HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-14-17sl
City C)f
Wh6atPjd
CoMMUNjTY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29"' Ave, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303235.2846 F: 301235.2857
November 3, 2014
Cynthia Myers
Standard Pacific of CO.
7800 E. Dorado Pl., Suite 220
Greenwood Village, CO 801.L
Dear Ms. Myers:
Please feel free to contact me at (303) 235-2846 if you have any questions
Sincerely,
Kim Waggoner
Administrative Assistant
Enclosure: Approval of Variance and Staff Report
Cc: WA-14-17 (case file)
WA 14lTdoc
Nvww-ci-wheatridge.co.us
7500 West 29th Avenue City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 "Ih6at f� �i[e
303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 V V
fl
WHEREAS an a%vilication for
referenced as Case No. WA- 1 4-17 / Standard Pacific of CO; and
WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance, relying on criteria listed in Section
26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and on information submitted in the case file; and
WHEREAS, i Coiwuilt ii
FAME &maw I I I I-OMXV I Ign I a eq El U LOAU M M- n2m 1 # L4
WHEREAS, there were no registered objections regarding the application;
With the following conditions:
1. Construction of the home be generally consistent with Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, subject to staff
review and approval through review of a building permit.
31
emieth Johnston ICP Dat
'el
Community Devel ment Director
City of
"�Wh6atPLdge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Community Development Director DATE: October 27, 2014
CASE MANAGER: Sara White
CASE NO. & NAME: WA -14 -17 / Standard Pacific of CO
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 1 -foot variance from the 17.5 -foot side yard setback requirement
for property located at 3812 Taft Ct. and zoned Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3812 Taft Ct.
APPLICANT (S): Standard Pacific of Colorado, Inc.
OWNER (S): Standard Pacific of Colorado, Inc.
APPROXIMATE AREA: 10,042 Square Feet (0.23 Acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Planned Residential Development (PRD)
PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location
Map
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA -14 -17 /Standard Pacific of CO
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an
administrative decision.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 1 -foot (5.7 %) variance from the 17.5 -foot side yard setback
requirement, resulting in a 16.5 -foot side setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the
construction of a new single family home on Lot 1, Block 2 of the Doud Overlook Subdivision.
Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of
Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict
application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of
the standard.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicant, Standard Pacific of Colorado, is requesting the variance as the developer of 3812 Taft
Ct. The variance is being requested so that the developer may construct a new single family home to
the specifications of the future owner (under contract) on the property as part of a new Planned
Residential Development. (Exhibit I, Aerial).
The property is zoned Planned Residential Development (PRD), a zone district that provides for
greater flexibility and innovation in land development based upon a comprehensive, integrated plan.
Each Planned Development has its own set of development standards, unique to that project. The
property is part of a larger new subdivision that was approved as part of the PRD process and is
therefore surrounded by parcels zoned PRD in the same subdivision. (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map).
The subject lot is identified as Lot 1, Block 2 of Doud Overlook Subdivision. The Outline
Development Plan (ODP) and rezoning to PRD was approved by City Council per case number WZ-
07-06 January 12, 2009 (Exhibit 3, ODP). The original subdivision plat was approved by City Council
on April 8, 2013. The project was then approved for a resubdivision plat per case number WS -13 -01
by City Council on July 8, 2013 (Exhibit 4, Resubdivision Plat).
The subject lot is 10,042 square feet in size and is currently undeveloped, vacant land. The parcel is at
the corner of Taft Court and 38' Place as part of the Doud Overlook subdivision development. By
definition, the front lot line of the subject property is the western property line, which is parallel with
Taft Court, and the side property line from which the variance is requested is parallel to 38` Place.
The developer intends to build a new single family home on the site. Their buyer is under contract for
one of the limited floor plans available and chose this lot due to its location on a corner. The chosen
model does not comply with required setbacks as described in the Outline Development Plan due to the
lot getting narrower towards the back (Exhibit S, Site Plan). While this situation could have been
avoided at the time of ODP, the developer didn't realize there would be issues with the sizing of the lot
until a specific floor plan had been identified by the buyers and a final site plan was drawn up. As a
result, the new home would have a side setback of approximately 16.95 feet, less than the 17.5 feet as
depicted in the approved concept plan (Exhibit 3, ODP).
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO
It would be possible to construct a smaller or differently configured single family home on the property
while meeting the side setback requirement, but the applicants have expressed that this does not work
for them. The ODP was approved with a limited number of possible large custom home designs. Being
a corner lot proposes some unique challenges due to the path of the road making the rear of the lot
narrower than the front.
The proposed plan was specifically selected for this lot by the contracted buyer and if the developer is
required to make modifications to the plan, they would lose money by having to offer incentives to the
buyer or risk having to cancel the sale.
The adjusted side yard setback is a minimal deviation from the requirement. The ODP specifies the
minimum side yard setback be per the conceptual site plan, which is shown as 17.5 feet for this parcel.
