Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WA-92-25
The Clty of ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION ~lheat ~Rido~e Department of Planning and Development 6 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone (303) 237-6944 Applicant ~'~~c? Lr~ 3Zar~ /~C Phone Z3tf-! ~Z~- Owner T.SpPc°c, rt}~,Lc~ia~lPR2iA Atldress~=3S2? ~) 32s~.~ Ade- PhoneZ3c!_ !}Z~ Location of request ~~~~ CRS ~2lu I~G~G',r Uf~E'~/ ~~~~~ ~~ ,~'U2fZ Type o£ action requested (check one or more of the actions. listed below which pertain to your request.) Change of zone or zone conditions Site development plan approval Special use permit Conditional use permit Temporary use/building permit Minor subdivision Subdivision 8 Preliminary Final (] ** See attached procedural guide for specific requirements. led Description of Variance/Waiver Nonconforming use change ~fFlood plain special exception Interpretation of code Zone line modification Public Improvement Exception Street vacation Miscellaneous plat Solid waste landfill/ mineral extraction permit ^ Other List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee, etc. NAME ADDRESS _ PHONE ~; A_ ~,oC,rvJ~RR~~ .5'~57~ [.e.) 3Z fffG ~tiNUi ~~4~~y ~~ r~oZ+2 .3o3-z3 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-o£-attorney from the owner which approved of this.-actisZn on his behalf. Signature of Applicant Subscribed SEAL Date Received` Receipt No. Case No. and swornrn t~ s ~lo "day of ~ oJe ox/pe(!' , 19 ~_ Notary Public _ My Commtssio~~ErpiresG;t. 3, 1995 My commission expires W A R N I N G N O T I C E Department of Planning and Development Code Enforcement Division City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 7500 West 29th Avenue PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Department of Planning and Development, City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, has determined that the property described below is in violation of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws: 5750 West 32nd Avenue Specifically, violations exist on such property because of the following conditions and use: 1. Section26-30(I)(1): Permitted fence heights 2. Section26-31(c)(7): Sight Distance Traingle regulations PLEASE CONSIDER THIS DUE NOTICE TO DESIST AND ABATE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED VIOLATION WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OR A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WILL BE .FILED WITH THE WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL COURT. s Any person, firm, corporation or any 'officer or employee thereof who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws may be subjected to the penalties prescribed therein. Each and every day that violations exist may be considered a separate offense subject to separate penalties. In appropriate cases, you may have a right to protest the allegations of this notice pursuant to Wheat Ridge, Colo., Code Subsection 15-7 (1988). When the violation is abated within the warning notice period, this notice will be dismissed and no further action taken. This notice is issued pursuant to Wheat Ridge, Colo., Code Subsection 2-34, 15-5 (1988). If you need more information, feel £ree to contact my office at 235 i2~851. this 19th day /af ,v October 192 _. Enforcement October 20, 1992 Mr. Joseph Echeverrin 5750 W. 32nd Ave. Wheat Ridge, Co. 80212 Dear Mr. Echeverrin, It has come to the attention of the city of Wheat Ridge that the brick fence on the property located at 5750 West 32nd Avenue is in violation of the Wheat Ridge Zoning laws. Our building files show that you supplied us with a building permit and a drawing of your proposed brick fence. This drawing showed 6'6" pilasters 12' apart and the wall would continue 60' toward Fenton street. These plans were approved by the building department providing certain regulations were followed. These regulations were written on your original plans and you were provided with copies. The first condition you were to follow was that the fence could not be over 6' in vertical height. The second condition was that you follow the sight distance triangle regulations, 25' on Fenton and 55' on W. 32nd Ave. As of September 24, 1992 the fence was measured at 7'2" in vertical height and has encroached the sight distance triangle by 14'. Our department will allow the fence to be providing there are no Further complaints complaints continue, you will be required to 6'. The length of the fence will have where it ended as of 9-24-92. This point Fenton down W. 32nd Ave. kept at 7'2" in height, on this matter. If to cut the fence down to be cut back 14' from is measured 55' from Please find enclosed copies of your proposed plans and information that was issued when the building permit was issued. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call my office at 235-2851. Sin~erely~'~ ~~"( ` Susan Ellis, Code Enforcement Pq 1 ~_ °``~~ 3• a~ ;.,ham `.-~ .~a~ C w iC ca Rxepfioa No. RECORDED IN Recorded at o'clock ht., COUNTY -OF JEFFERSON STATE OF COLORADO '"RECEPTION N0. 8903'i632 WARRANTY DEED 04/13/89 1b:07 7.70 -- -.,.,.emu.,. - ~ - -ir-~- THLS DEED, Made this flat day of March .19 89 ~t`t~~ Charles Chaves and Sylvia B. Chaves 110 S. Hooker St. Denver, Colorado 80219 of the City sad *County of Denver and State of Colorado, grantor(s), and Joseph Echeverria whose legal address is 5750 W. 32nd Ave., tdheatridge, Colo. 80033 of the County of Jefferson and State of Colorado, grantees: WITNESS, that the grantor(s), for and inconsideration of the sum ot--Forty Seven Thot79 and - - DOLLARS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ha granted, bazgained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the gantees, their heirs and assigns forever, not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being is the County of Jefferson and State of Colorado, described as follows: Zot 1 Block 6 0£ the Olinger Gardens County of Jefferson State of Colorado also known by street and number as 5750 W. 32nd Ave., Whewridge, Co. 80033 ~~; TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, tents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and der,zwd .y~~t3xvne of rhn gantor(s). either iD law or?quity, of, in and to the above bazgained premises, with the hereditaments and appttrterlances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bazgained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantees, their heirs and. assigns forever And the gantor(s), for se1leT,s their heirs and personal representatives do covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the grantees, their heirs and assigns, that a[ the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents well seized of the premises above conveyed, hY a good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and ha good right, full power and lawful authority to gant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner sad farm aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature scever, except existing first mortgage to Stmbelt National Mortgage, and or their assigns, sad 1989 tomes and those- thereafter and the above bazgained premises in ffie quiet and peaceable possession of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the ganror(s) shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor(s) ha Ve executed this deed on the date set forth above. STATE OF COLORADO } ss. County of _~,~,~ J The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in the County of of Colamdo, this ~ (S-+ day of ~q,tC,~ , 19Q ~ , byl..Jn~'~_'.`U~.-',' jai My commission expires ~Sdvj,,,. n(~ '_ State ~' ~ ~ u to ~s^~,~ ~S z , 19 ~ Wit ess my hand and official seal. I I ~' t+ouvy wnao `~-~ ~z~~ .~~ ~I No. 92L Rev. 2.84. WARRANTY DEED (to Joiur Tauola) B~edfacd PabGshing, 5825 W. fish Ave.. Lakewood, C0 80214- (703) 233-69W 384 . av:']. ,. :, '-' . ~ a U ,:~ ~ _ ' x ~~~ mfr F a~ ~ ~t ~ '2N .. S ~ .. - ~' ~eZ~, ~~ '• r w +,I .skty' n'~w O i~i T (p Z ~. A m V1~ CJ ` ~.~ w ~h w '~. +r-_ ~ p emr '.'{ z o F a 0 n ti o a A ~ "! n 0 m a O H r-i N O a a 7 ~ S ~ ,~ n A y y ~ ° ,~ ~ , '~ :° ~. c " ~ n . 7 N ,. ~e p O O 5 a d o R m w ~ ~ y ~ '~ ~ m ~ a H 0 ~" O ~ H ~ ~z z ~ zd y trJ ~ ~ x 0 a~~' ~ ~Y[t~ ~ sr~LE I l': ~o ~. SISo W. '~?riv j~vE. L~~~7 ~; tt~ ~ no.?~~ Bnc~kNnl:nt ~~~ ~° ~7 n~°0 1~' 130 OG NoUbl; I-4.Blgep ICoW:'~- ~! ~ j0.4 i` ~,:~ p n lVL ~ ~ O of / (pl~ ~o y~ 09 O' ~ ~ ? p ~ I a' : ~ I S10Y.y O r E - o ~ r ~. ~ _ 51 ~~~ t~ ~ ~ v[ J ~ G97 'A St _F _, ~ ~ " ~ l6? -~ go x -- --p. - .i._af l (3~~ , Buyer acknowledge copy of survey from RE Port and; Associates, Inc. dated 1/6187 and is aware that Land Title will not insure against==any ?oss or damage-frtim the encroachment of the addition to dwelling over thee-right of way. ar es ayes y via B. ayes - ` On the basis of niy knowlc: t,,, infortnatierrand belief, I hereby certify that thir improvement location certificate was ,nre, _red-for Sunbelt Rational ,that itirnotaLand$urvey Plat ar Improvement Survey Plat, and that it it not to be relied upon for the ertnblirhment of fence, building, or other future improvement liner. I further ceRifv that the improvernentr an the above described parcel on this date, except utility connections are entire.ywithin the boundarier of the parcel, except ar rhown, that there are no eneroe1y}y,,'r,~ p the described premiree 6y improvements on any edjoinina premieer, except a~t• v~'Ytl, ~d4,tsnt there it no'apparent evidence ar rign `f eny ersement crosrinQ or burde ~ t'" fst~:pares except ar noted, ^wYfiCt auordin to ColoraJn Jar roe Huse cnwenaer a act o s'IB~Stpo y~drteet to thrt survey rtcntn [fires Faars a([.r you first Jsarover su:~ JeC ct +van eat ~ aetien pasrJ u{idn any detect in tls e c mmrrtr worn thsn ten--yc+rs it a hrr~My .emfied chat the aline Jeunhn! (row tM J~te ~ / ~ cr titil ton am hareon." -- Br..