HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-98-187500 West 29th Avenue The City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat
Telephone 303/ 237-6944
FAX 303/234-5924
June 26, 1998
Mr. Tom Radigan
5703 Xenon Way
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
RE: WA-98-18
Dear Mr. Radigan:
Ridge
Please be advised that at its meeting of June 25, 1998, the Board of Adjustment DENIED your request
for a 15' variance to the front yard set back requirement for Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Marvel Manor
Subdivision. It was the opinion of the Board that your request should be referred to the Planning
Commission through the subdivision process.
The Board's decision became effective the date of the meeting, (June 25, 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-98-18
CABubwa\BOA\CORRESP\wa98I S.wpd
home occupation, and an 8-foot business sign variance to the I0-foot business sign
setback requirement.
For the following reasons:
Approval of the request will not alter the essential character of this locality as
Tabor Street is more of a business than residential area.
2. Placement of a sign on the southwest corner of the property will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
3. The size of the sign does comply with the maximum residential sign
requirements established in Section 26-410 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws.
Board Member ABBOTT stated that he would vote against the motion based on the fact
that when City Council approved the ordinance they considered the existence of mixed
occupancy neighborhoods but did not create an exclusion for signs of any type. Further,
the hardships stated apply only to the business and the need to advertise rather than a
hardship in meeting an allowable use; therefore, he felt the criteria for granting a
variance had not been met.
Board Member ECHELMEYER commented that, since the single family residential
property is almost completely surrounded by commercial uses, the sign would not
present a negative impact on the neighborhood.
The motion failed by a vote of five in favor and two opposed with Board Member
THIESSEN absent. Board Members ABBOTT and HOWARD voted no.
Chair MAURO advised the applicant that, since the motion needed a super majority of
six votes to pass, the application was denied.
E. Case' No WA=98=18 =The case, an application by Tom Radigan for approval of a 15-
foot front yard setback variance to the 30-foot front yard setback requirements for Lots
1, 2 and 3 of the Marvel Minor subdivision, zoned R-1 and located at 10845, 10855 and
10865 West 32nd Avenue, was presented by Alan White.
Mr. White informed that three lots are involved in the case: Lot 1 - 15,000 square feet;
Lot 2 - 17,000 square feet; and Lot 3 - 19,000 square feet. He reviewed land use,
surrounding zoning and land use and entered into the record the zoning ordinance, case
file, packet material and exhibits. He also entered the following document into the
record:
Board of Adjustment
Ple I4
06/25/98
Exhibit "A" - Letter dated June 18, 1998, from Thomas H. Nielsen of 10901
West 32nd Avenue expressing concern regarding the safety of his driveway
access to 32nd; and stating his opinion that the houses on the subject lots should
face south instead of east.
Mr. White informed that the property was within the City of Wheat Ridge, all
notification and posting requirements (as outlined in the staff report) had been met and
there was jurisdiction to hear the case.
Mr. White presented slides of the subject property and overhead projections of the site
plan. He informed that a 4-lot minor subdivision was approved on January 11, 1996 by
the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission and the three lots in question were located south
of an existing single family residence located on Lot 4. He stated the applicant
proposed to build three single family homes on the lots created as flag lots to allow for
individual access to West 32nd Avenue. Through the conglomeration of the 10-foot
private access strips, a 30-foot wide private drive had been created to allow for adequate
resident and emergency access for the four lots.
Mr. White informed that during the review of the building permit for Lot 2, staff noticed
that the proposed structure was encroaching into the front yard setback requirement on
the south side, and that the applicant had assumed the setback requirement had been
waived by approval of the Planning Commission. He stated that in order to preserve a
buildable footprint on these lots and because Lot 1 is located directly adjacent to West
32nd Avenue and would require a 30-foot setback anyway, the variance would only be
applied to Lots 2 and 3, and that a setback be established along the east side of Lots 1, 2
and 3 of 20 feet from the edge of the private drive. He also advised that the staff had
not received any opposition to the request.
Mr. White reviewed the criteria used in evaluating a variance request as contained in the
staff report and stated staff's conclusion that the criteria would support approval of the
request. The conclusion was based on the following: (1) approval of the request would
not be detrimental to other property improvements or to the public's welfare; (2)
approval would establish the east side of the lots as front setback areas and the south
property lines as side yard lines and would provide setbacks as required in the R-1 zone
district; (3) if approved, staff would recommend any structures must retain a 20-foot
setback from the edge. of asphalt on the east side of the property to provide sufficient
circulation; and (4) that the variance apply to Lots 2 and 3 only.
Board Member HOVLAND commented that this case was heard approximately a year
ago concerning a fence height variance and felt that this matter'should have been
addressed at the time the property was subdivided.
