Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-96-23The City of ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION Wheat ~Rid~re Department of Planning and development 6 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-- Phone (303) 237-6944 -- Applican~/f~ 9~ .si1'~'~C ddress~G/~ ~ ~ T/>' ~~ Phone ~~~~ ~ ~ c~~p Addres's ~7f7~?~ Phone S'~yti~~ Owner Location of request ~~7~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~"/~~ Type of actibn requested_(check one or more of the actions listed below -- which pertain to your request.) Change of zone or .zone conditions Variance/Waiver Site development plan approval- Nonconforming use change , Special use permit ___ ~ Flood plain special exception Conditional use permit Interpretation of code Temporary use/building permit Zone line modification Minor subdivision Public Improvement Exception Su__bdivision Street vacation -.- 8 Preliminary Miscellaneous plat Final Solid waste landfill/ [] *~ See attached procedural guide mineral extraction permit for .specific requirsme~ts. ^ Other of reaues~//~/ 1~~'~~~_ 7.~_~Y F~ 9o1Y~ List. all persons-and_companie_s who-hold an interest in the described real.. property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee,-etc. NAME ADDRESS PHONE I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are -true an . correct to the best o£ my knowledge andLLthat in filing this application; I am acting-with the knowledge and consent of those persrins_listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be -accomplished. Applicants other than owners must ubmit power-of-attorney from the-owner. which approved of this actios b~al~j~, Signature of Applicant Subscribed and sworn to me this ~ day of 19 ~ _ _ SEAL e Received lo~ Receipt No. Case No. My commission expires -~ -a,.y M W. 35TH STREET . / 1 64.25' 100.01 P & C / / M ' N ~ .,. ~ i EXISTING BRIDGE ~ 96.96 SPOT ELE~ g----- ---94 _, _ - - -- . , ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~_--~_... __ _ - ~---_ - ' ~- -- C)~ ~ 92,5 _.. --- -_ -_ { I ~~ 99.53 1 \ I ~ /~ \ ~ 93.95 `~_~ \ SPOT ELE`/ ' ~' / ~- - ~ 100.29 r ~~^ O' -~ I , i I ~ / ~ \ i : :~"`'. / /100.73 ~ I I ~ ! I ~'~~~ _. ._ ( ~~~~ ' ~ I Y ..,~„K I ; ~~ I ~0 I -_. I ~ ~ I I .avci . ~r . I J II I I , , 1 t .11 9 -r . I ,~ d ~ 11 L I ~ I I _.~ - ,., ~ 'Sp. ~ ' ~ / ,^ti `~L I I I ~ t c ~ , :r. ~ / ' ` g CO ~;,,::~: ~~~~;. _. ~.~:r , s~~ !% , e . ~'.` :~~.; 102.27 "' ~~''~~' EP. ` ''~ M r"t .;~.~";r~r. .. .iti,}iN'.i " f _B_s ^ ~f `-PROPOSEE~, GARAGE ~ REI AWING WALL:: ~ I 1 I ~ ( I ~~ I ~ I, 97.09 ~\ I Fl i I r, ' ~ ARCHIiECTURAL METAL SIL`InG _ ' a: PARAPET CMU WALL ' ~ "' SPLIT FACE BLOCK / _ ^ ~ < , GRADE *~F• ~ ,.. N^ ' ~ ^.Y ~ METAL ROLL UP DOOR I ~._ _ ,s i I I y yn'`K-y- '17 1 L. I I s,~.~ U! 1 1 ` i t 1 1 ^ x'1..^.,:.1 .,.. - L. _...J d ~ ~'^~, ';, RETAINING WALL v^• ~~, to ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ FRONT ELEVATION SECTION -B- ~;~k;.b .;-1 sca.e r ~ a• :~ },r ~s~~€y~,~r . b,?~ ,.r~a,» ~ . ~ v ~`,~ , sue:,,' :....::~, ,t ,.,. -i ,::. a a*:}`'; '' ~^ rs. `.~ SEE GETAIL -A- -~ h ~"+" ~ GRAUE ®114'-0' r .. _. ~ -~ ti" MAX. Of SU1l. ~ " ~1 ~ WIiH NATI ~/E GRASSES 4A~'' ~ ~\ ~. ~ ~ . J-DRAIN GABRIC _ ~.. ~ - ~ - ///--- APPROX GRADE O 707'-O" 5 ~~ ~ r~ STf: L LDIN , ~ _~ CEO(#i10S~ - 1 i - r ~ \~%~ ; /~/T'/ \/\ \;~ ~ SEE DETAIL -A- \ `.,\ ,~~`-. r/~ ~ ~ ~, 4" CONC. SLAB ~,_,.. \~ ~~ /?-~~-~ ~' r T.0.5. = 99.0 ~ ~. / ~~ ~ J SEE SITE PLAN - 4-O..v - ~ - - _.. ,_.- ~ ~ - _ 24'-4~ ~__ • -0 HOUSING CHANNEL - ~ ~ 25'-2" ~ _-~, ~' SECTIOR! -C- ---YYY ~' NOTICE OF PIISLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on July 25, 1996, 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. rase No TUP-96-4: An application by Robert and Star Malouff for the approval of a Temporary Use Permit to allow a mobile home as a temporary structure on property zoned Residential-One and located at approximately 2777 Kendall Street. 