Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-17-06E �eV City of ]��Wh6atl�j,dgc MUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building June 14, 2017 Monica Duran 2980 Upham Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Case No. WA -17-06 Dear Ms. Duran: 7500 W. 29`b Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 Please be advised that your request for a 3 -foot (20%) variance from the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 -feet and a 7 Y2 -foot (50%) variance from the rear yard setback requirement of 15 -feet for the purpose of constructing a detached garage on property zoned Residential -One (R-1) located at 2980 Upham Street has been approved. Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance. Please note that all variance requests automatically expire within 180 days (December 13, 2017) of the date it was granted unless a building permit for the variance has been obtained within such period of time. A permit has already been submitted for the detached garage; but ask that you bring, to the Planning Department, an amended site plan. Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions. Sincerely, Tammy Odean Administrative Assistant Enclosure: Approval of Variance Case Report Cc: WA -17-06 (case file) WA 1706.doc www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 7500 West 29th Avenue City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 �Wh6atPiAlc 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 Approval of Variance WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 2980 Upham Street referenced as Case No. WA -17-06 / Duran; 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 7.5 -foot variance from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement and a 3 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a detached garage on property in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district (Case No. WA -17-06 / Duran) is granted for the property located at 2980 Upham Street, based on the following findings of fact: The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. Existing conditions on the property present a particular and unique hardship. 5. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. JIVR Dat 11 � City of Wh6at�idge NKC CASE MANAGER CASE NO. & NAME: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Community Development Director DATE: June 5, 2017 Scott Cutler WA -17-06 / Duran ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 7.5 -foot (50%) variance from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement and a 3 -foot (20%) variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement, allowing a 24 -foot by 30 -foot garage to be constructed on property located at 2980 Upham Street and zoned Residential -One (R-1). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2980 Upham Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING Monica Duran Monica and Steve Duran 17,567 Square Feet (0.403 Acres) Residential -One (R-1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. L REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 7.5 -foot (50%) variance from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement for a major accessory structure, as well as a 3 -foot (20%) variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the homeowner to construct a garage in the rear (northeast) corner of their yard. 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 garage in the northeast corner of the lot. The property is located on Upham Street at the terminus of W. 30th Avenue. The existing house sits on a 17,567 square foot parcel and was originally constructed in 1954 per the Jefferson County Assessor (Exhibit 1). The property is zoned Residential -One (R-1), as are several properties to the south on Upham Street and to the east on Teller Street. Properties across Upham Street to the west and to the north are zoned Residential -One A (R -IA) (Exhibit 2). The R-1 zone district provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low-density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low-density residential character. In the R-1 zone district, a major accessory structure requires 15 -foot minimum side and rear setbacks. The proposed garage will encroach upon these required setback, prompting the request for a 7.5 -foot variance from the rear setback (50%), and a 3 -foot variance from the side setback (20%). The site plan (Exhibit 3), photographs (Exhibit 4), and proposal (Exhibits S and 6) illustrate that alternatives in the rear yard are not possible due to the position of an existing mature Honey Locust tree and the location of the existing driveway. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, and has already improved the property substantially with front yard landscaping and a front yard picket fence. The parcel meets minimum standards for the R-1 zone district, and the garage meets the standards for major accessory structures in residential zones. The following table compares the required R-1 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R-1 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 12,500 square feet (min) 17,567 square feet Lot Width 100 feet (min) 121.56 feet Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-061 Duran Building Coverage 1 25% (max) I —17.1 % (with garage) Minor Accessory Building: Required Proposed Garage Building Coverage 1,000 square feet (max) 713 square feet Height 15 feet (max) 13.75 feet (at mid -roof) Rear Setback (East) 15 feet (min) 7.5 feet Side Setback (North) 15 feet (min) 12 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. 