The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWA-17-03F City of Wheat R COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29t1 Ave. October 2, 2017 Robert and Margaret Escamilla 3867 Balsam Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Escamilla: Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 This letter is in regard to your request for approval of an extension of the variance granted pursuant to Case No. WA -17-03. On May 16, 2017, you were granted a 2.5 -foot variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement for the construction of a gazebo, on property zoned Residential -Two (R-2) and located at 3867 Balsam Street. On November 12, 2017 this variance approval will expire. Pursuant to Section 26-115.C.4, extensions for good cause shown may be approved by the Community Development Director if a request is made in writing prior to the expiration date of the variance approval. The Community Development Department acknowledges your request for extension received September 29, 2017 and hereby grants an extension for 180 days. Please be advised that if a building permit is not obtained by Friday, May 11, 2018 your variance will expire. Sincerely, Lauren Mikulak, AICP Planning Manager cc: Case File WA -17-03 www.d.wheatridge.co.us City of CO�WheatRj, MUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29" Ave. May 17, 2017 Robert Escamilla 3867 Balsam Street Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Re: Case No. WA -17-03 Dear Mr. Escamilla: Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 Please be advised that your request for a 2 'h -foot (50%) variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement for an accessory building for property zoned Residential -Two (R-2) and located at 3867 Balsam Street has been approved. Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance. Please note that all variance requests automatically expire within 180 days (November 16, 2017) of the date it was granted unless a building permit for the variance has been obtained within such period of time. You are now welcome to apply for a building permit to construct the deck. Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions. Sincerely, Tammy Odean Administrative Assistant Enclosure: Approval of Variance Case Report Cc: WA -17-03 (case file) WA1703.doc ww wN xi.wheatridge.co.us 7500 West 29th Avenue City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033Wh6, at 1 e 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 Approval of Variance WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 3867 Balsam Street referenced as Case No. WA -17-03 / Escamilla; and WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance, relying on criteria listed in Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and on information submitted in the case file; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has properly notified pursuant to Section 26-109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and WHEREAS, there were no registered objections regarding the application; NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 2.5 -foot variance to the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a gazebo on property in the Residential -Two (R-2) zone district (Case No. WA -17-03 / Escamilla) is granted for the property located at 3867 Balsam Street, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment that would not be possible without a variance. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. -// dl � ate El IV 11 41 VF City Of �A 9Wh6atFidge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: May 5, 2017 CASE MANAGER: Scott Cutler CASE NO. & NAME: WA -17-03 / Escamilla ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 2.5 -foot (50%) variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement for accessory buildings on property located at 3867 Balsam Street and zoned Residential -Two (R-2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3867 Balsam Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Robert Escamilla Robert Escamilla 10,802 Square Feet (0.248 Acres) Residential -Two (R-2) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map (X) NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION STRATEGY y-- Site JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an administrative decision. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 2.5 -foot (50%) variance from the 5 -foot rear yard setback requirement for a minor accessory structure. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the homeowner to construct a wooden gazebo on the existing rear concrete patio. Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. II. CASE ANALYSIS The variance is being requested so the property owners may construct a gazebo on the west side of their home on the rear patio. The property is located on the northwest corner of W. 381h Place and Balsam Street. The existing house sits on a 10,802 square foot parcel and was originally constructed in 1960 per the Jefferson County Assessor (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The property is zoned Residential -Two (R- 2), as are all of the surrounding areas. The Lutheran Medical Center is located one block south of the property (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The R-2 zone district provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate -density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character. All residential zone districts require larger side and rear yard setback minimums when adjacent to public streets. In the R-2 zone district, an accessory structure requires a 5 -foot minimum setback if 10 feet or less in height. The proposed gazebo will encroach upon this required setback, prompting the request for a 2.5 -foot variance to the 5 -foot setback, a variance of 50% (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The site plan and proposal illustrate that alternatives in the rear yard are not possible due to the position of the existing shed and roof overhang. The gazebo, as proposed, would have a similar rear setback to the existing shed, and the shed on the property to the west. The existing patio (Exhibit 4, Site Photos), is narrow and surrounded by a short, white picket fence. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, and has already improved the property substantially with landscaping and an attractive rear fence. The gazebo is an open, wood - framed design which will allow the property owner to enjoy the rear patio in the summer (Exhibit S, Request). The parcel meets minimum standards for the R-2 zone district, and the gazebo meets 'standards for minor accessory structures in residential zones. The following table compares the required R-2 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-031 Escamilla R-2 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 9,000 square feet (min) 10,802 square feet Lot Width (corner lot) 80 feet (min) 80 feet (38th Pl.) 130 feet (Balsam St.) Building Coverage 40% (max) —21 % (with gazebo) Minor Accessory Building: Allowed Proposed Gazebo Building Coverage 400 square feet (max) 144 square feet Height 10 feet (max) 10 feet Rear Setback (West) 5 feet (min) 2.5 feet Side Setback* (South — 38`1i Place) *for corner lot 25 feet (min) 30 feet III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 5, Request). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The R-2 zone district allows accessory structures of the proposed size, and many surrounding properties have similarly -sized accessory buildings and structures. The neighbor directly across 38th Place also has a gazebo in a similar position on the rear patio with an even smaller setback. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. Without the variance, the gazebo would not fit on the rear patio, and it would not be allowed in the front or corner side yard. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-031 Escamilla 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. There are no topographical conditions present on the property that create a particular and unique hardship. Being a corner lot triggers the need for two frontages of the structure to be setback at least 25 feet from the property line adjacent to a public street. The position of the home on the property limits usable space in the rear and side yards. Accessory structures are not allowed in front yards, or street -adjacent side yards on corner lots. However, none of these factors create a situation wherein a particular and unique hardship is placed upon the owner. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The alleged difficulty relates to the desire to make the best use of the existing rear concrete patio. Because the current owner neither platted the lot, nor constructed the home in its current location or orientation, the difficulties have 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. 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. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla Several lots in the immediate vicinity of the property, including the property across W. 38th Place to the south, have similar rear/side yard conditions. These properties have limited rear and side yard space to place accessory structures. The gazebo, as proposed, would have a similar rear setback to an existing shed on the property, the shed on the property to the west, and the gazebo on the property to the south. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 2.5 -foot (50%) variance from the required 5 -foot rear yard setback for minor accessory buildings in the R-2 zone. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment that would not be possible without a variance. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. With the following conditions: 1. The design, architecture, and location of the proposed gazebo shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP of Wheat ,c ge Geographic Information Systems Legend Q Subject Property Residential -Two (R-2) Planned Hospital District (PHD) 03939 03 03915 03920 ,03920 03901 03900 03875 �F -- 03880 g t ` – Q 082b3 03865 JCO�870. 1388 1 I 03845 03830 �. ar j 03880 03855 i04080 04015 I , i 039d0 it 03940 03995 I nsozn ,,,.,ems h 5 03895 39TH AVE -- —. N 03855 0' 03850 �F -- -- g t ` – Q 03840 08180 03895 1388 1 I 03845 03830 Q 03880 03885 ii 03875 04010 103990 03950 03910 oeoso _' `08242 039. 60 y 08222 03843 03850 N 03855 0' 03850 �F -- -- g t ` – Q 03840 0.3840 03845 03830 Q ~ 03837 J Q 03830 03825 03820 D i 03803 1 03820 03805 08095 Z 36TH AVE-- I– a a :. C_. e Z Q State Plane Coordinate Prgatlon N Colorado Central Zone Datum NA083 f, F 17 Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla 7 EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN Exhibit 5 (page 13) shows a model of the gazebo. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla A EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS View of the rear patio (west side of property) looking southwest. The table and chairs are located on the site of the proposed gazebo. The fence to the right is the rear property line. n View of the patio facing northwest towards the neighboring garage. Note the shed in the neighboring property and the lack of windows facing the patio. Administrative Review 9 Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla View of the patio and rear yard looking north. Both existing sheds are less than 5 -feet from the property line (the white fence). Administrative Review 10 Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla EXHIBIT 5: REQUEST 11V G . S owX4 M � Qwvgw l�ltgllw4 75W---k�s4 I*Ak- k.04 Maj co 5� �J WAN Z�),nt A Pc� ` Cc�eitle�e is A 4 Rae, uWd �e P�s�# to �t A Com . LL� Lj.Wd Cj N'(o 94 A Core fs -A Zfx 17`8 G)oe{ 5 ab, ANroA is 154. --qu 6akp 0r -u5 01(d A ZV - n iii PAUJAC& M61 Ulle) U � C Avcl LA ti "t lolv.. iik Am i�x Weir A C�GY� Administrative Review 11 Case No. WA -17-031 Escamilla City of W heat jddge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Rev. 5/2014 Review Criteria: Variance A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. Per Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, the reviewing authority (Community Development Director, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which an applicant demonstrates that a majority of the following criteria have been met: 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. Aoi 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the localit . lb v 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property wih this application, Yids which would not be possible without the variance. &I. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. &n 5. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. NCS 1 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. iv01 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property,,-- �-sabilities. ranting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.] `6. he application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the rchitectural and Site Design Manual. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family / hbcpes.] Administrative Review 12 Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla Below: The applicant submitted a promotional photo of the proposed gazebo along with the request. The gazebo would provide shade to the west -facing concrete patio, shown in Exhibit 4. Administrative Review 13 Case No. WA -17-03 /Escamilla City of /`� W heatf dge MUNITy 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 April 24, 2017 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA -17-03, a request for approval of a 2 1/2 -foot variance to the 5 -foot required setback resulting in a 2 1/2 -foot rear yard setback on property located at 3867 Balsam Street and zoned Residential -Two (R-2). 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 May 4, 2017. Thank you. WA 1703.doc www.ci.w heatridge.co. u s 03900 03885 ,, 33 8 8 0`A x}8233 { .03861 08253 03870 38TH PL Now �— 03860 / 08242 - :03843 03850 08222 4 J # m i 103840 KANAI RANDALL EDWARD KANAI THERESA KAOWTHUMRONG VIRA CARKEEK RICHARD D MARIE KAOWTHUMRONG NIPA 03870 BALSAM ST 03860 BALSAM ST 03843 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 M WENDELL GADD & MARY K GADD TRUST BRADSHAW MAUREEN A PISCIOTTA JOY GAIL ROSS CONNIE M 08233 W 38TH PL 12107 W 54TH DR 08222 W 38TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SCHRANZ DONALD C 03880 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ZIESCHANG SUSAN J 03885 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 TSCHERPEL DAVID TSCHERPEL MARY BETH TUNSTEAD NANCY 1 03850 BALSAM ST 08242 W 38TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 0_COLDRADO STATE BMK AND TRUST MORTGAGE PO BOX 619063 DALLAS, TX 75261-9063 866-910-5224 www.00loradostatebankandtrust.mortgageccn.com 9-821-00477-0010397-003-1-000-010-000-000 ulllnl�IIIIIIIIIII1IIIu1,II,11111'III1II1lrllll111ItIIIIIIIIII ROBERT J ESCAMILLA MARGARET A ESCAMILLA 3867 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033-4462 ACCOUNT INFORMATION Property Address: 3867 BALSAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 Outstanding Principal Balance. $55,882.17 Maturity Date: 04/01/2044 Interest Rate: 4.250% Prepayment Penalty: No Unapplied/Suspense Balance (provide posting instructions): $0.00 Mortgage Billing Statement Statement Date: 03/01/2017 Account Number -,C000416` 081 Payment Due Date 0�4-/�0.1/2017 /Amount Due $610.51 {Ir payment is received after (94/16/2017, $15.23 late fee may be assessed) EXPLANATION OF AMOUNT DUE Principal Due $106.68 Interest Due $19792 Escrow Due (Taxas and Insurance) $305.91 REGULAR MONTHLY PAYMENT $610.51 Total Fees Due $0.00 Overdue Payment(s) $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $610.51 TRANSACTION ACTIVITY (02107/2017 - 03/01/2017) Date Paid to Date Description Charges Amount 02/13/2017 Insurance Disb. -$1,227.00 03/01/2017 3/01/2017 Payment $610.51 Principal: $105.95 Interest: $198.65 Escrow: $305.91 03/01/2017 4/01/2017 Principal Payment $100.00 Principal: $100.00 PAST PAYMENT BREAKDOWN Description Paid Last Month Paid Year to Date Principal $205.95 $615.68 Interest 5198.65 $598.92 Escrow (Taxes and Insurance) $305.91 $917.73 Optional Products $0.00 Fees" $0.00 $0.00 Corporate Advance $0.00 $0.00 Partial Payments (unapplied)" $0.00 - TOTAL $710.51 $2,131.53 IMPORTANT MESSAGES "Partial Payments: Any Partial Payments received without instructions or trial modification/repayment amount are not applied to your principal, interest or escrow; but instead are held in an unapplied/suspense account tied to your mortgage loan. If you pay the balance of the Amount Due (minus the funds in the suspense/unapplied account), the funds may then be applied to your mortgage loan. Please know that suspense funds/partial payments are subject to be returned. " Fees "Paid Since Last Month" will include only Late Charges. All other fees will be reflected in the Transaction Activity section. All fees including Late Charges are accounted for in the fees "Paid Year to Date" amount. Important Message: PRIVACY NOTICE - Federal law requires us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Our privacy policy has not changed. You may review our policy and practices with respect to your personal information at www.coloradostatebankandtrust.com or we will mail you a free copy upon request if you call us at 866-910-5224. Q cr ;i ra Ll i' , �.,. `,_• `:,. rte. CIL)' of /W heat �dge MUNIIY DEVELOPMENT Submittal Checklist: Varia Project Name: Project Location: Rev. 512014 Vei rli� /7 (MZAK� 06- Application Contents: A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. The following items represent a complete variance application: �1. Completed, notarized land use application form ,G 2. Application fee Signed submittal checklist (this document) 4. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed 5. Written authorization from property owner(s) if an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s) V-6. Written request and description of the proposal _ Include a response to the variance review criteria—these are found in Section 26-115 of the municipal code Include an explanation as to why alternate designs that may comply with the zoning standards are not feasible _ Include an explanation of the unique physical hardship that necessitates relief 7. Survey or Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) of the property _8. To -scale site plan indicating existing and proposed building footprints and setbacks 9. Proposed building elevations indicating proposed heights, materials, and color scheme As applicant for this project, 1 hereby ensure that all of the above requirements have been included with this submittal. I fully understand that if any one of the items listed on this checklist has been excluded, the documents will NOT be distributed for City review. In addition, I understand that in the event any revisions need to be made after the second (2"d) full review, I will be subject to the applicable resubmittal fee. Signature: Date: (p p ),[. ' Name lease rint„ r�.i� s�c,� �,�� Phone70_ Community Development Department - (303) 235-2846 - www.cimheatridge.co.us A �i uIAy via 11a11a /awtir� ■ bile, 6U(Y-, v ` ' p�z � 5-� Icy i 4�� 1�� - " tic' Aw 15 A 4' A&t W) (Cu4) (M Few, itla I d Pef Q4 0 54 A &twj) `JXJ k Luvi i -o(, Lkkf��A 6 (1 VIP lo �J A X I -ZX 16" a' H a -t"' N-rVf 5� culw, (5 A 71WeGyA-t7�,61ab. Ora AzV5x4&dl Rn ►�rc�1�:t�Ltr1e)i,�c�lcl Rt Ax Lcx�E:fc�� KIPfoc A 5°.Sc� �,, And T 5 t{ 1�,� C� tie ,ti��cl-Th.� 2��2 1J� t�• ��IC��l A Z2 i(�c�+K�doc�bn, City of W heat �ge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Rev. 5/2014 Review Criteria: Variance A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. Per Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, the reviewing authority (Community Development Director, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which an applicant demonstrates that a majority of the following criteria have been met: 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. �bl 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Ids 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property wih this application, which would not be possible without the variance. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. 5. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 'vile 1 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. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property,( 'a/Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.] he application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the rchitectural and Site Design Manual. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family h es.] Community Development Department - (303) 235-2846 - www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 4/17/2017 imageService (680X680) https:llrichm edia.channeladvi sor.com/lmageDel ivery/i m ageService?profi leld=12026540&id=779401 &reci peld=729 1/1 Variance Request Worksheet Address/Proposal:c� , a \%C� —. �� A/1 The property would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income under the current conditions B/2 The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality C/3 The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the D/4 specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience E/5 If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. F/6 The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood G/7 The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property H/8 Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities 1/9 The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual TOTAL Notes: Meets Does not meet N/A A/ X POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA -17-03 DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 4, 2017 I Robert Escamilla (n a m e) residing at 3867 Balsam Street as the applicant for Case No. Public Notice at on this 24 day of (address) WA -17-03 11� City of WheatRjdge hereby certify that I have posted the sign for 3867 Balsam Street (location) April and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for ten (10) days prior to and including the deadline for written comments regarding this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. Signature: v NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Community Development Department for this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file. MAP �of WheatRidge PUBLIC POSTING REQUIREMENTS One sign must be posted per street frontage. In addition, the following requirements must be met: ■ The sign must be located within the property boundaries. ■ The sign must be securely mounted on a flat surface. ■ The sign must be elevated a minimum of thirty (30) inches from ground. ■ The sign must be visible from the street without obstruction. ■ The sign must be legible and posted for ten (10) continuous days prior to and including the deadline for written comments [sign must be in place until 5pm on May 4, 2017] 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. k, I f submitted BY Al V" City of planner. lncompl ��9r Wheat Midge be accepted—refs 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 1A Phone Ip- T Email Address, City, State, Zip i Owner 5&Ka /% j Phone Email Address, City, State, Zip Contact 5al' aAs �j7„L Phone Address, City, State, Zip Email (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): 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) ® Variance/Waiver (from Section 26-__j O Right of Way Vacation O Other: Detailed description of request: AA � A LVA 5A A li'X IZ' 10 6'' a i 1 Ai i.%9.-tvnt12- - I A i A - r� 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 than ownert sr+AM�Dr�u— from the owner which approved of this action on his behalf. Notarized Signature of Applicant State of Colorado } ss County of `�eS'S�Srv� NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20164015481 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL The foreoing instrument (Land Use Processing Application) was acknowledged by me this 1.3*"' day of pr. I 20i7— by �b 4 S• ES�a.t" t: IIS - l -_— Notary Public To be filled out by staff: Date received Comp Plan Design. Related Case No. Assessor's Parcel No. Size (acres 7T My commission expires y /. ;z /20aa Fee $ 2190- D Receipt No. C D f-101 cot (03 Pre -App Mtg. Date Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Case No. ...Q[A' - 17- 0-3 Quarter Section Map LJ 2 Case Manager Current Use Proposed Use