2. Case No. WA-96-21: An application by Noel Lovett for the approval of a 12' side yard setback variance to the 15' required side yard setback for property zoned Residential- One and located at 2655 Newland Street: 3. Case No WA-96-22: An application by Republic Garages; Inc., for approval of a 40 square foot building coverage variance to the 1000_square foot maximum building coverage allowance for a detached garage on property zoned Residential-One and located at 4340 Vivian Street. 4. Case No. WA-96-23: An application by Tom and Isabel Abbott for approval of a 400 square foot building coverage variance to the 1000 square foot maximum building coverage allowance for a detached garage on property zoned Residential-One-and located at 10780 W. 35th Avenue. 5. Case No. WF-96-1: An application by Carol and Howard-Noble for approval to build an addition to a house in the 100-Year Flood Plain in a Residential-Three zone district and for property located at 11254 W. 38th Avenue._ ~~~ ~~~~~~.~.1~~ Mary 'hapla, Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be published: July 11, 1996 Wheat Ridge Transcript The City of P.O. BOX 638 TELEPHONE 3 0312 3 7 69 4 4 '~ 7_,500 WES? 29?H AVENUE ~ WHEAT RIDGE, COLORNDO 80033 cwheat Ridge July 10, 19.96 This is to inform you that Case No. WA-96-23 which is a request for aPProval of a 400 square foot building coverage variance to the 1QQ0 square foot maximum building coverage allowance for a detached garage for property located at 10780 W. 35th Avenue will be heard by the Wheat Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7.30 P.M. on Jul 25 1996 All owners and/or their legal counsel o£ 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 "`j ~jj r' ~ ~11't ll1 ~(U1Z ~ 1~1'~~ J a. a ~ ~i 1L v ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~z © _ ~. 1 t7 i~- 'SS3tlOOtl NF .,.Y W ~ ~ 0. ~ .~I 013dO13AN3 d0 d0. .._ ~ ~ '~~:' C41 ~ Z~ ~': N I~ o O w,~w, -447 W ti G ~ ~~ a w U W Z F W M n NN O W ^ 7 j O x N C7 N ~ W 3~ °a n3 U ;~ ~ p, o ~ro~~ ~ro F ~~o N Q ~ ~ Q'i ti 1~ ~~A~ I ~~ C Q N Q ~ OWi W 00 W ~ w ~--1 ~o LL oN c~ ;, - i ~ o n I o ~a ~ o a. C; Q ~7 _ ~ l.C7l z = u ~_/I ~ U ¢ i + ¢ IA' ~t } 30tl1d ilNtlltlOdW i i i Y ~~ I °~ ~~ '~ w U ~ ~ N i ', ~V 1- ~~ ~; hQ6 E'Ch ^96 d- U F I l 4 _ - R { I ~P 960 413 981 v y 9 A 1 T -{ z T -1 ~ ~ ~ ' O ~ ~ ~ ° O aC ... ~ ~ .- A ~ o" ~ H ' Q ~ w > CJ - O u p w0 ~^ tT © YY ON e R n O _ l -Y I ,P 960 4Z3 982 i E M ~ ~ CA m m m m ~ m ~ ~ n O m ~ ~ q ~ ~ t i W 1 ~ ~ n r T i f t ~~ .P 960 413 986 ,~ (n 'f1 9 z n n zll I m m m ~i C -_v -gym _.~ 1 ~ -e--3' W W r ~ W W GT II I W t M+ ~ nv. i ~' oN~m ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ m ~ ~~ g m m~ 4 an i m mg I~ v I ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ m z `g ' 2T N Il T 8 ~ °m ° ~ ~ 11 I ; _o pqpy ~ ~~ r (~ p a o I < I (3~ I II ~ u --_.. . CD M1 II~ . q I ~ ~ ~_ .- ~ ._ i ~ ° ) 3 1 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ t t ~ s Z ~ a ~ ~ I IMPORTANT. f PLACE STICKER A7 TOP OF ENVELOPE~- ES ADDR _ _ _l =_ _, 3~,~_ _ THE RIGHT OF RETURN w ~, D~~°=~a A ~ ~ ~O __ '~ _m ~ - ~.a O A o y A 3 v' o F. ~ m 3 0 5 ? g $ N E o ~ a ~ ~ g d ~ a' a d 3' ~ ~ o fi' ~S p rma W • • • •(A n~~a~ m A A ~ ~~ ~m a ~ W.a a a o ~ ~.. m m 3 N 9 O y d f. O ~ ~ ~ i F o ~ a £ ~ ~ g 3 ~ z: '. O ~' ~i -a 1 • - _. __-_• - _ _.. I P 960 4 1'3 9 83 -D - ~ Cn m m m ~ ffl < m n 'rl -zl m ~ ~ ~ ~ W @ ~ m 'v i °o T p q ' ''f $~ ~ 05 T g ii ~ n 3 ~ u /$~! R ! V m 9 = D m rmr~ ~ m 4 G m ~ im} Iv N ~ . 1 n T `p A r ~1 N 2f 0 f O ~~ yy ~ 9 n ~ 1 ~ c I i V DL mp ~ i ~ Ir ~o <a N F+ Po <a < I ~ ~ . , f (f {l P 96D 413 985 ° f f ~ 'I O ICI J7 I~ W O II O (n O ~_ (D I ~ f ~ rt ~ { Q. H~ 1 ~ O 1 UJ m m m m ~ m c ~ m y Z ~ (~~Ri ~ o ~ ~~ n V1 O u0 ~ ~ Sa n of ~~ yi m n m mo ; 80 ~ # m z ~o ~ c m ~ z < ~ ~m n o ~ ~ \ [ S"# c a ~ ~v ~ m ~ so - <~ p~ ri _ ay o G ti 9 9 a m ' IMPORTANT PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS 77 -I D N ~ 3 ~ Z p1 x 3 ~ ~ O p ~ ~ ° ~ m - ~ ~m ~~ - ~ ~ S ~ .. ao ~ ~j ~ ' -_- W ~ y 3 m .....