Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-98-147500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Whelp Telephone 303/ 237-6944 FAX 303/234-5924 June 1, 1998 Mr. David Peterson 10320 W. 35'h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: WA-98-14 Dear Mr. Peterson: Ridge Please be advised that at its meeting of May 28, 1998, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request for a nine foot front yard setback variance from the 30' setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a detached garage at 10320 W. 3516 Avenue. Attached is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution stating the Board's decision which became effective the date of the meeting, May 28, 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 /bd cc: WA-98-14 C:Wubar WA\CORRESP\wa9814.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 28th day of May, 1998. CASE NO: WA-98-14 APPLICANT'S NAME: David Peterson LOCATION: 10320 W. 35' Avenue WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98-14 is an appeal to this Board from a decision of an administrative officer; and ' WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and there were no protests registered against it; 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-98-14 be, and hereby is, approved. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A request for approval of a nine-foot front yard setback variance to the thirty-foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of a two-car garage. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The addition of an enclosed garage would allow the structure to comply with the other residences m uh-1 neighborhood. 2. Because of the triangular shape of the lot and the location of existing residential structure, the applicant would be unable to locate a detached garage on the property without the need for a variance. 3. There are other properties within the surrounding neighborhood which have 25-foot front yard setbacks and most of the homes within a five-block radius have an enclosed garage. Approval of this variance would bring this property into compliance with the residences of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The property was platted with a triangular shaped configuration with the rear property line running west at 115.5' long to the east at 26.35' long. The shape of the property and the location of the dwelling on the property creates a physical hardship for any development of this property. Case No. WA-98-14/Board of Adjustment Resolution Page 2 Garages are a common addition to single family residences; therefore, approval of the request would not be detrimental. to the public welfare or other improvements in the neighborhood. 6. Approval of this request will not impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets. If the application is approved as proposed, the garage would encroach into the front yard setback, thereby allowing for a nine-foot rear yard setback between the proposed structure and the rear property line. Also, approval of this request will allow for adequate separation between all surrounding properties. According to the Wheat Ridge Traffic Engineer, a garage on the west side of the property could create traffic conflicts between motorists approaching the intersection of Miller Street and West 35th Avenue and the applicant backing out of his driveway. A garage on the west side should be avoided, and an access on the west side should also be avoided. Although request for this variance is solely for the benefit of the applicant, there would be a resulting benefit to the neighborhood by allowing this property to conform to the neighborhood character of having garages. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The entire existing driveway shall be removed and returned to landscaped area, including street trees as per City ordinance. 2. The garage structure shall be brick veneered as described by the applicant. 3. The new drive shall enter directly from the street with no substantial lateral extensions or circular access permitted. 4. Separation between structures shall be in compliance with building and/or fire codes. VOTE: Yes: Abbott, Echelmeyer, Howard, Hovland, Mauro, Thiessen and Walker. No: None Absent: Junker Case No. WA-98-14/Board of Adjustment Resolution Page 3 ADOPTED and made effective this 28th day of May, 1998. A MAURO, Chairperson Board of Adjustment Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment My name is Doug Lewis and I live at 10305 W 34th Ph . the property adjacent and directly south of Mr. Peterson's. My wife and I bought the property in 1977. It was built for my Grandparents in 1962. I would strongly urge council not to grant the setback variance for the following reasons: First, as staff as noted, the other residences in the neighborhood comply with the legal setback, in an area of this age many residents have found their living requirements change. I think it is significant that those in the neighborhood who have remodeled or