ<etl .from lY\'Lf bacK ~(l.rd> iV1 S~GorV1er. . ~~ , poC-\< ~ mY BAC\(Y~o (eAsr) BouflIda. P \-\o-to 5 ro... p h So t>A6E. 3 /" - .------, Ph"toS o~ ~ YY'I ~ bacK ~Qf'd. ~t ~s- Cl.t\.. O-ks~u..c.-\:\aY\. , /..-.-" , (.e- - ~ () l " .. ~1 '1 atl~VI ~ .., .. F- CS rI '" '" 0 . c~1.n en ^ tJ v - ~ + -+ -1::;'- \.. X "I::>! v tJ '- j 0- ~ cl 0 3 v ~ II ..c ~ D- C ~ Jtl; ~ .~ 1 ol~ f t..jI 51j t PPGE 4 ~ 4:4,. o ~ 1.9 \I> d So R YJ tl S:;"T"' ::.: (L d ~ ~ ~ .~{~ ~ ~ ._~ J)-~ 1J ~ E ~ -S: "Ji {} ~ IJ\ \.- ~ d .~ ~ 0. ~-o ~ 3 V <>.)-S:: '_ V\ ";:>-0- <('0 to b o IR1IE C IE ~\fIE[D) MAY 1 7 2006 I I --\- - --------- May 15,2006 Travis Crane City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Sir, I am writing as a neighbor afHally Hall and Stephanie McNamara who I live adjacent to at 3890 Everett St. There is apparently same concern by anather neighbor about their shed. As their anly neighbor who can see into. their yard without an unobstructed view, I just wanted to say that I don't even notice the shed any longer. It used to be big and sit in the middle of their yard but when they remodeled they cut it down in size and tucked it into. a carner where it is unobtrusive. They also made it look a bit like their remadel sa it is actually sart af "styling" naw. Overall, though their remadel caused my home to have "hause envy", the value of all our praperties could anly have gane up by the addition of such a nice remodel to an old neighbarhaod. Respectfully Submitted, \~. Kim J. Stafford EXHIBIT 4 IRlE<ClE~\flElD MAY 2 3 ZUOfi -------- Baard of Adjustment The City afWheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 May 23, 2006 Re: Case No. W A-06-06 Variance for 3880 Everett St. Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment, We have received the notice from the City cancerning your May 25,2006 variance hearing. As we understand the situation, after the recent additions to. the house at 3880 Everett, the shed was moved too close to the property lines of adjacent neighbors. In addition, the shed naw surpasses the maximum square faatage of structures allowed in R- L Therefore, even ifthe shed were to be moved to satisfy the setback requirements and give relief to. neighbors, it wauld still be in vialation. We are not in favar af this vanance. Yaurs truly, ,dc~ '1'~. Eugenia Merkle 3891 Estes Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Planning Division / Board of Adjustment, Case #W A0606 Concerning: 3880 Everett Street Wheat Ridge, Co. 80033 I would like to apologize fur not being able to appear in person. Please review the following questions and concerns. Questions: L 2. 3. Did the property owners' request for a variance derive from a complaint? Is there currently a zoning violation on the property, and if so, have the property owners been issued a violation notice? Was a building permit issued within the last two years that included the now requested variances and if so why was there not a public hearing? If a building permit was issued within the last two years that did not include the requested variances in what capacity were these logically (an obvious one is exceeding maximum sq. ft allowance) foreseen variances addressed? Do the requested variances concern an existing structure? If the requested variances address an existing structure, was this structure ever moved or torn down and rebuilt? If the requested variances do address an existing structure and the variances are granted can current or future property owners erect new structures or add to existing structures using these variances? 4. 5. 6. 7. Concerns: 1. Obviously Wheat Ridge zoning laws protect real property rights, assure proper land use for all the citizens and zoning variances are usually applied for and granted to alleviate foreseen problems. A possible concern lies within the application for variances to correct zoning violations. A complete overview of past applications and rulings would need to occur in order to assess if this is the historical norm. One or two in the past 10 to 14 years might not constitute a trend, yet the more recent of such a variance granting the more effective it is in arguing ones own case for a corrective zoning variance. If such a recent precedent has not been set and is not the norm should an exception made? If a recent precedent has been or would be set would/could any applicant applying for a similar variance and being subsequently denied possibly/probably use such ruling/rulings in their appeal process within Jefferson County courts? Since this variance request directly impacts my property I would like to express some personal thoughts and observations. After writing the above questions and concerns I was given a copy of the zoning/planning offices' recommendations. Many of my questions are answered in the document, yet the questions are generic. They fit most situations where an owner applies for a zoning variance and in particular to a variance request to correct a violation. The zoning/planning office recommends that all variance requests be approved. My response to their approval justifications are: One piece oflogic behind their approval ofthe south side variance is that the shed will have little impact on my property value (or my daily