Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-98-237500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Telephone 303/ 237-6944 FAX 303/234-5924 July 27, 1998 Ms. Sandra Hutchcroft 3263 Taft Court Wheat ridge, CO 80033 Ridge RE: WA-98-23: Request for a 9.5' side yard setback to the 15' requirement for an attached storage shed Dear Ms. Hutchcroft: Please be advised that at its meeting of July 23,1998, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request for a 9.5' side yard setback for an attached storage shed. Attached is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution stating the Board's decision which became effective the date of the meeting, July 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 /bd cc: WA-98-23 The City of Wheat C:\Barbara\BOA\CORRES P\wa9823 hutchcro ft.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 July, 1998. CASE NO: WA-98-23 APPLICANT'S NAME: Sandra E. Hutchcroft LOCATION: 3263 Taft Court, Wheat Ridge, CO Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT, seconded by Board Member ECHELMEYER, the following resolution was stated: WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98-23 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and 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-98-23 be, and hereby is, approved. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 7.5-foot side yard setback variance to the 15-foot side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a 10-foot by 20-foot attached storage structure. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. There are several nonconforming side yard setbacks existing as part of the subdivision plan. Due to the diagonal alignment of the varying structure, only 60.4 square feet of the 200 square foot structure will be encroaching. Alternative locations would seem impractical and significantly detrimental to the livability of the primary structure and its rear yard area as described in detail by the applicant. Case No. WA-98-23/Board of Adjustment Resolution Page two (2) With the Following Conditions: This varying structure shall be constructed of masonry and match the architecture of the primary dwelling as described by the applicant to the Board. 2. The highest point of the roof of the varying structure shall not exceed nine feet above grade. If the utility owning the easement impacted by this variance denies encroachment upon their easement, then this variance will drop back to the maximum size so as not to encroach upon the utility's walk easement. 4. No addition to this varying structure may be made, any portion of which encroaches into the 15-foot side yard setback. VOTE: Yes: Abbott, Echelmeyer, Howard, Hovland, Mauro and Thiessen No: None Absent: Junker and Walker DISPOSITION: A 7.5-foot side yard setback variance to the 15-foot side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a 10-foot by 20-foot attached storage structure was approved. ADOPTED and made effective this 23rd day of July, 1998. DA MAURO, Chairman Board 0 f Adjustment Arm Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment ` The motion carried by a vote of 5-1, with Board Member HOVLAND voting no and Board Members WALKER and JUNKER absent. Chair MAURO advised the applicant that the variance was granted. C. Case No. WA-98-22: An application by Linda Christensen for approval of a 10-foot side yard setback variance to the 15-foot setback requirement and a 15-foot front yard setback variance to the 30-foot front yard setback requirement to allow a private storage shed. Said property is zoned R-2 and located at 2790 Vance Street. This case was continued to the August 27, 1998 Board of Adjustment meeting due to improper posting and publication of the application. Case No. WA-98-23: An application by Sandra Hutchcroft for approval of a 9.5-foot yard setback to the 15-yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a storage shed. Said property is zoned R-I and located at 3263 Taft Court. This case was presented by Sean McCartney. He reviewed the staff report, entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised that there was jurisdiction for the Board to hear the case. He presented an aerial view of the property and stated staff s conclusion that, although the property was found to be a pie-shaped lot and approval of the request should not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare, staff believed there were other development alternatives on the site which would comply with the development regulations established for the R-I zone district. He concluded the presentation by stating that staff recommended denial based on criteria used for evaluation of a variance request. The applicant appeared before the Board. Sandra Hutchcroft 3263 Taft Court Ms. Hutchcroft was sworn in by Chair MAURO. Ms. Hutchcroft submitted copies of a document containing her comments which she felt supported a hardship in this case. A copy of this document was entered into the record as "Exhibit A". She stated that their home has four levels including a finished basement used as an office area. The only storage space left is the crawl space which is not ideal because of dirt and dampness and difficulty associated with crawling in and out of the area. Her plan called for a 10 x 20 foot storage addition to the house, bricked to match the existing structure, and she felt the addition would increase the value of the property and would not be degrading to the neighborhood. Location of trees on the property substantially reduced available space for a storage shed. Based on the 13.5-foot Board of Adjustment Page 7 07/23/98 requirement and the 10-foot drainage requirement, the shed would be in the middle of the yard which she felt would be an eyesore as well as a security risk which would reduce-:the value of the property. There is walkway along the north property line which makes the property highly visible. The proposed storage addition would not be visible from the street or adjacent residence. The applicant felt there was no other feasible alternative for placement of the storage shed. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the applicant could encroach into the 6-foot utility easement. Mr. McCartney replied that the City requires a written letter of -approval from the appropriate utility company to allow such encroachment. He also commented that, in looking at the situation, it has been estimated that there is approximately a 6-inch encroachment into the easement. An exact survey might reveal that there is no encroachment at all. In an attempt to establish hardship, Board Member THIESSEN asked why the applicant purchased a home with insufficient storage. Mrs Hutchcroft replied that she looked for two years before finding this particular house that would meet her husband's home business requirements to be able to park his vehicle and have room for an office in the basement. She pointed out that there is presently no use for the proposed area because there is no grass there and it is not visible from her residence or the neighbor's residence. Board Member ABBOTT asked for clarification regarding setbacks in the neighborhood. Mr. McCartney replied that all the structures in the neighborhood seemed to have similar setbacks of 13.5 feet. Board Member HOWARD asked why there was a change on the original application from an 8x20-foot structure to a 10x20-foot structure. Mrs. Hutchcroft replied that this change was made when they considered that they were presently renting a 10x20-foot storage area and would need that same amount of space to meet their needs. Board Member HOWARD asked what kind of roof was planned for the addition. Ms. Hutchcroft replied that it would match the existing roof, but would be a bit lower. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member ECHELMEYER, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an Administrative Officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-98-23 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of Administrative Officer; and Board of Adjustment rage a 07/23/98 Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required 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- 98-23 be and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: A request for approval of a 9.5-foot side yard setback variance to the 15-foot side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a 10x30-foot attached storage structure. For the Following Reasons: 1. There are several nonconforming side yard setbacks existing as part of the subdivision plan. 2. Due to the diagonal alignment of the variance structure, only 60.4 square feet of the 200 square foot structure will be encroaching. 3. Alternative locations would seem impractical and significantly detrimental to the livability of the primary structure and its rear yard area as described in detail by the applicant. With the Following Conditions: 1.. This variance structure shall be constructed of masonry and match the architecture of the primary dwelling as described by the applicant to the Board. 2. The highest point of the roof of the variance structure shall not exceed nine feet above grade. Board Member HOVLAND referred to the 6-foot utility easement and noted that a 9.5 variance would encroach into the easement. He asked if there would be a problem with the Board granting a variance which might encroach into the utility easement. Mr. McCartney replied that if a 9.5-foot variance is granted, the applicant can always build less if the utility company disapproved. Board Member ABBOTT offered the following amendment to the motion: Board of Adjustment Page 9 07/23/98 Condition No. 3. If the utility owning the easement impacted by this variance denies encroachment upon their easement, then this variance will drop back to the maximum - size so as not to encroach upon the utility's walk easement. Mr. McCartney stated that the applicant had just informed him that all the utilities were _ flagged and found to be on the east side of the property. The amendment was accepted by Board Member ECHELMEYER. - Board Member THIESSEN expressed her concern with a 63% variance. Board Member ECHELMEYER commented that, in light of the new development on .38th Avenue which allows roof lines to be only 12 inches apart, he would be inclined to allow a variance where someone wants to add a matching structure to their home rather than having a temporary storage shed, especially when this structure would not encroach onto someone else's property. He also noted that there had been no resistance from the neighbors. Board Member ABBOTT indicated that he would be willing to change his motion to decrease the variance in order allow less encroachment into the easement. Board Member THIESSEN stated that she would support the motion if a condition is placed to satisfy her concern that no future additions along the building line granted by the variance be allowed. Board Member ABBOTT offered the following amendment to the motion: Condition No. 4: That approval be given for a 7.5-foot side yard setback to the 15-foot side yard setback requirement which would provide that no addition to this variance structure may be made, any portion of which encroaches into the 15-foot side yard setback. The amendments were accepted by Board Member ECHELMEYER. The motion carried by a vote 6-0 with Board Members WALKER and JUNKER absent. Chair MAURO advised the applicant that the variance was granted. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair Person MAURO declared the public hearing closed. Board of Adjustment Page 10 07/23/98 epW IBit °`A" The following comments are being submitted to support a hardship I believe we have on our pie- shape lot. I have indicated on the "Improvement Location Certificate" the location of possibly two positions. Option `A' is preferred. This will allow for the use of the existing wall on the side of the garage. The plan is to have the remaining three walls bricked to match the house therefore, increasing the value of the property, and not degrading to the neighborhood.. Option B would require additional construction and an off-set from the rear of the existing structure by 5 ft. This option would also lessen the variance requirement to 30.5 sq. ft as seen on the map.. We have tried to show an approximate location of existing trees on the property. The position of the trees has substantially reduced the available space available. This has cut the lawn area considerably. There is a blue spruce, an aspen grove of 10 trees, and a maple tree, all of which are located in the proposed alternative site to our Options `A' or `B'. The pie-shape does cause a problem in that the land is sloped because of an engineering requirement for the high water table. There was a recommendation that no grass be placed near the foundation to avoid the need for watering next to the house. The house is 17 years old and was constructed with a floating floor of wood instead of concrete in the basement, further indication of expansive soils and high water table. What little lawn is available is the only remaining open area for the structure that meets the requirements without this request-for a variance. The structure would not only reduce the lawn area but would be an eye sore from the window location on the east side. Based on the 133 requirement and the 10' drainage requirement the storage shed would be right in the middle of the yard. I believe this would most definitely decrease from value of the property. Along the north fence line is a walkway around the open space. The placement of a storage area would also cause an eyesore and lack of security. The home has four levels including a finished basement used as an office area,. The only storage area left is the crawl space. This is not the most ideal place for storage because of dirt and dampness. 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 To be in compliance with the established development regulations the structure would be placed in the middle of the only grass area available on the property. This area is not level, and the cost of construction would increase. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Yes, the plight of our ownership is unique because of the pie-shape, existing trees, and the existing easements surrounding the property. These eliminate other ideal locations for the shed.. 3. Is the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? We do not believe granting this small easement intrusion would change the character of the locality. Only a small portion of the storage area is in question. With still plenty of room between the neighbor's side (which is his side of the garage) and ours, the storage area would not be visible from any windows in his home. 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? The physical surrounding easement of 10 ft and 13.5 ft on the sides, and the slope of the land, would result in an hardship in placing the structure in the middle of the yard. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variance based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? No comment since this is based on case-by-case basis 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property. We agree with the Sean McCartney-- the sole purpose for a variance is to allow for additional storage space other than the crawl space that currently exists. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. I disagree that there is plenty of remaining land on the property that would permit the shed to be placed. Since this is not a portable building but will be built as an addition to the existing wall of the garage (in brick for aesthetic as well property value enhancement). I do not see how this shed can be located any place else and still met those requirements. 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? This would not be detrimental since only a small portion of the shed is involved. 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. This would not impair light, air, congestion, or most importantly increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Because of the brick exterior this would reduce the fire risk even more. 