~. __ W @ C U pi ~ ffi '~ n °. G t. ~ - ..._.. ? L ~ ~ ~ M p ~ n N R F O rr .' o - a 8 ~ f ~ ~ a - - D >s 9 ~ "~' ~ a ~ s. 3 d. r N ~ L V1 (~ ~ O A ~'~{ O _., m '3 ~.. ~ d n ~ N ~ a ° ~ ~ , v d ~ 0 ~ ~ 3 _ m ~ $ ~, a t- ~ g a W ~ D ~~ ^a ~ ~ ~ a ~ O ~ ~~ N N m ~ 6 .~-. P N O v ~- n~ T ~ ^ N ~ ? . S. .u e ~ w • • • •y ~ D Q ~ > ~ ~ Z m fi' 5 3 n A z L° ~ O ~ C t ~ ~. m.. ' .....W .. R a ~ a o R 3 - _._ m Vl Q T ro R 'R 2 F ~ ~ a. . (p K ~.z ~ ° . a ~ rn ~ ~ ry ~ c N Z "'? •. F o N 3 ~. 6 W t+ c ~ ~ g ,~ Q m _ T ~ ~ ~ m l9 ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C M try ~' o ~~ a ~ ~ H - - _ rr a Q a _... ~ x 3 :.: n - o a C C ~ y m ~ ~ ~ 0 3 ._... ~ 3 n _ .-_. _._,~ a Q (A D °- ~ m < ~ _ _ ~....~ - __ ~ ~ ~ -I ~ D- CZ 3 ^ ^ fp ~ ~ m m o ~ ~~ n O DD y a `G ~ N y ~ ~ m ~ - ~ J N ~ ~ . . ~ L 3 ~ N y o ~ N m w a _ c~ ~ ~ ~ m O vi ° n ~. _....- - _~ _.. ~ ~ Cn o m n m m ~ ~ ~ i ~ ., ..4 .. C ' N N ~~ (U .~J CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 25, 1996 DATE PREPARED: July 16, 1996 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-96-23 f Abbott CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney ACTION REQUESTED: An application by Tom and Isabel Abbott for approval of a 400 square 4oot building coverage variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum building coverage allowance for a detached garage. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 10780 W. 35th Ave. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) Tom and Isabel Abbott 10780 W. 35th Ave. Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) Same APPROXIMATE AREA: 2.31 acres PRESENT ZONING: Residential-One PRESENT LAND USE: Residential Single Family SURROUNDING ZONING: W:, E and S: Residential-One, and N: Residential-Two SURROUNDING LAND USE: W:, E:, S:, and N: Residential DATE PUBLISHED: July 5, 1996 DATE POSTED: July 10, 1996 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: July 10, 1996 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) NOT REQUIRED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ( )NONE ENTER INTO RECORD: ( )COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (XX) ZONING ORDINANCE (XX) EXHIBRS ( )SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ( )OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Board of Adjustment Stott Report Page 2 Case No. WA-96-23 I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting the approval of a 400 square toot building coverage variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum building coverage for a detached garage to allow for the development of a 1,400 square foot detached garage. The applicant lives on an estate sized property, located in the Residential-One zone district. Section 26-22 (F) of the Wheat Ridge code of laws establishes a maximum building coverage of 1,000 square feet for detached garages and carports. Currently, the applicant has approximately 1,350 square feet of attached garage space on the site, and he is hoping to develop the additional 1,400 square foot detached garage to store other vehicles on the site, as well as utilize space for a personal workshop. As the attached elevation plan shows, the applicant is proposing to place soil and turf above the garage to blend the garage with the environment. The applicant believes that this innovative design will hide the garage from the view of the adjacent properties, thus allowing the '°open space" feel of the property to remain. According to the attached site plan shows, the garage meets the setback, and height requirements established in the Residential-One zone district. If approved, staff recommends that a complete set of engineered plans, stamped by certified engineer, containing structural, drainage and grading details, accompany the required plan set, for building permit approval. II. CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria to evaluate an application for an adjustment: Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it Is located? Yes, if the variance is denied, the use of the properly will remain that of single-family residential. 