Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/17I City of WheatP,idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA July 27, 2017 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on July 27, 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM (TMs is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA -17-05: An application filed by Robert Alldredge for approval of a 20 - foot variance from the mirumum rear yard setback requirement of 25 -feet for an accessory structure on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at 6085 West 39a Place. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS S. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes— September 22, 2016 9. ADJOURNMENT Individuals with disahilities are encouraged to participate in all puhlic meetings sponsored by the City of WheatRidge. Call Sara Spaulding, Puhlic Information feud, at 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. 2. 9 4. 5. City of �WheatRj�idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting September 22, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Kuntz at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29a` Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Alternates Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING Thomas Abbott Dan Bradford Janet Bell Paul Hovland David Kuntz Betty Jo Page k Larry Richmond Michael Griffeth Sally Banghart Lily Griego Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary A. Case No. WA -16-14: An application filed by David Lombardi for approval of a 3 - foot variance from the 6 -foot fence height maximum, resulting in a 9 -foot fence on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at 6840 West 36a` Place. The case was presented by Zack Wallace. He entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. He stated Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 1 all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the digital presentation. Mr. Wallace stated this case was originally an administrative review by the Community Development Director; however, objections were received during the public noticing process, giving the Board of Adjustment jurisdiction to hear and decide upon the case during a public hearing. Staff also received a letter and a call in support of the fence height variance. A major factor in this variance request is an existing 3 -foot tall retaining wall and grade change on the property line between the subject property and the neighboring property to the east. Board Member PAGE asked who the retaining wall belongs to and Board Member GRIFFETH asked who the chain link fence belongs to. Mr. Wallace explained they both belong to the multi- family property. Board Member ABBOTT asked if there is also a retaining wall on the west side of the applicant's property. Mr. Wallace stated there is not and there is very little grade change to the west. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the 9 -foot fence will be free standing or attached to the retaining wall and chain link fence. Mr. Wallace stated the freestanding fence will sit on the property line and must be engineered. Board Member KUNTZ asked how things will be handled if the retaining wall need repair and maintenance. h. Ms. Reckert explained that the discussion will be a private matter between property owners and the City will not be involved. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if the doors looking into the subject property from the apartments are the front or back doors of the multi -family units. Mr. Wallace said he believed they are the back doors, and this could be verified by the property owner, who was present at the meeting. Board Member HOVLAND asked if both structures meet the setback codes. Mr. Wallace said the single family structure meets the 5 -foot setback, but the multi- family structure does not meet the required 15 -foot setback. Board Member Griffeth asked if the two letters in opposition were from the same person. Mr. Wallace stated they are and have been included in the Agenda Packet. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 Board Member RICHMOND wanted to know why the fence is not proposed to go the length of the house to block the view from the multi -family units into the windows on the side of the single family house. Board Member KUNTZ asked where the fence has to start tapering to a lower height when moving to the front of the house. Mr. Wallace said the applicant could respond to Member RICHMOND's question and Ms. Reckert stated the fence can start to taper from the front corner of the house in the direction of the front property line. David Lombardi, Applicant 6840 W 36"' Place, Wheat Ridge, 80033 Mr. Lombardi was sworn in by Chair KUNTZ. He answered a few of the questions presented by the Board. The first being the maintenance of the retaining wall and the access to it. He stated he will have the engineers design a fence so the retaining wall is in full view and have the fence