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 the public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property value 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? There is no other reasonable location on the property. The storage shed would be aesthetically pleasing with the brick exterior. Any other location would require a portable building which would detract from the value of the property. This variance would allow for a shed with easy access should the home be purchased by a disabled person. CONCLUSION: Based on the unreasonable alternative to comply with the regulations for a different site, the pie shape lot, existing landscape, and lack of open space, I hope that my arguments will be considered for an approval to build this shed, which will encroach on the existing easement by only 30.5 sq. ft. (Option B) and 60.4 sq. ft (Option A). We would consider the additional cost for Option B if Option A is considered too much on intrusion on the variance. Thank you for your consideration LOCATION CERTI '`ICA' 32&3 7 AFr CT /EY CO, WHN5,q - RIDGE 6<0 ~9e l , Tz. f/YJ7a f 3 `gyp . s ` V C1, as-) ci) '7 J ~CHSTON'` LOCATION CER`FIFICA' 323 i ~4Fr C VEY CO. WH54T Rf D6 E t COLORS D C `rc. r 'sue' r= DB s ~ Op 1$ . ~ ~L9 ?)C/- XU Se- 7'I t 9 'w ' V, X~ PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO:. WA-98-23 DATE: July 23,1998 REQUEST: An application by Sandra Hutchcroft for approval of a 9.5-foot side yard setback to the 15-foot setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a storage shed. Said property is zoned R-1 and located at 3263 Taft Court. (please print) Speaker Name Address/Phone In Favor Opposed sa~~~ ~.Nw~r~f 3a~3 T~f~tC~ ~{eS ~1 eat I~ e (9E), CC) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 23, 1998 DATE PREPARED: July 14, 1998 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-98-23/ Hutchcroft CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 9.5' side yard setback variance to the 15' side yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a 10' X 20' attached storage shed. LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 3263 Taft Court Sandra E. Hutchcroft 3263 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER: Same APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: 13,068 square leet Residential-One Single-family N:, S:, E: and W: Residential-One N: Open Space (Lewis Meadows) S:, E: and W: Single-family residential Low Density Residential DATE PUBLISHED: July 3, 1998 DATE POSTED: July 9, 1998 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 30, 1998 ENTER INTO RECORD: (X)' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAL (X) ZONING ORDINANCE O SLIDES O SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS O 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 The applicant is requesting approval of a 9.5' side yard setback variance to the 15' side yard setback requirement to allow a 10' X 20' attached storage shed on the east side of the existing residential structure. Approval of this request will allow for the storage shed to be placed within 5.5' from the east- side lot line. Pursuant to Section 26-10 (F) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, storage sheds built within the Residential-One zone district must retain a minimum 15' side yard setback from the side property line. Currently, the existing residence is 13.5' from the east-side lot line at the closest point, but due to the angle of the lot, the side setback of the structure increases as the property line extends north. To date, staff has not received any formal complaint regarding this request. H SITE PLAN The property in question is a pie-shaped lot providing 13,068 square feet of measurable space. Currently there is an existing single-family residence with a 2,769 square foot footprint. According to the attached Improvement Location Certificate, there aren't any additional storage sheds on the property. The property is predominately flat and offers adequate space for alternative locations for the proposed shed. The adjacent residence on the east is located approximately 13' from the adjacent property line. Therefore, if the request is approved, there will be at least 18' of building separation between the proposed structure and the existing adjacent residence. However, as previously stated, the side setback of the existing residence increases as the lot extends to the north, allowing for adequate storage shed placement towards the north corner of the lot. 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 property may continue to be used as a single-family residential dwelling. Also, according to the attached site plan, there are other areas on the property where the shed could be constructed to be in compliance with the established development regulations. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No. Other than having a pie-shaped lot, there aren't any other unique circumstances attributed to this case. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? Yes. Approval of this request will alter the essential character of the locality in that there aren't any other structures within the immediate neighborhood which allow for a 6' side yard setback. 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. Even though the property was platted in a pie-shape (wedge), the property is approximately 13,068 square feet in lot area and provides enough remaining land to accommodate the construction of a storage shed within the strict confines of the setback regulations. Also, because the property is relatively flat, the topographic condition of the property does not result in a particular hardship. 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 sole purpose of the request is to allow for additional storage space. 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 a self-imposed hardship. As previously stated, there is plenty of remaining land on the property that would permit that would permit the shed to be placed within compliance of the setback regulations. 