Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-02-037500 West 29th Avenue. Wheat Ridge. Colorado 80215 Telephone 303/ 235-28z FAX 303/235-2857 June 7, 2002 Gordy & Kathi Jack 3360 Independence Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Jack: RE: Case No. WA-02-03 The City of Wheat Ridge Please be advised that at its meeting on May 23, 2002, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request for approval of a 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3360 Independence Court with the following condition: The shed must be built according to the design presented. Enclosed is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution, as well as a draft copy of the minutes, stating the Board's decision which became effective the date of the meeting. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 235-2846 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 7 kk " Kathy Field Senior Secretary Enclosures: Certificate of Resolution Draft of Minutes cc: WA-02-03 (case file) Building File C.UKatlry\BOA\CORRESP\2002\wa0203approval.wpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting May 23, 2002 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair ABBOTT at 7:30 p.m. on May 23, 2002 in the city council chambers of the municipal building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Bob Blair Paul Drda Bill Echelmeyer Paul Hovland Bob Howard Members Absent: Jerry Montoya Kent Young Staff Present: Alan White, Planning Director Travis Crane, Planner Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 4r F The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of May 23, 2002. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-02-03: An application submitted by Gordy and Kathi Jack for approval of a 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3360 Independence Court. This case was presented by Travis Crane. He reviewed the staff report and gave a Power Point presentation depicting photographs and layouts of the subject area. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and he advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Criteria used in the evaluation of a variance request were reviewed. Board of Adjustment Page I 05/23/02 Staff determined that the variance criteria did not support approval of the variance request and therefore recommended denial. In response to a question from Vice Chair ABBOTT, Travis Crane stated that no letters of opposition to the request had been submitted to staff. Further, there was no one signed up to speak in opposition to the request. Kathi and Gordy Jack PRAIFT 3360 Independence Court Kathi and Gordy Jack, the applicants, were sworn in by Vice Chair ABBOTT. Kathi Jack testified that they experienced some confusion about the setbacks. Last October, when they checked with the Planning Department about setback requirements, they were told there was a 5-foot rear yard and 15-foot side yard setback requirement. They interpreted that the location for their proposed shed was in the rear yard. They were told it was not necessary to obtain a building permit at that time. Therefore, they built a retaining wall to make a level spot for the shed. In February, they checked with the city again to see if it was necessary to obtain a building permit before they poured the foundation for the shed and were told it would not be necessary because of the amount of concrete involved. They poured the concrete and ordered the shed kit. When the kit was received and measured, they realized they would be 5-6 inches into the setback and brought this to the attention of the Planning Department when they came in for the building permit and were advised to apply for a variance of 6 inches. The following day, they were notified by the city that the shed was actually going to be located in the side yard which would require the variance presently under consideration. She further stated that there are at least three sheds on their street that are visible and less than five feet from the property line so the proposed shed would not change the character of the neighborhood. The proposed location is the lowest point on the property and, due to the location of several mature trees, there isn't another suitable location for the shed. In summary, she stated they believed they made a sincere attempt to comply with city regulations and did not feel the shed would alter the character of the neighborhood. Five neighbors have indicated they are not opposed to construction of the shed (two were verbal and three were signatures turned in with the application). In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, the applicant stated she turned in a document with their application which contained signatures of three neighbors indicating they were in favor of the variance. Alan White entered this document into the record. Board Member BLAIR asked about construction materials. The applicant stated it would be wood frame with greenhouse windows on the south and a shingled roof on the north. They plan to paint the shed a pale green. Ms. Jack submitted a catalog showing a picture of the shed they plan to build. The catalog was entered into the record. Board of Adjustment Page 2 05/23/02 Vice Chair ABBOTT suggested that staff clarify information given to applicants in the future to prevent this kind of misinterpretation. Alan White stated that the Planning Department is presently working on a handbook of planning terms, etc. for the public. Vice Chair ABBOTT asked if there were others present who wished to address this matter. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing. Board Member HOWARD stated that he believed the applicant had presented a very good project and he would vote in favor of the variance. Board Member BLAIR commented that he believed the shed would be an improvement and would look better than the vacant concrete pad. Vice Chair ABBOTT stated that he supported the application partly because the proposed structure would be an attractive potting shed. He also commented that he believed staff acted in a proper manner. _ Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Boar 1~ HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-02-03 is an appeal to this Board-from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and Whereas, there were no protests registered against the application; 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- 02-03 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: Request for approval of a 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3360 Independence Court. For the following reasons: Board of Adjustment 05/23/02 1. As there are other nonconforming sheds in the area, impact to neighboring property is lessened. 2. The location minimizes the height impact as it is in a lower portion of the yard. 3. There was an apparent genuine misunderstanding as to the setback regulations after an apparent diligence in obtaining the information by the appellant. 4. The neighbors who would be most affected have indicated their approval. With the following condition: The shed must be built according to the design presented. DRAFT p The motion passed unanimously. Vice Chair ABBOTT advised the applicants their application was approved. B. Case No. WA-02-04 (to be continued to a date uncertain) - An application filed by Victor Olson for approval of an 11-foot side yard setback variance from the required 30-foot side yard setback when adjacent to a public street, resulting in a 19-foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a garage on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 2620 Upham Street. Alan White informed the Board that all required information had been received from the applicant and requested that the case be continued to the next Board of Adjustment meeting to be held on June 27, 2002. Vice Chair ABBOTT opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak to this matter. It was moved by Board Member DRDA and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to continue Case No. WA-02-04 to June 27, 2002. The motion passed unanimously. C. Case No. WA-02-02: Request for a rehearing of Case No. WA-02-02 which was denied by Board of Adjustment on April 25, 2002. Vice Chair ABBOTT reopened Case No. WA-02-02. Jeff Petty Jeff Petty, the applicant, was.sworn in by Vice Chair ABBOTT. He requested a rehearing of his case based upon new evidence he has to present. After the last Board of Adjustment meeting, he met with neighbors in attendance who expressed concern about the condition of the property. He also met with other neighbors in the neighborhood who had the.same concerns. As a result, he has worked during the past month to repaint, remove dead trees, clean the yard, and plant flowers and grass. Since this work has been Board of Adjustment Page 4 05/23/02 ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION I, Ann Lazzeri, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado on the 23rd day of May, 2002. CASE NO. WA-02-03 APPLICANT'S NAME: Gordy and Kathi Jack LOCATION: 3360 Independence Court Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-02-03 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and WHEREAS, there were no protests registered against the application; 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-02-03 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One and located at 3360 Independence Court. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. As there are other nonconforming sheds in the area, impact to neighboring property is lessened. 2. The location minimizes the height impact as it is in a lower portion of the yard. 3. There was an apparent genuine misunderstanding as to the setback regulations after an apparent diligence in obtaining the information by the appellant. 4. The neighbors who would be most affected have indicated their approval. Resolution No. WA-02-03 May 23, 2002 Page two (2) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: The shed must be built according to the design presented. VOTE: YES: ABBOTT, BLAIR, DRDA, ECHELMEYER, HOVLAND, HOWARD NO: None ABSENT: MONTOYA, YOUNG- DISPOSITION: A request for a10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One and located at 3360 Independence Court was APPROVED. ADOPTED and made effective this 23rd day of MAY, 2002. 7TOM ABB TT, Vice Chairman Board of Adjustment a,44 ~ ate. Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment 'q 6,)A_6 :~-03 We, Kathi and Gordy Jack, are planning to construct a 10 ft by 16 ft shed in our backyard (at 3360 Independence Ct). The City of Wheat Ridge requires that the shed be a minimum of 5 ft from the property line. We have already had the retaining wall and concrete prepared for the construction. We are requesting a variance from the city to allow us to construct the shed no closer than 4 ft 6 inches from the north property line. If you support our request, please sign below in agreement. Thank you. ~Z ALVIA) , 1,,-n)CAA) v ere s~ M. E~s,~ nee r 33y~ N yi,a~nde~ce CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 23, 2002 DATE PREPARED: May 15, 2002 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-02-03 CASE MANAGER: Michael Pesicka ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 10.5 foot side yard setback from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3360 Independence Court. LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): 3360 Independence Court Gordy and Kathi Jack 3360 Independence Court Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) Same As Above APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: 14,060 square feet Residential-One (R-1) Single-Family N, S, E, & W: R-1 & W: Single family residential E: Public School DATE PUBLISHED: May 9, 2002 DATE POSTED: May 9, 2002 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: May 9, 2002 ENTER INTO RECORD: ( ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) SLIDES ( ) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS ( ) 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. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 3360 Independence Court and is currently being used as a single family residential property. The property is zoned Residential-One (R-1), and is 14,060 square feet in area (Exbibit 1,, Zoning Map). The applicant (owner) is requesting approval of a variance for a 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback in the R-1 zone district, resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a storage shed (Exhibit 2 Appfleation,,Exh'('brt 3, II. SITE PLAN The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the proposed location for the storage shed and future landscaping (Exhibit 4; Survey;'Exlnbrt 5 Pr6posed;Site:A, ' The requested variance would allow for the construction of a 160 square foot garden/potting shed. A retaining wall and concrete pad have already been built as a foundation for the shed. The applicant came in on his own to obtain a building permit for the shed and it was determined at that time, that the shed was encroaching into the side yard setback and a variance would need to be processed. The proposed shed would encroach upon 10.5 feet of the required 15 feet needed in a Residential-One district, leaving a 4.5 foot setback on the north property line. The property is rectangular in shape, and has a slight grade change. The property meets the minimum lot size requirements in the R-1 zone district. The is approximately 14,060 square feet, and has a lot width of 100 feet. The applicant has also submitted a letter outlining reasons for the requested variance (Exlubiti-6 Applicant Letter); There was some confusion about whether or not the variance was for a side yard or a rear yard setback. Applicant was notified the day after he applied for the variance that he would be requesting a side yard setback variance of 10.5 feet, and not a 6 inch rear yard setback as stated in the applicant's letter. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request is denied, the property may yield a reasonable return in service and income. The property may still be used for a single family residence. 2. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? Granting of the variance could potentially alter the essential character of the locality. The shed is only 160 square feet in size, but is 9 feet tall. 3. 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? The lot in question has a typical rectangular shape. The lot meets the minimum standards for size and width for a Residential-One (R-1) zone. The property does slope from north to south, but is not particularly severe. Placement of the shed on the south side of the property could be a problem because of the slope. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant, who has sole interest in the property, has created a self-imposed hardship by starting construction before obtaining a building permit. The applicant came in for a permit after the concrete pad and retaining wall had been built. At that time, it was discovered that the shed would not meet the minimum requirement for side yard setback in the R-1 zone district. There may be other alternatives for locating the shed elsewhere on the property. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Granting the variance could possibly impact the property to the north due to the fact that the shed will sit significantly higher than the adjacent structure. The variance would not increase the congestion in public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, or affect or impair property values within the neighborhood. 6. If criteria a through a are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The requested variance would result in an individual benefit for the property owner, and would not produce a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or community. Approval of this request would not result in the reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are not supportive of the variance request. Staff has concluded that there are no unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. There are no unique circumstances attributed to this request. 2. The conditions involving the property have not resulted in a particular hardship upon the owner. 3. The hardship was self-created by the property owner. 4. The proposed shed could potentially impact neighboring properties. WE5THAVEN PARK PCD w6e 15 W ) ) ~a Nf W- Z_ Pkl a 9~s ` ~ ism Sass ors u xm o oW s 5 0 3S'O~ W X15 ]Bf0 3~s w^~ r 10 .a 3fi15 3sf0 3593 JsTMn& SswP ssf9 s. 3515 i5x J515 W urn Ave r^ i a ROCKY__MOy~{TnU C?!LN----- S }e cFVaf~aY~c~- R_Z ~uFSt In, R-1 WHEAT RIDGE a HIGH SCHOOL I; N W Z OFFICIAL -PARCEULOT BOUNDARY NW 27 ZONING MAP (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) WHEAT RIDGE WATER FEATURE COLORADO DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN o 100 = z0 400 FeA (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ~wx~r m DEPARTMENTOF MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Last Revision: September 10, 2001 OE WHEgp LAND E CASE PROCESSING AP. ACATION oEW"Eqt o Planning and Development Department g 750v 5 J33 c o c C'OC ORADO n ~ V OLORAO m (Please print or type all information) Applicant Gordy ETa~~` Jac Address3346 WelepyodeiXe- Ct -Phone 303-Q7'1-_5_0)S7 City- W 'h-ec 44 Riche State Cc0 Zip 90033 Fax Owners Address ' 31co Indrpendencc Cf Phone 303-a7~f-595 j City /a )/t ee t ~L; cf ~e State Co Zip SCxW33 Fax Contact l`0ra i I& V0.Ci- Address33Go )rvcie ndonct Ct Phone3o3-,D )4tai:y city to e a 4 + 5e State Co Zip 80033 Fax (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, and will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing.) Location of request (address): 33 (Q0 1 \A -e pe n Aence Cf Wheat Q : clcje Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) Application submittal requirements on reverse side ❑ Change of zone or zone conditions ❑ Special Use Permit ❑ Consolidation Plat ❑ Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) ❑ Flood Plain Special Exception ❑ Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) ❑ Interpretation of Code ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Right of Way Vacation ❑ Planned Building Group ❑ Temporary Use, Building, Sign ❑ Site Development Plan approval V Variance/Waiver (from Section ) ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ❑ Other: Detailed description of request: gIckjar~ SheA -4o be b"At 4G-% G"rn grow. n.-o-_ Acquired information: Assessors Parcel Number: Size of Lot (acres or square footage): / qD & 0 s 9 Current Zoning: Residenk:al Proposed Zoning: no c~Xn+Se Current Use: Res; den-kt a l Proposed Use: no C NA nge 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 actin a knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully pplicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney from the owner which approved of this action on ."0,* O Signature~iplicant C 2 Subscrib d d sworn to me this day of 20DJ_ ~9r•~B~~G: Pao l 1LS COLO Not blie _ My commission expires -t - dLk-03 To be filled out by stalf: Date received u Fee$ 9'74 ~ Receipt No. 3e) Case No. ~l%7r~D0_U Comp Plan Desig. lE- F;'i 14 e Zoning 1Z- Quarter Section Map NW 27 cl7ne~ es"e Ka Related Case No. Pre-App Mtg. Date_ __N R Case Manager /`41 Recorded at _ Reception No. II 0- 06 M., WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Madethis 31st dayof August RECEPTION N0. FL109643 PAGE 9/05/2000 14:06921 PG- DOC.FEEi-04126.95 RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 20 00, between DOUGLAS KENT TAYLOR of the 'County of JEFFERSON and State of Colorado, grantor, and CORDON C. JACK AND KATHLEEN M. JACK whose legal address is 3360 INDEPENDENCE COURT WHEAT RIDGE,COLORADO 80033 of the County of JEFFERSON and State of Colorado, grantees: WITNESS, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TWO HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND N01100___________________________ DOLLARS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confrrtn unto the grantees, their heirs and assigns forever, not in tenancy in common but in jointtenancy, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of JEFFERSON and State of Colorado, described as follows: LOT 16, DAVO SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. also known by street and number as 3360 INDEPENDENCE COURT WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issuesand profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantees, their heirs and assigns forever. And the grantor, for himself, his heirs and personal representatives, does covenant, grant, bargain andagree to and with the grantees; their heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of - the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, emcumbrances and restrictions ofwhal- ever kind or nature soever, except general taxes for the current year and subsequent years subject to restrictions, reservauons,and covenants of record and except easements and rights of way of record, if any, and except NONE. V n~ The gmntorshall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above- bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, against alland every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. DOUGLAS NT TAYLOR STATE OF COLORADO COUNTYOF JEFFERSON ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st dayof August 2000 by DOUGLAS KENT TAYLOR • O W mess my hand and official seal. -..fez ~.p My wmmis~iT ex fires my 1st , 2001 Ui ' 0 2 e•STA Eu0 .GCv ' rvm=,y e~uim `If in Denver, insert 'City and.' S l. HTO-BERb7AN WARRANTY DEED (To Joint Tenants) EXHIBIT 3 ~ HIBIT~Q DAj)04L _2onn FEESO-00 JOei00-2416 MORTCACE CtAUSTTN MnRTOAGF (KTD) L A N D S U R V E Y I N G AooRESS13Rn TNOFPFNOFNCE CT- 5460 WARD ROAD • SUITE 160 BORROWERS NAM ylACK ARVADA, COLORADO 90002 (303) 420-4788 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE Attn: LYNN LEGAL DESCRIPTION L T 16, DAVID SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO f. 'r Sole: 1"-20' ~V L.1 U 2 1 0 M ®i ~i COWL- ,17~Z. ~ NN zr s O J S 5Q o ~3 1 S ~ ~3 o L D Oe ~ y+a Z~-5 ~t-~ t r~ ND,E: fle" wxuslxc rurreDANG nnxcv:s 9ERflIN45ANOgME NSUH9. On the basis of my knowledge, information A(fand` belief, I or Improvement'SZmjey4Pl'eT.R~r1C1'lLttit'1Ts at to improvement lines. I further certify that the imp , connections, are entirely within the boundaries Of described premises by improvements on any adjoini c sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part "NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must "o"men first discover such defect. In no event, may any action based the owafi Ation shown hereon." ~s`a.by certify th this improvement location certificate was prepared for ,that it is not a Land Survey Plat relied upo for the establishment of fence, building, or oth r future ements o the above described parcel on this date, exce t utility parcel, a cept as shown, that there are no encroachments u on the xemises, except ash' gjgft an that there is no apparent evid ce or said pare I, exc\e~ ~S)prr/ I any legal ctloZl _ ,jiq a/n'd@~' fKs survey within three years after you on any def '.i~M'E c 2.q are than ten years hom the data of •0 0= HOC _ EXHIBIT J PRo POs ED 5 1 TE PLAN EXHIBIT 6 May 15, 2002 Kathi and Gordy Jack 3360 Independence Ct Wheat Ridge CO 303-274-5959 We are requesting a variance of 10 feet 6 inches from the north side property line, in order to build a storage/garden shed. This would place the shed 4 feet 6 inches from the north property line. Below are several points that we ask you to consider and use as the basis for your decision. 1. Last fall (early October, 2001) in anticipation of our shed construction, we contacted the city to inquire about needs for permits and required setbacks. We stated that we intended to build a shed in our backyard. We were told that the setback requirements were: • Front yard: 30 feet • Side yard: 15 feet • Rear yard: 5 feet Side yard, to us, meant the area on the side of the house - between the front yard and the back yard. Never had we heard the term used to describe the side property line. Since we had asked about the back yard setbacks and were told that the rear yard setback was 5 feet, we moved forward with our project comfortable that the required setback was 5 feet. Apparently we misunderstood the term "side yard" and subsequently the required setback. In late October, a retaining wall was constructed to create a level place for our shed. When constructing the wall, the contractor discovered that the slope of the yard was more than he had anticipated. Not only was the wall on the north side of the shed location required, but now it was determined that an additional wall on the south side of the shed would be required in order to retain the slope of the remaining yard, create a level surface and to maintain proper drainage. A rectangular area was built keeping in mind the approximate 10-foot depth of the anticipated shed but not leaving room for adjustments and it was just shy of 5 feet. We had the concrete pad poured in late March 2002 and ordered the shed kit. When looking at the instructions for building the shed, we determined that while the 10' X 16' shed was a several inches shy of the advertised 16' length it was exactly 10' in width. Additionally, the trim on the building would add another scant 1" bringing it that much closer to the property line. We now realized that due to these unanticipated minor errors in measuring and actual finished size and we would be approximately 4 feet 6 inches from the side property line instead of 5 full feet. We completed the application for our permit, delivered it to the city offices and asked up front what we should do about the 6- inch problem. We were told we would need to file for a variance. We completed the variance paperwork and submitted it. The following day we were told that we needed a variance of 10' 6" not just 6". During our conversations with the city employees in those two days, there was additional confusion with the terms "Side Yard" vs. "Side Property Line." Now, approximately 7 month into the project we were fully and painfully aware of the 15 foot set back requirement and the misunderstanding of the term "side yard". 2. In response to the 6 criteria which the board of adjustments bases it's decision: a. Yes, the property in question can 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. b. No, if the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Our street is a dead end street about 2 blocks long. There are 14 home on this street and three of them have storage/garden sheds clearly visible from the street, which are well under the 15-foot setback requirement. Whether variances were requested for dst. On 32"d Ave within two blocks there are two other properties with sheds not meeting the 15-foot or 30 foot set backs. Additionally, there are an unknown number of sheds on other properties that are not meeting the setback requirements but they are not visible from the street. In fact, several of the homes on our street do not meet the 15- foot setback requirement. The home to the north of us is approximately 8 feet from our property line and our own home is 14.5 ft from the other property line. I point these out simply to show that it is not out of character in our neighborhood (our street and the adjacent street) to have a storage or gardening shed a few feet from the side property line. c. Yes, 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. Our property slopes significantly from the south down toward the north (side to side) and from the east down toward the west (back to front). Additionally, there are a large number of mature trees and shrubs on the property that enhance the neighborhood, create some barrier between our home and Wheat Ridge Senior High School, but restrict the possible locations for a storage/garden shed. Across the back of the property the slope is approximately 6% (droppong about 6 feet across the 100 ft length). From the center of the rear property line moving west toward the house the slope is about an 11 % grade. There are other places in the yard where the grade is up to 20%. The location where we would like to construct the shed has only about a 3% grade from east to west (the 16' length of the shed) and an average 6% grade from south to north (the 10' width of the shed) making it the ideal location. To construct the shed in a different location than requested, would not only require removal of the retaining wall and concrete already in place for this specific purpose (the cost of these is about $3,000) but would require removal of mature trees, an additional significantly higher retaining wall(s) to be built and additional concrete to be poured. All of the locations on the property that do not already contain large trees, except for the requested location, present further issues and difficulties. Either the slope is in excess of 15% or a brick patio is in place or building a shed would make access to the back yard very difficult. (The property survey showing the existing trees at the time the project commenced in October 2001 and the grade % is included) d. No, any person presently having an interest in the property has not created the alleged difficulty or hardship. The mature trees and severe slopes of the property were not created by us but were part of the existing property when we purchased it in 2000. While it might be argued that beginning construction of the retaining wall and pad were our own doing, it was our intention to follow the guidelines of the city. It was our understanding that we were under the 5-foot setback requirement; based on the information we were given. Had we been fully aware of the accurate setback requirement prior to commencing, we may still have requested the variance given the topography of the property, but the damages would have been less (very likely up to $6,000) e. No, granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. We discussed the our plans with our closest neighbors who felt that building the shed 4.5 feet from the property line was not a problem. In fact the neighbor most affected, to the north, was very enthusiastic about our plans. Our plan to construct a shed is part of an overall landscape improvement plan which will improve the overall look of our property and the neighborhood. Given the existing sheds in the neighborhood and their locations in relation to their property lines, granting this variance would simply be consistent with what already exists, neither improving or harming the neighborhood. f. No, granting the variance would not benefit or contribute to the neighborhood specifically. We thank you for your time in considering this variance request and will do our best to answer any questions that you might have. y x y ,4 \ 111 East - Rear Side of Property 3° 0 7 Slope from South to North is 6% grade POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. W 14 -o a -0-3 PLANNING COMMISSION / CITY COUNCIL BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN _ Circle One) HEARING DATE: f i/ct I, residing at (name) (address) as the applicant for Case No. A -(j Z - y 3 , hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at d e~ndeaCe -(location) on this T ~kday of )')I a y , 20 0 Z , and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. Signature: NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Planning and Development. MAP e Aplanni nglforms%posti ngcert Rev. 616101 D d G d ~ ! ~ 'U = N G U ~ ~ a a a K a ~ Q d U C m z ? di d ~ C 7 a D K t i C d ~ o N ~ N d ~ - . O m g N a £ o y w o - = 0 o a c 0 N E N!~ _ # M M M M M M M M M ra- m O O O O O O O O O N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ',k N N U Q m 2 $ v U_ 0 0 a Y U c M O M O M N O M (n O M U O M U O M N O M . M N M N G f/I O N O C O O ^2 4- A ~U~ = ~a D Um Um ` W U~ W R UO c UO m h X00 Sv0 600 ENO ~m0 ONO o0 Nm0 0m0 d a x a U IL U m c U' "o U W a o N a 0 ~ a U ~ a U c m a 0 c "o U $ c y ` c ¢ O w c m c d W e o n c W O s n d O Y m w a a s I rv ° U ¢ P wa d Orn cva Y rn m-o a rn m co9 f N9o f l !?a:° a b~v_ Y y y Q o C K 'E C a 7 C K - c K f C C C CC - E C K o C [Y lC 6'- a a N d ~ N W m ° M m ` ~n m mom Uom NO lO mt0 10 UO N _ N N K m d M t M L w M Ol = M L o N V L = o v V= eD N M= D ~n m M L M w M L c ro o Om= a M d M 3 M 2 M M M M M > O M UI W U C y Q j N C E N N 4 CD a d 0 .22 6 0 N £ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ z I~ m O) O N M V ~O V C N O d' V V ~ V' _ U N N N N N N N N N r LLI Y Q a v v N v v v a v v O co rn rn rn m m m rn m m O E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 W V Z M ° M ° M o M ° M ° M M ° M ° M o Q W Z < o n c o n c o m n ~ o n r a o n < o o c n W O xixo CO p LL N 0 R. K z a z ~ Lo 3 ~ d Uh i a N N 0. 0 0.. m z Y U 0 0 a T p U ti d U a 0 E z H v N =I v v N .2 N N C ~ U d 7 a ~ 9 K d c a m y U a K C ~ G Z 10 d ~ NI K C 7 V a O 'r N J N O' O w C ~ N ~Eo a O L 0 O ~ aac 1 .0 m w * o N x u n m o v Q m ° ~ U U _ t Q o 1~ C G a a U C N_ ~ O O 0 0 G> 2! m m O ro O N p L m > U d a01i v Q 6p m N a ao O 0 m m W 9 y U w 2 C N N v N 9 Q 01C .F E N N 0 O1 N 00 y a a ) K C U OW w ° E - u . m ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ z N tp d U V N w T N a ~D U' 0 `o CO `m m ~w0 £ m U ' z a QQ w z O w=0 x~❑ > ~ p N 0~a Z a O w z N _ ¢ c U r, a ro 0 O a W j U O m z N Q. Pte. m 7 N a' m N_ W O .°Jo z z Y U H v T b O .1 U U 'a 0 s. 0 z F 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Ridge Telephone 303/235-2846 FAX 303/235-2857 May 9, 2002 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you that Case No. WA-02-03 a request for approval of a 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3360 Independence Court will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue on May 23, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C\Kathy\BOA\pubnotice\2002\wa0203.wpd * - " Ina-- - ~ MetroScan / Jefferson O--a---- - (CO) • Owner :Eisin ger Robert J;+ Parcel : 020940 Site :3395 Independence St Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered : 04/30/1985 Mail :3395 Independence St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Price Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone :303-237-2924 Bedrm: Bath:1.75 TotRm: YB:1966 Pool: B1dgSF :1,912 Ac: * : MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) • Owner :Janke Jeffrey E/Christine I Parcel :020967 Site :3320 Independence St Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered :08/06/1997 Mail :3320 Independence St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Price :$180,000 Full Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone :303-233-4373 Bedrm: 5 Bath:2.50 TotRm: YB:1953 Pool: B1dgSF :1,804 Ac: * • MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) • Owner :Goldf arb Hermina B - Parcel :020969 Site :3333 Independence St Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered Mail :3333 Independence St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Price Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone Bedrm: Bath:2.25 TotRm: YB:1957 Pool: B1dgSF :2,243 Ac: * • MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) • Owner :Uster Jack Parcel :020973 Site :3405 Independence Ct Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered :06/05/1987 Mail :3405 Independence Ct Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Price :$155,000 Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone :303-239-6880 Bedrm: Bath:2.25 TotRm: YB:1955 Pool: Yes B1dgSF :2,077 Ac: MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) Owner :I1a M Jones Trust Parcel :020996 Site :3400 Independence Ct Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered :06/16/1992 Mail :3400 Independence Ct Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Price Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone Bedrm: Bath:1.75 TotRm: YB:1966 Pool: B1dgSF :1,479 Ac: * • MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) • Owner :Logan Calvin E Parcel :021004 Site :3380 Independence St Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered :01/25/1989 Mail :3380 Independence St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Price :$83,000 Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone :303-986-9156 Bedrm: 2 Bath:1.00 TotRm: Y3:1957 Pool: B1dgSF :1,302 Ac: * • MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) • Owner :Lovaas Dennis W;+ Parcel :021010 Site :3350 Independence St Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered :07/06/1988 Mail :3350 Independence St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Price Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone :303-232-4773 Bedrm: Bath:1.50 TotRm: YB:1953 Pool: B1dgSF :1,877 Ac: * • MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) • Owner :Kanz Virginia Sykes Parcel :021018 Site :3385 Independence St Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered :06/04/1981 Mail :3385 Independence St Wheat Ridge Cc 80033 Price :$125,000 Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone :303-238-2976 Bedrm: Bath:2.25 TotRm: YB:1956 Pool: B1dgSF :1,552 Ac: • MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) • Owner :Jack Gordon C/Kathleen M Parcel :021022 Site :3360 Independence St Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered :09/05/2000 Mail :3360 Independence St Wheat Ridge Co 80033 Price :$269,500 Full Use :1112 Res,Improved Land Phone Bedrm: 4 Bath:2.25 TotRm: YB:1957 Pool: B1dgSF :1,388 Ac: • MetroScan / Jefferson (CO) ; Owner :Jefferson County School District R-1 Parcel :176848 Site :9505 W 32Nd Ave Wheat Ridge 80033 Xfered :03/18/1958 Mail :1829 Denver West Dr Golden Co 80401 Price Use :9169 Exempt,School,Land Phone Bed= Bath: TotRm:l YB:1980 Pool: B1dgSF :173,778 Ac:23.41 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations I 7- (ED 9 g 04 12 ` 0 _ 9 / ry _ 27-B 140 7' I O 1407 021 °r 993' N B N RB 13 26- 8 $ 25 a - m 42 JC .m e m m - 021 140 7'7R A 265' 26 DITCH 26- e 7 14 14 p "T 20 , S,e n 7 m g/ q. 04 0 6 I/ , JC TRC 100 6 N fl D g1 15 6 6-8 ® N g 027 190fi AB i ~ I6 012 6-A ° ° p28 039 59 14D 6' N 0 JEFF CO SCHOOL DIST R- 1 5 ✓ c 17 029 Q V $ c - $ u B. 83 8 - 1 99 029 N 038 m _ n / 18 v . V 037 $ c 4 30 $ 19 110 ' 3 -o 2 031 $ 140fi 119 140 6, ^ 20 .m m ~ 4rr 'sh 15 033 e m ro 15 40 2 C 2-A - 6 033 _ - 'a I M _ N 034 ~ ~ 19 m - N ' 201 2' e N c 25' 25' v 65' 662.40' 110 . rR 32nd A v e n u e 69057460 E Adjoining 39- 273 39-a7~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT on May 23, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petition shall be heard: Case No. WA-02-03: An application filed by Gordy & Kathi Jack for approval of a 10.5 foot side yard setback variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 4.5 foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3360 Independence Court. Kathy Field, Senior Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: May 9, 2002 C:\Kafiy\BOA\PUBHRGS\2002\020523B.wpd Gordy and Kathi Jack 3360 Independence Ct Wheat Ridge CO 80033 303-274-5959 Description of Project: We are planning to build a garden and potting shed that measures 10 ft. by 16 ft. in the back yard of our property. The shed is a purchased kit, which is of wood frame construction. The roof is primarily shingled with asphalt shingles, while the balance of the roof will contain greenhouse windows. A picture of the completed shed brochure is included. A retaining wall was constructed so the shed would be built on a level spot and to alleviate any drainage issues. Additionally a concrete pad has been poured which the shed will be built upon. There are no plans to put any utilities in the shed at this time. The shed will be constructed in the back yard near the northeast corner of our property. The shed will be 18 ft 7 inches from the rear (east) property line. The shed will sit 4 ft 6 inches from the north property line. We do realize that the city requires a 5 ft set back from the property line. While this requirement was explained to the contractor building the retaining wall, upon completion we have determined that the setback will be 6 inches short of the requirement. Unfortunately, due to the slope of our property, the area for the shed was boxed in with landscape timbers, making it extremely difficult to move it in an additional 6 inches. Plus the concrete has been poured within those timbers. We are willing to do what is necessary to get this permit issued, with the given existing setback. If this will require a variance from the planning commission or some other additional approval, we ask for your assistance and recommendations in this area. The total cost of the shed kit (including tax and delivery) was $2,062.97. Approximately $100 - $150 additional will be spent on shingles, paint and other necessary materials. Included with this application are copies of the following: • Small picture of the landscape plan, including the shed location in reference to the driveway, home and property lines • A second copy of the landscape drawing at original size. The scale is 1/8" = 1 ft. • Picture of the shed from the brochure. The small inset picture of the 10 ft by 16 ft shed is what we are planning to build, with the door on the opposite end. • The Land surveying report from August 2000 • Two photographs of the retaining wall and pad for the shed. The smaller picture shows the concrete pad and the retaining wall, while the larger picture was taken prior to the concrete being poured. This picture is taken from the end of the driveway and shows the location of the retaining wall in relation to our neighbor's fence/wall. aG JEFFERSON COUNTN COLORADO 12EAL. PROPER"T1' NOTICE OF N":11,t!:1TION NOTICE. DATE - NIAl" 1, 2002 THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL °o xnoo IIrJdlrrrlLrr((16,r11n1~LIu~LILdIuuILrlLunL *********************AM**5-DIOrr80033 JACK GORDON C JACK KATHLEEN M 3360 INDEPENDENCE CT WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033-5760 LICG.\i. DFS(NIP1lON: DAVG k 199600 M()( K: ill: 0016 W N. PROP1c10(1 -\DDRUNN: 3360INDEPENDENCECT S(111 Dt IT Nn: 021022 PROITIZ IN ( 1, Its; RRICS"1' NE %I? \('"I"t\1. \'.\1.1 E S 207,000 .1. hc%in \Fc(':rsi y .IrII'ct'.nu (lwalc \..c~wr 1011 .Icl'frr=nn (unnh I'h~~~ Golden. CO 80419-2500 303- 2714" - Info 303- 271-8616 - Fax 303-271-8601 -TOO Omce Houn 7:30 am. - 5:30 p.m. (Mom through Fri.) 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. (Monday, June 3, 2002) "I = 27 'l' 03 RV,: 69 Residential 1212 I\\ PISI 121( 1': 3141 Prior actual value was $ 207,000 and this represents a change in value of $ 0. Your property was valued as it existed on January 1 ofe current year. The R RI r \ l_.\u \c'1 t \I. \ \LUE.. presents the market value of your property as of the appraisal date. The appraisal date is June 30, 2000. The re tax notice you receive next 7anuary will be based on this value. If the senior citizen pproperty tax exemption has been applied to your property, rt is not reflected in the value shown above but it wlll be reflected in the taxes due on your January tax bill. The value on this notice is the full actual value. 'the appsisal data used to establish value was from the 24 mor)th penod ending June,30, 2000. Ifdata is insufficierll-during this time period Assessors may use data going-back in six month increments from the five year period ending June 30, 2 00. RESID NVENTORY: (Inventory displayed is for the first improvement) Design I Ranch Year Builtt 1957 Land Char: TYP Items No. Areas Const. SOFT Adi. Category SOFT TOTAL BATHS .5 FIRST FLOOR MASONRY 1388 MAIN FIREPLCE 2.0 BSMT TOTAL 1388 MAIN BEDROOM 3.0 DETACH GARAGE FRAME 516 BSMT BEDROOM 1.0 BSMT FINISHED 79 2 SALES: The sales listed below are an example of market sales and are not Case No.: App: Last Name: App: First Name: Owner: Last Name: Owner: First Name: App Address: City, State Zip: App:Phone: Owner Address: City/State/Zip: Owner Phone: Project Address: Street Name: //State, Zip: Case Disposition: Project Planner: File Location: Notes: Follow-Up: A0203 Quarter Section Map No.: NW27.. _ Pack Related Cases: F ordy & Kathi Case History: 10.5 ft side yard setback ame ariance from the 1S foot requirement resulting in a .5 ft side yard setback_ 3601ndependence Ct . Review Body: BOA-5/23/02 heat Ridge, CO 80033 - 03-274-5959 APN' 9-272-15-039 ame 2nd Review Body: _ 2nd Review Date: ame s _ i Decision-making Body: BOA-5/23/02 360 Approval/Denial Date: Independence court - - heat Ridge, CO 80033 Reso/Ordinance No.: Pesicka ctive Conditions of Approval: District: III Date Received: /2/2002. Pre-App Date: I