The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWA-16-01City of W heat �idge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Case file for Case WA -16-01 / Goodnight FROM: Zack Wallace, Planning Technician (Case Manager) DATE: September 1, 2016 SUBJECT: Variance Application Closeout Case No. WA -16-01 was submitted on January 15, 2016 requesting a 4 -foot variance from the 6 - foot maximum fence height in a rear yard, resulting in a 10 -foot tall fence on property located at 5825 W. 39th Avenue. In a Courtesy Review dated January 27, 2016 Staff found the application not to be in compliance with the majority of review criteria (Section 26-115.C.4. of the Municipal Code), and thus a recommendation of Denial was provided by Staff. The applicant was informed of Staff's position on February 2, 2016 and was on track for the February 25, 2016 Board of Adjustment hearing. After several emails between the applicants and Staff regarding the application and Board of Adjustment process, the applicant informed Staff on February 5, 2016 that they no longer wished to go before the Board of Adjustment with this case. This is the last contact that was had with the applicant. The applicants spoke with the Community Development Director and City Manager regarding this issue and have made it clear they do not intend to move forward with the application. Per departmental policy, if no action occurs on an open case file within sixty days, the case can be closed. Subsequent action on the property will require a new application. City of Wh6atPidge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: January 27, 2016 CASE MANAGER: Zack Wallace CASE NO. & NAME: WA -16 -XX / Goodnight (Courtesy Review) ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 4 -foot (67%) variance from the 6 -foot maximum fence height in a rear yard, resulting in a 10 -foot tall fence on property located at 5825 W. 391h Avenue and zoned Residential -Three (R-3) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 5825 W. 39`h Avenue APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Gary Goodnight Gary and Ellen Goodnight 13,044 Square Feet (0.299 Acres) Residential -Three (R-3) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Courtesy Review Case No. WA -16 -XX I Goodnight Site JURISDICTION: I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 4 -foot (67%) variance from the 6 -foot maximum height for a fence in a rear yard, resulting in a 10 -foot tall fence. The purpose of this variance is to block views from a duplex unit being constructed at the InCarnation site, abutting the applicant's property to the north. II. CASE ANALYSIS 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, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character. The subject property is located on 39`h Avenue, east of Harlan Street (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The area immediately surrounding the property is also zoned R-3, developed with a mix of low and moderate density residential housing units. Beginning approximately 250 -feet east of the subject property is a large area of R-1 A zoned residential properties. Approximately 200 -feet to the south of the subject property are properties which front 38`h Avenue, and are zoned Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU -N) (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). According to the Jefferson County Assessor, the subject site has a recorded area of 13,044 square feet (0.299 acres) and contains a one-story single-family home and a detached garage. This home was originally constructed in 1948, with a large renovation or expansion (`adjusted year built') in 1967. A variance is being requested to allow the property owners to construct a 10 -foot tall fence along the rear property line (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). There is an existing 6 -foot fence running along the rear property line atop a 1 -foot 1 -inch raised bed planter. Per the applicant, the variance is being requested to mitigate the sight lines from the new InCarnation development currently under construction to the north (Exhibit S, Written Request). A new duplex abuts the applicant's rear property line, meeting the appropriate R-3 setback requirements. Due to grading and a slight elevation change between the properties, the InCarnation duplex sits higher than the applicant's property. The 10 -foot fence is being requested to help block visibility from the first floor of the duplex unit into the applicant's living room and bedroom (Exhibit 4, Site Photos). Courtesy Review Case No. WA -16 -XX/ Goodnight III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve variance, it must be determined 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. 