Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-98-137500 West 29th Avenue The Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Telephone 303/ 237-6944 FAX 303/234-5924 April 28, 1998 Mr. B.L. Jordan 14537 West 57' Place - Arvada, CO 80002 :I E- WA-98-13 Dear Mr. Jordan: City of Wheat Ridge Please be advised that at its meeting of April 23, 1998, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request for a 25' setback variance to the 50' requirement for the address located at 5026 Ward Road. Attached is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution stating the Board's decision which became effective the date of the meeting, April 23, 1998. Should you decide to appeal the decision of the Board, you will need to notify the Jefferson County district court in writing within 30 days of the Board's decision. Please feel free to contact me at 235-2846 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Barbara Delgadillo Planning and Development Secretary Attachment: Certificate of Resolution /bd cc: WA-98-13 C:\Barbara\BOA\CORRES P\wa9813 Jordan.wpd 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 April, 1998. CASE NO: WA-98-13 APPLICANT'S NAME; Jordan's Building Center LOCATION: 5000 Ward Road, Wheat Ridge, CO Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member JUNKER, the following resolution was stated: WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-98-13 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the required fifteen 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-98-13 be, and hereby is, approved. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for a 25-foot front yard setback variance to the 50-foot setback requirement for the purpose of allowing a six-foot fence. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Approval of this request does not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. 2. The applicant will provide complete landscaping of the area to enhance the essential character of the locality. The neighbor to the north agrees to the site plan modifications. Case No. WA-98-13/Board of Adjustment Resolution Page 2 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the letter of agreement be signed, notarized and recorded to verify the agreement. 2. That the letter of agreement be maintained in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98-13 be, and hereby is, approved. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. VOTE: Yes: Echelmeyer, Howard, Hovland, Junker, Mauro and Thiessen No: None Absent: Abbott and Walker DISPOSITION: Request for a 25-foot front yard setback variance to the 50-foot setback requirement for the purpose of allowing a six-foot fence was approved. . ADOPTED and made effective this 23rd day of April, 1998. _vDA M~1IP?O, Chai man Board of Adjustment Ann aazzer , Secretary Board of Adjustment Disposition: A request for approval of a one-foot side yard setback for the purpose of allowing a storage shed was approved. Chair MAURO informed the applicant that his request had been approved. M"Case No. WA-98-13 2' Sean McCartney presented the case which was an application by B. L. Jordan, owner of Jordan's Building Center, for approval of a 25-foot front yard setback variance to the 50-foot front yard setback requirement to allow a six-foot fence for property zoned Commercial-Two and Light Industrial and located at 5026 Ward Road. He entered into the record a letter from the adjacent property owner, Robert Harmsen, indicating approval of the variance request. Mr. McCartney reviewed the staff report and entered into the record the zoning ordinance, case file, packet materials and exhibits. He informed that the property was within the City of Wheat Ridge, that all notification and posting requirements had been met, and that there was jurisdiction for the Board to hear the case. This case was originally presented to the Board on May 22, 1997 at which time the applicant was requesting a 35-foot front yard setback variance. The Board continued the case until August 28 because the applicant and his neighbor had not come to an agreement about the request. The Board heard the case again on August 28, 1997 at which time the request was denied because the facts of findings did not support, approval and the property owner to the north had several points of opposition. Mr. McCartney informed that Mr. Jordan had come to an agreement with the property owner to north for the present variance request which would allow adequate visibility to the north. He stated that Mr. Jordan had agreed to landscape the entire area to bring it into conformance with the essential character of the locality. He noted that the applicant felt the loss of storage space on the property due to the 50-foot setback requirement, would present an economic hardship for him. (Board Member THIESSEN arrived at 7:53 p.m.) Mr. McCartney reviewed the criteria used to evaluate an application for a variance and informed that it was staffs conclusion that the criteria did support approval of the request. He stated that the property was currently being used as a storage yard and had not created a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood; however additional screening of the storage material with landscaping along Ward Road could provide a visual relief from the local industrial character. He concluded by requesting an addition to the recommended Board of Adjustment Pa.