added on to their homes have done so under current zoning rules and not been granted front setback variances. Second, because of a exception to zoning rules known as "existing nonconformity" Mr. Peterson is actually requesting two variances for the proposed structure. When the previous owner's house was built in the early 60's it featured an open carport on the east side of the house.At some point the carport was enclosed for living space which placed the southeast corner of the house within 5 feet of our property line. Whether this was legal at the time or just never received approval I don't know, Mr. Cox the previous owner was often quite casual about boundaries, codes, and rules, as the placement of a,-portion-of -his driveway-on-our Property and the garden shed . might indicatc.lBut as I was informed by Mr. McCartney because of the so called"existing nonconformity, an attached structure can be placed as close as the existing house, 5 feet instead of the legal rear setback distance of 15 feet. This is a much greater exception than the one Mr. Peterson asks of this council, as the front setback is exceeded by only a portion of the garage in a triangle shape, in contrast with regard to the rear setback Mr. Peterson would like to take advantage of this loophole for the entire length of the garage. Effectively erecting a solid wall, 50 feet long by probably at least 15 feet tall. This length is more than half his house's original length and is also well over twice the size of a standard 2 car garage. This could very possibly . be a safety and fire hazard by restricting access to the back of the house to such a long narrow tunnel between his garage wall and our 6 foot solid fence In addition, speaking very honestly, the garage would be in the direct line of sight from a good portion of our living area including the window over the sink which I find myself standing while doing dishes and because our back yard is not very deep I greatly dread the claustro hobic effect that such a large structure looming over us will have. $ Finally, it should be repeated that a garage could be constructed on the west side of the house without any variance necessary. There is also no existing curb cut so that shouldn't be a consideration and the existing concrete slab is probably so cracked due to our wonderful expansive soil it will probably have to be replaced anyway. I have to think there is a strong foundation for the required setback distances. They were not arrived at arbitrarily and that much forethought and planing went into their enactment- Also I cannot believe that the purpose of the "existing nonconformity" was to reward a current offense of setback rules by allowing future unlimitednoncompliance. Thankyou foryour careful consideration of this matter. PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: WA-98-14 DATE: May 28, 1998 REQUEST: Nine foot front yard setback variance from the 30' setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a detached garage. Position on Request (Please check) SPEAKER NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE (PLEASE PRINT) IN FAVOR OPPOSED flvio ,~s~2 ~0 3aa 3s L~ 'r-~ e:/planning\forms/phroster. frm CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: CASE NO. & NAME: May 28, 1998 DATE PREPARED: May 13, 1998 WA-98-14/Peterson CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 9' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 10320W. 35`h Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT/OWNER: David S. Peterson 10320 W. 35s' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: 12,690 square feet Residential One Single-Family Residential N: Residential-Two; S:, E:, and W: Residential One N: S: E: and W: Residential, Single-Family Low Density Residential DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: ENTER INTO RECORD: O COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE O SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OTHER May 8, 1998 May 13, 1998 May 5, 1998 (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAL O SLIDES (X) EXHIBITS 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 The applicant, David Peterson, is requesting approval of 'a nine foot variance from the 30' front yard setback requirement to allow for a detached garage in the Residential-One zone district. If approved, the garage will be located 21' from the front property line. According to the attached site plan, the proposed two-car garage will be located on the southeasterly portion of the property and measure 24'x 22'. The applicant is proposing a garage to allow enclosed parking for his vintage automobiles. There is no garage at this location and the applicant had planned on constructing a two-car garage at the time of purchase. Because of the triangular shape of the property, the proposed garage is set at an angle to the east side of the residence and extends 10' beyond the residence. Pursuant to Section 26-10(F) of the Wheat Ridge Zoning Ordinance, a detached garage must retain a front yard setback