The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/06/2008CIty Of ]~9'Wheat~idge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 6, 2008 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on March 6, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Bui(ding, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals witk disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the Ciry of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 7, 2008 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) PUBLIC HEARING A. Case Nos. MS-07-04 & WA-07-25: An application filed by Brian Johnson for approval of a 2-lot minor subdivision plat with a lot width variance and a setback variance for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3516 Jay Street. 8. OTHER ITEMS A. Election of Officers 9. ADJOURNMENT CItY Of ]~qrWheatF~id¢-e PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 7, 2008 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair SCEZNEY at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. 3. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Anne`Brinkman Jim Chilvers Dick Matthews John McMillin Davis Reinhart Jerry Scezney Kim Stewart 4. 5. Commission Members Absent: Cassie Spaniel Staff Members Present: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Meredith Reckert, Seniar Planner Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by`Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner MATTHEWS to approve the order of the agenda. The motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 17, 2008 It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to approve the minutes of January 17, 2008 as presented. The morion carried 4-0 with Commissioners CHILVERS, SCEZNEY and STEWART abstaining and Commissioner SPANIEL absent. Planning Coinmission Minutes 1 February 7, 2008 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There was no one to address the Commission at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-08-01: An application filed by Michael G. Pharo Associates for M& E Financial for approval of a change of zoning conditions approved pursuant to Case No. WZ-05-10 and approval of an Outline Development Plan (ODP) for property zoned Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and located at 7495 West 29t" Avenue. Prior to hearing the case, Commissioner REINHART disclosed that he has done business in the past with the architectural firm representing the applicant. He stated that he has no association with the subject case nor does he have any interest in the final outcome and there was no reason that he could not hear this case. The case was presented by MeredithReckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She also entered a letter into flie'record which she received this day from Janis A. Havens expressing opposition to any zone change that would allow demolition of#he Olingermansion. Each Commissioner received a copy of the letter. Staff concluded that the proposed modification to the original zoning conditions must be processed as a zone change and that criteria used to evaluate a change of zoning conditions supports approval of the inodified ODP. The proposal is consistent with the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan, the goals of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and the Commercial/Industrial Design Standards in the Arehitectairal and Site Design Manual. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the application with conditions outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Commissioner REINHART, Ms. Reckert explained that the city would like a 10-foot sidewalk to be built in a location where it would not be displaced by a new traffic lane on Wadsworth in the future. Commissioner STEWART stated that it was her understanding that the deed was to be held in perpetuity and could not be rescinded. Gerald Dahl explained the covenant names the City of Wheat Ridge as the sole beneficiary. As sole beneficiary, the City could make a decision to rescind the ( covenant. In the event the application moves forward and is approved by City Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 7, 2008 Council, the applicant would ask the city to rescind the restrictive covenant. The covenant could be rescinded by a separate inotion or could be made part of the ordinance. Commissioner BRINKMAN noted a correction to the neighborhood meeting date that should reflect the year 2008 rather than 2007. In regard to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Ms. Reckert explained that CDOT has approved a right-in, right-out access to the property froin Wadsworth because there are two existing curb cuts on the property, one of which will be eliminated and the other allowed to remain. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the property had been inspected by City engineers. Ken Johnstone stated that he and other staff inembers walked through the house about a month ago. The interior'has been converted to office use and it would be incredibly expensive to restore it to its original character. Meredith Reckert noted that the building in its present condition would not meet a number of present building and fire code requirements. Commissioner SCEZNEY asked about the pergola and retention of landscaping on the new plan. Ms. Reckert stated that the pergola has been deconstructed and diseased trees have been removed. Mike Pharo 2835 W. Oxford, #6, Englewood Mr. Pharo is a land plaiming consultant for his client M&E Financial. He stated that resistance to sale of the property has been due to the stigma attached to the mansion being used as a mortuary. There is also a significant impact resulting from the cost of renovating the building. The cost to renovate would exceed the cost of new construction. The coiner location is desirable, but cannot be used for new construction if the mansion remains. Mr. Pharo stated that the proposal for Three Sons Restaurant to build on this property is a scenario that makes sense for this piece of property. However, the restaurant owners do not want the property if the mortuary building remains and therefore the request is being made to allow its removal. Mr. Pharo stated that while zoning is based on a maxiimmn allowance of 30,000 square feet, the current site plan would only use 24,400 square feet. Twenty feet of right-of-way is being provided for additional iinprovements on Wadsworth. The walkway in the northeast corner is being shown at the city's request. There had been an earlier plan to have a plaza at the walkway connection but it was eliminated based on objection from the neighborhood. Additional right-of-way will be required for a turn lane into the development from 29th Avenue. The Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 7, 2008 access will be relocated to align with the entrance into city hall. The barn on the property was dismantled and will be reassembled elsewhere. The property owners offered the little house to anyone who would like to have it and move it. The same offer stands for the mansion. Bruce McLennan SEM Architects 6777 S. Colorado Boulevard, Denver Mr. McLennan is the architect for Three Sons Restaurant. He showed architectural renderings of the proposed restaurant building to the Commission. The restaurant design has a Tuscan feel to it. However, that architectural style would not apply to the rest of the development in order for the restaurant building to stand out Mike Pharo returned to the podium to say that he accepted six of the seven conditions for approval. The one condition he would not accept is the requirement to build a 10-foot sidewalk behind the dedication area. Due to drainage flowing to the southeast corner of the property and the requirements for onsite detention and retention facilities, the development needs to be moved westward. He did not believe it was fair to ask for an'additional 10-foot sidewalk easement in addition to the 20-foot right-of-way easement for Wadsworth improvements. He did not agree with the city's request for an expenditure of $50,000 to build a sidewalk that goes nowhere and would limit development of the property. ; Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if there was a serious interest by the restaurant. ' Mr. Pharo explained that M&E Financial is under contract with the Three Sons Restaurant. The contract is contingent upon the ability to remove the existing structure. Wark is underway for the final development plan for this first phase. There is reasonable expectation that the remainder of the property will be developed with Three Sons Restaurant serving as the catalyst. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked about the building on the ODP that shows a drive-through. Mr. Pharo explained that this is included in the ODP in case a business required a drive through. He explained that it would be a"soft" drive- through which is the type used by establishments such as coffee shops and pharmacies. Commissioner CHILVERS asked why M&E Financial agreed to the restrictive covenant which was placed on the property two years ago. Mr. Pharo explained that when his client first looked at the property there was no indication that the Historical Society was concerned. When the Society's concern Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 7, 2008 became apparent, they decided to try to work around keeping the mansion. He stated, however, that they have been unable to find a developer who could make the property work in the marketplace if the mansion remains. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN, Mr. Pharo stated that his client does not believe the cemetery and mausoleum across the street would be a detenent to his restaurant business. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that the Olinger mortuary near Highlands has been successfully converted to retail and restaurant use. Commissioner STEWART asked Mr. Pharo if he was aware at the time he entered into the agreement with the city that the covenant could be rescinded. He stated that he was aware that it could be rescinded only with the City's permission. Commissioner STEWART expressed concern that fliere are already three vacant restaurants in the city. Mr. Pharo commented that Three Sons is well lrnown in the metro area and has been around for many years. In response to a question from Cominissioner STEWART, Mr. Pharo stated that development of the restaurant would probably begin within three to six months if the application is approved. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked how much probability exists for a church to buy the property. Mr. Pharo stated that religious groups have shown the strongest interest. (Chair SCEZNEY declared a recess at 8:38 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p.m.). Chair SCEZNEY asked to hear from members of the public. Claudia Worth 4650 0ak'Street Ms. Worth spoke in opposition to the application. Her concerns for the neighborhood'included drainage problems, widening of 29°i Avenue and having an outdoar patio behind the residential neighbarhood. Speaking for the Wheat Ridge Historical Society, she noted that a historical designation requires the exterior to remain unchanged but says nothing about the interior. She stated her belief that the inansion could be preserved. Commissioner McMILLIN asked about the landmark status of the mansion. Ms. Reckert explained the tiineframe requirements. She estimated the end of March before the matter goes before City Council. Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 7, 2008 Don Edeland 2935 Webster Mr. Edeland spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he understood the zoning of this land was on the condition Yhat the mansion could not be torn down. The developer agreed to those restrictions. He stated his opinion that it is not the city's responsibility to approve zone changes so a developer can show a profit. Christina, representing the Wilson family 2915 Webster Christina spoke in opposition to the application. She proposed renovation of the existing building in order to prevent the destruction of a landmark. Kevin Greene 2916 Webster Mr. Green spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that it is unfair Yo rescind the covenant. The neighborhood is not declining and is, in fact, being revitalized. A restaurant with a patio in neighborhood's back yards would have a negative impact. He suggested that the property be recognized for the gem that it is and that a church would be an acceptable use. Kathy Snyder 2995 Webster Ms. Snyder spoke in opposition to theapplication. She stated that she has attended all of the meetings regarding this property and she asked that the property be kept as is in order for the neighbarhood to maintain its tranquility. She objected to a restaurant patio being built in close proximity to her bedroom window. She stated that the neighborhood agreed to the zoning on the condition that the mansion would stay. She stated that she had never been in agreement with commercial zoning on this property. Chair SCEZNEY asked if there were other individuals who wished to speak. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Ms. Reckert stated that the mansion as it sits now does meet the parameters of the subarea plan. Commissioner REIINHART asked if there is any precedent to designate a property as a landmark against the will of the property owner. Mr. Johnstone stated that Denver allows landmark designation without the owner's consent but only with a super majority vote of City Council. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that he didn't have enough information to prove that the mansion is not a viable building. Plamuug Commission Minutes 6 February 7, 2008 Coinmissioner STEWART expressed regret that she didn't ask the right questions at the last hearing regarding perpetuity of the covenants. She stated that, while she understood the need for tax revenue, she believes there are possibilities far use of the mansion. Commissioner CHILVERS stated that he is in favar of developing the subject property and he likes the Three Sons proposal. However, he objected to the zoning change made two years ago. Coixunissioner REINHART stated that he had similar concerns as Commissioner CHILVERS. He commented that the mansion is the history rather than the future for that corner. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that he recognizes the mansion as a historic structure in Wheat Ridge. He also stated that he couldn't truly evaluate the strength of the market efforts made for this property. He stated his belief that there is an obligation to the community to noY`give up a historic building for an uncertain development. He suggested a compromise of having Three Sons build on another portion of the lot and allow the mansion to be torn down five years thereafter. Also, in a few years, there may be more ofamarket for developers who want to reconstruct the mansion in a manner similar to what has happened in Highlands. Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that she is pro development. However, the citizens have presented a good case regarding what they were told initially and what they are being told now: She also stated that citizens have a responsibility to work with'the developer in finding a use for the building. Commissioner STEWART asked if there is any way to make Commissioner McMILLIN's proposal binding. Mr. Dahl stated there are several avenues, one of which would be to name different beneficiaries. Commissianer REINHART stated that as he has listened to different ideas to jump hoops'3hat look harder than when the first proposal came before the Commission, he was going to reverse his original position. He stated that he believed this is a good development plan that is within the Wadsworth Subarea Plan and is consistent with the intent and needs of the community. In light of Cabela's failing to move forward, the opportunity to set in place a viable retail development is one that shouldn't be avoided simply over nostalgia. It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner MATTHEWS to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-08-01, a request for approval of a change in zoning conditions approved pursuant to Case No. WZ-05-10 and for an amended Outline Development Plan for property located at 7495 West 29th Avenue for the following reasons: Planning Commission Minu[es 7 February 7, 2008 1. The property was rezoned to Planned Commercial Development pursuant to Case No. WZ-05-10. 