-e 4 04/23/98 motion that approval of the request be based upon the signed agreement between the applicant and the property owner to the north. (A draft copy of this agreement was provided to the Board members and entered into the record as an exhibit.) Following questions and discussion, the applicant's representative addressed the Board. Glen Gidley 8684 West Warren Drive Mr. Gidley was sworn by Chair MAURO. He stated that he is a principal with the consulting firm of Zoning and Planning Associates. He reviewed the history of the variance request stating that when Mr. Jordan purchased the subject property for the purpose of lumber storage for his business, he was unaware of the setback requirements for erecting a six-foot fence. He presented the site plan showing plans for the fence with the variance. He referred to the agreement between the two property owners and stated that if the variance is approved, the agreement will be signed, notarized and recorded with Jefferson County. He informed that Exhibit B was presented as an optional concept to use the area in front of the fence for parking purposes if the variance was not approved. He concluded by stating his belief that the criteria supported the variance request. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member JUNKER, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-98-13 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the required fifteen 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-98-13 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: Request for a 25-foot front yard setback variance to the 50- foot setback requirement for the purpose of allowing a six-foot fence. Board of Adjustment Page 5 04/23/98 For the Follow..tg Reasons: 1. Approval of this request does not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. 2. The applicant will provide complete landscaping of the area to enhance the essential character of the locality. 3. The neighbor to the north agrees to the site plan modifications. With the Following Conditions: That the letter of agreement be signed, notarized and recorded to verify the agreement. Board Member ECHELMEYER offered an amendment which would require that the agreement be maintained in the future. The amendment was accepted by Board Member HOVLAND. Mr. Gidley then read into the record a portion of the agreement which stated: "The Jordan's, owners of property located at 5026 Ward Road, do hereby agree and commit to the following limitations on use and development of said legally described parcel for the benefit of Jackie Ogilvie and Sean Baker, owners of property adjacent to and north of the above-described property: (1) within the 55 x 90-foot triangular area labeled restricted height area upon attached Exhibit A, no structures in excess of 36 inches in height shall be constructed or installed and no landscape material shall be planted or allowed to grow in excess of 36 inches in height without specific written consent of and approval by the parties hereto and recording of said consent and approval. In addition no outside storage within the fenced area, but within the front yard minimum setback of fifty feet shall exceed six feet." Board Member HOVLAND asked for clarification as to whether the agreement would stay in effect as part of the variance if the property were to be sold. Sean McCartney replied that the agreement would stay in effect if it is addressed within the conditions and requirements of the variance. . Following further discussion, a vote was taken. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0, with Board Members ABBOTT and WALKER absent. Disposition: A request for approval of a25-foot front yard setback variance to the 50- foot setback requirement for the purpose of allowing a six-foot fence was approved. Chair MAURO informed the applicant that his request had been approved. Board of Adjustment Page 6 04/23/98 FROr JORDAN'S BLDG CTR 303 A21 1823 WARD ROAD $TORME SM V"d ROM VWumt CO APO 23, 1998 Wheat Ridge Planning & Zoreng 75oo West 29th Avemre Wheat RUge, CO 80215 Dear Sir. of JoWanIs Su"ft Center since they first began business at 5000 1 have been a neighbor Ward Road. Their business has always had a nice appearance and been an asset to the community. 1 have. reviewed their new fence and landscaping plan with Lee Jordan. I understand what they are tying to accomplish and feel it vM enhance their operation a$ weq as improve the appearance of the business- AS a neighbor and business owner I feel it is in the hest interest of the community to approve Jortlads fence and tarrdscaping Oaft sincerely, Robert Ham>sen P. 2 SIGN-UP SHEET Case NdAWA 98-13: An application by Jordan's Building Center for approval of a 25' front yard setback variance to the 50' front yard setback requirement to allow a 6' fence. Said property is zoned Commercial- Two and located at 5026 Ward Road. Name Address W Wi ZALL OODi Co . 90227 P,r CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 23, 1998 DATE PREPARED: April 15, 1998 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-98-13 \Jordan's CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney Building Center ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 25' setback variance to the 50' setback requirement to allow a 6' fence. LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) 5026 Ward Road Jordan's Building Center 5000 Ward Road Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 B.L. Jordan 14537 West 57`" Place Arvada, CO 80002 APPROXIMATE AREA: 45,000 square feet PRESENT ZONING: Commercial-Two and Light Industrial PRESENT LAND USE: Lumber storage SURROUNDING ZONING: W: Unincorporated Jefferson County, S: Commercial-Two and Light Industrial, N: and E: Light Industrial SURROUNDING LAND USE: W: Office / Professional and Commercial S:, N:, and E: Commercial DATE PUBLISHED: April 3, 1998 DATE POSTED: April 9, 1998 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: March 27, 1998 AGENCY CHECKLIST: ( ) (XX) NOT REQUIRED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: ( ) (XX) NONE ENTER INTO RECORD: ( ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) ZONING ORDINANCE ( ) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (XX) 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. I. REQUEST This case was originally heard before the Board on May 22, 1997. At that time, the applicant was requesting a 35' front yard setback variance to allow a 6' fence within the front property. The Board continued the case until August 28 on the grounds that the applicant and his neighbor had not come to any agreement about the request. On August 28, the Board re-heard the request for the variance and ultimately denied the request stating that the facts of findings did not support approval and the property owner to the north had several points of opposition. The applicant is now requesting approval of a 25' front yard setback variance, to the 50' front yard setback requirement to allow a 6' fence in the front of the property. Approval of this request will permit the applicant to construct a 6' tall solid wood fence needed for the screening of an existing lumber storage yard. Currently, the site is used for a lumber storage yard ancillary to the lumber yard and building center located to the south. The lumber storage yard is contained by a temporary, 6' chain link fence. Pursuant to Section 26-23 (3)(b), of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, "merchandise, material or stock may be stored or displayed behind the front of the buildings within side or rear yards only where completely screened from adjacent properties and streets by a six foot opaque wall or fence." Buildings in the Commercial-Two zone district must retain a 50' front yard setback from the front property line. Therefore, storage on the properties located within the Commercial-Two zone district must have a front yard setback of 50' as well. II SITE PLAN As shown on the attached site plan, the applicant intends to completely landscape the front 25' of the property. According to the plan there will be 145 low growing shrubs and 5 street trees. The Code of Laws requires that there be 1 street tree per every 30' of street frontage. Because the property is 150' wide, there needs to be 5 street trees. According to the applicant, he has met with the neighbor to the north and have agreed to allow for a large sight distance triangle for more than adequate visibility of the shops to the north (refer to attached site plan). III CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria to evaluate an application for a variance: L 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 denied, this property could yield a reasonable return in use, service and income as storage is a permitted accessory use in the Commercial-Two zone district. The fence would need to be located 50' from the front property line. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No. The plight of the owner is not due to a unique circumstance. The owner is seeking to maximize the full extent of the property. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. Approval of the variance could enhance the essential character of the neighborhood, as it would allow for the construction of a screening fence that would screen the existing stored material. Also, the inclusion of required street trees (5) and other landscaping material would also add to the character. 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 is a typical rectangular site, located in a relatively level are of Wheat Ridge. Also, the property is 300' in depth and allows for a storage yard of 150'X 250' (37,500 square feet), if the property were to be designed to the strict letter of the regulations. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification? Yes. Anyone may apply for the same type of variance request. However, because variances are reviewed on a case by case basis, the outcome may not be the same. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property? Yes. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to lessen the amount of land lost to setbacks. If the applicant were to comply with the required 50' setback, there will be 7,500 square feet of commercially priced property not being used for his storage yard. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Yes. The hardship has been created by the applicant and the owner who have interest in the property. 8. Would the granting of the variation be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to ° ° n :~hich the property islocated? other property or imiprovernents in "we neighbor1 neighborhood i oNo. Approval of the variance, to allow for a 6' screening fence 25' from the front property line, will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. The applicant has agreed to strategically place the landscaping as to allow for maximum visibility of the property to the Board of Adjustment Page 3 WA-98-13 north. 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 development of a screening fence will not impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. Because access onto the site will continue to be from the south property (5000 Ward Road), there should not be an increase in congestion in the public streets. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, 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? Although the granting of the variance is based solely upon individual benefit, there are no negative impacts attributed with the approval of this request. Also, the applicant has agreed to completely landscape the 25'X 150' area in front of the fence to provide additional screening. IV STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes that the above criteria does support approval of the request. The property is currently being used as a storage yard, and has not created a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Additional screening of the storage material with landscaping along Ward Road, may provide a visual relief form the local industrial character. V RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Option A: "I move that case no. WA-98-13, a request for a 25' front yard setback variance to the 50' front yard setback requirement for property zoned Commercial-Two and located at 5026 Ward Road, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Approval of this request does not adversely effect the public's health, safety and welfare. 