2. Is the plight of the owner do to unique circumstances? Yes. The size of the property (2.3 acres) could be subdivided into 8, Residential-0ne size lots, each having 1,000 square foot garages. Pius, with the size of machinery needed for maintenance of this size lot, a larger than normal garage space would be required. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No, the applicant is proposing the 1,400 square foot garage on a 2.31 acre properly, and plans to locate it approximately 50' from the eastern property line, and approximately 100' horn the western property line. The inclusion of these setbacks, along with the subterranean design style, should blend the proposed garage with the natural surcoundings. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? No, the property does not have any physical surcounding, shape or topographical condition which would result in a particular hardship. The applicant merely requests this variance for personal convenience and additional storage. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? No, as mast Residential-One lots are much smaller in size. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property? No, the applicant wishes to develop this detached garage primarily for storage of vehicles and a personal workshop. There is no intention to make money from the garage. 7. Flas the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an Interest in the property? Yes, the applicant prefers a detached, rather than attached garage for aesthetic purposes. 8. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? No, the proposed detached garage is located approximately 236' from the Newland Street right-of- way. Therefore, approval of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the neighborhood. 9. 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 or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? No, the proposed variation would rwt substantially increase the congestion in the public streets nor endanger public safety, as there already exists a drinreway that has been used for years without incident Also, the applicant has designed the garage to allow for more than adequate setbacks to ensure the existing supply of light and air, to the adjacent properties, remains. III. STAFF CONCLUSION The applicant has designed an environmentally sound detached garage that would hardly be noticeable from the adjacent properties. If the request is approved, staff recommends the following: 1. Staff recommends that a complete set of engineered plans, stamped by certified engineer, containing structural, drainage and grading details, accompany the required plan set, for building permit approval. I RECEPTION N0. F0078882 6.00 PG: 0001-001 742 RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COCOAADO 7/05/95 10:28 l _ ~ -^ ~ W B0i^ I,Y--_~ .- ~..; .~ ~ d~.`. 1 ~ _8 ... . ~.' R a ','-- i --- ,-~. I ~. I ' A ~.c - I !.'.' y ;, :~: a R-- I ~' .'~ R-IA (~- ~ ,.'ev .~ / ---_-- - - - - ----' I 4C^ ~ / ~.". ..c ,~ hl i i~~ ~: I ~ ~I ' ^~ ~ I ~ ~I r.'.'. ~ I I ~ ' ~ i -- ~ ~ . _ __-~~ R-3 , . r ~ . ;. i ! ! . _ /' .~ N /.'.".'. Q'JAiL I c L, j a'... _.' i . ~T ~;' ~ .. 11 '.'. ~ ~. .. i . V ~ -I j .y: -- ~ ~ J `> ' l i ~_ .. ,, , .--r ' te. .I ~'JIJ ~i- I ' ' ' ~' ' 7 ' ' - ' I' ' '. I 1 .