living) because it borders a driveway and garage. I assume the logic is that I walk out of my house with blinders on until I get in my car or go into my garage, or I never look east while looking out my kitchen window. Or, in general, that most people do not care where a structure is located or how it looks or what zoning ordinances it violates just as long as it is located by their garage or driveway. Another reason for approval is thatthe shed blends in well with the rest of the property. It does. It is square, grey, and has a metal shed roof. May one then assume that if one builds a home that is three stories with the third story (as long as they do not exceed 23 ft in height) being a purple turret that they can build a shed (locate it in violation of zoning ordinance) that is also a purple turret sit back with no worries and if someone complains just apply for a variance and more then likely, the zoning/planning office of the city of Wheat Ridge will give their approval. Yep, it seems so. Ignorance of the law is not a defense and not having knowledge of a zoning ordinance does not exclude one from following it. But it happens and allowances should be made in zoning cases. Exceeding the maximum allowed square footage and knowing it is a different story. I believe this is the case here. How could one not know that they are exceeding the maximum sq. ft. allowance when one received a recent building permit stating that they were just 8 ft. under the maximum allowed? Again,just request a variance after tbe fact and the zoning/planning department will once again agree. If! was to locate this type shed on my property I also would put it where I can not see it. Tbat is why it is where it is. It has nothing to do with a 1% grade or not being able to find space for a 12 x 12 shed somewhere else on the property. I would like to suggest a couple of possible solutions. One solution might be to turn the shed a quarter ofa revolution and 3.5 ft to the north, move it five feet (or a less in agreement with the neighbor to the east) to the west and the shed roof a quarter revolution to south. The owners would still have access around the shed and access to the doors. Another solution might be to make the shed smaller! In both examples the sheds' placement would at least comply with the set back ordinance. Truly, I really do not care what the out come is for I am living with it as I write this and to me that reality is wrong, but yet everyone eventually needs to work on solutions with their neighbors. It is up to the Board of Adjustment to do what they feel is correct. As far as the city Wheat Ridge is concerned, I believe they are in a lose/lose situation. Eventually someone will take this mess that has been created by the zoning/planning office to court on one side of the fence or other (so to speak) and the city will have to defend their decision. I would think that most set back violations concern sheds or out buildings. Maybe the zoning office should review these requirements and adjust them to what is really going on. Thank you, Dave Petersen 3870 Everett Street Wheat Ridge, Co. 80033 Witness Signature:"\---~-\l Date: ;:;--;> .,~~ ~:~~;#2~~ 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303/235-2846 Fax: 303/235-2857 The City of W"heat Ridge May 16, 2006 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. W A-06-06 which is a request for approval of a 3.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback AND a 136 square foot variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R -I) and located at 3880 Everett Street. This case will heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on May 25, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. \\srv-ci-eng-OO 1 \users\k:field\Kathy\BOA \pubnotice\2006\wa0606.wpd / / -, If ------"/ ~~ , ,....'.:1:........ ' ;. .... . ./ !II ....... , " ~ ~ - ~, ~ " ".., .' I ")... ~ ~ I~! . ........ ............ ..............) ,.....$. O' .. ~ . ........ ............ .......... . 1!J,.....W ~ f--- ..... _ ~ - ..... ........ ....... ..... . ~ - -: -: -: -: : -: -: -: -: -:: : -: -: -: -: -: : -: -: :\: -: -:~ : ~ ~ ~ .' -- ~ ! . . .' ..... ....... l'i _ ........ .......... . .......... '.' . .i' . . . 'i<4.i . c:-- IlL! ! ................... ................. .J......~. .-.:. _ . . ...... . . . '. .'. . . ....... ~. .z>'-~& {L. ! _ -: -: . . . . . -: -: -: P.f' .1-: -: -:. . '. . -: -: Ii:] .,.~X'. In ~ - ':::::<::::::::::: :::::::::<:::: 'f1 0~.> ! !=> ili~ ! . . . . . . . . ' . '. . . . . . .' ............... J' .., ! ;s: ~ . - . .... . . . . '.' ..' .... . . +..: .,,--U-I--C ;:;::::::;:;:;:;:::..;:;:;:;::::<:-:J:: ,,~ "'" ~! ~ ! :. . . . 'ctv..R .Gf<.Ef" .-.-.r__:~ ~"~.. . . . "" '" ,~ k4 ! ~ .r;f' ~ ~'~;~." ~:~:=~.' ..:-;~'.i-: : -:: . . . . R.1 \ ~ eRE TVI · ,,~ u 0 ~ / . . . . .' f-.. . ( 418a ~::-.-:-: :-:....~)/ ,." \IV -.,..~~) ~: ~n ..,~" < .,0> if !f (r.'i4 ~ FI&.OD~fOgl ~ s. ~;; ",'" \, 4090 ~ "' '" 'l1. ~ ~ ;i W4fSTAVE '\" ....~> -i~ ~ ..~ it ... !:ll ~ ~J L-...uJ ~ ~ z !; ... .. ,;;z ~. = . ~ VI i ~ 0_ ... . w . ~ ~ ~Ifl. . ~ ~W<J).~ .' ~ ~lii'" ~ "'@:r: ~~~:r:\S)m; ~ l;;'" l) 111 g l...) 11I "L OC~"' ~ 13 ;; . gj ~ >' \ '. "" ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ 0 -" . --= . ". ~ 1', ~ "% ~ \ -' ,......,. ~ ~ \0.