Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-15-12City of "OMMUNiTyWheat jdge DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 291h Ave. November 12, 2015 Mr. Michael Fay 4180 Dudley Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Case No. WA -15-12 Dear Mr. Fay: Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 This letter serves to correct an error in the letter dated October 29, 2015 regarding the approval of your request for a 2 -foot, 4 -inch variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback, resulting in a setback of 2 -feet, 8 -inches, on property located at 4180 Dudley Street. The previous letter stated, in error, that a building permit would be necessary. Per Section 5-76 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, accessory structures with a floor area less than 120 square feet are exempt from a building permit. Per your application, the shed for which you have requested the variance measures 84 square feet and as such does not require a building permit. However, the variance will still expire if the structure is not constructed within 180 days of approval (expiration date: April 26, 2016). Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions. Sincerely,, ack Wallace /Planning Technician www.ci.wh eatridge.co. u s k P " oq�,� City of ' Wheat jdge / MUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29" Ave. October 29, 2015 Mr. Michael Fay 4180 Dudley Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Case No. WA -15-12 Dear Mr. Fay: Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 Attached please find notice that your request for a 2 -foot, 4 -inch variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback, resulting in a setback of 2 -feet, 8 -inches, was approved for construction of an addition on property located at 4180 Dudley Street. Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance. Please note that all variance requests automatically expire within 180 days of the date it was granted (on April 26, 2016) unless a building permit for the variance has been obtained within such period of time. You are now welcome to apply for a building permit to construct the addition. Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions. 0 Zack Wallace Planning Technician www.ci.w h eatridge.co. u s 7500 West 29th Avenue City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 heatPLdge 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 _��W Approval of Variance WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 4180 Dudley Street referenced as Case No. WA -15-12 / Fay; and WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance, relying on criteria listed in Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and on information submitted in the case file; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has properly notified pursuant to Section 26-109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and WHEREAS, there were no registered objections regarding the application; NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 2 -foot, 4 -inch foot variance to the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing an addition on property in the Residential -Two (R-2) zone district (Case No. WA -15-12 / Fay) is granted for the property located at 4180 Dudley Street, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The irregular shape and shallow depth of the lot creates a limited rear yard space, which significantly limits alternative placement options. 3. The topography of the north side of the lot further limits alternative placement options. 4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 6. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. Datef Community Devilopment Director 1*�44 City of Wh6atPa d�ge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: October 27, 2015 CASE MANAGER: Zack Wallace ADMINISTRAIVE CASE NO. & NAME: WA-15-12/Fay ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 2 -foot 4 -inch (47%) variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement at 4180 Dudley Street, zoned Residential -Two (R-2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4180 Dudley Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: Michael Fay Michael Fay 9,403 Square Feet (0.22 Acres) Residential -Two (R-2) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Administrative Variance Case No. WA -I5-12 /Fay Site JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an administrative decision. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 2 -foot, 4 -inch (47%) variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement, resulting in a 2 -foot, 8 -inch rear setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a garden shed on the south side of the property. Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is zoned Residential -Two (R-2), a zone district that provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate -density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character. The subject property is located near the intersection of Dudley Street and Everett Drive, just north of 4l" Avenue, in the Crestview Park Subdivision (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The property is surrounded by single-family residential zone districts, specifically R-1 and R-2 (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). Currently, the subject parcel has a recorded area of 9,403 square feet and contains a one-story single- family home. This home was originally constructed in 1961, per the Jefferson County Assessor. The existing home has an approximately 32 -foot front (west) setback, an approximately 18 -foot side (north) setback, and an approximately 35 -foot side (south) setback. The rear (east) property line is at an angle, with the rear setback ranging from approximately 14 -feet at the southern end to approximately 30 -feet at the northern end. All current setbacks are in conformance with setback requirements for the R-2 zone district. The variance is being requested so the property owners may construct a 12 -foot wide by 7 -foot deep shed on the south side of the property (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). This property is irregularly shaped, with a diagonal rear property line that significantly limits the size of the rear yard, especially near the southern end of the property. The angled rear property line creates a challenge for the property owner, prompting the request for this variance, as it significantly limits the area of the rear yard. Without this setback variance, the applicant would need to construct the shed in the middle of his only usable rear lawn area. (Exhibit 4, Site Photos). The topography of the site also suggests that the most level area of the property, and thus the preferred option for building a free standing shed, is the southern portion (Exhibit S, Topographic Map). The original subdivision plat from 1960 indicates that this lot (Lot 22, Crestview Park Subdivision Amended) was originally platted as a rectangular lot, as was most of the subdivision (Exhibit 6, Plat). However, when the current owner/applicant purchased the home in 2012, the Deed of Trust indicated that the property has an `excepted' portion in the rear, as does the Improvement Location Certificate Administrative Variance Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay (ILC) dated April 16, 2012 (Exhibit 7, Current Lot). Historic aerial photography indicates that this lot configuration was in place as early as 2001. This indicates that at some point between 1960 and 2001 the rear portion of the lot was sold, however staff finds no city documents indicating this was approved through the subdivision process. Colorado law requires this type of property conveyance be authorized through a subdivision process. This finding helps further justify the request for a setback variance, as the irregular lot shape causing hardship was caused by an unknown party prior to the current owner/applicants purchase of the property. The proposed shed is in conformance with Section 26-625 (Accessory buildings and structures) of the Municipal Code. The shed is proposed to measure 12'x7', totaling 84 square feet, (Exhibit 8, Elevations) and would be placed parallel to the rear property line, adjacent to the existing driveway (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The owner adds that this shed would add much needed storage area to the home, and that the only feasible alternative locations (within setback requirements and on the northeast end of the property) would reduce the functionality of the already limited rear yard space and reduce the marketability of the home in the future (Exhibit 10, Submitted Responses to Criteria). Municipal Code Development Standards Sec. 26-209. Residential -Two District [R-2]): R-2 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 9,000 square feet (min) 9,403 square feet Lot Width 75 feet (min) 125 feet R-2 Minor Accessory Structures: Required Proposed Shed Building Size 400 square feet (max) 84 square feet Height 10 feet (max) 10 feet Front Setback 25 feet min 50 feet Side Setback 5 feet (min) 9 feet Rear Setback 5 feet (min) 2 -feet, 4 -inches During the public notification period staff received one call regarding the variance request. The property owner to the north, at 4190 Dudley Street, called after receiving the public notification letter. He stated his support of the proposed variance. Staff assured that his support would be noted in the official staff report. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 10, Submitted Criteria Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not 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. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The R-2 zone district allows sheds, and several homes in the neighborhood have existing accessory structures. Aerial photography also indicates several homes in the area with encroachments into the setback requirements. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The proposed addition of a shed is not a substantial investment in the property. The applicant is proposing an investment in the property. The unusual shape of the lot, existing structure placement, desire to maintain functionality of the rear yard space, and topographic features confine a shed to a small portion of the rear yard. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The unique hardship of the subject property relates to the angled rear property line. While the size of the lot meets the minimum lot size for the R-2 zone district, the irregular shape (which was created at an unknown point in time, by an unknown party) of the rear property line creates a limited amount of space behind the existing house. The topography on the north side of the lot further limits the area in which a shed can be built, with roughly 3 to 4 feet of fall at the northeast portion of the lot. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The lot was originally platted as a larger rectangular lot. However, when the current owner purchased the home, the deed indicated that the lot has a large area excepted from it, creating the small backyard. Staff found no city records that indicated when the sale of this portion of the original lot occurred, however, County Assessor records and historic aerial photography indicate that this occurred at some time prior to the current owner's purchase of the property. As such, the owner/applicant was not involved in the platting, construction of the home, or illegal subdivision process, and therefore had no hand in creating the present hardship. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request for a side setback variance would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvement. The proposed shed is approximately 9 -feet from the southern neighbor's property line, and further separated from the home by the aforementioned neighbor's driveway and garage. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The shed would not impair the sight distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would negatively impact property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Other properties in the neighborhood have irregular lot lines, largely due to the alignment of Everett Street, near its intersection with Dudley Street. However, most of the surrounding properties to the east have relatively regular, rectangular shaped lots that do not limit the building potential of accessory units, as is the case in this property. Staff finds this criterion has not been met 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single-family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manuab The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 2 -foot, 4 -inch (47%) variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The irregular shape and shallow depth of the lot creates a limited rear yard space, which significantly limits alternative placement options. 3. The topography of the north side of the lot further limits alternative placement options. 4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 6. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. Administrative Variance 6 Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay Aerial showing properrty lines (red) for 4180 Dudley Street Aerial indicating buildable area after minimum setback requirements are taken into account (un -shaded area) for 4180 Dudley Street Administrative Variance Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Administrative Variance Case No. WA -1S-12 /Fay EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN 0A71a4/18/2012 F�170.00 ��# 1z -16z Cl CAONOF JHPFERaON ADDRESS 4180 DUDLL EY 8T. LAND SURVEYI NG NAwE _ NIEE FAY 5480 WAND ROAD a surrE 160 ARvAm, CoLoRADD 80002 (303) 420-4788 IMPVg�iEffj6OCATION CERTIFICATE Fomd3W Reba SC.ALE:.4 - 31.8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PER CIJEMI SHE ATTACHE D LEGAL DESCRIPTION *-0-0 11.Y S Fiwed Beumeot 31.5'- -i 313 Bdct 3lhtms� I I II ;I 22.0 AwW f 9-feW 5330Eild"way lo — i i i 3z"/ s'-4 W(y- On the basis of my knowledge, Information and belief, I hereby certify that this Improvement location certificate was prepared for COUNTY OF TETFHRaON , that It is not a Land Survey Plat or Improvement Survey Piet, and that h Is not to be railed upon for the establishment of fence, building, or other future Improvement Ones. I further certify that the Improvements on the above described parcel on this date, except utility connections, are entirely within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by Improvements on any adjoining premises, except as Indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of arty easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as rQ(edt""'rrrrq�r NOTXX- D6 IDcaLm DaE6G6 n ptspsed ra !w safe WPae Df w b/ pWw A.W !+ .1adwohb of ti b the EanWrY lets on 6e detrmY,ed W FaPrween'>t Survey PYLergP arJ „ Ytea A m>. p,ecb. era en00eh-6 se nosed. R.E PORT dASSOC ATES IM end Reheat E Pat M ref be M" t./1a4 Y ti >–" to tmemenfe t�eC6;eRr diDerti he,ean ADcgten[e enNa tee a tNe Improranwil Lecaam CWfflkvfe far CemArafe, aM Uen areY tD the prase a'Y K er19pPeemem to e• tarn elated hereon 4V321 eUevela DM tarps Mttfa - ee.ewoe IwoD'JR.Now -I6-7x>Iz Administrative Variance *Added by Staff 9 Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS Administrative Variance Case No. WA -1S-12 /Fay W I.. View of the South side of the property from the shared driveway for 4180 Dudley (the site in question) and 4100 Dudley. The white arrow indicates the proposed location of the shed. Administrative Variance Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay EXHIBIT 5: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP The change in elevation on the north side of the property is about 4 feet; whereas the change in elevation on the south side of the property, the proposed location of the