-_ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . ~ , 'n l,c ~~ ~ h 39it> nVE~ i O ~' a ~~ i_~{ R.-I I ' ~ ~~ __~' ~. ~ ~f m y~ri 7 w AVC - .' c cl ~ =~~`. ~ m i ~~ a" ~ ` ' 3 n W 35 ~T '- ' u F~ O .' jli. I _ I~ -- of \ a / `~ .~ '^ ~ - i 7 N u• 'n J ~--~- c i t, I S ~~ ~~ lLJ ~ i iO~ ~ ~ ~ tier ~, y ~ ^(Y F e-= , _~ ~ ~ ~ `w J ; _ ' r O ^ tf) Q 'li r 4 o rv ALL ;~~ ' i~ ~ 3 ~~C1 u~~ ~ -' i . ~ ~c va -,~~ ~ 1 ~~~pc , r ;ems ~FVG ,~ ~~ ,~ ~,a 'W ucn .1z-sw --1- ' I i I Q ~ - '. ~ I ~ V'` I ~ ^~ 31 _ - ~' _AKcrOCD ~ ~~_. ~~~ ~ G ;eo--,~<e =L oeD PL<:ii /~ A E ~OI ~VI I VG MTZ~ "" -~~~~ f°?PRO'!"^?~ ~ LOGAT!o~~ - 30UNDRY - 20NB D~STRiC _ Ij~ J~''(~ j''~/~ _ / ~ °~l I f ~ /~ 1 ~ I l~ l -'- ' -RGEL ~! OT 30U°iDR~' .. ''DcSiG~iA I ES OWNERSHIP? GOLQiZ~D J ~ ~ CITY LIM1- LINE - .... wATcR =Ek-~SZ= MAP .ADOP T ED~ Jure i5, 1994 Los. Revivor: Mey 3, X995 D:JVOTES MULTI°L_° A7DRESSES _ J?ART`cSi p='LANKR;6 nNJ x~~ ~n- - 2'r2852 I V~ `d ~~ -- ~' - =~'~Y- ~:,, -- w ao sv ~ •ao :~ SCAB !'=?00 _ - / ~~~ T0: City of Wheat Ridge, Board of Adjustment~~ 1996. FROM; Tom and Isabel Abbott, 10780 W. 35th Avenue, Wheat Ridge RE: Requests for Variance 2. Allow a 1,400 sq. ft, detached garage/workshop/storage structure; a 400 sq. ft. variance to the allowed 1,000 sq, ft. II. Allow a gravel driveway extension to the garage. RELATED TO THE NINE CRITERIA: 1. We would like to benefit from an additional productive use of our 2 1/2 acre parcel... Due to the luxury of this oversized parcel, we are able to enjoy the comforts of a lot of open space, however; we also enjoy the privilege of paying a very large property tax premium for this open space. and would like to put a little more of it to productive work. This will subsequently increase our property tax even further, but provide us with a more reasonable degree of use for our property. 2. The unique circumstance here is the size of building lot. 2 1/2 acres is equal to 6 standard R1 lots, and yet the Ordinance 2 limits us to a 1 lot standard. The gra vel driveway extension will be very lightly used, enhance the landscaped environment _~:~ that we are seeking, and be invisible to the neighbors 3. No. This is especially true do to the-fact that we are having __ this garage/workshop engineered as a "bermed" subterranean structure. Although it will be 400 sq. ft. over the allowed above ground structure, it remain visually as open space, due to its being covered with grass and landscaping. Only .the door and retaining ,walls will be visible, and these only from our house. We are easily conforming to all set-backs, being over 200' f=om W. 35th, and nearly 100' from the nearest possible houses which may occur on parcels to the East and west of us. 4. As discussed in Criteria 1 and 2; our hardship is in the failure of the Ordinance to provide some flexibility in square footage, and driveway surfacing rules, for very large lots. Property owners of these types of properties willingly pay considerable taxes and benefit the entire neighborhood with increased property values and `.he enjoyment of a more open environment. we feel that a reasonable tradeoff would allow some expansion of the square footage allowables, and tolerance of a small section of unpaved interior drive. 10780 W. 35th Avenue, Tom and Isabel Abbott 5. No. There would be very few building sites of this size still available within the City. Where such lots do exist, I would argue that this type of variance would not be unreasonable, and should be considered. Due to the costs and difficulty of construction, and uniqueness of concept of a bermed and landscaped structure, we would not expect to see The Board hearing many of this type of .request. 6. There is no expectation of making money. In fact, we will be lucky to recoup our costs upon eventual resale, and our taxes will go up. 7. No. Again, the hardship is purely economic "best use of property" argument, caused by an unreasonably inflexible Ordinance. 