Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-16-14City of COMMUNITY WheatI�id�e 13EVELOPME.NT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 291h Ave. October 28, 2016 David Lombardi 6840 W. 36t" Place Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Mr. Lombardi: RE: Case No. WA -16-14 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 At its meeting of September 22, 2016, the Board of Adjustment made a motion for denial of Case No. WA -16-14, a request 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 36"' Place; the motion to deny passed. Therefore, the request is DENIED. Enclosed is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution, as well as a draft copy of the minutes, stating the Board's decision. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 235-2846 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tammy Odean Administrative Assistant Enclosures: Draft of Minutes Certificate of Resolution (to follow by separate mailing) cc: WA -16-14 (case file) WA1614.doc www.ci.wheatridge.co. us 1. City of WheatRidge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting September 22, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Kuntz at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present 3. 4. 5. Alternates Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING Thomas Abbott Dan Bradford Janet Bell Paul Hovland David Kuntz Betty Jo Page Larry Richmond Michael Griffeth Sally Banghart Lily Griego Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary 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 36th Place. 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 Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the digital presentation. Mr. Wallace stated this case was originally an administrative review by the Community Development Director; however, objections were received during the public noticing process, giving the Board of Adjustment jurisdiction to hear and decide upon the case during a public hearing. Staff also received a letter and a call in support of the fence height variance. A major factor in this variance request is an existing 3 -foot tall retaining wall and grade change on the property line between the subject property and the neighboring property to the east. Board Member PAGE asked who the retaining wall belongs to and Board Member GRIFFETH asked who the chain link fence belongs to. Mr. Wallace explained they both belong to the multi- family property. Board Member ABBOTT asked if there is also a retaining wall on the west side of the applicant's property. Mr. Wallace stated there is not and there is very little grade change to the west. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the 9 -foot fence will be free standing or attached to the retaining wall and chain link fence. Mr. Wallace stated the freestanding fence will sit on the property line and must be engineered. Board Member KUNTZ asked how things will be handled if the retaining wall need repair and maintenance. Ms. Reckert explained that the discussion will be a private matter between property owners and the City will not be involved. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if the doors looking into the subject property from the apartments are the front or back doors of the multi -family units. Mr. Wallace said he believed they are the back doors, and this could be verified by the property owner, who was present at the meeting. Board Member HOVLAND asked if both structures meet the setback codes. Mr. Wallace said the single family structure meets the 5 -foot setback, but the multi- family structure does not meet the required 15 -foot setback. Board Member Griffeth asked if the two letters in opposition were from the same person. Mr. Wallace stated they are and have been included in the Agenda Packet. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 2 Board Member RICHMOND wanted to know why the fence is not proposed to go the length of the house to block the view from the multi -family units into the windows on the side of the single family house. Board Member KUNTZ asked where the fence has to start tapering to a lower height when moving to the front of the house. Mr. Wallace said the applicant could respond to Member RICHMOND's question and Ms. Reckert stated the fence can start to taper from the front corner of the house in the direction of the front property line. David Lombardi, Applicant 6840 W 36t11 Place, Wheat Ridge, 80033 Mr. Lombardi was sworn in by Chair KUNTZ. He answered a few of the questions presented by the Board. The first being the maintenance of the retaining wall and the access to it. He stated he will have the engineers design a fence so the retaining wall is in full view and have the fence floating. He also explained he has three large windows on the back of his house and that is why he positioned the fence toward the back of the property. The smaller windows on the side of the house get the blinds closed more frequently so no one can look in. He is very concerned for his lack of privacy by the tenants looking into his windows, back yard and garage. He has three young boys and is sometimes concerned for their safety. Mr. Lombardi also explained there is trash left out by the back doors including cigarette butts and trash bags that blow into his yard. Snow is also thrown into his property from the retaining wall area. Mr. Lombardi tried to have conversations with the multi -family property owner regarding the installation of a fence, but she didn't want to do any maintenance to a fence although the cost and maintenance would be done by him memorialized by a written agreement. Mr. Lombardi tried to sell house, and the brokers' remarks indicated that the home is great, but the view from the back yard is undesirable. Chair KUNTZ asked if the nice side of the fence will face the applicant's property or the multi -family property. Mr. Lombardi stated he could face the nice side either way, as long as he can build a fence. Board Member PAGE asked what rooms are behind the windows on Mr. Lombardi's house. Mr. Lombardi explained the back of the house windows are the kitchen, dining room and a child's bedroom and the side of the house windows are another child's bedroom, bathroom and another bedroom. Board Member GRIFFETH commented on the letters sent by the multi -family building owner, Ms. Portacarrero. Ms. Partacarrero states a fence will block sunlight and not let ice melt during the winter time for the back of the apartments. Also, she states the fence will make her property look bad. Board Member GRIFFETH wanted to know how Mr. Lombardi felt about the comments. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 Mr. Lombardi said he will build a fence that looks good because he will be looking at it himself. He also stated there is a walkway on the other side of the building that does not get much sun and it is dealt with. Board Member HOVLAND wanted to know why Mr. Lombardi doesn't feel it's necessary to continue the fence down the side of the house, but only in the backyard. Mr. Lombardi stated he thought the fence had to end at the back of the house, but if he can go to the front corner of the house he would. Board Member HOVLAND asked if that would make a difference in the variance request. Ms. Reckert said it would not make a difference because the variance is for the height of the fence, not the distance and that it could be a condition of approval in the motion so it is clear where the fence can exceed 6' in height. Chair Kuntz asked if a car could still drive into the backyard where the garage is, if the fence a fence is installed. Mr. Lombardi explained that a small car would still fit. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if the applicant had the same privacy issues when they purchased the house in 2010. Mr. Lombardi stated the house was a perfect starter home and they did not have children at the time so there were not privacy issues like there are now. Victoria Portocarrero, Owner of the multi -family building to the east. 4008 W 90' Place West Ms. Portocarrero stated that these two properties have coexisted for 60 years and there have not been issues. She thought it might be better to plant trees and bushes for privacy instead of a fence. She explained that she is a responsible landlord and if neighbors ever call with complaints she handles them right away. Ms. Portocarrero does criminal background checks on all of her tenants and does not allow undesirable tenant to live in her units. She also feels a fence will block sunlight from melting snow and ice and would not be aesthetically pleasing. Chair KUNTZ asked if she would think of putting up some type of amenity like a screen wall that both tenants and neighbors could enjoy. Ms. Portocarrero asked how she would attach it and who would maintain it. Board Member ABBOTT wondered how wide the sidewalk is by the back doors of the units. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 4 Ms. Portocarrero replied 2-3 feet wide. Board Member GRIFFETH agreed with Ms. Portocarrero about the lack of sunlight not melting ice and snow. He does not think a 9 foot fence in this back yard is going to set precedence in the City of Wheat Ridge. Board Member BELL stated that it is hard to come up with conclusions to preexisting issues that were created before the City of Wheat Ridge was incorporated in 1969. Board Member HOVLAND stated this case presents unique circumstances. If there was a 15 -foot setback and no grade change this case would be a different variance. He does hope if this variance is passes, then the fence will be done in good taste. Chair KUNTZ thought it would be a good idea to add a condition to the motion of having the nice side of the fence face the multi -family building. Board Member GRIFFETH added this fence may not be made out of wood and could look good on both sides. Also, there could be a percentage of the fence open which could help with the melting of snow and ice. Ms. Reckert reminded the Board that to have the fence 80% open would leave it ineffectual and the material would have to be wrought iron; also, the applicant would have to agree to the nice side of the fence facing in a certain direction as a condition of approval. Discussion continued regarding maintenance and construction of the fence. Chair KUNTZ commented that the back doors of the multi -family units are an amenity for those renters to sit on their back patio and enjoy the sun. Board Member PAGE feels there is too much cement for a tree or bush to grow so this is not a good solution. Board Member BRADFORD added his concern for the blocking of the natural light and the creation of a corridor effect if a 9 foot fence is installed which would be detrimental to the apartment building. Board Member PAGE asked how high a vertical structure has to be to be considered a fence. Ms. Reckert replied that a fence is any divisional barrier between two properties. Board Member HOVLAND asked if this height variance is approved if the applicant could put a fence up, or if a new owner could build a wall. Ms. Reckert stated the choice of material is the decision of the property owner, but she does not think a wall would be built due to the cost of materials. Any owner after Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 5 the current owner could not take down a fence and build a wall. The new owner would have to get a new variance. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member PAGE, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, 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 and City of Wheat Ridge NOW, THERFORE 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 property would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The particular topographical condition of the property as well as the setback of the adjoining apartment complex 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 by any person. 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. 3. The finished side of the fence shall face the adjacent property. 4. A 6 inch vertical gap be left between the bottom of the fence and the cement slab. Motion was DENIED by a vote of 3-5 with HOVLAND, BELL and GRIFFETH voting for and RICHMOND, ABBOTT, KUNTZ and BRADFORD voting against. 6. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 6 11 41 City of Wh6atI�idge TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME ACTION REQUESTED: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 22, 2016 Zack Wallace WA -16-14 / Lombardi 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`h Place. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6840 W. 36'h Place APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: David Lombardi David Lombardi 7,013 Square Feet (0.16 Acres) Residential -Three (R-3) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi 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 I11. 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 Map). 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 ofAdjustment Case No. 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 of Adjusiment Case No. WA-16-14/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 of Adjustment Case No. 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 ofAdjustment Case No. WA -16-14 / Lombardi 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. 7. 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. 36th 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 of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-14 / Lombardi 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. 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 of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-14 / Lombardi IN 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 ofAdjustment 8 Case No. WA -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 6 -foot tall fence slats the applicant proposed to utilize. These will need to be altered 0.5 feet if the variance is approved. Board of Adjustment 9 Case No. WA -16-14 / Lombardi EXHIBIT 2: AERIAL Board ofAdjustment 10 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP Board ofAdjusimen! Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 4: APPLICANT SUBMITTAL PAGE 1 OF 2 Proposal for Variance for property 6840 W 3611 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 of,ldjusiment 12 Case No. 11'1-16-14 , Lombardi EXHIBIT 4: APPLICANT SUBMITTAL PAGE 2 OF 2 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 o/'Adjuslmenl 13 Case No. W4-16-14 Lombardi EXHIBIT 5: SITE PLAN Subject Property ` Proposed fence r` location i 7 ;�� ♦L� it F . i Board of,-ldjustment 14 Vase No. W.A-16-14 , Lombardi 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 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" Pl. 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 -toot fence will sell his house for $450,000. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, �1 Ch i l < � V Vu-,L.e Victoria Portocartero For LELI HOMES LLC Board or.gdjustment 15 Case No. LTA -16-11 i Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF OBJECTION PAGE 2 OF 11 Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) From 3/17/2016 to 8/11/2016 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 • Properties Sold (TSF) ♦ Properties Under Contract (TSF) ♦ Properties For Sale (TSF) ■ Properties With/Exp (TSF) —Linear (Properties Sold (TSF)) 8/29/2016 Scattergram Pride! O7N 200' r 3,500 wwwjecusuttem Board ofAdjustment 16 Case No. WA -16-14 / Lombardi $440,000 $420,000 m $400,000 a $380:000 0 a $360.000 $340,000 $320,000 $300,000 500 Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) From 3/17/2016 to 8/11/2016 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 • Properties Sold (TSF) ♦ Properties Under Contract (TSF) ♦ Properties For Sale (TSF) ■ Properties With/Exp (TSF) —Linear (Properties Sold (TSF)) 8/29/2016 Scattergram Pride! O7N 200' r 3,500 wwwjecusuttem Board ofAdjustment 16 Case No. WA -16-14 / Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF OBJECTION PAGE 3 OF 11 Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) From 3/17/2016 to 8/11/2016 MLS: 7492S93.0.16 Arn, 1906 TSF, $119,900 $440,000 Properties located near this area — provide LESS space for the dollar. MLS, 043779 0.29An1, 1604 TSF, $42S,000 c MLS: 3919358, 021 Acn, 3084 TSF, $435,000 .pt2O,000 MLS: 7231603, 0.24 Acn, IS94 TSF, $417,000 MLS: 2921764, 0.22 Am, 2192 TSF, $120,000 MLS: 4003280, 0.21 Aa ,1650 TSF, $111,000 4$400,000 --- MLS: 8458360, 0.16 Aa , 1906 TSF, SF09,900 a $380,000 MLS: 6021679.0.2S Aar, 1534 TSF, $377,000 - C . x,15,22387, 0.16 Acn, 2074 TSF, $374,900 a $MLS: /781028, 0.25 Am, 1445 TSF, $355,000 MLS: 6935688, 0.25 Acn, 1178T5F, $360,000 _ $340,000 -- MLS: 3167615, 0.23 Acn, 2070 TSF, $349,000 $3E . MLS: 9748576, 0.22 Acn, 1191 TSF, $336,000 MLS: /127776, 0.15 Acre, 964 TSF, $319,500 $320,000 - MLS: 4079S41,0.22 Am, 1042 TSF, $315.000 MLS'. 