Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-17-16CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION I, Tammy Odean, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, on the 14th day of December 2017. CASE NO: WA -17-16 APPLICANT'S NAME: Fred Zietz Jr. WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -17-16 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; 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 the City of Wheat Ridge; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -17-16 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 456 sq. ft. (76%) variance from the 600 sq. ft. maximum for a major accessory building in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district for a garage addition. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 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. A friendly amendment was offered by Member ABBOTT to add the following reasons: 5. This is a 20,707 sq. ft. lot. Board of Adjustment Page 1 6. The garage will sit 133 ft. from the street and completely behind the primary structure. 7. All setback requirements are exceeded. VOTE: YES: ABBOTT, BANGHART, BELL, BRADFORD, GRIFFETH, HOVLAND, KUNTZ, and RICHMOND NO: ABSENT: PAGE ADOPTED and made effective this 14th day of December 2017. 6dN v� et Bell, Acting Chair Board of Adjustment Tammy Odra, Secretary Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Page 2 r City of WheatMidge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29th Ave. 303.235.2857 December 20, 2017 Fred Zietz Jr. 4485 Independence Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Mr. Zietz: RE: Case No. WA -17-16 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: At its meeting of December 14, 2017, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request of a 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings, allowing a garage addition to be constructed on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) and located at 4485 Independence Street. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 5. This is a 20,707 sq. ft lot. 6. The garage will sit 133 ft from the street and completely behind the primary structure. 7. All setback requirements are exceeded. 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. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes, stating the Board's decision. All variance approvals automatically expire within 180 days of the date approval unless a building permit for the variance is obtained within such period of time. The expiration date for this variance approval is April 26, 2018. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 235-2846 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tammy Odean Administrative Assistant Enclosures: Draft of Minutes Certificate of Resolution (to follow by separate mailing) cc: WA -17-16 (case file) WA1716.doc www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 1. `►/41 ofi�9�Wh6atPjd,ue BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting December 14, 2017 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BANGHART at 6:59 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present 3. 4. VF Alternates Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No.WA-17-16 Thomas Abbott Sally Banghart Janet Bell Dan Bradford Paul Hovland David Kuntz Michael Griffeth Larry Richmond Betty Jo Page Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Scott Cutler, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary The case was presented by Scott Cutler. He entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. He stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the presentation and staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of a 456 sq. ft. (76%) variance from the 600 sq. ft. maximum for a major accessory building in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone Board of Adjustment Minutes December 14, 2017 district located at 4485 Independence Street. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a garage addition and it would meet all other development standards including height and setbacks. Staff recommends approval of this variance. There are unique circumstances attributed to this request that warrant approval. Member KUNTZ asked if the school was notified regarding this variance. Mr. Cutler said the school was in the 300 ft. noticing radius and there was no comment. Member RICHMOND said he was confused about the addition of the number on page 2 of the agenda packet. Mr. Cutler explained that the existing garage is already over the maximum square footage for a major accessory building, but the variance is only for the percentage over the 600 sq. ft. maximum. Member KUNTZ asked about there being multiple garage doors and wondered why. Fred Zietz, owner 4485 Independence Street, Wheat Ridge Mr. Zietz explained that the intention of the addition to the garage is strictly for storage. The multiple garage doors are because they are bigger in size and easier to get larger items in and out of storage. Member Griffeth asked why the addition was not permitted before construction started and wanted to know what the building department is doing to make this wrong a right. Mr. Zietz said it was an oversight on his part. The cement pad had been poured years ago and it was a mistake on his part to start building without the city looking at plans and getting a permit. Mr. Zietz added there was a stop work order then a courtesy inspection with a few minor details he has to adhere to and he will get a permit if the variance is approved. Mr. Cutler added that to complete the building permit process there will be a final inspection. Mr. KUNTZ asked where the sheds are located that will be demolished. Mr. Zietz said they are on the south side of the property. Member ABBOTT asked if the sheds being demolished is a condition of the variance. Mr. Cutler confirmed it is not a condition, but can be added to the motion. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 14, 2017 2 Ms. Mikulak added that major and minor accessory structures cannot be lumped together in the maximum square footage for accessory buildings, but the sheds are considered minor strictures. Member KUNTZ added that the shed being demolished could be added as a condition. Member HOVLAND asked if the one phone call received was only an inquiry and not a protest. Mr. Cutler confirmed that is was only an inquiry. Upon a motion by Member KUNTZ and seconded by Member HOVLAND, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -17-16 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were no 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 the City of Wheat Ridge; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -17-16 be, and hereby is, APPROVED TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 456 -square foot variance (76%) from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings in the Residential -three (R-3) zone district. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 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 of Adjustment Minutes December 14, 2017 3 A friendly amendment was offered by Member ABBOTT to add the following reasons: 5. This is a 20,707 sq. ft lot. 6. The garage will sit 133 ft from the street and completely behind the primary structure. 7. All setback requirements are exceeded. Motion carried 8-0. 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BANGHART closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — October 26, 2017 It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member Thomas BRADFORD to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 6-0-2 with Board Member GRIFFETH and HOVLAND abstaining. Ms. Mikulak confirmed with the members that Ms. Griego had submitted her resignation from the Board of Adjustment effective immediately. She also mentioned that the BOA Bylaws were last updated in 2006 and there will be more clarity made to the attendance policy when updated. Staff will create a redline copy of the Bylaws for a BOA discussion, then approval. Mr. Griffeth asked if Ms. Griego's seat will be filled by one of the alternates in district II. Ms. Mikulak said this is possible, but the replacement process will be confirmed through the City Clerk's office. Member ABBOTT asked if City Council will have the BOA appeal the sign code. Ms. Mikulak said the BOA will only review sign code if there is a variance and Planning Commission will review the master sign plans and City Council will approve them. 8. ADJOURNMENT Chair BANGHART adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Janet Bell, Acting Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes December 14, 2017 4 TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME City of Wheat �dge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment Scott Cutler WA -17-16 / Zietz DATE: December 7, 2017 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings, allowing a garage addition to be constructed on property located at 4485 Independence Street and zoned Residential -Three (R-3). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4485 Independence Street APPLICANT/OWNER: APPROXIMATE AREA PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Fred Zietz 20,707 Square Feet (0.475 Acres) Residential -Three (R-3) 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. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the homeowner to complete construction of a 384 -square foot addition on an existing oversized (672 -square foot) detached garage in the backyard, which results in a 1,056 - square foot accessory building. IL CASE ANALYSIS The variance is being requested so the property owners may construct a storage room addition to an existing detached garage in the western portion of the lot. The property is located on Independence Street north of W. 44h Avenue in the Juchem Garden Place Subdivision of Wheat Ridge. The existing house sits on a 20,707 -square foot parcel and was originally constructed in 1912, and reconstructed in 1958, per the Jefferson County Assessor (Exhibit 1). The property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3), as is the property immediately to the north, and a property two lots to the south (Exhibit 2). Properties to the north and east are zoned Residential -Two (R-2) and contain a mix of duplexes and single-family homes. The properties immediately to the south and east on Independence Street are zoned Agricultural -One (A-1). Commercial zones, primarily Commercial -One (C-1), are located further to the south along W. 44th Avenue. Pennington Elementary School is located behind the subject property to the west. 