floating. He also explained he has three large windows on the back of his house and that is why he positioned the fence toward the back of the property. The smaller windows on the side of the house get the blinds closed more frequently so no one can look in. He is very concerned for his lack of privacy by the tenants looking into his windows, back yard and garage. He has three young boys and is sometimes concerned for their safety. Mr. Lombardi also explained there is trash left out by the back doors including cigarette butts and trash bags that blow into his yard. Snow is also thrown into his property from the retaining wall area. Mr. Lombardi tried to have conversations with the multi -family property owner regarding the installation of a fence, but she didn't want to do any maintenance to a fence although the cost and maintenance would be done by him memorialized by a written agreement. Mr. Lombardi tried to sell house, and the brokers' remarks indicated that the home is great, but the view from the back yard is undesirable. Chair KUNTZ asked if the nice side of the fence will face the applicant's property or the multi -family property. Mr. Lombardi stated he could face the nice side either way, as long as he can build a fence. Board Member PAGE asked what rooms are behind the windows on Mr. Lombardi's house. Mr. Lombardi explained the back of the house windows are the kitchen, dining room and a child's bedroom and the side of the house windows are another child's bedroom, bathroom and another bedroom. Board Member GRIFFETH commented on the letters sent by the multi -family building owner, Ms. Portacarrero. Ms. Partacarrero states a fence will block sunlight and not let ice melt during the winter time for the back of the apartments. Also, she states the fence will make her property look bad. Board Member GRIFFETH wanted to know how Mr. Lombardi felt about the comments. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 Mr. Lombardi said he will build a fence that looks good because he will be looking at it himself. He also stated there is a walkway on the other side of the building that does not get much sun and it is dealt with. Board Member HOVLAND wanted to know why Mr. Lombardi doesn't feel it's necessary to continue the fence down the side of the house, but only in the backyard. Mr. Lombardi stated he thought the fence had to end at the back of the house, but if he can go to the front corner of the house he would. Board Member HOVLAND asked if that would make a difference in the variance request. Ms. Reckert said it would not make a difference because the variance is for the height of the fence, not the distance and that it could be a condition of approval in the motion so it is clear where the fence can exceed 6' in height. Chair Kuntz asked if a car could still drive into the backyard whergarage is, if the fence afence is installed. Mr. Lombardi explained that a small car would still fit. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if the applicant had the same privacy issues when they purchased the house in 2010. Mr. Lombardi stated the house was a perfect starter home and they did not have children at the time so there were not privacy issues like there are now. Victoria Portocarrero, Owner of the multi -family building to the east. 4008 W 99' Place West Ms. Portocarrero stated that these two properties have coexisted for 60 years and there have not been issues. She thought it might be better to plant trees and bushes for privacy instead of a fence. She explained that she is a responsible landlord and if neighbors ever call with complaints she handles them right away. Ms. Portocarrero does criminal background checks on all of her tenants and does not allow undesirable tenant to live in her units. She also feels a fence will block sunlight from melting snow and ice and would not be aesthetically pleasing. Chair KUNTZ asked if she would think of putting up some type of amenity like a screen wall that both tenants and neighbors could enjoy. Ms. Portocarrero asked how she would attach it and who would maintain it. Board Member ABBOTT wondered how wide the sidewalk is by the back doors of the units. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 Ms. Portocarrero replied 2-3 feet wide. Board Member GRIFFETH agreed with Ms. Portocarrero about the lack of sunlight not melting ice and snow. He does not think a 9 foot fence in this back yard is going to set precedence in the City of Wheat Ridge. Board Member BELL stated that it is hard to come up with conclusions to preexisting issues that were created before the City of Wheat Ridge was incorporated in 1969. Board Member HOVLAND stated this case presents unique circumstances. If there was a 15 -foot setback and no grade change this case would be a different variance. He does hope if this variance is passes, then the fence will be done in good taste. Chair KUNTZ thought it would be a good idea to add a condition to the motion of having the nice