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.