- (: -. VIS-- ~ '. .~ - <.J \ LU ". .. "" .-l ~~~ {~ ~'\ 3860 .....' (", -,..J 'I 3865 !i! COLLI 5- '" KNUDSON 5U. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h . ., OFFICIAL 5~V ZONING MAP WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO NE22 -..... ~ ~ ~ ( ) ~) I -I I ~ ~ ~ . " "-'!! ~ f~ ~ ~ ~" ~ Of-- ~ R 1 ~ ~ ~ o i ,I .J.I .1 I .1 .1 0 I I I. I NE27 ---- PARCEULOTBOUNDARY (DESIGINATES OWNERSHIP) ---- WATER FEATURE * DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES - ~ 100-YEAR FLoaD PLAIN ~ (APPROXIMATE LaCATlaN) ......, , ., , . . !- e J-- ~ MARYE ~rrH ~ .. ~ ~ ION ~ .. ~ ~ ill IlL '--' 2:~ 3: R.2 ~ (D :) J ~ .J I I . R.1 ~ >L IlL -< \L ~ -< (j) ill JJ ~I . . . - ! ~- L , -"-- eL ~ """ ~ '''1' o ~ ~ 8 . -":m~ ~ ~ ,[II. . ~ ~ ,...-- +,_ ~...'b t.J4?7.:f .' ~ C .~:::-/\ \ \ .... .,.' \ '" .. - ~ ! :: ~ ~ ~ ~ m _ _ I :l.., < u ~ ! ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ l ~ .J ~ ~ _ ~ T ~ ~ _ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. " . .2' ! ~ ~ 'r ~;; i ~! ~ ~ ~i i ~ ~ f--~ .' . . e--_. ~ lii ~ . 8 ... ~... .". ~ 8 ~ ~ ! ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . I . ~I .L L y ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ , . fL- , fL- ~ 51 fL- , fL- !~ f ....-: f""- , i"--- . , . I'-- ~ " .~ r- i~ fO- ~ ! I"-- ~ , I'-- ~ ! il"-- ~ " ! I"- ~ .L- , SE 22 @ o 100 200 ?eX) 4CO feet MAP ADOPTED: May 24, 1999 Last Revision: September 10,2001 ~:_~~_~~f? L/!!?/I MetroScan / ~f:tso~~/b P : _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ - _ _ _ - * Owner :Belaire Improvement Assoc Parcel :023244 Site :*00 Site Address* Y~~r~~ Mail: 4090 Field Dr Wheat Ridge Co 80033 7005 2570 0001 4282 4252 Use :1111 Vacant,Residential ~none Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool: BldgSF: Ac: 1. 61 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) :----------------* Owner :Johnson Irene G. . r/ Parcel :023282 Site :4000 Field Dr Wheat Ridge 8003~3. ~ 1( XfprRn :01/08/1976 Mail :12825 W 65th Way #147 Arvada C 00Q4 7005 2570 0001 4282 4269 Use : 1112 Resl Improved Land .t'1l()1l~ Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm: YB:1951 Pool: BldgSF:2,353 Ac: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) :----------------* Owner :Merkle Clifford E Parcel :023292 Site :3891 Estes St Wheat Ridge 80033 Mail :3891 Estes St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Bedrm:2 Bath:l.50 TotRm: 7005 2570 0001 Phone BldgSF:934 4282 4276 *----------------------------: YB: 1946 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) . Parcel :023308 Ac: .34 :----------------* Owner :Grant P Elizabeth Site :3881 Estes St Wheat Ridge Mail :3881 Estes St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res, Improved Land Bedrm:4 Bath:l.75 TotRm: _ ^t:' /., ..,1, 0"1"1 80033 Co 80033 7005 2570 0001 4282 4283 *----------------------------: Phone YB:1963 Pool: BldgSF:2,130 Ac:.34 MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) : ----------------* Parcel :023795 x~[]D~ 2570'0001 4282 4290 Owner :Bjurstrom Helen Site :3865 Field Dr Wheat Ridge Mail :3865 Field Dr Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res, Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm: 80033 Co 80033 J:'llone *----------------------------: YB: 1952 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) :----------------* BldgSF:l,704 AC:.04 Owner :Keller Clifford B Site :3888 Estes St Wheat Ridge Mail :3888 Estes St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:l.75 TotRm: n~~~ol .n?1A13 7005 2570 0001 4282 4306 80033 Co 80033 : :;:11.':1::;), vvv *----------------------------: Prlce Phone YB:1946 Pool: BldgSF:l,642 Ac:.37 MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) :----------------* Parcel :023889 Y7-005 2570'0001 4282 4313 Owner :Petersen David G Site :3870 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail :3870 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res, Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm: *----------------------------: 80033 Co 80033 YB: 1952 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel Owner :Crabb Hazel C Site :4040 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail :4040 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:l.75 TotRm: : 024141 ^~ ,~_ 1- _ _ _ v~................J 7005 2570 0001 4282 4320 80033 Co 80033 *----------------------------: Phone YB:1950 Pool: BldgSF:l,509 Ac:.38 MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) :----------------* Parcel :024313 7005 2570 0001 4282 4337 Owner :Smith Lonnie L Site :4055 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail :4055 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res, Improved Land Bedrm:2 Bath:l.75 TotRm: *----------------------------: 80033 Co 80033 .I:.L...L'-''- Phone BldgSF:l,152 YB:1947 Pool: MetroScan / Jeffer (CO) ".- Parcel Xfered 7005 AC:.73 :----------------* Owner :Whitfield William D Site :4015 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail :4015 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:2.25 TotRm: YB:1952 Pool: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Owner :Dicks Marjorie E Trustee Parcel Site :4020 Estes St Wheat Ridge 80033 v.