HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-14-20♦6A4'
7500 West 29th Avenue – City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 ��rWh6atP�Ldge
303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857
Approval of Administrative Variance Request
WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at
3205/3210 Iris Court referenced as Case No. WA -14-20 / Ficco
WHEREAS, City staff has analyzed the variance request, 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 he application;
NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 2 -foot side yard fence variance from the 4 -foot
maximum side yard fence height in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district—resulting in a 6' side
yard fence—for the purpose of constructing a 6' fence (Case No. WA -14-20 / Ficco), is granted for
property located at 3205/3210 Iris Court, based on the following findings of fact:
1.) It will serve as an identifying architectural feature for the subdivision.
2.) The applicant is proposing a substantial investment that will benefit the neighborhood.
3.) The proposed wall is consistent with existing conditions along W. 32nd Avenue where
many properties have 6 -foot fences or walls along the street frontage.
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 or injurious to the public welfare.
With the following conditions:
1.) Constructed in location as depicted on Exhibit 3; and
2.) Constructed of a high quality masonry material with features including piers every 15
feet and a decorative masonry cap to the wall.
-Z-3-14
Date
41
City of
" Wh6atRidge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Community Development Director CASE MANAGER: Joshua Botts
DATE: January 12, 2015
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-14-20/Ficco
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -foot maximum side yard fence
height on property located at 3205-3210 Iris Court and zoned Residential -
One (R-1)
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3205 and 3210 Iris Court
APPLICANT(S): Louis J. Ficco
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Louis J. Ficco
APPROXIMATE AREA: 25,548 Square Feet of combined lot area
PRESENT ZONING: Residential -One (R-1)
PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant Lot (3205 Iris Court), Single Family Residential (3210 Iris Court)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
LOCATION MAP
Case No. WA-14-20IFicco
Site
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make a decision
regarding this case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 2 -foot (50%) variance from the 4 -foot maximum height
standard for a front yard fence. The purpose of the variance is to allow for construction of a 6 -foot wall
in the side yard of the properties at 3205 and 3210 Iris Court (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request).
Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of
Community Development to decide upon application 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 applicant, Louis J Ficco, is requesting the variance as the owner of the properties at 3205 and 3210
Iris Court. The subject properties have a combined area of approximately 25,548 square feet and are
both located in the Applewood Preserve Subdivision. The site is zoned Residential -One (R-1) and is
surrounded on three sides (north, east and west) by other properties which are zoned R-1 and have
single family homes on them. To the south, across W. 32nd Avenue is Crown Hill Park; a 242 -acre
recreation area owned and operated by Jefferson County Open Space in unincorporated Jefferson
County (Exhibit 2, Zoning).
3210 Iris Court, located at the southeast corner of 32"d Avenue and Iris Court, has a lot area of 13,023
square feet. A single family home is currently under construction on this lot. According to the site plan
in the building permit file, the property meets all development standards for a single family home in
the R-1 zone district, including 30 -foot setbacks along both West 32nd Avenue and Iris Court.
3205 Iris Court which is 12,525 square feet in size is located on the southwest corner of West 32nd
Avenue and Iris Court, across the street from the other property under consideration. This property is
currently vacant. Because 3205 Iris Court has not been developed, there is no staff analysis of the
City's development standards.
The properties are located in the Applewood Preserve Subdivision which was platted in 2005 and
contains twelve lots. Nine of the twelve lots are developed with large custom homes. Homes in the
subdivision appear to have footprints of at least 3,500 square feet and are valued in the $700,000 to
$1,000,000 range. Most subdivisions in this market range are located in planned developments that
have a distinctive perimeter privacy wall identifying the development approved as part of the land use
entitlement process. In this case, the subdivision is zoned R-1 and must follow the fence height
regulations in the zoning code.
Section 26-503 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws prescribes that fences on residential properties can
be six -feet (6') in height from the front wall of a residence back along the side and rear lot lines.
Fences located from the front wall of a structure forward to the front property line are limited to four -
feet (4') in height. In addition, corner lots are given special consideration with regard to sight distance
Case No. WA-14-20/Ficco
at the corner which allows either 36" or 42" of height depending on street classifications. As such the
proposed perimeter wall must taper down to 48" as it extends past the front wall of the homes.
The justification for the fence height variance is two -fold; to serve as an identifying architectural
feature for the subdivision and to provide noise attenuation and privacy for the two homes with
frontage on both Iris Court and 32nd Avenue.