shed, is minimal. No contour lines cross the site in the area of the proposed shed, suggesting a relatively flat surface. W J 93 O a Q7 M13 • a 4 Y' L" If, 04135 J'y 114135 i 04135 1 ''A --tr, 1. SqB L pr 5 N Administrative Variance 12 Case No. WA -15-12 /FaY EXHIBIT 6: PLAT Subdivision Plat from August 1960 (4180 Dudley is Lot 22). Site (Lot 22) z' e ".I• ^ �0 GI FJ J i I A closer view of Lot 22 (4180 Dudley Street) showing it was originally platted as a rectangular lot. Administrative Variance 13 Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay EXHIBIT 7: CURRENT LOT DAIVa/F6/101I17Pgp�.0O ,Oao 12-162 RJL kT ADM COVA7DI ]FPDIOISOA' _. A6Onas aieD DOLLY e7. L AND S U R V E Y ING N—E MrRL My 5660 WARD WOAD • 5. RI[ 160 ARVADA, COLORADO 60062 301 a2"708 IMPf�y�HE��OCATIOt� CCRfIFIGT[ Pomd316a gMan- I gGlg 1•,,W 319 LEGAL DESCRIPTION G(P G. AttAI'H© L6LEACLIEI.TI DISIZRIFTIOV 1190 lenmt r SII I I II /~ � I II i � II II I II - - M -W 47AO / eooRe /d� On the bears of my lo,eebedge, Iniorfnation and bellef. 1 hereby ce" that Fhb knpmvament location cenblcete was areaared toe COUNTY or ]RDDRR DN thot 11 2 not a L"" Svrvey Plat x ;.'narover,,ent sunroy Net, Ind th0t h to not 10 be riled upon tfor�Nm the eftaannc t or lae, b0d V. or other Jut_ *'p,overrrm l- I knher Cenr'y that Ina iWrov~5 On the above daenbed parcel on thb Dai,,. 0—pt uFntry conr,a-llms. are erg"'y vnthm the boundaries or IM P-1. except m shown, thal there aro W encrorhrnents Loin ane ,D dasued prwreaes " mu by DVveenon arty wfDeb"pP-1114411P-1114411.n P-1114411. a.ceW u dieateD. end that theta n no aDporent all,*" a w s,0n of any eavnent Tamg or bu,d6-,sN any Pen of aa,a Patel..,,W as r>Qjpl„rlr�nrrrt. rYn10E 11e •.ppyr�. � xe.rtm n w.+�ea b ro .e„ o+cr•+ d w A rr_r .� � o Pm.*, w A .m a.ve M.w,m: a w.r<..•rv., 1c v. mwy w, o, a sw.e.e w�.,�...+'x s.,.., Pn . r.m,.'+.vr�,.., epaeMw.b Ra ru,e 0.EPJRLaAe50LM,[5 Kra 11e.�,E Mf1�.'npraeetr tdrrl � GrM�r�em e'G Yke NGolr vohM Prov^,+.rn Meane.►a'e rw a'wa .roowi,nl lnraa, C�tabrru Ry Nue �.9q."e'^o.f +sry w'.0 baa. Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) showing `Excepted portion of Lot 22" (4180 Dudley Street) F,ahihit A All of Lot 22. CRESTVIEW PARK SUBDIVISION (AMENDED), EXCEPT the following• Beginning at the Nonheast comer of Lot 22, thence Westerly along the North boundary of said lot a distance of I I feet; thence Southerly a distance of 72.7 feet to a point that is 19.4 feet West of the Easterly boundary ofsaid Lot 22, thence Southwesterly along the arc of the curve 200 foot radius to the right a distance of bf1 feet to the point on the Southerly boundary of said Lot 22, said point being 53.3 feet East of the Southwest comer of said Lot; thence Easterly along said Southerly boundary a distance of47.4 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot; thence North on the Easterly boundary 125.2 feet to the point of beginning, the plat of which is recorded in Plat Book 21 at Page I, County of Jefferson State ol'Culorado. Description of Site from current resident's deed indicating the `excepted' portion of the lot. Administrative Variance 14 Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay EXHIBIT 8: ELEVATIONS &lois I. oklvwl 7 -ax soM A,,*AA1W-S - Sim s()b�� la aWilaGil� 2. Lai' C7`) lkiint� �� i'Wk" hnVu-- ._StC- QAW as AVAS fi Scale 3iflp= 2� � o{�ongl 1�7K 8 (0 (o � — !Z'o y I 7 D" pfiopoa EiAd-1/1 S Aed '-118o OlAdIRY st wkeaf-k;dfw- I Co bM33 A Sk.dia Display X :RO Stedio building 3hor, optional Icor tidebghL; and - - 'on t— and Th. aimla: alta shpra this great 1—k -mg your co o• 5 ci ?' pant ;charne. Eat. —1— Khak. Q—.1 Trim Col— Antiqur statlmg Transom =cunt ro— S-aar eod 0— end Vnnd—Gnlen %,.h. to Submitted Sample Submitted Elevation Administrative Variance 15 Case No. WA -15-12 /Fay EXHIBIT 9: LETTER OF REQUEST 29 September 2015 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Property Owner / Location: Michael Fay / 4180 Dudley St, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Proposed Project: The above owner intends to construct a small garden shed at 4180 Dudley Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033. The garden shed footprint is to be 7 ft. x 12 ft. (84 ft. sq.) Specific Proposed Variance Request: Reduction of the Rear Yard Setback from 60" (5 ft.) to 32" (2 ft. 8 inches), a variance of 46.79/o (28"/60"). Summary Description of Proposal: The property currently has a small, 700 ft. sq., section of backyard space, which is technically large enough to allow construction of the above shed while maintaining the exiting setback regulations. However, this space is the only section of actual useable backyard space. Placing any structure within this area, with or without any setback variances, will completely destroy any functionality of an already small, but attractive backyard space. Doing so would reduce the value of the property and potentially the future marketability. Spoiling the only available backyard space to locate the needed garden shed creates a particular and unique hardship, not a mere inconvenience. Using this space is simply not an option. Alternately, using the propose site, with the proposed variance, is the only viable option. The proposed site is small with an odd triangular shape and placing even a modestly sized shed (7'x12') at the