of 30' from the property line and a 5' rear yard setback. If the variance is approved, the structure will be 21' from the front property line and 9' from the rear property line. Staff was approached by the adjacent property owner to the south. Originally, the owner was worried that approval of the original request would impair the adequate supply of light and air to his property. He believed that the garage was too large and was going to be too close to his property line. Now that the applicant has modified his request, he does not believe that this garage will impair the supply of light and air and believes the smaller, two car garage will not be as imposing. II CASE HISTORY On October 23, 1997, Mr. Peterson requested a previous front yard setback of 15 feet for an attached garage approximately 36'x 24'x 47.5". The Board denied the previous request based on the following reasons: 1. The applicant has the alternative of building the garage on the west side of the property. 2. It is possible to build a two-car garage in the proposed location without significant encroachment. 3. This would be the only structure in the neighborhood to be within 15' of the front property line. 4. Construction of this garage will expand a legal non-conforming structure. 5. There is a possible traffic safety issue when exiting 35" and Miller Street. The applicant's current request still locates the garage on the east side of the residence, but has been significantly modified in size and is now requested as a detached garage. The modified request addresses the Board's concerns numbers 2-5 as stated above. In regards to locating a garage on the west side of the property, the applicant has stated that there may be possible traffic conflicts between the new garage and the intersection of Miller Street and West 35th Avenue. According to the Wheat Ridge Traffic Engineer Steve Nguyen, a garage located on the west side of the property could pose as a possible traffic conflict between the motorists approaching the intersection of Miller Street and West 35' Avenue and the driveway access on the west side of the property. 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? Yes. If denied, the structure may continue to be used as a single-family residence and yield a reasonable return in use, service and income. However, the addition of an enclosed garage would allow the structure to comply with the other residences in the neighborhood. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Yes. Because of the triangular shape of the lot and the location of the existing residential structure, the applicant would be unable to locate a detached garage on the property without the need for a variance. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. There are other properties within the surrounding neighborhood which have 25' front yard setbacks and most of the homes within a 5 block radius have an enclosed garage. Approval of this variance would bring this property into compliance with the residences of the surrounding neighborhood. 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? Yes. The property was platted with a triangular shaped configuration with the rear property line running west at 115.5' long to east at 26.35' long. The shape of the property creates a physical hardship for any development on this property. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? No. All applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis thereby changing the outcome for each request. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property No. The sole purpose of the request is to provide enclosed parking for the applicant's vehicles. A resulting benefit to the property owner may occur with an increased property value. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? No, but the applicant was aware at the time of purchase, that future development may create a hardship. 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. Garages are a common addition to single-family residences. Therefore, approval of this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare or other improvements in the neighborhood. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. No. Approval of this request will not impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets. If the application is approved as proposed, the garage would encroach into the front yard setback, thereby allowing for a 9' rear yard setback between the proposed structure and the rear property line (a 5' rear yard setback is the minimum setback requirement for detached garages and carports in the R-1 zone district). Also, approval of this request will allow for adequate separation between all surrounding properties. According to the Wheat Ridge Traffic Engineer, Steve Nguyen, a garage on the west side of the property could create traffic conflicts between motorists approaching the intersection of Miller Street and West 35s' Avenue and the applicant backing out of his driveway. A garage on the west side should be avoided. 