Board of Adjustment Pa,-e 15
06/25/98
Mr. White informed that the applicant was under the impression there was a condition
placed on the approval of the subdivision that required the houses to face east and the
setbacks were established as 30 feet on the east side. He informed that he was unable to
find a record of that requirement and when Lot 2 came in for a building permit it didn't
meet front setback requirements. He stated that, although he was not employed by the
City at that time, he assumed it was an oversight in record keeping.
Tom Radigan
5703 Xenon Way, Arvada
Mr. Radigan, the applicant, was sworn by Chair MAURO. He presented a rendering
showing the layout with houses facing east and stated it was his understanding, that in
January of 1996, the Planning Commission mandated that the houses in the subdivision
were to face east. That apparently did not get into the record and when the architect
called the Planning Department to find out what the setback requirements were she was
told that the setback in the front yard was 30 feet and she designed the home
accordingly. He stated that they were then advised that the setbacks were not correct
and that the front yard was actually the south side. He felt the problem with the 15-foot
setback on the east was that a structure could encroach onto the private drive for Lot 3
and agreed with the setback requirements proposed by staff. Since this requirement to
face the houses east was not recorded in the minutes, he stated that the Planning
Department had no choice but to advise the application for a variance.
Board Member ABBOTT commented that the a smaller house could be designed.
Mr. Radigan stated that he could have the architect redesign the house but it would not
negate the impact of having someone build close to the private drive and have people
parking in the private drive. He felt that a 30-foot setback on the east side and the south
side would present an economic hardship.
Board Member ABBOTT asked the square footage of house planned to be built and
asked if there would be a problem facing the houses to the south.
Mr. Radigan replied that the houses were planned to be 2900 square feet without the
garages and turning the houses to face south and leaving variances as they are would
allow someone on Lot 3 to build in the private drive. The houses would have, to be
redesigned because they have been designed to take in eastern and western exposures.
This could be done, but the major issue is that someone on Lot 3 could build in the
private drive.
Board of Adjustment Page 16
06/25/98
Board Members ABBOTT and HOVLAND expressed their opinions that this matter is
not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment and should be taken before the
Planning Commission because the matter concerns a developer and an entire
development plan approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and not a
home owner.
Chair MAURO asked to hear from those individuals who signed up to speak on this
issue.
Willis Alderman
10905 West 32nd
Mr. Alderman was sworn by Chair MAURO. He stated that he and his wife owned the
properties on the west side of the subject development. He stated that they also own the
house at 10925 that faces West 32nd. They subdivided into three lots on the west in
1979 and have a private drive that goes along the east side. Their house is the second
house north of 32nd yet it carries a 32nd Avenue address. The house they occupy is
immediately west of Lot 2. In the various meetings he attended on this matter, he did
not recall anything ever being said about a mandate of houses facing east. He stated his
concern was that the front of his house would face into the backyards and fence of the
subject properties.
He also expressed concern about the traffic problem created by the front fence that was
built for the development which faces 32nd Avenue. He stated the fence has caused a
vision problem when turning onto 32nd. He also noted that there was a telephone pole
which further impairs vision for motorists as well as cyclists using the bike path. He
contacted the City about this problem and was told a traffic engineer would investigate
and send him a report which he stated, he had never received.
Board Member HOVLAND asked if the applicant would be agreeable to using the area
where his drive is located for their front access. Mr. Alderman replied that he would be
opposed to this and had already talked with Mr. Radigan about it.
Rob McClure
14675 Garden Road
Mr. McClure was sworn by Chair MAURO. He stated that he also owns land at 12232
West 32nd Avenue. He was present at the Planning Commission meeting in 1996
where the requirement was made for the houses to face east and assumed that the front
of the lot must be the front of the house. He stated that it wasn't until someone who
Board of Adjustment Page 17
06/25/98
was interested in purchasing one of the lots and came to the City that it was discovered
his house wouldn't fit on the lot with the required setbacks. He expressed surprise that
the city would make a requirement for houses to face a certain direction. He also stated
his opinion that the road should have been on the west side of the development rather
than on the east where the city had required it to be.
There was no one else signed up to speak.
Mr. Radigan returned to the podium. In regard to the fence, he stated they exceeded
the city's mandates in regard to the setbacks in order to accommodate better visibility.
It was moved by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board Member WALKER
that the Board of Adjustment withhold a decision on Case No. WA-98-18 and that the
case be referred back to the subdivision process as the appropriate avenue for appeal.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-0 with Board Member THIESSEN absent.
6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Person MAURO declared the public hearing closed.