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. A variance granted to allow a 10 -foot tall fence may alter the essential character of the locality. The fence would be almost twice as tall as the existing fences in the neighborhood. The 10 -foot fence would impact the two properties which the applicant's property borders to the north. While most homes have fences, the heights are generally limited to 6 -feet, per the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The proposed 10 -foot fence is not a substantial investment in the property. Staff finds this criterion has not been met 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The construction of new units in immediate proximity to the applicant's rear property line, though in conformance with R-3 development standards, has created a situation in which the applicant's privacy is being diminished. Due to grading on the InCamation site, and a slight elevation change between the applicant's property and the InCarnation site, the new InCarnation duplex sits higher than the applicant's home. This combined with the two story construction (though, R-3 does allow structures up to 35 -feet in height), creates a situation where the rear windows and doors of the duplex, including rear patio overlook the applicant's backyard and rear facing rooms. Courtesy Review Case No. WA -16 -XX/ Goodnight Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The alleged difficulty or hardship has been created by new construction on the property abutting the applicant's property to the north. As such, the applicant had no hand in prompting the need for this variance. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request may be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The 10 - foot fence will create a large shadow, especially during the winter months, on the adjacent properties to the north of the applicant's property. This will diminish the useable yard space for multiple homeowners, and also may decrease the value of homes located on the northern end of the 10 -foot fence. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. With the completion of more new units at the InCarnation development, it is likely that other properties along 391h Place may see similar conditions present. 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. Courtesy Review 4 Case No. WA -16 XX / Goodnight 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 DENIAL of a 4 -foot (67%) variance from the 6 -foot maximum fence height in a rear yard. Staff has not found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: I . The property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use if the variance were not granted. 2. The variance has the potential to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 3. The granting of the variance would be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Courtesy Review 5 Case No. WA -16 -XX/ Goodnight EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Courtesy Review Case No. WA -16 -XX / Goodnight EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Courtesy Review Case No. WA -16 XX/Goodnight EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN Site Plan West Elevation Stak: 1 in. = 12.S k. Family Room Extension (See Plot Plan) Proposed Fence 10' Existing Fence 6' t I i rr Raised Red 1. 1" Property Line 12' 1" ► 33. 11' Site Plan submitted by Applicant Hereat image of property indication location of proposed 10 foot tall fence Courtesy Review 8 Case No. WA -16 XX / Goodnight EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS View from the rear deck/patio of the applicant's home. An under -construction InCarnation duplex can be seen behind the fence. The sightline of the duplex windows is of concern to the applicants because, as can be seen in the photo, much of the applicant's backyard is visible from the rear of the duplex. Courtesy Review Case No. WA -16 XX / Goodnight Courtesy Review Case No. WA-16 XX / Goodnight Courtesy Review Case No. WA -16 -XX/ Goodnight EXHIBIT 5: WRITTEN REQUEST Explanation of variance We wish to build a fence, ten feet high, to mitigate sight lines from the new development behind us to our home and yard. We are asking for this height variance since measurements from existing sight lines indicate this is the minimum height required to block visibility from the first -floor windows and sliding glass doors of the duplex (InCarnation) to the north of our property to our bedroom and family room. Alternate designs (as described in the Submittal Checklist: [variance — Rev 512014 issued by the Wheat Ridge Community Development Department) would not block sight lines between the mentioned structures and are, therefore, not feasible. We are not seeking to block sight lines from the second story of the duplex to our property. The fence will be strongly built, predominantly of cedar (rails, caps, pickets, and batten boards), on three-inch diameter Schedule 40 posts. (See accompanying drawing.) The fence will be constructed by a commercial company, Discount Fence Company, 11625 Milwaukee Street, Thornton. Colorado 80233. We will seek a building permit for the construction