However, it also notes that the side yard setback for lots which abut a public street shall be a minimum
of 17 feet (Exhibit 3, ODP), which is only .05 feet more than what is proposed. Approval of the
variance would create a setback that, for all appearances, would look to be minimal noticeable
difference from the regulations. Additionally, only a very small portion of the home will extend
beyond the required setback, roughly 1 square foot at the Southeast corner of the house. The rest of the
home will sit within the required setbacks.
Ultimately, the variance request would result in a 16.5 -foot side yard (southern) setback, and the
proposed single - family home would meet all other development requirements. The following table
compares the required ODP development standards with the actual and proposed conditions:
ODP Development Standards:
Required
Actual
Lot Area
6,800 square feet (min)
10,042 square feet
Lot Width
65 feet (min)
66.95 feet (min north/south)
142 feet (min east/west
Front Setback west
20 feet (min)
20 feet
Rear Setback (east)
15 feet (min)
>20 feet
Side Setback (north)
7.5 feet (min)
7.5 feet
Side Setback south
17.5 feet min
16.95 feet
During the public notification period neither inquiries nor objections were received regarding the
variance request.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine
that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been
met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance
criteria (Exhibit 6, Letter of Request). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance
criteria.
1. The property in question would not 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.
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO
If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The
property would still be able to accommodate a single - family residence, regardless of the
outcome of the variance request.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality, as the request would result in the
construction of a single family home that is one of limited options for the new development.
The variance would be minor and would not appear to differ significantly from other setbacks
in the development.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which may not be possible
without the variance. The applicant has already made a significant investment by completing
the public improvements and paying the park fees for an upscale single family neighborhood.
The proposed custom -built home exhibits high- quality architectural design and will be another
substantial investment. The setback variance is proposed to accommodate a home that is
consistent in character and size with the rest of the homes in the development.
Although investment in alternative designs could be made without the variance, approval of
this variance request will result in a home consistent with the intent of the approved ODP.
Staff finds this criterion has been met
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out.
The shape of the parcel is requiring the applicant to request the variance. However, it is only an
inconvenience as the lot would not be undevelopable without the variance. It is not a unique
hardship as there are configurations that could be built in accordance to regulations, just not the
product that is desired.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
The alleged hardship relates to the shape of the lot and platted roads. The applicant was a party
to the Doud Overlook Re -Plat (Case No. WS- 13 -01), and therefore the hardship has been
created by a person having interest in the property.
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not 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, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, 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 public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result
of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The new home would not impede the sight distance
triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair
property values in the neighborhood.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
There are circumstances present in the neighborhood that necessitate the variance on the
subject property. The variance request is based on the applicant's desire to provide a high
quality home and site layout that relates logically to other properties in the neighborhood. A
literal interpretation of the zoning code could result in site development that is inconsistent with
the character of the neighborhood by requiring a smaller home than the surrounding properties.
Thus, the conditions of the area justify a variance so that site design can be more harmonious
with the neighborhood (Exhibit 3, ODP).
Staff finds that this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes
pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling
units.
Administrative Variance
WA- Standard Pacific of CO
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 1 -foot (5.7 %) variance from the 17.5 -foot front yard setback requirement. Staff has
found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a
variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible
without the variance.
3. Literal interpretation of the side lot line would result in a site condition inconsistent with
neighborhood conditions.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification
period.
With the following conditions:
1. Construction of the home be generally consistent with Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, subject to staff
review and approval through review of a building permit.
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO 6
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
The subject property (3812 Taft Ct) is outlined in red. The adjacent lots and tracts outlined in yellow
are also part of the Doud Overlook Subdivision.
' N
Administrative I'ariance
WA -14 -17 Slandard Pacific of CO
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
I
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO
EXHIBIT 3: ODP
Oa� ii:3,
O
o 9 W Sj
p . ,c. 0 e
,� r a g �
l
Fi r
ILI
e �
a
e •gyp P � i
z
b 9 �
as ! d
O
LLJ
LLJ t to
Q Z
L
U, w
Waz!l
QW <Ia a .E
%Wwa .i �
c
t2will x p 9
0 Ili fill
cc
ti
S.
11o. will
0
0
a
z
h
�!i
l =6
e
W;
v
0
�4liE
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO
e
u
u
i
z
z
w
o Q 'a
7
= G
Q ae
Ff Z�
W n
0E
LL)
Q >tb
z o
JOpb�i. d
Y
O o�
cr U
w U.
> O
O <
0
O
0
04
a
3 � M 2!S � 7 �
1110 19i HAW 4
� r
i
t
8w� jB�E s
J� w � 1 fY -
> u
ytl
¢6
E "'
s a
—"' � '` •1 ' 11. : ���
�i
I
� --rte -�-± �_ - 4 >. �' � a i •., �
- + a
oil '1 F
r> �
I da
X ttt CC�
.01 ,
fill
(>�N�
Admi.
WA -14 -1 i atanaara racipc of w I
I
° s a r i
z
z
w
o Q 'a
7
= G
Q ae
Ff Z�
W n
0E
LL)
Q >tb
z o
JOpb�i. d
Y
O o�
cr U
w U.