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 is limited to 600 square feet per dwelling unit. The proposed addition on the existing accessory structure will further exceed that limit, prompting the request for a 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum. The site plan (Exhibit 3) shows the proposed location for the storage addition, attached to the existing detached garage. The detached garage is located in the backyard behind the existing one-story house. A smaller brick outbuilding is also located in the backyard. The existing garage is 672 square feet, which exceeds the current R-3 zone district standards by 72 square feet. There are no records indicating when the existing garage was constructed. The elevations (Exhibit 4) and floor plan (Exhibit S) show a custom-designed structure with a roof matching the existing garage, windows, and two 9 -foot door bays. The structure would be 10 feet tall at mid -roof, topping out at 12 feet at the peak. The site photos provided (Exhibit 6) show that the addition is partially constructed. After receiving a stop work order from the City's Building Division, plans were submitted August 31, 2017 for the proposed accessory structure addition. The plans cannot be approved as drawn unless and until a variance is approved. The applicant received a courtesy inspection from the Building Division on Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -17-161 Betz October 16, 2017, re -confirming the need to apply for a variance, and the Building Division provided comments on the construction that has been completed to date. The parcel meets minimum standards for the R-3 zone district, but the proposed addition will make the accessory structure further exceed the building size allowance. The following table compares the required R-3 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R-3 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area (one -family dwelling) 7,500 square feet min 20,707 square feet Lot Width 60 feet min 110 feet Building Coverage 40% (max) -16.1% (with garage) Major A ceessory Building: Required Proposed Building Building Size 600 square feet max 1,056 square feet* Height 15 feet (max) 10 feet (at mid -roof) *The addition will add 384 square feet onto an existing 672 square foot building, which already exceeds the building coverage requirements (600 square feet) by 72 square feet. Public Comment As of the date of distribution of this staff report, December 8, 2017, the City has not received letters from surrounding property owners. Staff received one call from a neighbor asking for information on the variance request. If letters arrive between the delivery of this staff report and the Board of Adjustment hearing, they will be entered into the record and provided to the Board members during the hearing. 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 7, Written Requests). 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. The surrounding zoning is a mix of R-2, R-3, and A-1. Each of these zone districts has different limitations on the size of major accessory structures. The R-2 zone allows accessory buildings up to 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and the A-1 zone does not limit the size of individual accessory buildings, but limits overall building coverage to 25% of the lot. The subject property Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -17-161 Zietz is almost entirely surrounded by the R-2 and A-1 zones, which allow for accessory buildings with footprints closer to the proposed size. Multiple properties in the immediate vicinity have detached garages and accessory buildings, although most fall within the range of 400-900 square feet. The building is set back approximately 20 feet from the northern property line and is partially screened by a fence and row of trees. The neighbor to the west is Pennington Elementary School. It is unlikely that the addition will make a visual impact on surrounding properties because of its location at the rear of the lot and behind the existing structure. The oversized lot further dilutes the impact the addition would have on its surroundings. With the addition, the building coverage on the subject property would be approximately 16%, well under the 40% limit. 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. The applicant has noted they are removing some dilapidated small sheds on the property and consolidating the items stored in sheds and in the backyard, into the garage addition. While the addition in its current arrangement requires a variance, the applicant has an option that would not require a variance. Because the existing smaller shed (a minor accessory structure) is 192 square feet, the applicant is able to construct a second shed up to 208 square feet on the property, which would be the maximum allowed square footage for minor accessory structures. Alternatively, the applicant could remove all minor accessory structures and construct a new minor accessory building up to 400 square feet. Despite these alternatives, there is merit to the applicant's proposal to consolidate storage into one structure instead of several smaller outbuildings. Additionally, the existing home has no basement and limited storage capacity. Due to the position of the home, the driveway, and other structures on the lot, adding a storage room directly onto the home is not feasible. 