of the fence. Unique Physical Hardship Explanation [Numbers in brackets refer to paragraphs from the RCV document appended below.] • Privacy Issues impacting reasonable return in use or service. [1] • Sight lines — as discussed above. • Setback and grading of the InCarnation duplex also affect privacy in our back yard since currently, a person using the patio of the InCarnation duplex can easily see (even seated) over the existing fences into our vard. Furthermore, the InCarnation development has in all likelihood devalued our property as a result of these issues and those described below. • Our Proposal would help mitigate the egregious alterations in our community presented by the InCarnation Development especially expected intrusions into our peace and quiet when we are outdoors. [2] • Our proposal represents a substantial investment in our property (over $10,000) involving not only the construction of a new fence but also survey fees, fees for filing with the City, and attorney fees. [3] • As mentioned above, the grade of the InCarnation Development is substantially higher than the grade on our property. This condition magnifies the particular and unique hardships mentioned in this document. [4] • The difficulties and hardships mentioned in this document have not been created by any person presently having an interest in our property. [5] o On the contrary, we attempted to forestall the current state of affairs when we attended the Planning Meetings and City Council Meetings starting in 2013 prior to the Courtesy- Review 12 Case No. TVA -16 -XX/ Goodnight construction phase of the Incarnation Development. ■ In our testimony before these bodies, we pointed out that the development would "substantially alter the essential character of the locality" (to use the wording of the RCV document). ■ To illustrate, we commented on the height of the new buildings, setback variances, the density factor, and their impact on privacy, peace, and quiet. h'e did not oppose the proposed development, we only asked for some concessions from the Planning Commission, City Council, and the Developers of Incarnation which might protect the concerns of existing community residents. No such concessions ivere granted. The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. In fact, the fence we propose very well may be appreciated by the adjacent InCarnation property owners since they will not be presented with views of our home's interiors and will be able to use their patios in more privacy, as well. [6] The unusual circumstances and conditions necessitating our variance request are not unique to our property. Other home owners in the area will be contending with the same reduction in privacy that we are facing. Additionally, we all must contend with the increase in congestion on feeder streets. Some of the residents on the north side of the Incarnation Development must also contend with an impairment of an adequate supply of light, as well. Whether or not the InCarnation Development has any negative affect on property values in the original neighborhood, remains to be seen, but it would seem we might all have a legitimate cause for concern. [7] ■ Items [8] and [9] are not applicable to our request since our home is a single-family home. Conclusion — Circumstances obviously beyond our control have destroyed the quality of life we strove to build over 20 years. We have been told by the City, and de facto the Developer of InCarnation, that we must live with these circumstances. We feel we are justified in asking for the variance herein described as we try to restore the quality of life in our beloved home. Courtesy Review 13 Case No. WA -16 -XX/ Goodnight EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE Review Criteria: Variance [Rev.5/2014] (Excerpted from Section 26-115 of Wheat Ridge Municipal Code and issued by the Wheat Ridge City Community Development Department) 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. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application which would not be possible without the variance. 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. 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. bv. 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. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 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.] 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Nfameal. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.] Courtesy Review 14 Case No. WA -16 -XX / Goodnight EXHIBIT 7: ELEVATIONS dam. SChed. 