HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/16I
City of
WheatPdge
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
July 28, 2016
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on July 28, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the
Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on
the agenda.)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WA -16-05: An application filed by Gray Properties for approval of a 10 -
foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to
a public street and approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance to the additional 5 -foot side
yard setback requirement for a third story located on property zoned Residential -
Three (R-3) located at the Northeast corner of 33`a Avenue and Ames Street.
B. Case No. WA -16-09: An application filed by Designs by Sundown for approval of
two variances. The first is a request for a variance to the maximum size permitted
for an accessory structure in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district. The second is a
request for a variance to permit a metal accessory structure.
6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
7. OLD BUSINESS
S. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes - January 28, 2016
9. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals with disahilities are encouraged to participate in all puhlic meetings sponsored by
the City of WheatRidge. Call Carly Lorentz, Assistant to the City Manager, at 303-235-2367 at
least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in participating and need inclusion
assistance.
City of
,9�Wheat idge
TO:
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: July 28, 2016
Zack Wallace
WA -16-08 / Gray Properties
ACTION REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting approval of two independent variances:
(A) Approval of a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback
requirement when adjacent to a public street;
(B) Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard
setback requirement for a third story in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone
district.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: Northeast corner of 33`d Avenue & Ames Street (Approx. 3300 Ames Street)
APPLICANT (S): Gray Properties Wheatridge, LLC
OWNER (S): Gray Properties Wheatridge, LLC
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17,769 square feet (0.41 acres)
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
Residential -Three (R-3)
Vacant Lot
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Board ofAdjustment
CaseNo. WA-16-08/GrayProperties
Site
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this
case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of variances from two development standards in order to construct
row houses on vacant land at the northeast corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street, zoned Residential -
Three (R-3). The variances have been brought together as a package to the Board of Adjustment, but
can be considered and decided upon separately.
RequestA: Approval of a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback
requirement when adjacent to a public street.
RequestB: Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback
requirement for the third story of a multifamily principal structure in the R-3 zone district.
Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of
Adjustment to hear and decide on variance from the strict application of the zoning district
development standards. Because this application includes a variance request that exceeds 50% of the
development standard, the application is not eligible for administrative approval and is required to be
heard at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The variance is being requested so the property owner may construct a three-story, four -unit row house
building. The property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3), a zone district that provides for high quality,
safe, quiet, and stable medium to high-density residential neighborhoods.
The R-3 zone district requires a 25 -foot setback for front and side yards which abut a public street. The
side yard for the subject property abuts 33`d Avenue, thus requiring a 25 -foot setback. The applicants
are requesting a 10 -foot deviation (40%) variance from this standard to allow a 15 -foot setback
adjacent to 33`d Avenue. The R-3 zone district also calls for the following: "Side and rear yard setbacks
shall be fifteen (15) feet for the first two (2) stories and an additional five (5) feet for each additional
story over two (2) stories." The applicant is proposing a 3 -story building, meaning the third story needs
to be an additional 5 -feet setback from the property line as compared to the first and second stories.
The applicant is requesting a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot setback.
Request)
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street, one block west
of Sheridan Boulevard (Exhibit 2, Aerial). This area is located in the Columbia Heights Resubdivision
of Block 5. As was previously stated, the property is zoned R-3. Much of the surrounding area is zoned
Residential -One C (R -1C) and R-3. The neighboring property to the east is zoned Neighborhood
Commercial (NC), and is home to the Retreat at Highlands Assisted Living Center. (Exhibit 3, Zoning
Map).
Board ofAdjustment
CaseNo. WA-16-08/GrayProperties
The subject property has an area of 17,769 square feet and is currently vacant. The subject property
was at one time held in common with the property immediately to the north, which consists of a 22 -
unit apartment building constructed in 1958 and a parking lot. The structure was built prior to the
incorporation of the City of Wheat Ridge, and is considered a legally non -conforming structure, as it
does not comply with the City's current density limitations. However, a legal determination was made
in 2013, which found that when developed, the County did not rely upon the entirety of the property (5
lots) for approval of the apartment building. As such the southern two vacant lots (the subj ect property)
have been deemed developable under the City's current development standards. Apart from the two
requested variances, the proposed development will meet all other density limitation and development
standards (Exhibit 4, Site Plan).
R-3 Development Standards for
Multifamily structures:
Required
Proposed
Lot Area
12,500 square feet (min)
17,769 square feet
Lot Width (corner lot)
100 feet (min)
124.25 feet (Ames St.)
143 feet (33`d Ave.)
Height
35 feet (max)
—33.5 feet
Building Coverage
40% max
—26%
Front Setback
25 feet (min)
25 feet
Side Setback south- 33rff Ave.
25 feet min
15 feet
Side Setback (north)
15 feet (1" and 2n,story)
20 feet 3rd Story)
15 feet
15 feet
Rear Setback
15 feet
23 feet
As of the date of distribution of this staff report, July 22, 2016, Staff has received two calls from
nearby residents in opposition to the variance requests. Both callers stated they would submit formal
letters of objection. If letters arrive between the delivery of this staff report and the Board of
Adjustment hearing, they will be entered into the record and provided to the Board members during the
hearing.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve an administrative variance, the Board of Adjustment 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
6, Criteria Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria.
Request A: Approval of a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement
when adjacent to a public street.
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 be able to yield a reasonable return in use. The
property would continue to allow single-family, duplex, and multifamily residential
development within the established R-3 development standards.
Board ofAdjustment
CaseNo. WA-16-08/GrayProperties
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The proposed setback of 15 feet
along 33`d Avenue is more consistent with the setbacks of existing structures along 33`d Avenue
than 25 feet (Exhibit 7, 33rdAvenue Setbacks). Additionally, there is approximately 5-10 feet
between the property line and the existing gutter thus adding to the perceived setback from the
street.
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, transforming it from a
vacant lot into four "for sale" residential units. If the variance were not granted, the property
could still be developed, but with fewer or smaller units, reducing the potential investment.
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.
Being a corner lot, this property required an additional 10 feet of side yard setback where it
abuts 33`d Avenue than a typical R-3 zoned lot. This limits the ability of a developer to fully
utilize the property's area (while respecting most development standards and density
limitations) and maximize the number of units available on the lot in a strained housing market,
in addition to ensuring the units appeal to the modern homebuyer.
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 hardship is being created by the design of the proposed structure.
Staff finds this criterion has not 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.
Board ofAdjustment
CaseNo. WA-16-08/GrayProperties
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 proposed structure would maintain the required 25 foot front yard setback
requirement from Ames Street. Approximately 10 foot tall detached garages will be 23 feet
from the rear property line, while the residential units will be even further from the rear
property line.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. Despite the proposed setback reduction along 33`d Avenue,
the sight distance triangle is not impacted. The development would not increase the danger of
fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact some
evidence finds that new development, such as the development proposed, has a positive impact
on property values.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The side yard abutting 33`d Avenue creates the need for a 25 -foot setback on both the front and
side yards. Properties along 33`d Avenue have similar requirements. For the properties zoned R-
3 and adjacent to 33`d Avenue, like the subject property, a 25 -foot side yard setback is required.