6936796, 0.33 Acn, 971 TSF, $31S,000it? Properties located near this area provide MORE space for the dollar. $300,000 MLS: 1627136, 0.23 Am, 967 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 of.94justment Case No. WA -16-14 Lombardi SCjjfjtljMM i�"/ 07M 2007 WMI"Mutnw 17 EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF OBJECTION PAGE 4 OF 11 Competitive Price Lines (3/17/2016 - 8/11/2016) Recently Sold Each mark indicates the actual selling price of a property in the competitive range I JW W360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 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 1 340 360 380 1 400 420 1 440 460 480 500 1 520 1 0 1 560 1 580 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 1 320 1 340 1 360 1 380 1 400 1 420 1440 460 1 480 1 500 1 520 1 540 1 560 580 Final List Price ( x $1,000 ) FMnd 1W. C-2007 FOCUS�IStLLC 8/30/2016 Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-14 Gomhardi www.Focuslacom 18 EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF OBJECTION PAGE 5 OF 11 Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) from 1/ 19001-er S2016 Note For marry app-mis only homes solo can be the last chs a mont. be used as cm oparables Swrce MLS Inlormmon deemed reliable but rot guaranteed 0 >0 0 Board gfAdjuslmenl Case No. IhVA-16-1 4 / Lombardi Pit - 2!!L ME 5323 $169 $201 $249 5325 $262 $192 $246 5306 5246 $141 $265 $236 5302 $314 5215 $161 19 Above Sold nrad4 rrK. ` DieM�1O• G"Ofin. T" Ysar Days On With/Exp MLS 0 star..Property AdWese Style,Style,Acre SV Ft Sa N Sq H Bed Bath Built Uet Price Market Data Sold Price ee .4 rr I a9367xe Sold 3845 Reed Street RardJi Stay 033 974 974 974 3 1 1954 5324.900 173 325116 $31500D Mew 3167615 Sold 3516 Newland Street RancNl Story 023 2070 2070 2070 6 3 1949 $360.000 91 3131/16 $349.000 -Sl 1ODD 9748576 Sold 3536 Newland Street RanWl Story 022 1194 1194 1194 3 1 1949 5325.000 56 4/7116 5336000 511.000 4003280 SoW 6740 W 361h Place RancNt Story 021 1650 1650 1650 3 2 19% $419.000 35 4729/16 $411 000 _$8 000 4127778 Sold 3670 Read Street RarcN1 Story 015 984 984 984 2 1 1950 5314,500 30 4129116 $319,500 $5.000 7231603 Sold 3275 Otis Street RancN1Story 0 24 1194 1594 1594 3 2 1950 $409.900 26 6/3Dr16 $417,000 $7 100 2924760 Sold 3502 Tatler Street RaraxJl Slory 0.22 1392 2192 2192 4 3 1939 $435,000 82 7!&18 $420.O0D 315.000 4781028 So W 3245 Newland Street RanoNt Story 025 1445 1445 1445 3 1 1953 $330000 37 7/13/16 $355.000 $25.000 83.18x8 Sold 3645 Newland Street RerltdVl Story 0.25 1178 1178 1178 3 2 1949 $369,900S? 727116 5380,000 ..$9,900 6021679 Sob 5914 W 35th Avant RencNI Story 0 25 1245 1SW 1534 4 2 1945 $384,900 61 7129/16 $377,000 -$7.900 3049358 Sold 6711 W 36th Place Rarle"I Story 021 1542 3007 3084 4 3 1956 $439.500 78 8/11116 $435,000 44.500 9848779 WtNE.xp 3588 Quay Street RanctVl Story 029 1604 1604 1604 4 2 1940 $425.000 122 3117/16 74112$93 W4WExp 6840 W 361h Place RanaVt Story 016 963 1906 1906 3 2 1955 $449,900 13 SUM 4079541 WC 3620 Marshall Street Rama/l Story 0 22 1042 1042 1042 2 1 1969 $315.000 61 16277$6 U1C 3465 Ns*1M d Street Ran&dl Story 0.23 987 967 907 2 1 195$ $309,900 6 U58380 For Sate 6840 W 36th Place R—W Stay 016 953 1906 1906 3 2 1955 $409900 22 4422387 For Sala 3695 Quay Street RanChli Story 016 1037 2074 2074 3 2 1958 S374900 4 Board gfAdjuslmenl Case No. IhVA-16-1 4 / Lombardi Pit - 2!!L ME 5323 $169 $201 $249 5325 $262 $192 $246 5306 5246 $141 $265 $236 5302 $314 5215 $161 19 EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 6 OF 11 LELI HOMES LLC 4008 W 99" Place Westminster, CO 80031 August 30, 2016 Zoning Administrator City of Whet Ridge 7500 W 291 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001, Board of Adjustment Please find the attached analysis of the review criteria as it pertains to Case No. WA.16-14, request for a 3 -toot variance from the 6 -toot fence height maximum resulting in a 9 -foot fence on property located at 6840 West 36" Place This analysis is from the perspective o1 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 beautity and improve it even more. Thank you, ��C�JU,,,_ 11L Rc /� W i Victoria Portocarrero For LELI HOMES LLC Board of.4djustment 20 Case No. 11;4-16-14 - 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" 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 o1'.4djusiment 21 Case No. RA -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 of Adjustment 22 Case,Vo. UA -16-14, Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 9 OF 11 0�ow" DSR !� lv8LID t,j• 34°1 & U- ;+ A Board of'Adjuslmew 23 Case No. ITA -16-14 Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 10 OF 11 Vanessa Hamm 8Z Real Estate i`M1.r Welcome Properties Map / Search Back to Results Previous • Next • 1 of 1 ❑ 3695 Quay St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 County: Jefferson Locale: Barths 1/27 U Seaa,.J ('b*&.? 1?, 610cs, w,.s°'i Email from Sep 15 2016 MLS#: 4422387 List Date: 08/25/16 Under Contract Date: 09/03/16 Status Conditions: None Known Approval Conditions: Kick Out - Contingent o Has HOA: No Financial Terms: Cash, Conventional, FH. Legal Desc: SECTION 26 TOWNSHII HVAC Detail: .158 KEY=264 Type: Detached Single Family Architecture: Year Built: 1956 Anticipate Yr Complete: Main Sqft: Lower Sgft: Heat Fuel: Electric, Gas Heat Type: Forced Air Cooling: None Other HVAC: Half Baths: HVAC Detail: Basement Sqft: Construction: Brick Exterior: Brick Roofing: Composition Shingles List Office Name: Open Door Real Estate Total Beds: Total Baths: 3 2 Upper Sqft: PSF Above Grade: Full Baths: 1 Main Sqft: Lower Sgft: PSF Total: 3/4 Baths: 1 Above Grade: 1,037 PSF Finished: Bsmt Ceiling Height: Half Baths: 0 Basement Sqft: 1,037 Bsmt Type: 1/4 Baths: 0 Total Sgft: 2,074 Subfloor: Rough -in: No Finished Sgft: 2,074 Bsmt Finished: Other Finished SgFt: oda Fully Finished: Other Finished SgFt Desc: Measurement From: County Records School District: Jefferson R-1 Elementary: Stevens School of Choice: Appuances: Flooring: Interior Features: Smart Home Features: Laundry Availability: Fireplaces: Exclusions: Checked 0 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 (F-Oc"it a Board of Adjustment 24 Case Xo. 11A-16-14 i Lombardi EXHIBIT 6: LETTERS OF OBJECTION PAGE 11 OF 11 60"+ to Board ofAdjustment 25 Case No. WA -16-14 /Lombardi EXHIBIT 7: EMAIL OF SUPPORT From: Ina