~~~~ Mail :4020 Estes St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 7005 Use :1112 Res, Improved Land Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm: YB:1950 Pool: BldgSF:l,512 :024505 :] of?? /?nn? 2570 0001 4282 4344 ................... BldgSF:l,658 Ac: .62 :----------------* :024715 .,? /nq/l ggg 2570 0001 4282 4351 Ac: .39 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. 30 *-~--------------------------: MetroScan Owner :Musso Michael P Site :3868 Estes St Wheat Ridge 80033 Mail :3868 Estes St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm: *----------------------------: awner :Lubeley Gregory F Site :4031 Estes St Wheat Ridge Mail :4031 Estes St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:2 Bath:1.50 TotRm: *----------------------------: Owner :Hanson Robert R Site :3871 Estes St Wheat Ridge Mail :3871 Estes St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:2,25 TotRm: *----------------------------: awner :Shelton Scott Site :4020 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail :4020 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:1.50 TotRm: *----------------------------: Owner :Stafford Kim J Site :3890 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail :3890 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:4 Bath:2.25 TotRm: *----------------------------: awner :Oleary Timothy E Site :3850 Estes St Wheat Ridge Mail :3850 Estes St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:4 Bath:2.25 TotRm: J. *----------------------------: Owner :Sparks Beverly J Site :4010 Estes St ( No Mail Mail :4010 Estes St ( No Mail Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:2 Bath:1.75 TotRm: *----------------------------: Owner :Dominick Donald S Site :3845 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail :3845 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm: *----------------------------: Owner :Dimanna David Site :3840 Estes St Wheat Ridge Mail :3840 Estes St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm: *----------------------------: / Jefferson (CO) Parcel Xfered 7005 2570 0001 J:'.L.U.JJ.J.'- :----------------* :024792 4282 4368 YB:1948 Pool: Metro8can / Jefferson (CO) Parcel BldgSF:1,023 Ac:.37 80033 Co 80033 :----------------* :024926 V~7D05 2570 0001 4282 4375 Phone BldgSF:2,741 YB: 1952 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel Xfered 7005 80033 Co 80033 Ac:.34 :----------------* :025200 : 03 /?1 /1 oat:: 2570 0001 4282 ...:lV..:l-'%~~-~160 4382 ~~-~........ YB:1950 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel BldgSF:2,163 Ac: .35 80033 Co 80033 :----------------* :025293 7005 2570 0001 4282 4399 Ac: .34 Phone BldgSF:1,312 YB:1947 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel 7005 :----------------* .t)?l:;.:1.,a 2570 0001 4282 :~~u~/UOO Full 4405 or..!...L....\:;: Phone BldgSF:1,460 Ac: .33 :----------------* YB:1947 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel :025467 80033 Co 80033 7005 2570 0001 4282 2517 Phone BldgSF:2,148 AC:.37 :----------------* YB:1954 pool:Yes MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel Wheat Ridge 80033 Wheat Ridge Co 80033 : 025499 7005 2570 0001 4282 2524 Phone YB:1948 Pool: BldgSF:1,847 Ac:.39 MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) : -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- * Parcel :025508 7005 2570 0001 4282 2531 80033 Co 80033 80033 Co 80033 ......~-- '"T ~- / -- Phone BldgSF:2,190 Ac: :----------------* YB:1947 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel : 025511 V-F,...~,......J ,........ /.. - J_ _ __ 80033 Co 80033 7005 2570 0001 4282 2548 Ac: .18 Phone BldgSF:1,360 YB:1955 Pool: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel :----------------* :025579 7005 2570 0001 4282 2555 YB:1953 Pool: Phone BldgSF:1,300 Ac: .34 :----------------* :025700 7005 2570 0001 4282 2562 Phone BldgSF:1,524 Ac:.37 awner :Olson Harold 0 Site :4011 Estes St Wheat Ridge 80033 Mail :14917 Bear Creek Rd NE Woodinville Wa 9807/ Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:1.50 TotRm: YB:1946 Pool: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Owner :Junge Robert S/Addie H Trust Parcel Site :3855 Estes St Wheat Ridge 80033 Mail :3855 Estes St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm: lnfonnation compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. *----------------------------, MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Owner :Mcnamara Stephanie J Parcel Site ,3880 Everett St Wheat Ridge 80033 Mail ,3880 Everett St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm, 2 Bath,1.75 TotRm, *----------------------------: ;----------------* ,025807 7005 2570 0001 4282 2579 Owner :Braun Olwen K Site ,3818 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail ,3818 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use ,1112 Res,Improved Land Bedrm,3 Bath,1.50 TotRm, *-----------------.