For the property zoned R -1C and adjacent to 33`d Avenue, a 20 -foot side yard setback is
required. In both instances, lots that are narrower than 60 feet the side yard setback requirement
are allowed to reduce this requirement by half.
Many properties along 33`d Avenue do not meet this side yard setback requirement. The large
amount of excess right-of-way and lack of public improvements on the south side of 33`d
Avenue make the street appear wider.
Staff finds that this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
This variance would not result in any additional accommodation of a person with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
While this is not a site plan submittal requiring full architectural elevations, the material and
color palette elevations and renderings submitted with the variance application appear to be in
conformation with The Architectural and Site Design Manual. If approved, and the project
moves forward it would require a site plan review, during which time Staff would ensure that
Board ofAdjustment
CaseNo. WA-16-08/GrayProperties
the proposed building is in full compliance with the ASDM. (Exhibit 8, Renderings &
Elevation).
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Request B: Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback
requirement for the third story of a multifamily principal structure in the R-3 zone district
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 be able to yield a reasonable return in use. The
property would continue to allow single-family, duplex, and multifamily residential
development within the established R-3 development standards.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The proposed elimination of the additional 5 feet of setback required for the 3`d story is on the
north side of the property, bordering an existing 3 -story apartment building which does not
conform to the additional setback (Exhibit 9, Site Photos).
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, transforming it from a
vacant lot into four "for sale" residential units. If the variance were not granted, the property
could still be developed, but with fewer or smaller units, reducing the potential investment.
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.
The physical surrounding, shape or topographical conditions do not result in a particular
hardship. The additional 3`d story setbacks are required on most duplex or multifamily
structures in the zone districts that allow these types of structures, regardless of location.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
Board ofAdjustment
CaseNo. WA-16-08/GrayProperties
The hardship is being created by the design of the proposed structure.
Staff finds this criterion has not 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 proposed structure would be approximately 55 feet from the apartment
building to the north. It would maintain the required 25 foot front yard setback requirement.
Approximately 10 foot tall detached garages will be 23 feet from the rear property line, while
the residential units will be even further from the rear property line.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The development would not increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact some
evidence finds that new development, such as the development proposed, has a positive impact
on property values.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The additional 5 -feet of setback is required only for duplex and multifamily buildings in the R-
2, R -2A, R-3, and R -3A zone districts. This neighborhood is a mix of R -1C and R-3 zone
districts. Few multi -family structures in the immediate area have a 3`d or even 2°d floor.
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.
This variance would not result in any additional accommodation of a person with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
Board ofAdjustment
CaseNo. WA-16-08/GrayProperties
While this is not a site plan submittal requiring full architectural elevations, the material and
color palette elevations and renderings submitted with the variance application appear to be in
conformation with The Architectural and Site Design Manual. If approved, and the project
moves forward it would require a site plan review, during which time Staff would ensure that
the proposed building is in full compliance with the ASDM. (Exhibit 8, Renderings &
Elevation).
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Request A: Approval of a 10 foot (40%) variance from the 25 foot side yard setback requirement when
adjacent to a public street.
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when
adjacent to a public street. 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 applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible
without the variance.
3. The lot has two street frontages which require increased setbacks, which have not been adhered
to along the same 33`d Avenue corridor.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not unique to
the property.
With the following conditions:
1. The Site Plan be in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
Request B: Approval of 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback
requirement for the third story of a multifamily principal structure in the R-3 zone district.
Having found the application not in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff
recommends DENIAL of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback
requirement for the third story of a multifamily principal structure in the R-3 zone district. Staff has
found that there are not unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of
a variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial for the following reasons:
1. The property will continue to yield a reasonable return in use if the variance is not granted.
2. There are no physical, shape, or topographical conditions creating a unique hardship.
3. The alleged hardship has been created by a person presently having an interest in the property.
4. Circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are not present in the
neighborhood.
Board ofAdjustment
CaseNo. WA-16-08/GrayProperties
z Y
7
0
a cc
15 -0" Z
BUILDING SETBACK t?
i
3330 Ames St.
—55" to the port
EXHIBIT I** REQUEST
Y
w
z
cr
. 11 1 -
LJIU
111
FINISHED GRADE @
APPLYING FOR VARIANCE TO SEC. 2&$11 OF WHEAT RIDGE 5465.5
FINISHED GRADE ZONING CODE THE FOLLOWING SETBACK REDUCTION SHALL APPLY TO FRONT YARDS AND TO SIDE
5464 0' OR REAR YARDS WHICH ABUT A PUBLIC STREET. IF FIFTY (50) PERCENT OR MORE OF THE MAIN
BUILDINGS WITHIN A BUILT-UP AREA IN ANY DISTRICT HAVE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SETBACK,
EACH NEW MAIN BUILDING MAY HAVE A SETBACK CONSISTENT WfTH THE AVERAGE BUILDING
SETBACKS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING SUCH AVERAGE, A SETBACK
LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15) FEET SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE FIFTEEN (15) FEET
33rd Avenue
N20'to the sot
EXHIBIT 2: AERIAL
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA-16-08/Gray Properties
EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP
„ '
atri,
vi"%of
en R dge
N
Geographic
Information Systems
35TH l
Legend
Subject Property
City & County of Denver
Displayed Zone Districts
L
Residential -One C (R-1 C)
Residential -Three (R-3)
Neighborhood—�
Commercial NC
O
ZT
Z
it
u
='R
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA-16-08/Gray Properties
�M7� yyDjy�E ; w E R
�ir: �"
c�3
- "eleir —
ill
atri,
State Plane cooNinate Projection
N
Colorado central Zone
Datum: NAD83
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN
STUDIO
I T I I
I_ . -- ... I I
I I I
I------- _ ---FOUND #5 REEV+RI
I I I I
I
� I
LOT 9
W
W ,. I
' jam'' I
W LANDSCAPE 1 �y.y CJ1
� - ROCK -- 'i,Li, ••.17FFF."' -..-_------- - ----'- ----
41'-3 I I I
--
EX
D
STING LOT Ll EAFF
I I
— I I
—I --Rx-- -I-- --i
NFA I
I
NEW 4'-0'
WEST 33RD AVENUE
SITE PLAN
33rd and Ames Residential Development
architectural site plar
EXHIBIT 5: LETTER OF REQUEST
24 June, 2016
Ken Johnstone
Community Development Director
Planning & Development Services
7500 W. 29th Ave.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Mr. Johnstone,
We are writing this letter to request our project to be considered for a variance in efforts to
minimize the current side setbacks. The conditions necessitating the variance request are
present in the neighborhood and are not unique to our property. We would like to build to
within 15 feet of the property line along the secondary street. The average of adjacent setbacks
along West 33rd Avenue are approximately 13 feet. We are also requesting a variance to negate
the 5 foot side setback requirement of the third floor and roof parapet. The apartment property
adjacent to ours has a third story without upper setbacks. We feel these variances 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.