40 steed Posts Ip) "- 2 Cap IDI December 30, 2015 6 r � 11) Discount Fence 11625 Milwaukee St. Thorntun CO 80233 Goodnight Fence Plan Materials List IMI 'd Goodnight Fence Plan South Elevation — Typical Section tern in brackets refer to Materials Component Material Specification Dimension Reference Post _Steel Schedule 40 3" X 13' A T X 4" -- --- B - Cap Cedar --- - 1" X 4" -- ----- -- C - C edar i 2" X 4" i D — ---- - Belly Board - edar — C +- - ----- _ _ E Bracket Steel To M, 3" posts F Picket Cedar _ 1" X 6" X 6' _ G Cedar 1" X 6"_Y. 4' H Batten Board I Cedar 1" X 4" I Courtesy Review 15 Case No. WA -16 -XX/ Goodnight Goodnight Fence Plan Materials List Component Material Specification Dimension Reference Post Steel Schedule 40 3" X 13' A Rail Cedar 2"X 4" B Cap Cedar 1" X 4" C Cedar 2"X 4" D Belly Board Cedar 1" X 4" E Bracket Steel To fit 3" posts F Cedar 1"X 6"X 6' G Picket Cedar _ 1" X 6" X 4' Batten Board Cedar 1" X 4" 1 Page 1 J C N O w � C D +°� m^ 'n c�'W in v O v •a° x c _ `° x t+ x x V. TO N Q� m 4)x X LL I V r1 .-1 11Q� c O w —i 0 0 ` W.0 1 ' O Lo N � d V N M N O CD d Y 00 �O o N c e N y N O R a =°$ D Y � m r � Q, x � N • t r O N M d V Eel A Lh memo logo Evil a r LL x LLI v J a 0 L a a� G1 L u � c a a o � L a � c X rj II I - c � o c � a a o m a to „ m o .° o 4A — x E W It U. � r L � 0y=� 0 d U. i ,v t _4;orjjwq •�SS�FiCiY i t ai �i 3 '�� ;E`s i�1=i i� t;s,' � i v Isa g � 13 oi�•: Y{ YY i ofd � � � � i �? rf 7 �� g � � v � � EF <� � _ �T'Jl S i •: l 3 y ! x �� • t � i 6, c, j �a i, t :ISS�S�^y° �= is �� Ye ° v7� il.i t�i�`o �_ "i, a��•'4S� � S • ' _ { i � ; •} ; f J l v � a + _ � : � 1 � i a � � I • - . j 9 YI'i i � � ., i.� i f°��Si�t "� �3 <. I: ! {3 ;!}• eeb;�� 3� !i� ��'-y s, � _-; Q ° �i S°if�� Ia n i� { a °a o� S '�a :j •.° f�`o iS9^ Fr °rY ��Y'a ?' rt `'' '�' i. 1� Z S =;ypSSt'�?�' <l °' as �y� s•i `. ,y R'i� �1 �' c4 S 4 �<� W � e;4i � -i �1 f+ o �• ° �> ��io° ryI� °3 f ai; ai :� Y '"' � { QS�:° °i2 li 75 { � � i � ° Y`•°r• � eel �- � i _�\i I i; u �_.-`.Ff;•e 7° SS 33 °r 9 a ij�. .Se°�y _� ai; r =t e� t° r.i + d c 1!,a7Yt��i � S• ? aYa f .1T� ai• � oZ 'f� • • y Iii . po AM •b��y :i�5• b a:b�$ �s ai��C o a Yi��t Voa >Jf XS`ySJ gs."! I f i ' I � � I 11 w !{ f - - -i1 f i ' I � � I 11 w 'i s x �I i A�. t7�;a, �r�• •7 x �I ,OCq W 11Mrc+ - 14=1uV-0 • ti.o �s o+wna ouw c 'rr sun cus �v wn,otts t " � � �r _ __ ru,.,u..,� y. xuu. Xr�Xw.uwg f j..•f 3 „ 0 1 ~ nve 1V9d AaAHnS QNVI ri�'g �o�� .�p g r y� jyg��, � �• W� gsop a �' �a Ya g��? I. S'h i s @.� I. @e!' �qa ar is saa�,y " Yds" aQaq era � •� (a . + e, tl b g w r Y FFFF 2N ''I6Y4� 14; Vag t W a ay a k'veraEYYgy E P's~! r� ,ueu y ° dr a a� �CL Qa opo a. E o i• _ w LOo v w s uj Zee-, h CL _ I� _ b 7 dI b§ Is y '51 9To $gg$R� yy �.ti a i Ib CL °.a I..- '�l#I �3.. �� 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. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 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.] 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.] construction phase of the InCarnation Development. ■ In our testimony before these bodies, we pointed out that the development would substantially alter the essential character of the locality" (to use the wording of the RCV document). ■ To illustrate, we commented on the height of the new buildings, setback variances, the density factor, and their impact on privacy, peace, and quiet. We did not oppose the proposed development, we only asked for some concessions from the Planning Commission, City Council, and the Developers of Incarnation which might protect the concerns of existing community residents. No such concessions were granted. • The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. In fact, the fence we propose very well may be appreciated by the adjacent InCarnation property owners since they will not be presented with views of our home's interiors and will be able to use their patios in more privacy, as well. [6] The unusual circumstances and conditions necessitating our variance request are not unique to our property. Other home owners in the area will be contending with the same reduction in privacy that we are facing. Additionally, we all must contend with the increase in congestion on feeder streets. Some of the residents on the north side of the InCamation Development must also contend with an impairment of an adequate supply of light, as well. Whether or not the InCarnation Development has any negative affect on property values in the original neighborhood, remains to be seen, but it would seem we might all have a legitimate cause for concern. [7] • Items [8] and [9] are not applicable to our request since our home is a single-family home. Conclusion — Circumstances obviously beyond our control have destroyed the quality of life we strove to build over 20 years. We have been told by the City, and de facto the Developer of InCarnation, that we must live with these circumstances. We feel we are justified in asking for the variance herein described as we try to restore the quality of life in our beloved home. Review Criteria: Variance [Rev.5/2014] (Excerpted from Section 26-115 of Wheat Ridge Municipal Code and issued by the Wheat Ridge City Community Development Department) 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. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application which would not be possible without the variance. 