(!rn) ~:r ~"BI ... IUD'+Itd WNAIn / IIMI yr/r ~ ~ ~. O tn0 ~ . Iira,r5 hated Mtundary in aeurdanae >, nh tM1r ':~iY`' •.. .,• ~~ •.` run!ns NJU Frdcral AOminfstn,,7Jun FIaJ ' • I IanrJ Ntwtrlary R1gn U+trd a1_iL.~_®. HOOeIt E, Poft;~ltatt? 21 - ~«l~"--~ (r 1J`~ C,tnv L-vfG~ ~~'`~- Z5 ~ ~ L ~;~~ F- 4 \ ~ fn O O' 0 ~- ~~ o E. ~ 5l ~ W. 3?NV A~~' ~~ u ~ 1300 oF~N USEI~Ot'It'4~R?W•r i~~~ R }0.6 I si v ~ ~~ h n - 30l ~ ~~j °n ~ - ' ~? O I ~' . I STo>:Y a o _ ~I - Fiza~ ~ Y W a. ,q ~ in SI ~ Q J r ~ ~,o _- --Q. ~ O v~ Gl~+\5"~ iaC~T ~ ~~ G~~ -tom: V~~ ~`~ ~ 4~"~ Buyer acknowledge coy of survey from RE Port and Associates, Inc. dated 1/6/87 and is aware that Land Title will not insure against any loss or damage from the encroachment of the addition to dwelling over the right of way. Char es C sues Sy via. 6. Chaves On lllc basis of Iny knowledge, information and bl:lief, I hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was prepared for Sunbelt tlatianal ,that itienotaLandSurvey Plat or Improvement Survey Plat, and thnt it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or other future improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on thin date, except utility connections are entirelywithin the boundaries o[ the parcel, except ae shown, thnt there ate no encroa fJot~}~,1;1~}1 ,l the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except a~,~ c 'Qktat there ie no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing ar burde e~parce except ae noted. ^9JTIl'C_ Accordinf to Colorado lam .•m, muse cumiaenee~ ey act'or4r s'~Lpu y defect in this >urvey ntl,tn three years after you first discover su.Q Jef}fret ~!+ ~(ven ma~ action based upon any defect~in (I'is y"i'~ .Le c nuscr¢ more than ten years !l a herchy crrtihed that the stoic desrnhrd from the dAe ~ i ce>]tifi~aj ion lavn hereon." pmpemy Cr ^ret•.. .._ Iswated wihin a I(X) year narxl booed boundary in accordance with the current HUD Federal ' Adntinistruion FIaJ }loud auundap• Afaps Ualyd x'783 Scl~LE t I': ~o Robert E. V! Q Q ~ ~~~ = I \ r d N z 0 z w W 32ND AVM ~~ .3 N z 0 d W I- 3N W w 0 I~- riJ~ ct~~ ~~ ~_T _. _. _- -- U' nt v ~' 3~~ ~ (~ ---~ - --- ~. ~ ~ '1 ~1 _ -__ -«-. - _- V 1 ~_ _~ N ____.__..__, p r 1 -~ ~~ ~ ~}- ' ~ L~ y "' ~ 6 `~ t ~, ~ t I T ~~ 1 ~ a . v c V L-~ 1\ ~ - ~~ ~ ,: ~~ I- ~~~~~= ~~ ~ ~~ ~-. ~~ ~~ ~- i ; ~~ ~e ~`~ , ~, r ~ ~~ ~ r o ~~~ ~, .~- ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~, ..i ~ ~ h, . ~~' ~ ~ f ~ ,~ z z.~ ,.~ q ~. ~~^ ~~ N ~~ -~ , y ~, -~ -1, ~/ L~ ~. ~,~~i{'~ ~~ vJJ f3J . ~ ~ l - -L ws t~e ,~;>q~_r ~J 1 2:t J 6 ; s ~ I f I PPfJ t~ II 1 } ti ttJnfi~f ~ : ~ i ._ I ~ ~ _~ ~ .. i ~~ ~ rn z ~ ~ . ' Bey . ~ . ~ ,- ~ n ~ ~I r ~ l.~ " l fs c' N ~ ~qq ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~CC `~` - `~ ~ N ., I t' b 4 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ! r , ~J I ~ ® ~ O ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ O 1 ~I' . ,' ~ ~ ~ i s .. • ~ ' ~ I i ~ tr .I I ~ ~. .. ~ car ', ~ b I t r ~ r ~ ~ "~. ~ ~ it 1 3^1' ~ 1 ~ (~ ~ f 7 ~ ~ ~ t ~ 3 i ~ ~ Cam[ i~~ I '., ~~ f{ f tom ` 4 - • it .~. ..~ . ' i r.~ ~ r'" ~ ~p•,~' ~ i ~~i ( ~ ,l ' 11q :i .. ,, ,, ~ . ~ 'e I ~~ 3 r ~ I ; ~ ~I 1 I ~ V 1\ 1 t. 5 ! ', I ` [~ F ! _,l I ~Z, S I i JI t S f f'(1~ t V . ! ~ I ~ i r ~ 1' t t. 1 { {~ n 'i n . 1 ~ I~, t' ~ f t '!. I, ~ o I f I r ..~ . , , ~ , r f. I ,,.. ~. f t /~ r ~~ i r ~ i. i L ! ~ © ~~ t ~ . I I it 1 I ~ . I .. . , G I ~ ~ f' .. w .i 7500 WEST 29th AVENUE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2GT-ssaa Exr. 255 P.o. Box s3B BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION PERMIT N0. Bg14F4573 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLO. THIS PERMIT VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THE MAYOR -CALL 24 HOURS PRIOR TO INSPECTION TWO SETS OF BUILDING PLANS AND TWO PLOT PLANS MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION _ _ 1 BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS __ COPY OF DEED AND IMPROVEMENT SURVEY REQUIRED _- REAR PROPERTY LINE w w z ? J J Y F ¢ ~ pW. W O a D- ~ o FRONT PROPERTY LINE - I~ SPECIFY NORTH STREET NAME (CIRCLE FRONT) N E S W SHOW DISTANCES FROM THE MAIN BUILDING TO ADJOINING HOUSES, STREETS, AND PROPERTY LINES ON ABOVE SKETCH; SHOW LEAST DISTANCE TO PROPERTY LINES, NOT MAXIMUM OR AVERAGE DISTANCE. OWNERS NAME ~6y,rC /1 R RrRI To S -p P Q CONTRACTOR LIC, N0. ADDRESS PHONEZ3y ~}'2..~' CITY ~ ZIP CODE Z (7 ' LOT WIDTH DEPTH AREA _. INDICATE THOSE OF THE FOLLOWING OFF•SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOW EXISTING~Cur68GUt}er_Street Pavfnq-Water-Sewer_S1ormDminage- HAVE ARRANGEMENTS BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE NOT NOW EXISTING YES_NO- ARE THERE ANY SPECIAL ASS]E~SSMENTS AGAINST THIS PROPERTY~YES_NO_ OCCUPANCY ~ ° ~e i '~~-CEEB ~OrI~T ~• ~A'~L EXTERIOR MATERIALS WALLS ROOF nrnTC RFMARHC: LEGAL DESCRIPTION -~ METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION ATTACHED ADDRESS s~ °~`~ (.~ 32'u'J /~/-~ 'LOT NO.~ BLOCK N0. ~j SUBDIVISIONC7L/N~r,ee ~Q~~S FILING ;_ OWNER/CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT PERMIT FEE 10 .~ I hereby certify that the above setback distances shown on this permit opplication are accurate, and do not violots easements or restrictions of re- n nt t Rid Cit f Wh f USE TAX . Q ea ge or cove a s, y o iha applicoble ordinances, rulq} or requlaHons o cord; that DII measurements shown, and allegations made ore accurate; that I hove read and agree to abide by all TOTAL FEE ~ ~ ~ a conditions printed on this application, and that i oasuma full responsibility for compliance with the Wheat Ridge NOT D Buiidinq Code (U.B.C.) and DII other applicoble Wheat Ridge ordinances, for work under this permit. ~ ~ DATE ~ -/V ~~ ~ ~Y o ~~~ ~ _ (OWNER)(COBITRACTOR) SIGNED BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY SO. FT. COST THE PROPERTY IS P S~ryTLY ZONED RE , / BASEMENT-ROUGH -- THE PROPOSED U S E (_/IS)LIS NOT) A ED UNDER ~HE 2 WG ORDINAANCE ~~ ~'~ ~ IBASEMENT-FINISHED _ COMMENTSSl'.! ` u~''F~ ~'~. ~ V`im' GROUND FLOOR - ,i SECOND FLOOR _ • y, ~ GARAGE ~ ~ " r' ~ ~ y ~ ` • ' OTHER ~ ~,~ ` - ~~ ~ V• t~''l~ll = SSa I ~(~ OTHER ~'-'Cfr~~ BUILDING COST ~ -~ ~: 1~ ELECTRICAL PERMIT PLUMBING PERMIT MECHANICAL PERMIT STATE N0. CITY N0. STATE NO. CITY N0. CITY N0. PLANS REVIEWED (-OK)(_NOT OKI PLANS REVIEWED (-OK)(_NOT OK) PLANS REVIEWED(-OK)(_NOT OK) NO PLANS NEEDED NO PLANS NEEDED NO PLANS NEEDED PLANS NEEDED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PLANS NEEDED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PLANS NEEDED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ELECTRICAL PERMIT _ PLUMBING PERMIT MECHANICAL PERMIT PERMIT ISSUED TO PERMIT ISSUED 70 PERMIT ISSUED TO PER REQUEST AS PER PLANS N0. PER REQUEST AS PER PLANS NO PER REQUEST AS PER PLANS N0. AS APPROVED AND ON FILE IN MY OFFICE AS APPROVED AND ON FILE IN MY OFFICE AS APPROVED ANO ON FILE IN MY OFFICE DO NOT ISSUE PERMIT UNTIL CLEARED BY DO NOT ISSUE PERNIT UNTIL CLEARED BY DO NOT SSUE PERMIT UNTIL CLEARED BY CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR ' DATE CLEARED BY DATE CLEARED BY DATE CLEARED RY CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR GHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR BY BY BY _ _ DATE DATE DATE - REMARKS: 7 (T. 6` ~' plN ~ , C ;~ CONDITIONS: _ (I) THIS PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS SET FORTN IN YOUR APPLICATION AND IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW9 OF THE STATE QF COLORADO AND TD THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND BUILDING CODE OF WHEAT RIDGE, cOI.ORA00 OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY. (2) THIS PERMIT GHALL E%PIRE IF (A) THE WORK AUTHOIiIZE015 NOT COMMENCED WITHIN SIXTY (60J DAYS FROM ISSUE WTE OR (e) THE BUILDING AUT~4!ED 13- SUSPENDED OR pBANDONEO FOF A PERIOD OF 120 GAYS. (3) IF THIS PERMIT E%PIRES, A NEW PERMIT MAY BE ACQUIRED FOR A FEE OF ONE•NALF THE AMOUNT NORMALLY REQUIRED, PROVIDED NO CHANGES NAVE BEEN Ofl'WWL BE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL PLANG AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ANY SUSPENSION 01r ABANDONMENT NAS NOT EXCEEDED ONE (N YEAR. IF CHANGES ARE MADE OR IF SUGPENSION pt PBANDONMENT EXCEEDS ONE (N YEAR, FULL FEES SHALL BE PAID FOR 4 NEW PERNIT. ~ 14) NO WORK OF ANY MANNER SHALL BE DONE THAT WILL OBSTRUCT THE NATURAL FLOW OF WATER CAUSING A DRAINAGE PROBLEM. (S) CONTRACT SHALL NOTIFY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TWENTT•FOVR (24) HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR ALL INSPECTIONS AND SHALL REC IT AL ON INBP CT N CA BEFORE PROC EDING ITH SUCCESSIVE PHASES OF THE JL ///,tea//- U ~~!GFi+~~ APP D CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR MAYOR PHoiu Album w~-aa-zs ~, ;,~ , i k ~' I ~~~ k i ,... ',~ ` i;~f :, 7~, , i- ;~ ~- " ; r `:: ~.