HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-16-06City of
W heat f (Age
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 291" Ave.
May 19, 2016
Ms. Clare Haas Claveau
9650 W-35 Ih Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Case No. WA -16-06
Dear Ms. Claveau:
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
Please be advised that your request for a 4 -foot variance to the required 10 -foot rear yard setback
for an open pergola in the rear yard of an existing one -family dwelling located in the Residential -
One (R-1) zone district, resulting in a 40% deviation from the development standard for property
located at 9650 W. 35th Avenue has been approved.
Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance. Please note that all variance requests
automatically expire within 180 days (November 18, 2016) of the date it was granted unless a
building pen -nit 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.
Sincerely,
Tammy Odean
Administrative Assistant
Enclosure: Approval of Variance and Staff Report
Cc: WA -16-06 (case file)
WA 1606.doc
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
7500 West 29th Avenue -� City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 �/�303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 Wheat L(Age
Approval of Variance
WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 9650 West 35`h
Avenue referenced as Case No. WA -16-06 / Haas Claveau; 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 4 -foot variance to the required 10 -foot rear yard
setback for an open pergola in the rear yard of an existing one -family dwelling located in the
Residential -One (R-1) zone district, resulting in a 40% deviation from the development standard
(Case No. WA -16-06 / Haas Claveau) is granted for the property located at 9650 West 35`h
Avenue, based on the following findings of fact:
I. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The investment would not be possible without a variance.
3. The physical surrounding results in a unique hardship.
4. The hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property.
5. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to
other property improvements in the neighborhood.
6. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification
period.
Kenneth 7ohnstone, A
Community Developmle nt Director
to
**�441
City of
Wh6atf<iqge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Community Development Director DATE: May 18, 2016
CASE MANAGER: Zack Wallace
CASE NO. & NAME: WA -16-06 / Haas Claveau
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 4 -foot variance to the required 10 -foot rear yard setback for an
open pergola in the rear yard of an existing one -family dwelling located in the
Residential -One (R-1) zone district. This is a 40% deviation from the
development standard.
LOCATION OF REQUEST:
APPLICANT (S):
OWNER (S):
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE:
9650 W. 35" Avenue
Clare Haas Claveau
Bill Claveau and Clare Haas Claveau
12,610 square feet (0.289 acres)
Residential -One (R-1)
Single Family Home
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location M
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
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 4 -foot (40%) variance to the rear yard setback for an open
pergola attached to an existing one -family dwelling located in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district.
The R-1 zone district development standards require a 15 -foot rear yard setback, with an allowed
encroachment of one-third (1/3) the distance to the property line for porches, patios, decks and
balconies which are open on at least two sides. This results in a 5 -foot allowed encroachment, reducing
the required setback for this particular structure to 10 feet. The purpose of this variance is to construct
a pergola over the existing patio. The proposed pergola will be open on all 4 sides, and will extend 4
feet past the allowed setback encroachment.
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 variance is being requested so the property owner may construct a pergola over the existing patio
for the purpose of providing shade. The property is zoned Residential -One (R-1), a zone district that
provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits
activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character.
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of 35`h Avenue and Independence Court
(Exhibit 1, Aerial). For reference, the home is northwest of Wheat Ridge High School and east of
Discovery Park. The subject property is surrounded by the R-1 and R-2 residential zone districts in a
highly residential area of Wheat Ridge (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). According to the Jefferson County
Assessor, the property has an area of 12,610 square feet and currently contains a one-story single-
family home originally constructed in 1954.
The proposed pergola will be located in the rear yard over an existing patio space (Exhibit 3, Site
Plan). The pergola will measure approximately 20' x 12', and will be open on all sides. The structure
has already been approved by the Building Division (Exhibit 4, Pergola Illustration).