required five foot backyard setback will place the front of the building very near the driveway and it may appear miss -located, unappealing, and out of character with the house and neighborhood. Administrative 6ariance 16 Case No. WA -1 S-121 Fay EXHIBIT 10: Submitted Responses to Criteria 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the condition allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. Response: There is no question that with or without the proposed variance the property will still be the site of a functioning single family home and yield a good return of use and service over time. Nevertheless, the intent of the proposed addition and variance simply makes use of the best available alternative location for a garden shed, while retaining and preserving what small backyard the property has. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The proposed garden shed will not alter the character or esthetics of the neighborhood as there is no discernible local architectural standards or norms in the neighborhood. Numerous properties in the neighborhood, including several adjacent properties, currently have similar storage buildings that fit well into the essential character of the locality. The specific setting is heavily landscaped with large mature shrubs and trees which restrict the adjacent homeowner's views of this specific site. The garden shed is well sized and placed and will fit well with the character of the house and neighborhood. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without this variance. Response: In terms of dollars, the investment can hardly be considered substantial. More importantly, due to the unusual shape of the property, wide and shallow, the proposed site is the only viable location on the lot - while preserving the existing small backyard space. Adding a small garden shed in the proposed location will add valuable and needed storage capacity for the current and future homeowners. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Response: The overall lot size is 9,403 square feet. A reasonably sized lot but oddly proportioned. As seen on the plat the majority of the lot is front yard (west between street and house), the north side yard is too small, and the south side is all driveway. None are suitable locations for the proposed shed. The remaining east side, namely the north-east corner, is currently landscaped as lawn and approximately 700 feet square. This space is the only section of actual useable backyard space and placing any structure within this area will completely destroy any functionality of an already small, but attractive backyard space. Doing so would reduce the value of the property and potentially the future marketability. Using the only available backyard space to locate the garden shed creates a particular and unique hardship, not a mere inconvenience. Using this space is not an option. Administrative Variance 17 Case No. IFA -15-12 / Faj- Using the propose site with the proposed variance is the only viable option. The proposed site is small with an odd triangular shape and placing even a modestly sized shed (7'x12') at the required five foot backyard setback will place the front of the building very near the driveway and it may appear miss - located, unappealing, and out of character with the house and neighborhood . Additionally, locating the building too near the driveway could pose a challenge to accessing, or more likely, exiting the garage (i.e. backing the car out of the garage). 5. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Response: The property was built in 1961 and the current property owner was not involved the property when the plat was amended. In my view, the hardship was created when the original plat was altered by re -drawing the property boundaries and creating a lot with such a small backyard space. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property or improvement in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use of development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety or substantially diminishing or impairing property values with the neighborhood. Response: The proposed variance of rear yard setback will have zero detriment to the rear yard property owner as the rear yard property is currently planted and landscaped in a very mature state and nearly obstructed from view of the rear yard property itself. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Response: Yes. As mentioned above, there are numerous examples in the surrounding neighborhood where setbacks appear below today's standard. S. Not applicable to single or two-family homes. 