~ ~ . "' ' ,., . i h yy t ~ 1 S r 'd i; a. ''^~ ~~ r <, ,, ,~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~, ~1,t. ~`. r~ i ~tt ~•. Y~ 4. ~ ~.~ ry yy t ~r"v ~~ n; roes `~.3+ _'^.' ltt ~~ ' iii ~Y~ _ ~~~ ~. Mfr r°y~g~ ~ • ~d,~, ~J M ,1 yY * ~ ~ ~ . Aj~iw~{- ~. ~ w g ~ ' ~ ~~ .s ~` N~ tk ~ ~ S y. f tit ~ tai I y4~fa ~ E '? , ~L p, yrF... 6.3,,,x: .. ... ~~r li `. '~`~ J .{'~~ ~ ~ .4: ,. :~, . . i f I 3 iy~wr ~~ ~w r r' ~„ ;~ 1 Y.•~ ~Ai:'X e ~ Y 1 . }~.w ~ Y. `~~ a~~'f r ~. ,,. ~~ '~ f .~ ~ s *y .t` .~~v Y, ~ ~! ~ , 1t ~ . ~ . ~k' ~,.. / ~~ ~ . ~ ^ ~i ~ Y. { $, r 'S L ~' // 1• J' 1~. ~~, ~.J .~ ~. ~ i `' l.i 'fag.Tyy :. - x a ~`.~e l ~ A . ~ E ~'Y~^.~.. ~ J ~~~ :~J y.., ~ l ~ r V L ^ ~~' ~ ~ S f.:. - ~ . p ~ I 55~ WC.T l~_. E ~ 1 ~ 1 35 4 : n V 3$~ ~F ~ ~ dP•` ~{ .2. C r! 1 { t ~ ,~ ¢ ' ~ '~ 'F Y I~ ~ L t+""~• kµ ~ 4 ' ~ ~'. } ~ n%~ ~ ~~a.e `.... . ~• . ~J~ i } ~ ~ YF ~N ~ ~ ' t ` ' ~. + k f~ f )~ Y r~~.. ~ Y r .I .I ~ ` v ~ _ :. i g t "3 _ I ~: `~, ~•~ u .,~ ~ • . ~ H ..~ ~~ .I. . °} - - I ~~ c ~ t ~~ .~ .'.ti4 r. ~l ~ h A pp~~ ~~ N y , ~@ idd F 3 Y1 ' /, n'k ,, ' t t ~~ _ ~ / 1 I 4~'• i! r ~ ~y My Jp `~ Y 9 1 I ~ _ h ` i ~ J ~t' y/ t , ~t ~/~ l - ~, ~ wr ~~ ~~~p 1 Y` ~/!' , ,. `.s 'i' '` i. ~ ~ j ' 1-:: ' ~•] ~~ ~~ 1 t l t R ~' t ~ _. s _ . ?} 1 ! { 1+ C.} tt 1~ ~' S "~'~ __ ,..'s ~. ,, . ., .. ; ~.~a ~:. ,f ;; `{ « '! :Frm 7 '. ' ~.,~ ' Udfhs 7i. i r ~ A:~ K 'r 4 . , (Y:: ~'Y } i i 1 ~}': ~,p {r ~ L51 rf~ .~! !Y ~"F ~,,.5s ~' `~`` r ~~••~ r; 4,..., _ _ .. . ~., y R NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on January 28, 1993, at 7:30 P.M., at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: 1. Case No. WA-92-20: An application by Teresa L. Shearn for approval of variances to lot width and area as regulated by Section 26-15(F) to allow a duplex in a Residential-Two zone district. Said property is located at 7235 W. 33rd Avenue and is legally described as follows: Lot 45, 33rd and Vance Subdivision County of Jefferson, State of Colorado 2. Case No. WA-92-23: An application by Eugene Lucero for approval of variances to lot width and area as regulated by Section 26-15(F) to allow a duplex in a Residential-Two zone district. Said property is located at 7245 W.' 33rd Avenue and is legally described as follows: Lot 44, 33rd and Vance Subdivision County of Jefferson, State of Colorado 3. Case No. WA-92-24: P.n application by Young Sign for approval of a 35 square foot variance to the maximum area allowed for a free standing sign as regulated by Section 26- 410(e)(5). The property is located at 10010 W. 27th Avenue and is legally described as follows: The east 25 feet of the north 150 of Block 5, Paramount Heights, Part Five according to the recorded plat thereof, more fully described as follows, to wit: That part of Block 5, PARAMOUNT HEIGHTS, PART FIVE, described as follows: Beginning on the south line of a parcel of land described in Book 1663 at page 578 of the Jefferson County records which is the most northeasterly corner of said Block 5; thence south along an easterly line of. said Block 5, a distance of 150 feet; thence west parallel with the southerly line of said Block 5, a distance of 25 feet; thence north, parallel with said easterly line of said Block 5, a distance of 150 feet, more or less, to the southerly line of a parcel of land described in .said Book 1663 at page 578; thence easterly along said southerly line 25 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. 4. Case No. WA-92-25: An application by Joseph Echeverria for approval of.a variance to the maximum allowed fence height as regulated by Section 26-30(I). Said property is located at 5750 W. 32nd Avenue and is legally described as .follows: Lot 1, Block 6, Olinger Gardens County of Jefferson, State of Colorado 5. Ca~P No TuP-93-1: An_application by Colorado Catholic Academy for approval of a one week temporary shelter for up to 1200 persons on property located at 1180 W. 44th Avenue. Said property is legally described as follows: Lot 1, PLEASANT OFFICE PARK, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado' and, That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. (sometimes referred to as Lot 4, Pleasant Office Park) described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the West line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, with the South line of County Road known as North Golden Road (now 44th Avenue); thence East along the South line, 309.6 feet, more or less, to the West line (extended) of that property conveyed to George F. Atto in Book 117 at Page 458; thence South along said West line 563 feet to the Northeast corner of that Tract described in Book 899 at Page 402; thence West along the North line of said Tract in Book 899 at Page 402, a distance of 309.6 feet, more or less to the West line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 21; thence North along said West line 563 feet to the Point of Beginning, except the North 220 feet thereof. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over the East 25 feet of the West 130 feet of said North 220 feet. 'County of Jefferson; State of Colorado. Miar1 o hapla, Se retary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be 'published: January 14 1993 Wheat Ridge Sentinel P.O. BOX 63B TELEPHONE: 303/237-6944 The City of a, A 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE .WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80034 cyVheat Ridge January 13, 1993 This is to inform you that Case No. WA-92-25 which is a request for approval of a variance to the maximum allowed fence heieht as regulated by Section 26-30(I). for property located at 5750 W. 32nd Avenue will be heard by the Wheat Ridge HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7:30 p. m. on January 28, 1993 All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION "The Carnation City" P 923 92L~ 228 N w m 0 0 Wd4 ~ ©~' :'~ '~ ~ r- 9m m m < m p m a ~ "oy °o~g r ~~a~ _ o~ "°m 1 Imo ~ _; 1 h..a ...~ 01 W N O ~ ~_ ~ W OJ ~ a ` = a Z 'II o m 6 m =ief m 0 "== U1 T JJ w 0 O m n m v -H T 77 C~ m T m v D r v W O 233' P 923 920 _~_ W 1 - ~ A ~ y f m Z ~ _m c Z Cj I m ~ ~ 3 1/ W 0 i~ ~ f~ f _ _ n 6~ m o n ? ~ ~ mf ~ .~ _ T P 923 92~ 232 Cn m ~ ~Ylµ m m m <mz m ~ z II , CP E° s4 ~ ypo t$bj y A m °p ~ ~ • O D f M 8 ~ o mB o m <m S +3 s-~ _ _ R _ A ~ ~ ~ f iJ Ce. as ~~ W '.y - r 3y iS. j.1 ~ o ~ , ~+ n n \ n w 1 m :IMPORTANT. PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS. l "O I` .._ T mI ~ ..O N \ j O m o' m 0 N ~ W d •~~0^~~~41 C O , ~ _ A c ` $ .. Cmm ~ D ~ ~ ~ m 3EH _ O wL+i n ~ ~ = V 'm~ ~'O' ~H g o ~m, n P~~ Q ~ ao; a n ~ o ~ a ~ 4p6 $~ o N R( J~r~q • ~ ? N f ll •° A N NO ~~d '" H O~ ~d~' ~ ;o z o - d" a y ~. ~ ~ o ' r °F~ 3 "' _ - - , ^ ~ W ~a~~~o ~~~m (n D ag om S+ ~"Oo m'4^ ~ . - _~ms _~3m ^'~ N ~mnA ~~~A ~ ~ N YO n m ~3o , N~ ~ y ~ ~ 3 (J r y ~ cr a °-ate n~~ m ~ A. es f. a `"o N aW ~ o m i ?8^ ~ a ,. ~~~ ~ a ~.. s ~~d ~ \ a , w m° ,~ 2 9~4T 's A~o o m N _ _ _ W m~~~g ~ ~ ~m ~ - D my~ ~ ° [ ~ 30ap m = ~+E ~p '9;jom a m ~ ' ~C Pi1 aL`i a 9 '~°'Ein ~ 3^~' N Y ~~ ~ A~~ ~ 3 nH ~u~ ~ ~ ~~ a T9o ~a~ / n ~ O A~ ¢~O a ¢ > m R ~ a £ ^o w ~ c°^ a u SO y ~ 1 I . ^ ", p D1 ~ Q ~ L'J ~ Q ' g ~ m. tC77 F E v °' ~~,m n0 o W ~ °F~ 3 r.~ ~} A M ~~~ o ~__ d ~3m ~ <6p m ~ ~ s o ~ ~ _ - - 3 n W J Q a N . = n D a ~ d W D ' ice m 'O ' " < 1 o 1~ `° ~' ~ _ m Jet ° ~ f ~' ~ O m m c .D Z N O N^ _ ^ iv N ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ m ~ w o m •~~ a~o a ~ 7J ~ a ~ ¢ < ~. °' , -I '~ N y m 5 O' y .~ T Rl ~ 3 m ~ ^ o N ~ , ~ N O ~ tn- ~ n ~ N ~_ t aGm n ~ < W ° '~ a m fD v . [lJ m ~ ~ ~^ ~" ry N N N N P 92'3 92~ 231 7J m a a 77 m n m v 0 n m T m ~_ r (a O O (n m m m m z < m~ -i C1 m 9 2 ti V m t '~ I~ ~ ~ s ~ ~~ °o - y.. 6ry 8 ~ m ~ > m P 923 920 23~ Cp m m m m ~ m z D y ~ Z Q ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ m~ ' ~ ] N of M L~ ~Ir rn. -. . .. P 923 92~ 229 ~ ~ "y' n y cn m gm O ~ 9 T y Z 3 O r ~`v~ w ~ ~ ASS M ~ IN o ' om o ~y ~ ° T ° i+ rt tt o Ho m ~ oc ti ~ m m m °~ o0 ~ w/ ~ g > ~; Vt Ci z'^ v `g ~ < m N N g ~ yc ~ z9 ~ ~(~j I~ 3° ' m iSi= IJ r <m ° A ~ ~I~°I~ =i ~i °i _~ ... _ ,. _.a ------- ~, - TI U?I nl~~~~~=a~ _o~~- ~m~ _~. ~ W (T ~ (n N o ~ ~_ , ,. 3 m y W c c ..F_-~ N m o ~ •V a G N n N ~ ~\ y d V N ~~. ~J TI~~ i O a ~ ~a y < y ~ O '" ~ ~ O B y I n m Q ~~ m °- C m` y d ,Q `En sn n'„`~,~ ti f~ °~ ~°o^ ~ y y GBI 3N y ^m'3 ~ w- m am,o n~ 6L `~ao' 6 3 °~ ~< ~~3d. '~ d~ v~~~ ~- m em o < ,3'rv ° ~ gq v 63 ~ Y m.,t°..~ Wn • - ••y~ D,ly^~yp°9512 +O~~~C~ O °•y~= OD9 N NN2j` ~NN•• y+ n ~"~ c Ut C y ^m3 ~~ A ~~~ff ~ Q Da° a~a W'1~ O q9m Ga0 W, 6~ q,GO }3 q ~6° ~ 4 4>~•••o •• ~ ~., noy~y~~nnz ~^~ ~33m m ~nm _°-a y z'~m^ __ Qi3C(n 0+ ~ ADO ,3~ n. u~ a ~.a v~ +* S ~~~ „ate T,I FnC0 g~N =N~ 1'T _ NPo ~' $ rc ~ a° s a p ~ ~ ~~~ ~ p ~~ g~a.'- d~° - eo, ; ~ 'm 10 .. o W 4F~ '3 3^' ,~ a ~ $ amF a~;y ~ o rv $3~ ° u'~ E 0 0 ~' p ~ ~ 3. 3 (ten D o ~ o N N n N ~ ~ - (7 ,c N ~ N ^ ^ ~ ~ m m W Q.