PROJECT LOCATION
3330 Ames Street at the Northeast Corner of Ames Street & W. 33rd Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO
80202. Legal Description: Lots 10 and 11, together with the west % of the vacated alley
adjoining said lots, a subdivision of block five Columbia Heights, County of Jefferson, State of
Colorado.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed building is three story row house building with an additional garage structure on
a 17,769 square foot vacant parcel of land. The building consists of 4 units with a two car
garage per unit. Each unit has pedestrian access from Ames Street. The garages are accessed
from the eastern side of the units.
The architectural concept is to provide a masonry plinth containing the more public portions of
the units, while the second and third stories contain more private areas such as bedrooms,
baths and utility rooms. Each unit has a private roof terrace to take advantage of the western
mountain views. Generous front porches are being provided at each unit in efforts to activate
studio
EXHIBIT 5: LETTER OF REQUEST
the street/neighborhood. The height and scale of the overall building is similar to the adjacent
Mountain View Apartments.
Best Regards,
LI Vstudio j
EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE
24 June, 2016
Ken Johnstone
Community Development Director
Planning & Development Services
7500 W. 29th Ave.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Mr. Johnstone,
The responses below shall supplement the letter of request to be considered for a variance to the
Development Standards stated in Section 26-211 for minimum yard setback in a Residential -Three District.
Review Criteria: Variance
A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique
physical hardship is present. Per Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, the reviewing
authority (Community Development Director, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or City Council)
shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which an applicant demonstrates that a majority of
the following criteria have been met:
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.
The applicant feels that without the approval of this variance, this project would no longer be a
viable option.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
As evident in our setback exhibit. This variance would promote the continuity of the setback
established along 33rd Ave. In addition, the proposed project conforms and promotes multiple
standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual, such as creating a consistent edge to
the street and sidewalk. The building siting also promotes pedestrian activity along Ames Street, by
establishing a clear zoning of public and private, while providing areas of interaction with built in
seating and planters on the front porch. In addition to the 15'-0" setback variance, we feel that a
variance to eliminate the 5' set back after the second floor is appropriate for this property and does
not alter the essential character of the locality. The adjacent property to the north has a similar
three story facade building form which is common for medium density multifamily housing.
studio
EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE
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 that would be significantly
impacted without the approval of this variance. The applicant feels that without the approval of this
variance, this project will no longer be feasible.
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.
Physical surroundings, shape or topography are not an issue regarding this variance.
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.
The variance is not due to a hardship that has been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
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.
Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property or improvements in the neighborhood. The variance will not create a substantial increase
in congestion in the public street, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety in any
way.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the
neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
As evident in our setback exhibit. Many residential properties along the 33rd Street corridor, for
which we are applying a variance to, have building sitings equal to or less than the distance for which
we are requesting a variance for. The 15'-0" requested setback would maintain a consistent setback
along the 33rd Street corridor.
EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities.
[Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.]
Due to existing grade of site, allowing the proposed 15'-0" street side setback variance will permit
ADA accessibility to the southern unit with minimal impact to existing grades.
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural
and Site Design Manual. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.]
The design of the project takes into account the standards set forth in the Architectural and Site
Design Manual in an effort to promote a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Best Regards,
LIVstudio 125:35 .valnLit street denver co 80205 1 7
31
EXHIBIT 7: 33rd AVENUE SETI
�s
o � o
74 8
—�-
N N
O O
N O
� O
I�J77]
WEST 3380 AVENUE
a T -
EXISTING SETBACKS ON BOTH SIDES OF W 33RD AVE
MEASUREMENTS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST HALF FOOT)
16.5'
17.0'
17.5'
17.0'
12.0'
12.0'
14.0'
0.0'
+ 12.5'
163.079 = 13.16' AVERAGE SETBACK
.Dr wing Scale & Norfh Arrow
N
W t
E
S
30 60 t70 •80
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 60 ft.
33rd and Ames Residential Development
STUDIO setback exhibit diagram
10
vv
• �• _ , � �r � 1 � ]`J -jam � �-/.i. �� _ - �l ��,'�
Ts
14 fO
46
k
-4.
ri
490'
EEF,
EXHIBIT 8: RENDERING &ELEVATION
- - - - - - high pressure wood laminate
cladding
- 3 part stucco, painted finish
I' b7
r - brick veneer, dark finish
-------------- aluminum infill panel,
i
charcoal color
- aluminum panel facia,
' charcoal color
- concrete masonry block, - brick planter and
painted finish porch seating
33rd and Ames Residential Development
STUDIO material and color palette elevatior
View of the property from Ames Street looking east. 33rd Avenue is to the right. The 10 -foot
setback reduction is proposed from the 25 -foot required setback from the property line that abuts
this street.
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA-16-08/Gray Properties
�w
Closer view of the approximate area of the property line. 3330 Ames Street (left) and the proposed
structure (vacant property to the right) will be separated by approximately 55 feet.
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA-16-08/Gray Properties
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE)
CASE NO: WA -16-08
APPLICANT NAME: Gray Properties Wheatridge, LLC
LOCATION OF REQUEST: Northeast corner of 33`d Avenue & Ames Street
(Approx. 3300 Ames Street)
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -16-08 was not eligible for review by an
administrative officer; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that
there were/were not protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS the relief applied for may/may not be granted without detriment to the public
welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing
the City of Wheat Ridge
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request A of Board of Adjustment application
Case No. WA -15-14 be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE:
Approval of a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when
adjacent to a public street;
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be
possible without the variance.
3. The lot has two street frontages which require increased setbacks, which have not been
adhered to along the same 33`d Avenue corridor.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not
unique to the property.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The Site Plan be in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request B of Board of Adjustment application
Case No. WA -16-08 be, and hereby is, DENIED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE:
Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement
for a third story in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The property will continue to yield a reasonable return in use if the variance is not
granted.
2. There are no physical, shape, or topographical conditions creating a unique hardship.
3. The alleged hardship has been created by a person presently having an interest in the
property.
4. Circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are not present in the
neighborhood.
