Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/16I City of WheatPdge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA September 22, 2016 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on September 22, 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 -16-14: An application filed by David Lombardi for approval of a 3 - foot variance from the 6 -foot fence height maximum, resulting in a 9 -foot fence on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at 6840 West 36a Place. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS S. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes—August 25, 2016 9. ADJOURNMENT Individuals with disahilities are encouraged to participate in all puhlie meetings sponsored by the City of WheatRidge. Call Carly Lorentz, Assistant to the City Manager, at 303-235-2867 at least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in partieipating and need inclusion assistance. City of ,9�Wheat idge TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment Zack Wallace WA -16-14 / Lombardi MEETING DATE: September 22, 2016 Approval of a 3 -foot variance (50%) from the maximum fence height of 6 -feet for a property zoned Residential -Three located at 6840 W. 36" Place. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6840 W. 36`" Place APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: David Lombardi David Lombardi 7,013 Square Feet (0.16 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Three (R-3) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Loc: (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombard! 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 a 3 -foot (50%) variance from the maximum fence height of 6 feet, resulting in a 9 -foot tall fence. The purpose of the variance is to allow for privacy for the homeowner that the current chain link fence (located on the neighboring property) does not provide (Exhibit 1, Site Photos). 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, and if objections are not received during the public notification period. The applicant was not eligible for an administrative approval by the Director of Community Development because objections were received during the public notification period. Therefore, the Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing. Additional information regarding the administrative review is detailed in Section III. II. CASE ANALYSIS The variance is being requested so the property owner may construct a 9 -foot tall fence along the east property line. The property is located on 36th Place, west of Pierce Street (Exhibit 2, Aerial). The applicant's single-family home was constructed in 1955. The adjacent multi -family residence to the east, from which the applicant would like additional privacy via the proposed fence, was constructed in 1961. The applicant's single-family home and the adjacent multi -family structure are approximately 12 -feet away from each other wall-to-wall. There is also a 3.5 foot height difference between the two properties due to a retaining wall located on the property line. The multi -family property is at a higher elevation than the subject single-family home. The single-family property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3) and pre -dates the City of Wheat Ridge's incorporation by 14 years; the adjacent multi -family structure is also zoned R-3 and pre -dates the City's incorporation by 8 years. Adjacent properties are also zoned R-3, and contain a mix of single- family, duplex and multi -family residences. To the north is the 38th Avenue corridor, zoned Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MU -N). To the south is a large area of Residential -Two (R-2) Exhibit 3, Zoning MR. The property owner has stated he and his neighbors to the west have had privacy concerns for some time now, as the multi -family property is raised above their properties and has several units which have doors and windows facing directly into backyards and rear windows to the west. To exacerbate privacy issues, the apartment complex is located roughly 5 -feet from the common property line, which is nonconforming to today's setback requirement of 15 feet for multifamily structures in the R-3 zone district. The applicant stated he has tried to sell the house and has been unsuccessful, in part due to privacy concerns (Exhibit 4, Applicant Submittal). Board ofAdfustment CaseNo. WA-16-14/Lombardi Section 26-604.I of the municipal code states that fences shall be measured from finished grade, five (5) feet inside of the property to which it belongs. Due to the grade difference between the two properties, the multi -family property could construct a 6 -foot tall fence on their property, which would appear to be 9.5 feet tall from the applicant's property. The applicant can also construct a 6 -foot tall fence on his property, but this would only appear to be 2.5 feet tall from the multi -family property, and provide no additional privacy, as is desired. In order to construct a fence which provides privacy to the applicant there are two options: 1. Work with the adjacent multi -family property owner to construct a 6 -foot tall fence on the multi -family property. This option is allowed by City Code and would not require a land use case or building permits. 