8. No. As stated above, throngh the use of this design we are in fact able to preserve the current open space environment, rather than diminish the open space by constructing a conventional, and allowable, above ground structure. 9. No. For the reasons as stated above. If anything, our house and its surrounding large open yard increase the value of the surrounding properties. If we were to build a 1,000 sq. ft. conventional structure out in the middle of our front yard it would undoubtedly diminish our own property value, and to a degree, our neighbors. __. 10780 W. 35th Avenue, Tom and Isabel Abbott In synopsis; my wife and I would ask that The Board look favorably upon our requests. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:. 1. Due to the 2 1/2 acre size of the lot, which is equivalent _ to six standard R1 lots, the request to add 400 sq: ft. to the 1,000 sq. ft. allowed for one standard R1 lot, or allow the existence-of a lightly used, ancillary, gravel drive, for esthetics and drainage control would not appear to be unreasonable as to the intent and purpose o-f the Ordinance. 2. As the proposed structure sits well within the required set- backs, in fact lying over 200' from the nearest street, and generally retains the existing open space environment; the allowance of either the 400 sq. ft variance, or the gravel driveway extension, appear to effect no impact on the surrounding neighborhood, or compromise the logic behind an engineering Standard, and therefore. their existance runs with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. 3. As the proposed structure is of a unique design, rendering itself-as more of a landscape feature than a structure, the addition of 400 sq, ft. to the allowable 1,000 sq. ft. and allowing a gravel ancillary driveway, would appear largely academic from the perspective of impact to adjacent properties. 4. It would seem reasonable that in situations such as this, provisions of an Ordinance written to generally protect owners of homes on standard lots from obtrusive construction, encroachments, and poor engineering practices, may be somewhat varied on a case by case basis, without impacting the .intent and purpose of the Ordinance. IINDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The structure and driveway extension must be professionally engineered, and constructed as described by the Applicant. i.e.: a. The structure must be bermed and landscaped so that its use is generally obscured, and the general appearance of an open yard is maintained. b. The structure must be oriented so that its entrance faces South to Southwest. c. The lack of a hard surface on the driveway extension must not create a drainage problem. PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST DATE: August 8, 1996 CASE N0: WA-96-23 .- _ (July 25, 1996) REQUEST: An application by Tom and Isabel Abbott for approval of a 400 square foot building coverage variance to the 1000 square foot maximum building coverage allowance for a detached garage on property zoned Residential-One and located at 10780 W. 35th Avenue. Position On Request; ~ ~ (Please Check) ' ~ SPEAKER'S NAME & ADDRESS (PLEASE PRINT) i IN FAVOR i OPPOSED i _. _____ - - -_ i i r i ~ ~~~ i f ~ i i ~ ~ i ~ i ~ i i i ~ i ~ ~ ~ - - -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ' ~ ~ i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 ~ -. 