♦�4�
.�qrWh4
111671
CASE MANAGER:
C�R9 D�QIM91►F_O01 D1
ty of
at idge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment
Lisa Ritchie
WA -16-09 / Martin
MEETING DATE: July 28, 2016
ACTIONS REQUESTED: Two variances are requested for property zoned Residential -One (R-1) located
at 3390 Oak Street. The first is for approval of a 500 square foot variance from
the permitted size of 1,000 square feet for an accessory building permitted, and
the second is to permit a metal accessory structure.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3390 Oak Street
APPLICANT (S): Jeremiah Lord, Designs by Sundown
OWNER (S):
F_\>> 116114ILI EIV 0 DF_\.7 DP -19
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
W Kathryn Martin Living Trust
25,156 square feet (0.58 acres)
Residential -One (R-1)
Single Family Residential
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Board ofAdfustment 1
CaseNo. WA-16-09/Martin
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction for the Board
of Adjustment to hear this case.
I. REQUEST
There are two requests being made by the applicant. First, the applicant is requesting approval of a
variance to allow an accessory building 500 square feet larger than the permitted size of 1,000 sq ft,
resulting in an accessory building that would be 1,500 sq ft. Per the Residential -One (R-1) zone
district standards, a major accessory building can be no larger than 1,000 sq ft.
The second request is for a variance to approve a metal accessory structure larger than 120 square feet
in a residential zone district which is prohibited in Section 26-625. Accessory buildings and structures.
The goal of the two requests is to allow the construction of a retractable outdoor pool enclosure that is
built with an aluminum frame and polycarbonate sheeting.
Section 26-115.C. Variances and waivers empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on
variances from the strict application of the zone district development standards. The first request is
within the threshold of an administrative approval, but the second request requires Board of
Adjustment consideration. The Community Development Director determined that both requests
should be considered by the Board of Adjustment during a public hearing as part of the same case.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicant, who is representing the owners, is requesting the two variances at 3390 Oak Street in
order to construct a 1,500 square foot metal framed retractable pool enclosure in the rear yard at the
single family residence. (qWt 1, Aerial).
The property is zoned Residential -One (R-1), a zone district that provides high quality, safe, quiet and
stable low-density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are
incompatible with the low-density residential character. The property is located on the southeast
corner of Oak Street and 34u' Place. The total lot area is 25,156 square feet (0.58 acres), per the
Jefferson County Assessor. The property is in an area predominately zoned R-1. The neighborhood
character is low density residential to the south, east and west. There is some R-2 and R-3 zoning to
the north of 35th Avenue. Lyhibit 2 Zoning Map).
The subject lot currently contains a single family home that was constructed in 2001, per the Jefferson
County Assessor. The lot is platted as Lot 13A of the Distinctive Addresses at Applewood
Amendment #1 Subdivision. The lot was originally two lots in the subdivision, which were
consolidated under case number LLA -00-03 in 2000 by the current owner. The single story home has a
footprint of approximately 3,937 square feet. The total lot coverage proposed with the existing home
and the 1,500 sq ft pool enclosure will be roughly 5,237 sq ft, or 21.6%. The maximum lot coverage
permitted in the R-1 zone is 25%.
The lot is square in shape with a notch in the southeast corner, with roughly 147 feet of frontage along
Oak Street and 160 feet of frontage along W. 34u' Place. The existing home is located facing Oak
Street, with a 35'-0" front setback, a 40'-0" setback along W. 34th Place, a 58'-6" rear setback and an
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-16-09IMartin
38'-0" setback to the southern side property line. The lot gently slopes from the southern property line
to the north, with roughly 8 feet of fall.
The property owners are the original owners and intend to make this improvement in order to facilitate
a healthy lifestyle, which includes swimming, year-round on their property. hi addition to the pool
enclosure, the applicants intend to do a large landscaping renovation. llhlj�it 5, Renderings and
The variances would result in a single family home with an oversized accessory structure that is
constructed of metal. All other development standards for the R-1 zone district will be met. The
applicants have not provided a final site plan for the proposed improvements with specific setbacks,
but there is adequate room on the property to accommodate this structure within the development
standards. The structure is proposed to be a total of roughly 13 feet tall, which is lower than the
maximum permitted height for a major accessory structure of 15 feet. No other variances are being
sought for the project.
The 15 -day notification period for the public hearing is currently in progress. As of July 22, 2016 no
objections have been received.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve a variance, the Board of Adjustment 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 criteriaLetter of
Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance
criteria.
First Request: Variance to the maximum size of an accessory structure.
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 character of the locality. The requested size variance will
result in a property that is still within the maximum building coverage percentage. The
requested size variance will result in the property staying in the same character as the
surrounding area. The surrounding area predominately has large lots with building coverages
close to the maximum building coverage percentage, with a few that exceed it. The nearest ten
properties in the subdivision have an average building coverage percentage of 22.3%, per
Jefferson County Assessor. The proposed new accessory building will not result in a lot that is
out of scale with the neighborhood.
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-16-09IMartin
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 applicants are proposing a substantial investment in the property through the construction
of an in -ground pool and landscaping enhancements. The project is expected to add value to
the property. While the applicant could construct a pool without a cover, the size variance will
allow adequate deck space surrounding the pool to meet code requirements.
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 is no particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property that presents a unique hardship upon the applicant. Rather, the applicants desire the
pool to be enclosed in order to have it available for year-round use.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
The hardship has been created by the applicant's desire to enclose a pool with a cover that
exceeds the maximum accessory structure size in the R-1 zone district.
Staff finds this criterion has not 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 or impede the sight distance triangle.
The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Conversely,
the proposed improvements will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by
promoting investment in property.
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-16-09/Martin
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The R-1 zoning and development standards are not unique to the property, rather it is the
predominate zoning in the area.
Staff finds that this criterion has 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.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
Second Request: Variance to allow a metal accessory structure greater than 120 square feet
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 character of the locality. The requested building material
variance will not result in an accessory structure of lesser quality than intended in the R-1 zone
district. The intent of the regulation restricting metal accessory structures is to prohibit metal
sheds, pole barns, and garages on residential property. Staff believes that the intent of the
regulation did not contemplate this type of project.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-16-09/Martin
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicants are proposing a substantial investment in the property through the construction
of an in -ground pool and landscaping enhancements. The project is expected to add value to
the property. While the applicant could construct a pool without a cover, in this case, the
building material variance will allow the construction of a high quality project.
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 is no particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property that presents a unique hardship upon the applicant. Rather, the applicants desire the
pool to be enclosed in order to have it available for year-round use.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
The hardship has been created by the applicant's desire to enclose a pool with a cover that is
constructed of materials not permitted for an accessory structure in the R-1 zone district.
Staff finds this criterion has not 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 or impede the sight distance triangle.
The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Conversely,
the proposed improvements will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by
promoting investment in property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-16-09/Martin
The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The R-1 zoning and development standards are not unique to the property, rather it is the
predominate zoning in the area.
Staff finds that this criterion has 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.
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 two variances to permit an accessory structure greater than the maximum allowed size
and constructed of metal. Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. The proposed pool cover will appear incidental to the home, and significant property
investment will occur as a result of approval of the variance.
2. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
3. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. No objections were received regarding the variance request.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and architecture of the proposed enclosure shall be consistent with representations
depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a
building permit.
