HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-17-12City of
W heat ,,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 291h Ave.
October 6, 2017
Chad and Janet King
1907 Hwy 170
La Plata, NM 87418
Re: Case No. WA -17-12
Dear Mr. & Mrs. King:
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
Please be advised that your request for a 5.5 -foot variance (22%) from the front yard setback
requirement of 25 feet for a residential addition on property zoned Residential -One (R-1) and
located at 2925 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 (April 5, 2018) of the date it was granted unless a building
permit for the variance has been obtained within such period of time.
You are now welcome to apply for a building permit. Please feel free to be in touch with any
further questions.
Sincerely,
Tammy Odean
Administrative Assistant
Enclosure: Approval of Variance
Case Report
Cc: WA -17-12 (case file)
WA1712.doc
www.d.wheatridge.co.us
7500 West 29th Avenue 1' City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 ,' Wh6qatfQ�ge
03.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.28573
Approval of Variance
WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 2925 Upham
Street referenced as Case No. WA -17-12 / King; 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 5.5 -foot variance (22%) from the front yard
setback requirement of 25 feet for property zoned Residential -One A (Case No. WA -17-12 / King)
is granted for the property located at 2925 Upham Street, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this applicant,
which is not possible without the variance.
3. The request is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy's goal for the
modernization and expansion of Wheat Ridge's housing stock to make it more livable and
marketable for current and future homeowners.
4. The particular physical surrounding results in a particular and unique hardship as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience.
5. The hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
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.
With the following conditions:
The design and architecture of the proposed addition shall be consistent with
representations depipted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval
through review of a/yoilding permit.
0610
to
unity Dev*pment Director
114
City of
A Wh6atB4,jiLdige
TO
CASE MANAGER
CASE NO. & NAME:
ACTION REQUESTED
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Community Development Director
Zack Wallace Mendez
WA -17-12 / King
DATE: September 26, 2017
Approval of a 5.5 -foot (22%) variance from the 25 -foot front yard setback on
property zoned R-lA located at 2925 Upham Street.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2925 Upham Street
APPLICANT (S): Chad and Janet King
OWNER (S):
APPROXIMATE AREA:
King Revocable Trust
10,679 square feet (0.245 Acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential -One A (R -IA)
PRESENT LAND USE: Single-family residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X)
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
NEIGHBORHOOD REVIATLIZATION
STRATEGY
Site
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an
administrative decision.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 22% variance to the front yard setback for a single-family
home in the Residential -One A (R -IA) zone district. This zone district requires a 25 -foot front yard
setback. The applicant is requesting a 5.5 -foot (50%) deviation from the standard, resulting in a 19.5 -
foot front setback. The purpose of the variance is to construct a living room and garage addition to the
home.
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 an addition to the east side of the
home. The property is located on the west side of Upham Street just north of W. 291h Avenue
(Exhibit 1, Aerial). The existing single -story brick home is approximately 1,250 square feet, sits on a
0.245 acre parcel, and was originally constructed in 1951 per the Jefferson County Assessor. The
property is zoned Residential -One A (R -IA), as is much of the area to the north and west. Other
residential zone districts (Residential -One and Residential -Two) are present to the east and south
(Exhibit 2, Zoning).
The R-lA 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 residential
character. The surrounding R-1 and R-2 zone districts provide for similar density residential
neighborhoods and also prohibit activities incompatible with residential character.
The applicants are proposing a garage addition that will encroach into the front yard setback. The plans
indicate the existing one -car garage will be converted into living room space, which floor plans
indicate the current home does not currently have. The proposed garage located to the east of the
existing garage, will extend into the front yard setback approximately 5.5 feet. By process of
elimination, this is the most feasible and appropriate location for an addition. The attached survey
(Exhibit 3, Survey) shows there is room in the backyard to expand, however, this is infeasible due to
the large, mature trees located in the back yard (Exhibit 4, Site Photos). The property owners wish to
maintain the established trees, leaving few options for expanding the garage and living room without
altering the layout of the entire home (Exhibit 5, Floorplan). The aforementioned mature tree was
planted decades ago in close proximity to the rear (west side) of the home, making an addition in the
rear yard difficult.
Additionally, the home was built encroaching upon the current side yard setback by approximately 4.4
feet, and it is not possible to fit a two -car garage within the front setback requirement, as the garage
needs to sit in front of the existing home, rather than to the side. One alternative is to build a detached
garage, however access for vehicles into the rear yard is limited as only 6.6 feet exists between the
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-12 / King
existing home and the north property line which is too narrow, especially during the winter months
when snow and ice are present. This 6.6 -foot north setback is considered nonconforming and prohibits
the expansion of the home northward. The south side of the home does meet the minimum setback
requirements, but is an illogical place to build the garage, as the current driveway and one -car garage
exists on the north side with bedrooms located on the south side.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, and an investment supported by the
City's adopted Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS). The NRS calls for the rehabilitation of
Wheat Ridge's older and smaller (as compared to Jefferson County market demands) housing stock to
help homes become more marketable for contemporary homeowners. The proposed addition would
add living room space to the home, and replace an undersized one -car garage with a two -car garage
(Exhibit S, Floorplan and Exhibit 6, Elevations).