W. 32nd Avenue is classified as an arterial roadway, and is a well -traveled commuter street carrying
over 9,000 vehicles per day. Development on W. 32nd Avenue is almost entirely residential, and is used
as a thoroughfare between Kipling and Wadsworth. It is also one of the only east/west streets in this
area that extends from downtown Denver, west to Golden. The aTplicant has expressed that he is
seeking a way to reduce the noise produced by traffic on W. 32" Avenue and increase privacy so the
front yard can become a more useable space. When staff visited the site on a weekday, the noise from
the street was remarkably loud. To hold a conversation required speaking at an elevated volume in the
front yard of the subject property and on the adjacent sidewalk.
The proposed wall will break the line of sight between vehicles on 32nd and people on the property.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, a noise barrier can achieve a 5 decibel noise level
reduction when it is tall enough to break the line of sight from a roadway to the home. Each additional
meter in height can equal a 1.5 decibel reduction. The proposed wall may be able to reduce the noise
by 5 to 10 decibels. A 10 decibel decrease in sound pressure is perceived as being half as loud; if so,
the proposed wall would be effective at reducing noise.
The applicant has considered the visual impact of the proposed wall, and has proposed to mitigate this
impact in several ways:
Setback — Because one of the purposes of the wall is to mitigate noise, the structure will be located
inside the property lines and will not fully enclose the lot. The proposed site plan indicates that the
wall will be 8 feet north of the sidewalk on 32"d Avenue, and 7 feet from the western property line
on the eastern lot. On both front corners, the wall will be angled to prevent conflict with sight
triangle and to minimize adjacency with the sidewalk (Exhibit 3, Site Plan).
Material — The applicants have selected a product made of steel, fiber reinforced concrete and
looks like natural stone (Exhibit 4, Sample Wall). The solid barrier will be more effective at
reducing noise than a cedar privacy fence. The finished quality of the material selection appears to
be more appropriate for a front yard than a wooden fence would otherwise be. The applicants have
also expressed that the material and concept of a wall complement the character of the
neighborhood.
The only alternative that would not require a variance is to construct a wall that tapers to 4 feet in
height or less at the front wall of the house or at the 30' setback on the western, vacant lot. The
applicants have expressed that 4 -foot alternative would not provide a sufficient noise barrier.
Case No. WA-14-20/Ficco
Public Notice Responses
During the 10 -day public posting period, no written comments were received in regards to the proposed
fence height variance.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
The Director of Community Development shall base his decision in consideration of the extent to
which the applicant demonstrates that a majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-
115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided an analysis of the application's
compliance with the variance criteria. Staff provides the following review and analysis.
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.
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 essential character of the locality. About half of the homes
in this area have front yards that face W. 32nd Avenue; therefore fences 4 feet high are very
common along W. 32nd Avenue from Wadsworth Avenue to Youngfield Street (Exhibit 5, Site
Photos).
Most of the properties along the north side of the W. 32nd Avenue are oriented toward local
streets and have six foot rear fences along 32nd
The proposed 6 -foot wall is consistent with other fences and walls along the street, and the
visual impact in this location will be minimized by several elements of the design including the
materials, the setbacks of the wall, and the angling of the wall at the corners.
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 applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which would not be
possible without the variance. The applicants have proposed a design which is more consistent
with the home and subdivision and requires more investment than a standard privacy fence.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
4
Case No. WA-14-20/Ficco
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 conditions that affect this property include the surrounding land uses and proximity
to a well -traveled arterial roadway. This results in an unusually exposed side yard, for which a
4 -foot fence or wall, may be an ineffective sound barrier.
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 alleged difficulty relates to the location of the fence with respect to the adjacent road.
Traffic on W. 32nd Avenue has increased over the years and the property owner feels he is
unable to utilize the side yard because of the noise produced by vehicles traveling through the
area.
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 would not be detrimental to the public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result
of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. It would neither impede the sight
distance triangle, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on adjacent streets or
driveways. The wall would not increase the danger of fire, and it is unlikely that the request
would impair 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.
The unusual conditions of the subject property are also present in the neighborhood. As
described above other properties in the neighborhood have constructed a fence or barrier along
the W. 32nd Avenue that exceeds 4 feet in height.
Case No. !VA-14-20/Ficco
While approval of a variance does not inherently set a precedent, it should be noted that 8
properties in the area have fences above the 4 -foot height maximum front yard standard
(Exhibit 6, Neighborhood Conditions).
Staff finds that this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person i-dth
disabilities.