2. If any existing tree is removed or becomes damaged, diseased or dead, it shall be replaced with
a minimum 2" caliper tree or 6 -foot tall evergreen tree.
Attachments:
A. Resolution Template
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-16-09IMarfln
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Cole Co, N,a WA 16 A16
N0/Nuhn
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
Bund ofApsi ent
Case No WA16091Ma m
N
W E
S
EXHIBIT 3: ILC
WEST 34TH PLACE
mr L4
LOT MEA - TOC S.F.
NOOSE a PATO MEA 14101'
3.93r SF.
TOTAL LIViNO -1 - 3.]8) SF.
LOT COMRADE - 15.TI
OMYEWAY/$IOEWALK LOT COMRAGE = 6.3%
WARNING -
1. LOCATE UNOEROROIMD UMnU
PRNR TO ENCAVARON.
2 Ms PI DT PLM WH MFROM Mm
AT MR AND (RADWD ONLY.
SFE FWNDAVM tt FOR
51RUC & INFORMATIW.
A WG[ G tL'GAl/8V
CMA EnOIveN1i C0111YIiOnfS
T91O Md Rood, 5 R. p
Arwtle. Ctlercdo BOOD4 - (X) 458-6518
FAX IVI.T1 ".Y2085
I 18' UE.
]RG i 83uY
—J S9 LOT?
AfY YAp
_ Yz SCALE: 1"=30'
1. ALL S'MNi' i YNWLL
z TOP a f'OIROATIRf - SWNE Heil PONT + i.o'
1 DROP GARABE BOOR SLM 1A' R1 MiiF]I DRIi£ SLOPE
4. plOP GARAL£ DOOR Ni1KR
OT 1J Q 14
DISTINCTRE ADDR65E5 AT APP{EW000
Mf AT fWGE„ COLOMDO
m
3390 OAK s1REET
--�pMI N6 ITA
SClBIIEDER OB -19-00 I NM1M-PP I-N_A_
Board ofAdjwtment 10
Care No. )PA-16-09/Martin
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS
Board ofAdjustment 11
Case No. GPA-16-09/Martin
Shown above is a photo taken from 3e Place looking south into the rear yard. In the image
are several large existing trees on the property.
Board ofAdjwtment 12
CareNo. WA-16-091M�fin
Shown above is a photo taken the rear yard of the property, looking northeast toward the rear
property line.
Board ofAdjwtment 13
CareNo. WA-16-091M�fin
EXHIBIT 5: PROPOSED
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN &
RENDERINGS
Board ofAdfustment 14
Case No. WA-16-09/Martin
—.1,mb-b—im-e.by S.---
---9—e. rname 5 37D PM,.ww
-d C a4bb.18bo.ob.)
Q
pp
N
O
Z W N
�
LU
p W
N
In
W �
U
Lcn
z O F
F �
N
�
o
d ON,..
W
10-,L - 19L/C - 33d3S
F7 C N
quo
q
a�wz
W
2�
qti
h
N O O d
wx�A
�C
W
d
�C
q K w
wwoF
Fa
W
N WN K W
�N
/l\
N
(n
W
N❑ITdVETE
EQIS
q
£q~�
I
W
�
�
y�aa
IF
�
qC]U ow
VI
V
E
cu
W
w
0
�
a ti a
�Tn
J
Q
zqx
raww
ur
'amm
U
awoo
Y N K 2
2'-64"
�
W
Q
RE
COIF
Li
d�
�
coW
N
(U
W
�,I
�
ti� q
tiq q
tiqA q
42'-104" OVERALL LENGTH
FTI
o
EE
d
45' DECK
11-94"
1FT1
10'-84"
F-
8'-4"
FTF
T
5 4
w
V
D
w
Q
EE
W
Q
\\
W
W
W
\\
2,_64„
\\
W
J
I]
EL
o
0
d
\\
❑
w
1\7
q
�iW
D
o
m
�
37'-23,PODL
//F9
ID
N�
//
LF)
//
N
VIS
EE
W
F
o
>
0'-04"
>
ENCL❑SURE PEON
SCALE = 3/16"
= 1'-0"
12'-64"
EC
o
W
18'-64" LENGTH
12'-54"
LENGTH
3
FRAME 3 - FIXED
�s
`Z
d
SIDE EL EVRTI❑N
SCALE - 3/16"
= 1'-0"
12'-54" LENGTH
FRAME 2 - MOVING
FRAME 1 - MOVING
Q
pp
N
O
Z W N
�
LU
p W
N
In
W �
U
Lcn
z O F
F �
N
�
o
d ON,..
W
N�vN
F7 C N
quo
q
a�wz
W
2�
qti
h
N O O d
wx�A
�C
W
d
�C
q K w
wwoF
Fa
REVISIONS
Rev. 0, Initinl
issue
M
M
Q
pp
N
O
Z W N
�
LU
p W
N
In
W �
U
Lcn
z O F
F �
N
�
o
d ON,..
W
N�vN
F7 C N
quo
q
a�wz
W
Z
Q
N O O d
wx�A
iSL,
�Ud
W
d
o3a�
q K w
wwoF
Fa
W
N WN K W
�N
/l\
N
(n
W
�
q
£q~�
I
W
�
�
y�aa
IF
�
qC]U ow
VI
V
E
cu
W
w
0
�
a ti a
�Tn
J
Q
zqx
raww
ur
'amm
U
awoo
Y N K 2
2'-64"
�
W
Q
RE
COIF
Li
�
coW
N
(U
W
�,I
REVISIONS
Rev. 0, Initinl
issue
�-z
:3 O
o�
¢N
J 0
LU
CL
cr p
=3 W
U p
O Z
J W
U F—
Z X
W W
PROJECT NO: JN -16-272
DATES 07/01/2016
DRAWN BY, C.O.
CHECKED HY; V.O.
SCALES AS NOTED
SHEET
A 1
1 OF 2 SHEETS
M
M
K
pp
N
O
Z W N
�
LU
p W
N
In
W �
U
Lcn
z O F
F �
N
�
o
d ON,..
w
�-z
:3 O
o�
¢N
J 0
LU
CL
cr p
=3 W
U p
O Z
J W
U F—
Z X
W W
PROJECT NO: JN -16-272
DATES 07/01/2016
DRAWN BY, C.O.
CHECKED HY; V.O.
SCALES AS NOTED
SHEET
A 1
1 OF 2 SHEETS
N
doNN
�R1
0N 0)
ow
� V I N
Cl I
iz¢
Hid
0_ Z �O ('7
aONi �lO IO
y f q
W �
6 �
wi~
d ON,..