-----------: Phone YB,1950 Pool, BldgSF,1,802 Ac: .33 MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) ,----------------* Parcel ,025892 7005 2570 0001 4282 2586 80033 Co 80033 l:'".L..LL-C;: Owner :Niquette Elizabeth A Site ,3860 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail ,3860 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm, 3 Bath,1.50 TotRm, Phone YB,1947 Pool, BldgSF,1,044 Ac,.35 MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) ,----------------* Parcel ,026353 - -- I....... /.. nOA 7005 2570 0001 4282 2593 80033 Co 80033 Phone BldgSF,1,515 Ac, :----------------* *----------------------------: YB,1948 Pool, MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel ,026466 Owner :Shanley Christine L Site ,4010 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail ,4010 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm, 3 Bath,1.75 TotRm, *----------------------------: 80033 Co 80033 7005 2570 0001 4282 2609 Owner :Herrick Glen Rohn Site ,4005 Everett St Wheat Ridge Mail ,4005 Everett St Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res,Irnproved Land Bedrm, 2 Bath,2.25 TotRm, *----------------------------: YB,1951 Pool, MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel Phone BldgSF,2,273 Ac, .32 :----------------* -~ 25;~<OOOl 4282 2616 : ~.L:~!J, 000 80033 Co 80033 7005 Owner :Ward Site ,3840 Mail ,3840 Use ,1112 Bedrrn:3 Russell A Field Dr Wheat Ridge Field Dr Wheat Ridge Res, Improved Land Bath,1.50 TotRm, YB,1956 Pool, MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel Phone BldgSF:2,335 Ac,.60 :----------------* ,026740 80033 Co 80033 70'[tS--2570 0001 4282 2623 *----------------------------: YB,1952 Pool, MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Parcel Phone BldgSF,1,766 Ac, :----------------* Owner :Major Stuart E Site ,4021 Estes St Wheat Ridge Mail ,4021 Estes St Wheat Ridge Use ,1112 Res,Improved Land Bedrm, 3 Bath,1.75 TotRm, *----------------------------: ,026764 Owner :Young David C Site ,3860 Field Dr Wheat Ridge Mail ,3860 Field Dr Wheat Ridge Use :1112 Res/Improved Land Bedrm,3 Bath,1.50 TotRm, 7005 2570 0001'4282 2630 Phone YB,1946 Pool, BldgSF,2,446 Ac:.35 MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) ,----------------* Parcel ,026768 7005 2570 0001 4282 2647 80033 Co 80033 80033 Co 80033 YB,1953 Pool, Phone BldgSF,1,653 Ac Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. Belaire Improvement Assoc 4090 Field Dr Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 P Elizabeth Grant 3881 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 David Petersen & Sharon Petersen 3870 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 William Whitfield & Laura Whitfield 4015 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Gregory Lubeley & Kris Lubeley 4031 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Kim Stafford 3890 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 David Dimanna 3840 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Stephanie Mcnamara & Holly Hall 3880 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Christine Shanley & David Clark 40 I 0 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Stuart Major & Brenda Major 4021 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Irene Johnson 12825 W 65th Way #147 Arvada, CO 80004 Helen Bjurstrom 3865 Field Dr Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Hazel Crabb 4040 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Marjorie Dicks 4020 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Robert Hanson & Elizabeth Hanson 3871 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Timothy Oleary & Patrici Grace-oleary 3850 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Harold Olson 14917 Bear CreekRd NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Olwen Braun 3818 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Glen Rohn Herrick & Connie Hirz Herrick 4005 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 David Young 3860 Field Dr Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Chfford Merkle & Eugenia Merkle 3891 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 ,Clifford Keller & Emily Keller 3888 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033. Lonnie Smith 4055 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Michael Musso & Anna Marie Musso 3868 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Scott Shelton 4020 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Donald Dominick & Rhonda Dominick 3845 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Robert & Addie Junge 3855 Estes St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Elizabeth Niquette 3860 Everett St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Russell Ward & Patricia Ward 3840 Field Dr Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Beverly 1. Sparks 4010 Estes St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 ******************************* * Search Parameters * ******************************* * Jefferson (Co.) * 5/15/2006 * 9,17 AM * * * ******************************* Parcel Number. ..30 39 224 04 038 39 224 04 039 39 224 05 001 39 224 05 002 39 224 05 003 39 224 05 014 39 224 05 015 39 224 05 016 39 224 06 001 39 224 06 002 39 224 06 003 39 224 06 004 39 224 06 005 39 224 06 006 39 224 06 007 39 224 06 011 39 224 06 012 39 224 06 013 39 224 06 014 39 224 06 015 39 224 06 016 39 224 06 017 39 224 06 018 39 224 08 004 39 224 08 005 39 224 00 019 39 224 00 038 39 224 00 039 39 224 .99 007 39 224 99 008 ~ ,< (15050') I ...:; ~ 08- ~ ,;}...... ! . I . 