2. Retention of the existing structures on the property has proved to be prohibitory to development of the rest of the property. 3. No changes are proposed to the uses and development standards approved pursuant to Case No. WZ-05-10. 4. The criteria used to evaluate a change in zoning conditions support the request. 5. The proposed site design and architectural elevations are consistent with the CommerciaUIndustrial Design Standards in the Architectural and Site Design Manual 6. With modifications recommended by staff, all requirements of an Outline Development Plan have been met which will allow administrative approval of FDPs for the property. With the following conditions incorporated into the plan set prior to City Council public hearing: 1. For consistency with the intent and requirement of the expedited ODP/FDP process, the site plan (sheet 2) be expanded to illustrate existing adjacent development conditions. 2. On Sheet 2, modify the 29t" Avenue access to align with the centerline of the city hall access. 3. A left hand turn lane be provided along the West 29"' Avenue frontage. The required right-of-way dedication will be assessed at the rime of FDP and plat. 4. On all graphic sheets, modify the sidewalk along Wadsworth to be 10 feet in width and located behind the 20-foot right of-way dedication. The proposed parking should be shifted east to accommodate this. 5. The architectural elevations and isometric perspectives be incorporated into the plan set and all sheets be renumbered accordingly. 6. The proposed materials and colors be added to the architectural elevations. 7. The existing restrictive covenant requiring retention of the old house be released as an encumbrance on the property. The motion failed by a vote of 3 to 4 with Commissioners STEWART, McMILLIN, BRINKMAN and CHILVERS voting no and Commissioner SPANIEL absent. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that the applicant had a good point about the additional 10 feet for a sidewalk. Commissioner REINHART suggested that this Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 7, 2008 is a matter that could be worked out between the applicant and the staf£ The Commission agreed that condition no. 4 should be removed. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-08-01, a request for approval of a change in zoning conditions approved pursuant to Case No. WZ-05-10 and for an amended Outline Development Plan for property located at 7495 West 29'h Avenue for the following reasons: 1. The property was rezoned to Planned Commercial Development pursuant to Case No. WZ-05-10. 2. Retention of the existing structures on the property has proved to be prohibitory to development of the rest of the property. 3. No changes are proposed to the uses and development standards approved pursuant to Case No: WZ-05-10. 4. The criteria used to evaluate a change in zoning conditions support the request. 5. The proposed site design and architectural elevations are consistent with the CommerciaUIndustrial Design Standards in the Architectural and Site Design MmiuaL 6. With modifications recommended by staff, all requirements of an Outline Development Plan have been met which will allow administrative approval of FDP's for the property. With the following conditions incorporated into the plan set prior to City Council public hearing: L For eonsistency'with the intent and requirement of the expedited ODP/FDP process, the site plan (sheet 2) be expanded to illustrate existing adjacent development conditions. 2. On Sheet 2, modify the 29t" Avenue access to align with the centerline of the city hall access. 3. A left hand turn lane be provided along the West 29`h Avenue frontage. The required right-of-way dedication will be assessed at the time of FDP and plat. 4. The architectural elevations and isometric perspectives be incorporated into the plan set and all sheets be renumbered accordingly. 5. The proposed materials and colors be added to the architectural elevations. 6. The existing restrictive covenant be modified to assure that the old house will be retained for five years. Planning Commission Minutes 9 Febmary 7, 2008 Commissioner MATTHEWS commented that after five years of vacancy, the building may not be worth preserving. Commissioner STEWART noted that the owner is responsible for keeping the exterior in good shape. 8. 9. The motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner SCEZNEY voting no and Commissioner SPANIEL absent. At the request of Commissioner STEWART, Ms. Reckert outlined the process far legal protest. Mike Pharo addressed the Commission to offer tours of the Olinger building to anyone interested. OTHERITEMS There were no other items to come before the Commission. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Jerry Scezney, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 7, 2008 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: March 6, 2008 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert CASE NO. & NAME: Case Nos. WA-07-25/MS-07-04/Johnson ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 2 lot minor subdivision with a lot width variance and a side setback variance in R-2 zoning LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3516 Jay Street NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Brian Johnson APPROXIMATE AREA: .54 acre PRESENT ZOIVING: R-2, Residential-Two PRESENT LAND USE: Two-family dwelling/Vacant property ENTER INTO THE RECORD: ~ ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CASE FII,E AND PACKET MATERIALS DIGITAL PRESENTATION Planning Commission Case No. WA-07-25/MS-07-04/ 7ohnson A v auva~a~. a avi The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have beei. met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case. This case was originally scheduled for a December 6, 2007, Planning Commission public hearing but was continued due to legal description discrepancies and the possible need for vaziances. The case has been renoticed, republished and reposted. 1. REQUEST/EXISTING CONDITIONS The property owner requests approval of a two lot minor subdivision on .46 acres (20,271 square feet) of property located at 3516 Jay Street. The property in question is zoned R-2, Residential-Two. The property is located at the northeast comer of W. 35t' Avenue (south side) and Jay Street (west side). The property is traversed diagonally from the southwest to the northeast by the Rocky Mountain Ditch and its 30' easement. An existing residence built in 1924 is located north of the ditch. The applicant indicates that it is currently utilized as a two family residence and if the subdivision is approved it will be modified into a single family structure. The southern portion of the lot is vacant. The property is comprised of 23,771 squaze feet of land azea. The current ownership of property extends to the center line of Jay Street, so after the required right-of-way dedication for Jay, the platted area encompasses 20,271 squaze feet. There is an existing mountable curb with an attached sidewalk along Jay Street. There are no public improvements (curb, gutter or sidewalk) along W. 35`h Avenue. R-2 zoned property abuts the pazcel on all sides. Adjacent land uses include a mix of single family residences and two family dwellings. City owned pazkland is located to the northwest of the property across Jay Street. The applicant has expressed that the intent of the subdivision request is to allow the sale of the southern portion (proposed Lot 2) to a private individual for development. The subdivision as proposed requires a vaziance to lot width for a corner lot for the west side of I.ot 2. The variance will have to be approved first in order to approve the subdivision. A vaziance is also required for the setback from the existing gazage on the northern lot to the proposed new lot line. In order for the subdivision to be approved, the following must occur in the order listed: 1. Granting of the variance to the minimum lot width in the R-2 zone district for proposed Lot 2. (A three-fourths vote of the members present is needed to approve a variance.) If this request is approved, then the following must occur: 2. Granting of a side yazd setback variance for the existing gazage on proposed I.ot 1 of the property. (A three fourths vote of the members present is needed to approve a variance.) If this request is approved, then the following must occur: Planning Commission Case No. WA-07-25/MS-07-04/ Johnson 3. Approval of the subdivision. U. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The plat will subdivide the property into two lots. (Exhibit 1, Subdivision Plat) L,ot 1 encompasses land north of the ditch and will contain the existing two-family structure and detached gazage. L,ot 2 is a corner lot with frontages on both 35`h Avenue and Jay Street. As designed, the 30' wide ditch easement is encompassed within this lot. The R-2 zone district standards allow both single family and two family residential construction. A confornung duplex lot in R-2 zoning requires 12,500 s.f. of lot area with 100' of lot width. A conforming single family lot is required to have 9,000 s.f. of lot area with 75' of lot width. In the case of corner lots, both frontages aze required to have 80' of width. The following are the required development standazds for the R-2 zone district: Develo ment standard Main structure Accessor structure Lot size Duplex 12,500 s.f. N/A Sin le famil 9,000 s.f. N/A Lot width Duplex 100' N/A Single family 75' unless corner lot, then N/A 80' Front setback 30' 30' Side setback From public right-of-way 30' 30' From interior lot line 15' combined with not less 8' or less in height: 5' than 5' on one side Over 8' in height: 10' Rear setback From public right-of-way 30' 30' From interior lot line 10' 8' or less in height: 5' Over 8' in hei ht: 10' Lot coverage 40% Garages: 1000 s.f. per unit Sheds: 400 s.f. er unit Proposed L.ot 1 is a conforming single family lot with 9,751 s.f. of area with 90.21' of lot width. The existing structure on proposed lot 1 is nonconfornung as it has a 12.4' front setback where 30' is required. (Exhibit 2, structure location overlay) The detached garage has a.4' side setback (north side) where 10' is required. Because the western and northem setbacks aze from exis6ng lot lines, they aze considered legally nonconforming. However, the garage will have 9.7' setback from the new lot line where 10' is required, resulting in a 3' vaziance. Because the lot line to which the