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 request for this variance is solely for the benefit of the applicant, there would be a resulting benefit to the neighborhood by allowing this property to conform to the neighborhood character of having garages. VI. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that the above criteria does support approval of the request. The applicant has researched the property and concluded that a garage of this size would both permit proper storage for his vintage automobiles and have a minimum impact on the surrounding properties. The applicant plans on creating an arched driveway, thereby vacating the existing access and driveway. Staff recommends that if the existing access and driveway are vacated, the applicant must replace the driveway with sod and a street tree. VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Option A: "I move that Case No. WA-98-14, a request for 9' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement for a property zoned Residential-One and located at 10320 West 35 h Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The property was platted as an odd shaped lot making creating a physical hardship for future development. 2. This is one of only a few properties, within the neighborhood, that does not provide enclosed parking on site. 3. Placement of the two-car garage will permit adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property to the rear and would not create a significant encroachment in the front (allowing for a 21' setback of the proposed structure). 4. A garage on the west side of the property would require the removal of existing ornamental trees. The Wheat Ridge Traffic Engineer has states that access to a property should be avoided near the intersection of Miller Street and West 35"' Avenue as to prevent any traffic conflicts. With the following conditions: The existing vacated access and driveway be replaced with sod and a street tree." Option B: "I move that Case No. WA-98-14, a request for 9' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement for a property zoned Residential-One and located at 10320 West 35th Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: The applicant may propose a single-car garage that could comply with the setbacks." Lnr~Crvvvv OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 Last Revision= September 18, 1996 DEPARMENT OF PLIMN6 NO DEVa0Rf JT - 235-2852 ;i 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN i_-_~ (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) CITY LIMIT LINE WATER FEATURE DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES NE 28 roam o z® SCA 1-400 L:\DRAWINGS\PLANNING\GS\NE2B C as j a 9 oV,' Z' a a n a V M1 D N a-~ da V Z lT I'. ^~ON n ~i xz © - J. A te i . CJ TI 1-0 ^ - NW - z Z pa r n o ~r= an ci - + g#s ~ em _ C z Z g m ;as U) a s co U) pg i ~ m ~t i$ c rs D Z Q V C O N O C 'e6 ~ '3 g gg_ sod U s~A > e'sg < Z 4't $h T z: X Z < Z ^ C 7 _c > yICCZ`-~. ~C Z Tv Zm z O ~ J Z C) ~ ~ z < m> Z n G v .:'a Lr m T J C Z 1 m ;~i mt' m fn , T ~m>~>m rnv),,;•''.~c Z. m < - U O .TI f'l v; i L> r»Hm. Sr L, 1 LO - z ti ? e y 4 i I 40- N ` 1 ~ C 4 ~ }S ^lC ZF ~cs (r ;ST C^` Q•. G L C C r o ~ C C ri z _ n V V) c c~ --e fl » t~ n 9'1 C3 P~3 LO ~o n C I ~ Lp O WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: October 23, 1997 Page 4 2. A two-car garage is considered normal, average and standard for a lot of this size. Motion was seconded by Board Member ECHELMEYER. Motion carried 7-0. Resolution attached. B. Case No. WA-97-28: An application by David Peterson for approval of a 15'' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement to allow construction of an attached garage. Said property is zoned Residential-One and located at 10320 W. 35th Avenue. Sean McCartney presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman HOVLAND accepted. Also entered into record were letters of no objection, and one against the request. Board Member THIESSEN asked if the garage will go all along the back of the neighbor's property, and Mr. McCartney replied yes. It was noted the concrete slab exceeds the property line and is on the neighbor's property; and Mr. McCartney said the slab was built before the applicant bought the property. The applicant, David Peterson, 10320 W. 35th Avenue, was sworn in. He owns two exotic automobiles; a classic Mercedes and an old Rolls Royce, and needs the garage to house the cars plus needs storage for lawn equipment and tools. Mr. Peterson just recently purchased this property from his father who had owned it for three years. Board Member THIESSEN asked if the variance is not granted would he build the garage on the other side of the house, and Mr. Peterson said no. He will rent the house out again and move back to his other home, and later on the house would probably be torn down. Board Member ECHELMEYER suggested shortening the garage down to 25', and Mr. Peterson said the garage has to be angled and it needs to be 28-30' long to look proper, and feels the 3 car