> O
O <
0
O
0
04
a
3 � M 2!S � 7 �
1110 19i HAW 4
� r
i
t
8w� jB�E s
J� w � 1 fY -
> u
ytl
¢6
E "'
s a
—"' � '` •1 ' 11. : ���
�i
I
� --rte -�-± �_ - 4 >. �' � a i •., �
- + a
oil '1 F
r> �
I da
X ttt CC�
.01 ,
fill
(>�N�
Admi.
WA -14 -1 i atanaara racipc of w I
Ii—
Z
W
0—
w
L <
o T1
J O�
Q
Z
Z d t �k
E '� �<
Qr
55 6 V
W dZ.
°z e
O�J
Woa
ZTj
J j$
CL W
Y >
O a
O
J LL
LL
0 h
O <�
O
0
h
a
MH
� 1 i IWNII1111 � p �r`Y
dri r ! 3fil.pt
lie
111 ®1 UIII�
0�
fit
110
I
�e l 3�+
915 fill
o
J f$E s
LU
O ` J ►l■
o�� ��
❑ N il1Ee1
y .1
� Y G
g 9 4 t
393 �19$F hee1N{
Specific Elevation
Ep �e
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pack of CO
�e
C .�
ill M
{
e�z
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pack of CO
EXHIBIT 4: RESUBDIVISION PLAT
The second
filing of the Dou Overlook S ubdivision was approved by City Council on July 8, 2013.
W < yp(!
O F<
I�
0
Y• r
`t �
� � I R' '�
R•
VIM
R :. §
8E89BB
�' -
� -
O � N � S
�1 (
� i
RR
/ §_ �
fi r ! !II
t �`f4 ��
§;. G 1. s.i
3��i
I• ,
•�
V_
iil
-Il
888�90�98908�
m W�� N "
N
®��988889
F �•
D =_
En
8®8Bo
'!� X11-
lv
��080f 0
rZ «�
t7i N
aYZ�
RV
_O
®8�880�6B
S
z O 'J F�v �S� Y W
00000
=00008B0G9®E9000080
JL i bl. W��N
P
S
C
1
M
(L
W < yp(!
O F<
I�
0
Y• r
Y
eo r
---- --- -
t-- — — — -- — -- --
I
0
! •ii I -
� �
`t �
� � I R' '�
R•
VIM
R :. §
8E89BB
�' -
� -
®00660996�BB
iR
§Z
�
y3R � I g � �
RR
/ §_ �
� �i �
I §, ,
t �`f4 ��
§;. G 1. s.i
3��i
I• ,
•�
V_
-Il
888�90�98908�
®��988889
F �•
®D
8®8Bo
'!� X11-
lv
��080f 0
�0��898�0
� a
_O
®8�880�6B
S
€�DO �GDBG�
00000
=00008B0G9®E9000080
0
Y
eo r
---- --- -
t-- — — — -- — -- --
I
0
! •ii I -
� �
`t �
� � I R' '�
R•
t Goa
i
R :. §
R :; � y :;
�' -
� -
it L i
! �41 "{ I St! Ili
iR
§Z
�
y3R � I g � �
RR
/ §_ �
� �i �
I §, ,
t �`f4 ��
§;. G 1. s.i
3��i
I• ,
•�
V_
�l I
0
g i
d �•
.
-
V_
-Il
F �•
iG II.ii�
� --1
'!� X11-
lv
- 1a__
� a
_O
a...l
-
r
I
� �z..
I
I
}
.�
1
_O.p.I
Y.w Yw ./ocs
•eQ
g i
d �•
Site
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO 12
.
-
V_
°'..
o
Site
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO 12
.
-
Site
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO 12
EXHIBIT 5: SITE PLAN
PREPARED STANWRW hcoM: Fkwu
LOT PLAN FOR 0--.-
LOT: 1 BLOCK: 2_ , ADDRESS: 3812 TAFT COURT
SUBDIVISION: DOUD OVERLOOK SUBDINSION FlUNG NO 2
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE , COUNTY OF JEFFERSON , STATE OF COLORADO"
LOT 2
R
f
',a rt-0. Q IL,
1 rY aY1Glt-
2
0 10 20
SCALE: 1 - -20'
Administrative Variance
WA -l4- 17 Standard Pacific of CO
LOT 17
BL 2 m °
S '
_ — EASEMENT
FA LIN
® ADA/ST GRADE BY SIDE , DOW:.