Ultimately, the proposed variance requested would result in a 5.5 -foot front yard setback.
R -IA Development Standards: Required Actual
Lot Area 9,000 square feet (min) 10,679 s uare feet
Lot Width 75 feet (min) 80 feet
One family dwelling:
Required
House + Proposed Addition
Building Coverage
30% (max)
—17.7%
Height
35 feet (max)
—12.5 feet to mid roof
Front Setback East
25 feet min
19.5 feet
Side Setback (North)
10 feet (min)
6.6 feet — addition to be built
in-line with the existing non-
conforming setback
Side Setback (South)
10 feet (min)
19.7 feet
Rear Setback (West)
15 feet (min)
62.5 feet
During the public notification period neither inquiries nor objections were received regarding the
variance request.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine
that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been
met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance
criteria (Exhibit 7, Request and 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 home, regardless of the outcome of the
variance request.
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Upham Street does not have curb, gutter, or sidewalks in this area, so there is approximately 9
feet of unimproved right-of-way along the property frontage. For that reason, the perceived
setback would be approximately 28.5 feet from the edge of asphalt. The design of the addition
will be consistent with the materials of the home, and the property two lots to the north also
employs a "snout house" design in which the garage projects further forward than the front
door and main facade. While no other home in the neighborhood appears to have a reduced
front yard setback, the 5.5 -foot encroachment into the front yard setback is minimal, will
appear to be setback further due to the unimproved right-of-way, and would likely not be a
noticeable addition. As such, the proposed addition will not likely alter the essential character
of the locality.
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. While it may be possible for the applicant to construct
the addition in the rear yard without a variance, the desire to construct the addition without
harming existing mature trees, and in a manner that is consistent with the existing layout of the
house prompts the need for this variance. The investment in the property is considered
substantial, as it creates a more livable home that is appealing to the modern homebuyer, as is
encouraged in the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. Due to the established trees on the
property and the layout of the existing home, the addition would likely be too impactful on the
property and the investment cost would likely be too prohibitive if the variance were not
granted.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out.
The protection of the existing, large, mature tree is a significant barrier in reducing the
buildable area for the living room and garage addition, as the City of Wheat Ridge is the
longest running Tree City in the Denver Metro area and desires to protect its existing tree
canopy. That being said, there is room north of the existing tree that could be utilized (at the
existing nonconforming side setback), to add portions of the desired addition to the rear of the
property. Staff finds that there is a unique hardship, rather than a mere inconvenience.
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.
Administrative Review 4
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
The property was platted in 1946, and the home was built in 1951. The current owner
purchased the property in 2014. Additionally, the large tree located in close proximity to the
rear of the home, which pushes the addition to the front yard is present in aerial imagery as far
back as 1985. As such the current owners had no hand in platting the lot, constructing the
home, or planning the tree in such close proximity to the rear of the home.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located,
by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or
impairing property values within the neighborhood.
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result
of this request.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The addition would not impede the sight distance triangle
and would not increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Trees are common in the neighborhood. However, few, if any, neighboring properties have
such mature trees so close to the rear of the existing home. It is more common in the
surrounding neighborhood to find mature trees in the front yard and located close the structure.
The infeasibility to remove the tree pushes the addition to the front yard in this instance. This is
unique to the property in question.
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.
This request is not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons
with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
This request does not trigger compliance with the Architectural and Site Design Manual.
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 22% (5.5 -foot) variance from the front yard setback requirement of 25 feet, resulting
in a front yard setback of 19.5 feet for a property zoned R -IA located at 2925 Upham Street. Staff has
found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that warrant approval of a variance.
Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this applicant, which is
not possible without the variance.
3. The request is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy's goal for the
modernization and expansion of Wheat Ridge's housing stock to make it more livable and
marketable for current and future homeowners.
4. The particular physical surrounding results in a particular and unique hardship as distinguished
from a mere inconvenience.
5. The hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
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.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and architecture of the proposed addition 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 -17-12 / King
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-121 King
Wh,&atf<k1gc
Geographic
Information Systems
Legend
Q Subject Property
Displayed Zone Districts
Residential -One (R-1)
Residential -One A (R -1A)
Residential -Two (R-2)
Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
Planned Commercial
Development (PCD)
P rD
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING
f—
Cn
e
-28TH AVE
31ST -PL
29TH -AVE
-*29TH PL
Stale Plane Coordinate Prolectlen N
Colorado Central Zone
Detutn. NAD83
8
L
ED O
t O
+ O
OU
�30
CD
a4o
>- -
W w 0
to m
H 10
N to .