R-1 Development Standards:
Required
Actual
Lot Area
12,500 square feet (min)
12,610 square feet
Lot Width
100 feet (min)
140 feet (W. 35` Ave)
90 feet 11nde endence Ct
Required Existing /Proposed
Front Setback 30 feet (min) 22 feet (existing encroachment)
Side Setback East 30 feet (min) 22 feet (existing encroachment)
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
Side Setback (West)
15 feet (min)
23 feet
Rear Setback
15 feet min
6 feet (proposed)
The property is located in the Davo Subdivision, a 20 -lot subdivision platted in 1952. Between 1952
and 1956, two of the original lots appear to have been subdivided, resulting in 22 homes in the Davo
Subdivision today. Nineteen (19) of the now 22 homes in this subdivision were constructed between
1953 and 1957 (Exhibit 5, Davo Subdivision Excerpt), more than a decade prior to the incorporation of
the City of Wheat Ridge.
An analysis of the Davo Subdivision reveals that 14 of the now 22 homes in this subdivision encroach
upon their required setbacks. Those homes which do not encroach upon their setbacks are primarily
those on the largest lots, or built most recently. While many homes in the subdivision encroach upon
their setback requirements, due to their depth they still have large amounts of area in which they can
expand or construct additions, in contrast to the subject property, which does not (Exhibit 6, Davo
Subdivision Setbacks).
In comparison to the other Davo Subdivision lots, this property is one of the smallest and shallowest.
In addition to being relatively small and shallow this property is encumbered with two 30 foot setbacks
due to its location adjacent to a two public streets.
The property is constrained and unable to expand without a variance due to its 1950s platting and
construction, in conjunction with the present day R-1 development standards. The only area for
expansion or addition is limited and useable.
The topography on the property also impacts the area in which the pergola can be built, as there is
approximately 14 -feet of fall across the property, further limiting the areas for easy expansion, such as
the addition of a pergola (Exhibit 7, Topography)
During the public notification period neither inquiries nor objections were received regarding this
variance request.
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 8, 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.
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.
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. This house was constructed in a
manner which is out of conformance with two current development standards. An analysis of
the subdivision shows many of the homes in the subdivision encroach upon the current setback
requirements for the zone district.
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 an investment in the property, which will increase the livability of
the outdoor space by providing shade for their south facing rear porch. Nearly any investment
in this property which would expand or add to the footprint of the home would require a
variance, as the home is within several feet of, or encroaching upon, its required setbacks. Also,
the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) calls for the rehabilitation of Wheat Ridge's
older housing stock through upgrades, additions, and the like. This addition will help increase
the livability of the home by creating a shaded patio area in its limited rear yard space.
Staff finds this criterion has 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.
There are unique topographical, size, and setback conditions present on the property. The lot is
one of the smallest and shallowest in the subdivision, and is encumbered by two street
frontages, which doubles the setback requirement for the side yard. The home, as it was
originally constructed in 1954 does not conform to the current front or side (east) setbacks. The
structure is only 3 feet from the minimum rear yard setback, and 7 feet from the minimum side
yard (west) setback, leaving very limited areas for expansion or additions. The topography of
this lot further encumbers the expansion of the structure as there is approximately 14 feet of fall
across the property. While many areas of the yard are useable, many cannot be built upon due
to topography and/or setback requirements. The proposed pergola will expand the livability of
the rear, south facing yard and existing patio by providing shade. There is no area on the
property in which the proposed pergola can be built without encroaching upon the setback
requirements.
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 property was platted in 1952 and the home was constructed in 1954. The home was
purchased in 2009 by the current owner. As such the current owner had no hand in the platting
of the lot as one of the smallest and shallowest in the subdivision, with additional setbacks due
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
4
to its double frontage. They also had no hand in constructing the home to the limits of today's
R-1 development standards.
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 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 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.
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.
Built in the mid-1950s, prior to the incorporation of the City of Wheat Ridge, many of the
Davo Subdivision homes are encroaching upon current development standards for the R-1 zone
district. That being said, most homes in the neighborhood do still have adequate room within
setback requirements to build upon, with the exception of the subject property.
Staff finds that 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 Manual:
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling
units.
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
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 4 -foot variance to the required 15 -foot rear yard setback, and allowed 5 -foot
encroachment, for an existing one -family dwelling in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district. 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 investment would not be possible without a variance.
3. The physical surrounding results in a unique hardship.
4. The hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property.
5. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to other
property improvements in the neighborhood.
6. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification
period.