a
•• .' STEP FROM nmRwD
TK ?C. P O ' E"-'
I PACK OF CURB W
E OP- DO IRNC
(INPOSEnNG MORE FO NDATION
N
0 U
FLOOR TO RATIO AND PORCH
WATER MCTm PIT
EOP-EDGE OF RAVEMEN• 5 -
THIS SLOP( TOLL K NO LESS
Z
O
Z U
- DENOTES A STEM WALL ON OPTIONAL RATIO
w - RO1 PONT
TOF -TOP OF FOUNDATION - SA NARY SEWER
Fi- FN FLOOR SER%Ca
THTHAN
THAN IOi OR GREATER THAN 15x
OSD -DMAQ SGNCE DOOR
UE/OC- UTILITY ! DRAINAGE EASEMENT
narFT . 25'
R![ 10 (M1i1601,) . T.5'
MODE: 5012 D" o" saws, DA2 By
1%1
1'1PE
y N%1 su[ LOT Iwo") - ,T.3'
,� J CM
Z / , ST VERSION
;
Dl /n / rJ
U .� FRAP 70'
F GARAGE NApa 1
a
619NT TYPE —ANOEO 2
2
OSMT, NEf
{<
N
y'
Na nt
LOT TYPE SPLIT ONAINAGE
—"
LOT AREA: 14W2 S.F.
5
MY" s"
� (S'S SD7 -57(6 /!N I» 962 WK
HOUSE SF. J 3 SF
6
Administrative Variance
WA -l4- 17 Standard Pacific of CO
LOT 17
BL 2 m °
EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF REQUEST
STAN PA CIFIC HOMES
Making You Right At llome`
October 13, 2014
City of Wheat Ridge
Meredith Reckert, AICP
Senior Planner
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Application for Administrative Variance to the Side Yard Setback for Lot 1, Block 2 of
Doud Overlook Filing 112, also known as 3812 Taft Court, Wheat Ridge, Colorado (the
"Property').
Dear Meredith:
Standard Pacific of Colorado, Inc. ( "Applicant ") is hereby submitting the following in support of
its application for an administrative variance pursuant to the Section 25- 115 -C -1 of the City of
Wheat Ridge's Municipal Code for a variance to the side yard setback requirement for the
above - referenced Property. The Applicant hereby states that its request meets the criteria for
an administrative variance as follows:
Criteria Item 1: The Property in question would not 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.
The Property would be limited in the number of plans /elevations that would be able to be
constructed on the Property. The proposed plan was selected by the contracted buyer for
the Property. The buyer wants a corner lot and this plan. Since there are only 5 corner lots
in the community, one which backs up to 38 Avenue and 4 on the interior block, one of
which is the model complex parking lot, and the other two already have homes under
construction, there are no other corner lots available for this plan.
Criteria Item 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
This is a plan and elevation that is already being offered in the community. Further,
common architectural and community planning practices generally stipulate that having
ranch style homes on corner lots gives a preferable presentation to the streetscape.
Criteria Item 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment In the property with
this application, which would not be possible without the variance.
Colorado Division
7800 C. Dorado Place, Suite 220, Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 I TFL 303.779.4100 I FAX 303.846.8505 I svunu.stundardpocifichomes.com
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO 14
Letter to M. Reckert, AICP
City of Wheat Ridge
Variance Request for 3812 Taft Court
October 13, 2014
Page 2
Requiring that a different plan be built on this lot would likely result in the Applicant either:
1) having to offer substantial incentives to the buyers to make the change; or 2) in the event
the buyers did not want a different plan, having the buyers cancel their contract. Either
Instance would cause significant detriment to the Applicant, in the form of lost revenues
and added costs.
Criteria Item 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of
the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience.
This Property is unique in the fact that it is a pie shape with the rear lot line being shorter
than the front property line such which is what is causing the approximate 1' by 6"
encroachment into the street side yard setback of a corner lot.
Criteria item S. if there Is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or
hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
This situation has resulted from the Applicant relying on the expertise of two professional
consultants to coordinate building design with building envelopes and lot layout. Based on
the consultant's statements that "everything fits" the Applicant was unaware of the issue
until the actual plot plan was completed for the Property.
6. The granting of the variance would not 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, substantially or permanently Impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, 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.
Since this is a 6" by approximately 1' encroachment into a 17.5' side yard setback adjacent
to a street (not another property or home), the granting of the requested variance would
not be detrimental to the public, or injurious to any other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the Property is located.
The requested variance would not: impair the use or development of any adjacent property;
impair the availability of light or air to any adjacent property; have any impact on the
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO 15
Letter to M. Reckert, AICP
City of Wheat Ridge
Variance Request for 3812 Taft Court
October 13, 2014
Page 3
congestion of public streets; cause any public safety issues; or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present
In the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
This lot is the only lot in the subdivision which has the rear property line /setback narrow to
less than the designed 50' wide building envelope. The setbacks in this subdivision are
comparable to setbacks in surrounding neighborhoods and the approximate 1' by 6"
encroachment of the corner of the home would not be readily detectable, particularly since
the encroachment occurs on the rear corner of the home on the street side of a corner lot
which already has a 17.5' side yard setback. The variance would reduce the side yard
setback to 17' for a distance of approximately 1'.
8. Granting of the variance would result In a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.]
Not Applicable (this is a single family detached residence).
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in
the Architectural and Site Design Manual. [Does not typically apply to single- or two -
family homes.]
Not Applicable (This is a single family detached residence).