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. Although this request could possibly alter the essential character of the locality, approval of this request would not be detrimental to the public welfare as the storage shed will be located on the east side of the residence at east 35' from the nearest public right-of -way. 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. Because the structure will allow for adequate separation between adjacent properties and structures, approval of this request should not impair the adequate supply of light and air, nor should it increase the danger of fire. 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. Although enclosed storage is aesthetically pleasing, the applicant does have alternative locations for the placement of the storage shed. VI. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that although the property was found to be a pie-shaped lot and approval of this request should not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare, staff believes that there are other development alternatives on the site, that would comply with the development regulations established in the Residential-One zone district. Therefore, based on the criteria used for evaluation, a recommendation for DENIAL is given. VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Option A: "I move that Case No. WA-98-20, a request for approval of a 9.5' side yard setback variance to the 15' side yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a 10'X 20' attached storage shed for a property zoned Residential-One and located at 3263 Taft Court, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1." Option B: "I move that Case No. WA-98-20, a request for approval of a 95 side yard setback variance to the 15' side yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a 10' X 20' attached storage shed for a property zoned Residential-One and located at 3263 Taft Court, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The property is relatively flat and there are other development alternatives on the site that would comply with the development regulations established in the Residential-One zone district. 2. Approval of this request would alter the essential character of the locality. 3. There are no unique circumstances or hardship." OHHIGIAL ZONING MAC' NHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED= June 15, 1994 Last Revision: November 10, 1997 SITE LACEWOOD 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY PARGEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) CITY LIMIT LINE WATER FEATURE » DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRE55E5 NF 2 ImxrH O b IW ]LO N'J 1CO 5GALE i'-400 ,RTMEW OF PLANNING PNO DEVELOPMENT - 255-2852 CWJVVl .iJ 1.1.1 JVJTLV JV-tVl VV.~LI,VL IMPEU yJ "ME\,.11. OUCHSTON vi, vg~ LOCATION CERTIFICATE 32&3 7-/q Fr C r. JRVEY CO. WHLaT- RIDGE I COLORA D o t s•, ti 0 sc,~~ ~ °=30 , rt103 °ZZ •S/ "E lv tee. rr~. E'~✓.ree ,c'Str r. 1 17 tl co+`: d~ We~ L a° c M - F44Nd Vl/SE<Ed L/2055 ~v W4cK LEGAL K PROPERTY NOT IN FLOOD PLAIN PER: if - 4 • ~1//AP Ofj507.9 00056 ZON,c (f NOME = GOT O1.v/c'•JS16✓5 *fWZ 645Er~/Erv~s FROM Pc 47' 10A I~/LC 47- J=~FER.SON 4r04MJ7j CGBRIG .¢A/b fcBCORDER. I hereby certify that this im~proveme i location certificate was prepared for- FlZSf ea~AAG ✓~/EnlC~ /~(/UTLHCROFr that it is not a land survey plat or improvement survey plat, and that it not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or other future improvement lines. I fudter.certify that the imorovements on the ~Sl ( 32 TO -1 1\-. S F7- G7.",•/ f r ab ~ M v x\D~ 'aF WnE,;r LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION aF WHEq,P - P ti o ~ ° Planning and Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 °ctoea~= Phone(303)235-2846 °pcoRro° (Please print or type all information) Applicant Sandra E. Hutchcroft Address 3263 Taft Court Phone 233-1083 City Wheat Ridge Owner e- Address Phone Cites Location of request (address) 4 Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions liste d below which pertain to your request.) ❑ Changeof zone or zone conditions 7x 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: l ~r tion of the request: Detailed descri p Request is to build a stora e shed x 20ft a s mall corner of the shed will encoach into the 13.5' easement 4i Fill out the following information to the best of your knowledge. Current Zoning: Single Family Residential Size of Lot (acres or square footage): .30 acre Current use: Residential Residential d use P : ropose Assessors Parcel Number: Schedule No. 12 502 Rancho Del S Sec: 29 TWN: 03 RNG 69 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 -a orney from the ne wh h appro this action on his behalf. Signature of Applican u Subscrib d and sw r thi a~J da of Jam, 19 91 V / REin18~Z~cN7~ Notary Public My commission FfmissionExpires Oct. 25, Case No.60 OZ Date received Receipt No. ` Related Case No. Zoning Quarter Section Map/_ 1999 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 July 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-98-20: An application by Jon Bradbury for approval of an I P front yard setback variance to the 30' setback requirement to construct a garage. Said property is zoned R-2 and located at 4380 Newland Street. 2. Case No. WA-98-21: An application by Gene Hartley for approval of a 5' side yard setback to the 15' side yard setback requirement to construct a detached garage. Said property is zoned R-1 and located at 6710 W. 28' Avenue. 