Fences and walls 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 Manual
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling
units.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff
recommends approval of a 2 -foot (50%) variance from the 4 -foot maximum height standard for a fence
or divisional wall in a side yard. 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: The variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding locality.
1.) It will serve as an identifying architectural feature for the subdivision.
2.) The applicant is proposing a substantial investment that will benefit the neighborhood.
3.) The proposed wall is consistent with existing conditions along W. 32"d Avenue where many
properties have 6 -foot fences or walls along the street frontage.
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 or injurious to the public welfare.
With the following conditions:
1.) Constructed in location as depicted on Exhibit 3; and
2.) Constructed of a high quality masonry material with features including piers every 15 feet
and a decorative masonry cap to the wall.
6
Case No. WA-14-20/Ficco
EXHIBIT l: Letter of Request
To Whom it May Concern:
This letter is in response to the Review Criteria in asking for a Variance. The
variance that we are asking for is that we can maintain the 6' fence height along 32nd
Ave. from the rear of the properties all the way to 7' back of the sidewalk on Iris Ct..
The Applewood I'reserve Subdivision is one of the premier subdivisions in the City
of Wheat Ridge. It consists of 12 custom home sites (4 of which are completed) that
are valued in the million dollar range, The main concern is thatwe provide a
privacy wall that will enhance the privacy and beauty of the subdivisiun. The wall
that we have chosen for this pruject consists of stone blocks and columns. The lots
at 3210 and 3205 Iris Ct are the corner lots at the entry of the subdivision along
32nd. Ave. The intent is to give the lots the most privacy as possible while still
providing a wall that is enhancing to the subdivision and the community, The way
the design guidelines read now we would have to drop the wall height from 6' to 4'
30' back from the front property line, The lots are 100' (32 10) and 110" (3205) in
depth so when the 30' is subtracted from the overall depth of the lot it only gives the
residences 2/3 of their lot that has privacy from 32nd Ave„ which has a considerable
amount of traffic, 'Phis variance will carry no detrimental affects upon the
neighborhood, the community nr traffic, it will only enhance characteristics of a
beautiful subdivision. The variance will in no way affect the sight triangle as we
have already moved the wall back from the property line to create adequate space
for landscaping along 320 Ave. This variance will not change the location of the
wall in length or location, it will only change add to the height of the wall for a
sections that is 24'.
The following responses are to demonstrate why we feel we meet the majority of
the variance criteria.
1. The responses from prospective buyers on the house at 3210 Iris have all
shown the sande concern for privacy for bnth sound and sight from 32"a Ave.
With Iris Ct being such a wide street and then having the setback for the
height requirement it leaves a huge opening for sound and sight privacy
issues.
2. This variance would not altar the character of the locality it would only
enhance it.
3. We are investing a great deal of money into a nice privacy Hall verses a
standard wood fence and would like to make it as functional as possible. Our
intention is to do it right once instead of spending the money without getting
the benefit of the wall.
4, With 3Z- being at the trop of the subdivision and the grade sloping down to
the north the wall is already lower than the sidewalk. So in essence we are
already not getting the full benefit of the 6' wall. There is no way to bring the
grade up high enough to make the wall the same elevation as the sidewalk
Case No. WA-14-20/Ficco
hec:ause the drainage needs to stav on the site to go through the retentiun
ponds.
5. There has been no created hardship. The hardship is due to the
topographical condition and the unique subdivision for the area.
6. The granting of this variance will nut be detrimental to the public, the
neighborhood, or the adjacent properties. The sight triangle, traffic flow, fire
danger or public safety will not be impaired. And the variance will only
enhance property values, and appearance.
7. The cirrumstances necessitating the variance are present in the
neighborhood. This type of wall is not unique to the property and is very
similar to the wall that was just constructed in the new Standard Pacific
suhdivision along west 3flfi Ave.
Thank you for your consideration, please contact me with any questions.
Lou Ficco
:303.263-0489
hruricLoPyrr.ail com
Case No. WA-14-20/Ffcco
EXHIBIT 2: Zoning
Case No. WA-14-20/Ficco
EXHIBIT 3: Site Plan
Case No. WA-14-20/Ficco
r
10
EXHIBIT 4: Sample Wall
(�
® M 5.