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 R-1 zone district allows accessory buildings of the proposed size, and many surrounding properties have similarly -sized garages with setbacks of less than 15 feet. The property directly to the east, also zoned R-1, has a large rear shed that encroaches into the current 15 -foot setback requirement. To note, the R- 1 A zones that surround the property on the north and west sides require a 10 -foot setback for major accessory buildings. The two immediately adjacent properties to the north and east have accessory structures in the area that would be appurtenant to the proposed garage. For that reason, the setback encroachments may be less impactful to the character of the area than if they were adjacent to an open yard. 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. Constructing a garage would allow the applicant to store vehicles currently parked in the front driveway. Building a garage elsewhere in the rear yard is possible, though it would require significant additional investment to construct a new driveway, reconfigure the rear yard, and remove mature trees. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-06 /Duran 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. There are no topographical conditions present on the property that create a particular and unique hardship. However, an existing mature Honey Locust tree would interfere with the construction of a garage that meets the setback requirements (Exhibit 4, Site Photos). The applicant has spent a considerable amount of money to ensure the continued health of the tree, including recent consultation with an arborist. Another smaller tree would also likely have to be removed if the garage was built to the required setbacks. The large rear yard could allow a garage meeting the setback requirements on the south side of the property, but it would require the destruction of two mature front yard trees and the construction of a second driveway through a wooded and fenced area. 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. 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. The property owner is also not responsible for the location of the mature trees. 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. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-06 / Duran It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The garage may in fact have a positive visual impact on the neighborhood, if vehicles currently tandem - parked on the front driveway can be stored out of view in the new garage. 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. Surrounding properties are similarly -sized and built in similar styles. Despite a few other properties having similar conditions to the subject property, the unusual conditions necessitating the variance request for the subject property are unique only to the subject property. 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. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 7.5 -foot (50%) variance from the required 15 -foot rear yard setback and a 3 -foot (20%) variance from the required 15 -foot side yard setback. 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 to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. Existing conditions on the property present a particular and unique hardship. 5. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-06 / Duran With the following conditions: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage 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 -17-06 /Duran EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-06 /Duran EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Administrative Review Case No. WA -17-061 Duran EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN The applicant did not provide a site plan for the Courtesy Review. Below is the submitted site plan for the original Building Permit with staff markups showing the intended location of the garage. \jaAt/ Mwt� LnCV-S+ om:" a [ ) Administrative Review 9 Case No. WA -17-06 /Duran EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS View of the yard facing south. The stakes show the footprint of the garage if a 15 -foot setback was required. The foundation of the garage would be approximately 2 feet from the roots, and the walls and roof would likely interfere with upper branches. (Applicant provided photo) Administrative Review 10 Case No. WA -17-06 /Duran ssi Illllllllli{f{II illlllllilllllllli ............. IiAllllllli��6a. View of the south side of the property. While possible, creating a second driveway here would disturb the improved front lawn and fence, and possibly the trees shown in this photo. It would also result in a large portion of the front yard being paved. Administrative Review 11 Case No. WA -17-06 /Duran EXHIBIT 5: WRITTEN REQUEST #1 To Whom it May Concern, We, the owners and residents, at 2980 Upham St would like to request a setback variance of 12ft on the North side of our property line and 6ft setback on East side of property line. Not because the existing setbacks are inconvenient, but as you can see in the photos provided,( the stakes are set at the existing 15ft variance in photos) we have an estimated 80 - year old Honey Locust tree, whose roots would be harmed if we were made to follow the existing setbacks of 15ft. We recently spent $1800 dollars having this Honey Locust tree's health accessed and trimmed . We were told by Tip Top Tree with a good trimming it would be around for us to enjoy for years to come. At that time we were also told by Tip Top Tree to make sure the concrete we are pouring for the driveway is at least 81/2 feet away from the tree roots. Anything closer would weaken the root system and would put this tree at risk. Same with a building structure. We have looked at building this garage on the South side of our property but this is not feasible. We would have to remove a good portion of our existing front and side yard to add a new driveway and would have to remove and existing 80 year Honey Locust tree, not to mention the added expense to an already existing expense of $25,000 