Board of Adjustment Pa,-e 18
06/25/98
`T~'• C, ~Tj o k
R , ca.\e
Fri -TVAow cs
1-1-. N i E IS ev%,
logo I
W. 32 Avg
Wl~eo+
t~,cLc1~ Co
gCX~3 3
-re IE : 303 - 237 - So So
A
RECEIVED
JUN 2 5 1998
1 awt y -guy, Colorado av,d nev~~re
U,vtL` 101 G. -~o r~-l-~G V1 d +k°L ConCe r rN i v, 4- 4, e
deuelo?vwle~Lt• of tl Pvol~P.~~,.~ L tke- Ga~1-
bovv,dzr~• o~t~i~ Ctlderw~rt~S ~r~d "^~y 'Pro~eri+~eS
S l~.c~v2 'Cw0 ConC~v'v~ S ~ ~rleca are
• P~St ~oc~vdcr o~ tom. Qlc~e,°~,,.cv~'s Pn''~pn~
W~ o~ ila t~ 'WP~t boc~ncle'r of rtl ~rO 42-N ~
-o be_ dCGve Code l 'Acs L. ~c_I~de~ a d~a
`YC.7 Sltio~.U ..iG~E Ic~l out•. ~~~g Cc.s~°..•.e,,~.t- I,d v~~y
bin l C~cce55 C-x
rjel iGV~ '~~na.F t~~.¢... l.~~ntc,+~ ~ , .1 ~l C <<:, i\i• i ~j,rUr-~1,tEC~('
o.~d mot- Y•Gnt,l ~ '~~n a'F G•. l,L.t.1, +e ( > o I e. W~.L` IOY~.•1-ec~
~h ~n3 _ ClJlC.dl Yc7V E o Ol `I e' r v V'u tc_
C`P('~au f, l -go.VL Cl~ met-.
3 Z V
C2)
Tlne. d i rc.~-~-, o.~, o~ a+U, ~ l~to u~ s 1 i ~t t1,~2
V~F~.u d~u e_(o ~ ~.e vt
CvvtCer~n ~l~
Tra.~{, c, vow ~~-S ~•.r 35 „"mph or- 1~ •`~c r a v~ c1. b~cy~-les
T'Ae- b,G``~L,~ J'L.\lv~~( A:, - N(:~ V -PpS ov
A~A\e_ 4J\eu`F~s~ Sc ~eiL car s\vice -F~nsi b~C- C.\~ \p
Cot)e- -o tl~ Lt1J \ v\ n seLo„\.v
a v\d t\ r de v vC luZ b \cyc_l,.e, wov& ld sew La6 A 0-4 UD 1^
2Y~ Y\uwl rotk5 V~cln,leS tL(owccnd o~ 2$ ov ww,e
Pew dc~~ that V\s\~ Fl ` C~1deYw wv" dower a~~d
av dev- 5& les , `S\,tese-- d)tUcr-Z a-\A- LLAAAuY.J.L.
C 1n.2 ~/t.rn, ~cv\. a avt a ate- vto t o,~. -tt.~ G..R end- ~v v~ b \ c.~Gt C_s ,
n tl VJ c~ Cc 1~ G cC Sa.( Gt1 PYUb IP vt ~~\c Cos t
~D d~vF~o~¢y- }O Loc reC\ +V% e- ? rv b
\ewt W,11 Y~~
IV~S1CY\ \GAG,V\.f COWtOOLA ec> 4~ C05 O OKCGcCLlC~et .
IAncC,r"y-\ (2~
M t{ 1~bw\e. ~'c.ces S ov~-\-l,~ 1 :~~F\e~ w -tl..t
4a-Q-
C~ Q tre Qv c~ o c~ Y~ o~'-\-ln o r So t,t_~-l,~ s o -~~rc~
.
-t-~~-a- ba.c1L L-- Y-
C'ovlee,rv\s
3
W
J
? 2 ~
Y ~ ~ ~ car
~ lf1 Q J1 J - v
N Q
~ 0 O
z
w
I
C
J 3 Q (pwo
~
d, °
la,~13
N N N
Q A A A
ONE
N
000
~dM 3niap T m x
~ T T T
y-Iti
~ ru
J
PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST
Case No. c u -
Request: / el9l
g Date:
RABlt l:4 f.l kE4CjES
7- r-6& (1fiiC'j"
T 50
F,2e~~ Y.42o 'Sc
78ACl~ f~ 0/~-
0 TS
ml / Sn -
/Ilt p/j SdBD~d151
) 17 Uz=
Speaker Name
Y
(please print)
Address/Phone
0
In Favor Opposed
~a37 ~fO65/
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING:
June 25, 1998
DATE PREPARED:
June 10, 1998
CASE NO. & NAME:
WA-98-18/ Radigan
CASE MANAGER:
Sean McCartney
ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 15' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard
setback requirement for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Marvel Minor Subdivision.