side of the fence face the multi -family building. Board Member GRIFFETH added this fence may not be made out of wood and could look good on both sides. Also, there could be a percentage of the fence open which could help with the melting of snow and ice. Ms. Reckert reminded the Board that to have the fence 80% open would leave it ineffectual and the material would have to be wrought iron; also, the applicant would have to agree to the nice side of the fence facing in a certain direction as a condition of approval. Discussion continued regarding maintenance and construction of the fence. Chair KUNTZ commented that the back doors of the multi -family units are an amenity for those renters to sit on their back patio and enjoy the sun. Board Member PAGE feels there is too much cement for a tree or bush to grow so this is not a good solution. Board Member BRADFORD added his concern for the blocking of the natural light and the creation of a corridor effect if a 9 foot fence is installed which would be detrimental to the apartment building. Board Member PAGE asked how high a vertical structure has to be to be considered a fence. Ms. Reckert replied that a fence is any divisional barrier between two properties. Board Member HOVLAND asked if this height variance is approved if the applicant could put a fence up, or if a new owner could build a wall. Ms. Reckert stated the choice of material is the decision of the property owner, but she does not think a wall would be built due to the cost of materials. Any owner after Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 the current owner could not take down a fence and build a wall. The new owner would have to get a new variance. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member PAGE, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -16-14 was not eligible for review by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing and City of Wheat Ridge NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16-14 be, and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for Approval of a 3 -foot variance (50%) from the maximum fence height of 6 -feet. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The property would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The particular topographical condition of the property as well as the setback of the adjoining apartment complex results in a particular and unique hardship. 3. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property by any person. 4. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment that would not be possible without a variance. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The variance applies only to a fence along the eastern property line. 2. A building permit shall be obtained for all portions of the fence over 6 feet in height. 3. The finished side of the fence shall face the adjacent property. 4. A 6 inch vertical gap be left between the bottom of the fence and the cement slab. Motion was DENIED by a vote of 3-5 with HOVLAND, BELL and GRIFFETH voting for and RICHMOND, ABBOTT, KUNTZ and BRADFORD voting against. 6. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 Chair KUNTZ closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — August 25, 2016 It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member PAGE to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 5-0-3 with Members ABBOTT, BRADFORD, AND HOVLAND abstaining. 8. ADJOURNMENT Chair KUNTZ adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. David Kuntz, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes September 22, 2016 TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: City of Wh6atP,iLd �gc CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment Scott Cutler WA -17-08 / Alldredge DATE: July 21, 2017 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 20 -foot (80%) variance from the 25 -foot rear yard setback requirement for rear yards which abut a public street, allowing a 24 -foot by 20 - foot garage to be constructed on property located at 6085 W. 39' Place and zoned Residential -Three (R-3). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6085 W. 39th Place APPLICANT/OWNER: APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Robert Alldredge 5,036 Square Feet (0.115 Acres) Residential -Three (R-3) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 20 -foot (80%) variance from the 25 -foot rear yard setback requirement for rear yards which abut a public street. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the homeowner to construct a 24 -foot by 20 -foot garage in the rear (northwest) corner of their yard. The garage is planned to comply with the required 5 -foot side yard setback. II. CASE ANALYSIS The variance is being requested so the property owner may construct a garage in the northwest corner of the lot which abuts W. 40"' Avenue. The property is located on W. 39"' Place between Ingalls Street and Harlan Street (Exhibit 1) in the Harlan Court Subdivision, described further in the Subdivision History section below. The existing house sits on a 5,036 square foot parcel and was originally constructed in 1952 per the Jefferson County Assessor. The property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3), as are all of the properties on W. 39ffi Place, W. 39ffi Avenue to the south, Ingalls Street to the west, and Harlan Street to the east. Properties across W. 40ffi Avenue to the north are zoned Residential -Two (R- 2), Commercial -One (C-1), and Residential -One C (R -1C) at the corner with Harlan Street (Exhibit 2). 6025 W. 40u' Avenue, just to the northeast across W. 40ffi Avenue, is an active land use case pending City Council approval; the property is proposed to be rezoned to R -1C and split into two buildable single-family lots. The R-3 zone district provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable medium to high-density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the medium to high-density residential character. In the R-3 zone district, a major accessory structure generally requires 5 -foot rear setbacks if at or under 10 feet tall or 10 -foot rear setbacks if over 10 feet tall. However, since the rear yard abuts a public street, W. 40u' Avenue, the required setbacks increase to 25 feet for all structures. The proposed garage will therefore encroach upon this required setback, prompting the request for a 20 -foot variance from the rear setback (80%). The proposed garage location (Exhibit 3) is at the rear of the property along W. 40ffi Avenue. The garage is similarly sized and similarly located as other garages in the area. Part of the proposed garage aligns with an existing small shed on the neighboring property to the east. The elevation drawings provided by the applicant show a two -car garage with siding, a small window, and shingles (Exhibit 4). The site photographs provided (Exhibit 5) show the existing fence along W. 40ffi Avenue where the garage would be located. The fence is 6 feet tall and runs close to the substandard sidewalk along the street. The existing homes and accessory structures are mostly one story, and the proposed garage would be at or below the height of these structures. W. 40ffi Avenue acts as a rear access to the homes on the north side W. 39ffi Avenue; many residents store trash and recycling bins there, and have gates to access their properties. Many of the surrounding properties are non -conforming to the minimum lot size in the R-3 zone district, and have structures with non -conforming setbacks (Exhibit 6). Several garages on surrounding Board ofAdfustment 2 Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge streets are set back less than 25 feet. Most garages are set back in the range of 5 feet to 10 feet. The map provided in Exhibit 6 indicates that five properties in the immediate subdivision have non- conforming garages and/or the primary buildings are non -conforming. One additional property, 6088 W. 391' Place, had setback variances approved in 2008 for all three street frontages. The surrounding area is a mix of single-family homes and duplexes, with two multifamily buildings at the corner of W. 391' Place and Harlan Street. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, particularly since the existing home does not have a garage or additional storage space. Development Standards The parcel does not meet minimum standards for the R-3 zone district. The garage meets the standards for major accessory structures in residential zones. The following table compares the required R-3 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R-3 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 7,500 square feet (min) 5,036 square feet Lot Width 60 feet (min) 50 feet Building Coverage 40% (max) —28.9% (with garage) Major Accessory Building: Required Proposed Garage Building size 600 square feet (max) 480 square feet Height 15 feet max —11 feet at mid -roof) Rear Setback (abutting public street) 25 feet (min) 5 feet Subdivision History The property was subdivided as Lot 3 as part of the Harlan Court Subdivision approved by the Jefferson County Commissioners in 1951. The subdivision originally contained 10 lots. W. 39"' Avenue was the southern boundary of the subdivision, Ingalls Street was the western boundary, W. 401h Avenue was the northern boundary, and Harlan Street was the eastern boundary (Exhibit 7). At the time of construction of the majority of the homes, a private alley was built along the interior of the common shared lot lines of the subdivision. The alley was privately owned but named W. 39"' Place. Many of the homes built fronted this interior roadway and were eventually addressed to it, including the subject property. The original Harlan Court Subdivision dedicated 15 -foot easements along the shared edges of the lots, which allowed W. 39"' Place to be created within a 30 -foot total easement. The private roadway known as W. 39"' Place was not built to the City's standard road construction