W of
N�vN
F7 C N
quo
q
a�wz
N O O d
wx�A
iSL,
�Ud
z�N
o3a�
q K w
wwoF
N WN K W
�N
/l\
N
iaowo
~W}U
Y/
GJ
rNiNZZ
Q
W,
£q~�
I
O C
�
y�aa
1
o
, a
qC]U ow
VI
V
E
Z N
^ao�
pp
a ti a
�Tn
J
Q
zqx
raww
ur
'amm
U
awoo
Y N K 2
away
�-z
:3 O
o�
¢N
J 0
LU
CL
cr p
=3 W
U p
O Z
J W
U F—
Z X
W W
PROJECT NO: JN -16-272
DATES 07/01/2016
DRAWN BY, C.O.
CHECKED HY; V.O.
SCALES AS NOTED
SHEET
A 1
1 OF 2 SHEETS
—�.1,mb-b—im-e.by S.---
---9—e. rname 53,E PM,.ww -d Ca4bb.18bo.ob.)
10—,L — 19L/C — ELVES
Pool
W
N❑ITdVETE
EQIS
Ff
1
—w
18'-64' RETRACTED LENGTH
r
1
FTI
3
o
z
d
71F-
71
71
m
V
J
H
Q
EG
u
':DRJ
0
v
21'-6" HNCDUERED 900E
td
0
d
0
F9
is' -84° COVERED
L
EG
F
L—
<E
W
ENCL❑SURE PEON
SCALE = 3/16'
= 1'-0"
EC
o
W
SIDE EL EVRTI❑N
SCALE = 3/16"
= 1'-0"
REVISIONS
Rev. 0,
Pool
W
Initinl
issue
M K
M
pp N
Z W O LUN
� � W In
W N O Lcn
U
Z O F N
F O � �
� rM+] 3:
N
doNN �R1
0N
0)� wow
V I N z¢
0_ Cl I Hid
Z IO ('7 y f q
a"00 W
K
L 0 >w'w=�
d ON... Wfof
N�vN quo
q
F7 C N a�wz
3 5--X zzr
N O O d wx�q
iSL, z�N
�Ud o3a�
q K W
J W 0
N F
VIW�W
woN
/l\ iaWo
Y/ N ~W }U
GJ rNiNZZ
Q W
F
0-0 £q~'
�
C �
G -w
I ; �A
ow
a S qC]U VI
1 Z N
^ao�
pEp a ti a
�Tn zqx
J raww
Q U �a�r
fmm
awoo
Y N K 2
away
o'w
W
�z
� O
O —
Q
J O
CL
W
Fcr
=3 W
In ~
O U
J Q
U =
Z F—
LU Er
3
W W
PROJECT NO: JN -16-272
DATES 07/01/2016
DRAWN BY,
C.O.
CHECKED HY; V.O.
SCALES AS NOTED
SHEET
A2
2 OF 2 SHEETS
EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF REQUEST
and RESPONSE TO CRITERIA
RE: Variance Request for 3390 Oak St.
To whom it may concern at City of Wheat Ridge:
Hello my name is Jeremiah Lord a Landscape Designer with Designs By Sundown. We are seeking a variance on
behalf of our customers Mr. and Mrs. Martin at 33% Oak St. Wheat Ridge CO 80033.
We are proposing to do a large landscaping renovation with the Martin's which includes a built in swimming pool
and hot tub, pool decking and patio space along with several other elements which would not require a Variance.
The Martins being a mature retired couple use a pool regularly as part of their health regiment to remain active
and mobile. They want to have a pool that they can both enjoy with grandchildren and stay healthy using it year
round. This project would also substantially increase their property value which they ultimately intend to pass onto
their children as they never intend to move again. The anticipated cost of this entire project could actually exceed
half oftheir current property value. They have asked us to design and build a retractable pool enclosure structure
in conjunction with the rest of their project so that in the summer they can enjoy the pool outside, and in the
winter close it up and continue to be able to use it year-round.
We run into two apparent Issues to be in compliance with existing zoning standards with regard to the retractable
enclosure. 1. Total allowable sq. ft being 1000 we are asking for approximately 1300sf. We want to have the area
big enough to accommodate a pool and hot tub big enough to justify the investment and practical use of the
amenity. 2. Building material: The only practical material that accomplishes both structural integrity, weather
resistance, durability, lightweight, and the ability to be re -tractable is Aluminum (which would be anodized to a
bronze or gray color to blend in with house) The Glazing is a 5/8" thick poly carbonate sheeting. I believe the spirit
of the existing code which does not allow any "metal" building structures was largely Intended to discourage un-
attractive steel buildings having an out of place commercial and or Flimsy tin shed look to spoil the pleasing
residential environment. From an investment standpoint the ability to have year-round use of the pool creates a
lot more intrinsic value to the home owner for the cost of the project effectively doubling its use. It also has value
for the environment and energy savings as there is no need to cool the building in the summer, and on sunny days
no need for heat in the winter and less energy to heat the pool and or hot tub as well even on non -sunny winter
days.
This is a unique case and situation, as you can see by the renderings and photos provided it is a very attractive,
functional safe and sturdy structure that meets snow load and building code requirements, we feel it would in no
way be Intrusive or out of context in this neighborhood. The existing yard is also completely surrounded by large
mature tree's none of which would be affected or removed. The neighbor directly behind the Martins would be
the only ones impacted by the view corridor and currently all they see are tree's and the Martins roof, not
mountains or open view, they also have a pool too and may be interested in doing something similar as the
Martin's.
Thank you for your time and consideration we sincerely hope we can work with you to make this project work for
everyone Involved.
Sincerely,
Jeremiah Lord
Designs by Sundown
303435-2965
jlord@designsbysundown.mm
Board ofAdjustment 15
Care No. WA-16-091Mz fin
Variance Review Criteria Responses For: Martin Project 3390 Oak st. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
1: The pools use would be limited to use only %: of the year because of the climate here. Also there is a
higher return on the investment because of the fact it could be used with much higher frequency.
2: We absolutely do not believe this pool enclosure structure, would in any way alter the character of
the locality, feel out of place or out of character in this neighborhood.
3: The Martin's are planning to invest a substantial amount of money to such an extent that it could
likely raise surrounding properties value. The total cost of the entire project including landscaping
elements is nearly half the current value of the home. The pool enclosure piece which represents 1/3rd
of the total cost of the project would not be possible without a variance given the current zoning
standards.
4: There are no issues here as it relates to this project.
5: No unique hardship has been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
6: We believe there are no foreseeable detrimental issues like the ones stated here that would result
from the granting of this variance.
7: There are other built in pools in this neighborhood that is not unique, while the request for variance is
unique regarding a pool enclosure it seems more because no one has asked or attempted to do one like
this but it is a logical addition to a pool area.
8: Granting this variance would result in a reasonable accommodation for Mr. & Mrs. Martin in terms of
their ability to easily access and use the pool regularly year-round as a preventative therapy for
maintaining mobility and overall health.
Below is a link to "The Benefits of Aquatic Therapy for the Aging Population"
http://www.mccc.edu/—behrensb/documents/Aguatictherapv.pdf
9: We do not believe this is applicable to this project.
We believe our Variance request meets the majority of these criteria for reasons stated above.
Thank you,
Jeremiah Lord
Board ofAdjustment 16
Case No. WA-16-09/Marfin
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
CASE NO: WA -16-09
APPLICANT NAME: Martin
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3390 Oak Street
WHEREAS, the application Case No WA -16-09 was not eligible for administrative review; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that
there [were/were no] protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and
without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of
Wheat Ridge
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -
161609 be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a variance to the maximum permitted size for
an accessory structure, and a request for approval of a variance to permit a metal accessory
structure.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The proposed pool cover will appear incidental to the home, and significant property
investment will occur as a result of approval of the variance.
2. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in
the property.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. No objections were received regarding the variance request.
6.
7. ...
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The design and architecture of the proposed enclosure shall be consistent with
representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval
through review of a building permit.
2. If any existing tree is removed or becomes damaged, diseased or dead, it shall be
replaced with a minimum 2" caliper tree or 6 -foot tall evergreen tree.
I
City of
WheatRidge
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
January 28, 2016
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair HOVLAND at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29a' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
Alternates Present:
Board Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
lk
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC FORUM
No one wished to speak at this time.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
Sally Banghart
Dan Bradford
Janet Bell
Paul Hovland
David Kuntz
Betty Jo Page
Thomas Abbott
Rocco Germano
Lily Griego
Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Zack Wallace, Planning Technician
Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
A. Case No. WA -15-14: An application filed by Carolyn DiPietro for approval of a 2 -
foot (50%) variance from the 4 -foot maximum fence height permitted in a front yard
resulting in a 6 -foot high solid fence in the front yard for property zoned Residential -
One A (R -1A) and located at 3400 Garrison.
The case was presented by Zack Wallace. He entered the contents of the case file and
packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record.
He stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and
Board of Adjustment Minutes January 28, 2016 1
advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the digital
presentation.
Mr. Wallace stated that this case was first reviewed administratively, but there were
written objections received during the 10 -day public notification period which
prohibited the case from being approved by the Community Development Director.
Therefore, the Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide upon the
variance request.
Mr. Wallace stated there is an existing wrought iron fence about 6 -feet tall currently
running the distance along Garrison Street and the applicant would like to make it a
solid 6 -foot fence. There are three main issues that create a hardship for the
applicant. First, the orientation of the home in relation to the street frontage, the front
yard functions more as a side yard. Second, the double frontage of homes along
Garland Street, which back up to Garrison Street, creates an alley effect with garages
and driveways accessing Garrison. Finally, the applicant is aware that she can build a
solid 6 -foot fence behind the 25 -foot setback, but the water table is high and the post
holes will fill with water. She is worried about damaging tree roots by digging post
holes. The applicant would also like more privacy and security because there is
traffic across the street associated with a plumbing business' deliveries and drop offs.
Mr. Wallace closed by stating that staff recommends approval of the variance due to
the before- mentioned reasons and the fence would not be detrimental to public safety
or welfare.
Member ABBOTT asked if small trailer parking is legal for property owners and if
loading and unloading is allowed.
Mr. Wallace stated as long as the trailer is not stored in the Right -of -Way.
Ms. Reckert stated that in-home businesses are allowed but not those which result in
negative impacts to the residential neighborhood. There should be no commercial
traffic associate with the in-home business entering the neighborhood. The
regulations allow one car to be parked on the street frontage of the house but the
ancillary trailers in the back, along Garrison, are not allowed. A certified letter has
been sent to the homeowners alerting them of the requirements for an in-home
business. No response was received to the letter and code enforcement action may be
pursued
Chair HOVLAND asked if the fence will extend beyond the property in front of the
lake.
Mr. Wallace explained the fence will only extend the length of the current fence
which stops just before the lake.
Member BANGHART wanted to know how the angling of the home is considered a
hardship to the applicant.
Board of Adjustment Minutes January 28, 2016
Mr. Wallace and Ms. Reckert stated it is a hardship because the house and resulting
front yard are not parallel to Garrison Street which limits privacy on the side yard
because the house sits askew.
Member BELL made note that some of what was done in the city was actually done
by the County before the City of Wheat Ridge was incorporated in 1969.
Ms. Reckert agreed and said the lake was originally used for irrigation and is now
privately owned. The applicant's house was probably one of the last to be built and
was angled so the back of her house has a view of the lake. Due to the angle, her side
and back yard also have a view of the garages across Garrison Street.
Carolyn DiPietro
3400 Garrison Street, Wheat Ridge
Ms. DiPietro stated she bought the house almost 3 years ago. Within this time, she
has upgraded the house and taken care of the landscaping to improve the
neighborhood. One reason for the solid fence is to control her dogs. When the dogs
go outside, they run straight to the fence and bark at people, cars and trucks on
Garrison Street. She has a view from her back porch of the lake but also of the
garages and trailers across Garrison. When people come to pick up plumbing
supplies from the house across the street, they look into the front, side and back yard.
A solid 6 foot fence would block the traffic on Garrison Street and provide added
security. Ms. DiPietro explained she is also in the process of replacing the gate which
is in disrepair. The gate will compliment a solid fence better than the wrought iron
that is there now.
Member PAGE asked if the grade o driveway was the same as the garage.
Ms. DiPietro state yes, a car can drive straight into the garage from the driveway.
Chair HOVLAND asked if the gate, once fixed, is going to be solid or wrought iron
and open.
Ms. DiPietro said it will be wrought iron and open.
Member KUNTZ noticed there are no windows on the house that face Garrison Street
and wondered if the applicant can add a screening fence off the northwest side of her
house for privacy.
Ms. DiPietro explained that to dig post holes that close to the lake can be difficult
because they fill up with water. Also, there are a lot of roots for the trees by the lake
which may be damaged by digging holes.
Discussion continued with regard to traffic on Garrison and the alleged, illegal home
occupation and alternate designs for the fence.
Board of Adjustment Minutes January 28, 2016
Ms. Pietro mentioned that a 5' high fence would allow the lake to be seen from the
street but not her yard. Ms. Reckert reminded the board members that they can grant
less than what is asked for by the applicant, but not more.
Chair HOVLAND swore in the speakers for the Public Hearing
Troy Scott
3390 Garrison Street, Wheat Ridge
Mr. Scott's expressed concern with a 6 -foot fence due to safety concerns backing out
of his driveway.
Member ABBOTT asked staff about the driveway sight triangle requirement.
Because the applicant's driveway will be open and is approximately 15 -feet across, it
appears that Mr. Scott should have a clear sight triangle.
Ms. Reckert responded that a regulated sight triangle is 15 feet and Mr. Scott's
driveway is at least another 10 -feet south from the applicant's driveway and more
from the fence.