N O
Z.C
~ O C
Wto.._-
mU
N
W m
] o rn
0111
Ex
a-
L
— m3
0 0
0
0
t
O
a
a
P
TA
� se
EXHIBIT 3: SURVEY
a
`
d9
290 2r
eY
�i
py
—h_
s
f
_
m
g ggi $s I
� $ I S
s
of
cY 6��i•
R
I xil 16AoS
I
I
`g1�1
I1 I
gg ee
6j
Upham S t r a e t (30' RO W.)
80.00,
w 1"
°o
Von cs St reef
Administrative Review 9
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
—h_
_
— _ —�--_
--
It IC �Y
p
WEBSTER
ORO VE
SUED/Vl S/ON
Von cs St reef
Administrative Review 9
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS
Administrative Review 10
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
View of Upham Street looking north. The subject property is located on the left past the large tree
in the foreground. This image shows the large presence of mature and stable trees in the area, which
the applicants wish to maintain.
Administrative Review 11
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
EXHIBIT 5: FLOORPLAN
M
L -E" N
I
I
I
I
6
4
Administrative Review 12
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
i
I
MJYEL3 WlVA 1NOtl1
i I LS
I
I
I
I',
o
LL la
a
y l
E
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
_Ti_ __
M
L -E" N
I
I
I
I
6
4
Administrative Review 12
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
0
�
MJYEL3 WlVA 1NOtl1
M
L -E" N
I
I
I
I
6
4
Administrative Review 12
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
EXHIBIT 6: ELEVATIONS
U Z LL �
Z
U��—�? 00 ?JO
z a�w�a w
0
O p= OFtnUZu�zou�¢w
> C2):
WNL Z��
QW' eF-0�FUQ�UZZ� QU �UWC)
rOo�gWaQW .u(D
Z�pi-wwF? to U Q
o 0
m —E > 5 0 9 J� � J J� Q� Z � Q' O
u'SY-- 88 'oiwz3°°ZQ¢3L, CDcn0ci
WIN W O
Or o
0 04
i'�'^^ O Q p
' V r
N� C
O
ED
j
rM1 _y
/ 4Gtl^
q
w
o T
� � 2
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-12 / King
W
MllU
J
y� U
Fm,�j, ��OUtu
?�a�$j{S�iLzi�Wro
�IY���02�+wwV pgp�
y,�O gF��Ofu�
Au
:? s m K g o F z Q <W
p.
j' .23FEl
- k
0 J O N WJp� WyF J 2,,,LL
Q
C -1,
r
_ *€¢04w mW�w
II Ell�°uF,d
�,yy � y V QF V ppU
z �c.��Nd
O
Q q
w°
J OW
a
t9
N
a W
w
z
t o
� O
0 0
Q
.
W �
z
Q ti
�I\ W
o w
-
ti
Eo
OQ
I�
Z o
Q LUo
C3
�
I D
13
EXHIBIT 7: REQUEST AND CRITERIA
[see attached]
Administrative Review 14
Case No. WA -17-12 /King
August 3, 2017
Jared and Miranda King, on behalf of Chad and Janet King
2925 Upham St
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Variance Request to the City of Wheat Ridge
The property at the address listed above is a single-family dwelling with an existing under -sized
single car garage and no living room space on the main level. We have hired the architects at
Cult Creative, LLC to design an addition which will include new living room space and an attached
two -car garage. The site constraints are such that the existence of two large trees in the backyard
prohibits locating the addition on the back of the house; however, the space available between
the front of the existing house and the minimum front setback requirement is not enough to
accommodate the addition. Another existing issue is that the assumed north and south property
lines (as indicated by the location of the existing fences, driveway and building footprint) are off
by roughly 4' than previously thought, and so the existing house footprint overhangs the minimum
side yard setback by 4' on the north side of the property.
Considering these issues, we are requesting a variance to allow us to extend into the minimum
front yard setback by up to 50% and to align the addition with the existing north wall, which would
mean situating it 4' over the minimum side yard setback. Please consider this request, along with
our responses to the Variance Review Criteria below.
Variance Review Criteria Responses:
1. The return in use would not be the same should the homeowners be required to abide by
the minimum setback requirements as an attached two -car garage would not fit within the
limitations. The homeowners would be required to locate the garage detached at the far
northwest corner of the property in order to avoid the largest tree in the back and would still
have to relocate the smaller of the two trees. Only the living room addition would fit within the
setback requirements.
2. We are endeavoring to match the material, roof slope and character of the existing structure
with the addition.
3. As the existing home does not have an attached garage that fits modern-day cars nor any
living room space on the main level, the addition would pose a substantial investment in the
property and create great added value for resale.