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. 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 Written Request and Description of Proposal Response to the Variance Review Criteria. (See the appended Review Criteria: Variance document referred to henceforth as RCV in this document.) Explanation of Variance We wish to build a fence, ten feet high, to mitigate sight lines from the new development behind us to our home and yard. We are asking for this height variance since measurements from existing sight lines indicate this is the minimum height required to block visibility from the first -floor windows and sliding glass doors of the duplex (InCamation) to the north of our property to our bedroom and family room. Alternate designs (as described in the Submittal Checklist. Variance — Rev 5/2014 issued by the Wheat Ridge Community Development Department) would not block sight lines between the mentioned structures and are, therefore, not feasible. We are not seeking to block sight lines from the second story of the duplex to our property. The fence will be strongly built, predominantly of cedar (rails, caps, pickets, and batten boards), on three-inch diameter Schedule 40 posts. (See accompanying drawing.) The fence will be constructed by a commercial company, Discount Fence Company, 11625 Milwaukee Street, Thornton, Colorado 80233. We will seek a building permit for the construction of the fence. Unique Physical Hardship Explanation [Numbers in brackets refer to paragraphs from the RCV document appended below.] • Privacy Issues impacting reasonable return in use or service. [ 1 ] • Sight lines — as discussed above. • Setback and grading of the InCarnation duplex also affect privacy in our back yard since currently, a person using the patio of the InCarnation duplex can easily see (even seated) over the existing fences into our yard. • Furthermore, the InCarnation development has in all likelihood devalued our property as a result of these issues and those described below. • Our Proposal would help mitigate the egregious alterations in our community presented by the InCarnation Development especially expected intrusions into our peace and quiet when we are outdoors. [2] • Our proposal represents a substantial investment in our property (over $10,000) involving not only the construction of a new fence but also survey fees, fees for filing with the City, and attorney fees. [3] • As mentioned above, the grade of the InCarnation Development is substantially higher than the grade on our property. This condition magnifies the particular and unique hardships mentioned in this document. [4] • The difficulties and hardships mentioned in this document have not been created by any person presently having an interest in our property. [5] 0 On the contrary, we attempted to forestall the current state of affairs when we attended the Planning Meetings and City Council Meetings starting in 2013 prior to the RECEPTION NO. F0169123 19.80 PS: 0001-001 743 RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 1/08/96 11:40 t PZR8OKAL. RZPRZ6ZNTATIVE' 8 DEZD (TESTATE ESTATE) d i1 THIS DEID is made by GLOB NE J. CLEMENTS as Peraoaal �Y Representative of the Estate of Evelyn A. Chadwick, Deceased, �Grantor, to ELLEN P, GOODNIGHT and GARY W. GOODNIGHT, Grantee, whose 4ddress is 5825 West X34FLh Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80212_ T 39 �k�T� l . SIll3Q1.1718, the a e -named decedent in her lifetime made and =._utad her Last Will and Teatament, dated July 2, 1993, which Will Was duly admitted to informal probate on October 2, 1995, by the ---strict Court in and for the County of Jefferson, and State of _j'_orado, Probate No. 95 PR 1043; d wffza ate, Grantor was duly appointed Personal Representative of ' --Sid Estate on October 2, 1995, and is now qualified and acting in d capacity. i NOW, T1z1013, pursuant to the powers conferred upon Grantor ty the Colorado Probate Code, Grantor does hereby sell, convey, assign, transfer and net ovor unto Grantees in joint tenancy for and n consideration of One Hundred Thirty Hight Thousand and Ho/100 ($138,000.00), the following described property situate in the _aunty of Jefferson, State of Colorado: I THE EASTERLY 3 PEST OF LOT 3 AND ALL OF LOT 4, ' HOLLEY COURTS County of Jeffeison, I State of Colorado .o tifos'i1 aIso known a9 street and number 5825 West 39th Avenue With all appurtenances, free and clear of liens and o �Z encumbrances. except: general taxes for 1995 and following yearn and EXCEPT restrictions, easements, covenants, conditions and `-` restrictions. Executed December OV6 , 1995. n G orene J. Cleme4re, as Personal Repress tative of the Estate of Evelyn A. Chadwick, Deceased. MINNESOTA STATE OF ) }. ocounty of VApjmwa ) 0 RAMSEY U The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this [t day of * December, 1995 by OLORENE J. CLEMENTS as Persona pOl Representative of the Rotate of Evelyn A. Chadwick, Deceased. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ( 5 E A L ) Nota � =KBUC-MINNEXTAM our. 2000 Et 39Vd saacecZesc 'QI N09N3333C 3gMTM ONVZ 'WONd 05'01 56 -BL -030 Rev. 512014 Oily ul COMMUNriY DEVELOPMEN'r Submittal Checklist: Variance Project Name: 6sczdy%%gkJ- Fs_-rtCt_- - Nd r th '-Beuvt da c L I v► Project Location: 101)2h \A', JCJ'!�' A ✓F � W incaf Rid Q, C'G Fc- I Z Application Contents: A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. The following items represent a complete variance application: V 1. Completed, notarized land use application form 2. Application fee 7'3. Signed submittal checklist (this document) :/4. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed N/!fir 5. Written authorization from property owner(s) if an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s) _6. Written request and description of the proposal ✓ Include a response to the variance review criteria—these are found in Section 26-115 of the municipal code �✓ Include an explanation as to why alternate designs that may comply with the zoning standards are not feasible VX Include Include an explanation of the unique physical hardship that necessitates relief ✓ Survey or Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) of the property ✓8. To -scale site plan indicating existing and proposed building footprints and setbacks -,v/ 9. Proposed building elevations indicating proposed heights, materials, and color scheme As applicant for this project, / hereby ensure that all of the above requirements have been included with this submittal. l fully understand that if any one of the items listed on this checklist has been excluded, the documents will NOT be distributed for City review. In addition, l understand that in the event any revisions need to be made after the second (2"d) full review, l will be subject to the applicable resubmittal fee. Signature: \ Date: l I Name (please p L Q �- Phone: ZCI L ' Community Development Department • (303) 235-2846 - www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Application Fee $200 R City Ot Wheat Nj'q'9C COMMIJNrry DFVFt()I'MfNf City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29`x' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 January 11, 2016 Gary Goodnight RE: 5825 W. 39`h Avenue Dear Mr. Goodnight: This letter is to inform you that the property located at 5825 W. 39`h Avenue is within the corporate limits of the City of Wheat Ridge. The property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3). Single -Family, Two -Family, and Multi -Family dwellings are permitted in the R-3 zone district. Sincerely, Lisa Ritchie Planner II www.ci.wheatridge.co.us City of `�W heat Pludge- LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846 (Please print or type all information) Applicant l4 iry U .t K �w U i - Address GS-gZ6 1t�%. 3� �/ Phone W3 - 34'ZC4 City -16H t,, cam,} Rc acts State CZ- i (:rct&r,) Zip Z&z-t z- -.ZO I Fax Owner 6q Address 5 qi Phone City State Zip Fax Contact & ar�4 t.l t 6---CGo(AV1Address a.iK-tt- Phone Cit J State Zip Fax (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) / Location of request (address): 5 Z S W �i �' �-�/C �'lC��t-+ 9CIA er C[ ECi Z 1 Z- Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): Please refer to submittal checklists far complete application requirements, incomplete applications will not be accepted. O Change of zone or zone conditions O Special Use Permit 0 Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) O Consolidation Plat O Conditional Use Permit O Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) O Flood Plain Special Exception O Site Plan approval O Temporary Use, Building, Sign O Lot Line Adjustment O Concept Plan approval ',8( Variance/Waiver (from Section Aw- IIS ) O Planned Building Group O Right of Way Vacation O Other: Detailed description of request: Required information: Assessors Parcel Number: 39 -144-1 t, - 6_3 3— Size of Lot (acres or square footage): 13,C44 5 F Current Zoning: R- 3 Proposed Zoning: Current Use: `J ;1091 r: FLrA jTRj j %,A t-kt Lt Proposed Use: I certih, that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are hue and correct to the hest of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot la►+fully he accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power -of -a rney from the owner whit approved of this action on his behalf: Notarized Signature of Applicant/( '�1 State of Colorado Countyof ._;(4( Cry- } ss c MURRAY WILKENIN— G The foregoing instrument (Land Use Processing Application) was acknowledged NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO bymethis k1'4*dayof 20 kG by (9•.�� .�• �loo��tC NOTARY ID CO NISSI� IM4009PIRES 318,2017 Notary Public My commission expires 1 / 3k /2017 To be filled out by staff: Date received ( - I `> - L Comp Plan Design. Related Case No. Fee $ Receipt No. Case No. W A - /(a C Zoning R - 3 Quarter Section Map S E-2 y Pre -App Mtg. Date Case Manager LJc,F�c,( C