Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-17-054- City of W heat jdge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29"' Ave May 22, 2017 Mike Bowen 6875 S Santa Fe Dr. Littleton CO 80120 Re: Case No. WA -17-05 Dear Mr. Bowen: Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 Please be advised that your request for a 13 -foot variance (43.3%) from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet for an accessory structure on property zoned R-1 located at 3390 Oak 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 22, 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: W. Kathryn Martin Living Trust WA -17-05 (case file) WA1705.doc wwwxi.wheatridgexoms 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 City of Wheat�dge Approval of Variance WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 3390 Oak Street referenced as Case No. WA -17-05 / Martin; 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 13 -foot variance (43.3%) from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet for an accessory structure on property zoned Residential - One (Case No. WA -17-05 / Martin) is granted for the property located at 3390 Oak Street, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The variance supports a substantial investment in the property. 3. The topographical condition creates a unique difficulty for the best placement of pool equipment. 4. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Johnstone, AIC Community Devel Director "Lei CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME ACTION REQUESTED: City of Wh6at�idge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Community Development Director DATE: May 18, 2017 Zack Wallace Mendez WA -17-05 / Martin Approval of a 13 -foot variance (43.3%) from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet for an accessory structure on property zoned R-1 located at 3390 Oak Street. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3390 Oak Street APPLICANT (S): Mike Bowen, Designs by Sundown OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA PRESENT ZONING PRESENT LAND USE: W Kathryn Martin Living Trust 25,156 square feet (0.58 acres) Residential -One (R-1) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Locati Administrative Review 1 Case No. WA -17-05 /Martin 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 13 -foot setback (43.3%) variance from the minimum front yard setback for a home in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district, resulting in a setback of 17 -feet from the property line. The purpose of the variance is to allow for a pump house to house and screen the mechanical equipment necessary for the pool that is currently being installed. In July 2016 the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment approved Case No. WA -16-09 for this property, which was a request for a 500 square foot variance from the permitted size of 1,000 square feet for an accessory building, and to permit a metal accessory structure. The purpose of the variance was to allow for a retractable metal covering over the pool and hot tub the owners were constructing in their rear yard. The submitted building permit currently on file with the Building Division does not show this retractable structure, and the landscape architect has confirmed they will not be constructing the retractable structure. The time limitation of approval for that variance has since lapsed. The current request is separate from the previous request, though still related to the rear yard pool and hot tub investment the owners are making on their property. 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 owner may construct a pump house on the north side of the property. The property is located at the southeast corner of 34th Place and Oak Street, with frontage on both streets (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The existing house sits on a 25,156 square foot (0.58 acre) parcel and was constructed in 2001 per the Jefferson County Assessor. The property is zoned Residential -One (R-1), a zone district that provides high quality, safe, quiet and stable low-density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low-density residential character. Much of the surrounding neighborhood is also zoned R-1. North of 35th Avenue are areas zoned Residential -Two (R-2), which allows for single- family and duplex units, and Residential -One A, a single-family zone district allowing for slightly more permissive development standards than the R-1 zone district. The neighborhood is predominantly single-family, with the exception of Prospect Valley Elementary School to the west on Parfet Street (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The subject property currently contains a single family home that was constructed in 2001, per the Jefferson County Assessor. The lot is platted as Lot 13A of the Distinctive Addresses at Applewood Amendment #1 Subdivision. The lot was originally two lots in the subdivision, which were consolidated under case number LLA -00-03 in 2000 by the current owner. The single story home has a footprint of approximately 3,937 square feet, covering approximately 15.7% of the lot. The maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone is 25%. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-05 /Martin The property owners are the original owners and intend to make this improvement in order to facilitate a healthy lifestyle, which includes swimming, year-round on their property. In addition to the pool, the applicants intend to do a large landscaping renovation. The proposed pump house will match the architectural style of the existing home. It will also be located behind the existing 6 -foot tall privacy fence, and in an area of lush landscaping (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The location of the structure is clear of the site triangle, and is located away from adjacent neighboring properties. The location of pool equipment (housed in the proposed pump house) must be near level with the pool to ensure maximum efficiency. While the subject property does not have extreme topography, slight changes in elevation impact the placement of the mechanical equipment. According to the lead landscape architect on the project, the proposed location is one of two acceptable locations for the pump house. The second acceptable location would be near the southern property line, would require a variance, and would be in close proximity to the southern neighbor's property. The proposed location is adequate for pool maintenance, and is also the least impactful on adjacent properties (Exhibit 4, Site Plan). 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 S, Criteria Responses). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The proposed structure will be constructed to match the architecture of the existing home, will be approximately 10 feet tall and located behind a 6 -foot tall existing privacy fence. It is approximately centered along the northern property line, and as such does not pose any sight triangle obstruction. The structure size and height is permissible by the R -I zone district accessory structure standards, and will be located away from any neighboring properties. The circumstances pushing the pump house to this location is the topography of the lot and the necessary slope, or lack thereof, required relative to the pool and its equipment. Additionally, another ideal location for the pump house is near their southern property line, which would also require a variance according to the landscape architect, and would be much more impactful to adjacent neighbors. 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. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-05 /Martin The applicant currently has an active building permit for a large investment in their property: a pool, hot tub, and upgraded rear yard entertainment area and landscaping. All of which is permissible and was approved through the building permit review process. The original building permit showed this pump house structure in its currently proposed location, but did not give specifics for the structure itself. The building permit was recently amended to include plans for the pump house. Staff noted the setback violation and spoke with the landscape architect. Without the variance, the applicant would leave the pool equipment exposed. While the pump house itself may not be considered a substantial investment, it does support a substantial investment and ensures the viability of the pool equipment for a longer period of time. 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. While the topography of the lot may not seem to be problematic to the naked eye, in terms of pool design, it is. The pump house must be located level with the pool. The topography of the property pushes the ideal pump house location to the proposed location or near the southern property line, in close proximity to the neighboring property. The applicant chose the proposed location because it will have the least impact on neighboring properties, in addition to being fairly level with the pool. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship stems partially from the large investment the current owners are making in the property and the necessary location of mechanical equipment and the desire to have that equipment screened. The hardship also stems from the topography of the lot, and the limited placement of pool equipment relative to the pool. The current owner constructed the home and is making a major investment in the rear yard, both of which could have been opportunities to adjust the topography of the property. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Administrative Review 4 Case No. WA -17-05 /Martin 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 factor necessitating the variance request is the additional side yard setback due to its adjacency to a public right-of-way. This is required for all properties with multiple frontages along public right-of-ways. That being said only a very small number of homes in the neighborhood are on corners. 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 ManuaG 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 13 -foot variance (43.3%) from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet for an accessory structure on property zoned R-1 located at 3390 Oak Street. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The variance supports a substantial investment in the property. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-05 / Martin 3. The topographical condition creates a unique difficulty for the best placement of pool equipment. 4. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-05 / Martin Wheat id e Geographic Information Systems Legend Q Subject Property EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL ttttttttttttttttt� S: � Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-05 /Martin aL_ F- rA z State Plane Coordinate Prolecvon N Colorado Central Zone A Datum NAD83 N s'raNwa wa way+n.: revu� A w<w�a weywry y.e�rq Y ti w • ah +w. WMw� Tw. Aiv �t wrs.Tw�wW 1w�TrVi ti�w� wrw YMw�r. 7 EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP %ul Wheat icl�e Geographic Information Systemsfa Legend Q Subject Property Displayed Zone Districts __ — 35TH AVE Residential -One (R-1) Residential -One A (R -1A) Residential -Two (R-2) 34TH PL i 3QT HAV� Y a O z U O w O LU p z i State Piane Coordinate Protedmn N C C.1-6. C"".1 7— A WWt NA083 N 32ND; PL Administrative Review 8 Case No. WA -17-O5 /Martin EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS View of the property looking southeast from 34th Place. The pump house location is indicated by the white arrow. (Photo courtesy ofLisa Ritchie). View of the property looking south from 34th Place. The pump house location is indicated by the white arrow. (Photo courtesy of Lisa Ritchie) Administrative Review 9 Case No. WA -17-O5 /Martin Property line Existing fence Proposed pump house location Existing house EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN FTha doarrent is tta progeny Of Designs By Surdown and stro ld not be reproduced, copied, m" ud for in WUtm purposes, in whole win pad. w thq A Bre mnseni Of Despns BY Sundown s t — " n ,i l Rear yard addition currently permitted by the Building Division LI ' Rear property line T g E i � y io f � r IIE ' —}--a— ------- -n -n 5 'i: i► Administrative Review Case No. WA -17 -OS /Martin MARTIN RESIDENCE 3390 OAK ST. Wheat ridge,CO 'I'M IM(DESIGNS- BY SUNDOWN Side property line 10 l5 F 5 f C Rear yard addition currently permitted by the Building Division LI ' Rear property line T g E i � y io f � r IIE ' —}--a— ------- -n -n 5 'i: i► Administrative Review Case No. WA -17 -OS /Martin MARTIN RESIDENCE 3390 OAK ST. Wheat ridge,CO 'I'M IM(DESIGNS- BY SUNDOWN Side property line 10 EXHIBIT 5: CRITERIA RESPONSES 1. On the contrary, the pool and pool equipment house will only increase the value of the residence and the surrounding properties. The Pool equipment house will have matching window, veneer and roofing as the residence. Pool equipment house will not exceed height requirements and will only be 14' in diameter ( building is a hexagon in shape), will also have complete landscaping around said equipment house including uprightjuniper trees to "soften" the structures look. 2. See above, The "Character" of this area will only be enhanced by the quality of the craftsmanship and the landscaping around it. 3. Without the variance it is quite possible the entire project would be in jeopardy, yes we could still put all the equipment on a concrete slab and put a small fence or shrubs around it, but the equipmentwould still be unsightly, exposed to the elements and may be heard more easily. With the structure proposed we would eliminate these possible issues and have an attractive equipment house. I will further explain the possible project " in Jeopardy" statement in following responses. 4. (should answer questions 5-7 as well) Several Topographical issues limited us in picking this proposed spotfor the equipment house... 1. Drainage is the main reason, the south and east sides of the back yard is where the drainage of the entire yard flows from south to north through their yard and this moisture accumulates from all neighbors from the south and once it reaches my clients yard it is substantial... to the point they have a dry river bed built with cobble stone to accommodate this moisture flow through their yard. ALL other locations that equipment house could fit in yard would be in these drainage areas and would be disruptive to neighborhoods existing WORKING drainage. 2. The proposed area is the only spot in the back yard that is similar the pool's elevation, which is critical for the pool's equipment to work at its most efficiently ability. Any major grade changes between pool and pool equipment cause issues in pump performance and efficacy. The proposed location is also farthest away from any neighbor sharing a property line with my client, eliminating any direct view of pool equipment house from any connecting property line neighbor. All other areas in back yard that would be possible alternative locations for pool equipment house would also require avariance. 5. There would be no hardship to anyone if the requestfor the variance is granted, on the contrary there would be a hardship to the property owner without the variance. Property owner wou Id have the difficulty and hardship on maintaining and securing the unprotected pool equipmentfromthe elements, vandalism, and "attractive nuisance". 