1 1 1 1 1 _. ' i - ~ i ' I ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I I i i i i t i i i i i f i i 1 t 1 --~ ~~ t WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT Page 8 MINIITES OF MEETING: August 8, 1996 2. All other floodproofing provisions specified in Section 26-206(F) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws be followed. Motion was seconded by Board Member ECHELMEYER. Motion carried 6-0. Resolution attached. C _ e`~o~ _g~=~`; An application by Tom and Isabel Abbott for approval of a 400 square foot building coverage variance to the 1000 square foot maximum building coverage allowance for a detached garage on property zoned Residential-One and located at 10780 W. 35th Avenue. Sean McCartney presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. Chairman WALKER wanted to know if the applicant is planning on any fuel storage, and Mr. McCartney said he did not inform us any and if he is he would have to be mentioned for fire reasons, which would be something that would be addressed on the building permit. Board Member HOVLAND said by looking at the measurements given it is closer to 960 square feet, and Mr. McCartney said the information given was directly from the applicant as well as the site plan. The applicant might have more information to reveal but at this point he would assume it is 1400 square feet. Board Member HOWARD asked if there is a definition in the zoning ordinance for 'estate sized property', and Mr. McCartney answered no, that is a determination that staff makes to define other than just larger than a minimum sized lot; it is just a decorative definition. The applicant, Isabel Abbott, 11254 W. 35th Avenue, was sworn in. Ms. Abbott said they are asking for the variance only because to get all. of the stuff out of sight from her and her neighbors. The building will help in housing all of this expensive equipment that Mr. Abbott has, as the weather does take its toll on it and it would be better if it were in a building. Board Member THIESSEN asked basically from the street this will look like a little hill, and Ms. Abbott said yes, kind of a berm with grass. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if this is set below the ground and how far, and Ms. Abbott replied it is below the FTHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 9 MINUTES OF MEETING: August 8, 1996 ground, about 3-3 1/2 feet below the surface. The driveway will decline a little bit. Board Member ECHELMEYER wanted to know if the exposed brick work to the back will be covered with soil also, and Ms. Abbott said the brick work is decorative enough not to cause any problems, so she does not think it will be Covered up. Board Member ECHELMEYER said the dirt will only run across the top and down both sides and either end will be a building. Ms. Abbott added there will not be any fuel storage. Board Member HOWARD said the information they have on the size of that garage appears to be less than 900 square feet so has there been a change, and Ms. Abbott said she believes they asked for additional square footage because of the way it is beamed. The walls will be a little bit further out from the foundation so we needed that extra square footage for work space/work shop. Board Member HOWARD said then basically rather than the 900 square feet that was submitted on the drawing, it is actually for 1400, and Ms. Abbott replied yes. Board Member HOWARD asked the applicant what the final elevation will be at the top, and Ms. Abbott said there will be at least a foot of_dirt at the top or-crest and the total elevation will be about 14 1/2 feet, so with 3 1/2 feet underground it should only be 11 1/2 feet. Board Member HOWARD said the intent is to cover this with grassoandaflowersa~sheaprefers groundscovertso1maybe there will be some of that also. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked has there been anyone who expressed opposition, and it was noted there was none received. Motion was made by Board Member HOWARD, that Case No. WA-96- 23, an application by Tom and Isabel Abbott, be APPROVED for trie following reasons: 1. The Board finds that based upon all evidence presented and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the nine specific questions to justify the variance, the evidence and facts in this case do support the granting of this request. 