4. The existence of the established trees in the backyard are a great asset to the property,
creating substantial shade in the warm months, and relocating one to accommodate a
significantly detached garage would be a hardship. Relocating both to accommodate an
attached garage would be virtually impossible.
5. There is no hardship associated with outside interest in the property.
6. Granting the variance creates no detrimental side effects for adjacent property owners. The
intention of the side yard setback and what it is designed to protect is in essence still in
effect as each of the north/south-facing property lines, at least on the west side of the 2900
block of Upham, are off by the same amount, so a 20' minimum between the houses still
exists. The variance would likewise neither present a detriment to public welfare, property or
neighborhood improvements nor increase congestion or fire danger.
7. The north- and south -facing property lines as previously discussed above are off on each of the
properties on the west side of the 2900 block of Upham Street. The other hardships discussed
are unique to this property.
8. Not applicable as this is a single-family dwelling.
9. Not applicable as this is a single-family dwelling.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Jared and Miranda King on behalf of Chad and Janet King
Administrative Review 15
Case No. WA -17-12 / King
—Rc i try of
W heat R�ijge
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. WA -17-12
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: September 25, 2017
✓ (name)
residing at 2`25 �ra�� S�rce�t
(address)
as the applicant for Case No. WA -17-12 hereby certify that I have posted the sign for
Public Notice at 2925 Upham Street
(location)
on this 3� day of and do hereby certify that said sign has been
posted and remained in place for ten (10) days prior to and including the deadline for written
comments regarding this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below.
Signature:
NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Comm ity Development Department for this case
and will be placed in the applicant's case file.
MAP
�of
Wheat�ge
PUBLIC POSTING REQUIREMENTS
One sign must be posted per street frontage. In addition, the following requirements
must be met:
■ The sign must be located within the property boundaries.
■ The sign must be securely mounted on a flat surface.
■ The sign must be elevated a minimum of thirty (30) inches from ground.
■ The sign must be visible from the street without obstruction.
■ The sign must be legible and posted for ten (10) continuous days prior to and
including the deadline for written comments [sign must be in place until 5pm on
September 25, 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.
i f 6
City of
Wheat Midge
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29`h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
LETTER NOTICE
September 14, 2017
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA -17-12, a request for approval of a 5 1/2 -foot
(22%) variance from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 25 -feet for an
addition on property located at 2925 Upham and zoned Residential -One A (R -IA).
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 adiacent property owners are required to be notified of the request.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846 or
if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in
writing by 5:00 p.m. on September 25, 2017.
Thank you.
WA1712.doc
www.ci.w heatridge.co.0 s
Site
Site Plan
29'THAVE-
F1
BRADLEY TRUMAN GONZALEZ AMANDA EMMONS ROBERT E JR KING REVOCABLE TRUST
2930 VANCE ST 2950 UPHAM ST 1907 HIGHWAY 170
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LA PLATA NM 87418
MARY BAKER MILLS TRUST
2945 UPHAM ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
WHITNEY DAVID 1 WHITNEY SHARI L
2940 VANCE ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
MURPHY KATHERINE A
2960 UPHAM ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
SANCHEZ WILFRED G JR HERNANDEZ-
SANCHEZ CYNTHIA
2915 UPHAM ST
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
DA,�?
CULT CREATIVE
ammxyn oxp�mM
eme.yna<uc,.W «m
Fn��eC M1,<nl�wG<n .<om
TI
SE-
ARCHITECTS'S BEAL
A
ENGINEERS SEAL
2
4'-10117
-
EXISTING CONCRETE
I
WING RM
PROVIDE 112' MINIMUM GYP BD
ON GARAGE SIDE OF WALL.
I
CONSULTANT
�llf
_____________ -__� -_-_— -_-_- -_-_— -------
- -_-_i — — O
ADDITION--- 3 c _ ------------------------- JI
ji
263S _
_ I 18•-413/16• E. 1
PROVIDE A 20 -MINUTE
2
DOOR BETWEEN GARAGE 1
ARNCD LIVING SPACE PER GARAGE 1
- !
LINE OF NEW
CONCRETE DRIVE 2
•
SOS SF
r — — — — — --- ---� --�
WOOD F RAMED FLOOR- 1 SEALEDLLOOONRCRETE
CONTINUE EXISTING WOOD
FLOORING INTO ADDITION
1 BU ILT IN CABINETS I
,^
G
L — — — —AND WORK SURFACE
A706
A106
4
L p
U
Lu ti
vl p
O
Z �"
o
-- -- 6'-311116"Z
L
h
U
EXTENSION BEYOND SETBACK LIMIT
I
N�
~
ti
Q
DATE
1 A105
V
09.11.2017
DN
A106
—
W
CD
4'
a
tt' EXISTING GRASS
m
Z
O
a
�o
p ZO
FLOOR PLAN
BDAL
1
Sheet No.