6. This Pool equipment structure will not create any security, inju ry or intrusion to other in the neighborhood. Nor would it create a problem with congestion in traffic, block existing light or impair anyone's hearing. On the contrary to all these concerns, this structure will be able to be securely looked at all times ( eliminate " attractive nuisance" issues), sound proof and low enough not to create sun or artificial light to be obstructed. Also, structure in no way will create traffic congestion or block the view of traffic. As I stated in answer #1, we believe requestfor variance if granted will only increase our clients and surrounding properties property value. 7. Our request for a variance is not a unique issue for my client, all the properties in this neighborhood would have a hard time fitting a structure we are requesting to build and stay out of their easements as well. Please don't hesitate to contact me with request for further details or more information, Michael Bowen Project Manager Designs By Sundown 303.596.1116 Administrative Review 11 Case No. WA -17-05 / Martin EXHIBIT 6: RENDERING Martin Residence 3390 Oak Street Wheat Ridge CO 80033 - - Concept3DImage `s �o.�,. Martin Residence 3390 Oak Street Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Concept 3D Image Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-05 /Martin 12 �of WheatRoge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA -17-05 DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: residing at ; j V 6) as the applicant for Case No. Mav 11. 2017 (name) (address) (� WA -17-05 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for Public Notice at 3390 Oak Street (location) on this day of JVA I A 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: NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Commur%6 Development Department for this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file. MAP %� City of Wheat -Midge 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 11, 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. r City of ��,r'Wheatl��jdge MUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29`h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 LETTER NOTICE May 2, 2017 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA -17-05, a request for approval of a 13 -foot variance (43.3%) from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 -feet for an accessory structure on property located at 3390 Oak Street and zoned Residential -One (R-1). 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 12, 2017. Thank you. WA1705.doc www.ci.wh eatridge.com s Lil 34TH P SHPALL ZACHARY I ROSENTHAL DEBRA L EDLIN FAMILY TRUST WARING NANCY P WARING BRUCE J 3395 NELSON ST 3485 NELSON ST 3370 OAK ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WILMA I ZELLITTI TRUST THE 10751 W 34TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WILLIAMS EUNICE P 3381 OAK ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 MORA JESSE JR MORA GLORIA JEAN 3371 OAK ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GRIGEL PAUL W 10651 W 34TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 TUUK DAVID J TUUK MARY K 10701 W 34TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 HUGGARD SEAN HUGGARD JENNIFER 3415 NELSON ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 KOENTGES PATRICK J 3391 OAK ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 19 r ,e J V. .. '� ��1 t f - : its,.. i..r+rg1.,�; � -.; I Jig w I o:14i, f7- — Efl O0• • _ CT4 : • • . ce uoilippVkj,Ti�. 9snOH dwnd— ��� � .mom®.�,�.�..����.,•.�.�.•� in in •u 4 S2 1 - a N 9��y•�gg Y u g rb b g gg yy 333 3 € • ak � H de3 $ g e fig i I 1a z G gg ? `a 666 111H I 9 R F € 8 Til Wh N� . I l h 88sas u rb g 333 3 € • ak � H de3 $ g e fig i I 1a if G gg ? `a 8 rb fig i I 1a if G gg ? rb i i I 1a I 'IS AVO ME I� r 33N30IS3a NlidVA --+I NMOO4I15AS SNDIS34Oil a ° Iumopuns �s •x+00 m m.suoo ao avow y x onV.« u. s.—d2M u.R"%W ml own n PMdW P—Pwdw ec louguaN m Fiweo d aN si IW WuoP q41 From: Mike Bowen To: Zackary Wallace Cc: Adam Hallauer Subject: 3390 Oak Street Variance request Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:46:20 PM Zach, Here are the answers to the Review Criteria that you gave me to review: 1. On the contrary, the pool and pool equipment house will only increase the value of the residence and the surrounding properties. The Pool equipment house will have matching window, veneer and roofing as the residence. Pool equipment house will not exceed height requirements and will only be 14' in diameter ( building is a hexagon in shape), will also have complete landscaping around said equipment house including upright juniper trees to "soften" the structures look. 2. See above, The "Character" of this area will only be enhanced by the quality of the craftsmanship and the landscaping around it. 3. Without the variance it is quite possible the entire project would be in jeopardy, yes we could still put all the equipment on a concrete slab and put a small fence or shrubs around it, but the equipment would still be unsightly, exposed to the elements and may be heard more easily. With the structure proposed we would eliminate these possible issues and have an attractive equipment house. I will further explain the possible project " in Jeopardy" statement in following responses. 