54— Jtl (am.n
Sound Barriers
Fence Wall Gallery sra k
Case No. WA-14-20/Ficco
C'ullcaticm AB FeRZ("ulffclion ftepum: Midwr�t
Blcnk dame AB Fence Blxr
Cuht—
Panerns, Step Up, S tend Bouriem, Sernrity / Pciracv
grass Un Slope, tall ttvtb
EXHIBIT 5: Site Photos
3205 Iris Court looking south
3205 Iris Court looking west
1?
Case No. WA-14-20IFicco
3210 Iris Court looking east
Case No. WA-14-20IFicco
13
EXHIBIT 6: Neighborhood Conditions
> 4' Fence
Site
❑ _ell t_
w ».
. e
3250 Independence Court
14
Case No. WA-14-20IFicco
1
1
!o,
Wfi6atFZ,idgc
LETTER NOTICE CERTIFICATION
(as required pursuant to Code Section 26-109.D)
Case No.: WA -14-20
This is an administrative variance review with a 10 -day posting period. Public comments
concerning this request are due in writing by 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2014.
I Kim Waggoner, Administrative Assistant, Community Development Department, hereby
certify that I mailed a total of 4 letters on December 22 2014 to the attached recipient
list.
Ct[kr\ I nI a
Signature: v v
9
Date: ` 10
City of
Wheat j�jgie
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29t' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
LETTER NOTICE
December 22, 2014
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA -14-20, a request for a 2 -foot height variance
(50%) from the 4 -foot height standard, resulting in a 6 -foot high privacy wall on
property zoned Residential -One located at 3205 — 3210 Iris Court. 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 adjacent Property owners are required to be notified of the request
by certified 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 December 31, 2014.
Thank you.
WA ] 420.doc
www.cl.wheatridge.co.us
31!S
suj OlZ£ — SOZ£ 3t,
palgool aup-jmluapisa-8 pauoz Aliadoid uo 1110M AOUAUd q2!q looj-9 v ui 2utllnsai
°p.Mpurls jg2iaq loo3-b aqj iuoI3 (%OS) aOU'BLMn lg2iaq JooJ-Z 9 JOJ jsanbw d
QEid aMs
WRIGHT THOMAS DAHL CARL ROBERT ROSE ANTHONY H
WRIGHT SUSAN DAHL SUSAN TIGNOR 9799 W 32ND AVE
9625 W 32ND AVE 3215 IRIS CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
FICCO LOUIS J
3650 VANCE ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
as
2 S
3
K
O
Z
U
0
m¢ I
®Z
rc O
�i
City of
W heat R,,:qge
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. Lo/sq - t Y - 2 0
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: 12- 3(- 2 O (V(
(name)
residing at
(address)
as the applicant for Case No. 14 -?0 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for
Public Notice at 3210/3205 Iris Court
(location)
on this day of 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:
NOTE: This form must be submitted to the ommun' y Development Department for this case
and will be placed in the applicant's case file.
MAP
r�-
-juawpedaQ
juawdolanaa Apunwwoo ayl o} waod uoPoWIPGO builsod palaidwoo a Iiwgns of
pue law uaaq aney sluawaiinbaa asagl legl AjrPao of Al!l!gisuodsai speoildde ay} si 11
[C wZ ` 6£ AeIN
uo wdq pun eoeld ui aq Isnw u6is] sluawwoo uallpm aol auilpeap aqj buipnloui
pue o} aoiad sAep snonuiluoo (o �) ual aol palsod pue ap6al aq jsnw ubis ayl
uoilona}sgo Inot4l!m laaa}s ay} waj ajgisin aq Isnw ubis aqi
puno.ib woaj sayoui (o£) Apt4l jo wnwiuiw a palena19 aq Isnw ubis ayl
•aoe,pns jell a uo pa}unow Alainoas aq Isnw u6is ayl
-sauepunoq A:padoid aqj uigl!m paIeool aq Isnw ubis ayl
:law aq Isnw
sluawa.iinbaa buimollol ayj `uoilippe ul -a6eluoij hails aad palsod aq Isnw u6is aup
S1N3W3mino3m JNIISOd onand
a�p� ��aLinC1
!o �1!J
lJ�
e,.
♦6A41
91 City of
"�qWheat Rjdge
LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
Community Development Department
7500 West 29`0 Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846
(Please print or type all information)
Applicant_ 43,4-s r�,c o Address 32 p S - 32-/0 jrt5 0- Phone 3y 3 26 3-01 91
City "et"I Rt'�, (J State 3 Fax
Owner _L,,�,� %, L r,� Address 32-(,5 'Ir,.5 6 f Phone 3o3-• C)-Ci1fb'�j'
City G,,hc��¢ (Z,.��c, 16 State fcp Zip fc,0 3 Fax
Contact Address Phone
City State Zip 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 Bearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written
communication to applicant and owner.)