2. The applicant will provide complete landscaping of the area to enhance the essential character of the locality. 3. The neighbor to the north agrees with the site plan modifications." Option B: "I move that case no. WA-98-13, a request for a 25' front yard setback variance to the 50' front yard setback requirement for property zoned Commercial-Two and located at 5026 Ward Road, be Board of Adjustment Page 4 WA-98-13 DENIED for the following reasons: 1. A legal 6' tall screening fence could be located 50' from the front property line without the need of a variance. 2. There are alternatives available such as consolidation of the two properties. This would result in a 40' setback for the fence based on location of the existing building." Board of Adjustment Page 5 WA-98-13 ARVADA - W 5]ND AVE _ _l w~AT wosE J T ¢ eo_ae wz e4 a 1 1 Pi , r 1 1N TRIAL LTD. ~~I WZ-635 ~ `1 I I D z R0 A . y RANCHER INC. T ~~-w som n PID Q ~L~ ~ WZ-T-]6 MACO ~ ~ OWL) RHOR ' PAR $ INO SUED VISION PI PARY N I BUSINESS ID C,ENB2 SUB, PID NICH0L.l5 6~ Q~,' 4R 1 TRACT 6 C & WZ-' 04 9 / wz_Ta-ua OFFI O AL -ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY ZONING MAP PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY u EAT RI DGE NH EAT OWNERSHIP) -'^'-C TY E - LIE I I LMT JA COLORADO WATER FEATURE « DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 Lost Revision: September 20, 1996 M THIN VISTA PGD RETIREMENT 7ltt DEPARThaJi OF PL. MIN6 AND DEVa R41:W - 235-2852 L:\DAAWINGS\PLANNING\DS\SE17 WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: August 28, 1997 Page 2 2. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE, AGENDA Mr. McCartney informed the Board that Case No. WA-97-21, an application by Fred Emich III, was withdrawn. Motion was made by Board Member THIESSEN, seconded by Board Member ABBOTT, that the agenda be approved as amended. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one came forward to speak. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No WA-97-8: An application by Jordan's Building Center for approval of a 35' frontyard setback variance to the 50' frontyard setback requirement for the construction of a fenced storage yard. The property is in the Commercial-Two and Light Industrial zone districts and located at 5026 Ward Road. Sean McCartney presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Vice Chairman MAURO accepted. Board Member THIESSEN asked if the storage currently on site is legal and will it have to be moved without the variance, and Mr. McCartney answered the storage is permitted; it is the setback of the fence that is not. The variance is to allow the 6' fence to be placed in front of the building. The landscaping variance is still required and is part of this request. Board Member HOWARD was wondering how long this property has been zoned Commercial-Two (C-2), and Mr. McCartney replied he does not know, and commented it is the only C-2 in that area. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the lumber yard meets the current standards for parking, and Mr. McCartney replied yes. Mr. McCartney continued saying the `additional' fence is referring to the fence being slatted or a solid wooden fence. The fence will have to be changed and the landscaping put in regardless of this variance. If the variance is not approved, the fence will have to be moved back 501. The applicant, Lee Jordan, 14470 W. 56th Place, Arvada, CO, was sworn in. He was not aware anyone was opposing his request until WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: August 28, 1997 Page 3 just minutes before the last meeting, and there was not sufficient time to work out an agreement. A landscape architect was hired to draw up a plan that included all requirements by the City, and one that would eliminate any site limitations when traveling north. Mr. Jordan's neighbor, Jackie Olgivie, told him she would oppose any request for a variance - period. Mr. Jordan feels he has a right to the use of his property as long as it does not negatively impact the neighborhood, all regulations are abided by, and that his property's appearance is not dragged down in any way. He feels the variance he is requesting addresses all of the issues above. Mr. Jordan showed a video taken traveling both ways and showed that the signage can be seen when going north. He explained what trees and shrubs will be planted and where river rock will be placed. Mr. Jordan added all trees will be planted out of the sight triangle. They have also hired a commercial real estate appraiser with 25 years experience, and Mr. Jordan read and entered into record a letter from Ketchem and Company, labeled Exhibit `A'. Mr. Jordan said they have taken the necessary steps to consider his neighbor's concerns and have gone to the expense to make sure that his actions do not impact them negatively in any way. The proposal will have a positive effect on the neighborhood in general and will help the value of the Olgivie's property as well as his. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked Mr. Jordan to explain the reason for the video. Mr. Jordan said only to see the signage of the Olgivie's tenants when driving north on Ward Road and to see that the proposed landscape plan will not impact them. He feels their opposition to this variance is moot. Mr. Jordan said he is trying to meet their concerns as well as the City's ordinances and requirement while still being able to utilize his ground as much as possible. Jackie Olgivie, P.0. Box 280851, Lakewood, CO, was sworn in. She discussed the previous meeting and stated that her concerns are still that this fence would limit visibility to their property for the north bound traffic on Ward Road. Mr. Olgivie ran his business for over 30 years from this property and for the last ten years it has been rented out to various tenants to produce their retirement income. All the businesses were setup around a 50 foot setback created for the reason of clear visibility and access to the different properties. They have tried to work with Mr. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: August 28, 1997 Page 4. Jordan, however, the compromise of a 10-15 foot setback was rejected. They also requested the fence height be restricted and that a large tree not be planted close to their driveway. Mrs. Olgivie voiced her concerns regarding the proposed amendment by the former planning director to allow a 10 foot high screening fence in certain districts. She continued saying their attorney feels the proposal would adversely effect the value of their property. Her existing tenants are concerned with their ability to sell their products and/or services if they lose visibility of the sign and building. Her tenants do types of work and services to the public and pay a great deal of sales tax. She also feels the proposed variance will reduce the visibility and create a safety issue to their entrance on the south side of Ward Road. She explained and entered into record photos labeled Exhibit `B', and a site plan labeled Exhibit `C'. Mrs. Olgivie ended by saying through her research, real estate information, and the legal advice given to her, she feels this proposal will decrease the markability of her property and negatively impact the welfare, and that current and potential tenants have the same concerns. There is also a traffic safety concern and so they do oppose this proposal. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked what is the nature of her tenant's business, and Mrs. Olgivie replied Ted's Sheds, Custom Cars, and one tenant that does auto repair. Vice Chairman MAURO asked if the proposed sight triangle would be adequate, and Mrs. Olgivie said the sight triangle is necessary and also feels planting smaller trees would help. Mr. McCartney reminded the Board that the 2250 square foot landscape variance is still in effect. Board Member ECHELMEYER wanted to know if the amendment proposed by Glen Gidley is fact now, and Mr. McCartney replied no, it has been held up until the new director joins staff and then he will make the proposal. Board Member THIESSEN asked if it was legal to stack things higher than the fence, and Mr. McCartney said it states in the code nothing can be stacked higher than the 6' fence. No further questions were asked. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: August 28, 1997 Page 5 Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, that Case No. WA-97-8, an application by Jordan's Building Center, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The Board's conclusions relating to Criteria #1, #2, #4, #6, #7, and #10 would indicate an appropriate negative response to this request. 2. Due to the lack of demonstrated hardship or unique circumstances for which the Board could justify granting the amount of square footage for this variance. 3. The property owner immediately to the north made several persuasive points in opposition to the variance. Motion was seconded by Board Member THIESSEN. Motion carried 5-0, with Board Member HOVLAND abstaining. Resolution attached. B. Case No WA-97-22: An application by Fred F. Emich III, for approval of a 1500' separation variance to the 1500' minimum separation requirement, to allow for an auto dealership. The property is zoned Commercial-Two and located at Lot 2, Vecchiarelli Industrial Park. Sean McCartney presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman MAURO accepted. Board Member ECHELMEYER voiced concerns regarding the withdrawal of the interpretation case and wondered how a variance would be deserved when it overrides opinions of many people over a long period of time. Mr. McCartney stated this arena is established for adjustment; people come to seek a waiver or variance or use discrepancy with the code. He spoke on zoning and use, and said because of the location, and since the Comprehensive Plan has this an industrial zone classification, the requested use of an automobile dealership would not have a hindrance of the character of the locality. Mr. McCartney continued saying an interpretation would have blanketed the whole Commercial-Two as well as Industrial districts for requirements, but the variance is site by site. Board Member ABBOTT reminded the board this is only staff's opinion, but ultimately the board decides. Mr. McCartney read Sections 26- 22(B)(1) and Section 26-23(B)(1) noting this does not differentiate between an auto dealership and a used car lot. Peter Scott, the attorney representing Mr. Emich, was sworn in Mr. Scott stated this facility would be for a Subaru dealership . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on April 23, 1998, 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: Case No. WA-98-10: An application by Scott and Sharon Galloway for approval of an 8' fence height variance for the north softball field in Randall Park. 2. Case No. WA-98-12: An application by Kim Harrold for approval of a 10' rear setback variance from the 25' setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a driveway to access the rear of the property. Said property is zoned R-2 and located at 4420 Allison. 