~-+77Dyo m I1J w o_~ =~ Q C7 y N O N ~ rri n ftJ ~ a ~ oy ..D m ~ `m x.5 N yj tU N y (D IMPORTANT. PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS. CITY OF WREAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Date Prepared: January 20, 1993 Date of Meeting: January 28, 1993 Case Manager: Greg Moberg Case No. & Name: WA-92-25/ECHEVERRIA Action Requested: A variance to the maximum allowed fence height as regulated by Section 26-30(I) Location of Request: 10010 W. 27th Avenue Name & Address of Applicant(s): Joseph A. Echeverria 5750 W. 32nd Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80212 Name & Address of Owner(s): Same ----------------------------------------------------------------- Approximate Area: 6,650 square feet Present Zoning: Residential-One C Present Land Use: Single-family Surrounding Zoning: N, S, W: R-3; E: R-1C Surrounding Land Use: S: Multiple family W:, N:_, E: Single-family ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date Published: January 14, 1993 Date to be Posted: January 14, 1993 Date Legal Notices Sent: January 13, 1993 Agency Check List ( ) Attached Related Correspondence ENTER INTO RECORD: (XX) Comprehensive Plan ( ) Attached (XX) Not Required (XX) None (XX) Case File & Packet Materials (XX) Zoning Ordinance (XX) Exhibits ( ) Subdivision Regulations (XX) Other ----------------------------------------------------------------- JURISDICTION The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all _ notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore there is jurisdiction to hear this case. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO. WA-92-25 Page 2 REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to the maximum height allowed for a fence. Section 26-30(1)(1) states: "No fence, divisional wall or hedge above the height of forty-eight (48) inches shall be permitted within a minimum required front yard, or above the height of six (6) feet in instances not otherwise specified." Section 26-30(I)(2) states: "No fence, divisional wall, hedge or other obstruction to view in excess of forty-two (42) inches high, except for permitted landscaping, signs or public utility poles; shall be established or maintained on a corner lot within a triangular area bounded by the lot lines and a line connecting points on each lot line either twenty-five (25) feet from the intersection of such lot lines for local streets or fifty-five (55) feet from the intersection of such lot lines for collector or arterial streets..." In addition Section 26-30(I)(3) states: Support columns, poles or posts shall be permitted to be constructed up to one (1) foot higher than the permitted fence heights..." SITE The site is located at the southeast corner of West 32nd. Avenue and Fenton Street. As per the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan Map West 32nd Avenue is considered a collector street while Fenton Street is considered a local street. Subject to Section 26- 30(I)(2) the sight triangle required would be fifty-five (55) feet along West 32nd Avenue and twenty-five (25) feet along Fenton Street (see Exhibit "A"). In addition the main entrance to the house and therefore the "front yard" is located along Fenton Street. This allows a six (6) foot fence to be located along the north property line but requires-that a six (6) foot fence be setback a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the west property line. The applicant was contacted by Susan Ellis, Code Enforcement Officer, on October 20, 1992. The notice explained that the fence currently under construction exceeds the maximum height allowed for a Fence and that the fence is located within a sight triangle (see attached). Because the applicant would like the fence to remain where it is currently located he has applied for a variance. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the district in which it is located? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO. WA-92-25 Page 3 The property has been used as a single-family residence for many years and therefore it has and can yield a reasonable return in use if permitted to be only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the district in which it is located; and 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? As this site is under the same constraints as are all other residential properties located on corner lots within the City, the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances; and 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? Approval of the variance would alter the essential character of the local neighborhood as no fences over .the height of six ,(6) feet or located within the sight triangle that exist within the immediate area; and 4. Are there any particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved that would result in a particular hardship? There are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved that would result in a particular hardship; and 5. Are the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? Because there are many properties that are located on corner lots within the City of Wheat Ridge the conditions upon which this petition is based would be applicable to other properties in the City; and 6. Is the purpose o£ the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property? The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to make money but to allow the completion of an existing Fence; and 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The hardship has been created by the applicant as he was notified of all requirements when he applied for the building permit (see attached); and BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO. WA-92-25 Page 4 8. Will the granting of the variation be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? The granting of this variance will not be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; and 9. Will the proposed variation would not impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety and substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? The granting of this variance will increase the danger of public safety as the reason structures and landscaping can be no higher that forty-two (42) inches within a sight triangle is to reduce obstructions within traffic intersections. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on conclusions derived from "Findings of Fact", staff has the following comments: 1. The property has been used as a single-family residence for many years, and therefore it has and can yield a reasonable return in use if permitted to be only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the district in which it is located; and 2.. The site is under the same constraints as are all other residential properties located on corner lots within the City and therefore the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances;'and 3. Approval of the variance would alter the essential character of the local neighborhood as no fences over the height of six (6) feet or located within the sight triangle exists within the immediate area; and 4. There are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved that would result in a particular hardship; and 5. Because there are many properties that are located on corner lots within the City of Wheat Ridge the conditions upon which this petition is based would be applicable to other properties in the City; and BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO. WA-92-25 Page 5 6. The hardship has been created by the applicant as he was notified of all requirements when he applied for the building permit (see attached); and 7. The granting o£ this variance will increase the danger of public safety as the reason structures and landscaping can be no higher that forty-two (42) inches within a sight triangle is to reduce obstructions within traffic intersections, Therefore, staff would recommend that Case No. WA-92-25 be DENIED. !! Stopped at the intersections of Fenton and 32nd Aves, I can clearly see to the east to the west with no obstruction to my viewing ability of any kind even though the wall in question is present. I' ~~ PRINT NAME ~~ -~~~~2~-~d, h1~~ Qr l; ~'~ es 'c i D r a, ~~ ~~ ~r~~ ADDRESS ~~ ' , f / I ~c . ~SZ` Crr~~S'~=" .~`~'S C~ihF~1fS ~). ~7r~ ~-~r~o~. ~vr ~, ~~ 145 S~~i~ti S-~ ,~~5 J~c"'ac1 ~ '~~ ~ ~~ ~~ )j~/ .~ =< 317- r=~tJ~;,) >'"~ . W'i/s~rr i~'r~ l , 3S~ -~ ~r , 3 ~flc ~<- ri--Cr-2 ~ J f- ~ L/ f~ SIGNATURE ,, ~ ~ ~~ C c~(G°~ ~l ~. y E find, that the wall in question does not in any way detract from the appearance of the neighborhood - on the contrary, it adds to the corner of 32nd and Fenton a pleasing cosmetic value and changing or removing this wall, would be a regret. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ~57.~ 7 leis 3.3- tii a i~y>= 3~~at~~. s 3 ~ ~v3a ~'~~-~. ~i4~~,aTo.v_ ST, 7a,Z yV~ 3ax~. /~I/U• 3 /~S" E~lo.•~1 3i~~' Gtitd~/ 3//~~ r-r~-U _ <.~~~ ~.1~~~.~,~ 3v~~ 1 fre ~~~~ ~~ ~~ x `'~ `1 /---` 7 I ~.~o ~ ~L~:~~21 Jllacc'nA~~ ~~~'"`~e~ /Xf7~ A~Id.SC.S~'~.L9uf1 Where the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission or City Coun- cil shall hear and decide upon a request for a variance or waiver, that authority shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the following facts, favorable to the ap- plicants have been established by the evidence: Can the the property in question .yield a reasonable return use,' service or--income if permitted to be used only under the ditions allowed by_regulation,for the district in which it is 1 A. Yes _ _ _ ._ -~Q.._-Ls the plight of the owner due_to unique circumstances? _ _. 