for the structure itself. Also our sewer line runs to the SE corner of our property and prohibits using that area, along with limiting future access if sewer lines need repaired. In speaking with our neighbors, this variance would not interfere in any way with their views, impair public health, safety, or comfort. We have lived in this home for 23yrs and plan to be here for the rest of our lives. Your consideration and attention to this request is greatly appreciated. Steve & Monica Duran Administrative Review 12 Case No. WA -17-06 / Duran EXHIBIT 6: WRITTEN REQUEST #2 Fri 04.212017 7:06 AM Monica Duran <mdsu11ivan4321@comcast.net> Re: Setback Variance Review To Scott Cutler T Cc Lauren Mikulak 1 Retention Policy 30 Day Retention Inbox (30 days) Expires 052//2017 8 This item will expire in 29 days. To keep this item longer apply a different Retention Policy. You replied to this message on 04/21/2017 06 AM. Hello Lauren & Scott, Stere and I have been truing to look at every design option available that would protect our Honey Locust tree and still meet our needs with our garage and driveway. We have reconfigured the shape of the driveway that I feel is a good compromise for all of us and would still meet our needs. With that being said we would propose reconsideration of 12ft set back north side property line to garage and 7112 ft setback east side property line to garage. Thank you for your patience as we have been trying to work through this process and your consideration is appreciated. Monica & Steve Duran Sent from my iPhone Administrative Review 13 Case No. WA -17-06 / Duran EXHIBIT 7: IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE (1998) ILI.AIV's EN0,INEEMING, INC, �- 84?1 )ufnPIKA r)fjvv. `;,Itn 20U • Wvatmin}lot; ro 8WJ0 • 1700) 4261 ya I IMPIMVEM],,:N'r 1,(.)[,A'.1.'TON GER,rild'j.�.A17 E Addr n*q : 79AO U1.11Ae.A ST Bor r•owe r ( it l)1JRAN T1F:)q so tMGh by: Gammitmanc no. i.ayri 009t:r•IPt tan: I'Ftt CI IFNJ r lir W r a l 140,U-, I V V T or Te1E VAST 2OV. 1 Fr [T OF IWE N011111 1;•1 �rJ FEET Or LO -1 A , bLOCK ` 1 t ifARTWS SllrlrJ r VISI (,1N, .OUNTw Or jrFFC-Hv[)N, ,%TA7 r OF CM ORACpV . y. Sr- AL.C: Ill= 36t 17- -- 1x1. VG-- ._ �i IM—GROI,IIwb POOL. 0 PUMV PAEP �. 43 + "' aaeiws R r3ml Deltas �ro�+s¢;L ►+Ou$Ir ►Ad 11iR4iP Vag M - � C Ie!.r•. W 4 - �. Z i►r.� Jg IRl7hJ PIPEL } _1 /�.. r.z aI I. F k a� :r..r.trtwn y,M tl...t...r w.e.:brar' 1S � "13 T v wrondAwh r.u. the svtrsnt flu" J•.a.r 1 Aaia.�tt.....'t� fl'av� n�z.td�,rr --I �cwd r.u.t.. 1997sr °`"rMa 4otrrdwr n... nNr Fes#e iJa ntwnw, _ _ cns� 01?05 r-__ >I_ I 0- 4- baua rr ..r ktwui. .wr.r....r L.w &A.t -•~ 4t•. I..L.r 1 ittobv saer0y thnt tNs t.y.r.wwrr warttw a.nHMsla {rtpan.l A— ABC NURTGAUt. r. bu116 • N.1po and the N :...a . 1 .w.t 4.ti vaJ' C1.a d 1tePtavrm• Surwy R.t, .d awn Is rtia L& t. K rlr" for tM r.1.4.Mrnrm a! rt, .....bet tw,r. L.�.w,•w...w.v t:et �. I f ru.. rsttdy dr,u d.rr Lr{.� .a..pyti a tlu�a rrg• Lad trr.l..wn•R, w :rely -W-:, Ihr bauduln o+db6 bw_t.....vy rr tbo*1k. d_ aN� ....p..un.y ut n�A qtr by JMP+aw...•d. r...y .cfivin.Wt t+wNwrr. tua,.l •• W:...w..� u....t...n t. 1,0 7�t Vette W fee to ur. Mini my pm of swt.r W.,,1, nwe.tx r eaw Trot'... As+ordti. er { d�1r t Mthln ttia y..h.k r, sJ . rJa.Nldnw w• xhawn hut—.• 1 nv J"il N4. : +11141.-114 �r a 20:43 •~: CLNUU TRAGI NO 1 V + . ir, — rsr•5�..rt►/1AA . --. Administrative Review 14 Case No. WA -17-06 /Duran POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA -17-06 DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 26, 2017 I, Monica Duran (name) residing at 2980 Upham Street (address) as the applicant for Case No WA -17-06 City of WheatRdge hereby certify that I have posted the sign for Public Notice at 2980 Upham Street (location) on this day of and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for ten days prior to and including the deadline for written comments regarding this case. The sign was posted in the pos:*. wnon the map below. Signature: uc 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 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 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. r City Of Wheat Pjdge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29" Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 LETTER NOTICE May 17, 2017 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA -17-06, a request for approval of a 3 -foot (20%) variance from the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 -feet and a 7 '/2 -foot (50%) variance from the rear yard setback requirement of 15 -feet for an accessory structure on property located at 2980 Upham 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 27, 2017. Thank you. W A 1706.doc www.6wheatridge.co.us 0300 030 - .ti - : mw 07300 02965 k -L, 02965 02945 03000 02970 03015 02981 wall 02971 GRANTHAM DANIEL T GRANTHAM M CHANEY DAVID LEE CHANEY GEORGIA LEE ERNESTINE GURULE MANUEL D LEYBAJOHANNA M 07300 W 30TH AVE 02970 UPHAM ST 03240 ESTES ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LAHTI ROSE B 03010 UPHAM CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 VAN DYKE NANCY K 03000 UPHAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 POTTS LANCE 02965 UPHAM ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 STIMAC MICHAEL R CHILDS JESSICA M 02971 TELLER ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 Variance Request Worksheet Address/Proposal: Wo 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: 1 0 1�,yti 1v r � Zy g•S 2�1 �� "-J r rirT iib' Meets Does not meet N/A Gd j PC'`, X LJ_ Nodal �' „u,;u.�� (2v °'.) 