S%een^^= To: Zack Wallace Subject: New fence at 6890 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 wou Id 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 fu II 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 of Adjustment 26 Case No. HA-16-14,'Lombardi ,*�A-C V City of "P Wh6atRid �g e POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA -16-14 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE: September 22, 2016 (name) residing at CO `'IC7 6—'L as the applicant for Case No. (address) WA -16-14 hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at ��,� Y-11d,�7L (location) on this day of s,e,ej e, L and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Community Development Department. MAP -;� �Cityof Wheat",", ge PUBLIC POSTING REQUIREMENTS One sign must be posted per street frontage. In addition, the following requirements must be met: ■ The sign must be located within the property boundaries. ■ The sign must be securely mounted on a flat surface. ■ The sign must be elevated a minimum of thirty (30) inches from ground. ■ The sign must be visible from the street without obstruction. ■ The sign must be legible and posted for fifteen (15) continuous days prior to and including the day of the hearing [sign must be in place until 5pm on September 22, 2016. It is the applicant's responsibility to certify that these requirements have been met and to submit a completed Posting Certification Form to the Community Development Department. LELI HOMES LLC 4008 W 9911 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: Please find the attached analysis of the review criteria as it pertains to Case No. WAO6-14, 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 3611 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 381" 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 I I I I(*4Cq-L7i*J WIS - 1i 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 36th 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. 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. S. 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? 0.4 tog 440 w.3b'k EA.',6;+ A Vanessa Hamm - 8Z Real Estate Welcome Properties Map / Search Back to results Previous • Next • 1 of 1 E] 3695 Quay St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 County: Jefferson Locale: Barths 1/27 Total Beds: Total Baths: Full Baths: 3/4 Baths: Half Baths: 1/4 Baths: Rough -in: School District: Elementary: School of Choice: Appliances: Flooring: Interior Features: Smart Home Features: Laundry Availability: Fireplaces: Exclusions: Checked 0 sQj".> QA*A.? 1?, bloom. o,.+°'1 Email from Sep 15 2616 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: 3 Upper Sqft: 2 Main Sqft: 1 Lower Sqft: 1 Above Grade: 0 Basement Sqft: 0 Total Sqft: No Finished Sqft: Other Finished SgFt: County Records Other Finished SgFt Desc: Measurement From: Jefferson R-1 Stevens 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 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 PSF Above Grade: PSF Total: PSF Finished: 1,037 Bsmt Ceiling Height: 1,037 Bsmt Type: 2,074 Subfloor: 2,074 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 h:AW A M%MW.7-� ��A" 4,,3605 Pierce Street Zack Wallace From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: To whom it may concern, Ira Sweetwine <ira@sweetwinegroup.com> Monday, September 12, 2016 2:08 PM Zack Wallace New fence at 6840 W 36th PI. Wheat Ridge High 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 A41 City of Wheatpdge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 291h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 LETTER NOTICE (As required pursuant to Code Section 26-109.D) September 7, 2016 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you of Case No. WA -16-14, a request 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) and located at 6840 West 36th Place. This request is scheduled for a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The schedule is as follows: Board of Adiustment September 22, 2016 (& 7:00 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you, City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. If you need inclusion assistance, please call Carly Lorentz, Assistant to the City Manager at 303-235-2867 at least one week in advance of a meeting. WA1614.doc Site Map The aerial images below show the subject property outlined in bright red. The proposed fence shown in yellow is on the southeast end of the property. ANDERSON JAY W ANDERSON BUNGER BRADNEY P AKA BRADNEY PAMELA Y AXELSON JULIE PEARLMAN MARNI BUNGER 3707 PIERCE ST 8 HANOVER ST APT 4 6900 W 38TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 PORTLAND ME 4101 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CAMPBELL LESTER E 6995 W 36TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 COFFEEN NATHAN 6855 W 36TH PLAC WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GALLIMORE ELIZABETH 508 BANNOCK ST FORT COLLINS CO 80524 HACKETHAL CLEMENT R JR HACKETHAL FRANCILLE E 11185 W 25TH PL LAKEWOOD CO 80215 JAIDINGER HOWARD W JAIDINGER DANNETTE C 6845 W 36TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LOPEZ BERNADETTE Y 3560 QUAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ONORATO SONJIA D ONORATO DONALD W 3700 QUAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 REED WHITNEY MAHRI E 3565 PIERCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CASADOS RICHARD CASADOS CHERYL 6780 W 36TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DAILEY DENNIS F 6940 W 36TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GARRAMONE JACQUELINE L 6865 W 36TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 HAGEN TRAUDEL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE 2091 INTERLOCKEN DR EVERGREEN CO 80439 LELI HOMES LLC 4008 W 99TH PL WESTMINSTER CO 80031 MORRISON WENDY S MORRISON