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
STANDARD PACIFIC OF COLORADO, INC.,
a Delaware torpor ion
B
Cynthia Myers
Forward Planning /Entitlement Manager
Administrative Variance
WA -14 -17 Standard Pacific of CO 6
J Ci ty () 17
City
(as required pursuant to Code Section 26-109.D)
This is an administrative variance review with a 10-day posting period. Public comments
concerning this request are due in writing by 5:00 pm, on October 27, 2014.
certify that I mailed a total • 1 letter • October 17 2014 to the attached recipient list.
♦�
City of
"6 Wheat idge
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
LETTER NOTICE
October 17, 2014
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 14 -17, a request for a 1 -foot (5.7 %) side
yard setback variance from the 17.5 -foot requirement result in a 16.5 -foot side
yard setback for construction of a single family home at 3812 Taft Court. The
attached aerial photo identifies the location of the variance request.
The applicant for this case is requesting an administrative variance review which
allows no more than a fifty percent (50 %) variance to be granted by the Zoning
Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a
decision, all adjacent property owners are required to be notified of the request
by certified mail.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303 - 235 -2846 or
if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in
writing by 5:00 p.m. on October 27, 2014.
Thank you.
WA1417.doc
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
Site Plan
A request for a l -foot (5.7 %) side yard setback variance from the 17.5 -foot
requirement result in a 16.5-foot side yard setback for construction of a single
family home at 3812 Taft Court
t ^T 2
LOt 17
6L 2
01 r t-A., q o R.
V arl &ncst.
Zr SL
03849
03839
03829
03819
03809
03809
O 02
O
13M
0 ?$i6
03824
38I2
p
i l wio 11 640 11820
C�
! J Ott
,; Ji A\
Subdivision — Fireside at Applewood
All adjacent parcels are owned by Standard Pacific of Colorado Inc.
City of
Wh6atPidd e
g
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. WA -14-
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: '0
(n am e) I
residing at 7 0 0 C P o r &-A o P e- CAL & r„ t ,1 W o v c V I OA-� L1011
(address)
as the applicant for Case No. LVL4 - 1 - t - 1 , hereby certify that I have posted the sign for
Public Notice at 3 (2 I A4 C e, ft r 't
(location)
on this ZT day of CA 6{ 20, and do hereby certify that
said sign has been posted and remained in place for ten (10) days prior to and including the
deadline for written comments regarding this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on
the map below.
Signature:
NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Community Development Department for this case
and will be placed in the applicant's case file.
MAP
City of
J�
, jg
City of Wheat Ridge Munioipal Building 700 W. 29* Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P; 303135.2946 F: 303.235.2857
www.dwhestridge.com
a •
Making You Rigbt At Home*
City of Wheat Ridge
Meredith Reckert, AICP
Senior Planner
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Application for Administrative Variance to the Side Yard Setback for Lot 1, Block 2 of
Doud Overlook Filing #2, also known as 3812 Taft Court, Wheat Ridge, Colorado (the
"Property").
F07-3.1 2 N =—*
its application for an administrative variance pursuant to the Section 25-115-C- I of the City of
Wheat Ridge's Municipal Code for a variance to the side yard setback requirement for the
above-referenced Property. The Applicant hereby states that its request meets the criteria for
an administrative variance as follows:
Criteria Item 1.* The Property In question would not 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.
�1:11 111 1111111 ij� 11111 111 , 111�11111 1111glip III pipill'1111 1 111111
1 11 1111plillillylil
I I, �i I I I MME EM=
This Is a plan and elevation that is already being offered in the community. Further,
common architectural and community planning practices generally stipulate that having
ranch style homes on corner lots gives a preferable presentation to the streetscape.
Criteria Item 3. The applicant is proposing asubstantial investment In the property with
this application, which would not be possible without the variance.
Colorado Division
7800 E Dorado Place, Suite 220, Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 1 TET 303.779-4100 1 FAX 301846. 5t15
Letter to M. Reckert, AICP
City of Wheat Ridge
October 13, 2014
Page 2
- ZJ - RWITffn 7 U'UYT - e7TTosT.an - LiaW Incentivesto Tn DUyerS TO make Tnecnange; or 7) In the evem'
the buyers did not want a different plan, having the buyers cancel their contract. Either
instance would cause significant detriment to the Applicant, in the form of lost revenues
and added costs.
Criteria Item 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of
the specific property results In a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguishedfrom a mere inconvenience.
;Vw 1.11'rz I
than the front property line such which is what is causing the approximate 1" by 6'
encroachment into the street side yard setback of a corner lot,
Criteria Item S. If there Is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or
111111111� ....... ...
This situation has resulted from the Applicant relying on the expertise of two professional
consultants to coordinate building design with building envelopes and lot layout, Based on
the consultant's statements that "everything fits" the Applicant was unaware of the issue
until the actual plot plan was completed for the Property.
I M" JAIN
M &
ItIGLjtj L
't Mte S'e ' t e
ur
'Iff"UrtwU M777 11 IIITI lots To any ofner property or improvements inP
neighborhood in which the Property is located.