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL 7
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
D�dQpQ��Q�QQ Qo�c�
-_. -
i
Y � ,
V
r
ti
O
� O
Proposed
Pergola
F3
E --
C9
C;i�
v
i
t
1
' �k2"
EXHIBIT 4: PERGOLA ILLUSTRATION
Administrative Review 10
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
EXHIBIT 5: DAVO SUBDIVISION EXCERPT
WEST
35
ry
AYENUE
10
I
/RS 7'
p
n'
rs'
1955
956
v
.4 .
dv
/4o
,w
1954
v°
1955
/ 0
M.140
140.7' H
., 4S,—
o,
1953 A
! o
h �
h �s:
955
1954
a1 y
fs
Di I
k� �
2009 151
954 zs' rs'
Original Davo Subdivision plat from
1952. The year each home was built
is listed in burgundy. The red lines
indicate where the original lot was
subdivided and built upon. This all
occurred prior to the incorporation of
the City of Wheat Ridge.
to Wi lornPr A -3_q! z, - F /374 B' to �nyltr (orn�.
r//;g, 27 _WEST M "�D AYENUE Sr�lion 2
Administrative Review
Case No. IVA-/6-06 /Haas Claveau
196(
h
I
01,957
o
956
v
1957
dv
/4o
,w
a
'4
a
0
1953
h
1957
q
/40
1953
1955
/40.6'
1953
1954
140
_1953
!Oo'
1954
a1 y
fs
Di I
k� �
2009 151
954 zs' rs'
Original Davo Subdivision plat from
1952. The year each home was built
is listed in burgundy. The red lines
indicate where the original lot was
subdivided and built upon. This all
occurred prior to the incorporation of
the City of Wheat Ridge.
to Wi lornPr A -3_q! z, - F /374 B' to �nyltr (orn�.
r//;g, 27 _WEST M "�D AYENUE Sr�lion 2
Administrative Review
Case No. IVA-/6-06 /Haas Claveau
EXHIBIT 6: DAVO SUBDIVISION SETBACKS
• ssTN evE - -W -
C
Jaw
I�'='" Legend
kDavo Subdivsion
Property Lines
o Property Setback
Requirement
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
12
EXHIBIT 7: TOPOGRAPHY
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
13
EXHIBIT 8: CRITERIA RESPONSES
Project: Residential Pergola
Location: 9650 W 35'" Ave
Responses to Criteria for Review (Section 26-115):
a. 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.
The property in question is a corner lot with a long rectangular shape. The setting of the
house structure has limited the back yard to about 17 feet. The current use is a stone
paved patio. We have submitted an application for a building permit for a pergola to
provide shade over the patio. The variance request to build to up to 5 feet from the
property line.
b. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
It would not.
c. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The estimated investment is about $1500 for materials. The pergola will be built by the
owners.
d. 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 property backyard is long, narrow, and steep. The patio location is a relatively flat
spot used frequently. The addition of a pergola will provide a permanent shade structure
that enhances the use of the patio. There is no other place in the yard to have/build a
patio and pergola with the convenience to the back door.
e. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having
an interest in the property.
No.
f. 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
Administrative Review
Case No. 14,A-16-06 /Haas Clcrveaer
14
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.
No.
g. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present
in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Yes, the adjoining property's house is located less than 15 feet from our property line. I
is not uncommon in our neighborhood to see structures less than 15 feet from property
lines.
h. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
Yes.
i. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
The building permit for the pergola has been approved.
Additional Comments:
No alternative designs are feasible for the patio area that would comply with the zoning
standards, i.e. the standards would allow for a pergola of less than 3' in width over the existing
patio (please refer to site plan and pictures).
The unique physical hardship is the width of the backyard is only 18 feet. Combined with the
steep topography that affects most of the backyard, the patio area is limited. The patio area is
beneficial to the property and is located close to the back -door. The area is frequently used and
adding a pergola makes the space even more useful.
We have discussed our plans with the adjoining neighbor to the south (adjoins backyard) and
they have no issue with the proposed design.