WENDY S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE 17710 W 58TH DR GOLDEN CO 80403 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO PO BOX 840 DENVER CO 80201 SABATELLA MARC 3585 QUAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CHOMKO STEPHEN A 12926 BAALBEK DR ST LOUIS MO 63127 EMBREE TANYA EMBREE LARRY 3695 QUAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GIPE DONALD LEE GIPE DAVID LESTER 6950 W 36TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 HOAGLIN KEITH A 3595 N QUAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LOMBARDI DAVID M LOMBARDI CAROLINA G 6840 W 36TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 OLSON BREA GILCHRIST GAVIN 3709 PIERCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 QUEEN FRANK C QUEEN SHARON D 9385 E CENTER AVE APT 3B DENVER CO 80247 SAMBRANO BALTAZAR 6885 W 36TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SECORD JASON ANTHONY SHERROD WAYNE LANO SHOTWELL ANDREIA KAY 6905 W 36TH AVE 6807 W 36TH AVE 3575 PIERCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SWEETWINE RANDALL IRA THOMAS KATHLEEN A KRUEGER THOMPSON MARTIN L THOMPSON SWEETWINE BECKY ELIZABETH VIOLET A M CHRISTINE D 6850 W 36TH PL PO BOX 1445 3200 JAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LAPORTE CO 80535 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 VELAZQUEZ RENE DANIEL ITEN SUZZETTE MARY ELLEN 3675 QUAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WALL PEARL MARIE 3601 PIERCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 YOUNG AMY 6895 W 36TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WAGNER STEVEN L MERRILL KRISTINE G 3588 QUAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WILLIAMS DANIEL E WILLIAMS JENNA A 3690 PIERCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WALKER ROGER W JR WALKER KAREN K 3701 PIERCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WILLIAMS JOSHUA LAFFERTY ERIN MELISSA 3711 PIERCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing to Consider 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) on the property located at 6840 West 36th Place and will be held in the City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, located at 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on September 229 2016 at 7:00 p.m. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. Legal description: THE WEST 55 FEET OF THE EAST 262.5 FEET OF THE SOUTH 127.3 FEET OF THE NORTH 736.35 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. LELI HOMES LLC 4008 W 991, Place Westminster, CO 80031 August 30, 2016 Zoning Administrator City of Whet Ridge 7500 W 291" 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 361 Place CASE NO. WA -16-14. 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, Victoria Portocarrero For LELI HOMES LLC ■� .31 A0 601 -T $440,000 $420,000 CD $400,000 L a $380,000 CL 0 L a $360,000 $340,000 $320,000 $300,000 Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) From 3/17/2016 to 8/11/2016 e 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 I 1 Properties Sold (TSF) 4 Properties Under Contract (TSF) ♦ Properties For Sale (TSF) I Properties With/Exp (TSF) ®Linear (Properties Sold (TSF)) 8/29/2016 Scattergram Pricing ®T, 2007 www.Focuslacom $440,000 $420,000 V $400,000 a $380,000 Q O n`. Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge From 3/17/2016 to 8/11/2016 MLS: 7482593, 0.16 Acre, 1906 TSF, $449,900 Properties located near this area 100*11 provide LESS space for the dollar. MLS: 9848779, 0.29 Acre, 1604 TSF, $425,000 MLS: 3949358, 0.21 Acre, 3084 TSF, $435,000 MLS: 7231603, 0.24 Acre, 1S94 TSF, $417,000 le—MLS: 2924764, 0.22 Acre, 2192 TSF, $420,000 MLS: 4003280, 0.21 Acre, 1650 TSF, $411,000 14 MLS: 8458380, 0.16 Acre, 1906 TSF, $409,900 MLS: 6021679, 0.25 Acre, 1534 TSF, $377,000 MLS: 6935688, 0.25 Acre, 1178 TSF, $360,000 $340,000 MLS: 4127776, 0.15 Acre, 984 TSF, $319,500 MLS: 6936786, 0.33 Acre, 974 TSF, $315,000 $300,000 1 500 • Properties Sold (TSF) ■ Properties With/Exp ( AI MLS: 4422387, 0.16 Acre, 2074 TSF, $374,900 MLS: 4781028, 0.25 Acre, 1445 TSF, $355,000 MLS: 3167615, 0.23 Acre, 2070 TSF, $349,000 MLS: 9748576, 0.22 Acre, 1194 TSF, $336,000 MLS: 4079541, 0.22 Acre, 1042 TSF, $315,000 Properties located near this area provide MORE space for the dollar. MLS: 1827736, 0.23 Acre, 987 TSF, $309,900 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 O Properties Under Contract (TSF) ♦ Properties For Sale (TSF) 3F) —Linear (Properties Sold (TSF)) 8/30/2016 Scattergram Pricing ®TM 2007 www.Focuslstcom Competitive ©TM 200'% Price Lines (3/17/2016 - 8/11/2016) Recently Sold Each mark indicates the actual selling price of a property in the competitive range. 300 1 320 340 360 380 1 400 1 420 1 440 1 460 1 480 1 500 1 520 1 540 1 560 1 580 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.) 300 320 11 380 1 400 420 1 440 1 460 1 480 1 500 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 1 320 1 340 1 360 1 380 1 400 1 420 1 440 1 460 1 480 1 500 520 540 1 560 580 Final List Price ( x $1,000 ) Powered by: ©Fm2007 FOCUS IstLLC 8/30/2016 www.Focuslacom Activity in Pierce Street (Wheat Ridge) From 1/3/1900 to 8/29/2016 ® /4 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. ^ List -Sold Price AboveSold - Difference Price Grnd Fin. Total Year Days On With/Exp (Does NOT include seller per MLS # Status Property Address Style Acre Sq Ft Sq Ft Sq Ft Bed Bath Built List Price Market Date Sold Price concessions) TSF 6936786 Sold 3645 Reed Street Ranch/1 Story 0.33 974 974 974 3 1 1954 $324,900 173 3/25/16 $315,000 -$9,900 $323 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 $169 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 $261 4003280 Sold 6740 W 36th Place Ranch/1 Story 0.21 1650 1650 1650 3 2 1956 $419,000 35 4/29/16 $411,000 -$8,000 $249 