0 (4 2� GF,,P�{` W, v �kvje�fK.S dN Gd j PC'`, i'0'd 1U101 JUL-21-94 TNV 12:23 PM \__ ti/ P_ ci 4 OILLAN's ENGINJEERUNG, INC. 6471 Turnpike Drive, Suite 200 • Wostmirtster; CO 80030 • (303) 42&1131 i IMPROVEMENT LOCA-1'I0N CNEWFIFIGA'rE Address: 2980 UPHAM ST BOrrower(s): DURAN Title Search by: Commitment no. - Legal Description_ PER CLIENt THE Wr-ST 146.05 FEET OF THE EAST 792.1 FEET OF THE rjonTH 1:,l 56 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1 1, BARTl S SURD I V I S I ON , COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. F=Nt?. 1" IWON PIPE CTYP.) 4. SCALE: IN—tsRL7UNp P7�•_ n POOL... � Zt PUMP v PAP J� zee 4 1 S To lR Y bOG N Gw. BQrC IC HOUSeff 6l NOUSM 4$b �L =t29s0 N lsAD s CC RA L' A1.1 I- SPACH � N. U P N A M STt h to car iMsR+tetatiss char Lha -cert described woperty Is N t0 T I. Red within a 100 Y nwd iw wceardaae- with Lha ewreot IWO Federal AICXZ - 7e bawd boundary li�s➢srd licuodary n-apa- M"t'd""d 214'7-- - Map Ne- 09S07Q 0005 C Zona G � On the beau of ntY knotrlydze, tnfvrmatwa and bcbet I l.recby emiry that LION ttrlaovc_ent locattoa ast:lleslekP ABC MORTGAGE "ales any +uperri+ion sad tlat Itis Not a Land Sta vey plat or Itnpsov.nsent Survey ply, and Otat it is Not to be ieslttrtent of Comb , buildian or other future .esfYthat ro+nprorcmcnts ae We above dascaitwwnet3lom anJ faorN a.! lawd.e o are ew:rel wi{hi. Ifte ept>,t:I;ty ay ■ the bpundsaie+ of parcel, eleept w strews, thea. uyoNlnlpr-at{Ks, except as isdieat-d, apd tlt-t users u Nepon the An,orm," j` a bw denins Nay part of +aid parcel, ext ,Kt of note. -No,_Aw.rdins toColorado i.aw youeesetneotallydetect Nahto survey within three yrars after you first tiiaeovq auoh do lett. Ino creat ma -v seiiand eeaentcateed saws thae ten years fret. rho date of V.a cartifecallion shewN hereon.' Y Y Nt -yr♦e Job NO.: 464 1 —94 Fee: $95.00 CENSUS TRAC1 NO-: 107.01 DATK 29043 t To Whom it May Concern, We, the owners and residents, at 2980 Upham St would like to request a setback variance of 12ft on the North side of our property line and 6ft setback on East side of property line. Not because the existing setbacks are inconvenient, but as you can see in the photos provided,( the stakes are set at the existing 15ft variance in photos) we have an estimated 80 - year old Honey Locust tree, whose roots would be harmed if we were made to follow the existing setbacks of 15ft. We recently spent $1800 dollars having this Honey Locust tree's health accessed and trimmed . We were told by Tip Top Tree with a good trimming it would be around for us to enjoy for years to come. At that time we were also told by Tip Top Tree to make sure the concrete we are pouring for the driveway is at least 81/2 feet away from the tree roots. Anything closer would weaken the root system and would put this tree at risk. Same with a building structure. We have looked at building this garage on the South side of our property but this is not feasible. We would have to remove a good portion of our existing front and side yard to add a new driveway and would have to remove and existing 80 year Honey Locust tree, not to mention the added expense to an already existing expense of $25,000 for the structure itself. Also our sewer line runs to the SE corner of our property and prohibits using that area, along with limiting future access if sewer lines need repaired. In speaking with our neighbors, this variance would not interfere in any way with their views, impair public health, safety, or comfort. We have lived in this home for 23yrs and plan to be here for the rest of our lives. Your consideration and attention to this request is greatly appreciated. Steve & Monica Duran NOTE: Land use applications must be ► A submitted BY APPOINTMENT with a City of planner. Incomplete applications will not `)V he atD i ci ge be accepted—refer to submittal checklists. 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 %�tw 0. \.J>,,c-leyr-i Phone tJlp-Sia_o-%JEmai1 Address, City, State, Zip a %a Co -Rc-r->-3 "-;5 Owner --;�-14-,L4� IZA\ Address, City, State, Zip Contact 'Vy�\,C,-o, Address, City, State, Zip (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) • Planned Building Group 0 Site Plan O Minor (4 or 5 lots) 0�,/ Temporary Use, Building, Sign O Concept Plan O Major (6 or more lots) �Y Variance/Waiver (from Section 26- O Right of Way Vacation O Other: Detailed description of request: �-00_ Qv -.o- �vOK-�v�� > �Q �, c�. r. c,. &Z, - , X-,Od qGreLc•, C tK Cy,_, CL 1\b��� 1cC..Sr 'S; cCkk CJ� c1c�� � u -c k c Q,)-N� ra A t5S-t 5 t c\ -t (5A kk A e,,. 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 o Hers mud r�af- from the owner which approved of this action on his behalf. � I NOTARY PUBLIC Notarized Signature of Applicant_ State of Colorado ) ss County of -"Sc, 5ns-S&r, STATE OF COLORADO NO'T'ARY ID 20164015481 MISSION EXPIRES APRIL 22, The foregoing instrument (Land Use Processing Application) was acknowledged by me this &-r-111 day of 01 a 20 (7 by Jul n r c c, re,r� 1�0h— My commission expiresZ_11,2/20,2 Notary Public To be filled out by staff: Date received 6--/2-17 Comp Plan Design. Related Case No. Assessor's Parcel No. - y - Size (acres or sgft) Rev 1/22/2016 Fee $ Ino. M Receipt No. C 0 g D I Pre -App Mtg. Date Current Zoning —� Proposed Zoning Case No. Quarter Section Map --S1, 21e Case Manager Cc„+ler Current Use Proposed Use 0 Rev. 5/2014 City of W heat d COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Submittal Checklist: Variance Project Name: Q Project Location: %tJ 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 2. Application fee 3. Signed submittal checklist (this document) Y. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed . Written authorization from property owner(s) if an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s) 5 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 propertyc%,y FkwS ;T tc(ciy 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, I 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: �nr4-,,kz_g_ Date: Name (please print):IA p ni ( C6 4N S-A_ Phone.