2 A. Yes, I have through my own fault, but without intent deviated specific guidance given to me by this city when the per- mit to build this wall was issued; Now it would take enormous monies to change back to the recommended specifications. Fur- ther, no gain to the immediate neighborhood would be achieved. I only earn $900 a month and cannot afford this change without severe financial consequences your understanding would be greatly appreciated. '-=3-Q: If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential -~chara~cter of the locality? _.. _ _ _ .. 3 A. No, The only result would be to enhance the appearance of the property and the neighborhood and bring more revenue to the city. ~-Wiiuld the .particular physical surroundings, shape or - _, #ypographical conditions of the specific property involve result v-~.n a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a ---- .-mere .inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were -- ---carried out? , _ _ , _ . 4 A. Yes, because a substantial sum of money that I have saved over a long period of -time would be lost, not to mention the time and effort involved, furthermore I do not possess the financial means to achieve the change being requested. 5 Q. Would the conditions upon which the petition .for a varia- tori-s__based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? _. _ .. _ 5 A. No, other properties da not desire to change their ascetic characteristic by investing the money, time, and effort to create this wall. __-5 Q.- 'Is the purpose of the variation base exclusively upon a -==desire to-make money out of the property? 6 A. Absolutely No. The sole purpose is to enhance the ap- pearance of the corner lot. ___ .___._.u, u,......~..._.._ .rt__.... ._ ~7 Q__Has_the alleged.difficulty or hardship been created by any persoh_presently„having an 3.nterest in the property? ,~.. _, _. - _ ~TM~...,_-_ - _ 7 A. Yes, it has been the owner who solely undertaken the responsibility to improve the neighborhood. -~,_Q._ Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or 'injurious to-other property or improvements in -=-the neighborhood in which the property is located? 8 A. Absolutely not, on the contrary it would be most welcome by the immediate neighborhood. .....___ .o_ ......:...........~ ._..:..~.. ......._._. ,_.._._._ ._._.. ~9 Q. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of `~-Light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the ~_congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire =L~or endanger-the public safety'br substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. -, _ __ ___ .: --- _.. 9 A. Absolutely not, the one danger implied, or in question is the impairment of the vision triangle formulated at the junction of Fenton Street and 32nd Ave. This I have investigated in detail and as the photographs show the drivers vision is in no way impaired. A driver coming out onto 32nd Ave from Fenton Street has the ability to see clearly all the way to the crest of the hill which is in the easterly direction of 32nd Avenue. All oncoming traffic is clearly visible as far as the typography of the land permits with the wall in its present position. So, in recapitulating my request I beg you to reconsider and grant me this variation, which would permit me to continue quest to enhance my immediate neighborhood. I thank you. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING:- January 28, 1993 'Page 4 Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, seconded by Board Member DOOLEY, that Case No. WA-92-24, an application by Young Sign Company, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. This variance indicated by the drawing is a 33~ increase over signage by right. 2. The sign requested for-Kipling Street is the smallest stock sign that Sinclair carries in its inventory. 3. The top of the new sign will be eight feet lower than the existing sign. 4. There will now be only one sign when two signs are allowed by right. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The entire sign will be lowered 6 feet to provide an 8 foot underneath clearance with a maximum height of 18 feet. 2. Only one sign will be allowed on this property. Board Member_BERNHART expressed his concerns regarding the downhill grade which is most pronounced at that corner, and believes it might be harder for people coming off of West 27th seeing the bottom of that sign, and Board Member ABBOTT said he did push it up one foot with intent to get the top of the sign as low as possible; but perhaps the City could handle if the line of sight would be impacted. - Greg Moberg stated the grade does come down, however it pretty well matches Kipling Street and he feels that will not be a problem. Mr. Moberg asked if part of the condition allows only one sign for that property now, and Board Member ABBOTT replied yes. Mr. Moberg said the grade does go up when traveling west on 27th Avenue, but is pretty much at grade when arriving at Kipling Street. Board Member ROSSILLON added a friendly amendment that one of the conditions be: 1. There will only be one sign on the property. Board Member ABBOTT accepted the amendment. Motion was carried 8-0. Resolution attached. B. Case No. WA-92-25 :' An application by Joseph Echeverria for approval of a variance to the maximum allowed fence height as regulated by Section 26-30(I). Said property is located at 5750. West 32nd Avenue. Greg Moberg presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record,-which Chairman HOWARD accepted. Mr. Moberg added a letter had been received and noted that all members have a copy in front of them. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE $OARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 28, 1993 Page 5 Board Member ABBOTT. questioned the 14' mentioned in the letter from the code enforcement officer and wanted to know if the City is saying the existing wall that has been constructed is 14' to far to the-west, and Mr. Moberg said he assumes it is a little more than 14' feet because the. code officer was measuring from the back of walk and thinking the sight triangle was 50 feet. Generally the property line will run 2-3 feet back of walk, so Mr. Moberg thinks it would be closer to 20 feet and continued saying usually a sidewalk is set in the right-of-way and not on a person's property. It is up to the applicant to find out where his property lines are., not up to the City. Board Member BERNHART mentioned the two different. dimensions for. the northern property line setbacks .given in-the staff report, and Mr. Moberg explained that is dealing with two sections of the code that somewhat argues with each other. Mr. Moberg discussed the rules and regulations of an interior lot saying the sight triangle is more restrictive... The applicant cannot build anything over the height of 42" or have landscaping over that height, and that takes precedent over the 30' setback. Board Member BERNHART said in regard to Ms. Ellis' letter, she does indicate she would allow the applicant to keep his fence at 72" which is obviously a deviation from the code. Is the reason she can do that is because the percentage is so minimal she can allow that exception, but not the 55' exception. Mr. Moberg said yes, by code the columns could be built up to 7 feet, and that would be dealing with only a 2 inch difference.- Staff could grant those two variances, so the one that has to really be looked at tonight is the sight triangle. Chairman HOWARD asked in the sight triangle is the height 42" or 48", and Mr. Moberg answered 42" maximum. No further questions were asked of staff. The applicant, Joseph Echeverria, 5750 West 27th Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Echeverria said the main issue is=the sight triangle and the possibility of it being obstructed by the construction of the wall (fence). Mr. Echeverria gave a brief history of the property saying it has been an eyesore to his neighbors .and neighborhood for as long as he can find history on it. When he bought the house he made a commitment to himself to better the neighborhood and property.. He decided to build a fence, and not just an ordinary fence, but a very costly and time consuming fence around the property in order to hide it. The neighbors. and passer-bys then would not be faced with this ungodly sight, but be faced with something aesthetically pleasing. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 28, 1993 Page 6 Mr. Echeverria continued saying when he obtained his permit from the City, they explained very clearly to him the regulations regarding the construction of this fence,. but in his enthusiasm, he went. astray. If he would have followed the proposed permit, he would have had to cut the property almost in half diagonally, however his intentions were not to be disobedient to the code or create a visual problem. When he received his warning notice he decided to investigate the matter further and sent around a petition to the neighbors. The applicant entered into record the petition, labeled Exhibit 'A'. Mr. Echeverria continued saying when he found out his neighbors were in support of this wall he decided to stop motorists going north on Fenton Street and ask if the wail caused any visual obstruction and asked them to sign a petition, entered into record labeled Exhibit 'B'. Mr. Echeverria then hired a professional photographer and had him take pictures of every conceivable angle that a driver might be faced with on the corner of 32nd and Fenton. The results all concur that the building of this fence in no way obstructs the sight triangle. -Mr. Echeverria entered into record, the photos labeled Exhibits 'C' through 'G', and discussed each one. Mr. Echeverria feels the fence will. enhance the property and neighborhood, plus cut down traffic noise in the area and the possibility of danger (by keeping children inside the fence). He stated the fence has been a very costly project ------ and his income is minimal; he had to save his money and have friends help build the fence. Mr. Echeverria feels it will be a sin for the City of Wheat Ridge to have him tear down the fence. The applicant stated he does not intend to continue the fence any further to"-the west at the present height. The plans are to curve the fence around to the south and continue at 30" height back to tho driveway and then the fence will meet another pillar and go up t6 6' in height. Board Member BERNHART said he needed some clarification how the wall is going to be-built from this point forward, and Mr. Echeverria answered the wall will stop where it is at that height. The height for the rest of the fence will be reduced to 30" and curve around to the south 28 feet to the pillar (this will create a half-moon circle) and meet up with the driveway. Mr. Echeverria pointed out to the Board that he poured his own sidewalk and created the bus stop with a bench and also -- placed the trash receptacle there. Mr. Echeverria said he did this on behalf of his neighborhood because his property is so unsightly, a_nd since he does not have the money to rebuild his house, the only alternative was tc~ build the fence. CITY-OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 28, 1993 Page 7 Board Member ABBOTT expressed his concern with the sight triangle and safety issue and said the wall is very attractive, but the sight is impaired. In his opinion, the photographs illustrate unless the cars pull out to where their bumper is parallel with the stop sign, their sight is impaired. Mr. Echeverria answered the observation is correct however, he would like to invite the Board to actually travel north on Fenton Street to 32nd Avenue and observe for themselves if the wall is obstructing traffic. Discussion followed. Mr. Echeverria said there is a area and he stopped an officer was in anyway having his sight he replied no, however the pol petition. Mr. Echeverria does set a precedent. lot of police traffic in the one day and inquired if he obstructed by the wall, and iceman could not sign the realize this request might Board Member ABBOTT asked the applicant if he built the wall himself, and Mr. Echeverria answered yes, with the help of family and friends. Board Member ABBOTT. added the wall could be lowered by knocking off a few courses of bricks and bringing it within the sight triangle, and Mr. Echeverria answered yes he could, however he feels that would destroy the appearance of the wall. The wall height did get out of hand because they did not allow for the capped part of the bricks. Board Member ABBOTT asked Mr. Echeverria if he could lower down that last section of fence, and he replied he will do that, but he would rather have .the Board check out the sight triangle first. Board Member HOWARD asked when did. the applicant start building this wall, and Mr. Echeverria replied over a year ago. Mr. Moberg added the permit-was pulled in September-of 1991. Board Member HOWARD asked the applicant how long had his property been up for sale, and Mr'. Echeverria answered less than one month. Board Member BERNHART questioned again the property being for sale and was he planning on finishing the wall before it sold, and the applicant promised-the wall will be finished whether or not he sells the house. All of the materials have previously been purchased, so even a future owner could finish the wall which could be included in negotiations. The applicant said he might take the property off of the market as he will lose about 40 thousand dollars. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 28, 1993 Page 8 Board Member ROSSILLON asked staff i£ the proposed curved fence will violate any code, and Mr. Moberg replied the applicant could go up to the 30 foot setback with a six foot fence, but no higher than six foot after the setback. Mr. Echeverria stated he will not violate the 30 foot setback. No further questions were asked of the applicant or staff. Mr. Gene Sidebottom, 5535 West 32nd Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Sidebottom lives across the street and down two doors. He spoke in favor of the fence and does not feel the wall restricts the vision. No questions were-asked of Mr. Sidebottom. Mr. Fred Bosick, 5757 West 32nd Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Bosick lives across the street from the applicant, and he feels this fence is an asset and improves the neighborhood. No questions were asked of Mr. Bosick. Mr. Bill Randall, 3176 Fenton Street, was sworn. Mr. Randall is in favor of this request and he believes the fence has cut down the noise on his property and does not feel it causes a sight triangle obstruction. Mr. Randall added there has been a lot of money, time and energy spent on improving this property and thinks the fence should be left as it is now.' To drop the fence down would ruin the looks. Board Member ABBOTT asked Mr. Randall i£ two courses were removed did he think that would effect the noise levels in the neighborhood. Mr. Randall answered nothing will stop RTD noise, but feels the top sections of the fence help stop the noise. Board Member BERNHART discussed the curved fence arrangement, and noted there will'still be a six foot fence between the applicant and Mr. Randall. No further questions were- asked of Mr. Randall. Mr. Paul Havelin, 5525 West 32nd Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Havelin spoke in favor of this request and is impressed with the work. He has never experienced any problem with the sight triangle, and asked the Board to take into consideration-.the fence being open. Board Member ROSSILLON commented he feels most people do not have a problem with the sight triangle because the fence is a long way from the curb, and wanted to know what is the basis for the 55' sight triangle. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 28, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Moberg said the sight triangle-used to be 25'-25', and there was not a 55' setback even on collector or arterial streets. That was changed and now it goes from property line and not from any other starting points. Mr. Moberg said they talk about widening West 32nd Avenue a-lot but that may or may not happen. if it does happen, 4 or 5 feet of grass will be lost, then the cars and stop sign would be set back even further. He can assume the 55' triangle is because it was measured from property line. Board Member BERNHART questioned the letter from neighbors of Mr. Echeverria stating they also want to build a similar fence if this request is approved, and Mr. Moberg said-he does not think they understand exactly what this request is for. This request is NOT to place a 6' fence in the front yard, this request is to allow the fence to remain where it is currently located. The neighbors will have no basis for a request to have a six foot fence in their front yard. No further questions were asked of staff. Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, .seconded by Board Member REYNOLDS, that Case No. WA-93-25, an application by Joseph Echeverria, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Testimony and petitions were received in favor of this request. However, allowance of this structure to be built as requested would be a significant detriment to public welfare and possibly .injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The fence facing west and within the sight triangle tangent is not yet constructed and therefore easily built within compliance of the ordinance or conditions of this Board. The existing wall can be lowered without being torn entirely down. 3. Substantial precedence will be established by granting the full requested variance. 4. There is a possibility of West 32nd Avenue being widened and therefore allowing the requested variance would create a worse condition. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Two courses of block shall be removed from the most westerly fence section, constructed as of January 28, 1993, allowing the-three eastern most sections to remain as constructed, and one course of brick cap be re-installed. 