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 lot is large and flat, with a rectangular shape. Staff finds no unique physical hardship. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -17-16 /Zietz The applicant has created their own hardship by starting construction on the garage addition without obtaining a building permit and by proposing a design which does not comply with the applicable zoning standards. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. 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. The garage addition helps to provide much-needed storage for the applicant, including enclosing large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and are visible from Independence Street. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The condition in the neighborhood which may support this request is the prevalence of other zoning designations (A-1 and R-2). As noted above, only two properties are zoned R-3, while the majority of the street is A-1 or R-2. This unusual zoning pattern was inherited from Jefferson County when the City incorporated. The proposed garage addition could be built under the A-1 zoning without the need for a variance. Under R-2 zoning, the proposed structure would require only a 5.6% variance request, which could be processed administratively. 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. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -17-161 Betz 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 456 -square foot (76%) variance from the 600 -square foot maximum for major accessory buildings in the R-3 zone district. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 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, and subject to a final zoning inspection. 2. The structure shall not be permitted or used as a dwelling unit. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -17-16 / Zietz W heat jz�logc. Geographic Information Systems Legend Q Subject Property J EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL 0480, W 04595 09709�W-,09707 �� Slate Plane Coordinate Projection •M N 1 CO Drado Central Zona Datum. "D83 mueelrnao Board of Adjustment 7 Case No. WA -17-16 /Zietz EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Zo�at v'oge Geographic Information Systems Legend Q Subject Property Residential -Two (R-2) Residential -Three (R-3) Agricultural -One (A-1) Commercial -One (C-1) Planned Commercial 04690 04675 04670 04665 04640 04655 04485 _ 04480 04483 ' 04483 "460 , 04449 04455 04440 04449 04445 09895 09859 09751 0970909701 09695 Sir* 09709 09701 09695 09685 Ln 09730 09720 55 09690 09684 09800 Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -17-161 Betz 09505 rw State Plan Coordinate Projection N Cobrado Contra; Zone Datum: NAD83 -. anecaaonacxe ...k ` ,..-. ....y�""' .r 8 EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN S INCO � ArdUcecnrtM e�Engineng35urveying 8471 Turnpike Drive, State 200 Westminster, CO 80030 (303) 4Z6-173 1 V iL��n� 124 Maln Stmt. Suite 211 Dillon, CO 80435 M701262-6795 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE GALE ; I Iln,�O 0 S I sway pR,LK or BtDti. 16 2Ye 3Q'ct R FIRL 2 CAP w ti G4ixAGE N 0 7 4! 8 •i O. M 54 N v.1 r swz) rRAME HousE jggs H 22 I n � I CAR i yoL n 69y GA"&IL 5� Coy Ant,mv bho0 I � Aln;lnl YS)� Alegi I1o,ob "• INDEPENDAA/C6 Sr �_; 29043 SKEET Zap Z flow VA2tB5) '�• S GF ••04YAL 508 = 46 25''98 DATE 4A� Board of Adjustment 9 Case No. WA -17-16 / Zietz EXHIBIT 4: ELEVATIONS I?x 6' ancho( bah Simpson 90°hdd dam ' westeleaeadan i i 112'x Vandal bolt i IR'x6•anchorboh Simpson 90^ hold down Simpson W bolddown I?x6'idror bok -v=W hold dorm Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA -17-16 / Zietz _ L4silplale ON SITE PLANS a x 13 flue lam .'•1 U57 BE ON SlTF. FOR INSPFCFION W }ICHIt a...n-.,�r>Rvr.„�„x�Cg` -- —� \ AL Mu cis as APPROVED 2K6 RdtM 1111 --`I`\ I glyl7 12 3-33 L 3x4flre '� 1 Galvanized L.._ 4z6headn 1 B"M-9 at L Ix6heider cmugated \�ldPF 416 ortlo metal siding _ _ _ - : 2*4 vT exteda 48x36wYdow i i 48x36 wNdwi Plywood 8 Feet 122 Feet 7x4sti1ds I?x 6' ancho( bah Simpson 90°hdd dam ' westeleaeadan i i 112'x Vandal bolt i IR'x6•anchorboh Simpson 90^ hold down Simpson W bolddown I?x6'idror bok -v=W hold dorm Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA -17-16 / Zietz _ L4silplale EXHIBIT 5: FLOOR PLAN Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -17-16 /Zietz Existing structure N T ;L 8 a N d �) W 0 O - 26 8b a 0 i 0 Cq Lrr a 0 spy .05 , uOY Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -17-16 /Zietz Existing structure W O O OD Ul u07 11 a 0 - 26 8b W O O OD Ul u07 11 EXHIBIT 6: SITE PHOTOS Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA -17-16 / Zietz r Another view of the addition looking south. The room is meant to contain materials currently stored outside and in smaller sheds, which have been decommissioned. (photo provided by applicant) Board ofAdjustment 13 Case No. WA -17-16 /Zietz View of the property looking west. The garage addition would be located behind the existing house. The framing is slightly visible from this angle (behind the lower portion of the house), but is mostly obscured. W Another view of the property looking west. The single-family home on the subject property is located at the right of the image, and the minor accessory building (shed) is located at the center, behind the parked truck. The property to the south, 4483 Independence Street, is located on the left and has a 576 square foot detached garage in the backyard. The garage addition is not visible from this angle. Board of Adjustment 14 Case No. WA -17-161 Betz EXHIBIT 7: WRITTEN REQUEST Here are my updated answers to the criteria questions. Let me know what you think. Thanks! 