Administrative Review 15
Case No. ITA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
EXHIBIT 9: SITE PHOTOS
View of the subject property's rear yard from Independence Court looking west. The proposed
pergola location is indicated by the white arrow. (Source: Google)
k -
View of the subject property from the adjacent property (3485 Independence Court). The proposed
pergola location is indicated by the white arrow. (Source. Google)
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
lo
fin
View of the subject property from the intersection of West 35`h Avenue and Independence Court.
This view demonstrates the topography, as well as the areas of the property which require
additional setbacks due to their location adjacent to a public street. (Source: Google)
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -16-06 /Haas Claveau
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. WA -16-06
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 17, 2016
residing at q u �o
Zo.
(name)
A�
(address)
as the applicant for Case No. WA -16-06
Public Notice at
City of
WheatRddge
hereby certify that I have posted the sign for
9650 West 35`h Avenue
(location)
on this _� day of _Pt aL 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 posed in tAe position s own on the map below.
Signaturfr:.- '
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
J
City of
Wheat R�ioge
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
May 17, 2016]
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.
GAZDIEWICH MICHAEL J
LANGE IVO A GAZDIEWICH SANDRA J TAYLOR ANNA
9590 W 35TH AVE 9715 W 35TH AVE 9685 W 35TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
SAAVEDRA TANYA N
3485 INDEPENDENCE CT
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
REALE KATHRYN A DOODY
MARK A
3460 INDEPENDENCE CT
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
WARING THOMAS E WARING
KIMBERLY A
9655 W 35TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
CLAVEAU WILLIAM L CLAVEAU
CLARE HAAS
9650 W 35TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
JAKAB GEORGE JAKAB CARA
9800 W 34TH DR
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
e s
City Of
W heat P*,.dge-
coMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 291h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
LETTER NOTICE
May 6, 2016
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA -16-06, approval a 4 -foot variance to the
required 10 -foot rear yard setback for an open pergola in the rear yard of an
existing one -family dwelling located in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district.
This is a 40% deviation from the development standard. 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 property owners are required to be notified of the request.
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 May 17, 2016.
Thank you.
WA 1606.doc
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
�"-ArAVIV
5
M G°JnQr m
. o
i�
�d
( D
W ' �
9
l p �
d a t 4 -foot variance request
••� ,� ��. s••,S ��.�' ai'dr Ppb
N
A,
Fli
* 0 it
M
Q1
0
8
s
li
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.
No.
g. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present
in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Yes, the adjoining property's house is located less than 15 feet from our property line. It
is not uncommon in our neighborhood to see structures less than 15 feet from property
lines.
h. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
Yes.
i. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
The building permit for the pergola has been approved.
Additional Comments:
No alternative designs are feasible for the patio area that would comply with the zoning
standards, i.e. the standards would allow for a pergola of less than 3' in width over the existing
patio (please refer to site plan and pictures).
The unique physical hardship is the width of the backyard is only 18 feet. Combined with the
steep topography that affects most of the backyard, the patio area is limited. The patio area is
beneficial to the property and is located close to the back -door. The area is frequently used and
adding a pergola makes the space even more useful.
We have discussed our plans with the adjoining neighbor to the south (adjoins backyard) and
they have no issue with the proposed design.
Project: Residential Pergola
Location: 9650 W 3511 Ave
Responses to Criteria for Review (Section 26 -115).-
a.
6 -115):
a. 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.
The property in question is a corner lot with a long rectangular shape. The setting of the
house structure has limited the back yard to about 17 feet. The current use is a stone
paved patio. We have submitted an application for a building permit for a pergola to
provide shade over the patio. The variance request to build to up to 5 feet from the
property line.
b. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
It would not.
c. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The estimated investment is about $1500 for materials. The pergola will be built by the
owners.
d. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out.
The property backyard is long, narrow, and steep. The patio location is a relatively flat
spot used frequently. The addition of a pergola will provide a permanent shade structure
that enhances the use of the patio. There is no other place in the yard to have/build a
patio and pergola with the convenience to the back door.
e. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having
an interest in the property.