3. Case No. WA-98-3: An application by Barry Jumpe for approval of a 1' side yard and 1' rear yard setback variance to the 5' side and rear yard setback requirements to allow a storage shed. Said property is zoned R-2 and located at 4201 Reed Street. 4. Case No. WA-98-13: An application by Jordan's Building Center for approval of a 25' front yard setback variance to the 50' requirement to allow a 6' fence. Said property is zoned Commercial-Two and located at 5026 Ward Road. Barbara Delgadillo, Red rding Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: April 3, 1998 The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713 (303) 234-5900 GWh e at City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 Ridge March 27, 1998 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you that Case No. WA-98-13 which is a request for approval of a 25' front yard setback variance to the 50' requirement to allow a 6' fence for the property located at 5026 Ward Road will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on April 23, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the Board of Adjustment. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. e .planing\fomis\pubnotic.wpd ro RECYCLED PAPER `n Ln 2 . -9 m r 0) o =2 9 ~ N U a d m ? w o my m 'V+N ~ O y m LL E Iw 8 O? c6 m M y y ] .20 Z N g of Y~ . CY 0 y t /l N C) N iy CL m Q C)f v o ~i ¢ i m p d H 1 V = Q w O c j E E w t a= F cF 0 a 6 O ~o v m w° ¢ d ¢3 co 0 r a jIYZ[ Ni°n ~i 966t I!JdV'008£ W1Od Sd d SENDER: •v_ :Complete Items l ardor 2 for additional services. b I also wish to receive the }OIIOWin9 SefvlCeB (for an 3 w . :Complete items 3, 4a, and 4 :Prim your name and address on the reveree of this forth so fhal we can (atum this extra fee): ° card to you. :Attach this form to the from of the maitpiscs, or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address g Z o :Wri e'Relum Receipt Requested'on the rtlaspleca below the article number. 2. 13 Restricted Delivery H :The Retum Receipt will show to wham the aNde was del ivered and the data Consult postmaster for fee. delivered. ° p d.~• 3. Article Addressn : 4a. Arficie Number - 2 6 7 EI d E 4b. Service Type- _ rv JACQUELINE S. OGLEVIE ❑ Registered erfified a i w PO BOX 2BOB51 Oao2z8-oast 13 Express Mail Insured w LAKEWOODC ❑ RetumReceipt forMerchandise ❑ COD p - - 7. Date of Delivery Z ~~4rU/~ 0 ¢ S. Received By: (Print Name) - S. Addressee's Address (Only if requested c and fee is paid)- r g 6. Signature: dre ee or Agent) a°. X PS Form 1, December 1994 102595-97-MI79 Domestic Retum Receipt SENDER: :Complete items l andtor2 for additional services.. I also wish to receive the fOIIOWIn9 services (for an Z :Complete items 3,4a, and 4b. :Prim your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): 0 j- :Attach this forth to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back 0 space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address Z - ..permit. Write Return Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. 2.❑Restricted Delivery - m y m :The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was de livered and the date Consult postmaster for fee. ti C ° delivered. 3. Article Addressed to 4a..Arti cle - Number J / er E. a 4b. Service Type m 'CertiHed L ❑ Registered co 001 APACHE STEEL ;ORP . [ ❑ Express Mail Insured ° 12280 W 50'H-P'- E CO 80033-2034 ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD UJh1EAT RIDG 7. Date of D liv ry ~ Received By:(Pdnt Name) 5 8. Addre ee's Address (Only if requested W'. . . and fee is paid) r r g t) 6. Signatur Addr as or Agen A °a. X d. PS Form 3811, De tier 1994 102595-97-6-0179 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: I also wish to receive the PC 9 :Complete Hems 1 anNOr 2 for etltlNOnel services, fOIIOWIng Services (fOf an a Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. : :Print your name and address on the reverse of this forth so that we can return this extra fee): g card to you. ft ore on . Attach this forth tp the orn of the mailpiam' the back if apace does not 1. ❑ Addressee 's Address y pertnrt. :neRm Receipt Requested'on Ue mailplece below the adlde number w t' efu the article was delivered and the date h Delivery 2 . ❑ Restricted om :The Return Receipt will show to w delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. C o 4a. Article Number v r v~ 3. Article Addressed to: Z ` T o. ype. 4b. Service ❑ Registered ertified Y( O B. LEE JORDAN Insured [3 Express Mall C 14585 W BYERS PL ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD ,a GOLDEN CO 80401-5169 o 7. Date of Delivery a 0 r B. Addressee's Address (Only if requested m - 5. Received By: (Print Name) and fee is paid) e ~ gnature:,(AcWesseeorAgent) 0 T a 1025e5-97-a ohs Domestic Return Receipt P Form 3 Decembe 9 , 04/25/98 THU 15:20 FAX 515 432 4738 GATES RUBBER April 22, 1998 Mr. Sean McCartney City of Wheat Ridge Fax #303-235-2857 Dear Mr. McCartney; This letter is in reference to the zoning variance requested by Mr. Lee Jordan for his property at 5026 Ward Road. This property is adjacent to 5040 Ward Road which my family has owned for about 40 years. In the spirit of good neighbor relations, we have reached a compromise with Mr. Jordan, which we feel will work for both parties involved. I have attached the agreement and Exhibit A which is a plan drawing of Mr. Jordan's fence set back variance request. This provides for a sight triangle to our property. We believe that this will eliminate any safety concerns for entering and exiting our property on Ward Road. It will allow customers visual access to our property so that there should be minimal market value impact to our property and our business. Mr. Jordan has agreed to register this agreement against his property. Mr. Gidley, Mr. Jordan's agent, has indicated that a signed, notarized copy