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. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A building coverage variance will not alter the character of the locality. The lot size is over 21k sq. ft.. The existing structure is 672 sq. ft. The proposed structure size is 384 sq. ft. for a total of 1,056 sq. ft.. this translates to a 1.8% increase of building coverage on the subject property which will likely be imperceptible. The proposed structure is within existing setback and height requirements and the impact to neighbors is expected to be minimal. 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, which would not be possible without the variance. The existing home has no basement and little storage, and the existing garage is just large enough for two cars with minimal storage. It is typical for the contemporary homeowner to desire storage space and off- street covered parking and the proposed structure will serve these needs and add value to the property. 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 unique condition that affects this property relates to the current zoning of the lot (R-3). The surrounding properties are zoned A -I and R-2 which both allow for larger (1,000 sq. ft.) seondarystructures. The proposed structure will only exceed the A-1, R-1, and R-2 square foot limit by 56 sq. ft.. Building coverage with the proposed structure will be at 11.4% which is less than half the R-1 limit of 25% and well below the R-2 and R-3 limits of 40% coverage. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Board of Adjustment 15 Case No. WA -17-16 / Zietz The alleged difficulty relates to the size of the proposed structure with respect to the existing zoning regulations. Because the current owner neither platted the lot, nor constructed the existing home and garage in their current locations, the difficulties have 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, 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. The neighbors to the immediate north and south of the property were consulted about the project and voiced no objections. 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. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The structure will actually have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered storage of large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the public right-of-way. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Not sure how to answer this... 8. N/A 9. N/A Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA -17-16 / Zietz City of ]� RMMUNiTyWheatjjdge 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 (As required pursuant to Code Section 26-109.D) November 29, 2017 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you of Case No. WA -17-16, a request for approval of a 456 sq. ft. (76%) variance from the 600 sq. ft. maximum for a major accessory building on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at 4485 Independence Street. This request is scheduled for a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The schedule is as follows: Board of Adiustment December 14, 2017 (ai), 7:00 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you, City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. If you need inclusion assistance, please call Sara Spaulding, Public Information Official at 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting. WA1716.doc - - • 046'0 ' _ 04655 _ 04617 M , 04568 I 04600 04585 I 04601 04540 04617. 04595 I 045% 04565 04540 04617 M 045950459b 04565 04520 04585 — 5 0 04520 & 04580 04545 04575 4617 04. ` �� 04509 04, 85 04485 04505 `--- ansa a44 80 _ �• 45 "04483 04,183 044830 0 04460 !i a ., Y 04449 0 49 ,. 04455 40 04410 �044*,04445c ;�59 r 09751997 01 0 4 �l97 01 rr. -- t 05 0�1 .• 95 09685 ., 0 91 .. 