No.
f. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by,
among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
U
L D -p qu aci C •p '..' .b H t E•. t7 v� �'
u
U
rr
: a) •_ cd u COL .p C Vii O
> .a ca.
q rn C
g2Lu o o
< y y r > w o o m y F o$ 0 r
M y O a Gco 00 a c H u o
di
0� es ro Z'a onon
F < b E z > Ra a �c
C 0 Z ua U ai u O
E u c o U
a W a O W `�' cv F" ami `o 00 ;z " c s
E
acow c�• O �swp �' v 'Nb•' �r H ZZw •c�.> p�..
A c _ O r- o s axi CE
mM,
U Q a O o c0. q a ai � �-' >> ._� -0: - — M y t� 'o Q 'D a) b O
HAO2 z r W > a`�i °� o = _== r` w
w R'ZUo Q = a,y E �� — u- u°u ° p�� r:
U U ttyy�� o x 4. - Co r� LL_ v x " o- CG °
a Q'W c U oc ci c.cd4' OCU o C:3 LU
V) 0> o u
(O- (nCa LZ 3 O 0 v a y °' _-_- a O GT, o c
CL
aORcn0�=; Q w qs o `= cL----�Oo c �� A s h u
wa O oo > [• CL y v b c` — N o C o
%' N C A u O •' O C ie t aPa• W `�
0 _O Mo uF. H W rx u' t r 3 W ? A ami d o
o LY, A�ia U z nc O O "LQ o
C7 Gw O< ai 2 q y W x o
a LT. aC U �F. W °' cA o 0 0 °' >� ^ c=> or W o4o e o
w V F• A 00, LtI z '" O q q W 0 0 U 0 ca7 `cd v ° N s
Ls. C l- 3 0 041 a>_ > v ., - c°
V W a C7 0 4bU xw °'y ��.[ ar N`��c - � u 3 W F� awl
w W a e A F- o y c o y Yd 0 xo v N a a Y w o$ o 0
3 O O- U¢ w o u u. a� u .°'� a o y Fn 3 2 c a¢ u c v o o v
W Q S �, A w U a ) is O o vi fl 0
o .v W LY W F c r ?, z < s c W- o u n F o W c s q �° A a
�... ow >.� •a ^ 9 •o a o� m o u
abi < a ca (r u u z a$ ° c
< w o o W a> u X n c o �' E < �' U u
�n mOON t- W O c�' c•C j� O Q u n•� c u G J a v cv� C7m E H a;,— --
Q O W<� >za 00- c c� Gpy W _ > oocao. > c�_ O 2 c > o ;
.a� W> V>w o U v Q �❑.` �w a n� aui �L C �q �� sd <� ° u
o s c O o .a < a a v u
•8 o 0 o s o b e u o < w s ° u u u
u y c ti n .a o O O V) = y O
c= > E U o O ..a 3 y
'^a o zm ° O E-0 oA o °' d y c�.o A-� 0 ❑ C aco
p 3 Arnim a 3000 0.S = Cl. �Uy,�,,n �O o uU w �'c'� c n A•b °X a3� E w v�'�.b:c
E-�
CD 0% oio� wuya fr U� ov�.c'� 2 `o �v�-°2 y '=>uo
>` WvM 310 2 0 � y Os �4 > yew on.°A�E- ° � � ov H $ o.o u
y C1 0 ;� rn^ v E ° 2 w e q a> r, n o c u ° a < ai c �+ .5 s u a
< WN M a,o� a uF- w ab p o a' u' O o. c 03 E.�•c
Cc .0
N 3 O O O V 'fl U N 4) N q V 3 N l7 9 U O �0 ',. u •�.. 'O .0 'L7
;n y ` ca o- o o c o v 7 < O v ti p v u u i
m o0 0 0 .o v .. u "' 'o = �. �.c7 O vJ ^ 3 _.. �.. y u a> > v c w° c c y u
d 4z o RO r� t .0 H O «: >, in W U 'O O w iC a" z w> O C7 o m
O 6i c4 w O:V d H G
yoC C om< Z 2A eE-a (-.S q �Q M �M > a� ooV c ¢S m o �' o u a' m . ro•
F r N H? wH 0 N O u u
b< d w M , L O 0,0 U C U y M OO Z 4 d CL C u c a Cn 4.