3. Case No. WA-98-22: An application by Linda Christensen for approval of a 5' side yard setback variance to the 5' setback requirement for a storage shed. Said property is zoned R-2 and located at 2790 Vance Street. 4. Case No. WA-98-23: An application by Sandra Hutchcroft for approval of a 9.5' side yard setback to the 15' setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a storage shed. Said property is zoned R-I and located at 3263 Taft Court. Barbara Delgadillo, cording Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Cleik~ To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: July 3, 1998 CA\Bazbua\BOA\P UBHRGS\980723.wpd P O BOX 638 TELEPHONE 303831-6944 The Ci4, at ]SOO WEST 79TH AVENUE WITEAT RIDGE. COLORADO 60034 c - m Wheat GRidge Aa~o POSTING CERTIFICATION Coto CASE NO. WA-98-23 PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARING DATE: 7-23-98 I, Sandra E. Hutchcroft ' ( n a m e ) residing at 3263 Taft Court, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 ( a d d r e s s) as the applicant for Case No. WA-92-23 hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at 3263 Taft Court, Wheat Ridge, CO ( l o c a t i o n) on this 9th day of July , 19Ex 98 , 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 t is case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Community Development. ~JRkG1Z M A P ©0D 1E- C fi,aeGlZ 000d 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80215 June 30, 1998 Dear Property Owner: The City of * 4F WHE4. 4 i Wheat m GRidge °t o R NI-D This is to inform you that Case No. WA-98-23 which is a request for a 9.5' side yard setback to the 15' setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a shed at 3263 Taft Court 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 July 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. 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:\Bmbwa\BOA\PUBHRGS\wa9823.wpd (303) 234-5900 • ADMINISTRATION FAX: 234-5924 POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX: 235-2949 a a NI = c K a U d y y a a Q ~ c U z °1 mi ~ y a c v a ~ U l v Q. d N d t6 a 9 ~ O d ~ N O N mot. a O a .Y p~ O N - d ' m m 'o t O E-0 p m # p a C N y O v N q M N M N M N m x 'ate- 'm U m 3 m 3 3 p N N v a Q U _ .R 0 M M M O . N O m O ° o m O O O N o w aU0 =00 050 ` N m o x U U m c U O Fes- ti m im ai S F ai y d V 9 TM'_6 G7 y N p-m~ M INK M mNK ~Ma.. N N ~ N N ~ N > C'o aa- ~ Q w ~ ~ d• O N N 3 ~ w N~ O ENO d'~p m ~ ~U U~LLW rs ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Z p b LL c U C Q m ° m ° o N ,n N V O `o ` M M co m pop m om WWO £ m m m L- > V z' wQLL 3:o ~ N O Q a } o LL Hot ~ Uti3 I T 0 0. W U ro a° O W m b 7 N P4 U W FO v v F RECEPTION NO. F0030488 - 34.00 PG: DOI-001 740 RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO ' 3/22/95 10:55 WARRANTY DEED o~ l d TIIIS DEED, Made this 14TH day of MARC119 1995 between CAROL M. FISHER and JOHN W. FISHER ofnc- County ofJEFFERSON and State of COLORADO,grantor, and JAY L. HUTCHCROFT and SANDRA E. IIUTCIICROFT whose legal address is 3263 TAFT COURT, WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 of the County of JEFFERSON end State of COLORADO, gnsm.: WITNESS, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TWO HUNDRI DOLLARS, ($290,000.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknmvledg d, has by these presents does grant, bargain, sell convey and confirm unto the rrantecs, their common but in joint tenancy, all the red property, louether with impn- ments, if JEFFERSON, and State of Colorado, described as 1o0ows: LOT 17, RANCHO DEL SOL. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORA also known by street and number as 3263 TAFT COURT, WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 forever, not in and being in the TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, runts, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to We above bargained premises, with the heredimments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD We said promises above bargained and described, with On: appurtenances, unto the grantees, their heirs and assigns forever. And the grantor, for himself, his heirs and personal representatives, does covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the grantees, their heirs and assigns, that at the time of the enscaling and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of Elie premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid, and that the sane are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except for taxes for the current year, a lien but not yet due or payable, easements, restrictions, reservations, euvenanD and rights-af-way of record, if any, The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the abovcbargaincd premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, agmnst all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part theroof. The singular number shall include the plw Lt. the plural Elie singular, and the use of any gendmshall be applicable to ell genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor has executed this decd on the date set forth above. CiCKOfh1-F . JV11N W. V131111,14. STATE OF COLORADO as, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14TH day of MARCH, 1995 by CAROL M. FISHER and JOHN W. FISHER My commission eapites: 12-22-96 Wit css my hand nd official 1 Cl, . . •~.a _ ry Mtn. 1 No_'I n. Rn. JdS WARRANfy DFFD On Joint Tame) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INVOICE NAME DATE: CO ' aIO CASE NO. GtJ Z-A- S 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: c Aplann ingWonm\invoice - - 1=