44TH AVEC= 9505 LLC ADVANCED OPTIMIZATION LLC 05450 INDIANA ST 00007 LINKVIEW CT GOLDEN CO 80403 PHOENIX MD 21131 BAMFORD EARL L BOATRIGHT VIRGIL A TRUSTEE 01244 UPHAM ST 04315 WADSWORTH BLVD LAKEWOOD CO 80214 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CLOUGH DAVID E CLOUGH YUVONIE K DAIGLE ELIZABETH OESTERLE DAIGLE CRAIG 01878 S ALKIRE ST 04580 INDEPENDENCE ST LAKEWOOD CO 80228 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GALLEGOS SUSAN R HEARTSO JAYLYN 04480 INDEPENDENCE ST 04575 INDEPENDENCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIST R1 JERRY LLC 00809 QUAIL ST BLDG 4 09701 W 44TH AVE LAKEWOOD CO 80215 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LEGEND PROPERTIES LLC LOVATO JIMMY D LOVATO JEAN B 03650 VANCE ST 1 10053 W 77TH DR WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80005 MROZ SYLWESTER MROZ ANNA NAAB MICHAEL 08700 W FREMONT AVE 04590 INDEPENDENCE ST LITTLETON CO 80128 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 STANCHEV GEORGI RADEV STANCHEV SKOUGSTAD LARS WILLIAM DAN KA BOEVA 13439 W OHIO AVE 04595 INDEPENDENCE ST LAKEWOOD CO 80228 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WINELAND MARTY R PEEK CURTIS J ZIETZ FREDERICK A JR 09709 W 44TH AVE 04485 INDEPENDENCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ALIEN ARLEN JR 04483 INDEPENDENCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CHAPPELL CORY 04460 INDEPENDENCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DAVID 0 LEE & NANCY L LEE FAMILY TRUST 08710 W 68TH PL ARVADA CO 80004 JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIST R1 01829 DENVER WEST DR GOLDEN CO 80419 JOWERS TERRI J JOWERS DANNY W SR 16500 W 63RD PL GOLDEN CO 80403 MANWARING LEWIS 11331 GLENCO CIR THORNTON CO 80233 RDB LLC PO BOX 16219 GOLDEN CO 80402 TRAVISS JONATHAN 01846 S GILPIN ST DENVER CO 80210 -I ■ — cs \7. . �� \ \ 72L (] - -�— I ) §\ k �| \ — !%t > � 2] =2 5 \\� / ƒ� E !; } /� ■ fif/ £ \ ƒ � 2 ± En ° 9 C i 2 e L-1 _ � o ; Lw m \\ � w \ƒ �o % ;z ƒ� 75 �75 ■ \ \2 3) -I ■ — cs \7. . �� \ \ 72L (] - -�— I ) §\ k \ \ � 27f b � 2] =2 5 \\� / ƒ� W, 7-30"t -- - -108" - i. -- 54" -1 Floorplan T Scale 1/2" =1' a z Ca 5 n � (;,-Opt om m .C,,111111111 Architecture. Engineering & Suwgbig 8471 Turnpike Drh'e, Suite 200 Westrnlnster, CO 80030 (303) 426-1731 1111 �.�7 124 Main Street. Suite 211 Dillon. CO 80435 (970)26Z -679S IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE E- Ilowb ,•1 a Xr Yr � s DR.cic q ibs i PROPOSED lge _ STRUCTURE dpi Z'(9 Bk'm 4 Flom( - Z cAa ry GAaAGE N M V. M i5� rt sv UL N �1 I STORY rRAmE NOVSE 4`i8S vtv 22 l [AR wl yoQ n soy �eancE 5� cov F � ,�I Ftlat.i� stictCI I Wwb � I RE ��� 'ISkv . � J!'' rte,►-. Ito 29043 = lNDEP6AJb,9 -r 5?% SHEET Zap Z Row VAe1E&) =� .jab !1. H6 ZS `98 DATE a z Ca 5 n � (;,-Opt om m City of Wheat Ridge 11116/2817 13:40 CDBB ZONING APPLICATION FEES CDBOVE 98 FNSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES AMOUNT PAYMENT RLCEIVED --,�B.BO CHECK: 1437 TOTAL AMOUNT ---------------------------------- 220.00 220_00 NOTE: Land use applications must be ► A 41submitted BY APPOINTMENT with a V� City of planner. Incomplete applications will not :��Whca-tWidge be accepted—refer to submittal checklists. LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 291h Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846 (Please print or type all information) O Applicant a c C� Phone 5� mail Address, City, State, Zip Owner It Phone Email Address, City, State, Zip Contact Address, City, `tate, Zip Phone Email (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) Location of request (address): Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): O Change of Zone or Zone Conditions O Planned Development (ODP, SDP) O Planned Building Group O Temporary Use, Building, Sign I57 Variance/Waiver (from Section 26-) Detailed description of request: O Special Use Permit O Conditional Use Permit O Site Plan O Concept Plan O Right of Way Vacation O Subdivision — specify type: O Administrative (up to 3 lots) O Minor (4 or 5 lots) O Major (6 or more lots) 71 OtheX: �) 044-d\ CZ,/ ISM Ak 1.-. 6M �,t `i'`► MA--Ct(M JtM Lr- ;ne -A--\'c9., IY cc& q WILAd 01s41' .A- l�. �_JS �AI�✓ !`��'/Ol l� Wa �L .IA/1�P�. ±�-Y✓� A4 -44W 1 certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in .fling 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 ther than owners must submit UowPr-qf--attnrnPv from the owner which approved of this tion on Ms behalf] �� TAMARA D ODEAN NOTARY PUBLIC Notarized Signature of Applicant_ State of Colorado } ss County of 'JeSS�SaL1 STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20164015481 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL k The foreoing instrument (Land Use Processing Application) was acknowledged by me this %� day of Oae vt 120_L7 by (r e� ?f e 3 !a A r 1 ;� My commission expires q / as/20_Z Notary Public To be filled out by staff: Date received 11- 1L,- 11 Fee $ d a c>' o o Case No. _ L. - I % - /(a Comp Plan Design. Receipt No. C o d O %�q Quarter Section Map XW a2 Related Case No. Pre -App Mtg. Date Case Manager C,,,,4�-er Assessor's Parcel No—'79- Current Zoning 2 - 3 Current Use Size (acres or sgft) Proposed Zoning Proposed Use Rev 1'22/2016 City of W heat Ije COMMUNITY DLVELOPMENT Submittal Checklist: Variance Project Name yaCic•✓icQ Project Location: /�b� Q`•�� S"1 Rev. 5/2014 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) �Z4. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed u 5. Written authorization from property owner(s) if an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s) 6. Yen request and description of the proposal Include a response to the variance review criteria—these are found in Section 2e6-115 of the municipal code lnclude 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 2< 8. To -scale site plan indicating existing and proposed building footprints and setbacks 0�- L( - 9. c9. Proposed building elevation 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(Feview. In addition, I understand that in the event any revisions need to be m de after th eco ( d) full review, I will be subject to the ap licable resubmittal fee. Signature: Date: (c(�' ` n Name (please print): %" Zcr`�7_ a Phone: 5 Community Development Department - (303) 235-2846 - www.ei.wheatridge.co.us Here are my explanations for existing zoning feasibility and physical hardships Alternate design feasibility explanation The intent behind the proposed structure is to unify and declutter the property. As it stands, there are several small dilapidated sheds existing on the property that we wish to remove and replace with one larger permanent structure. The R3 zoning is restrictive in this case as it only allows 600 sq. ft. of major secondary structure and 400 sq. ft. of minor secondary structure per dwelling unit. The surrounding properties are zoned A-1 and R-2 which both allow for larger (1,000 sq. ft.) secondary structures. The proposed structure will only exceed the A-1, R-1, and R-2 square foot limit by 56 sq. ft.. Building coverage percentage with the proposed structure will be at 11.4% which is less than half the R-1 limit of 25% and well below the R-2 and R-3 limits of 40% coverage. The only allowable expansion on the property within R3 zoning limits would be to add an additional small shed under 200 square feet. The ideal is to clean up the property and make it more appealing, not to add more structures to an already cluttered lot which my wife lovingly refers to as "shantytown". Unique physical hardships The existing home has no basement and little storage, and the existing garage is just large enough for two cars with minimal storage. The considerable age and floodplain restrictions on the property make it impossible to add any additional storage or additions to the existing dwelling. The lot size is over 2 1 k sq. ft.. The existing secondary structure is 672 sq. ft. The proposed new structure size is 384 sq. ft. for a total of 1,056 sq. ft. this translates to a 1.8% increase in building coverage on the property. The proposed structure is within existing setback and height requirements and the impact to neighbors is expected to be minimal. The structure will have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered storage of large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the public right-of-way. Scott Cutler From: Fred Zietz <fred.zietz@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 2:08 PM To: Scott Cutler Subject: Re: Variance application for 4485 Independence St Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Here are my updated answers to the criteria questions. Let me know what you think. Thanks! 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. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A building coverage variance will not alter the character of the locality. The lot size is over 2 1 k sq. ft.. The existing structure is 672 sq. ft. The proposed structure size is 384 sq. ft. for a total of 1,056 sq. ft. this translates to a 1.8% increase of building coverage on the subject property which will likely be imperceptible. The proposed structure is within existing setback and height requirements and the impact to neighbors is expected to be minimal. 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, which would not be possible without the variance. The existing home has no basement and little storage, and the existing garage is just large enough for two cars with minimal storage. It is typical for the contemporary homeowner to desire storage space and off- street covered parking and the proposed structure will serve these needs and add value to the property. 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 unique condition that affects this property relates to the current zoning of the lot (R-3). The surrounding properties are zoned A-1 and R-2 which both allow for larger (1,000 sq. ft.) secondary structures. The proposed structure will only exceed the A-1, R-1, and R-2 square foot limit by 56 sq. ft.. Building coverage with the proposed structure will be at 11.4% which is less than half the R-1 limit of 25% and well below the R-2 and R-3 limits of 40% coverage. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The alleged difficulty relates to the size of the proposed structure with respect to the existing zoning regulations. Because the current owner neither platted the lot, nor constructed the existing home and garage in their current locations, the difficulties have 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, 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. The neighbors to the immediate north and south of the property were consulted about the project and voiced no objections. 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. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The structure will actually have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered storage of large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the public right-of-way. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Not sure how to answer this... 8. N/A 9. N/A On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Fred Zietz <fred.zietz(c gmail.com> wrote: Oh cool, that helps. Thanks so much! On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Scott Cutler <scutler(cr�ci.wheatrid eg co.us> wrote: Don't worry about that, we can complete it when you bring it in. And we have a notary so don't worry about that either. Scott Cutler Planning Technician Office Phone: 303-235-2849 City cif fV heti �e t'1rGer.t�r.M�NT From: Fred Zietz [mailto:fred.zietz@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 11:20 AM Scott Cutler From: Fred Zietz <fred.zietz@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 4:50 PM To: Scott Cutler Subject: Re: 4485 Independence St - Building Permit Hi Scott Thanks again. Yeah I will come by, I'm just confusing the issue more. I think the zoning variance or exception is the way forward. I appreciate the help. Thanks! On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Scott Cutler <scutler(aci.wheatrid e.co.us> wrote: Fred - Removing the sheds will definitely count towards reducing the square footage of accessory buildings on your property. However, we cannot approve the new shed unless there is some separation from the garage so it acts as a separate accessory structure. It almost looks like you're planning a common roofline, which would not be permitted. Having living space in the garage doesn't matter, it's just the overall footprint of that building is limited to 600 square feet (which it already exceeds). I'm a little curious about the living space there's no certificate of occupancy for that space; I think an office/workshop would be fine, but bedrooms/kitchens are another story. Just to be clear, we count the garage as a "Major Accessory Structure" since it's the largest, which is limited to 600 square feet and 15' tall, and the other building(s) as "Minor Accessory Structures" which can add up to 400 square feet, and can be 10' tall. The total square footage of allowable accessory buildings is 1,000 square feet per unit, 600 for major, and 400 for minor (can be multiple smaller buildings). I know your lot is big, but we can't bend the rules based on lot use/size. You are welcome to come in tomorrow during the day. Meredith, our Senior Planner, should be available except during the lunch hour. Some folks from the Building Division should also be around, but I think this issue focuses primarily on zoning. We can try to talk through your options and go from there. -Scott Scott Cutler Planning Technician Office Phone: 303-235-2849 C ily Chi / hc�at icjjc� CoximUNO n' DF -vi LONMrN1 From: Fred Zietz [mailto:fred.zietz@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 2:36 PM To: Scott Cutler <scutler@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: fredzietz@gmail.com; Brian Tardif <btardif@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Randy Slusser <rslusser@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: Re: 4485 Independence St - Building Permit Hi Scott Thanks for your help today. Let me know if we can schedule some time to talk in person. I want to make sure I'm clear about the zoning and wanted to talk through some of the issues with the lot and see if we can come up with something that works. My intent is to clean up the lot by creating some indoor storage and removing several smaller sheds that are not on the ILC currently. Also, the attached garage on the ILC has been converted to living space so I don't know if that factors in to the percentage issue or not. Give me a call or email me back and let me know if there is a time that works better for you. I work pretty close so I can probably work with whatever you can do. Thanks again! Fred On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Scott Cutler <scutlergci.wheatrid eg co.us> wrote: Hi Fred, After reviewing your Building Permit Application for an attached shed at 4485 Independence Street, I have determined that your plan does not meet the City's zoning standards. At this time we cannot approve your application. Minor accessory buildings in the R-3 zone are limited to 400 square feet in size, combined. Because the existing smaller shed/outbuilding is already 192 square feet, this new shed is limited to 208 square feet. You can also not attach the new shed to the existing garage, because major accessory buildings are limited to 600 square feet, which your garage already exceeds. If the new shed is attached at all to the existing garage, we would consider it an addition to the existing garage and could not approve it. Therefore, you are limited to two options: 1. Detach the new shed from the garage and shrink it to 208 square feet or less 2. Demolish the smaller shed/outbuilding, and you could build a new detached shed up to 400 square feet Here are the R-3 zoning standards for your reference: htip://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/DocumentCenter/HomeNiew/I 896 Please let me know if you have any questions. Scott Cutler Planning Technician 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Office Phone: 303-235-2849 Fax: 303-234-2849 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Cite or C c)mMIJNrn' DIV l OPMfNT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business -confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any network to which your computer is connected. Thank you.