LOCATION OF REQUEST:
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER:
10845-10865 West 32nd Avenue
Tom Radigan
5703 Xenon Way
Arvada, CO 80002
Same
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA:
DATE PUBLISHED:
DATE POSTED:
Lot 1 - 15,000 square feet
Lot 2 - 17,000 square feet
Lot 3 - 19,000 square feet
Residential-One
Single-family, vacant
N:, E: and W: Residential-One
S: Lakewood
N:, S: E: and W: Single-family Residential
Low Density Residential
June 5, 1998
June 11, 1998
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 3, 1998
ENTER INTO RECORD:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAL
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE SLIDES
O SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS
O OTHER
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 is requesting a 15' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement to
allow for three single-family residential units on three separate single-family lots. If approved, the
proposed structures will be located 15' from the southern property lines.
On January 11, 1996, the applicant was approved, by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, for a 4 lot
minor subdivision. As shown on the subdivision plat (see attached), the 3 lots in question are located
south of an existing single-family residence (located on Lot 4). The applicant proposes to build three
single-family homes on three flag lot properties. The properties were created as flag lots to allow for
individual access to West 32' Avenue. Through the conglomeration of the 10' private access strips, a 30'
wide private drive has been created to allow for adequate resident and emergency access for the 4 lots.
Because there weren't any variances requested during the minor subdivision process, the applicant must
comply with all of the development requirements established in the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws.
According to Section 26-5 (definitions) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, a flag lot is defined as "a lot
which is situated such that the front line does not abut a public street." The definition goes on to state "
the front lot line of a flag lot is that property line most parallel to the street from which access is gained."
In this case, the south property line of Lots 1,2 and 3 is designated at the front lot line, as access is
gained from West 32"d Avenue.
According to Section 26-10 (F) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, single-family homes located in the
Residential-One zone district must retain a 30' front yard setback from the front lot line, 15' for the side
and rear lot lines. Because of this requirement, the homes built on Lots 1, 2 and 3 must be setback 30'
from the south lot line, but may be located within 15' from the eastern lot lines. According to the strict
letter of the law, a house built on Lot 3 may be located 5' within the private drive (or at least built up to
the edge of asphalt).
A few weeks ago, the applicant submitted plans for a building permit on Lot 2. During the review
process, staff noticed that the proposed structure was encroaching into the front yard setback requirement
(south side). The applicant was under the assumption that the setback requirement had been waived by
approval of the Planning Commission.
It should be stated that there is an existing sewer line and easement, not shown on the plat, extending
from West 32"d Avenue, that encroaches into the building envelope on Lot 3. The sewer line enters the
property from the southwest corner of Lot 3 and extends at a 60 degree angle northeast. Because of this,
the development opportunity on Lot 3 is hindered.
Also, because Lot 1 is located directly adjacent to West 32h Avenue and will need a 30' setback anyway,
staff would recommend that if approved, the variance should be applied to Lot's 2 and 3 only.
To date, staff has not received any opposition regarding this request.
II SITE PLAN
The 3 lots in question are located within the Marvel Minor Subdivision. The physical addresses for the
properties would be 10845 (Lot 1), 10855 (Lot 2) and 10865 (Lot 3) West 32nd Avenue. The properties
are located between Oak Street, extended, and Parfet Street.
Lot 1 is approximately 115'x 134' or 15,409 square feet. Lot 2 is approximately 109'x 144' or 16,917
square feet. Lot 3 is approximately 109'x 154' or 19,108 square feet. Each lot does provide adequate
room for development and they all are square in shape.
III VARIANCE CRITERIA
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. Can the properly 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 property may continue to be used as a single-family dwelling with a 30'
setback requirement from the south lot line.
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
No. There are several other flag lots throughout the City of Wheat Ridge and the single-family
dwellings on those properties have to comply with the same setback requirements.
3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
No. Because Lots 2 and 3 are designed as flag lots and structures located on these properties will
be located at least 100' off of West 32"d Avenue, approval of the front yard setback variances
should not alter the essential character of the locality. If approved, staff would like to
recommend that a setback of at least 20' be required from the asphalt drive on the east side of the
properties. This requirement would allow for a 20' driveway off of the private drive which will
allow for adequate parking in the driveways.
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. As previously stated, this property is a square-shape lot with very little topographical slope.
Therefore, the particular physical shape of the property would result in a particular hardship.
However, due to the physical constraints established in the flag lot definition, structures built on
flag lots provide considerable separation between adjacent structures. If built to the strict letter
of the law, houses located on these lots will maintain a minimum of 45' between structures
(typical homes in the Residential-One zone district are only required a minimum of 30' between
structures). Also, there is a developmental hardship created by an existing sewer line which
extends at a 60 degree angle from the southwest corner of Lot 3 into Lot 4 (see attached plat).
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?