- Community hone: Community Development Department - (303) 235-2846 - www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 2017035136 414/2017 9:25 AM PGS 1 $13.00 DF $0.00 Electronically Recorded Jefferson County, CO Faye Griffin. Clerk and Recorder TD1000 N Original Note and Deed of Trust Returned to: WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Prepared/Received by: _. REQUEST FOR FULL z ! PARTIAL RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST AND RELEASE BY OWNER OF INDEBTEDNESS WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF DEBT PURSUANT TO §38-39-102 (1) (a) AND (3), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES) MARCH 30, 2017 STEVE J DURAN JR & MONICA I DURAN 2980 UPHAM ST WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 Check here if current address is unknown COORS CREDIT UNION 04il2/2014 04!17/2014 JEFFERSON, 2014028729 County Rcpt. No. and/or Film No. and/or Book/Page No. and/or Torrens Reg. No. Date Original Grantor (Borrower) Current Address of Original Grantor, Assuming Party, or Current Owner Original Beneficiary (Lender) Date of Deed of Trust Date Of Recording and/or Re -Recording of Deed of Trust Recording Information TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF JEFFERSON COUNTY (The County of the Public Trustee who is the appropriate grantee to whom the above Deed of Trust should grata an interest in the property described in the Deed of Trust.) PLEASE EXECUTE AND RECORD A RELEASE OF THE DEED OF TRUST DESCRIBED ABOVE. The indebtedness secured by the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially paid and/or the purpose of Ate Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied in regard to the property encumbered by the Decd of Trust as described therein as to a full release or, in the event of a partial release, only Atat portion of the real property described as: (IF NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION !S LISTED THIS WILL HE DEEMED A FULL RELEASE.) Pursuant to § 38-39-102 (3), Colorado Revised Statutes, in support of this Request for Release of Deed of Trust, the undersigned, as the owner of the evidence of debt secured by the Deed of Trust described above, or a Title Insurance Company authorized to request the release of a Deed of Trust pursuant to § 38-39-102 (3) (c), Colorado Revised Statutes, in lieu of the production or exhibition of the original evidence of debt with this Request for Release, certifies as follows: 1. The purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied. 2 The original evidence of debt is not being exhibited or produced herewith. 3. It is one of the following entities (check applicable box): a. ❑x The holder of the original evidence of debt that is a qualified holder, as specified in § 38-39-102 (3) (a), Colorado Revised Statutes, that agrees that it is obligated to indemnify the Public Trustee for any and all damages, costs, liabilities, and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of the action of the Public Trustee taken in accordance with this Request for Release; b. The holder of the evidence of debt requesting the release of a Deed of Trust without producing or exchibiting the original evidence of debt that delivers to the Public Trustee a Corporate Surety Bond as specified in § 38-39-102 (3) (b), Colorado Revised Statutes; or C. 0 A Title Insurance Company licensed and qualified in Colorado, as specified in § 38-39-102 (3) (c), Colorado Revised Statutes, that agrees that it is obligated to indemnify the Public Trustee for any and all damages, costs, liabilities, and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of the action of the Public Trustee taken in accordance with this Request for Release; Coors Credit Union, 816 Washington Avc. Golden, CO 80401 Name and Address of the Holder of the Evidence of Debt Secured by teed of Trust (Lender) or name and address of the Title Insurance Company Authorized to Request the Release of a Deed of Trust Tina Wickes, Lending Manager 816 Washington Ave. Golden, CO 80401 arae, TTitle and Address of O�cer, Agent ur Aaomcy of the Holder of the Evidence of Debt Secatrcd by Deal of Tnrst (Lender) l ertature — Signature ROSEANN DUGAN N t P bl' State of Colorado , County of Jefferson The foregoing Request for Release was acknowledged before me on March30, 2017 (date} by* Tina Wickes AUGUST 19, 2018 Date Conunission Expires "If applicable, insert title of oMca and name of correct ozena and holder o ary u is State of Colorado Notary ID # 20084039416 My Commission Expires 11'-134b20 otary Public "'Witness my band and official seal RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST 2980 UPHAM ST t urrent Hlluress of Vrhglnai VlalleVI, WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 Assuming Party, or Current Owner Check here if current address is unknown COORS CREDIT UNiON -b4/12/2014 04/17/2014 Original Beneficiary (Lender) Date of Deed of Trust Dale of Recording and/or Re -Recording of Deed of Trust JEFFERSON, 2014028729 Recording Information County Rcpt. No. and/or Film No. andfur Book/Page No. and/or Torrens Reg, No. TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF JEFFERSON COUNTY (The County of die Public Trustee who is the appropriate grantee to whom the above Deed of Trust should grant an interest in the property described in the Deed of Trust.) PLEASE EXECUTE AND RECORD A RELEASE OF THE DEED OF TRUST DESCRIBED ABOVE. The indebtedness secured by the Decd of Trust has been fully or partially paid and/or the purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied in regard to the property encumbered by the Deed of Trust as described therein as to a full release or, in the event of a partial release, only that portion of the real property described as: (IF NO LEGAL DESCR/PT/ON /S LISTED THIS WILL HE DEEMED A FULL RELEASE.) Pursuant to § 38-39-102 (3), Colorado Revisal Statutes, in support of this Request for Release of D=I of Trust, the undersigned, as the owner of the evidence of debt secured by the Deed of Trust described above, or a Tillc insurance Company authorized to request the release of a Deed of Trust pursuant to § 38-39-102 (3) (c), Colorado Revised Statutes, in lieu of the production or exhibition of the original evidence of debt with this Request for Release, certifies as follows: 1. The purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied. 2 The original evidence of debt is not being exhibited or produLed herewith. 