9. Typically not applicable. Administrative Variance Is Case No. WA -1 S-1 Z / Fay Por7(,//Uc/? k AJt", 1V V �r W heat Ridge POSTING CERTIFICATION WA -15-12 DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: 1, wt c6e, � -dq residing at 1 �� as the applicant for Case No Public Notice at on this 16th day of October 26, 2015 (name) k)HPq� eid o Co (address) WA -15-12 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for 4180 Dudley Street (location) October 2015 and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for ten (10) days prior to and including the deadline for written comments regarding this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. Signature: h 4� NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Community Development Department for this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file. MAP Cityvof Wheat �dge PUBLIC POSTING REQUIREMENTS One sign must be posted per street frontage. In addition, the following requirements must be met: ■ The sign must be located within the property boundaries. ■ The sign must be securely mounted on a flat surface. ■ The sign must be elevated a minimum of thirty (30) inches from ground. ■ The sign must be visible from the street without obstruction. ' ■ The sign must be legible and posted for ten (10) continuous days prior to and including the deadline for written comments [sign must be in place until 5pm on October 26, 2015] It is the applicant's responsibility to certify that these requirements have been met and to submit a completed Posting Certification Form to the Community Development Department. 1 I � City Of Wheatjge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 LETTER NOTICE October 15, 2015 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you of Case No. WA -15-12, a request for approval of a 2 - foot, 4 -inch rear yard setback variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement to allow a shed with a 2 -foot 8 -inch setback on property zoned Residential -Two (R-2) and located at 4180 Dudley Street. The attached aerial photo identifies the location of the variance request. The applicant for this case is requesting an administrative variance review which allows no more than a fifty percent (50%) variance to be granted by the Zoning Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a decision, all adiacent aroaerty owners are required to be notified of the request by mail. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846 or if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in writing by 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 2015. Thank you. WA1512.doc www.ci.wheatridge.co.us The subject site -4180 Dudley Street—is outlined in red in the aerial image below. The image below is the site plan for 4180 Dudley Street indicating the location of the proposed shed and requested rear yard setback variance. Dpi ewW ft / location of Variance Request adjeowhowe i/ ' 2 -feet, 8 -inches from property line The proposed shed is outlined in black. The property line is outlined in blue. The variance location is highlighted in red. .t. TAYLOR SAMUEL TAYLOR RUTH J 4145 DUDLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 O HAYRE LARRY T O HAYRE RITA M 4190 DUDLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 THOMAS STEVEN R THOMAS SHARON B 4135 DOVER ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 JOBIN ROBERT E 4193 EVERETT DR WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 TESTA ANGELINA L CHEATHAM LYNN 4195 DUDLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BROOKS NORA L BROOKS KELLY M 4100 DUDLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 '�.- � ,�, = . ,': • y J x'71 t��" , . - _r5`_ _ $.. ., i '•� A �rJ A'r. •.;.�1. ,_,.r ~]' -_T 'i ' is j� mss. ';a- ;. mit..._ A• �,; r ,���' L: •F" �� ` -� .r_� - _ t'Y{`�'�t�. 71 v �4�..�,,'.��.�ii::i--,�.LL�-{.',f,f.� .� •rye .. ����. .�,,}, �1!i�. ,art I Iles - - , 4.V tx \� i ,� �_.��.w _..: �•,f..! ��rE i.,�l a*;F++-' it 4K 11 a_ p 10x12 PRO Studio Display This 10x12 PROStudio building shows optional door=idelights and 4x3 Mndow on the end .gall. The displa,� also shows this great looking four color 6 of 17 paint scheme: 2a_e Color: Khaki Green Trim Color: Antique Sterling Transom Accent Color: Sweetvood Door and 'Nindow Color: Vl,'hite 0 s c 0 RZ a 0 s c ALL OF LOT 22, CRESTVIEW PARK SUBDIVISION (AMENDED), EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 22; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT A DISTANCE OF I I FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY A DISTANCE OF 72.7 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS 19.4 FEET WEST OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 22; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF THE CURVE 200 FOOT RADIUS TO THE RIGHT A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET TO THE POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 22, SAID POINT BEING 53.3 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 47.4 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY 125.2 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THE PLAT OF WHICH IS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE 1, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO z9! DATL4/18/2012 FEE 00 JOB# 12-162 CLIENT COUNTY OF JEFFERSON MLX6rP%&M1 ADDRESS 4180 DUDLEY ST. LAND SURVEYING NAME MIKE FAY 5460 WARD ROAD • SUITE 160 ARVADA, COLORADO 80002 (303) 420-4788 On the basis of my knowledge, Information and belief, I hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was prepared for COUNTY OF JEFFERSON , that it is not a Land Survey Plat or Improvement Survey Plat, and that it Is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or other future improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date, except utility connections, are entirely within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as ngkgd)�tt�t�f�l+rtfr,,�� NOTICE TMs improvement location cM,faaU �s prepared bt the sde purD06e of use by partlee stated n 114JdesMOFr� ,gooarty corlvas or property lines A mors precise relsConship of the mpnwements to the oounoery lines can be determined by in ynproysmsnt Survey PMt. s aced as shown and only apparent Impravemens and encroachments are noted. R. E PORT 8 ASSOCIATES INC and Robert E Port we, not be liable for rLocetbn Cenecate, and than only to ft pelves spec;t"ty shown harem. Acceptance and/or use of this Improvement Location Certificate for any gtre� ii*p0aenvnt to an ;erns steed hereon. /1321 = SURVEY IsOE PAWNUeING �' �nrtV+° T-1 b_Z�t `. KA"90.NGIda OR . BEARINGS AND OIaEe61ONe T.