012 0 ".;- b b g (14254') " ~ . ~ ~ [ N /06-011 0 I 05-003 " 06-007 ~~ 0 {1~<t;IMliI<!l <!l~~@W{1 V ! V I (1 16301') 16301') [ I 1ii 08-003 g I (14752') {15122'} , :t-:: (14752') (15122') I 0 08- 26251 -> ~ -013 . (24101') I R I (14352') . g g ~ . ~ /,06-012 " ! ~~ N ti\ (14352') ~ 0 0 06-006 {1 g i/ I i/ CJb {1 (15621') 5.01 E 05-002 ~ ;013 " ! " (15123') 08-004 0 (14103') (15161') ~ ~ [ill . .. 08- (14703') J (15123') , . . 0 -"3 (24170') I V (24170') ti!i ~ 06-013 1ii I (14453') {1 1l 06-005 loo n.ldi'J 5-014 S!i . i/ . (14453') l<!l<!loQ~n.ldi'J 0 - - I {1 $-Ol~ 0 [lj (14780') (15100') I 3 ! (14780') (15100') [ 08-005 <O~ 08- ~ I I . <...-/ "' {112 SO') (12670') R 0 .3'; (11280') (12870') I . .06-004 ~~ / 06-014 1ii "- J , ! 33 14520' 2 g (14520') 05-015 00 05-016 I (14850') (15170') / I ~ (14850') (15170') S I tJ 00-019 ~ 0 00 [ f II - " " 1l I ~ V ~5 (11252') (12950') <;: 06-003 . . 06-015 05-015 05.Q16 ! ~ ~ e . I 3 " [ I (14351') [ (14800') {15213'} I (14351') I (14800') (15273') (13351') A' (13070') V I ~ t/ " 00 99-007 . ~~ J 04-038 " I ,/ g 0 00-038 ",0 ~ I O. . . . 06-002 :g~ 06-016 ~ .0 (12580') 35 0 ! , ~- [13101') ~ 0 3S I ~ (12580') (13101') ! (14471') (15231') I (14470') I (14471') (15231') I V 04470') , 04-038 ! 1l 00 35'S' /' I g 5'?J') ! . / . ~ ~ / :3 / 0 00-039 ~- "- ! / " 06-001 0 ~ 06-017 , ~ ~ (14582') 42 (7120') (9982') "- J ;/ ~ 0 ~ " 4-03 i'. "- " 401') (103011 ~ ~ 271' (166011 (7271') " , < ~ ., " 00-052 ~ _.- , 8 " / , " .Ii Ie ---~ " ., 0-050 b / , , 1515 0 , . . ,~ 99-011 04-039 , , 07-001 . . 00-051 . . . " . . / \ . 0 . . , " . 0 53 , 31- :z:J-;J- , , . " , , , i ., ; , -. 16630' 6101' (8220' (7651') (10180') (9720') &fH-AVE-. .-.-.-.-.-.-,,-,-.- !._,-f.;._._._,_.._,_._. (66271') (10300'l ,09' (15801') '... (9630') [ '" ~ I ~ ~ ~ 03-002 00 03-001 0 ! 02-023 N N 02-024 . . . " 00 0 ...;...; H- ~ (7450') (15732') ~ ~ 00-003 (7450') (15732') (10100') (972 S UIJ (19820') f'- ~ 1 ~ 0 03-002 03-004 o 0 0 !; 02-022 , , . . . , 53 0 ! (j9870') (10271'\ 7534' 15650' (,1)H!lH) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT on Thursday, May 25,2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building 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: Case No. W A-06-06: An application filed by Holly Hall for approval of a 3.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback AND a 136 square foot variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R-l) and located at 3880 Everett Street. Case No. TUP-06-01: An application filed by Medved Autoplex for approval ofa one- year Temporary Structure Permit to allow an office trailer on property zoned Commercial-Two (C-l) and located at 11001 West 1-70 Frontage Road North. Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant ATTEST: Pamela Y. Anderson, City Clerk To be published: Date: Wheat Ridge Transcript May 11, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Travis Crane, Planner I~ Case No. W A-06-06 SUBJECT: DATE: 19 April 2006 Due to an error in publication, case number W A-06-06 cannot be heard at the April 27, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting. This case will be republished and rescheduled for the May 25, 2006 hearing. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT on Thursday, April 27, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge. Calorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: Case No. WF -06-02: An application filed by Patrick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single family hame on property zoned Residential One (R-I) and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street. Case No. W A-06-04: An applicatian filed by Robin Hofmeister for approval of a 15 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 15 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential- Two. (R-2) and located at 7105 West 29th Place. Case No. W A-06-0S: An application filed Copper Fields Land Holdings, LLC, for approval of a variance to the maximum allowable height for billboards under Section 26- 711 for property zoned Commercial-One (C-l) and Industrial (I) and located at 4901 Marshall Street. Case No. W A-06.06: An application filed by Holly Hall for approval of a 4 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an II foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback variance from the IS foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback on property zoned Residential One (R-I) and located at 3880 Everett Street. Kathy Field. Administrative Assistant .~ ATTEST: Pamela Y. Anderson, City Clerk To be published: Date: Wheat Ridge Transcript April 13, 2006 ?,c-ccrded th2 my of ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ I c:'-"_...,..,............_---. '" ..,-~._,...~~~~ ,-,. _<"-,:;;':-.;:vl-(;;~:<.- ~._~--- ". -~ n ._'A ~~.,.~~~,....-,..... -~------= -- - "-"'"""-'~"--'" :i-,y ~__. --------- - "'''.M'''''n._"'' .... .__m___~ _ _ _c_. 0 ~~.,_~__.._ ,..-.-- --~ ;~" -'.. "",~." ----- --. ,~ .-",~ ri~" ~i- __~. ..n. ~~-~---_._- _......'-.-....."'.-~.,.- -. ".__._.._ ___h".... .. . .- --- -- - '..>.t.d!':,~G::-. fnr- tnp r~;..;~.;" -~ ,..-...".,,...-~~~~ ,.... ...,' .n, .. . .- ------- --.. ~ --- - . H ....... ,..,....,........ ------ ,::'O;::,\.