2. From the western-end of the existing fence on West 32nd Avenue, as of January 28, 1993, the remaining fence will comply with the ordinance within the sight triangle and may then rise to a height to match the existing eastern most fence sections. CITY OF WBEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 28, 1993 Page 10 Board Member JUNKER asked exactly what was a "course", and Board Member ABBOTT answered that would be one row of the decorative block. Board Member BERNHART wanted to know if that would meet the requirements of the letter from the code enforcement officer, and Mr. Moberg answered it probably does not meet the 55', but that it would certainly take care of the sight triangle. Discussion followed. Mr. Moberg asked Board Member ABBOTT if the motion allows the existing height to remain the same and any additional fence being build outside of the sight triangle could remain at 6'6" and 7'2", and Board Member ABBOTT answered that is correct; the only constructed section affected by this would be the western most section. Board Member BERNHART felt they need to deal with the nine criteria for granting a variance, and his concern is that one of the criteria used was actually a reason to deny a variance and asked if in this instance is that appropriate, and Board Member ABBOTT stated what was said was "it would be injurious to allow the applicant to build it at his requested variance", and they are going under his requested variance by asking him to remove two sections of block. Mr. Moberg added it should be specified in the resolution that this is dealing only with the section of fence that is existing, whereas the rest of the fence at 6'6" and 7'2" will not be a problem with the neighborhood. Motion carried 8-0. Resolution attached. Chairman HOWARD called for a five minute recess. C• a e N° T- Up g3-~: An application by Colorado Catholic Academy for approval of a one week temporary shelter for up to 1200 persons on property located at 11180 W. 44th Avenue. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman HOWARD accepted. Board Member ABBOTT said it was mentioned that the Arvada Fire Distract will be handling this and wanted to know if they will coordinate with the City, and Ms. Reckert answered the jurisdiction is Arvada Fire District, however they will coordinate with Wheat Ridge because their duties will overlap. Board Member HOWARD noted when this was presented to the Parks & Recreation commission their concern was parking, and Ms. Reckert said yes, at one point the applicant had To whom it may concern: 1/28/93 This correspondence is in reference to Case No. WA-92-25, which is a request for approval of a variance to the maximum allowed fence height for a property located at 575(A West 32nd Avenue, which is the southwest corner of 32nd & Fenton. The apparent question is concerning a brick & concrete structure, already under construction, which will partially border the above designated property on at least the north boundary, which is 32nd avenue. Our relevance in this matter would be that we own the property at 3195 Fenton, which is also a corner property, as is the above, only on the Southeast corner of 32nd & Fenton. As neighbors with respect for our fellow property owners, we feel that the construction is a definite improvement to the property in appearance. Our only concern in this matter is that when we investigated our possibilities to, in a similar manner, border our property along 32nd avenue, for both privacy and noise reduction from the terrible amount of traffic and large trucks/buses allowed on this street, we were told that positively this cannot be done due to the visibility requirements of the intersection of 32nd & Fenton, as well as city codes already in place concerning height restrictions and new construction of any type in the front area of our home. Upon finding this to be the case, we abandoned our plans several years ago to fence or build on our property along 32nd Avenue. Our position in this matter is that we feel that although we like the wall idea, and would like to have one of our own, we did not build one because, -as the laws are written, it is simply illegal. If the laws and codes have changed, or can be varied for this intersection, then we are 19J0~ behind the structure being built, and wil secure a permit to start ours this spring. Tha~u or allowing th~s opi 'on.~ Wm. A. Arnold Debra G. Arnold CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION I, Mary Lou Chapla, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, on the 28th day of January 1993. CASE NO: WA-92-25 APPLICANT'S NAME: Joseph Echeverria LOCATION: 5750-West 32nd Avenue Upon motion by Board Member ABBOTT seconded by Board Member REYNOLDS the-following Resolution was stated. WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an Administrative Officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-92-25 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an Administrative Officer;-and WHEREAS; the property has been posted the required 15 days by law and there WERE NO protests registered against it; and WHEREAS; the relief applied £or MAY be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-92-25 ,.be and hereby is APPROVED.. TYPE OF VARIANCE: To the maximum allowed fence height PURPOSE: To allow an existing fence FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Testimony and petitions were received in favor of this request. However, allowance of .this structure to be built as requested would be a significant detriment to public welfare and possibly injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. _- - 2. The fence facing west and_within the sight triangle tangent is not-yet constructed and therefore easily. built within compliance of the ordinance or conditions of this Board. The existing wall can be lowered without being torn entirely down. 3. Substantial precedence will be established by granting the full requested variance. 4. There is=a possibility of West 32nd Avenue 'being widened and. therefore allowing the requested variance would create a worse condition. .. ,~ WA-92-25/RESOLUTION Page 2 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Two courses of block shall be removed from the most westerly fence section, constructed as of .January 28, 1993, allowing the three eastern most sections to remain as constructed, and one course of brick cap be re-installed. 2. From the western end of the existing fence on West 32nd Avenue, as of January 28, 1993, the remaining fence will comply with the ordinance within the sight triangle and may then rise to a height to match the existing eastern most ,fence sections. VOTE: YES: Abbott, Albertsen, Bernhart, Dooley, Howard, Junker, Reynolds and Rossillon NO: None DISPOSITION: Variance granted by a vote of 8-0. DATED this 28th day of January, 1993. ROBERT HOWARD, Chairman Board of Adjustment C Mar of Chapla, Se retary Boa d f Adjustment CITY OF WHEAT MIDGE -MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Middaugh, City Administrator - FROM: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning and Development RE: Board of Adjustment Decision on Case WA-92-25 DATE: February 1, 1993 The Board of Adjustment approved a variance at their January 28th meeting, to allow the construction of a fence that encroached into a sight distance triangle at the southeast corner of West 32nd Avenue and Fenton Street. Staff had recommended denial. A copy of the staff report and BOA (draft) resolution is attached. I am concerned that the Board's action places the City .in a potential liability position should an accident occur at this intersection, where it is claimed that the fence contributed to the accident. There are several court cases that cause concern for this potential situation. I would suggest that John Hayes review this action by the Board, and that City Council be advised of any potential associated risk. Another complication is that upon further investigation we find that the fence has been constructed within City street right-of- way. This effectivelg makes the Board's decision moot since the applicant does not own the land upon which he constructed the fence. I would recommend that we take immediate action to have the fence either removed, or otherwise come into compliance. Although our regulations except one and two family residences from the drive-way sight triangle requirements, this particular situation is so dangerous to persons on the sidewalk, that we should require the fence to be removed from public street right- of-way. A person on a bicycle, skates or skateboard (children) are in extreme risk at the drive-way_c_rossing. Council may want to consider asking the Board to reconsider their decision, or to bring suit against the Board to protect the City's interests. cc: Bob Goebel John Hayes M E M O RAND U M T0: ob Goebel, Director of Public Works FROM: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development RE: Fence at SE Corner of W. 32nd Ave. & Fenton St. DATE: February 16, 1993 This is a follow-up on a recent memorandum to the City Administrator regarding this topic, which I had copied to you. After evaluating the circumstances associated with the fence, including two site visits, a review of Wheat Ridge Codes and a discussion with John Hayes, 2 would recommend that the fence be made to fully comply with Wheat Ridge Code regarding fence height within the sight distance triangles. This would require the fence to be lowered to 42 inches within the 55'/25` triangle at the corner of Fenton Street and West 32nd Avenue and 15' triangles either side of the driveway which accesses West 32nd Avenue. If the owner doesn't comply with these requirements, I would recommend that those portions of the fence which encroach into City street right-of-way be demolished and all costs be assessed to the owner. GEG:slw cc: Bob Middaugh HAYES, PHII,LIPS & MALONEY, P.C. Attorneys at Law Suite 450, The Market Center 1350 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado.80202-1517 (303) 825-6444 Telecopier: (303) 825-1269 John E. Hayes Harbert C. Phillips tames S. Maloney CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE TO: JOHN E. HAYES, CITY ATTORNEY R,~O RT MIDDAUGH, CITY ADMINSSTRATOR ~""" GIDLEY, DIRECTOR OF P~ NING AND ~) FROM: SCOTT W. SMITH, ESQ. DATE: MARCH 5, 1993 „,,,: ~":~TION COFY r~{~ CC U~ a <.,:i'.liii~~C M. Susan Lombardi Scott W. Smith Of Counsel Kathleen E. Haddock DEVELOPMENT RE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION IN CASE N0. Background ~~/~~ -- '!