2. Construct a 9 -foot fence on the applicant's property. This option requires a variance process and, if approved, a building permit will need to be obtained and engineered drawings submitted in order to construct the fence at this height perceived The adjacent multi -family property owner has not agreed to place the fence on the multi -family property. As such the applicant's course of action is to apply for a fence height variance. The applicant chose to request a 9 -foot fence in order to initially keep the variance eligible for administrative review. Because of the grade change, the perceived height of the fence will only be 5.5 feet from the multi- family property to the east, see image below. The applicant proposes to construct the fence from the rear of the existing home to the rear of the property. He has stated he will taper the fence to its maximum height (Exhibit 5, Site Plan). Board ofAdjustment ColeNo. WA-I6-I4/Lombardi III. VARIANCE REQUEST CASE PROCESSING This variance request began as an administrative application, as the Director of Community Development may decide upon a variance that deviates from a development standard by fifty (50) percent or less. Due to objections received during the 10 -day public notification period, administrative approval was ultimately not eligible for review by the Director of Community Development (Exhibit 6, Letters of Objection). The Board of Adjustment is empowered to heard and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing. Additional public input was received during the public notification period prior to this hearing. Staff received an email from the adjacent property owners to the west of the single-family home in support of the fence as they too have privacy concerns (Exhibit 7, Email of Support). Staff received a call from a property owner who also abuts the multi -family property who was in support of the fence. An additional 15 -day public notification period for the Board of Adjustment public hearing is required and was in progress at the time this Staff Report was written. The original objecting party submitted an additional letter on September 16, 2016 (Exhibit 6, Letters of Objection). Besides this additional letter, no other letters of objection or support have been received as of the distribution of this staff report on September 16, 2016. IV. 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 criteria (Exhibit 4, Applicant Submittal). 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. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The fence would be allowed if it were able to be built on the east side of the property line (on the apartment property) rather than the west. Six-foot fences are common in the surrounding area. A 3.5 foot retaining wall already exists between the two properties. Staff does not feel the fence would alter the essential character of the locality. This is especially considering that the properties which would view the fence as being 9 feet tall are in favor of the fence. Because of the grade change, the perceived height of the fence on the multi -family property to the west is only 5.5 feet. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Board ofAdjustment CaseNo. WA-16-14/Lombardi 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 with this application, as the variance will provide increased privacy for not only the applicant, but also the adjacent property to the west, as well as those living in the apartments. The fence would only be possible without this request, if a 6 -foot fence were constructed by and placed on the neighboring property. Due to the grade change on the property line, a 6 -foot fence constructed on the applicant's property would only provide 2.5 feet of fence from the neighboring property, providing no additional privacy, as is desired. For these reasons, reasonable privacy is not possible without a variance request. The proposed investment is more substantial than is typical for a fence. Based on building code standards, a fence over 6 feet will require an engineered design and building permit which entail additional costs. 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 topography of the site presents a unique hardship on the property. The applicant's home and the adjacent multifamily property are separated by a horizontal distance of approximately 12 feet. There is also a 3.5 foot retaining wall on the property line, raising the adjacent multifamily property above the subject single family property. 