2. This request conforms to all setback requirements. WHEAT RIDGT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT page 10 C MINIITTS OF NETTING: August 8, 1996 3. This is a very unusual and novel design for a detached garage. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. A complete set of certified plans by a registered engineer be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Motion was seconded by Board Member MAURO. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the condition could be . enlarged to include drainage and grading details as part of the engineer's. report. Board Member HOWARD felt that was not necessary as that will be included in the plans for a building permit, but he guessed he could add it in. The amended condition read: 1. A complete set of certified plans by a registered engineer containing structural, drainage and grading details be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Motion carried 6-0. Resolution attached. D. Case No. WA-96-10: An application by Joyce. Harrelson and Naomi Brown for a fence height variance in a sight distance triangle and in a front-yard for property zoned Residential-One and located at 6800 W. 29th Avenue. Sean McCartney requested a 5 minute recess. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked weren't there inspectors out while the wall was being poured, and Ms. Reckert replied that Public Works noticed it first and the she went out and issued a 'stop work' order. The forms were already put up and filled. Board'Member ECHELMEYER asked if she stopped work on the concrete or iron, and Ms. Reckert answered concrete. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the iron is causing the problem and Ms. Reckert said yes. CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUT20N 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 8th day of August 1996. CASE NO: 2~- APPLICANT'S NAME: Tom and Isabel Abbott LOCATION: 10780 W. 35th Avenue Upon motion-by Board Member HOWARD seconded by Board Member MAURO the following Resolution was stated. WHEREAS, the. applicant was denied permission by an Administrative Officer; and -- WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-96-23 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an Administrative Officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the required 15 days by law and there WERE NO protests registered against it; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for MAY be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and. purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-96-23 be and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 400 square foot building coverage variance to the 1000 square foot maximum building coverage allowance for a detached-garage. PURPOSE: To build a detached garage FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The .Board finds that based upon all evidence presented and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the nine Case No. WA-96-23/Resolution Page 2 specific questions to justify the variance, the evidence and facts in this case do support the granting of this request... 2. This request conforms to all setback requirements. 3. This is a very unusual and novel design for a detached garage. - WITS THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. A complete set of certified plans by a registered-engineer containing structural, drainage and grading details be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. VOTE: YES: Echelmeyer, Hovland, Howard, Mauro, Thiessen and Walker NO: None DISPOSITION: Variance granted by a vote of 6-0. DATED this 8th day Of August, 1996. ROBERT WALKER, Chairman Board of Adjustment Mary Lou Chapla, Secretary Board of Adjustment