Mr. Scott was also not happy with the way the fence was modified in between his
property and the applicants and doesn't want to see the same thing done along the
street.
Member KUNTZ asked Mr. Scott about the fence height being lowered to the top line
of the existing wrought iron fence and if this would alleviate his concerns.
Mr. Scott replied that it would.
Patricia Cusack
3380 Garrison Street, Wheat Ridge
Ms. Cusack asked if the wrought iron gate is going to give the applicant enough
privacy.
Ms. DiPietro replied that it would.
Member ABBOTT asked if Ms. Cusack if she had any objection to a 5 -foot solid
fence if there is an open wrought iron gate.
Ms. Cusack reiterated she does not see anything wrong with a 4 -foot fence.
Mikayla Hinkle (here on behalf of her parents, the property owners)
3420 Garland Street, Wheat Ridge
Ms. Hinkle read a letter from her parents into the record stating their concerns. The
concerns include the beauty of the neighborhood being lost because the view of the
lake would be gone; the sight triangle if the solid fence is built would limit the
visibility of the applicant backing out of her driveway; it could set a president for
others to build taller fences; a solid fence would not be aesthetically pleasing. Ms.
Hinkle explained that as one of the pictures displayed during Mr. Wallace's
Board of Adjustment Minutes January 28, 2016
presentation shows a white box trailer parked near their garage and after a
conversation with the next door neighbor (3400 Garland Street), the trailer was
moved.
Member KUNTZ stated that per code Ms. DiPietro can build a 4 -foot fence which
could cause the same concerns Ms. Hinkle addressed.
Member PAGE wanted more information about Ms. Hinkle's parent's plumbing
business.
Ms. Hinkle stated that the plumbing business is not run out of the home and that her
parents have a separate office and separate storage space for the business. Her father
keeps a business truck at the house, in the back garage, but doesn't run a business out
of it.
Ms. Reckert stated that to have a home occupation business license the owner of the
business needs to live at that location and there can be no traffic in the neighborhood
to pick up supplies.
Ms. Hinkle stated her parents do live at the house and to the best of her knowledge
nobody comes by to pick up plumbing supplies.
Discussion continued regarding the plumbing business.
Member BELL stated it is unfortunate that the front yard of a house has to look at the
backside of a double frontage property. ,
Ms. Reckert stated it is highly unusual to have a double frontage lot in the City now
and they are no longer allowed pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations.
Michelle Jenuine
3335 Garrison Street
Ms. Jenuine state she bought the house in 2001 and it is just south of 3400 Garrison
on the west side. It is a duplex in which one unit faces Garland and the other unit
faces Garrison. It is currently a rental and her family plans to move back to it
someday. Ms. Jenuine expressed there may be a better alternative and that they do
not want to see the view of the lake disappear
Member ABBOTT wanted to remind Ms. Jenuine that the BOA is not ruling on a
privacy fence, a 4 -foot privacy fence is allowed. They are ruling on the 2 -feet above
the maximum fence height.
Chris Jenuine
3335 Garrison Street, Wheat Ridge
Mr. Jenuine stated his main concern with Ms. DiPietro's request is aesthetic and
would like maintenance of the view as when they bought the house. Mr. Jenuine
stated that the improvements to the house by Ms. DiPietro are beautiful and she
should be commended for that.
Board of Adjustment Minutes January 28, 2016
Member PAGE stated she feels if there is a 6 -foot solid fence put up at the property in
question then Garrison Street will feel too much like an alley.
Member GERMANO indicated that he agrees with the staff conclusions and
recommendations and feels the applicant has met the criteria.
Member KUNTZ stated he does not agree with the staff conclusion of the hardship
criteria being met.
Member PAGE stated that dogs bark whether there is a solid or open fence.
Member BANGHART also stated she does not agree with staff's conclusions of the
hardship criteria being met.
Member ABBOTT stated that staff pointed out two hardships. With regards to the
angle of the house, he does not feel this is a hardship, because the primary scenic
view is to the north not to the west. The second hardship though, looking into the
backs of the houses across the street and their garage fronts, with cars and trailers
parked there, is a hardship. Member ABBOTT does not think the additional 2 -feet at
the top of the fence is going to mitigate the second hardship and feels a 4 -foot fence
would take care of the problem. Member KUNTZ stated it is unfortunate the west
side of Garrison has turned into off street parking for trailers, but feels the builder of
the house oriented the house just for that reason, especially since there are no
windows on the west side of the house to look in that direction.
Member BANGHART explained that the other homes to the south of 3400 Garrison
also have their garages facing the backs of the homes across the street and would hate
to see them follow suit and build 6 -foot fences as well.
Member HOVLAND feels the fence that is currently there is a good balance of trying
to accommodate both view and privacy. Neighborhoods go through periods of
construction so there are phases when cars and trucks are parked along the roadways.
The trailers are no longer across the street and whether this is temporary or not the
City will take care of it. Member HOVLAND stated he fails to see the need for the
additional 2 -feet of fence height.
Member BELL stated she is sympathetic to the issues of privacy and the amount of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic. She agrees that staff's conclusions are well
supported.
Upon a motion by Board Member GERMANO and second by Board Member
BELL, the following motion was made:
WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -15-14 was denied for an administrative
approval; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and
in recognition that there were protests registered against it; and
Board of Adjustment Minutes January 28, 2016
WHEREAS the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the
public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the
regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge
NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application
Case No. WA -15-14 be, and hereby is APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -
foot maximum fence height (for a solid fence in a front yard) for a property
zoned Residential -One A (R-1 A) and located at 3400 Garrison Street.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The current owner had no hand in the platting or construction of the home
askew to the property frontage.
2. The orientation of the home and double frontage of homes on Garland Street
present a unique hardship on the property.
3. The fence would not be detrimental to public safety or welfare.
4. The conditions necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood.
Motion was denied by a vote of 3-5 with Members ABBOTT, BANGHART,
HOVLAND, KUNTZ and PAGE voting against. Therefore, the variance was denied.
6. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair HOVLAND closed the public hearing.
OLD BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes — October 22, 2015
It was moved by Board Member PAGE and seconded by Board Member KUNTZ
to approve the minutes as written.
Motion passed 7-0-1 with Member GERMANO abstaining.
B. Resolution 01-2016 — Establishing a designated public place for posting of meeting
notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law
The lobby of the Municipal Building and the City's website shall constitute the
designated public place for the posting of meeting notices a required by the Colorado
Open Meetings Laws
It was moved by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board Member
BANGHART to approve Resolution 01-2016, A Resolution Designating a Public
Board of Adjustment Minutes January 28, 2016
Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meetings as in the language submitted to the
Board.
Motion approved 8-0
C. Election of Officers
Chair Elect is David Kuntz
Vice Chair Elect is Sally Banghart
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair HOVLAND adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
David Kuntz, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
Board of Adjustment Minutes January 28, 2016