Yes. 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 purpose of the variance is to allow for a structure to be located only 15' from the south
property line. The houses have been designed to allow for access on the south side of the
property, thereby allowing the homes to take advantage of the southern exposure sunlight.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
Yes. The applicant, who has interest in the property, has created the hardship. However, the
physical constraints established in the flag lot definition may be considered a hardship. The front
lot line of a flag lot is usually the designated rear lot line of an adjacent property. For example,
the property owner of Lot 1 may build a 6' fence on the northern property line, but the property
owner of Lot 2 may only build a 4' fence along that same property line.
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. Approval of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare as the southernmost
structure, on Lot 2, will be located at least 130' from West 32' Avenue and out of the public's
circulatory path. Also, because the proposed structures will allow for a minimum 30' separation
between structures, approval of this request should not have a detrimental effect on other
property improvements.
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. As previously stated, because the proposed structures will allow for a minimum of 30'
separation between structures, approval of this request should not impair the adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent properties nor increase the danger of fire. Also, to prevent any future
problem with circulation, staff recommends that a 20' setback be required for structures located
near the private drive on the east side of the property. The setback shall be determined from the
existing edge of asphalt. Therefore, approval of this variance should not increase the 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?
No. The proposed request is purely for individual benefit and will not benefit the community or
neighborhood.
VI. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff concludes that the above criteria does support approval of the request. Although there is adequate
developmental opportunities on these properties, approval of this request will not be detrimental to other
property improvements or to the public's welfare. If approved, staff would like to recommend that any
all structures must retain a 20' setback from the edge of asphalt on the east side of the property and that
the variance apply to Lots 2 and 3 only. Lot 1 is located adjacent to West 32nd Avenue and, although
there is an existing 6' fence located on the front property line, should be required to comply with the
same setbacks other properties located on public right-of-way should endure.
VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
Option A: "I move that Case No. WA-98-18, a request for approval of a 15' front yard setback variance
to the 30' front yard setback requirement for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Marvel Minor Subdivision, located in
the Residential-One zone district and at 10845-10865 West 32"d Avenue, be APPROVED for the
following reasons:
1. Approval of this request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The physical constraints established in the flag lot definition are unmitigated.
3. There will be a minimum 30' of separation between structures.
4. Due to the existence of the sewer line on Lot 3, the development opportunities are hindered
With the following conditions:
1. The variance should only be applied to Lots 2 and 3.
2. All structures should retain a 20' setback from the edge of asphalt on the east side of the
property."
Option B: "I move that Case No. WA-98-18, a request for approval of a 15' front yard setback variance
to the 30' front yard setback requirement for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Marvel Minor Subdivision, located in
the Residential-One zone district and at 10845-10865 West 32nd Avenue, be DENIED for the following
reasons:
If the strict letter of the law is applied, there is adequate development opportunities remaining on
the property."
z 1:31z
LL
R-3 =
- - _ x R-IA R-
_ ~x
PROS ECT
~y VALLEY
SCHOOL
^q 5 N J_
O
w eersc Ave u
o RR-IA n cl 'r
g m---
LU w auOFFICIAL .r ; 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
.1-AKEN000
ZONING MAP
(APPROXIMATE LOCATION
- ZONE DISTRICT 50UNDRY
W H F n T RIDGE
PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY
COLORADO
_ (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP).
CITY LIMIT LINE
-
MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994
- WATER FEATURE
Lmt Rov6ign: Auquet 19, 1997
• DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES
DE'AT"MEff OF PLNMW ND DEVR.OF I R - 235.1852
R-C
R~-
olm
a
Nl J 28
e~
ram
o » wo aw m gee
SCALE 1'-400
May 28, 1998
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Tom Radigan
Subject: Variance approval for Lots 1,2 & 3, Marvel Minor Subdivision
The owner, Tom Radigan requests that the Board of Adjustment approve a variance at
10845, 10855 & 10865 West 32nd Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, the site also identified
as lots 1,2 & 3, of Marvel Minor Sub 'vision, that would revise the set back variances on
these lots to fifteen feet from the soh lot line and to thirty feet from the east lot line.
This would permit houses to face east, a desire mandated by the Board of Adjustment
when they approved the Marvel Minor Subdivision in January 1997. The current set backs
are thirty feet from the south lot line and fifteen feet from the east lot line. These set backs
do not mandate east facing houses and also permit building within the thirty foot wide
private drive that is configured from the ten foot wide flag section on the east lot line of
each of lots 2,3 & 4. This issue becomes more apparent with the current lot 3 east line set
back of fifteen feet permitting structures to be built five feet inside the thirty foot wide
private drive. If this structure was a garage, the structure and parked vehicles would block
the private drive access to lot 4. The ten foot wide flag section of lot 3 forms the center
section of the 30 foot wide private drive which runs south to north along the east lot line
boundary.