- , : Using the propose site with the proposed variance is the only viable option. The proposed site is small with an odd triangular shape and placing even a modestly sized shed (7'x12') at the required five foot backyard setback will place the front of the building very near the driveway and it may appear miss - located, unappealing, and out of character with the house and neighborhood . Additionally, locating the building too near the driveway could pose a challenge to accessing, or more likely, exiting the garage (i.e. backing the car out of the garage). 5. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Response: The property was built in 1961 and the current property owner was not involved the property when the plat was amended. In my view, the hardship was created when the original plat was altered by re -drawing the property boundaries and creating a lot with such a small backyard space. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property or improvement in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use of development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety or substantially diminishing or impairing property values with the neighborhood. Response: The proposed variance of rear yard setback will have zero detriment to the rear yard property owner as the rear yard property is currently planted and landscaped in a very mature state and nearly obstructed from view of the rear yard property itself. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Response: Yes. As mentioned above, there are numerous examples in the surrounding neighborhood where setbacks appear below today's standard. 8. Not applicable to single or two-family homes. 9. Typically not applicable. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the condition allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. Response: There is no question that with or without the proposed variance the property will still be the site of a functioning single family home and yield a good return of use and service over time. Nevertheless, the intent of the proposed addition and variance simply makes use of the best available alternative location for a garden shed, while retaining and preserving what small backyard the property has. Z. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The proposed garden shed will not alter the character or esthetics of the neighborhood as there is no discernible local architectural standards or norms in the neighborhood. Numerous properties in the neighborhood, including several adjacent properties, currently have similar storage buildings that fit well into the essential character of the locality. The specific setting is heavily landscaped with large mature shrubs and trees which restrict the adjacent homeowner's views of this specific site. The garden shed is well sized and placed and will fit well with the character of the house and neighborhood. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without this variance. Response: In terms of dollars, the investment can hardly be considered substantial. More importantly, due to the unusual shape of the property, wide and shallow, the proposed site is the only viable location on the lot - while preserving the existing small backyard space. Adding a small garden shed in the proposed location will add valuable and needed storage capacity for the current and future homeowners. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Response: The overall lot size is 9,403 square feet. A reasonably sized lot but oddly proportioned. As seen on the plat the majority of the lot is front yard (west between street and house), the north side yard is too small, and the south side is all driveway. None are suitable locations for the proposed shed. The remaining east side, namely the north-east corner, is currently landscaped as lawn and approximately 700 feet square. This space is the only section of actual useable backyard space and placing any structure within this area will completely destroy any functionality of an already small, but attractive backyard space. Doing so would reduce the value of the property and potentially the future marketability. Using the only available backyard space to locate the garden shed creates a particular and unique hardship, not a mere inconvenience. Using this space is not an option. mc�z� 00 m'no O 80 , "ad 'off.. � �.m � N 7'O _ O' m w y o2.mo3 a —0-0 om Uri o�o� 5' 3< ' m v vOi (D (n T F S N U 1� .-i Vi Z �` N (A !4IDQ m o 3. z 3 a 3 � j Q D a 7 0h0• ►� z 00 5 O Q -„ n a U) `< C 1 012 O m m c-32 w 2 O� O w y CCD m O t�1�_ a D 4; � U > m 3 O p.