section for width and pavement thickness and was inadequately maintained by the homeowners. In 1987, the subdivision residents approached the city to inquire about dedication of this private roadway. In 1988, W. 39"' Place was dedicated to the City Council by a dedication plat, the "39"' Place Roadway Dedication Plat" (Exhibit 8). Dedication of 39u' Place as a public street resulted in the creation of numerous nonconforming setbacks in the subdivision. Over time, lots 3, 4, 7, and 8 of the Harlan Court Subdivision were further re -subdivided subsequent to the original plat approval, which was noted on the dedication plat. Lot 3 was subdivided into parcels A (subject property, 6085 W. 39"' Place) and B, now 6065 W. 391' Place. Board ofAdjustment 3 Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 9). 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-3 zone district allows accessory buildings of the proposed size, and many surrounding properties have non- conforming setbacks for primary and accessory structures. At least five of the surrounding properties on W. 39"' Place and W. 39"' Avenue contain non -conforming structures or setbacks, including garages with setbacks of approximately 5 feet. A small shed located on the neighboring property to the west has a setback of approximately 5 feet. At least one property, 6088 W 39"' Place, had a variance approved to reduce the required side and rear setbacks due to multiple street frontages. The general appearance and proposed materials of the garage will be consistent with other homes and garages in the neighborhood. 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 that conforms to the rear setback requirements is not possible due to the narrow lot and placement of the existing home. The 25 -foot setback requirement on both sides of the home limits the ability of the applicant to make investments in the property. 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 Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Although the property is rectangular in shape and is flat, there are unique conditions related to the physical surroundings that hinder the development potential of the vacant portion of the property. Double -fronted lots (lots with streets along both the front and rear property lines) are prohibited in the current Subdivision Regulations. Given the existing 25 -foot setback requirements on both the front and rear boundaries, and the 5 -foot side setback requirements, a limited portion of the lot is buildable. It is a City policy that garage setbacks cannot be between 5 and 18 feet in length. The purpose of the regulation is to allow setback encroachments where there will not be the possibility of vehicles parked in the driveway extending into public rights-of-way (Sec. 26-625 C). While the intent of this policy was to regulate allowable setback encroachments for accessory buildings associated with a non -conforming primary structure, the policy has been applied to other land use cases. This further limits the location of the garage, since a setback greater than 18 feet would not allow enough space for a garage due to the position of the existing home. Five of the 11 lots in the subdivision have nonconforming setbacks adjacent to streets, and one additional property received variances to reduce the required setbacks (Exhibit 6, map). 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. 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, and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge The request does not comply with existing sight triangle requirements for driveways, which requires 15 feet from the edge of pavement. However, several existing garages on the surrounding streets, including another garage that faces W. 401' Avenue, do not comply with these regulations. West 40"' Avenue carries minimal amounts of traffic at low speeds so this is not a concern. Staff finds this criterion has been met. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There are unusual circumstances which impact all of the homes in this subdivision due to the public dedication of W. 39a' Place and the 25 -foot required setbacks from the front and rear property lines. The neighborhood is unique in that there are a large number of nonconforming setbacks, including encroachments to the extent of or beyond this application. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 20 -foot (80%) variance from the required 25 -foot rear yard setback for rear yards which abut a public 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 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. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge 5. No objections were received regarding the variance request during the public notification period. 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. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge EXHIBIT 3: PROPOSED LOCATION Ir .i 0 Board ofAdjwtment 10 CareNo. WA-17-08/Alldredge EXHIBIT 4: GARAGE ELEVATIONS xtr �L wu�p HEVPmx SII i Til -1-14 � I II III � r. -1! II I I �I III �s-m�-,. Board ofAdjwtment CareNo. WA-17-08/Alldredge so 11 4t g EXHIBIT 5: SITE PHOTOS View of the property from W. 40a` Avenue, facing southeast. The garage would be located to the left of the neighbor's red and white shed. Note that W. 40a` Avenue is used by some W. 39a` Place residents to store trash bins and for parking. Board ofAdjustment 12 Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge View of the frontage on W. 39"' Place. The garage would be located behind the home, and would not be visible from this view. The lot is narrow and the home is built at or near the required front and side setbacks. An additional view looking east on W. 40"' Avenue. The garage would be located to the right and the driveway would connect to the street with a new curb cut. For many residents on W. 39"` Place, 40"' Avenue functions as a rear alley, with trash pickup and additional parking. Board ofAdjustment 13 Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge EXHIBIT 6: NEARBY NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES A non -conforming garage located on W. 39"' Place, with setbacks of less than 5 feet. This garage was constructed when the street was a private drive. However, it is in character with the surrounding area. A similar garage exists on W. 40"' Avenue, where the proposed garage is located. A non -conforming garage located at the corner of W. 39"' Place and Ingalls Street. This garage also has a driveway between 5 and 18 feet, which would not be supported by staff today. Board of-4djustment 14 Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge 6088 W 39h Place received a variance in 2008 to reduce all setback requirements. This property has three street frontages, none of which meet the 25 -foot standard. Board of-4djustment 15 Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge A map showing the surrounding properties with non -conforming setbacks. The subject property is outlined in bright red. Each non -conforming property has a garage located within the required 25 - foot setback. Board ofAdjustment 16 CareNo. WA-17-O8/Alldredge EXHIBIT 7: HARLAN COURT SUBDIVISION HARLAN COURT —�3—k is D E' C x11101 T. Grkix�4.e.a L PPFOV AL$ T. CLERK RECDRDEA� 11-- V t���J➢ Y _ Board ofAdjustment 17 Case No. WA-17-08/Alldredge EXHIBIT 8: 39TH PLACE ROADWAY DEDICATION PLAT J -F71/ FACE .4OAOWAY alPIMMO.4 PLAT /N Hq.PL4.0 COURT_ SOBO/Y/S/OU PLOT Sh NEh SE4 sex, 79S, Fs9w C/TY OF Y✓NEA>R/OGE, WEF RSONCOVA7Y STATE OI.N(O,P,4p0 LOTS 12,J, 4 7 d 9 AuD p //M(LS/✓E s WEST 407A AWNOE WES T. 39TH AY6Wr z4 nib a, ✓ �THa.E v a m...um,va.nwum .�kcu.1 i W 4 r W � ••-^ 3 [ TL "I m..... 7. na.. W p nALi e SR WES T. 39TH AY6Wr z4 nib a, ✓ �THa.E v a m...um,va.nwum .�kcu.1 i W 4 r W � ••-^ ..aa, a Mu. w ,2c m :..�v �' m..... 7. na.. Board of-4djustment 18 Case Mo. WA-17-08/Alldredge EXHIBIT 9: WRITTEN REQUEST June 30, 2017 Re: variance request for 6085 W 39th PI Review criteria: variance 1. Currently there isn't any garage on the property, therefore the addition of a 2 car detached garage will make the property more functional and usable. 2. As the garage would be added to the rear of the property and conform to the general neighborhood, the character would not really change as a number of garages and homes are located within 5 feet of a front or rear property line. 3. If the variance is not granted, I would not build any garage on the property. 4. The use and configuration of the garage would be compatible with the neighborhood. 5. The request for the variance is common in older neighborhoods in order to bring the property up to normal use in the 21" century. 6. As the proposed garage would be at the rear of the property, there wouldn't really be any adverse impact on the neighbor's property. 7. There are many structures that sit within 5 feet of the front or rear property line and my 1 story garage is not as tall or large as some of the other structures in the immediate neighborhood. Respectfully submitted Robert L Alldredge Applicant and owner Board ofAdjustment 19 Case Mo. WA-17-08/Alldredge EXHIBIT 10: JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORD PIN/schedule: 300024314 AIN/Part)IN: 39 293-19-003 Status; : Active Property Type: Residential Property Address: 06005 w 39111 PI Owner goal WHEAT RIDGE CO 900335153 Atto REOGE ROBE RTL Mailing Address: 00902 WADSV IDUH BLw LAKEWOOD Co 80214 Neighborhood: 2905 - BART11s, CODLEHAN GRANGE, WHEAT RIDGE AREA Subdivision Name: 330600 - HARLAN COURT rummaging iV tU Land Si t 0003 BOA 124 3 s9 sw 5035 tal 5036 Asso Assort wiM scM1etlul Interactive May ma 33293. tlf Property Type REEID Year Buil: 1952 Adjusted Year Built: 1952 Design: 1 Story/Ranch Improvement Number:O Won sett Number of Units Average Covered Parl 122221 63 Base Bath Average I First Floor Average M 236 Betlrmm(Move Gmde)Awmge 2 Carport Averagel 171 Hot Water Heat 1736 Vpiral Lnra0on BomdefAji,v, Cess Na WA 17 GllAIlArdge