1 6 #
EEMMMEM=
N M4.1111TAMOINLIM111 I
Letter to M. Reckert, AICP
City of Wheat Ri dge
Oct
P age
1177a;7*13 No
a . •
.. ir property e• •te
8. Gr antin g o t vadance wou result In a reasonab accommodation of # penan with
di [Does not typically apply to single- or twolWmily homes.]
s +�y • p
9. The application Is in substantial compliance wa the a gandards setfo i
the Archftecturol and She Design Manual. tDoes not typically apply to single- or two-
R !
Not Applicable (This Is a single family detached residence).
y r • • r �
Sincerely,
PLOT
PLAN PREPARED 10 STANDARD PACIFIC NOMts
FOR ..,�......,, ".�
LOT: 1
BLOCK: 2 ADDRESS: 3812 TAFT COURT
SUBDIVISION:
DOUD OVERLOOK SUBDIVISION RUNG NO. 2
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE , COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF
COLORADO.
LOT 17 a m
BL 2 n ° v
s
S00'13'12 "E 66.95
10' UE /DE
I
°I
1
ELEV D
L OT
2
Q DENOTES A FOUNDATION WALL AT PATIO
I �
169
IOPT EXT PATIO
Ym r1
Co
PATIO o
A r,'1 a N1 ellz_
0 0
N
14.7'
om
1
V)
o PLAN 5062 1
I
ELEV -D m
8SMT o
0 0 1 N
( I
of
o 3 CAR of 1
7.
N GARAGE ( 1
17.8 'IOV I
°. 8.2'
J' 12.6' �y
�l
10' UE /DE
66.77' p��� 12 "E W S �A4,
_
—
L
TAFT COURT RAD =20.00
L =34.68
Z� Z
0 10 20
SCALE: 1 • =20'
STEP 0.T
— EASEMENT
® ADJUST GRADE BY S,DEING DOWN,
Z
R- PROPERTY LINE - SETBACK
TBC -TOP BACK OF CURB W
CONSTRUCTING RETAINING WALL OR
EXPOSEING MORE FOUNDATION.
0:
V) U
•• 4" STEP FROM FINISHED
FLOOR TO PATIO AND PORCH.
W
FL
-FLOW LINE EOP -EDGE OF PAVEMENT WATER METER PIT
THIS SLOPE WILL BE NO LESS
0 Z
W
OH POINT S
THAN 10X OR GREATER THAN ISmG
OO
Z U
� � DENOTES A STEM WALL ON OPTIONAL PATIO
J
SANITARY SEWER
TOF_TOP OF FOUNDATION SERVICE
TOF7,
FF =FINISHED FLOOR
GSD- GARAGE SERVICE DOOR
UE/OE- UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT
FRONT - 20'
SIDE LOT ( CORN R) - 7.5'
SIDE LOT (CORNER) � 17.5'
t%7
Z
MODEL 5062 D'
REVISIONS:
DATE:
BY:
GARAGE TYPE: 3 CAR /
1ST VERSION
07/25/14
TJ
U Z
REAR - 20'
F
GARAGE HANDING: LEFT 1
BSMT. TYPE: EXPANDED 2
mmQ N
Q
BSMT. HEIGHT: 9' 3
L W
U
a:
LOT TYPE: SPLIT DRAINAGE 4
V1 2
W
P BOX 11J,
0-
LOT AREA: 10,042 S.F. 5
ARYADA CMDUX 60001
Ph, (30) 502 -5266 /FAX (315' 962- 1t1'.L
HOUSE SF: 3393 SF 6
MOUSE COVERAGE: 34X
JO B NUMBER: 1214 - 213 -435
SHEET: 1
OF 1
Pic -Itf �C09,91515 4d3lloq la 51:13 407 jo
4
Z d6 6 V a t RL OL
D D RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AN OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE CITY OF WHEAT FW13E
A PW OF THE SOU"WAT OPIE-OUARM OF MOTION SM TO"sw $ SOUM REM M W"T CW THE 4 M PMKVAL %W"M
CITY Of WHEAT MOK COUNTY OF 40MML OTAIM OF QOLW"
WSTANCE OF 36.11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 9"T LM
SOUTHEASrOK QUARTER . THV SOUTHLOT OK W
w22'2i I,- AL(** SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE 0#921
CORNER Z SAES wil2 BETH seif4of&vosecTkwa
EAST UNI OF THE WEST ONV401f OF THE NOR T
OWAIUARTER HAIM #0114 NEIN) OF SAM SECTION IS 4
WHICH LKS TM, 00 FM W*Twfty FROM THE SOUTH $1
AVEMM AS SHMN 09 THE KAT OF APPLION000 SIDE
FEET INSTANT FROM SAX) SOUTH
A POINT ON THE VAST LINE Of "M WEST
HSTANCE Of itLa FEET' TO
AtM MORE FOR LESS
REARiNGS ARE OASW UPON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUMAST OW-OWWTUR OF
SECTION 20 NEARING k &V2T 34" L AS SHOWN ON THE CRY OF VO"T FJOW KAP OFTHI!