3. It is one of the following entities (check applicable box): a. ❑x The holder of the original evidence of debt that is a qualified holder, as specified in § 38-39-102 (3) (a), Colorado Revised Statutes, that agrees that it is obligated to indemnify die Public Trustee for any and all damages, costs, liabilities, and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of die action of the Public Trustee taken in accordance with this Request for Release; b. The holder of the evidence of debt requesting the release of a Deed of Trust without producing or exhibiting the original evidence of debt that delivers to the Public Trustee a Corporate Surety Bond as specified in § 38-39-102 (3) (b), Colorado Revised Statutes; or C. A Title Insurance Company licensed and qualified in Colorado, as specified in § 38-39-102 (3) (c), Colorado Revised Statutes, that agrees that it is obligated to indemnify the Public, Trustee for any and all damages, costs, liabilities, and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of the action of the Public Trustee taken in accordance with this Request for Release; _ Coors Credit Union, 816 Washington Avc. Golden, CO 80401 Name and Address of the Holder of the Evidence of Debt Secured by Deed of Trust (Lander) or name and address orthe Title Insurance Company Authorized to Request the Release of a Deed of Trust Tina Wickes, Lending Manager 816 Washington Ave. Golden, CO 80401 ane, Title and Address of Officer, Agent, or Attorney of the I folder of the Evidence of Debt Secured by Deed of Trust (Lender) %nature Sienature ROSEANN DUGAN State of Colorado , County of Jefferson The foregoing Request for Release was acknowledged before me on March 30, 2017 _ - - -(date) by* Tina Wickes AUGUST 19, 2018 Date Commission Expires *Irapplicable, insert title uruflicer and name of correct owner and holder Notary Public State of Colorado Notary ID # 20084039416 My Commission Expires 11'13-2" 20 otary Public -Witness my hand and official seal RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST WHEREAS, the Grantor(s) named above, by Deed of Trust, granted certain real property described in the Deed of Trust to the Public Trustee of the County referenced above, in the State of Colorado, to be held in trust to secure the payment of the indebtedness referred to therein; and WHEREAS, the indebtedness secured by the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially paid and/or the purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied according to the written request of the holder of the evidence of debt or Title Insurance Company authorized to request the release of the Deed of Trust; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and lite payment of the statutory stun, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,1, as the Public Trustee in the County named above, do hereby fully and absolutely release, cancel and forever discharge the Deed of Trust or that portion of the real property described above in the Deal of Trust, together with all privileges and appurtenances thereto belongin . TRrj,,r Margaret I Chapman 4 fie^ Public Trustee r � 4 `'! a p opt Deputy (1Japplicable, Name and Address of Person Creating Nein Legal Description as Re * d 8-35- l06S, Calorado Regis talules) ' 0 2008 CPTA. All Rights reserved.Stacy Mosier April 04, 201dev. 07/08 City of -A gr Wh6at�idge TO CASE MANAGER CASE NO. & NAME: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Community Development Director DATE: April 27, 2017 Scott Cutler WA -17 -XX / Duran (Courtesy Review) ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 7.5 -foot (50%) variance from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement and a 3 -foot (20%) variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement, allowing a 24 -foot by 30 -foot garage to be constructed on property located at 2980 Upham Street and zoned Residential -One (R-1) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2980 Upham Street APPLICANT (S) OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Monica Duran Monica and Steve Duran 17,567 Square Feet (0.403 Acres) Residential -One (R-1) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site JURISDICTION: this - ease. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 7.5 -foot (50%) variance from the 15 -foot rear yard setback requirement for a major accessory structure, as well as a 3 -foot (20%) variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the homeowner to construct a garage in the rear (northeast) corner of their yard. 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 garage in the northeast corner of the lot. The property is located on Upham Street at the terminus of W. 301' Avenue. The existing house sits on a 17,567 square foot parcel and was originally constructed in 1954 per the Jefferson County Assessor (Exhibit 1). The property is zoned Residential -One (R-1), as are several properties to the south on Upham Street and to the east on Teller Street. Properties across Upham Street to the west and to the north are zoned Residential -One A (R -1A) (Exhibit 2). The R-1 zone district provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low-density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low-density residential character. In the R-1 zone district, a major accessory structure requires 15 -foot minimum side and rear setbacks. The proposed garage will encroach upon these required setback, prompting the request for a 7.5 -foot variance from the rear setback (50%), and a 3 -foot variance from the side setback (20%). The site plan (Exhibit 3), photographs (Exhibit 4), and proposal (Exhibits 5 and 6) illustrate that alternatives in the rear yard are not possible due to the position of an existing mature Honey Locust tree and the location of the existing driveway. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, and has already improved the property substantially with front yard landscaping and a front yard picket fence. The parcel meets minimum standards for the R-1 zone district, and the garage meets the standards for major accessory structures in residential zones. The following table compares the required R-1 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R-1 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 12,500 square feet (min) 17,567 square feet Lot Width 100 feet (min) 121.56 feet Courtesy Review Case No. WA -17 -XX / Duran Building Coverage 1 25% (max) —17.1% (with garage) Minor Accessory Building: Required Proposed Garage Building Coverage 1,000 square feet (max) 713 square feet Height 15 feet (max) 13.75 feet (at mid -roof) Rear Setback (East) 15 feet (min) 7.5 feet Side Setback(North) 15 feet (min) 12 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. 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 R-1 zone district allows accessory buildings of the proposed size, and many surrounding properties have similarly -sized garages with setbacks of less than 15 feet. The property directly to the east, also zoned R-1, has a large rear shed that encroaches into the current 15 -foot setback requirement. To note, the R- 1 A zones that surround the property on the north and west sides require a 10 -foot setback for major accessory buildings. The two immediately adjacent properties to the north and east have accessory structures in the area that would be appurtenant to the proposed garage. For that reason, the setback encroachments may be less impactful to the character of the area than if they were adjacent to an open yard. 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. Constructing a garage would allow the applicant to store vehicles currently parked in the front driveway. Building a garage elsewhere in the rear yard is possible, though it would require significant additional investment to construct a new driveway, reconfigure the rear yard, and remove mature trees. Courtesy Review Case No. WA-17-XX/Duran 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. There are no topographical conditions present on the property that create a particular and unique hardship. However, an existing mature Honey Locust tree would interfere with the construction of a garage that meets the setback requirements (Exhibit 4, Site Photos). The applicant has spent a considerable amount of money to ensure the continued health of the tree, including recent consultation with an arborist. Another smaller tree would also likely have to be removed if the garage was built to the required setbacks. The large rear yard could allow a garage meeting the setback requirements on the south side of the property, but it would require the destruction of two mature front yard trees and the construction of a second driveway through a wooded and fenced area. 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. 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. The property owner is also not responsible for the location of the mature trees. 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. Courtesy Review Case No. WA -17 -XX / Duran It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The garage may in fact have a positive visual impact on the neighborhood, if vehicles currently tandem - parked on the front driveway can be stored out of view in the new garage. 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. Surrounding properties are similarly -sized and built in similar styles. Despite a few other properties having similar conditions to the subject property, the unusual conditions necessitating the variance request for the subject property are unique only to the subject property. 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. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 7.5 -foot (50%) variance from the required 15 -foot rear yard setback and a 3 -foot (20%) variance from the required 15 -foot side yard setback. 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 to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. Existing conditions on the property present a particular and unique hardship. With the following conditions: Courtesy Review Case No. WA -17 -XX I Duran 1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Courtesy Review Case No. WA -17 -XX / Duran EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Courtesy Review Case No. WA-17-XX/Duran EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Courtesy Review 8 Case No. WA -17 -XX / Duran 02985 07240 07200 .07320 07300 Cily of 0297502960 W heat lj, e 0288b Geographic - 07255 07246" 07206 Information Systems 07305 02945 Legend 31 ST- PL 3 Subject Property AT yg,0' 03011 Residential -One (R-1) 07260 07250 07230 07200 Residential -One A (R-1 A) r0719.5 07165 (n Residential -Two (R-2) W- V 03070 03110 03113 Planned Residential r 02925 I'_02950 02935 29TH PL-�- Development (PRD) % 02830 J 03055 V 03050 Q - Q 9 03060, 03055" 02915 03035 03030 03005 03070 03000 03015 02915 02920 _ 0298D 02881 e499R 02880 07300 Courtesy Review 8 Case No. WA -17 -XX / Duran 02985 02970 02971 0297502960 0288b TWWP7180 07760 . 02945 02860 02955 AT yg,0' 03011 02945 - r0719.5 07165 (n 02960 `---�.r��.r:� W- V 40, Q r 02925 I'_02950 02935 29TH PL-�- 0 2935 % 02830 J Q - 9 d 07190 07160 02915 02925 02915 02920 _ 02840 State Plane Coordinate Projection N Ccbreda Central Zone Dawr NAD83 07425 02900. I 07308 07215 '" `: y"i:'a �^'•=:'B .