/ 92-25 The Board of Adjustment ("BOA") approved a variance at its January 28, 1993 meeting, allowing a fence or wall that encroaches into a sight distance triangle at the southeast corner of West 32nd Avenue and Fenton Street. For a variety of well-founded reasons, staff had recommended denial. The nonconforming height of the fence and its effect on the sight distance triangle causes important public safety concerns. Moreover, the City recently discovered that the fence has been constructed within the City street right-of-way. Issues have arisen regarding the potential liability for the City, as well as the best way to address this situation._ Issues 1. Whether the City may be held liable for approving the height variance, or otherwise permitting the fence to encroach upon the City's right-of-way, in the event of an accident. 2. What are the alternatives and what is the best way to address the situation? ~ITY OF WHEAT RIDGE f~AR Z 61993 PLANNIAG & DEUEtOPGAEf~T Conclusions 1._ Although subject to debate, the City is probably immune from any liability for the BOA's approval of the height variance for the fence which encroaches upon the City's right-of-way. Due to a recent Colorado Supreme Court case dealing with governmental immunity for dangerous conditions on roadways, however, there is a possibility that a court could determine that either the grant of the variance or the maintenance of the fence upon the City right-of-way constitutes a dangerous condition on a roadway for which governmental immunity is waived. Therefore, the continued existence of the fence in its current location and condition causes- potential liability for the City. If the matter were litigated, the City would probably prevail. Nonetheless, it is in the best interest of the City to take action to address this potentially dangerous condition. 2. The City has several alternative courses of action to address the situation. At a minimum, the City should require the landowner to bring the fence into compliance with height and sight triangle requirements. Otherwise, the City is well within its .right to require the landowner to remove the fence. Analysis 1. Because of a recent Colorado Supreme Court decision addressing governmental immunity for dangerous conditions on roadways, the fence located at the southeast corner of West.32nd Avenue and Fenton Street poses potential liability for the City. State v. Moldovan, 16 Brief .Times Reporter 1974 (Colo. 1992). In Moldovan, the Supreme Court held that the state could be liable to a motorcyclist for injuries sustained when he collided with a cow on a state highway. The cow had apparently escaped through a fence which the state was required to maintain under the Colorado Fence Law. The Supreme Court found important the fact that the Colorado Fence Law imposed an express duty upon the highway department to maintain fences along or adjacent to state highways. If. the City allows the fence to encroach upon the City right- of-way and create a dangerous condition, arguable Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-106(1)(d) operates to waive immunity for the City. A stronger argument, however is that governmental immunity is not waived, as the minor encroachment of the private fence upon the right of way is not a dangerous condition which physically interferes with the movement of traffic on the paved portion of a street. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-106(1)(d). Therefore, although subject to debate, the Court would likely hold that the City is immune from liability because the private fence does not physically interfere with the movement of traffic on the paved portion of the roadway. Nonetheless, this conclusion is not entirely certain, and we are dealing with a gray area. 2 The issue of whether the City could be liable for merely granting a variance in the absence o,f encroachment upon the City right-of-way is another difficult question. In another. recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that La Plata County was not liable to a private person for failing to enforce a uniform building code requirement providing that all decks contain railing. Board of County Commissioners v. Moreland, 764 P.2d 812 (Colo. 1988). In that case, the plaintiff sued the County after he fell off of a deck that contained no guard rail as required by the County's Building Code. The Court held that no private civil damage remedy existed for the County's failure to administer the Uniform Building Code. Here, a similar argument can be made that the City cannot be held liable for merely administering its Zoning ordinance and varying those terms when deemed apprapriate by the Board of Adjustment. Because the Governmental Immunity Act does not waive immunity for the negligent administration of a zoning ordinance, governmental immunity protects the City. Moreover, pursuant to Colo. Rev.. Stat. § 24-10-106.5, the adoption of a policy or regulation shall not give rise to a duty of care where none otherwise existed. In summary, it is not entirely clear as to whether the City would ultimately be held liable if sued by a private person who sustained injuries as a result of the condition and location of the subject fence. In all likelihood, the City would ultimately prevail in any such action based on governmental immunity, as the facts here are distinguishable for the facts in Moldovan. Nonetheless, any such lawsuit filed by a plaintiff would pass the straight .face test, thus. making the outcome uncertain. Therefore, it appears to be in the best interests of the City to address this potentially dangerous situation, before an accident occurs. Additionally, ignoring the sight-triangle requirement in this instance may cause other enforcement problems_in the future. 2. The City may pursue several possible courses of action to address the issues surrounding the location. and condition of the fence. Since the fence encroaches upon the City's right-of-way, action can be taken to require the landowner 'to remove the fence. Along these lines, this office-can prepare a letter to the landowner requesting voluntary removal of the fence, and if such fence is not voluntarily removed, we can take appropriation to have it removed. Another alternative is to bring action against the Board for review of the decision in District Court. Because the Court will uphold the Board of Adjustment decision if it finds any competent evidence in the record to support the decision, this is the least desirable course of action. Moreover, such a lawsuit may be time consuming and somewhat costly. 3 A final course. of action is to require the landowner to bring the fence into compliance with the height and sight triangle restriction, and allow the fence to remain at its current location. Because the fence was built upon the City's right of way, the Board's decision was ineffective, as only the Public Works Director has authority to allow structures or other intrusions to encroach upon the right of way. Wheat Ridge Code § 21-101 et. sea. Because the landowner was powerless to build the fence upon the City right- of-way without prior approval and a permit from the City, the decision of the Board is essentially moot. Thus, the City could allow the fence to remain at its current location, provided that the landowner take steps to bring the fence into compliance: Along these -same lines, the dangerous condition can apparently be alleviated by requiring the landowner to close off the entry way that is bounded by the fence. In summary, some action should be taken to address the potentially dangerous situation. .The planning department and the public works director should work together to come up with the best solution to the problem. Additionally, the Board of Adjustment should probably be advised that-any future decisions that impact the City's roadways and cause traffic safety concerns should be carefully evaluated due to the potential liability for the City. Regardless of whether _the City would ultimately prevail in a lawsuit, it is obviously better to eliminate the possibility of legal action up front. 4