-' p'l'~n.l:o...:':' '::~-l';:zz-~'. r~~ ~~~~~ , " ".." ~ ~- --- - - ---- C".f'- 1)m~~_T 'P.r:b~~ ~ ~-_._- - -~- __ . ........u~....__~. ...-.-.---- -- - '--'.L'--''-'';='-'--~' .'--'" , 0':;;'J.;::::yor _;"-;.',,',,',,,,",r..., ".........-'-"'_B-L.h.H" ~~7~.~ _~____~~___._ ",.... """". "" '-"""-'''' '.' , ~. , ~'"-', ---- ----.... .. _.~,...,.~....,.,,.,~,,, . ........- ..-. __._u.~_ u ,",l",.{_') :'q1D'"TI.~ .,..,~..~~.~-- ...."..."'..--,-... -.--...... . --- --- "'."'-' "'""'..,. .. . -- .-.~ . ".)i!~~'=l. .;;~~.u ~,.,.,..~ ... -.--., ... ____~__. n___ '= 1:'~,~~.,..." ""~"l_"'_':- ;:0~l ~ciuOe 0-.2 , -,.- -- "","'-- ~.!'.""::>-h!CO--;-,---.;o'~ .. .. - -- .-- .. . '- STi:;;?;:;.."--."i,,"~ <], ~_.- ---- -- . .-.......-.-,. . ..... ..--..., ---,~~~~~ ""'''''''".....~...- ,._~..._.-- -- ~-:1' '_"'n.~ . -_ . . ~n'".."_.~ ~--------_._. - . - --~ ..-., ,.. _ __... ~'-L"""'-'-'-"'" - ~-,---~ --,---------- .." . ,~.... ro".....~ ""- "__..____R__~ :~:W~~:l :~~ ~~~ "~&&~~~';'~~-:E:1i:' ",,-<;-,~.~, ,,,f.,-~,.::',-- .-;,-,,-,,-.=-"'''' - ,........-.... '---''-'-'----''--''<'-.-''<,,<. olcla"J: .--...~."~---- .-. -~._~----~-_. - - . .._~~ -----.. """,-,-"--".,,,-,.,. ci:1B -.-,-" ,~.~~~ -~_..~,,-,-,,_. ~~~-~~ - --- . """""~'n "._. .. .-.. -. ,... .- -,._~~ ~-~. ,. -,...- - ----~.~~ ~~ . - -- ",,.,,'" '--..,..~~..... ........ r_~'__-'_ ...--....... ... .......-.... --------. ''''::--,u,-;;,':;F;.i)U~ ~-!EEE:_"-_'!" ......"'--....., -~ ~~ <:~:;:-~c ffj.~,~;,;" ..,:~_.._._c;(.. ",. .-.' ..... ..... ,.., '" .-'" ~.",.. - - . --- . ~.... --.'i--. ..;- -- ~> U (,~ ~ '"' ='-.-" '~ .c<r_ 'd_ 0000_.. ~. . ., '" __- -.-........, .. -. .'iif., .:~ ;0 __.-P_"b -,::"r~. ~ l_~ ". '-_~:-";:'"- ~-"- - . _ . .~r_~" '-''---,-~'~'. I I ~ I I I I. " I I I Ii ~ I I I I ,. I , g~ t-J'TJ lJ-ICrr13::fT1;:t>- rlTl ~f:6 )>I"UZlJ(/):r: ~~ ;~ g~~~~~~~ o ~ -00 r-l--lr:<Corrl ~ Co ~ :r: ~ rr1 (/) OJ ;g~ ....9." 'It.",,~:z: rrl~ S:::ICfl-< ~Gl ..e"~S ~~~ :E~~C(f) Ul;;r;:.... . ..... "4>..0 0 =::{ -l fT'lZ;;o< p--l (/.1m. y" -. ~-fTII(f) o:r;t.l'.,.,. O. -,rJ,(/}(f)- -r~-r ~fo/~""" '?1o~~Z~ZOO '" .. "l7: CO ~~ >'::0 - -I Z '1 -U -l ID':210i. ~ we fgi!i--l ~;; O-~.'-" ~~ 0) ll- ~~ 0 :c M -r-r Ul~~\t<\ . . hfS-o OJrrlZ ci,"'ov'.o (f)c.:,-.!l)>110 OO~ ~#~'..~ 'i~;;o;;oc>"';;o- < ., "r... 00 ~ fTI z [D, (f) ~(~ '-1^ .0 ...... ~... rr1z s: 00 ;0 0....., .., VQ -.,\ ~ < OJ:::"'- :::0 i", ""1.1 ~ -1U)~rrlC-o~ ~ 0. lb. "~?'~'dI't~E;~ ~ [ri fTi 0 ~ E5;g . (- 0105 - (J}(TJ-<O ~'J . om (/)ZfT1< + rrl~OoQS:::rr1 ~ Z '1:::0- fTlS: ~~-lrnO~~ "1JIrrl::::O --I o:::OrrlO (f) ;00 OCr < "'"'[lLJ--I:::oo S2~?o?oi!ii'ii}; G)fTI 0 0::0-<--1 lI:Z ZZl'"T'>fTl - :;'5'~ -lrr"TJllzO he o (f)- c~ F~~ ." 0 rrlx ~ c! -I 0 p08 )> Z ::0- fT1 ITna Z ~--1fT1::r>:::O--l n~-' -(>-~:r: z- 8 i;!,5 Z-< ~ U5 ~ 0 ~ 3~' '" -" 0 ~~~ l1)>)>O;lJ:t~ ~~~ fT10(/)~O)>rrl li.C~ s::c....(/)fTl<-r 3""0 rrlOI '" ::;: ~:~ ZZO-->S::::j)> :;:0;',< --l Z ~ I S2 _ (J) g~~ 00 Z0JO--l(f)-" ... ~ z:: ::0 ~ ::0 g",c 0-0-11 CZf1l '.di~ (/)::D:cOZO-o g:r" (/)rr1)>~fT1--1)> ; ~3 Z s:: :..; sn -; ::::0 a~~ GJ ~ -; ~ _ 0 8 ~s: Oy)~g..,OJ.., 0::1 :::0 ::::o""OcfTlo ~ E':. [D "'x '" --l ;;O--l ;;0 ;;0 O:~.8 tLgS- CO)>CIITJI ~...." ::OfTI:::O-;fTlCO 3& O-ofTIj=:::OlTJr a..~g 1'1--; -=< 0, "0' z Z (f) -< :::r to -)::>0 ~c 2 0 ~(/) O~vI ~i: - fT1 0 fTl 0 )> 0::1 )>zzz zr=: tr~ ~5~~:i..,-; ~8..8: >~()~OI ~-6!i ""0 --; 0 -; ::::0):> ~g:;, ~--l~;E~:i-; oe ~c.nfT1 :::j '.~ o>z- ?tL~ z !or ,., 0 -;)> aP c..... (fJ;o o (f) 01 P <:: o o ~ '" >0 0::;: Oz ;;0", "';;0 (f).. l./) ,. I CAP ",' ",' o I CA I o '" o ;;0 p z o ~ '" ;;0 9 '" <J; <J; (f) --l ;;0 '" ~ CA (f) z o --l :;:f'l-; " -; ppI f'l I (J)(J)f'l Z f'l f'l 0 -us::r P1 r ;Uf'lf'l (J) 0 ozGl 0 <-;P p p _(!)r Z :::! o 0 f'l(J)0" 0 OIUl 0 2 Oo;u 0 :;:;u " z- 0 u-;-; :;:::J I I fTlO fTl f11 ;lJ2 ;lJ f'l s: o~ ~ 'U OJ(IJ rrJ ;:u -; (J) 0 Pu < -;;0 0 f'l ~o l] ~ o~ 0 z ,,0 0 -; ;lJf'l0 (J) 00 C (J) S:OJ U I -;-( ~ 0 I'- 0 ~ fTlq Z ;U" p :;: B~ ~ ~ O(J) ,., f'l ;;002 0 OZ 0 f11 f'lo --l -; 00 f'l 'U C (J) ;lJ ,Z I s: p-; 0 2 -; -< :;: f'l 2 0 -;p I(IJ C C f11(IJ Z :::! ::u 1'1 r c: f'l(J) f'l O(J) (J) t:l "0 (J) z ';u Gl (J)O Zo -; " 0" i!i ~ -;~ ;lJ 0 -0 < f'l j=1 [Tj :S {f) f'l' (J) f'l p 8::r z 6 s: f'l 0 s: 0;lJ o --l > p s: --l 0 f'l f'l < Z 0 < -; p -< YJ .... OJ r o -l 0" z,. ,,(J) ;Ur Oz ~1'1 ::0,. ~(J) .3: I" ",::0 0>0 11'1 00 '" EVERETT STREET 50' 100' .... I I I I :pI (J)I "I I' :pI 'I -<I I I I I I 1 I _------.......... I i ~---l' " I \ (/) 1 3NO.lS ) t-------.j---, r ? '8l 11---- 1 L------i NO:::> ~ ,.... II · .ONO:::> (l) .~.'ZlZ . I ' 14_9':1:- 0: : I ,S::'6~ I to fix-~ ~ ~ 0 [I Ol,. ~ l.:---- .,.6l ti ~: [I r~ I 'I' ,I L__ o '" < 1'1 " :p -< ~rn: o:J~-l 0100 0^;U -< (]I o ,,'6l () o z " (f! -< '" " OJ -...j ---, o. O. 1 OT ,v'Sl 1 , O' I ~~. ,;.'0 >I~)30 : v '" OOOM I I I L__________..J [](f! " I " 1'1 o r o -l .... -.,J --.",- 100 R.O.W. lO '! ,-, r o -l to <D o .... (]I o . ,-, 14.8' I 0 o Z o ;u 1'1 -; ~ r r .... m I I __..J 0' 00 c-; Z. -;o"J -(- 0' .,,~ '- 1'10 "'0 "'c ~o. 0 (fJ(fJ Z 0(fJ .Zc OJ (fJ0 -;- p~ -;(fJ f'l6 02 .,,- o o , o ;U p o o (/) () o (l) o ~ 9 o ~ . 0 r~ o 0 = ~ 10 ~ ((J ~ M ~ M ~ 9 F ((J iOl ~ 9 ((J ~ iOl M ~ 9 ~ fi ~ 9 M , ~ Ii 0J o 0J .0 LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone (303) 235-2846 (please print or type all information) Address 3BBD State GO t'"V(ZKGTr ~r- Zip BOO 33 Phone "3 .":)40 .