A102
0of
9/1212917eat Ridge -4 CDBH
ZONING APPLICATION FEES
Cp001041
FMSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES
PAYNE1660 RECEIVED
AUTH CODE: 02389D
TOTAL
ANGUNT
yf�6.66
AMOUNT
200.00
200.00
NOTE: Land use applications must be
submitted BY APPOINTMENT with a
01[y ^of planner. Incomplete applications will not
be accepted—refer to submittal check]ists.
LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
Community Development Department
7 00 West 29t\h Avenue a Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2845
\1 ilnt or type all information)
C, _, . �.\ 1
Applicant 1 Phone S— ' mail \L\ fl \k 0�
Address, City, State,ZipQ�s
0
C�
Owner , one Email � C
i
Address, City, State, Zip
Contact C`vl� _CoSneti� =xt
Gl
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): �� C`nc `
OMco 5c
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your
0 Change of Zone or Zone Conditions O Special Use Permit 0 Subdivision — specify type:
0 Planned Development (ODP, SDP) 0 Conditional Use Permit O Administrative (up to 3 lots)
0 Planned Building Group 0 Site Plan 0 Minor (4 or 5 lots)
Temporary Use, Building, Sign 0 Concept Plan 0 Major (6 or more lots)
Variance/Waiver (from Section 26- ) 0 Right of Way Vacation 0 Other:
Detailed description of equest:
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 owners must submit power-of-attorney
from the owner which approved of this actyon on h v behalf c_
Notarized Signature of Applicant G V
State of Colorado
County of%q-f % } ss
' __.._ _
The foregoing instrument (Land Use Processing_ Application) was acknowledged by me this _4� day of i v 1� 120/)
by S 5 , Lt1 f�Ta.n/
ROBIN LEE EATON
My commission expires //2001 Notary Public
State of Colorado
No-!ry Public Notary ID ii 2016403453
To be filled out by staff:
Date received
Comp Plan Design.
Related Case No.
Assessor's Parcel No.
Size (acres or sgft)
Rev 1/221 20 16
Fee $
Receipt No.CDM \�'1
Pre -App Mtg. Date _
Current Zoning
Proposed Zoning
Case No. _W A. n—J-7
Quarter Section Map
Case Manager
Current Use
Proposed Use
Rev. 5/2014
City of
wheatd
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Z!
Submittal Checklist: Variance
Project Name: Ltd�� 9��
Project Location: 2125 ti. — SAve-t-kOvLe0.k CZ�dge I co stZ33
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)
✓4. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed
�Z5. Written authorization from property owner(s) if an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s)
vl'6. Written request and description of the proposal
_✓ Include a response to the variance review criteria—these are found in Section
26-115 of the municipal code
Include an explanation as to why alternate designs that may comply with the zoning
standards are not feasible
✓ Include an explanation of the unique physical hardship that necessitates relief
7. Survey or Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) of the property
✓ 8. To -scale site plan indicating existing and proposed building footprints and setbacks
✓ 9. Proposed building elevations indicating proposed heights, materials, and color scheme
As applicant for this project, 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, l will be subject to the applicable resubmittal
fee.
Signature: Date: Ttl(( 2 t
Name (pleas print): Cky'ea JC,(ttG) Phone:
Community Development Department - (303) 235-2846 - www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
� �, � �-L
u��c-� coca-`�- �� 2125 v��av-��,
�, �r c��s�c��
�=�,
� j �Z�\`1
Q
w
Q
r
O >
w ¢ o
w
CLQ
z w
J W W H Z z
d�zQzO O
J
�'
C—D
(n�Qw, J>f2
U
N
J
LLJ��
U U UJ 0
-
O w Z w Z> O Q ¢
U
z O SW�O
� Of U U) LL l�
W W m z
W W
YUP C7(�(D(DU)F-cn
W
xm> o �E
��:rww iWi
zZYZZZZO_ZO
z-�JHf-HI-a
`,
OOQ�'OaNQ~=o
z
-J U) < n(nwwom0
of
V
Z
?