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 applicant purchased the home in 2010. It was built in 1955. The adjacent multi -family property was built in 1961, and according to the Jefferson County Assessor records has been sold several times and is no longer owned by the original owner or builder. The topographic difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 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. Board ofAdfustment CaseNo. WA-16-14/Lombard! 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. The addition would not impede the sight distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. 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 grade change between the two properties is unique to these two properties. The abrupt grade change along the property line does not continue south or east. Even where the apartment building is in very close proximity to a single-family home to the south, the abrupt grade change is not present. 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. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 3 -foot (50%) variance from the 6 -foot fence height maximum resulting in a 9 -foot fence for a property zoned R-3 located at 6840 W. 36a' Place. 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. Board ofAdfustment CaseNo. WA-16-14/Lombard! 2. The particular topographical condition of the property results in a particular and unique hardship. 3. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment that would not be possible without a variance. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. With the following conditions: 1. The variance applies only to a fence along the eastern property line. 2. A building permit shall be obtained for all portions of the fence over 6 feet in height. Board ofAdfustment CaseNo. WA-16-14/Lombard! EXHIBIT 1: SITE PHOTOS View of the applicant's single-family home (left) and the adjacent multi -family residence (right) taken from the rear yard of the applicant's home. 7 s View of the 3.5 foot retaining wall along the property line between the two properties. The proximity of the applicant's home (left) and adjacent multi -family residence (right) is also noticeable. Board of-4djustment 8 Case No. W4-16-14 /Lombardi View from the applicant's rear yard. The detached garage can be seen to the right of the photo. The retaining wall, adjacent multi -family residence can also be seen. Also in the photo are ( foot tall fence slats the applicant proposed to utilize. These will need to be altered 0.5 feet if the variance is approved. Board ofAdjustment 9 CaseNo. WA-16-14/Lombardi 4 ,f View from the applicant's rear yard. The detached garage can be seen to the right of the photo. The retaining wall, adjacent multi -family residence can also be seen. Also in the photo are ( foot tall fence slats the applicant proposed to utilize. These will need to be altered 0.5 feet if the variance is approved. Board ofAdjustment 9 CaseNo. WA-16-14/Lombardi EXHIBIT 2: AERIAL Board ofAdjustment 10 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP Board ofAdjustment 11 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 4: APPLICANT SUBMITTAL PAGE 1 OF 2 Proposal for Variance for property 6840 W 36`h PI Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 To whom it may concern, My family and I, which includes my 3 boys aged 4, 2, and 10 months, have been at our current residence since December of 2010. When we purchased the home we did not look into the fact that the multiplex was too close (less than 15 feet from one another building to building) or going to be a concern with us or with future buyers. We currently have our home up for sale so we can get into a bigger more spacious home for the family. We are currently in a contract with another home based on the contingency to get our home under contract by August 31, 2016. We have had many buyers come look at the home and express home much they love the home and area but are extremely concerned about the multiplex and the privacy of the home and back yard area. We haven't received a single offer due to this, even with substantial price drops. We have emailed comments from potential buyers as proof to back our testimony. Some of the buyers that schedule a showing will pass the home and not even go inside due to the multiplex. This is a very big concern and an unfortunate situation for my family and I considering we are trying to sell the home and get into the new one. This can be solved with the approval of a fence between both properties in the back yard. We have tried to ask the current owner of the multiplex several times to put herself and her family in our shoes and have asked her what she would have liked the owner to do in this situation. She has given little to no cooperation in letting us build the fence on her current property, which would be within the city limits and guidelines in accordance to the height restrictions. We have offered to pay for the entire fence and have even gone as far as offering compensation for any future maintenance on the fence. This was her main