4127776 Sold 3670 Reed Street Ranch/1 Story 0.15 984 984 984 2 1 1954 $314,500 30 4/29/16 $319,500 $5,000 $325 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 $262 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 $192 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 $246 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 $306 6021679 Sold 5914 W 35th Avenue Ranch/l Story 0.25 1245 1500 1534 4 2 1945 $384,900 61 7/29/16 $377,000 -$7,900 $246 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 $141 9848779 With/Exp 3588 Quay Street Ranch/1 Story 0.29 1604 1604 1604 4 2 1940 $425,000 122 3/17/16 $265 7482593 With/Exp 6840 W 36th Place Ranch/1 Story 0.16 953 1906 1906 3 2 1955 $449,900 13 8/7/16 $236 4079541 U/C 3620 Marshall Street Ranch/1 Story 0.22 1042 1042 1042 2 1 1969 $315,000 61 $302 1827736 U/C 3465 Newland Street Ranch/1 Story 0.23 987 987 987 2 1 1955 $309,900 6 $314 8458380 For Sale 6840 W 36th Place Ranch/1 Story 0.16 953 1906 1906 3 2 1955 $409,900 22 $215 4422387 For Sale 3695 Quay Street Ranch/1 Story 0.16 1037 2074 2074 3 2 1956 $374,900 4 $181 City of �,9rWheat�dge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 291h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO LETTER NOTICE August 25, 2016 Dear Property Owner: 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 This is to inform you of Case No. WA -16-14, a request for approval of a 3 -foot variance from the 6 -foot fence height maximum, resulting in a 9 -foot fence on property zoned Residential -3 (R-3) located at 6840 West 36`h Place. The attached aerial photo identifies the location of the variance request. The applicant for this case is requesting a variance eligible for administrative review per section 26-115.0 of the Municipal Code to be granted by the Zoning Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a decision, all adjacent property owners are required to be notified of the request. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846 or if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in writing by 5:00 p.m. on September 5, 2016. Thank you. WA1614.doc www.ci.wheatridge.com s Site Plan Air, Sub'ect Proa 36TI �� Proposed Fence , Location I. FL AVE SRO NI LOMBARDI DAVID M LOMBARDI SWEETWINE RANDALL IRA THOMPSON MARTIN L CAROLINA G SWEETWINE BECKY ELIZABETH THOMPSON CHRISTINE D 6840 W 36TH PL 6850 W 36TH PL 3200 JAY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SHERROD WAYNE LANO 6807 W 36TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 COFFEEN NATHAN 6855 W 36TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LELI HOMES LLC 4008 W 99TH PL WESTMINSTER CO 80031 JAIDINGER HOWARD W JAIDINGER DANNETTE C 6845 W 36TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 Zack Wallace From: David Lombardi <david.lombardil@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:47 PM To: Zack Wallace Subject: Re: 6840 W. 36th Place Fence Variance Options Zach, Please adjust my height variance to 9ft. Thanks David Lombardi Sent from my iPhone On Aug 24, 2016, at 10:56 AM, Zack Wallace <zwaIlace@ci.wheatridge.co.us> wrote: Hi David, In reviewing your fence height variance application and talking through it with other Staff members, I wanted to present you with several options moving forward: 1) 1 know you have spoken to the apartment complex about the fence, however it is worth mentioning that if the permit comes in under their property address, they would be able to construct the 6 -foot fence on their property without a variance or building permit, as I'm sure you were aware. You can even record an agreement with the County which states that the owner of your property is responsible for maintenance. We were thinking that perhaps the formality of getting something recorded may help ease the apartment owners mind. Though we understand this may be difficult to stick on a potential new owner of your property. 2) A 6-8 foot fence can be built on your property. Anything above 6 feet, but lower than 8 feet, would require an administrative variance review, but no building permit. 3) A fence over 8 feet is considered an engineered wall, which requires a building permit and stamped engineered drawings, in addition to an administrative variance review. 4) A fence 9 feet tall and higher is still considered an engineered wall, and requires a variance which would be decided upon at a Board of Adjustment hearing. I apologize for failing to mention the 'engineered wall' aspect of this issue with you earlier. We typically do not see many fences come through, and I was unfamiliar with that building code. The application you submitted results in a 9.5 foot fence, which would require engineered drawings at the time of building permit submittal, and requires a variance which would automatically be heard before the Board of Adjustment, their next hearing date is September 22. Please don't hesitate to call or email if you have further questions or would like to discuss these options further. Thank you, Zack Wallace Planning Technician 1, , vooi A _ k •, ii fig .Y. ;i- 11����I�III�II�l�I !,d ml, 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. S. 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, 1 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) Proposal for Variance for property 6840 W 361h 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 When Recorded Mail To: UNIVERSAL LENDING CORPORATION 6775 EAST EVANS AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80224 Loan Number UL0001153446CM MIN 1001984-0001153446-0 [Space Above This Line For Recording Data] FHA Case No. DEED OF TRUST 052 -6104409 -702 - THIS DEED OF TRUST ("Security Instrument") is made on DECEMBER 3, 2010, among the grantor, David M. Lombardi ("Borrower"), the Public Trustee of Jefferson County ("Trustee"), and the beneficiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), which is acting solely as nominee for Lender (as hereinafter defined) and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS. UNIVERSAL LENDING CORPORATION ("Lender") is organized and existing under the laws of COLORADO, and has an address of 6775 EAST EVANS AVENUE, DENVER, CO 80224. Borrower owes Lender the principal sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-THREE THOUSAND THIRTY AND 00/100ths Dollars (U.S.