Location of request (address):
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 O Site Plan approval O Temporary Use, Building. Sign
O Lot Line Adjustment O Concept Plan approval $Variance/Waiver (from Section )
D Planned Building Group O Right of Way Vacation O Other:
Detailed description of request: 60 (re �/ I fl ,)1� f tJ 16 1 /4c,�hF t � �rv� % SC+ 044 4-
(^)n Orl oe t,, tni,.111.
Required information: 3205 y 3 8 7%W 320-5 I;S25
Assessors Parcel Number: 3Z10 11316SO Size of Lot (acres or square footage): 34It2 i1043
Current Zoning:R ' Proposed Zoning:
Current Use: S eR Proposed Use:
/ certify that the information and exhibits herewith submined are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application. / am
acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons list e ah e. w ' hout whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished.
.Applicants other than owners must submit pow f-aaor y f n t owner which approved of this action on his behalf.
Notarized Signature of Applican
State of Col ra —""
County of ' t ti } ss KIM WAGGONER
(VOTARY PUBLIC
The foregoing instrument (Land Use Processing_ Application) was acknowledged STATE OF COLORADO
by tfiis �' da of \X.K.Iv.L 20 l c( by 1&4 ;J,. fi L (Votary ID 201340145648
My Comm6sbn Expires 07/1912017
14
Notary Public
My commission expires / �� /20 1
To be filled out by staff:
Date received! 11 I 1 N
Comp Plan Design.
Related Case No.
Fee $ "CO Receipt No.Coty4l 11
Zoning
Pre -App Mtg. Date
Case No.
Quarter Section Map N 0,1 ;tl
Case Manager yo
_ City of Rev. 5/2014
Wheat -ge
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Submittal Checklist: Variance
Project Name:
Project Location:
Application Contents:
A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a
unique physical hardship is present. The following items represent a complete variance
application:
1. Completed, notarized land use application form
2. Application fee
3. Signed submittal checklist (this document)
_4. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed
_5. Written authorization from property owner(s) if an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s)
_6. Written request and description of the proposal
Include a response to the variance review criteria—these are found in Section
26-115 of the municipal code
_ Include an explanation as to why alternate designs that may comply with the zoning
standards are not feasible
_ Include an explanation of the unique physical hardship that necessitates relief
7. Survey or Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) of the property
_8. To -scale site plan indicating existing and proposed building footprints and setbacks
_9. Proposed building elevations indicating proposed heights, materials, and color scheme
As applicant for this project, I hereby ensure that all of the above requirements have been included with
this submittal. I fully understand that if any one of the items listed on this checklist has been excluded,
the documents will NOT be distributed for City review. In addition, I understand that in the event any
revisions need to be made after the second (2"d) full review, I will be subject to the applicable resubmittal
fee. A /
Signature: Date: —ILI /y /Z( )1 5
Name (please print): �, ���� Phone: 30�- A3 C418`1
Community Development Department - (303) 235-2846 - www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
Case No. WA1420
Date Received 12/19/2014
Related Cases Case Planner Botts
Case Descriptiorquesttfor height variance (50%) from the 4 -foot height standard, resulting in a 6 -foot high privacy wall on property zoned
Re0ea2-foot
CDBBII174
AAo,Iic" /e%dAW
FMSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES
288.88
Name Louis J. Ficco
Name
Phone (303) 263.0489
Address 3205.32101ris Ct.
.
City Wheat Ridge
State CO Zip 80033-
owne! fm/cnsration
Name Louis J Ficco
Name
Phone (303) 263-0489
Address 3205 - 32101ris Ct.
City Wheat Ridge
State CO Zip 80033-
Comae f lirfonwa/ion
Name
Name
Phone
Address
City
State Zip
f3oyecf br/mfwa&W
Address 3205 - Street
32101ris Ct.
City Wheat Ridge State CO Zip ',80033
Location Description
Project Name
Parcel No Qtr Section
District No
Parcel No.
39.272-15-045 Qtr Section: NW27 District No.: III
3927215045 NW27
3 . --
3927215055 NW27
3
f7eviews
Pre -App Date
Neighborhood Meeting Date
App No:
Review Type
Review
PAP xi/icer
Case Disposition
Conditions of Approval
Res # Ord #
Review Body Review Date Disposition
0 Admin
0
0 Disposition Date
Eil
LTJ
Comments
W
Notes
Status ;Open
_... ..._ ._.