concern as to why she does not want the fence to be built on her property. After several attempts to convince her as to why this would be a huge benefit for both properties, I have no choice but to ask the city's help in my situation with a variance. We would love to have this fence built, whether we end up staying in this home or for future residents of the home. It will do nothing but help the visual effect for both properties and add value as well. We are hesitant to let our kids go into the back yard because there are tenants living in the multiplex that cause concern for my family due to the following, One tenant has inappropriate posters on his walls which are seen when his doors and or windows are open. We found this out from my property when our 3 year old at the time asked why there were naked girls on the man's wall. Another concern is that one of the tenants will frequently go out on her porch (which is less than 10 feet from our kids play house) and start smoking while the kids are out playing. My kids will ask what she is doing and why she is putting fire in her mouth; this also leads to second hand smoke affecting my kids and the neighbors cigarette butts flying into our yard. Again, something that we should not have to explain to our 4 and 2 year old in our own back yard. One last example of the many I can give is our shower and the neighbors shower are less than 12 feet from each other. When we or the neighbors are taking a shower it makes it very uncomfortable. My wife has also had issues with one of the tenants staring into our home from his kitchen several times a day which in turn causes us to have to put all the blinds down and shut them even during the middle of the bright and sunny day. These along with many other problems would be solved with a privacy fence that I would like to build. I hope you can feel and see where we are coming from when you are making your decision to approve our request. We have lived in Wheat Ridge many years and love the city and are looking to buy our next home within the city as well. Please let me know if you need anything else to help you favor our decision. Thank you very much for your time and understanding, -The Lombardi's Board ofAdjustment 12 Case No. WA-16-14/Lombardi EXHIBIT 4: APPLICANT SUBMITTAL PAGE 2OF2 1. 1 am trying to sell my property and have received many reviews as to the inconvenience and disturbance of the multiplex next to my home. I have had many showings with positive feedback regarding the house itself but all the potential buyers have commented that the multiplex can easily see into the back yard and the windows (kitchen, bed room 1, and bed room 2) which in turn discourages them from wanting to live here. I have also received many reviews from buyers that schedule a showing and do not even go inside the home due to the multiplex and the lack of privacy. 2. Currently there are 6ft fences all around the other homes in the area and all along my property. By building a taller fence between my property and the multiplex property it will not only increase the value of both properties, but it will give my family and the tenants of the multiplex much needed privacy we all deserve. 3. Putting up the fence will result in an increase of value of my property along with the value of the multiplex; this will also be a great addition and make both look more presentable and provide much needed privacy when using the shower, eating at the dinner table or even walking around the home, which are all visible from 3 units of the multiplex and my home. Privacy is a major issue. 4. The multiplex is no more than 15 feet away from my home and is 3.5 feet above the ground level of my home which makes it easy for the tenants of the multiplex to look into my home (including our kids room, our room, and our bath room) it also makes it uncomfortable for me, my wife and our kids to be out in our back yard due to tenants being on the raised porch. My family witness tenants smoking, talking on their phones loudly, playing loud music, tenants with inappropriate posters hanging on the tenant's apartment walls, staring at our kids while they play outside, etc... These behaviors along with many others are effecting us and we feel that it is not a safe environment for our kids to be in when we are at our own home. 5. My family (me, my wife and 3 boys under 4 years of age) are now trying to get into a larger home and closer to their school, but have been unsuccessful in selling our home due to buyers expressing their feelings about the lack of privacy and questioning of the tenants in the multiplex. We love our home but we are a growing family and need more space. A fence that would block the view between the two properties would not only help us and the tenants, but it will also help future residents and help me and my family sell the home. When my home was built in 1955 and later the multiplex, this may not have been a concern at the time. I did not nor would I have supported the building layout of either my home or the multiplex as this was clearly not seen as a foreseeable concern to future residents and tenants. 