$153,030.00). This debt is evidenced by Borrower's note dated the same date as this Security Instrument ("Note"), which provides for monthly payments, with the full debt, if not paid earlier, due and payable on JANUARY 1, 2041. This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (a) the repayment of the debt evidenced by the Note, with interest, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; (b) the payment of all other sums, with interest, advanced under paragraph 7 to protect the security of this Security Instrument; and (c) the performance of Borrower's covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. For this purpose, Borrower, in consideration of the debt and the trust herein created, irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale, the following described property located in Jefferson County, Colorado: SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF FOR ALL PURPOSES which has the address of 6840 W. 36th PL, Wheat Ridge [Street. City] . Colorado 800.33 tZip Code] ("Property Address"); TOGETIIER WITH all the improvements now or hereafter erected on the property, and all easements, appurtenances, and fixtures now or hereafter a part of the property. All replacements and additions shall also be covered by this Security Instrument. All of the foregoing is referred to in this Security Instrument as the "Property." Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument; but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS, (as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns), has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing or canceling this Security Instrument. BORROWER COVENANTS that Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to grant and convey the Property and that the Property is unencumbered, except for encumbrances of record. Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record. Borrower Initials GN M 0041 (499) Page 1 of 7 F11A Colorado Deed of Trust j Q City of W ,id heat Icyc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Submittal Checklist: Variance Project Name: �D� i3/�q� T �i'_1V t�Y rEN -LL: Project Location: r,+1Z i �) (,,7r- Application s7 Rev. 5/2014 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 ✓ Signed submittal checklist (this document) ✓4. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed Ni 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 vl Include an explanation of the unique physical hardship that necessitates relief �✓ Survey or Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) of the property . To -scale site plan indicating existing and proposed building footprints and setbacks 4/9. Proposed building elevations indicating proposed heights, materials, and color scheme As applicant for this project, I hereby ensure that all of the above requirements have been included with this submittal. 1 fully understand that if any one of the items listed on this checklist has been excluded, the documents will NOT be distributed for City review. In addition, I understand that in the event any revisions need to be made after the second (2"d) full review, 1 will be subject to the applicable resubmittal fee. Signature: ✓ Date: Name (please print): 16,-\�tn ✓ ovtt /3, iT_-i)i Phone: -363 - ZZ- `%- �oc)o Community Development Department • (303) 235-2846 • www.ci.wheatridge.co.us le submitted BY Al City Ui planner. Incomp r ♦ hcat 7Cilo-e be accepted—refi 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 D A�tD LbM EAZDT- Phone �el- ZLi- %(Ic Email )--'�uLp , : (--\ &P -t i, � Address, City, State, Zip & � Vo 1 � 3 (� � � � , l,Antg -f j244%, -3 3 Owner �L-i -t IA V,43 &t2 :A) f_ Phone Email 7-14y -t--(,) nt c��;3.,4�'� c� Address, City, State, Zip(o L�� , l� (, x -s (J l.. (,�1��'j 1Z ; d P [ �oc; 3 ? Contact I�,�v�p Lcvw ,c L J3. Phone 3�-22 -- ,00aEmail D^ i/-,�s Address, City, State, Zip ( � �� L7 ��^i�,Q 2� �(T Cc) (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): fL 1 -3G Z,L 1-.) (-1 1 c Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): O Change of Zone or Zone Conditions O Special Use Permit O Subdivision - specify type: O Planned Development (ODP, SDP) O Conditional Use Permit O Administrative (up to 3 lots) O Planned Building Group O Site Plan O Minor (4 or 5 lots) O Temporary Use, Building, Sign O Concept Plan O Major (6 or more lots) PJ Variance/Waiver (from Section 26- 1 LI � Cl Right of Way Vacation O Other: Detailed description of request: Gk e.. n �� e����`G� _ VA\4 W dpigi PIe>x i AA it I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other thanmust — --mites o_wer-of-attorne from the owner which approved of this action onoel�if.A TAMARA D ODEAN Notarized Signature of Applicant_ State of Colorado County of Ye Mec- o,\ } ss NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20161015481 COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL The foregoing instrument (Land Use Processing Application) was acknowledged by me this �;? day of 20&, by :�IaM a rc, b r, My commission expires A/�?/202-2- Notary Public To be filled out by staff: Date receivedL, r, t s� +U�l Comp Plan Design. Related Case No. Assessor's Parcel No. .31,241, 06-0'W7 Size (acres or sgft) '% 013 5& 1 , Rev 1/2212016 Fee $ Receipt No. Pre -App Mtg. Date Current Zoning Z-1 Proposed Zoning Case No. Q Quarter Section Map NE Case Manager dljocp Current Use Proposed Use :�, -C-1