of the original agreement will be to me as soon as the variance is approved. With these considerations, I support Mr. Jordan's variance request as shown in the attached Exhibit A, which will be reviewed at the board meeting on April 23, 1998. If you have any questions or I can be of futher help please call me at 515-432-7120. Sincerely, Shaun Baker CC: Glen Gridley Fax # 303-988-8792 Attachments: Jordan/Oglevie/Baker Agreement Exhibit A- Plan iE9 UUZ/UU4 wcdvm2 ZAPA MEMO TO: Board of Adjustment, City of Wheat Ridge From: Glen Gidley, AICP ZON1N6 AND PUNNX& ASSOGATFS 8684 W. Warren On, Lakewood, CO. 80227 Phone: 303 886.4388! Page: 303-606-41181 Fax: 303-988-8782 RE: Variance request case no. WAS& / Lee Jordan • Jordan's BulldlrM Center DATE: April 15, 1988 I have been retain to assist and represent Mr. Lee Jordan, owner of Jordan's Building Center located at 5000 Ward Rd., Wheat Ridge, in his request for approval of a variance from Wheat Ridge Zoning Code requirements regarding height of fences within front yards. Mr. Jordan has purchased property located adjacent to his building center (north) for the purpose of building materials storage related to Jordan's Building Center. The current zoning classification of this separate parcel, known as 5026 Ward Rd. is Commercial - Two (C-2). C-2 specifically permits "Lumber yards and Building Supply stores..." as a principal permitted use provided that unenclosed storage of materials be screened from view from adjacent properties and streets. Mr. Jordan intends to comply with this requirement by constructing a new solid wood fence along Ward Rd. and adding screening materials to the balance of the existing chain link fence along the north and east sides of the property. Since Mr. Jordan owns the property to the south, no additional screening would be added to the south fence. Mr. Jordan would like to construct the new solid wood fence, six feet in height, 25 feet from the front property line as indicated in the accompanying drawing (Exhibit A). Since Wheat Ridge Code Section 26-30 (1) (1) allows fences within required minimum front yards only to a height of 48 inches, a variance must be approved. As Exhibit A shows, the proposed fence would be constructed 25 feet from the front property line, with a tapered triangle at the north end of 30 feet by 50 feet 4500 square feet of landscaping would be installed in the area between the new fence and Ward Rd., including at least 5 street trees and 145 low growing shrubs to meet the City's landscape requirements. Mr. Jordan has agreed to angle the proposed fence back, and to limit height of proposed landscaping within the area indicated upon the drawing to not more than 36 inches in height at the request of the adjacent property owners to the ZAPA MEMO north (Oglevie and Baker). ff this variance is approved, Mr. Jordan will execute an agreement with the owners of the properly to the north to maintain the fence and landscaping as approved by the Board of Adjustment, and to record said agreement. The owners of property to the north have indicated that they support the requested variance, based upon Exhibit A, and upon the recording of the agreement. We have submitted an alternative Exhibit B, which illustrates an alternative design that would meet the Citys fence requirements, landscape requirements, and provide additional parking for the owner. However, while this alternative conforms with the City's development and use standards, it does not address the needs and wishes of the owners to the north. Mr. Jordan would like to accommodate both his needs and the needs of the owners to the north, hence he requests approval of Exhibit A and the associated variance. Your staff will present a complete staff report which will evaluate and draw conclusions regarding 10 criteria which the Board of Adjustment uses in support of your findings and decision. We would like to offer the following in regards to those 10 criteria: Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service, or income df permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the District in which it is located? Since Mr. Jordan purchased this property for the purpose of building materials storage related to his retail business, it is the owner's position that the most reasonable use of the property would be building materials storage, which requires the 6 foot high screening fence. The alternative use as parking, while meeting a secondary need of the owner, would not meet the needs of the adjacent owners. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Yes, as most lots of this type have a main building constructed upon them which establishes a different use and design scenario. 3. if the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No, as there already exist 6 foot high fences with no setback from Ward Rd. only one block north of the subject property (i.e. Jolly Rancher Candies) 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved resuh in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere Inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carded out? If the variance is not granted, the owner will not be able to use 8.3% of his property for the purpose for which he purchased it, therefore this would be a hardship. Additionally, if the variance is not approved, the owner will then comply with the City standards and create a parking area and landscape area which may create a hardship upon the property owner to the north. Mr. Jordan desires not to create such a hardship for his neighbors. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation Is based be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classillcatdon? No, as by law, each spec variance request must be evaluated based upon ifs own set of circumstances and conditions for each individual site. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property! Yes, however alternative solutions will also address this desire. 7. Has the alleged di ficufty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Yes, as Mr. Jordan was not aware of the fence setback requirement prior to purchasing the property since he had observed 6 foot high fences with no setback from the street just one block to the north (i.e. Jolly Rancher Candies). ZAPA MEMO 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood In which the property is located? No, as the general public will not be affected, and the needs of the adjacent property are being addressed through site design and by separate agreement. 9. Would the proposed variation Impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increased the congestion in the public sheets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? No! 10. If It Is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and It is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then, would the granting 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? It has been concluded in criteria 8 and 9 that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and that public health and safety, and public facilities and surrounding property values will not be diminished or impaired. We would further conclude that the surrounding properties, neighborhood and community will benefit from the proposed improvements through both visual enhancements and through economic return to the City through sales and use tax collections. Based upon the above stated facts and conclusions, we request approval of this variance request. THANK YOUt 05/14/88 THU 14:53 FAX 515 432 4736 GATES RUBBER 'STATE OF COLORADO OF JEFFERSON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 7/2512001 B. J DAN 300 COUNTY THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO, AND ACKNOWLEDGED nrrnDr Mr TRTR 19T DAY OF MAY, 1998, BY B. L. JORDAN AND EDITH E. JORDAN. 0 d f w y N V1 0 Zfi %A N V ~ T ttmb N A fi 3s P o a D b 0 V4 d Z ~ 1-4 D ~ T of b N r~D ,n O wx ~o 0 0 D C's m EXHIBIT A too- PU If v V, q o • o EDITH E. 3 DAN Sc {TO,% C-) m 0 C3 7 72 G Y rn 70 IA0021003 ts1 0 To p,a G/~. C N E2 ~ E / 5 IN P R.r• N(s N 1 in. = 20 ft. 05/14/98 THU 14:53 FAX 515 432 4736 GATES RUBBER AGREEMENT Bobby L. Jordan and Edith E. Jordan, owners of property located at 5026 Ward Rd., Wheat Ridge, Colorado, legally described as follows: LOT 18, STANDLEY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO (THE SOUTH 150' OF THE NORTH 325' OF THE WEST 300' OF LOT 18) do hereby agree and commit to the following limitations on use and development of said legally described parcel for the benefit ofJackie Oglevle and Shaun Baker, owners of property adjacent to, and north of the above legally described parcel known as 5040 Ward Rd., to wit: 1. Within that 55 foot by 90 foot triangular area labeled "RESTRICTED HEIGHT AREA upon attached Exhibit A, no structures in excess of 361nches in height shall be constructed or installed, and no landscape plant materials shall be planted or allowed to grow in excess of 36 inches in height, without specific written consent of and approval by the parties hereto, and recording of said consent and approval. 2. In addition, no outside storage within the fenoed area, but within the from yard minimum setbatdt of 5o feet, shall exceed 6 feet in height. AGREED: PJAVW - ACCEPTED: }~GCSr~i cii "J by . J n v Jackie 103levic, J Z Z4* • 8 Edith .Jordan . Shaun Baker DATE SIGNED: //a5~/yam 10003/003 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this nxs day of April, 1998, by Bobby L. Jordan and Edith E. Jordan. My commission expire seal. 5/2001. Witness my hand and official AMES AlaSkly f ?mm nn arlvrpc R.h. (Le f - ` ~ N taPublic ~ The City of ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION ~1Vheat ~Ridare Department of Planning and Development 6 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone (303) 237-6944 Applicant ~%f,'UiFn &ed elj~, Cddress fi0©o A-;,f cl Phone -7a~- ~2/ /yam Owner 11 1_ J~~~~ Address %~/5371✓,5 l%h Phone ~/~~3s J Location of request S~.~ 1~; eL/Fe/ ee Type of action 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 Subdivision Street vacation e Preliminary Miscellaneous plat Final Solid waste landfill/ ❑ See attached procedural guide mineral extraction permit for specific requirements. El Other Detailed Description of request 2. 4®/2- Pr 6g I P,( iFF Wc-r- 1A) -14L e- 0 5 ~ (La'H ~ ETA f7 List all persons and companies 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 and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney from the owner which approved of this action on his half. Signature of Applicant Subscribed and sworn to me qq this-/day of 19 9,5P SEAL No ar u My commission expires now Date Received - Receipt No. M?o Case No. Y//y~ The printed portion of this form approv y the Colorado Real Estate Commission (SS-i STATEMENT OF SETTLEMENT "PURCRASERS" 7,) LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY 5440 WARD RD. # 200 ARVADA, CO 80002 PROPERTY AMRESS 5026 WARD ROAD ARVADA COLCBZADO 80002 SM-TER -S DM BROITMS 17C. A COLM4DO CYO PMATICC SAYER BOBBY L. XREAN and EDITH E. Jd1RDAN SEr LEmEtq r DATE Nova bee 27, 1996 DATE OF PRORATICAI Novanber 27, 1996 debit credit C11VIRACT SU PRICE. 220, 000.00 DEPOSIT RECD BY. ACRE & =ANY 5,000.00 TAX CERTIFICATE. 20.00 RECORD: KDRRAMIY DE®. 6.00 DOCUV TIIR Y FEE. 22.00 TAX FUR CURRENT YR. 19961331 DAYS @ $18.5640 6,144.68 CLDSIIG FEE. 125.00 OThM BUYER CFiU. CC"9SS1aVS DUE @ 2.5 PERCEff 5,500.00 S TOTALS 225,673.00 11,144.68 Balance due fran Buyer 214,528.32 70TAL9 225,673.00 225,673.00 The above figures do not imtude sales or use taxes on personal property. APPROVED AND ACCEPTED PURCHASER (S) REAL ESTATE BROKER(S)