w¢z~twi
>wz=pwa<U3zz
WXWwWWWWa0w
W
a0OKMwwWx
O
(nQmfnUOWLLC7LLS
��//
LL
00.2UW-Ju oo!=Lu,zwm
Q>(GEO-zoi0�o¢,
Q
1332i1S WdHdfl
LLI
o�QZNowF<N2W
\Q
/
a W
wN�xww oa
Ox�OHi)U¢FO
m
2~— W } W¢ W D W
w x z F H x o H U
�K2F-wQa N-
3NI1.11b3dOZld
O
�yooa}ucxiZ�z
z
=
LL
ozZOW�WaOWOW
w O Q w x z W H Wo U
0f -F -F ap W
M20 U W V w~ F~~ J Q
11
U_ — U_O
vUwR.JOxW to
<J
uai¢x aaLLN3
W
M
co Cl)
L
I
I
co
I
w
I
I
I
Q
W
Iw
w
z
z
J
I}-
Q N w
U-
J
H
w
Of
O
I
I
°°
Q
Z£/6 L L- .uj
9 i
Ur
II
I
it
Q
Y
m
F w ---i'
w U)
m
? IWCi—
p
U
J CO
�---------------------
- I
9
-
-
---- -r�
o
Z_
H S
X w
-
U
Z ��
NO
00
UJ
3N1-1,k-UJ3dMJd
C/)
Q o
00
wd 1�,:Z t:C Z iisis
wUZz w0 Zo
QQ�< - Q O 1-0�
J a -
E—
Q
w H w o
Z= Q Z W x
W
O0U= W - 2U1-�2Q Z_F CD wZWOf
L7
W Z Q m Z Z_ _%
f—
W��� Qo- Z-wz�� F_WW0of0
U J
J
_
0E- F- (D ~C7Q10U�zcn QVOwUW(D
Lb
U
wzWpHwwH�QQo-QvaQwQ-i
Jfn> 2(n§J��
mmLU > ~Oo�W
}CO JJ�Q�ZwZXO
xw Ox wxw—pZJ—O O Q—QF-
W YQUW ooUW Z�I–QQ�IiUH❑C7cnU` cn
Oax�auNia�F�
xx a�Nxxo
3�z�OZwa�3vZ
zW xFKaJQ z
aa_3UWza.w w
N
OaVwpOOtw=Zww
J K S x H
_
_
U>Lj j H W 3~~ U U w
QW (L0 Kzyo 3JLLK
K z
_
O w
W
0 J N Q W
at) QZNOKF_22N%w
O N
o
J
O
o
1
o
J
O
o
z W Wa W=o-P W>K!_
W,Do�2}U Jago
� V
O
U
I
r�nn
V
O
U
r
Z W W S 6 Z m W x U F U
N
U
U m Q
U)
-
fax>LL,<a. �z
wwo�QamXwz'z<
�
woawlzw..Ma,
Nit -map Ox¢a JU
LU LLI
Z
M
z~
w
W F F W UQ m o o x
— U 5 O
Z
O
� i
O
d W K m K LL 0.
3
U
Z
F
m¢ as
QC/)O
M
O
� W
m
W
w
OU
w t°
J
J
W
O
w
C14
Lo
N
Q
2
m
w
M �.
�
%
`
7
L
O
\ /
❑
Q
Q
Q
uj
Q
O0
r�
W
w
z
J
o
M
w
W
Q
N'ad
Q
cj�
Ui
C6
Q
U
J W
co
O
M O m 0 Q
N 0') 1�,
Z
o
N
pp O O
r r
06
O
N
W O
0
r
Q
wd t7z:Zi.EZi1919
August 3, 2017
Jared and Miranda King, on behalf of Chad and Janet King
2925 Upham St
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Variance Request to the City of Wheat Ridge
The property at the address listed above is a single-family dwelling with an existing under -sized
single car garage and no living room space on the main level. We have hired the architects at
Cult Creative, LLC to design an addition which will include new living room space and an attached
two -car garage. The site constraints are such that the existence of two large trees in the backyard
prohibits locating the addition on the back of the house; however, the space available between
the front of the existing house and the minimum front setback requirement is not enough to
accommodate the addition. Another existing issue is that the assumed north and south property
lines (as indicated by the location of the existing fences, driveway and building footprint) are off
by roughly 4' than previously thought, and so the existing house footprint overhangs the minimum
side yard setback by 4' on the north side of the property.
Considering these issues, we are requesting a variance to allow us to extend into the minimum
front yard setback by up to 50% and to align the addition with the existing north wall, which would
mean situating it 4' over the minimum side yard setback. Please consider this request, along with
our responses to the Variance Review Criteria below.
Variance Review Criteria Responses:
1. The return in use would not be the same should the homeowners be required to abide by
the minimum setback requirements as an attached two -car garage would not fit within the
limitations. The homeowners would be required to locate the garage detached at the far
northwest corner of the property in order to avoid the largest tree in the back and would still
have to relocate the smaller of the two trees. Only the living room addition would fit within the
setback requirements.
2. We are endeavoring to match the material, roof slope and character of the existing structure
with the addition.
3. As the existing home does not have an attached garage that fits modern-day cars nor any
living room space on the main level, the addition would pose a substantial investment in the
property and create great added value for resale.
4. The existence of the established trees in the backyard are a great asset to the property,
creating substantial shade in the warm months, and relocating one to accommodate a
significantly detached garage would be a hardship. Relocating both to accommodate an
attached garage would be virtually impossible.