garage would be more acceptable. The garage cannot be built on the west side of the house because of the beautiful trees. Mr. Peterson said the concrete will have to be removed and explained they did not know the driveway went into the property WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: October 23, 1997 Page 5 line until the 6' fence was built by the neighbor. Stan Lewis, 10376 Ralston Road, Arvada, CO, was sworn in. He built the two homes that abut the applicant's house. He is quite familiar with the applicant's house and feels the setback of 5' is because originally the house had an open carport (then later was enclosed). The purpose of zoning was to control a development and keep order for the welfare of the people. People should be able to rely on zoning, and therefore, Mr. Lewis is against this proposal. He also feels the garage could also cause a sight distance problem coming down 35th Avenue. Doug Lewis, 10305 W. 34th Place, was sworn in. Mr. Lewis is the applicant's neighbor. He explained the fence that was discussed earlier. This house has had several tenants and only within the last month has Mr. Peterson moved in. Mr. Lewis is against this request for the following reasons: (a) the surrounding area has to comply with the regulations, (b) he believes the applicant is really asking for two variances, (c) the 50' long solid wall of the garage will create problems with accessing therefore being a fire hazard, (d) the garage will be directly in line with their living area, and (e) the garage can be located on the west side of the property. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked about alternative square footage, however, Mr. Peterson wants a three car garage and wants to keep it looking like a ranch style setting. No further questions were asked. Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, that Case No. WA-97-28, an application by David Peterson, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has the alternative of building the garage on the west side of the property. 2. It is possible to build a two car garage in the proposed location without significant encroachment. 3. This would be the only structure in the neighborhood to be within 15' of the front property line. 4. Construction of this garage will expand a legal non- conforming structure. 5. There is a possible traffic safety issue when exiting 35th & Miller Street. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: October 23, 1997 Page 6 Motion was seconded by Board Member JUNKER. Motion carried 7-0. Resolution attached. C. Case No WA-97-29: An application by Robert Davis for approval of a 17'6" front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback variance requirement to allow a garage addition. Said property is zoned Residential-One and located at 12075 W. 29th Place. Sean McCartney presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman HOVLAND accepted. Board Member ECHELMEYER discussed the dimensions of the proposed garage. It was noted this is a legal non-conforming setback. The new garage will be placed directly in front of the old garage. The applicants, Robert and Lonna Davis, 12075 W. 29th Place, was sworn in. Mr. Davis entered into record several photos labeled Exhibit `A'. He went over the nine criteria stating one of the main concerns is the current garage only has a 6' high door and will not accommodate their larger vehicles. They are also concerned with the drainage because the land actually slopes toward their current garage and they get a lot of `pooling'. They have done a lot of work on the home and put on an extensive gutter system to keep the water away from that side of the house. They want to tear down the existing deck and replace it with a second floor deck to keep the water from helping further the deterioration of the house. The applicants feel this is the best aesthetic solution due to the irregular shape of the lot and the way the house is set on the lot. They have talked to their neighbors and have not received any objections; five of them have signed a petition stating so. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the driveway will go straight out, and Mr. Davis answered yes. The existing garage will be converted to work space. The proposed garage will hold the boat and trailer, their van, an old Camaro and three motorcycles. Board Member ABBOTT asked since they do not have a motor home why build a 9' high garage, and Mr. Davis replied their van is 8' tall. 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 May 28, 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 a 4' fence height variance for the north softball field in Randall Park. 2. Case No. WA-98-14: An application by David Peterson for approval of a nine foot front yard setback variance from the 30' setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a detached garage. Said property is zoned R-1 and located at 10320 W. 35`h Avenue. G,t Barbara Delgadillo, Rec rding Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: May 8, 1998 A M0528PN.wpd P Q BOX 638 TELEPHONE' 303%237-6944 The City OI 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE . WHEAT RIDGE. COLORADO, 80034 ~hcat 'Ridge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. vim/-f lg-~ l PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARING DATE: J - oG b - I ~A i SC© e ~2 O v~ n a m e ) residing at ( a ,d ' d 1r e s sC~) as the applicant for Case No. ^ , hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at /03 - ( l o c a t i o n) , on this day of 17M , 197 , 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 Community Development. k N ~M A P The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713 (303) 234-5900 City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 May 4, 1998 Dear Property Owner: Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 Wheat GRidge This is to inform you that Case No. WA-98-14 which is a request for approval of a nine foot front yard setback from the 30 foot setback requirement to construct a 24x22 square foot detached garage. The property is located at 10320 W. 35t' Avenue and will 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 May 28, 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. C1Bubna\B0A\PUJ3HRGS\wa9814.wpd 60 RECYCLED PAPER d d C S ~ c N 'U N N d ~ a a d ~ y ~ C w u 'd 2! B u ad o IO > C Z dl a y C 9 U d N W - d d a d N L N O .F O a w 00 d C N d d N'o s 0 O n o E o w 0 m a 0 y v v a v a v v v v y d o x= :e m U m rn m rn m m rn m m v m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N d 'O Q u •IO C G ~ N M M d O M M O M M d O M d M O O M M O M d M O M M _ O M d M O M d M c O O M~ O. U.N 3 NM IOM C Nro d d W =dM d dOJ ow yOj dM c DLO Js0 RLO mQ0 ov10 ~QO oy0 mQ0 O d O F- v U N V U 2 V V d L. U O U [Dd a' r U 0_ U F' :E U d L U y Z`Md OIMN s M6 CMy N aMd _N=d NMd 9Md ~••I r d > "O o 3:;2 2 l d ~ Ip "O I>p 'O '_O ~ J "O_ m "O y M = M ~ ❑ (O ~ (O ~ ~ ~ 0 L 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ yj p ~ 0 O ~ {C V N M A ~ O M N ~ O rC N i0 O N ( 0 N ~ O M N ~ M L M d ~ O L N M R ~ M L O N N N 20, = r ~j L > L > > O L > O L C a ? 12 N 6 d L N d ~ v N a) Q Q c d w 'C rG O d O N N O G CU 0~LLw d L U T r Q • N O o o°~ M M M I°n M ° ° ~ 0 co m <°o <°o I°o c°o °m a°o <°o I°o I°o 0 E m m m m m rn m m m F > V z' ¢¢W W=~ ~ N O~Q a } O W Una ~I h O P. ro d Ki U O A a 7+ U R W [ 0 v z s F- °f WHEgp LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION °F wnEgr P ; 9 Planning and Development Department ° 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 °pt oe no° Phone (303) 235-2846 ~~I pgp0° (Please print or type all information) Applicant lc~ S. Add re Phone/???P- 017 s s / ' \ ` City W Te f r)e1~ Owner\ x c) ~0 KI Address I U37-C) C.) Phone a?~- City UI-4V -T2&tD(str,-, Cc)/C) co:~f Location of request (address) I C) '~!ZU W -SS-l~ Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions liste d 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, Buildings, Signs ❑ Lot line Adjustment ❑ Minor Subdivision (5 lots or less) ❑ Planned Building Group ❑ Subdivision (More than 5 lots) ❑ Street Vacation ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final / Detailed descripti n of the request: a a Other: ZlleE f;- Fill out the following information to the best of your knowledge. Current Zoning: Size of Lot (acres ors are otage): Current use. - Proposed use: Assessors Parcel Number: I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this applicatio am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, l ed action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners without whose consent the eque must submit power-of- orne rom n ich -proved of this action on his behalf. Signature of Applic alid' Subscribed and sworn to me this sf day ofd, 19 9 e Qu,u (f . -)-k7 I Notary Public My commission expires Date received Receipt No. 6-3 y 2- Case No. Wyq-'2~-17 . Related Case No. ~o~ Zoning 19-1 Quarter Section Map ~ Recorded at - o'clock 10 Reception No. QUIT CLAIM DI?FD THIS DEM, Made this 13th `lay of August 19 97, between Lisa M. Taylor Recorder of the 'Cmm(y of Jefferson and Slate of Colorado, granor(s), and Lisa M. Taylor and David Scott Peterson as Joint whose legal address is of the 10320 W. 35th Ave., WheaC Ridge, CO 800 County of Jef ferson and Slate of Colnrndo, grantee(s), WITNFSSFTI I, Thal the grantor(s), for and in c01161ernion of (lie sum of TEN AND NO/100______ DOLLARS the receipt .Ind sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ha remised, mleased, sold, conveyed and QUIT CI_AIMGD, and by these presents do remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM onto the fitmilec(sl. heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, clam, and do mania which (lie grantor(s) ha in and In Ihe. red Properly, Ingelher 111111 improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in Ihe Coolly of Jefferson and Slate of Colorado, described as follows: Lot. 17, Overlook Estates NO DOCUMENTARY FEE - CONVENIENCE DEED also known by street and numberas: 10320 W. 35th Avenue, Wheat P,idge, CO 80033 "10 I IAVH