Storage: —._--
0
CityY of Wheat Ridge
12/22/2814 18:48 CDBB
LOUIS FICCO -- WA -14-28
CDBBII174
AMOUNT
FMSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES
288.88
PAYMENT RECEIVED
AMOUNT
CHECK: 4254
208.88
TOTAL
288.88
------------------------------- --- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE RETURN TOP PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT
Account Information
Account #:
01100351-01
Billing Date:
12/04/14
Address:
3210 Iris Ct
Type:
Irrigation Only
Meter Size:
3/4" Displacement
Bill Detail
Previous Balance
Payment
Water Consumption
Bi -Monthly Fixed Service Charge
Billing ID: 1270 00268930
Gallons
1
wil
Consumption
Readings (1000's of Gallons)
Description Previous Present Usage
Normal 0-09/10/14 1-11/07/14 1
$39.00
($39.00)
$4.40
$39.00
1
O -N D -J F -M A -M J -J A -S O -N D -J F -M A -M J -J A -S O -N
Bi -monthly Billing Perioda Past Current
Periods Period
Total Due
M
The Consolidated Mutual Water Company — 12700 W. 27th Ave.
Billing Questions or EMERGENCIES Call 303-238-0451 - www.cmwc.net
$43.40
Tim Kauffman JEFFERSON COUNTY COLORADO
County Treasurer
100 Jefferson County Pkwy 2520
Golden CO 80419-2520
303-271-8330 PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT
http://ieffco.us/treasurer TAX NOTICE
TAX DIST. 3141 SCHEDULE NO 439650 gni? TAxF.q PAVAPI G Wn1'z
DOING BUSINESS AS:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
3210 IRIS CT
FIN. INST.
SEC.TWN. RNG. QTR.
SQ. FT. LAND BLK LOT
KEY BOOK PAGE
TAX, AUTHORITY
TAX LEVY*
TAX AMOUNT
APPLEWOOD PRESERVE
FLG 2
SCHOOL
27 03 69 NW
13023 0001
F2 16432 1
SCHOOL GEN
43.1270
1,427.76
SCHOOL BND
7.4890
247.93
COUNTY
CNTY GEN'L
15.9990
529.67
DEV DISABL
1.0000
33.11
RSB SRVCS
1.4000*
46.35
SOC SRVCS
1.4650*
48.50
CAP'TL EXP
1.0570*
34.99
LIBRARY
3.4250*
113.39
WHR
1.8300
60.58
UDFCD
.5990*
19.83
UDFCDSPLAT
.0580*
1.92
WFD
7.5000
248.30
WRSD
8.0280
265.77
VACANT LAND
PROPERTY VALUATION
TAX LEVY
VALUATION
ACTUAL
ASSESSED
92.9770
3,078.10
LAND
114.160
33 1 nF
ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY: 7.96% ALL OTHER PROPERTY: 29.00% FULL AMOUNT DUE APRIL 30 3,078.10
OR
FIRST HALF DUE FEBRUARY 28 1,539.05
SECOND HALF DUE JUNE 15 1,539.05
FICCO LOUIS J
3650 VANCE ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033-6293
II11LII11till IIII IIIIIIIIfill IIJJiIIloll 1i1IJ11I111till III
IF PAYING IN PERSON BRING ENTIRE TAX NOTICE
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
---------------------
--------------------------------------------------
_____ PLEASE RETURN TOP PORTION WtTH YOUR PAYMEN
Readings (1000's of Gallons)
Account Information Description Previous
Present Usage
- - Normal 0-09/10114
0-11/07/14 0
Account #: 01100381-01
Billing Date: 12/04/14
Address: 3205 Iris Ct
Type: Residential 1 Unit
Meter Size: 3/4" Displacement
Bill Detail $39.00
Previous Balance ($39.00)
Payment $39.00
Bi -Monthly Fixed Service Charge
Ga
Billing ID: 1270 00268930
Consumption
$39.00
Total Due
O -N D -J F -M A -M J -J A -J "-'' Past Current
Bi -monthly Billing Period aPeriods Period
The Consolidated Mutual Water Company — 12700 W. 27th Ave.
Billing Questions or EMERGENCIES Call 303-238-0451 - www.cmwc.net
Tim Kauffman JEFFERSON COUNTY COLORADO
County Treasurer
100 Jefferson County Pkwy 2520
Golden CO 80419-2520
303-271-8330 PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT
http://ieffco.us/treasurer TAX NOTICE
TAX r11ST 3141 II G 1\I(') A4A77R 'Ml') TAVCO MAWAM
DOING BUSINESS AS:
PROPERTY LOCATION:v
3205 IRIS CT
FIN. INST.
SEC.TWN. RNG. QTR.
SQ.FT.LAND BLK LOT
KEY BOOK PAGE
TAX AUTHORITY
TAX LEVY`
TAX AMOUNT
APPLEWOOD PRESERVE
SCHOOL
27 03 69 NW
12525 0001
F1626747
SCHOOL GEN
43.1270
11158.87
SCHOOL BND
7.4890
201.24
COUNTY
CNTY GEN'L
15.9990
429.90
DEV DISABL
1.0000
26.87
RSB SRVCS
1.4000*
37.62
SOC SRVCS
1.4650*
39.37
CAP'TL EXP
1.0570*
28.40
LIBRARY
3.4250*
92.03
WHR
1.8300
49.17
UDFCD
.5990*
16.10
UDFCDSPLAT
.0580*
1.56
WFD
7.5000
201.53
P7RSD
8.0280
215.72
VACANT LAND
PROPERTY VALUATION
VALUATION
ACTUAL
ASSESSED
TAX LEVY
92.9770
2,498.38
LAND
92,660
26.871
ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY: 7.96% ALL OTHER PROPERTY: 29.00% FULL AMOUNT DUE APRIL 30 2,498.38
OR
FIRST HALF DUE FEBRUARY 28 1,249.19
SECOND HALF DUE JUNE 15 1,249.19
FICCO LOUIS J
3650 VANCE ST STE 1
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033-6296
II11I1II111I111111111111111111111111111111II1111111111II111111
IF PAYING IN PERSON BRING ENTIRE TAX NOTICE
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in response to the Review Criteria in asking for a Variance. The
variance that we are asking for is that we can maintain the 6' fence height along 32nd
Ave. from the rear of the properties all the way to 7' back of the sidewalk on Iris Ct..
The Applewood Preserve Subdivision is one of the premier subdivisions in the City
of Wheat Ridge. It consists of 12 custom home sites (9 of which are completed) that
are valued in the million -dollar range. The main concern is that we provide a
privacy wall that will enhance the privacy and beauty of the subdivision. The wall
that we have chosen for this project consists of stone blocks and columns. The lots
at 3210 and 3205 Iris Ct. are the corner lots at the entry of the subdivision along
32nd. Ave. The intent is to give the lots the most privacy as possible while still
providing a wall that is enhancing to the subdivision and the community. The way
the design guidelines read now we would have to drop the wall height from 6' to 4'
30' back from the front property line. The lots are 100'(3210) and 110" (3205) in
depth so when the 30' is subtracted from the overall depth of the lot it only gives the
residences 2/3 of their lot that has privacy from 32nd Ave., which has a considerable
amount of traffic. This variance will carry no detrimental affects upon the
neighborhood, the community or traffic; it will only enhance characteristics of a
beautiful subdivision. The variance will in no way affect the sight triangle as we
have already moved the wall back from the property line to create adequate space
for landscaping along 32nd Ave. This variance will not change the location of the
wall in length or location, it will only change add to the height of the wall for a
sections that is 24'.
The following responses are to demonstrate why we feel we meet the majority of
the variance criteria.
1. The responses from prospective buyers on the house at 3210 Iris have all
shown the same concern for privacy for both sound and sight from 32nd Ave.
With Iris Ct. being such a wide street and then having the setback for the
height requirement it leaves a huge opening for sound and sight privacy
issues.
2. This variance would not alter the character of the locality it would only
enhance it.
3. We are investing a great deal of money into a nice privacy wall verses a
standard wood fence and would like to make it as functional as possible. Our
intention is to do it right once instead of spending the money without getting
the benefit of the wall.
4. With 32nd being at the top of the subdivision and the grade sloping down to
the north the wall is already lower than the sidewalk. So in essence we are
already not getting the full benefit of the 6' wall. There is no way to bring the
grade up high enough to make the wall the same elevation as the sidewalk
because the drainage needs to stay on the site to go through the retention
ponds.
S. There has been no created hardship. The hardship is due to the
topographical condition and the unique subdivision for the area.
6. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public, the
neighborhood, or the adjacent properties. The sight triangle, traffic flow, fire
danger or public safety will not be impaired. And the variance will only
enhance property values, and appearance.
7. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the
neighborhood. This type of wall is not unique to the property and is very
similar to the wall that was just constructed in the new Standard Pacific
subdivision along west 38th Ave.
Thank you for your consideration, please contact me with any questions.
Lou Ficco
303-263-0489
louficcoOgmail.com
U)
N
QL-
0
CL
ss'
I
30 f'
yGr'14�GC
A
I
�
66,9G
3 20 G+ L� la
I if) 31nrs Scchor,
Z.,
N
i
S�
1 n I
6� o� WC, I I
Are,,
6�
.3 a N) 4 Lle,
S, Jc WC, l k
/f5j V -Troo�►G
C ` I'd I
32 OS J-r,s C�.
MSI
wV _
4PPROVED
to F_ -!d Inspections
ridge Building Dept.
Dlon rlcnLn�
Sf �'yT
1 TRI
1 ;
E
FH
0
` o
................... ............... _..
51
f
f 10' UTILITY EASEMENT
110_00' wV
`-- --__ N 890 29'36511 E _,.,,,._
OHP OHP
EXISTI W4 Deivew+AY
BE 2 io MOVJs 0 k J i,
W 1Tti SibE:W At -V_
,40TE I_0CA-r&-6 c
APPLOwoo,) P"5i
07- FL"`T REcoF
lalgcol';Loo/. P"
7WA-r A
f B -mi r wt_ - BC
AAIA o8 rAiN&iO F&
it L✓oQ S 0303-33 s
'�i2�02 o wo .e,e
�tt
{ f
SIDEWALK
WEST 32nd AVE
N&
w
_ wV _
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PUBLIC WORKS, ENGINEERING
APPROVED FOR:
DRAINAGE gSIDEWALK
,ZCURB & GUTTER O STREET
0 Ml' CELLANEOUS 0 PLAT
COMMENT S -
,dPl�b✓tel ,., /�,�mNarr �
I
-- w
CITY OF WHEAT R
PUBLIC WORX,
SITE/ROOF PLAN.
SCALE: 111 = 10' - Off
BUILDING DATA:
Main Floor 1665 sf
Upper Floor 2542 sf
Basement 1541 sf
Total 5748 sf
D,&.TE Z -
RECEIVED
SITE DATA:
Lot Area: 13,024 s.f.
Maximum Lot Coverage @ 25% = 3,256 s.f.
Actual Coverage = 3,236 s.f.*
* (INCLUDEDS COVERED ENTRY, DECKS & DECK STAIR)
59-
W
2
LuW
Q
..J
D
0
30'-0"
501
EL9.50
! MI POINT
OHP
FH '
i
SIDEWALK ;
WEST 32nd AVENUIE
I
10' UTILITY EASEgENT
110,00' _ _ �WV
J 890 29'36" E __- -- r
OHP
UP
J
EXIs7! uy Dlzl'
W I -fes SIpEt/-
NOTE 1,0cA
A pOLEWc/�)
#0 2 P`� /
7f147 A A
t AAlb o13TAh
�,1,✓0,2� S C3�
! `P/2/012- TO
i
\A/
IV, -
! f � ,ter• Y _...�. _,,._,,. �.�. �`
1 /
i
i
S amort ;
M L � tu7�Ll
�,�M3?edd
c�/AoLu.� 77� 3 g
710
069
---- � �0076l6
1N�IN�SAd� J.1I1I1f1 SOL
I f
I
1
A\j�NaAV PUN �I.SB[h&
j �I'1`dM�aIS
t
H�
dH0
}
f
3
cin
1NIOJPIW
Os.s -la
0
Category
Sound Barriers
Sound Barriers
Retaining Walls
Fence Wall Gallery Beane g Walls
a
Collection: AB Fence Collection
Block Name: AB Fence Blocks
Categories:
Patterns, Step Up, Sound Barriers, Security / Privacy
Keywords:
grass on slope, tall trees
Region: Midwest
12 - Dua'2MjPg
1-8of14
Retaining Walls
Fence Wall Gallery Beane g Walls
a
Collection: AB Fence Collection
Block Name: AB Fence Blocks
Categories:
Patterns, Step Up, Sound Barriers, Security / Privacy
Keywords:
grass on slope, tall trees
Region: Midwest
12 - Dua'2MjPg
ti
���
} � _;� �'
� a'
r: f ,�
,r
�.y�
�� �.i.
ax �
�� �,'
..4