SOUTHE"T 0964VARTek THE 1,01E 19 MONUMENTED AT EACH M BY A BRASS CAPITA
RANGE PMT SOX STAPPEO WITH THE APPOOPMM P"& OM"ATION AND 'LS Cow.
AODffXNQQ, LANDSCAPED OM SPACE AMA INU VOUVICR THE
PLAN —
NNQ CQMM$A*
SlAxom How v
STMTSCW AWNS W 3M ANISE& THE"MOORHOOO FKATURS3
ENTRY WANIUMENTATION SIONAGE AND AN DOW PANWAY SION A
MVKAWM AX A KANNED O&KOPMENT IN ACCORUAR" WTK THE USES,
_ytVAY(
SY%WA'tAVOVftAWMOCWdX*SlON
&MAXINUIR WMANNOCOVOL"Ll am
RWRICTIONIE ANO CONDOXXIM CONTAINED IN TM PLAN, AkO A$ MAY ar"Emwift Sa
AlIQUIRED BY tAW, I FUROM RVEOGNM TEAT THE AW40VAL Of * MINONG TO
E SA
1,7 =
am SIOM TIES PamTr"m FRWNXY INALKAKE
WEST MIR
PtA*matowernAL Orr V.OP*LVtANVAPPROVALOFIWW Ounow
SrANVARM TYMAL
a
6,09TSACKS
NT PT OOKS NOT OWAYE A VFW= PROPIUMAJOINT. vesm of,
PROPEM JUGHTS INAYOKYANISE AMACCRUIE PURSUPOIT TO THE PROIRSKM
X 11104AAK FRONT YARD *"SACX. PER 0DOCINqUAL SM PLAN
$WnM2$42iOFTWCttYOFWHEATRMWWMCWLAW&
AN ACCESS OLWIZ WAY RVOUCVO
TOTER(MI'm
APP*O"VTW_LZ
8, OWN" SM YAM SETRAM PER 00KC01M. SITE PC"
CITY CIOUNCK.
M
AT&11T
aNCLEAK
Saa
tKoommommmovoux"t "wrTF"pQfwT
offATSM OFTWINH07 PAW COOZ OF LAWS
t LANDSCAPIMM ALL LANDSC~ IMIALL W 0 CONFOOMMMMA"" SECTION 1$W
LAND"ArOm "*AT ROM COOKOF LAMM 4 exce" As
*OMONWiW4Of$LAWb$CAPE*rAM�AMKM(I,
CK"mm 1,1014TIMMALL L4wtm S"A" OE Of CONFORMANCE YAM SECTION Z"n
IS, SKNUKIV� A" SIONAW SKALL WIN CONFORMANCOYM SEMON 2(,M INOR
STATEOFCOLOR"o
cowayoriomwov "
X RESIDENTIAL SUNOMMON 09001
f HERVOY CENTIEY lN4T IM PLAN WA$ FXW IN 0
11. papCoo, ALL fSaCIN* OVAL ft 0 CONFORMANC4 WIT"SOCTION U40 MK3%G
ANO ACCOAM OF J09WFAM COONTYAT GOLOF
OFTWINHEXTIODWOOOKOFIAW&
1p,'r
d____OVtOM�, At ON "*R_I_WYQFS
ft*C*o�
AA�JN8OOK_AU#_,PAOflwJ#--lmH`E,"
P"&S—m
THIS E*Oma MAWKWATED TO mon ONLYOK mom, "**IV" Amom
"A�W*M�vftLmot�w��TOT*OPLAX
PVPlM!a IF P 19NOM -- $T - -D*
- Qgff IP-A-jf-
AODffXNQQ, LANDSCAPED OM SPACE AMA INU VOUVICR THE
IM JHUOW SO= OIXWUS� OR UMAUY OESIGNAM "MM T"WOF, 00
""MY AM" THAT THE PROP""y maouly Oesc"m HER"m w" Be
STMTSCW AWNS W 3M ANISE& THE"MOORHOOO FKATURS3
ENTRY WANIUMENTATION SIONAGE AND AN DOW PANWAY SION A
MVKAWM AX A KANNED O&KOPMENT IN ACCORUAR" WTK THE USES,
-6H-wT-pm
— ------
L4KOSWOU NMW INCUIVING 00TACHROVO&KII AND 1*01MAINK ON
""0"0001000
RWRICTIONIE ANO CONDOXXIM CONTAINED IN TM PLAN, AkO A$ MAY ar"Emwift Sa
AlIQUIRED BY tAW, I FUROM RVEOGNM TEAT THE AW40VAL Of * MINONG TO
E SA
1,7 =
am SIOM TIES PamTr"m FRWNXY INALKAKE
WEST MIR
PtA*matowernAL Orr V.OP*LVtANVAPPROVALOFIWW Ounow
SrANVARM TYMAL
a
A",OINS CONVERIEWT ACCESS TO 9XISTING SUS SON
AVENUE,
NT PT OOKS NOT OWAYE A VFW= PROPIUMAJOINT. vesm of,
PROPEM JUGHTS INAYOKYANISE AMACCRUIE PURSUPOIT TO THE PROIRSKM
j4-LvmwAmft"
S. StUOY
$WnM2$42iOFTWCttYOFWHEATRMWWMCWLAW&
rA-gg-MgTQRY---
Q
yjll��y P?