-+ N N t 3 Z cr n 5' CZT Im = app O z �7. � N 7 m qq���IDm� Q 0o I I O L� _0 Q W Q �am o .0 � O So -� O� – aQ- CD � o °' 79 ID m cr o cC (D p m (D m x :3 o � x x o o 'a N (OD b � :3 m m O :T S cn /m CA Ncor CL 0 m (CDL IOID 1 ..GR 3 7:3 m 3 Q Q m m ID .o 3 m:3 O n 7 � � o o n � mO a3W, 7,00 D CD W = r. cQ m mea 3 r IIi ° _ Cn 2L3 d m ' � r (� (D o a r r* x o n -0 in Y ' 3 y < �' n ofj 7 ? ID -�:12 -w W � � vl 'J i1\ Il Dud* Suva 125.4 34.4'–, 21.9 21.9 o � 29.0 � 21.2 p she'd — 51.8 72.7 5' FThat t� 125.2 U] � n H � H n 0 d r D c -- r m� �m nLo rn 70 T O J z A 3 m 3 H I kolowo-I C �Rb m N O O N z H K o � o `4 o M ul o o zz °o N N I Chi � r V > z ' m O D W D I > 4 W n o {j N o 1 C Q D a M 0h0• ►� z 00 C m m m m � N_ t _ z 1•�► m G) 0o I I 72.7 5' FThat t� 125.2 U] � n H � H n 0 d r D c -- r m� �m nLo rn 70 T O J z A 3 m 3 H I kolowo-I C �Rb m N O O N z H K o � o `4 o M ul o o zz °o N N I Chi f W uk �� I Y I I 72.7 5' FThat t� 125.2 U] � n H � H n 0 d r D c -- r m� �m nLo rn 70 T O J z A 3 m 3 H I kolowo-I C �Rb m N O O N z H K o � o `4 o M ul o o zz °o N N I City of Wheat Ridee 10115i20i5 05x05 CDBP MICHAEL d OR CHERYL L FAY CDP01P396 AMOUNT FriSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES 200.00 PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CHECK: 6645 210.00 TOTAL 20@.@@ ---------------------------------------- 29 September 2015 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department 7500 West 291h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Property Owner / Location: Michael Fay / 4180 Dudley St, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Proposed Project: The above owner intends to construct a small garden shed at 4180 Dudley Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033. The garden shed footprint is to be 7 ft. x 12 ft. (84 ft. sq.) Specific Proposed Variance Request: Reduction of the Rear Yard Setback from 60" (5 ft.) to 32" (2 ft. 8 inches), a variance of 46.7% (28"/60"). Summary Description of Proposal: The property currently has a small, 700 ft. sq., section of backyard space, which is technically large enough to allow construction of the above shed while maintaining the exiting setback regulations. However, this space is the only section of actual useable backyard space. Placing any structure within this area, with or without any setback variances, will completely destroy any functionality of an already small, but attractive backyard space. Doing so would reduce the value of the property and potentially the future marketability. Spoiling the only available backyard space to locate the needed garden shed creates a particular and unique hardship, not a mere inconvenience. Using this space is simply not an option. Alternately, using the propose site, with the proposed variance, is the only viable option. The proposed site is small with an odd triangular shape and placing even a modestly sized shed (7'x12') at the required five foot backyard setback will place the front of the building very near the driveway and it may appear miss -located, unappealing, and out of character with the house and neighborhood. Cily of " W heat idge LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846 (Please print or type all information) Applicant knehael P? Address L / bo fludle> Phone -7ZO-927- City�j 1hdq l �- State Cb Zip D 32 Fax'/v1 Owner IK1c�ae i y Address 011 odif- ST Phone 724.610-91 77 City State �Q tip M 3 Fax A /A ( Contact Y \k�( Addresst//bO, &dlle-y Srt - Phone % O tiZ7 City State—C y Zi CD �3 Fax (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) Location of request (address): y/oa 6udley C-:�t Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): Please refer to submittal checklists for complete application requirements; incomplete applications will not be accepted O Change of zone or zone conditions O Special Use Permit O Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) O Consolidation Plat O Conditional Use Permit O Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) O Flood Plain Special Exception 0 Site Plan approval Wziance/Waiver porary Use, Building, Sign / 0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Concept Plan approval (from Section 0 Planned Building Group 0 Right of Way Vacation 0 Other: Detailed description of request: S E4R Vp 21CCe kU1 Id In Ki t+ e— fi PI�e� WteaC P -HW\_ 51 &O p Y 4!-) 2 qY 32 ' Required information: Assessors Parcel Number: Size of Lot (acres or square footage): Current Zoning: /2-1— Proposed Zoning: ; Current Use: Proposed Use: _A 1 certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, 1 am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listeq abovewithout whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit po rqojrn4j(�eownertwhich approved of this action on his behalf. Notarized Signature of Applicant State of Col7t' ado County of L ru fly h } ss s v The foregoing instrument (Land Use Processing Application) was acknowledged LISA HULL is 2- V*_ day of -�'-P , 20 /S by 1 1i GA Awl NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 0 20024004007 Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 25, 2017 My commission expires t fo / Z 5 /20 To be filled out by staff: Date received 1 C - i `l -1" Comp Plan Design. Related Case No. Fee $ Receipt No. Case No. W A - I S- / 2 Zoning S , r� ; n,Quarter Section Map E Pre -App Mtg. Date Case Manager 1.Je c.q-