5. There is no hardship associated with outside interest in the property.
6. Granting the variance creates no detrimental side effects for adjacent property owners. The
intention of the side yard setback and what it is designed to protect is in essence still in
effect as each of the north/south-facing property lines, at least on the west side of the 2900
block of Upham, are off by the same amount, so a 20' minimum between the houses still
exists. The variance would likewise neither present a detriment to public welfare, property or
neighborhood improvements nor increase congestion or fire danger.
7. The north- and south -facing property lines as previously discussed above are off on each of the
properties on the west side of the 2900 block of Upham Street. The other hardships discussed
are unique to this property.
8. Not applicable as this is a single-family dwelling.
9. Not applicable as this is a single-family dwelling.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Jared and Miranda King on behalf of Chad and Janet King
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0$000
2016077006
a 08/05/2016 09:22:11 AM 2 Page(s)
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Colorado
1 WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED is dated 2016, and is made between Chad R. King and Janet
S. King, collectively the "Grantors," of the County of San Juan and State of New Mexico, and King
Revocable Trust UTA dated February 3, 2005, the address of which is 1907 Highway 170, La Plata,
New Mexico 87418 the "Grantee."
WITNESS, that the Grantors, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS
($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby grant, bargain, sell,
convey and confirm unto the Grantee and the Grantee's successors and assigns forever, all the real
property, together with any improvements thereon, located in the County of Jefferson and State of
Colorado, described as follows:
The South 80 feet of Lot 8, Freeman's Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado,
also known by street address as: 2925 Upham Street, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033.
TOGETHER with ANY AND ALL WATER RIGHTS GRANTOR HAS OR MAY HAVE
IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE; and
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto
belonging, or in anywise appertaining, the reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof,
and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantors, either in law or
equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances; and
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the
appurtenances, unto the Grantee and the Grantee's successors and assigns forever.
The Grantors, for the Grantors and the Grantors' heirs, successors and assigns, do hereby
covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, and the Grantee's successors and
assigns: that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, the Grantors are well seized
of the premises above described; have good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of
inheritance, in law and in fee simple; and have good right, full power and lawful authority to grant,
bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid; and that the same are free and
clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and
restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except and subject to: ❑ none; or ® the following
matters: those of record and property taxes for 2016.
This is an exempt transfer between related parties.
RETURN TO: DUGAN & ASSOCIATES PC, 900 MAIN AVENUE, SUITE A, DURANGO COLORADO 81301
And the Grantors shall and will WARRANT THE TITLE AND DEFEND the above
described premises, but not any adjoining vacated street or alley, if any, in the quiet and peaceable
possession of the Grantee's successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons claiming
the whole or any part thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this deed on the date set forth above.
/ Az' �,,, �� _
ad R. King
—
K or
Janet S. 'ng
STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN JUAN )
dw-
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.,�/-' day of July, 2016, by
Chad R. King and Janet S. King.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: l+� �� �/ ;Lao
Notary Public
RETURN TO: DUGAN & ASSOCIATES PC, 900 MAIN AVENUE, SUITE A, DURANGO COLORADO 81301
2
tJ}
SW Corner
Webster Gro Pe (4734)
SU_U`dM310n 473, 00
Found Pin w. -^^—'�s--
Illegible cap
!I
f
Chain Link Fence
1' East of PL
Choin Link Fence
4.3' North of PL
Grain Link Fence
0.6' Fast of PL
5' S'
SII
West ..D0f h Avenue
LEU,ND;
wce
UE
PL
(633:35)
Chain Zink Fence
13' North of PL
we
62.5'
133.56' _ —1
i
Set 18" Long #5 Rebar
Found
—
#4 Rebar
Indicated as a Witness
83.02' Found
Corner to Actual Corner
(6.3:35) j/3 Rebar
NZ
Set 18" hong #5 Rebar
0
Checked by: CDR
at Boundflry Corner Position,
unless indicated otherwise.
O(
Set Chiseled Cross with
tb
on Concrete.
z
Gas Meterr
v
rb
1
f
`e.ltiifl:y Poia
+^a
AJ
tJ}
SW Corner
Webster Gro Pe (4734)
SU_U`dM310n 473, 00
Found Pin w. -^^—'�s--
Illegible cap
!I
f
Chain Link Fence
1' East of PL
Choin Link Fence
4.3' North of PL
Grain Link Fence
0.6' Fast of PL
5' S'
SII
West ..D0f h Avenue
LEU,ND;
wce
UE
PL
(633:35)
Chain Zink Fence
13' North of PL
we
62.5'
133.56' _ —1
i
Set 18" Long #5 Rebar
with 2" Alloy Cap L.S.
—
No. 38091 at Distances
Indicated as a Witness
Igned by.
Corner to Actual Corner
Position.
Set 18" hong #5 Rebar
with 1-1/4" Red Cap L.S. No. 38091
Checked by: CDR
at Boundflry Corner Position,
unless indicated otherwise.