AND l"O IIOLD (lie same, logclhea 1601 all and singular [lie appurtenances and privileges Ihercunln belonging or in anywise drereunto appertaining, and all Ilse estate, right, title, imeresl and claim whatsoever, of [lie grmloa(s), either in law or erluily, Io (lie only paoper use, benefit and behoof of the grantee(s), heirs and msifim liuever_ IN WI"INFSS WIIFRFOP, "file grantor(s) ha ezeculed this deed on the dale set foalh ahove. - Lisa M_ Taylor STATF OF COLORADO. l City of Wlteatridge Zoning Council 4/30/98 Dear Committee, My name is David S. Peterson, I live at 10320 W. 35t' Ave. I have purchased the home at this address as a three bedroom single family home with no garage, planting at the time, that it would be no problem to build a two car garage to fit my family's needs, and use of my hobbies including an array of Collectors Edition of fine automobiles. As a collector of these fine cars, it is very important to the value and restoration of keeping the weather elements, such as rain, snow, hail and heat from devaluing illy investments. One of many good reasons in my eyes, as to having such garage, was for storage, safe keeping and trifling of my collection. Not wanting to have to store them elsewhere, as they have great sentimental value, and where I do not have access to them and being charged to store them properly, as I have had to do in the past several months because I do not have a place to put them such as A garage. First of all, the reason for requesting the setback variance is quite simple. The home was bought as I stated earlier as a three bedroom dwelling. There was an existing carport that is now a roost, finished and in use. (Of that I will add was the third bedroom in the home as purchaased.) Therefore to add a garage that, 1.) Is highly functional 2.) The homes within a five block radius all have, and 3.) To improve not only the value of my property but to greatly inprove the appearance of my home in which I take great pride in wanting to rectify. The setback varince in which I am requesting is 9 feet of the 30 foot setback. The closest corner of the garage would be 21 feet from the sidewalk. There is no request for a rear setback variance as the back corner of the garage is 9 feet away from the fence line. The allowable is 5 feet. There are also no plans for a 50 foot wall as stated by Mr. Lewis, I do not know where he seems to have gotten his information front ! As to his claustrophobic tendencies, i feei they are none of my business and I am sorry he feels this way. I only hope the 6 foot fence he built around his home, and the 15 to 20 fool trees he has planted behind and along his fence line adjancent to my properly will not enhance his closed in feelings. I in turn will have to replace the concrete drive-way because Mr. Lewis has drilled holes where his 6 foot fence was erected without my notice or permission while I was away on business and has caused severe cracks, which is causing water damage to my driveway. Second, I am not sure as to why Mr. Lewis feels he would want me to build my garage on the west side of my house. I would have to completely remodel the inside of my home to accommodate this feat and to do so would be more costly and the need for more permits and variances than I am already asking to be granted. Therefore adding my garage where I am proposing will downside my cost and make it much more affordable and seems to be the only efficient place to put it. Thirdly and foremost, I believe there have been several instances where setback variances have been granted. In my immediate area there was a side and rear setback variance on 35th and Lee. As to the Fire code and the structure being a fire hazard to Mr. Lewis or myself and family, the building codes state as by law that the 5 feet variance is in nomtal code and proves to be no threat After much time, forethought and planning, I have changed my garage size from a 3 car to a 2 car garage - minimizing my earlier variance requests and hoping to be carefully selected to be granted the variance I am planning for. Thank you for your time and patience in your consideration. Mr David Scott Peterson /C CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INVOICE NAME (,/C~! ;;C z-- c l/C DATE: a-5 - Lk ` Q S CASE NO. W~~~~ P~• ~J3~~' FEE TYPE FEE CHARGE ACCOUNT NUMBER Application Submittal See Fee Schedule tj D 01-550-01-551 Publications/Notices See Fee Schedule 01-550-02-551 24" x 36" Blue Line $ 3.25 01-550-04-551 24" x 36" Mylar Copy $ 6.00 01-550-04-551 Single Zoning Map $ 2.00 01-550-04-551 Set of Zoning Maps $20.00 01-550-04-551 I1" x 17" Color Map $ 2.00 01-550-04-551 Comp. Plan Maps $ 2.00 ea. 01-550-04-551 Comp. Plan Book w/Map $25.00 01-550-04-551 Fruitdale Valley Master Plan $ 2.50 01-550-04-551 Subdivision Regulations $ 4.50 01-550-04-551 . Zoning Ordinance $15.00 (does not include annual updates) 01-550-04-551 Copies $.15/page 01-550-04-551 Copy of Meeting Tapes $25.00/tape 01-550-04-551 Miscellaneous: 01-550-04-551 TOTAL COST: ~lQ_ pO e:\planning\forms\invoice