You consideration of this matter is appreciated.
Bib01610E 518
.-1
fA LOT 1 I6I -
g LOT J
m I
O•.
I
I
I
7
I
e
SCOPE OF MAMA. dM
5 n ~I
a ~ ~I
a
z~ I
c G ~ I NO~ER OF 0® OF INAi NEREbt RElEw56 CUW
r OFi ~ I
SfA1E OP CIXOIM00 3
g 40 "I CWNIE OF .IEF,FRSON )
~I
I TiIE FORELVwO NSIN.VENf~JwS .YXItl~jtt~ID,fF~ BFS~
T AD. tf~ K 1~~M1'IL.S 1[AA~
! I fTI,F.ss W INNO ANO OiFFY1L SEN.
I w m.r5sa, ElwiT6 l0'u3116
I o«~,
?LIP c
Foy aa~o`'
I
- - - - io unR. tIP1fPd7f tSt
~ - - - a - a~ B7i11i f-rea, ,Fr aTO~ r m.rr m m+mu[
>o' WEST 32ND - A - rO~ -,vHn u,s,n > nfv
r-~M. -mnu v
-M-W ;(rMRWIr-1 OENIFItI Oi. 31+0 RWFIE
SEC. 1F
f/SE 1161011Y
SC 1' 50' PREPME) OCTOBER 23. 1"5 YS - 13-6
0 f Tm 100 RFNNETN R. FEHrIfJ(
INJO BRWIN R
OIXOEN. CO1dUW f0101
30]-1Jf-NJf
a
NNf S,rR-
i
I
I
I 'LOT 4
,RTw
II.SM.
4 Sf.
I
ry
iOD ~S
I
~
I" gel ! OR
-1 -F
~r~I LOT.
LOT , U.,4G2 Y.,3 i
N
W0
FNF LDT 1
W
I I-~
L
v
-1
~T
I
y
LOT 2t
,Yl)JS
I
~
I L
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
DAM
D
32ND AVE S
N 9VIS5L-" E
.-.~4.-m
t~itm1W
m
(z
B
I~S
iE l/^-~
li~~_.~1
I i I f6
( I ~ le
~z0'_0" I
I
PRADPOSED
I I60 PA~N7
I I
N®9'19'55" E -
20~'-0~~ I
N 89.19'&5" E T..
T00 01 uosdmogl 'u BJPURS L M9SS7 f YV3 L9:LT I'M 96/SZ/90
v a
Y a -O
\ J M, O N o -s a« o
O J a OI TO w O-s C'O~ ~m
O N G t L m J N N d L
a L C OIY a. a J-6
Z L w j L
O t.~a L 0a wB~~m r r«a v
\ NOI ma9 w •r LN j m t L
~Lrn YC w N OY • .Y m
~ ~ me amm aL .a tiv-c W r•r ae
•.y w ~ m Y L Y w~ y
O S N C Y a L O. d E N • a 'p[T
In a C I+f N W ° N a EN m d L J
N of * L m 0 M St Y v- O JC•_"O a s w Oj a 4 ~
3Lw TL dLw 6 T
O\ a49 m O c oa as m i -gY m
OS •Ov 6N« ~Y N`Y dY -p • OmL
I O O a 0 O C d•J U a w`ti ~c a W N °Y
W O N J C W w a 0 m X G w T a
00 w E L N m O m 512 «'O 3 L Y W d m J
O a 9 a C O Y w N 0 C O « L U d
O « N L a L 1.y Ol •4 JL L 0-- ryC C N O C N
`f L L a W rn L N O.•°F T N E N V O J 'O
• i oY Y0 p L cd m .cam w G
O O a N a L m S C a w m S w C
d C S C ♦ d H I z a9 w C. ow a N a d d
v LO cY OI O•!.C LY m•~•~m ° "O Y..(OOFdF~~1 L
1 ~I UL adw LLd 3aL dyN a NEJ w
a w m 1~~'IJ « a • « C a •f C M
I.' ac V Y 'O d N T•~ ¢ O U t d
O tiv U O « m C C L C O> OI
Y O -J ~ N • w
Q a L" I w O Y• 9 m w N U m m
O
L 0. S N L O C
0 C a N a a a Cc
m OI L
O y u O a L c a Y u O a 'U d Z •m L c y
m ~ T.~~,I m J L N L m w w O•~''ypp
Y NC Yaa Cw waTC aY'O a w0~
U N ~'p >La aw•~aV4m NCN O NW dL
V C O m O w« 4 L w L a a m y w C a ow
p\ O m C au.~ 1[npT~y ♦ J a m c a l w W= an a•E~~L
h (~1. O m 'pLCS~j aw«Cm LrL
Y III • co L 9 O WW fa0 C Y V 9 W Y w rn N a J° m t
01 O m C m Y 01 Y d • L d m L N L ° .O U 2 O
z f w~LC CL 0 J C 0
wmNCL ¢u, aTu
O -m ° a~a`m o~ m •M a•ma TV-•~ Y L
am
U70 \ N 64 ° «°ma~m rn«com0 o` w~°aa
•U oc`o Q c-11$c~am'~`mc ao °'swum
Qj N avum- 'tea _ m c a-m amy>y•-QL
11Z L Z vo.2u E mY Cam -O .7 ~ ww dw00.~
w ¢ mma•~w awcm rnv CEO->'~ YCW ma
R,2 TO 'OL Ma LCa m La a0 t
Atl rn Y~ [ a a > > w W 0 o
\•~Y a d Lms ow.~m"Lrn•Yoaso 5295 •
c w Y(Q~ [qqyypp acYYaL rn~ o va¢ w
W N' o < 0v0tim7a C>'7 sm -o 00 •c oo~m~} a ~o
LL mJS Tv- -E Y m HF~~iii 33 v L O Ui •E •Y C~~ Y m a LL 3 « L i m T
!Wry7 O O C O C a L a N m m m T L O 6 L Y
P Itt m v L a L c L a Y E J O: w L
PC ~ ° m L 4'p
n W 4• J T ry C C a L 60101 w O Y NO C
O U C m
O Y LOI p• y m C Y LO IL Cm~ O¢ L a
I m co 0 d a vw . aU N w 3 O a
m ¢ may dL•~wY W~ N
N Z t L 'OV
T a N a 'p O J W N Y m m C a L •Fa J SY M OLN£M Z a C
T c N m C OIL Y w m w a-J• N m
_ m c m 9 Y m w J C NL 'O C 4 d m 0'p N pI N
O~ 9 O . O' m L L a w N S •Y.•
a
- ° O U c N N° N L L a.~ T c L
IL O w U Y N L 4- L C 3, mO > 40
L W •F'OY O a "O O -O N U d•fVY a> C mY
W « a L LL a N M m N ~ cp w J N E J m m L°¢ a m
• Q Y L N L d o a a z w a N 'pN 'p
d M N Y a C C a a w S .c O a>¢ C C° O
O "d m Y > wJ ~>a v -oaa -mmaw
Z O s = w s o~ WWW a m` FA~ .r$mvL-m'L~ o1~m ~w
U `Y w F- aE~ a L cL LwYO LKW L~
♦VVVVV! a T L a L Y 9 m a° L OIL d 3¢> m m Y a
=
Z ,W a I••I L w Y U ~~.j•]~ Y C 4 L N O a L t
fy L S N Lc•F.L 'u2 w 3m
E'O ¢2 YY0 m•F3a mw 1"1 YmYN
Q Y U N m m c m W
w
a o a m c acwmL L m Y O Oas ¢ O g m o m
W {ry=1 m w ° z c
O A M'• _ N W 'pU ~u m W0-~>6YmN Ewu d> a
•~Y C w2
Z A I ° m W ° 'O N O A r G F- w u Ol S'O + M 10 w U Z 0 0 rn` m F_
Q- C O a r mvc w 3 W L .L C C J Cw"• m m
Z w 0 m O '~~~•]1 O ((JO a Y O O ''pp d m 0 4- L
W C 'O I..i C O> 1- U E N N L L V_ a N m 2 C
U 0i 1Y, W d d m d 3 a 3 T W Y r a Na d "O C T . Y L « C a d
V ~ d S L m LI w t O a Y L L a N m W OI d Y EE a C OIL J Y
V M _ w Y C> O a>> L Y] W Y Ol 4
41 d x a •0 O L `0 m O U O O « C a t C w 0 rnL G k w C •m y, c
• O' E 11 O U S O Y m U, m m Y m m 0 L Y a W m m O N 3
HVIS
J
N
C
n
-n -
O
Ln
P'I
C11
N
I
O
A
a
Y
c
a
L
O
w
L
v
a
O
C
Y
m
04
2
I
01 C
c O
•o U •m
w
O EE
4- O
U
s T
~ f
o ~N!
~Q 0
a- U
f¢-~! E
O
OO
y0
z IfI
r2W
m
L
O
Y
O
6
LO
0%0
01
At
O
° to
W
rCc
a
a~
3
3
.
.9,
JV
tin
w w
r, E3 0
o
'D orn
LG 8 0
p O in ~ (~W~J O E '(Sx~V]liTi
H al
06~
NOON
rx-I N ~ ~ V N W
,q
~H
13,
N
11,
In
cu
0
W
0
Z
z
O
F
a
w
U
W
aF wHEgr9 LAND LoE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION op w EgrP
o ~ o
m
Planning and Development Department
7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
oo~aRAOO - - Phone(303)235-2846 c~CORA~~
(Please print or type all informa
--y-~
0~=/O/y '
Applicant/)Address ~ crop M hone
City rP//fr~;A . ~O~o2A~rS p O o 00 o2
Owner Address Phone
City
Location of request (address)
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 ❑
Other:
Detailed description of the request:
Fill out the following informat n to the best of your knowledge.
Current Zoning:
Size of. Lot (acres or squ footage): O T/ - / 000 00 GO . 3 - eoGoa
Current use:
osed use: IWAO) JE
Pro
p
Assessors Parcel Number: .4OT/ 3
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-at or y owner which approved of this action on his behalf.
Signature of Applicant Q
Subscribed and sworn to e t Ws Z day of , 19 `L
Not ry Public/
My commission expires
Date received Receipt No. Case No.
Quarter Section Ma
d C
N
Z
i
R
l
p
ate
ase
o.
on
ng
e
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 June 25, 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. TUP-98-02: An application by Wheat Ridge 52 Investment for approval to
surface an area for use as temporary commercial parking for the tenants of 12060 W. 52"d
Avenue. Said property is zoned A-2 and located at 12060 W. 52nd Avenue.
2. Case No. WA-98-15: An application by George Feeney and Laura Leprino for approval
to increase lot coverage from 25% to 34% for construction of a single-family dwelling.
Said property is zoned R-1 and located at 3869 Union Court.
Case No. WA-98-16: An application by Brad and Marcia Bunger for approval of a two
foot fence line variance adjacent to Marc's Restaurant to screen the property. Said
property is zoned R-3 and located at 6900 W. 38`h Avenue.
4. Case No. WA-98-17: An application by Lorraine Brown for approval of variance to
Section 26-30(Q), Home Occupation Regulations to allow a 2'x2' home business frontal
sign. Said property is zoned R-I and located at 4430 Tabor Street.
5. Case No. WA-98-18 An application by Tom Radigan for approval of a 15' variance to
the required 30' front yard setback enabling the approved dwelling units to face east
versus south. Said property is zoned R-1 and located at 10845 - 10865 W. 32"d Avenue.
Barbara Delgadillo, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Wanda Sang, City CI k
To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript
Date: June 5, 1998
C:\Barbara\BOA\PUBHRGS\980625, wpd
The City of
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE
WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713
(303) 234-5900
City Admin. Fax # 234-5924
June 3, 1998
Dear Property Owner:
Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949
Wheat
Ridge
This is to inform you that Case No. WA-98-18 which is a request for approval of a lot line
variance to reverse the side and front yard setback enabling the approved dwelling units to face
east versus south for the property located at 10845 - 10865 W. 32nd Avenue 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 June 25 at 7:30 p.m.
All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this
hearing. 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.
C:\Bubua\BOA\PUBHRGS\wa9818.wpd
0 RECYCLED PAPER
i
c
d
ll
T
d
'V
c
N
N
~
U
W
C
3
d
~
a
d
W
C
a
U
U
m
a
~p
N
O
Z
?
NI
C
a
y
K
C
7
a
>
a
Z
N
K
m -
~
O
R
N
t
N O
.
a
p
rn
N C d
aEo
E o
_R a c
d°
N
W
OJ
of
RI
Kra
R
U
m
m
w
m
m
rn
m
w
Q v m
3
3
3
3
N
d
`
v
Q
v
•IO
R
M
M
M
N
O
O
O
O
O
O.
UJN
R>
EQ°J
C >.p
R RO
N NN
m
a~0
DSO
m3°m
v0
o
N
C)
N
K 00
mYU
y„
L
°am
N m
ENU
O
mom
d
cNCC
u~K
F
-Ma
djz fL
R
y
° m
°m m
2
° r~i m
V
y
N
O R
Q
m
Gv ~9-
N'6 RL~
to a~
Q
~ J D c E N~
O
d
6
O
E
U K LL W
C
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑
Z
d
N
V
LL
I ~ 04
Q
N
N
N
N
V C
p
M
M
M
M
j3 W
O
d
E
(O
m
(O
m
fU
m
(O
m
> U
'
Z
Q Q W
W O
N
O Q
a
ow
1_02
d
~ti3
~I
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
INVOICE
NAME~1 DATE:
~rru,,,
CASE NO. t(JA-°7 j~ ~ppS5 k(0
FEE TYPE
FEE
CHARGE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
Application Submittal
See Fee Schedule
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
11" x 17" Color Map
$ 5.00
01-550-04-551
Comp. Plan Maps
$ 5.00 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:
e ip1mn ing\f0ms\invoice