O(
Set Chiseled Cross with
Disc L.S. 38091
on Concrete.
z
Gas Meterr
v
Electric fvl eiP.r
1
f
`e.ltiifl:y Poia
AJ
etr t
c
Overhead Utility tines
0
Fencing
`,..._
Utility Easement
�
Property tine - -
Lot LJne Camman
-- — to lots 7 x g
n
T
Record Dimensioning in Parentheses
._.AEe— of._tlgncern
(See Note 6.)
NO! 1h Line South 80' Lot 8 -
i
r
�L zs
1's--Story11Brick
'A,rrA,L
i
Residential a
2.0'
CLNCFE is
FCL'£f5
L. __J�uv Building
I f
_a -
r''
26.8'
Chain Link Fence
.32' f{orth of Pi..
<.
5:7oin URA-
4.4,
ink4.4, North of PL
133.48'
8'
50{r`ti7 Lit22 Lo,` 8
re_a Of Concarn
(See Note 6.)
Lot Line
(P/ot _ 133 56) --- —
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
1 inch = 20 feet
West 29th
(733.5&)
133.43'
c;r l
A variate
chi
Found Pin w.
Illegible Cap
34.8'
M
0
say,.
PROJECT.
—
UNIT:
Igned by.
,n
I
Drawn by: J4VR
Date -..Uy
Checked by: CDR
O(
p m
G
z
v
f
iron Har
etr t
c
q
t) �
L
n
T
0
V
<.
5:7oin URA-
4.4,
ink4.4, North of PL
133.48'
8'
50{r`ti7 Lit22 Lo,` 8
re_a Of Concarn
(See Note 6.)
Lot Line
(P/ot _ 133 56) --- —
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
1 inch = 20 feet
West 29th
(733.5&)
133.43'
c;r l
A variate
chi
Found Pin w.
Illegible Cap
34.8'
M
0
say,.
PROJECT.
—
UNIT:
Igned by.
,n
I
Drawn by: J4VR
Date -..Uy
Checked by: CDR
O(
p m
G
Foundi
f
iron Har
etr t
c
q
t) �
L
19
No.1 Revisions
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Per Deed Reap. No. 2076077006)
The South 80 Feet of Lot 8, Freeman's Subdivision,
County of Jefferson, State of Colorado.
1.) in preparing this survey, the undersigned surveyor was not
provided a title policy or commitment by the client in order to
aid the surveyor in the research of title and recorded
rights-of-way and easements affecting the subject property.
2.) Certification Defined: The use of the word "certify" or
certification" by a registered professional surveyor, in the
practice of land surveying, constitutes an expression of
Professional opinion regarding those facts of findings which are
the subject of the certification, and does not constitute a
warranty or guarantee, either expressed or implied.
3.) Notice: According to Colorado law you must commence
any legal action based on any defect in this survey within three
years after you first discover
such defect. In no event, may any action based upon any
defect it, this survey be commenced more than ten years from
the date of the certification shown hereon.
4.) The U.S. Survey Foot was used in the measurements of
this survey,
5.) The area of the property is 10,679 sq. ft., more or less,
6.) The east -west fencing, and as such, the property lines as
occupied for premises immediately west of Upham Street
appear to have been positioned in a north -south direction from
the existing V'x2" Iron Bar found 4.3 feet north of the
southeast corner of Lot 9 as depicted hereon.
The owner of the subject property is cautioned to seek
agreement with the neighboring property owners and/or advice
of counsel before exercising normal ownership rights south of
the shown southerly fence line to the South Line of Lot 8 as
surveyed herein; and of maintaining its occupation; of the
property between the North Line of the South 80 Feet of Lot 8
as surveyed herein and the shown northerly fence line,
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct surrey of
the above described parcel, and was performed by me, or -
under my direct supervision, and that the locations of all visible
improvements are properly shown hereon, that there are no
visible encroachments by or on sold premises, except shown,
and that all easements, known to me either by ph Ic I
inspection or of record provided, affecting saidp rcel are
shown hereon.
0
Not Valid Without
Signature And Date
AEGIS Surveying, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING CONSULTANTS
3395 Yates Street Denver, Colorado 80212 (303)477-9319
FREEMANS i PORTION LOT 8
Improvement Survey Plat
Scale: 1" = 20' Sheet 1 of 1
Project No.: 87101
Date: _July, 20'17 File No.:
PROJECT.
—
UNIT:
Igned by.
Drawn by: J4VR
Date -..Uy
Checked by: CDR
0
Not Valid Without
Signature And Date
AEGIS Surveying, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING CONSULTANTS
3395 Yates Street Denver, Colorado 80212 (303)477-9319
FREEMANS i PORTION LOT 8
Improvement Survey Plat
Scale: 1" = 20' Sheet 1 of 1
Project No.: 87101
Date: _July, 20'17 File No.: