Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-20-01 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: April 13, 2020 CASE MANAGER: Zareen Tasneem CASE NO. & NAME: WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 10-foot (40%) variance from the 25-foot side yard setback requirement for a detached garage on a corner lot to be constructed on property located at 6380 W 45th Place and zoned Residential-Two (R-2). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6380 W. 45th Place APPLICANT (S): Anne Brown and Carl Ford OWNER (S): Anne Brown APPROXIMATE AREA: 9,450 Square Feet (0.217 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Two (R-2) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Administrative Variance 2 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford 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 10-foot (40%) variance from the 25-foot side yard setback requirement in the R-2 zone district for corner lots to construct a detached garage in the side yard. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. II. CASE ANALYSIS The existing house sits on a 9,450-square foot parcel on the southeast corner of W. 45th Place and Lamar Street (Exhibit 1, Aerial). According to the Jefferson County Assessor, the main house was originally constructed in 1948. The property is zoned Residential-Two (R-2), as are the properties surrounding it, with some Residential-Three (R-3) zoned properties further to the south past W. 46th Avenue (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). All neighboring properties are primarily residential uses. The R-2 zone district provides high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate-density residential neighborhoods. In the R-2 zone district, front yard setbacks are 25 feet for all structures. As a corner lot, this setback applies to the western and northern lot lines. On the Improvement Location Certificate (Exhibit 3), there is only one structure being shown (the one- story frame house), while in the Aerial (Exhibit 1) a shed in the backyard can also be seen. The Site Photos (Exhibit 4) show that there are no existing garages, attached or detached, nor are there any driveway areas to park cars on the property, but there is street parking (Exhibit 1, Aerial). According to the Written Request (Exhibit 5), the applicant is requesting to add a detached two-car garage in the western side yard behind the house. They feel that adhering to the 25-foot minimum side yard setback for corner lots would result in the garage “occupy[ing] most of the center of the backyard, rendering it unusable and lowering the market value.” Property value and project costs are important factors for the applicant as they feel the addition of the detached garage will increase their property value and meeting the 25-foot setback requirement would result in a higher driveway cost (i.e. paving). They also state that meeting the 25-foot requirement would require them to relocate the sewer line (note: none of the submitted graphic materials show the location of the sewer line). Furthermore, they state that, not only do most of the homes in the neighborhood have garages, but most of the existing garages along Lamar Street in vicinity of the property also encroach into the 25- foot setback. This can be seen graphically in the Aerial (Exhibit 1), in which the properties that border the subject property to the north, south, and west along Lamar Street also have one-two car garages that appear to be about 5-10 feet setback from their side property line. Administrative Variance 3 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford They feel that orienting the garage with driveway access off of Lamar Street is most practical, therefore, the applicant is requesting the 10-foot side yard variance to accommodate a 480-square foot detached garage (Exhibit 6, Site Plan). The proposed detached garage would be 24 feet wide and 20 feet long, with a 15-foot west side yard setback and a 15-foot south rear yard setback. In addition to the 15-foot setback, there is about another 8 feet of right-of-way (ROW) from the property line to edge of curb, so the driveway and setback would comply with Section 26-625.C.3 which requires a driveway be at least 18 feet in length. Because the proposed carport measures more than 400 sq. ft. in area and is more than 10 feet in height (measured at mid-roof, see Exhibit 7, Elevations), it is classified as a “major accessory structure.” The following table compares the required R-2 development standards for major accessory structures with the actual and proposed conditions relative to the proposed carport: R-2 Major Accessory Structure Development Standards: Required Proposed Building Coverage 1000 sq. ft. (max.) 480 sq. ft. Height 15 feet (max.) 11.75 feet (midpoint) Side Setback (west) 25 feet (min. for corner lots) 15 feet Rear Setback (south) 10 feet (min.) 15 feet Public Comment During the 10-day public notification period, staff did not receive any inquiries regarding the request. No written objections were received regarding the variance request. The applicant informed staff that they received supportive comments regarding the request, specifically two neighbors that were “of the opinion the variance will be approved and the garage will be a[n] improvement to the neighborhood.” III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine that the majority of the “criteria for review” listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. 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 requests 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 variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. As seen in the aerial (Exhibit 1), other corner lots in vicinity of the subject property have existing garages also not meeting current required setbacks. According to the Jefferson County’s Assessor’s Office, these structures appear to be originally built in the same era as the house on this property (late Administrative Variance 4 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford 1940s-early 1950s), therefore they were built prior to the City’s incorporation in 1969 and have been a part of the neighborhood for almost 70 years. In fact, meeting the setback requirements and placing a garage in the middle of the back yard would alter the character of this section of corner lots on Lamar Street. (Note: The proposed setback is consistent with the neighborhood character because the average setback in this neighborhood is substandard. Detached garages, however, are not eligible for the average setback calculation of Section 26-611 which applies only to principal buildings, therefore necessitating this variance request.) 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. While the proposed detached garage is a substantial investment in the property, it would still be possible to build the garage on the property without the variance. It could still be built elsewhere on the property in the rear yard within the required setbacks. Staff finds this criterion has not 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. As seen in the Site Photos and Aerial (Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 1, respectively), the lot is relatively flat and rectangular in shape. As seen on the ILC (Exhibit 3), there are no documented easements cutting through the back yard that would deter placement of the garage there. Although the applicant mentions a sewer line in the back yard in the Written Request (Exhibit 5), it is unknown graphically where it is located exactly. The rear yard, measured from the eastern property line to the western property line and from the southern property line to the back of the house, is about 5,000 sq.ft. Accounting for the 25- foot western side yard, 10-foot southern rear yard, and 5-foot eastern side yard setbacks, there is about 2,500 sq.ft. of usable area left in the backyard. Therefore, about 50% of the rear yard is devoted just to setbacks. The lot is also narrower in size than what is currently required for single-family corner lots under the R-2 zoning (75 feet instead of 80 feet), which would constitute as a physical hardship. Furthermore, there is about 8 feet of unbuilt ROW from the western property line to the existing edge of curb, which results in a garage that would feel like it was almost 25 feet setback from the street (asphalt). Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Administrative Variance 5 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford The current owner neither platted nor constructed the existing house in its current location on the property. Nor did they set the current setback regulations for corner lots in the R-2 zone district, which results in about 50% of the rear yard being devoted to setbacks (see above criterion). Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The addition would not impede the sight distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood. As stated earlier, other corner lots in vicinity of the subject property have existing garages also not meeting current required setbacks. These structures appear to have been originally built in the late 1940s-early 1950s, therefore they were built prior to the City’s incorporation in 1969 and have been a part of the neighborhood for almost 70 years. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. Administrative Variance 6 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford 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 10-foot (40%) variance from the 25-foot side yard setback requirement in the R-2 zone district for corner lots to construct a detached garage in the side yard. 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 match the essential character of the locality by placing a garage encroaching into the side yard setback. 2. There is a particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved that results in a particular and unique hardship. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. 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. 5. 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. Administrative Variance 7 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Administrative Variance 8 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Administrative Variance 9 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford EXHIBIT 3: IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFACTE Presently, there three structures on the property: a two-story house and two small sheds. The applicant is proposing to put a carport over the gravel parking area in the front yard. Administrative Variance 10 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS A view of the front of the property from W. 45th Place. The driveway on the left is part of the neighbor’s property. Image Source: Google Administrative Variance 11 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford A partial view of the side/back yard of the property from Lamar Street. The proposed garage would be placed in this area and gain driveway access off Lamar Street. While there looks to be an existing curb cut for a driveway in the lower left-hand corner of the picture, the proposed site plan shows the garage’s driveway being further south, i.e. a new curb cut. Administrative Variance 12 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford EXHIBIT 5: WRITTEN REQUEST Administrative Variance 13 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford EXHIBIT 6: SITE PLAN The applicant is requesting the 10’ side yard variance to accommodate a 480-square foot detached garage. The proposed detached garage would be 24’ wide and 20’ long, with a 15-foot west side yard setback and a 15-foot south rear yard setback. Administrative Variance 14 Case No. WA-20-01 / Brown-Ford EXHIBIT 7: ELEVATIONS Elevations of the proposed two-car detached garage. Taken at the mid-roof height, the proposed height is about 11.75 feet. Wheat Ridge Setback Variance Request 6380 W. 45th Place Anne Brown, owner We are requesting a variance to the 25’ setback for a new garage off of Lamar St. We request a 50% administrative approval to 15’. The following are our responses to the City criteria: Criterion 1: Reasonable return in use. Response: The property is a corner lot in a neighborhood constructed in the late 1940s. It does not have a garage which reduces the value of the property to the owners and in the general market. Nearly all the houses in the neighborhood have garages. The owners desire a 2-car garage. With the 25’ setback from Lamar (actually a side yard, but we are told is considered a front yard by the City), the garage plus 25’ setback would occupy most of the center of the backyard, rendering it unusable and lowering the market value. Criterion 2: Essential character of locality. Response: Nearly all homes in the neighborhood have garages. Most of the garages along Lamar do not have a 25’ setback, as they apparently were grandfathered in. Criterion 3: Substantial investment Response: The owner expects to invest $40,000+ in the garage with driveway and curb cut. This will increase the value of the property substantially and place it more in line with the neighborhood. Criterion 4: Physical surrounding and shape are a hardship. Response: The property is a corner lot. The regulations the owners to 25’ setbacks not only in front of the house off 45th Place but on the Lamar side where the garage is desired. The garage needs to be oriented facing Lamar (west) to make it practical. Placing it 25’ from the property line, a 2-car garage will occupy the large proportion of the width of the backyard. It will require more driveway cost and snow shoveling for the owners who are in their 50s and late 60s. It may require relocating the sewer line at great expense. However, a 15’ setback is feasible to the owners. Criterion 5: Hardship not created by owner. Response: The owner bought the home in 2007. There was no garage. The owner has not created any hardship. Criterion 6: Not detrimental to public welfare or neighborhood. Response: As mentioned previously, most homes in the neighborhood have garages and most of those on Lamar have garages less than 25’ from the property line. The proposal would not block any access to light or air or change traffic congestion or diminish any property values in the neighborhood as they nearly all have garages at less than 25’ setback. The garage will be >22’ from the street with a paved driveway and parked cars will not block traffic in the street. Criterion 7: Circumstances not unique in the neighborhood: As mentioned previously, most homes in the neighborhood have garages and most of those on Lamar have garages less than 25’ from the property line. The 7’ undeveloped sidewalk easement plus 15’ additional setback will be greater than most of the garages in the neighborhood. Criteria 7 and 8 do not typically apply to single family homes.