L- u w z W c o o e.-" o o v .a as W c o Q ri u M t.-. y b o o 0 o
n c c m op cq X a� V o v �, _ o c O o CU to t S x N oc-o s -
a� a o N�°�°Oa�,Aa�� Wn�W o4 o a�i�.°4us' o oho.
�.a.. OU uC7C7 m a' m Aa a (U y _ o u> L c u Vc ta o F u O r CA
o v
c3� � � -c', a m wQ ° �9 w o0 � cq0 cui aS ao o � r Sco cW ° O> N'a A \ O x S ox n'
y O a c c c o c v S a ¢ c y ccad v� c u n 0 c 3 w [- e
G o m GSc W mon , m v s _
3 r _ a u o g O a 2>\ '> > u �0 w a� aoi v < o F _
NN-i 3� AOOOAwu E- v, G.F-s� n, u arx....�i ri 0 3 UC�zN< vFiOU Oi 3s 3 z o
City of
W heat jA,c
COMMUNITY OMMUNY DEVELOPMENT
Submittal Checklist: Variance ,c
Project Name: �--C-15( L'*_Vy ?" A -r—
Project Location: C i b
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
Application fee
73. Signed submittal checklist (this document)
a./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
FZ6. Proposed building elevations indicating proposed heights, materials, and color scheme
Rev 5/2014
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 ne$d to be made after) the s;o (2"d) full review, I will be subject to the applicable resubmittal
/ i/' /X
fee. i
Signature Date: Z'6' - /(6
Name (please print): t -e GLL Phone. ,Z() - OJC
Community Development Department (303) 235-2846 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
City of Wheat Ridge
85/86/2816 18:96 CDHA
ZONING APPLICATION FEES
CDA912763
AMOUNT
FMSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES
288.88
PAYMENT RECEIVED
AMOUNT
VS / 5341
288,88
AUTH CODE: 88866D
TOTAL
288.88
A' NOTE: Land use applications must be
submitted BY APPOINTMENT with a
City of planner. Incomplete applications will not
]��Wh6atRidpre be accepted --refer to submittal checklists.
LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
Community Development Department
7500 West 29`h Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846
/ (Please print or type all information)
Applicant aa- 1-45(G S ( Y G VW( Phone Z6 - & :� - (&IiEmail _0 � 00S C46LWPa u, C-1;00Address, City, State, Zip ((p I/J ' Y--� Vv" c� �- tit
2�Iv�ao
/'� aC, vino
Owner &I, I f!(l1,� YL /1' hone Email
Address, City, State, Zip -;j UVqt C; EVxv
Contact pVl l (;(
Address, City, State, Zip
(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): qbl� L/U 35 n- A*e
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request):
O Change of Zone or Zone Conditions O Special Use Permit O Subdivision - specify type:
O Planned Development (ODP, SDP) O Conditional Use Permit O Administrative (up to 3 lots)
O Planned Building Group O Site Plan O Minor (4 or 5 lots)
O Temporary Use, Building, Sign 0 Concept Plan O Major (6 or more lots)
�FIIVariance/Waiver (from Section 26- i ) O Right of Way Vacation O Other:
Detailed description of request:
ULO Tb bJIL,D Pe ve66t-ArL 1A) i >�4 iN
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, 1 am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent
the requested action cannot lawfully b a complished Applicants ther than owners must submit power-of-attorney
from the owner which approved ofWairion his ehalf.Notarized Signature of Applican
State of Colo a }Countyof C ; �
Theo e$oing ins"ent Land Use ProcessingApplication) was acknowledged by me this 1- day of i , 20
by �f I i SS(J� Xk
MELISSA MACKEY
NOTARY PUBLIC
M commission expires STATE OF COLORADO
Y p / l /20l �: NOTARY ID 20134042377
Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 9,201
To be filled out by staff:
Date received April 27r 2 j i (o Fee $ IL -00 Case No.
Comp Plan Design. Receipt No. Quarter Section Map iy o,2:1
Related Case No. Pre -App Mtg. Date Case Manager moo,\IgC
Assessor's Parcel No. -7c)-2 a Current Zoning _ Current Use
Size (acres or sgft) Proposed Zoning Proposed Use
Rev 1/22/2016