4. (should answer questions 5-7 as well) Several Topographical issues limited us in picking this proposed spot for the equipment house... 1. Drainage is the main reason, the south and east sides of the back yard is where the drainage of the entire yard flows from south to north through their yard and this moisture accumulates from all neighbors from the south and once it reaches my clients yard it is substantial... to the point they have a dry river bed built with cobble stone to accommodate this moisture flow through their yard. ALL other locations that equipment house could fit in yard would be in these drainage areas and would be disruptive to neighborhoods existing WORKING drainage. 2. The proposed area is the only spot in the back yard that is similar the pool's elevation, which is critical for the pool's equipment to work at its most efficiently ability. Any major grade changes between pool and pool equipment cause issues in pump performance and efficacy. The proposed location is also farthest away from any neighbor sharing a property line with my client, eliminating any direct view of pool equipment house from any connecting property line neighbor. All other areas in back yard that would be possible alternative locations for pool equipment house would also require a variance. 5. There would be no hardship to anyone if the request for the variance is granted, on the contrary there would be a hardship to the property owner without the variance. Property owner would have the difficulty and hardship on maintaining and securing the unprotected pool equipmentfrom the elements, vandalism, and "attractive nuisance". 6. This Pool equipment structure will not create any security, injury or intrusion to other in the neighborhood. Nor wouId it create a problem with congestion in traffic, block existing light or impair anyone's hearing. On the contrary to all these concerns, this structure will be able to be securely looked at all times ( eliminate " attractive nuisance" issues), sound proof and low enough not to create sun or artificial light to be obstructed. Also, structure in no way will create traffic congestion or block the view of traffic. As I stated in answer #1, we believe request for variance if granted will only increase our clients and surrounding properties property value. Our request for a variance is not a unique issue for my client, all the properties in this neighborhood would have a hard time fitting a structure we are requesting to build and stay out of their easements as well. Please don't hesitate to contact me with request for further details or more information, Michael Bowen Project Manager Designs By Sundown 303.596.1116 Roy A. Martin, Jr. May 6, 2017 3390 Oak St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 To City Planning Department of Wheat Ridge, This letter serves to certify that W. Kathryn Martin and Roy A. Martin, Jr., have engaged Designs By Sundown and their representative, Mike Bowen, to obtain a variance on our behalf. The variance is sought from the City of Wheat Ridge for the placement of a swimming pool mechanical shed on our property located at: 3390 Oak Street, Wheat Ridge, CO, 80033. Signed, fn Roy . Martin, Jr. ► submitted BY At City of planner. Incomp Whe be accepted—ref LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department m 1Gc 7500 West 291h Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846 �j)(Please print or type all information) vwt� �Sr1C,h 5 7->IC,,,dcx,✓� Applicant Address, City, State, Zip 3 3 R d 0� i Owner Address, City, State, Zip Contact Address, City, State, Zip Phone3) -s966-///6 Emailveil c;/j"l ' S4v - f Phone Phone Email 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): 33,30 Q-yt� $Vv e 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) Variance/Waiver (from Section 26-_____) O Right of Way Vacation 0`Other: Detailed description of request: Ye 4 L. , It C/,P1 v I c+ , c C ('(��V j"Ll—r G1 v s c 3' V-- c_c s41{0/ 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, 1 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 owners must submit power-of-attorney from the owner which approved of this action on his behalf. i TAMARA D ODEAN Notarized Signature of Applicant_ State of Colorado } ss County of �pS'SQ� e�,pr� The foregoing instrument (Land Use Proce: by Ckae 5 Qo�a2n Notary Public To be filled out by staff: Date received 5-1ff-177 Comp Plan Design. Related Case No. Assessor's Parcel No. i.;i I-1-7- 0 Size (acres or sgft) Rev 1/22/ 2016 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20164015481 COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL ON was acknowledged by me this /T day of f , k , 2017 My commission expires C1 -/,?2/202 Fee $ Receipt No. Pre -App Mtg. Date Current Zoning A Proposed Zoning _ Case No Quarter Section Map Case Manager Octtqco Current Use Proposed Use C p,