` 07275 I✓Y=i — -w.�✓+= aa�.,,.,...—....�. Courtesy Review 8 Case No. WA -17 -XX / Duran EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN The applicant did not provide a site plan for the Courtesy Review. Below is the submitted site plan for the original Building Permit with staff markups showing the intended location of the garage. .0 VAI r- 1 - 0" I i I I i (Ztl(�drRu J (N)GARAGE I + I I F f I o (esk�.akd fecxka+� I` i (E) RESIDENCE SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" Courtesy Review 9 Case No, WA-17-XX/Duran EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS View of the yard facing south. The stakes show the footprint of the garage if a 15 -foot setback was required. The foundation of the garage would be approximately 2 feet from the roots, and the walls and roof would likely interfere with upper branches. (Applicant provided photo) Courtesy Review 10 CaseNo. WA-17-XX/Duran vt� ilillilill{I{II! IlNilpllllllllli IIIllllillllllllll Illllllllllii�s�, View of the south side of the property. While possible, creating a second driveway here would disturb the improved front lawn and fence, and possibly the trees shown in this photo. It would also result in a large portion of the front yard being paved. Courtesy Review Case No. WA-17-XX/Duran EXHIBIT 5: WRITTEN REQUEST #1 To Whom it May Concern, We, the owners and residents, at 2980 Upham St would like to request a setback variance of l 2ft on the North side of our property line and 6ft setback on East side of property line. Not because the existing setbacks are inconvenient, but as you can see in the photos provided,( the stakes are set at the existing 15ft variance in photos) we have an estimated 80 - year old Honey Locust tree, whose roots would be harmed if we were made to follow the existing setbacks of 15ft. We recently spent $1800 dollars having this Honey Locust tree's health accessed and trimmed . We were told by Tip Top Tree with a good trimming it would be around for us to enjoy for years to come. At that time we were also told by Tip Top Tree to make sure the concrete we are pouring for the driveway is at least 81/2 feet away from the tree roots. Anything closer would weaken the root system and would put this tree at risk. Same with a building structure. We have looked at building this garage on the South side of our property but this is not feasible. We would have to remove a good portion of our existing front and side yard to add a new driveway and would have to remove and existing 80 year Honey Locust tree, not to mention the added expense to an already existing expense of $25,000 for the structure itself. Also our sewer line runs to the SE corner of our property and prohibits using that area, along with limiting future access if sewer lines need repaired. In speaking with our neighbors, this variance would not interfere in any way with their views, impair public health, safety, or comfort. We have lived in this home for 23yrs and plan to be here for the rest of our lives. Your consideration and attention to this request is greatly appreciated. Steve & Monica Duran Courtesy Review 12 Case No. WA-17-XX/Duran EXHIBIT 6: WRITTEN REQUEST #2 Fri 04/21!2017 7:06 AM Monica Duran <mdsu111van4321@comcast.net> Re: Setback Variance Review To Scott Cutler 7 Cc Lauren Kkulak 1 Retention Policy 30 Day Retention Inbox (30 days) Expires 05121:2017 0 This item will expire in 29 days. To keep this item longer apply a different Retention Policy. You replied to this message on 04/21/2017 8:56 AM, Hello Lauren & Scott. Steve and I have been trying to look at every design option available that M=ould protect our Honey Locust tree and still meet our needs with our garage and driveway. We have reconfigured the shape of the driveway that I feel is a good compromise for all of us and would still meet our needs. With that being said we would propose reconsideration of 12ft set back north side property line to garage and 71/2 ft setback east side property line to garage. Thank you for your patience as we have been trying to work through this process and your consideration is appreciated. Monica & Steve Duran Sent from my iPhone Courtesy Review 13 Case No. WA -17 -XX / Duran EXHIBIT 7: IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE (1998) ILI AN's ENGINEFUUNCfr INC. w U4l11 )urnplkn f,}r'iw. S�Itr12uD • Wwtm�n.�r+`I; CfY &l?0'!0• 1711,7)42&17.lI IMI-KOVEMr:NT I,0CA-17100 CER'17111)UNI-E Addr nrts : 79no UI•IIAM $7 Bar rvwe r ( A : DIMAN Title aanrlph by: 00—Itmant no. I.B.Jr) 0000.-r•ipt+4n: "o -m cl IFNI I r. ►iWC61 140,Vlt 1'1'.FT Or T►IE CAST 291. 1 FIET OF 'INE Noplill t','1.bC1 FEET OF LGl d. ESLOC:K ` i / UARTMG UU11D I V 131 QN r COUNTY Of JFFFEFr :C)N, *kTA7 r OF LUI ORACIV. im 1='F,►Gr, I" IIe:OW PIPE CT'f1?k^--- -f 9tALJr; 111= 301 12' 1. Sc.' FZ1. rrrl 1.1 P W A M ST. h 41w.:r..r.utnn d.r dn.l.... w..e':Ecd r. 1 �S IN OT wesar......al.a1welrrteaRUM Ytia l AC., In Md WAN— NOygrll.b.iY.b•edbMgdglr nfY. DWS 21.*Itis - MMlin _ QP CflT7 ODt7S C . Z— ' (L.►q baau Yr..r knwl.dx., .nr......l Y,n .4•/li.L.III�ro4Ye dlat Wa -•` alilY In.wn....r Irrxlon ormMrb l'Klyrd 1� ABC M1URTGAUt. v5.411"WY 1N:t—#0qa ma that k w ..r. 1 .nA +L.y.iY IMr v foroymW-q stuvdy 54"..d a— h b � far fiN —I.I.Ia.1Y1Rn101 t. s ..<t,r. f.lu. L.q.wa�.w.n. t:ptY. I I..u.. eewy dlas IFw L.4ynn v .r..yaY. �+aedaaa arr rwaY aad uaJ..+nMr, w ...:rslyy ,"• •� the hotsdarka of d1t M+� tel. •••�M w /lbor �. auk .rte rwry 4we16a! i•�•tr ay Iwp-01'.....n1.....Y .Atd�r 1...ir,er. tata.a ..: W:...td..—r u... a.,.. is ry �•rlr Utw �awrlr1� s L--d'Mni any pm us &.a JA—f...calx r ..1. ?Itw:.,, Ae+nrd:t..1. i.d�J.la.7I+M1 r n— a►f a.feee In UW. 6WT w wndt]n dw" y.....hrr you Dre S.nn..r rlh drron. u.. -6(~Q% &bows haft—.• �..+ 4 nom! •^y d TY bq Jltlt N4.Y : AQdt-•:IA jo- 2 4 '`•t CLNUUn TRAU t NO t U 7 it t DATIc Courtesy Review 14 Case No. WA -17 -XX I Duran