LVWNOC*,COtOKKDOSMS
TVL-' 134% =3404
shw
view
yjll��y P?
LVWNOC*,COtOKKDOSMS
TVL-' 134% =3404
1
• . . : .
F,
-tat
U mr- =4 H
rRi-It
• +► , ,, •
! M
r r
o knwm by street and number as: 11885 West 38th '".t CO . 0
ass" schedule pa rcel
f
.! • t "' ! � ;.rf !s «c f �s ! r »: W.r a « #; !
t t ! 2R: t. f.. ,..♦ M ! -.m 1. W «. t C.w !. #. t -:J
�x
s •
Cit
REENWOOD VILLAGE
rr .if r•--••- -
Phone 303-779-4100
Fax
*Wner STANDARD PACIFIC • COLORADO, INC,
City_�REENW••D VILLAGE
State COLORADO zip-!Oil'
I
State COLORADO zip_!oil'
Contact CYNTHIA MYERS Address 7800 E. DORADO PLACE, SUITE 220 Phone 303-483-8640
City _GREENWOOD VILLAGE State COLORADO Zip 80111 Fax
(The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post
public hearing sips, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written
communication to applicant and owner.)
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request):
Please refer to submittal checklists for complete WHCOW(m requirements, incomplete applications will not be accepted
■ Change of zone or zone conditions 0 Special Use Permit 0 Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less)
■ Consolidation Plat ■ Conditional Use Permit ■ Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots)
0 Flood Plain Special Exception 0 Site Plan approval 0 Temporary Use, Building, Sign
0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Concept Plan approval X Variance/Waiver (from Section
■ Planned Building Group ■ Right of Way Vacation 0 Other:
QU I V4 • 0J &I I • Wif- 4-1 am W I 1• gm a
State of Colorado
County of ARAPAHOE Ss
"rhe foregoing instrument 1,and Use Processing Application was acknowledged
UNDA D S ri M
by me this _L day of SEPTEMBER 20 !by CYNTHIA MYERS, FNTI NOTAWPuBuc
�EM
�MPNT, MANAGgR
STATE OF CXILORADO
STANDARD PACIFIC OF COLORADO, INC. NOTARY ID 1 90 7 4115013
A
Notary Fu64Iz
My commission expires :,)/2
t +. .
To be d o
fillen b ff.
Date received Fee Receipt N4e }01M( CaseNo, WIk-ftf-fl
Comp Plan Design. zonig Quarter Section Mar
Related Case No, Pre-App Mtg. Date Case Manager-14J–����
Case No, WA1417 Date Received 1 Ot1V2014
... Case Planner
Related Cases
iWhite
Case Descaipt'rr Request fora 1 foot (5 7%) side yard sejbackvariancelrom the 17.5 font requirrement resulting in a 16.5 - foot side yard setback for
construction of a single family home.
'°asral� ��'x"rrrt
Name Standard Pacific of CQ i Name
,,... _ _
. ..
Phone (303J 779 4100
m .
Address 11800 E. Dorado PH . Suite 220 City Greenwood Village State "'Co zip :80111-
I AV~ 4Tl"".
.. .n .. ..._, ...
Name :Standard Pacific of _O Name
Phone (303j 779 4100 _ ;
Address 7800 E. Dorado PI., Suite 220 City GreenwoodViftage
State CO iii ;Bbil 1
Plante Cynthia Myers Name
Phone ;(303j 483 -6640
Address 7800 E. Dorado PI Suite 220 City `Greenwood Village
State CCt Zip .�I111-
Address ;3812 ;Taft Ct
s
Cit y Wheat t"' Rtd g e State CO i Grp
<.,.."
Location Description
.
Project Name
farce No Off Section District No
Parcel No.
:39-204-05-020 Qtr ecti
Son �SE20
' District No.: 41
3920305020 SE20
,
.. _..
Pre App Date Neighborhood Meeting Date i
App No,
Review Type "a Review Body Review Date Disposition
Corr meats
Report
.. ..w .�.. .... _,.....,,
Review 'u�`", Admrn
_._..
Llrx�rre:*ar+Ficm^
Case Disposition DDispositron Date
Conditions of Approval ... ,
Notes
t Status Open V
Res 33 Ord
��
Storage:
•„,t t+ ")f t "ilito
.Ft 4 F 2i.,e w%
�•:; n.F w t., ti Sw ?"S u. r. i, bt
NK't, twm S +tt V L
, 04d 4 IyCS 4e.1
„ YMS
i 4't '
4. .