6. My neighbor's adjacent to my property have also expressed their positive feelings of having a 6ft privacy fence put up because the tenants can also see into their living room and they too have felt uncomfortable. They along with another neighbor have and are willing to write a letter of support for the privacy fence to be built in everyone's favor. They have expressed that the value of their homes will increase as well, but the much needed privacy is the biggest factor. 7. Aside from all that I have mentioned above, I have contacted the multiplex owner/landlord to raise my concerns to her. After meeting with her at the property to review the proposed future plans, I offered to buy and build the privacy fence on the property of the multiplex, but she declined this offer and said she does not want to maintain or be responsible for the fence. I offered to include the price of another new fence in the case that this one would need any maintenance done in the future but again the owner declined. After expressing my feeling about privacy and asking her to put herself in my shoes, she stated that it would be a concern to her as well, but she again said she did not want to be the responsible party for the fence. After trying and asking multiple times, I have no other option but to ask the city for a variance to approve this fence. This is not only for me and my family to have a private and comfortable home, but for the tenants and the future residents of the home and multiplex for years to come. 8. (Does not apply to concern) 9. (Does not apply to concern) Board of Adjustment 13 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi y 5 �R .Akh c EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 1 OF 11 LELi HOMES LLC 4008 W 99" Place Westminster, CO 80031 August 30, 2016 Zoning Administrator City of Whet Ridge 7500 W 29' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001, To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in response to the requested 3 -foot variance for fencing at 6840 W 36' Place CASE NO. WA -16-14. III We are the property owners adjacent to said property and we do not agree with a variance for the following reasons: • A fence of that height would unnecessarily block sunlight from existing units on that side. This would not only make the units dark, but also cause a hazard in the wintertime by Blocking sunlight for snow melt. • The area is zoned R-3, which is multi -family. A 9- foot fence is not going to make our property Go away. Our property is maintained and clean. It is not unsightly in need of blocking. The area is what it is, mixed use, as are most areas in Wheat Ridge. • This fence is to be installed on top of the existing cement pad, meaning the posts will not Be dug into the ground and cemented in. How will this fence be stabilized? WE WILL NOT PERMIT ANY BOLTING TO OUR EXISTING CEMENT WALL. We believe the whole issue arises because the owner of 6840 West 36" PI, has unrealistic expectations as to the price his house should sell for. He claims it is not selling because people object to a lack of privacy in his yard due to our adjacent property. As you can see from the enclosed paperwork he is at least $50,000 to $70,000 above comparable sales in the area. He believes a 9 -foot fence will sell his house for $450,000. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Y CC`s-lt NUJ �Q�'�`-�t-'VLQJI� Victoria Portocarrero For LELI HOMES LLC mcalvecl 31 AJ ,vs 20► Board ofAdjustment 15 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF OBJECTION PAGE 2 OF 11 $440,000 $420,000 $400,000 a $380,000 Q. 0 a $360, 000 $340,000 $320,000 $300,000 500 1,000 • Properties Sold (TSF) ■ Properties With/Exp (TSF) Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) From 3/17/2016 to 8/11/2016 8/29/2016 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 ♦ Properties Under Contract (TSF) ♦ Properties For Sale (TSF) —Linear (Properties Sold (TSF)) Scattergram Pricing OTm 2007 r 3.500 www.Focuslstcom Board ofAdjustment 16 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF OBJECTION PAGE 3 OF 11 Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) 0 From 3/17/2016 to 8/11/2016 ImINI" $340,000 MLS: 3167615, 0.23 Acre, 2070 TSF, $349,000 __-_- -_ _ _ • MLS: 9748576, 0.22 Acre, 1194 TSF, $336,000 MLS: 4127776, 0.15 Acre, 984 TSF, $3191 500 $320,000 -- --- -- - MLS: 4079541, 0.22 Acre, 1042 TSF, $315,000 MLS: 6936786, 0.33 Acre, 974 TSF, $315,000 Properties located near this area provide MORE space for the dollar. $300,000 MLS: 1827736, 0.23 Acre, 987 TSF, $309,900 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 • Properties Sold (TSF) O Properties Under Contract (TSF) ♦ Properties For Sale (TSF) ■ Properties With/Exp (TSF) —Linear (Properties Sold (TSF)) 8/30/2016 Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi Scattergram Pricing CTM 2007 www.FocuS1SLc0m 17 MLS: 7482593, 0.16 Acre, 1906 TSF, $449,900 $440,000 Properties located near this area provide LESS space for the dollar. MLS: 9848779, 0.29 Acre, 1604 TSF, $425,000 MLS: 3949358, 0.21 Acre, 3084 TSF, $435,000 $420,000 - -- - MLS: 7231603, 0.24 Acre, 1594 TSF, $417,000 i MLS: 1924764, 0.22 Acre, 2192 TSF, $420,000 MLS: 4003280, 0.21 Acre, 1650 TSF, $411,000 U$400000 _. ___ _-_.-.. __. ___. _. _._._ MLS:8458380, 0.16 Acre, 1906 TSF, $409,900 d f$380,000 MLS: 6021679, 0.25 Acre, 1534 TSF, $377,000 -- - - — - - Q . O MLS: 4422387, 0.16 Acre, 2074 TSF, $374,900 0- $3qQ 000-- — MLS:4781028, MLS: 6935688, 0.25 Acre, 1178 TSF, $360,000 0.25 Acre, 1445 TSF, $355,000 $340,000 MLS: 3167615, 0.23 Acre, 2070 TSF, $349,000 __-_- -_ _ _ • MLS: 9748576, 0.22 Acre, 1194 TSF, $336,000 MLS: 4127776, 0.15 Acre, 984 TSF, $3191 500 $320,000 -- --- -- - MLS: 4079541, 0.22 Acre, 1042 TSF, $315,000 MLS: 6936786, 0.33 Acre, 974 TSF, $315,000 Properties located near this area provide MORE space for the dollar. $300,000 MLS: 1827736, 0.23 Acre, 987 TSF, $309,900 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 • Properties Sold (TSF) O Properties Under Contract (TSF) ♦ Properties For Sale (TSF) ■ Properties With/Exp (TSF) —Linear (Properties Sold (TSF)) 8/30/2016 Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi Scattergram Pricing CTM 2007 www.FocuS1SLc0m 17 EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF OBJECTION PAGE 4 OF 11 Competitive Price Lines ©TM 2007 m� (3/17/2016 - 8/11/2016) Recently Sold Each mark indicates the actual selling price of a property in the competitive range. 3V32f360t380 400420 440 460 1 480 1 500 1 520 540 560 580 Sold Price ( x $1,000 ) Currently For Sale Each mark indicates the list price of a property for sale. (Yellow marks show properties that are Under Contract.) 300 1 320 1 340 360 1 380 1 400 420 440 460 480 500 1 520 1 540 1 560 580 Current List Price ( x $1,000 ) Did Not Sell Each mark indicates the final list price of a property that was offered for sale but did not sell. 300 320J 340 1 360 1 380 1 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 1 540 1560 580 Final List Price ( x $1,000 ) Powered by: 0501� 1,200 F0CUS'"'15tLLC 8/30/2016 Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi wmFocuslstcom 18 EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF OBJECTION PAGE 5 OF 11 Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) From 1/3/1900 to 8/29/2016 Note For many appraisals, only homes sold in the last six months. can be used as comparables Source MLS. Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi Price per TSF $323 $169 $281 $249 $325 $262 $192 $246 $306 $246 $141 $265 $236 $302 $314 $215 $181 I I-MSold P,. - Above Sold - odrerence Grnd Fin. Total Year Days On With/Exp MLS # Status Property Address Style Acre Sq Ft Sq Ft Sq Ft Bed Bath Built List Price Market Date Sold Price iso sdl�r 6936786 Sold 3645 Reed Street Ranch/1 Story 0.33 974 974 974 3 1 1954 $324,900 173 3/25/16 $315,000 c I -$9,900 3167615 Sold 3516 Newland Street Ranch/1 Story 0.23 2070 2070 2070 6 3 1949 $360,000 91 3/31/16 $349.000 -$11,000 9748576 Sold 3536 Newland Street Ranch/1 Story 0.22 1194 1194 1194 3 1 1949 $325.000 56 4/7/16 $336,000 $11,000 4003280 Sold 6740 W 36th Place Ranch/1 Story 021 1650 1650 1650 3 2 1956 $419,000 35 4/29/16 $411,000 -$8,000 4127776 Sold 3670 Reed Street Ranch/1 Story 0.15 984 984 984 2 1 1954 $314,500 30 4129/16 $319,500 $5,000 7231603 Sold 3275 Otis Street Ranch/1 Story 0.24 1194 1594 1594 3 2 1950 $409,900 28 6/30/16 $417,000 $7.100 2924764 Sold 3502 Teller Street Ranch/1 Story 0.22 1392 2192 2192 4 3 1939 $435,000 82 7/6/16 $420,000 -$15,000 4781028 Sold 3245 Newland Street Ranch/1 Story 0.25 1445 1445 1445 3 1 1953 $330.000 37 7/13/16 $355,000 $25.000 6935688 Sold 3645 Newland Street Ranch/1 Story 0.25 1178 1178 1178 3 2 1949 $369,900 57 7/27/16 $360,000 -$9,900 6021679 Sold 5914 W 35th Avenue Ranch/1 Story 0.25 1245 1500 1534 4 2 1945 $384,900 61 7/29/16 $377,000 -$7,900 3949358 Sold 6711 W 36th Place Ranch/1 Story 0.21 1542 3007 3084 4 3 1956 $439,500 78 8/11/16 $435,000 -$4,500 9848779 With/Exp 3588 Quay Street Ranch/1 Story 029 1604 1604 1604 4 2 1940 $425,000 122 3/17/16 7482593 With/Exp 6840 W 36th Place Ranch/1 Story 0.16 953 1906 1906 3 2 1955 $449,900 13 817/16 4079541 U/C 3620 Marshall Street Ranch/1 Story 022 1042 1042 1042 2 1 1969 $315,000 61 1827735 U/C 3465 Newland Street Ranch/1 Story 0.23 987 987 987 2 1 1955 $309,900 6 8458380 For Sale 6840 W 36th Place Ranch/1 Story 0.16 953 1906 1906 3 2 1955 $409,900 22 4422387 For Sale 3695 Quay Street Ranch/1 Story 016 1037 2074 2074 3 2 1956 $374,900 4 Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi Price per TSF $323 $169 $281 $249 $325 $262 $192 $246 $306 $246 $141 $265 $236 $302 $314 $215 $181 I EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 6 OF 11 LELI HOMES LLC 4008 W 991" Place Westminster, CO 80031 August 30, 2016 Zoning Administrator City of Whet Ridge 7500 W 29" Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001, Board of Adjustment: t0 Please find the attached analysis of the review criteria as it pertains to Case No. WA,16-14, request for a 3 -foot variance from the 6 -foot fence height maximum resulting in a 9 -foot fence on property located at 6840 West 361 Place. This analysis is from the perspective of the adjacent property 3605-3685 Pierce St, the property that the 9 -foot fence is to "hide." I've also included what I believe to be the impact for the neighborhood and for the City in general. As business owners in the city we believe that it is of the upmost importance that the city be a vibrant, inclusive place to live. We look forward to new mixed use development throughout the city and especially along 38" Street. With this new development will come even more residential and business use parcels that will have to learn to co -exist. I invite you at any time to tour our property so we can demonstrate to you that we are responsible business owners with 20+ years' experience. We not only maintain but we strongly improve any property we own. We are always responsive and attentive to any maintenance and or concerns from our tenants and neighbors. We have only owned this particular property for barely a year; we have big plans to beautify and improve it even more. Thank you, Victoria Portocarrero For LELI HOMES LLC Board ofAdjustment 20 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 7 OF 11 September 16, 2016 CASE NO. WA -16-14; Requested variance to allow a 9 -foot fence Review Criteria 1. The property would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income... 6840 W 36`h PI. was built in 1955. It was last purchased in 2010 for $139,000. The adjoining multi -unit property (which the 9 -foot fence is to "hide") was built In 1961. These properties have co- existed for 55+ years without "privacy" being an Issue. The current owner has lived there for 6 years without an issue. The house currently has a raised deck from which he can look into both yards, and his neighbors to the West can look directly at his deck. The house was on the market for $450,000. A reasonable sales price of around $380,000 would yield a gain of over 270%. The question is what is a "reasonable" return? (Exhibits A & B) 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The City of Wheat Ridge is a very inclusive city with close to a 50-50 ratio of owners and renters. Mixed use zoning is spread throughout the city with many multi -unit buildings being located next to single family homes. The demographics of this neighborhood is at 44% rentals. This variance would not only alter the character of the neighborhood but also of the entire city by setting a precedent for 9 -foot fences to be erected to "hide" the neighbor. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment which would not be possible.... It is not a given that by installing this fence he would be able to sell at such a high price. In our opinion it would do the opposite. He would have to explain why a 9 -foot fence is necessary. It sends a message that the neighbor is a problem, that the property is not maintained and that it is a detriment to the neighborhood. In our opinion, an unreasonable sales price and a market adjustment (sales in Arapahoe, Douglas and Jefferson county are down 4.5% from last year) is the major reason the house did not sell. Furthermore, the probability of the house appraising at a $450,000 asking price is highly doubtful. A buyer would have to come up with the difference in cash. 4. Physical surrounding is a unique hardship rather than a mere inconvenience... Whatever hardship might be present was actually caused by the pouring of a cement driveway all the way to the edge of the property line. Again, privacy has not been a concern for the past 55+ years; even so privacy could have been achieved in a much more esthetically pleasing manner by just simply planting trees along the border. Board ofAdjustment 21 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 8 OF 11 5. Hardship has not been created by any person presently having interest in the property... Again, whatever hardship is claimed was caused by extending a cement driveway all the way to the property line. 6. Granting of the variance detrimental....... A 9 -foot fence would completely block the sunlight to the units on the West side of the adjacent property. It would make the units dark and restrict air flow. Furthermore, it would cause ice to form in the wintertime without natural sunlight to help melt snow accumulations. It would create a dark narrow corridor. Granting of variance substantially diminishing or impairing values in neighborhood.... Just in this square block area there are three multi -family units adjacent to single family homes. are all of these going to be allowed a 9 -foot fence sending the message of an unsafe neighborhood. Directly across the street there is a beautiful corner house with a pool ... should this have a 9 -foot fence? (Exhibit C) 7. Conditions necessitating the variance are not unique to the property... These conditions are in existence throughout the city. Wheat Ridge's goal of repositioning the city and creating economic vitality and block beautification are not going to be achieved with 9 -foot fences. We cannot set a precedent that encourages fencing off properties. 8. Disabilities... N/A 9. Compliance with standards... We have serious questions on the stability of a 9 -foot fence installed ON concrete. These posts which must be larger than you typical 44 will have to be bolted to cement. and secured for wind and snow loads. In our experience this will require constant maintenance and upkeep on this fence. Can we rely that the current code will ensure this maintenance? Board ofAdjustment 22 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 9 OF 11 f,# 1n84o W•34°k Board ofAdjustment 23 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 10 OF 11 pqVanessa Hamm i - 8Z Real Estate Welcome Properties Map / Search Back to Results Previous • Next • 1 of 1 El 3695 Quay St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 County: Jefferson Locale: Barths 1/27 Total Beds: 3 Total Baths: 2 Full Baths: 1 3/4 Baths: 1 Half Baths: 0 1/4 Baths: 0 Rough -in: No SQJAA..)CoU.P le, 61ocs, a,.s°"I Email from Sep 15 2016 MLS#: List Date: Under Contract Date Status Conditions: Approval Conditions: Has HOA: Financial Terms: Legal Desc: Type: Architecture: Year Built: Anticipate Yr Complete: Heat Fuel: Heat Type: Cooling: Other HVAC: HVAC Detail: Construction: Exterior: Roofing: List Office Name Upper Sqft: Main Sqft: Lower Sqft: Above Grade: Basement Sqft: Total Sqft: Finished Sgft: Other Finished Sq Ft: Other Finished SgFt Desc: Measurement From: School District: Jefferson R-1 Elementary: Stevens School of Choice: Appliances: Flooring: Interior Features: Smart Home Features: Laundry Availability: Fireplaces: Exclusions: Checked 0 Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi 1,037 1,037 2,074 2,074 4422387 08/25/16 09/03/16 None Known Kick Out - Contingent o No Cash, Conventional, FH SECTION 26 TOWNSHII .158 KEY=264 Detached Single Family 1956 Electric, Gas Forced Air None Brick Brick Composition Shingles Open Door Real Estate PSF Above Grade: PSF Total: PSF Finished: Bsmt Ceiling Height: Bsmt Type: Subfloor: Bsmt Finished: % Fully Finished: County Records Jr High/Middle: Everitt Sr High: Wheat Ridge Dishwasher, Refrigerator (Kitchen), Stove/Range/Oven Carpet, Tile Floor, Vinyl/Linoleum, Wood Floors Eating Space / Kitchen, Smoke Free Seller's Personal Property Print Email EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 11 OF 11 Elb,;,b;} L, Board ofAdjustment 25 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 7: EMAIL OF SUPPORT From: Ira Sweetwine To: Zack Wallace Subject: New fence at 6840 W 36th PI. Wheat Ridge Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 2:08:16 PM Importance: High To whom it may concern, I am the owner of 6850 W 36th pl., directly next door to the house of the Lombardi family at 6840 W 36th PI. It has come to my attention that home -owner, David Lombardi, wishes to build a tall privacy fence as the apartment complex adjacent to his property is very close and affords no privacy. The 4 apartments also have a direct sight line into my property as the apartment complex is elevated from both of our properties. We would be thrilled to see this fence erected as we would greatly appreciate the privacy. We have small children and privacy and safety are always a top concern, as it is for the Lombardi family. We are in full support of this endeavor and happy to assist in any way possible. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, Ira Sweetwine 6850 W 36th PL. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 720-841-1755 Board ofAdfusbnent 26 CaseNo. WA-16-14/Lombard! WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA -16-14 APPLICANT NAME: David Lombardi LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6840 W. 36a' Place WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -16-14 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 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 - 16=14 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for Approval of a 3 -foot variance (50%) from the maximum fence height of 6 -feet. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The particular topographical condition of the property results in a particular and unique hardship. 3. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment that would not be possible without a variance. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 6. ... With the following conditions: 1. The variance applies only to a fence along the eastern property line. 2. A building permit shall be obtained for all portions of the fence over 6 feet in height. 3. ...