~"&b Fax Address 3f\So (;Vt,;\(GTr <;'1 State GO Zip f.>06"3 3 Address ?~flO GV~b\T 'IT (,{) Phone 5. ~o .&1>8'<6 Fax 3 ..,to .'ilbtf> (It) Phone1Zo-Z61-0IU (c.) Location of request (address): 518~O E;Vg~61T Si INtttkr RIDErC CO 'l>0033 Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): Application" submittal requirements on reverse side o Change of zone or zone conditions 0 Special Use Permit o Consolidation Plat 0 Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) o Flood Plain Special Exception 0 Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) o Lot Line Adjustment 0 Right of Way Vacation o Planned Building Group 0 Temporary Use, Building, Sign . o Site Development Plan approval 0 VarianceIWaiver (from Section ) ~ Other: ~H-E:O "~ii?JAti\<.S I(~I Detailed description of request: ~F.;.T BJ\Ol'.. RIPG.lA 1 KG= Ml?N TS 1"-1 f(. StfI:;.l) Ul 0T1161'-l Required information: Assessors Parcel Number: 3'j. 2.14 - 0 b - 00"3 Current Zoning:~1 Current Use: ~-l SizeofLot(aCresOr~uarefootage): 1'5.DO. 0 ~F Proposed Zoning: ~ A . Proposed Use: N 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. To be filled outb! staff: Date received "'7'/7/0 b Comp Plan Desig. Related Case No. sworn to me this ,+M day of Signature of Applicant Notary Public < / A I . My commission expires I I( ~tJ200f!5 ,20~ Case No.W .4-- 0 (p - () (,p Quarter Section ~ ~'.;.g" Case Manager A! t::'" 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303/235-2846 Fax: 303/235-2857 The City of "Wheat Ridge May 31,2005 Stephanie McNamara Holly Hall 3880 Everett Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Ms. McNamara and Ms. Hall: This letter is in regard to your application for building permit for expansion of a single family residence at 3880 Everett Street. The property in question is zoned R-l, Residential-One. The following are items on the proposed planset which are not in conformance with R-l zone district standards: 1. The R -1 development standards prescribe that side setbacks are to be 15' in width on each side ofthe lot. The proposed setback on the south side of the structure is show as being 7' which is a violation of the R-l standards. 2. The existing setback on the north side of the structure is shown as being 14.8' which is nonconforming relative to the required 15' setback. Pursuant to the nonconforming regulations in the zoning and development code, a nonconforming setback on a single family residence can be extended in line with the existing nonconforming setback but cannot encroach further. The proposed setback is shown as being 14.4' which is an increase in the nonconformity. 3. The maximum lot coverage in a Residential-One zone district is 25%. The proposed lot coverage is shown as 28.5%. Attached is a copy of the R -1 development standards. Please contact me at your convenience so we can discuss your site plan. I can be reached at 303-235-2848. Sincerely, c: Chad Root I. i I Meredith Reckert, ACIP Senior Planner . ~.=tfu, ~-7J:CL--LQ ~ ~--,--,-,---- ~ ~ 0- ~/~ '1- 'f-hu- ,._.,-'~~~,~~~ ~. -'rZF0'L:~<<! ;-.~~"'-Z?--- ---- _____nO ,,_ '.'..........,. ~ ;,~~~~_.~ #~~_. _______ i '. ..~-..LQ~_&l___1/L.~'}J..(L--~~.J-,.,.,...,..... ............,....._._______~p--;-,-- ----- y~ ~ ._----------_.._.__..__._-------~-~------- -- irUl' . ---------------~~~ II,~~ ~ 'f ,\ efr:~i'\,~ ~ -- v fi(\~\f) r\'~v\j)ll"" ,IV" ------ ---- .,- ' ~ft)---- - r\~Z(~~~.~M~~ ---- ~. ,--~ ,iP~cJVV (0' -,-----------, ~-~ ~--- ------ ..,-.,------------------2?r~~' ----- ._~-;~- --~ t:;:~_v" ..._. --------------~ ---.- ~a::-~-~---...----:;_-- . ;;.~/-#/.-/_----'--~ . ~~ ..---- --------------Zl~~~~J77-- 'P\1 .~ QLjO-50tf 1,2850 GJ-erett ~t:. ,EL"za.b.eilt-.qJZLLL-G I S~~ cJo~~_~_____~/.t?O-2-~'itl----.--- I '_, . .____________1 : ffl-ew=::Ii:zu~i::i~--.------- .- _-:2_.S<_C.6._c~-~-,----,-- ~ OQ G:.t w'-".,.. _c<;;k",,'i;,......_._ '(Y1) .-- .. ^"--- .--,--.-.- I . I -- .. .----_.^._,~--- --.------------ , - - Case No.: App: Last Name: App: First Name: Owner: Last Name: Owner: First Name: App Address: City, State Zip: App: Phone: Owner Address: City/State/Zip: Owner Phone: Project Address: Street Name: City/State, Zip: Case Disposition: Project Planner: File Location: Notes: Follow-Up: jwA0606 l~~!'-Iamilrilttl_all IStephanie/Holly ~~~~ I ~_88Q~Y(;!X~tt~~::__ _n jwheat~Rldge. CO 80033 1303-940-5688 Is~~(;! I 1720-261-0128 13880 ~y(;!re!t:~_~r(;!_et jwheat Ridg". CO 80033 tc;;rilr1~ lA~tiY~ i Quarter Section Map No.: Is!;??_ Related Cases: I Case History: 10' rear yard setback ariance & 3'6" side yard etack variance ... Review Body: IB()A: 4/27/06 APN: p~9.224,06-o03 2nd Review Body: 2nd Review Date: Decision-making Body: IBOA: 4/27/06 Approval/Denial Date: Reso/Ordinance No.: Conditions of Approval: District: IIV Date Received: 14[1'!?QQ~ Pre-App Date: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 11~22 f~!"i r'd!". .-.",.......".-... U4/!.) {!\}(:< S, lid-!AHARA/ .... 1-161 \ R[~CEIF'T f~D~C021.276 f'lMOUHT FMSD ZUf..!Ir-iS !~F'F'LICATIDN !- 300"00 "7i-,I.!,' LuriC ;--;-,;,-;-, :m'~Ii'~G F'EIMDUF~SEnHH 90,00 7j~'r.:T!'i PAYMp.lT F~tTEI\.,Ji:::j} AMOUNT 390.00 ,-.!f ".'!:".!" Lf'. ...)._11..:' TOTAL '7:{j{\ nr\