structure is appurtenant is a new one, a vaziance must be granted if the subdivision is , to be approved. ~ Planning Commission Case No. WA-07-25/MS-07-04/ Johnson Staff would note that the accessory use side and rear setbacks in many of the zone districts including R-2 were modified in 2003. Prior to the code change, all accessory structures regardless of height were required 5' side and reaz yazd setbacks. In 2003, the regulations were modified to dictate setback (S or 10') based on height of the structure. The structure on Lot 1 is cunently a duplex. If the subdivision is approved, the new lot area is not large enough to legally allow two units. The owner has indicated that if approved, the structure will be converted to a single family residence. If approved, the plat would not be recorded until the conversion has occurred. Lot 2 is proposed to be 10,520 s.f. in size, which exceeds the minimum lot size standazd for a single familX lot. However, the proposed lot width which is required to be 80' on each side is 140' on the 35 Avenue side (south) and 54.79' on the Jay Street side (west). Because of the inadequate lot width on the west side, a variance is required to approve the subdivision as proposed. A significant development constraint on I,ot 2 is the Rocky Mountain Ditch which has a 30' easement and bisects this lot. No permanent structures can be built on the easement. The easements combined with the required setbacks leave little room for structures. (Exhibit 3, buildable area map) The ditch company has discussed with the applicant the possibility for relocating and burying the ditch. If this were to occur at the property owner's expense, the property would have more development potential. Staff would be more inclined to support the request, including the lot width and setback vaziances, if a specific plan of action for ditch relocation were proposed by the applicant. This would have to include a design approved by the ditch company. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Two variances are required to approve the subdivision as proposed. Both requests relate to the location of the proposed common lot line. Attached is the property owner's justification for the variances and subdivision approval. (Exhibit 4, applicant letter) The first variance (Variance A) is a 25.21' vaziance to the 80' required lot width for a corner lot resulting in a 54.79' lot width on L.ot 2. The second vaziance (Variance B) is a.3' setback variance from the required 10' setback for the detached gazage on Lot 1 resulting in a 9.7' setback. Although both requests are related to the location of the lot line, vaziance B could be denied and the common property line shifted a few inches to the south without greatly impacting the azea of Lot 2. If Variance A is denied, the subdivision cannot be approved as proposed. Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request. Planning Commission shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates a majority of the following criteria have been met: Planning Commission Case No. WA-07-25/MS-07-04/ Johnson A. 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 duplex on the property can still be used if the variances aze not granted. Under the existing configuration, an accessory sWcture could be built on the southem vacant portion. The southem portion would also allow for the keeping of at least one horse. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The granting of the variances would not alter the chazacter of the area. The Rocky Mountain Ditch has proved to be a development challenge to other properties in the immediate vicinity. Most notably, is the Litdejohn Subdivision directly to the south which was approved in 1993. (Exhibit 4, Littlejohn Subdivision) The two houses in the Littlejohn Subdivision violate the front setback requirements, both being about 12' from Jay Street. The houses were in place at the time of platting, being built in 1939 (3470 Jay) and 1934 (3490 7ay). The subdivision was used as a means to dedicate right-of-way for Jay Street, the location of which did not fall within the right-of-way dedicated to the Jefferson County Commissioners yeazs before. See plat note adjacent to Tract A. Both of the lots in Littlejohn Subdivision meet the R-2 zone district standards for lot size and lot width. Staff finds this criterion has been met with regard to the setback variance, but not the lot width variance. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The property owner has indicated that if the subdivision is approved, he intends on selling the property for development. Staff finds this criterion has been met. D. 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. There are unique challenges with the property due to the pass-through ditch and easement which must be accommodated. The result, in combination with the required setbacks, results in an illogical property for development. Once platted and sold, it is questionable whether the southern lot could accommodate a house. With the existing development constraints on the property, staff andcipates future setback variance requests in order to make a viably developable parcel. Planning Commission Case No. WA-07-25/MS-07-04/ Johnson Staff fmds this criterion has not been met. E. The alleged difficulty or hardslup has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The property owner has created his own hazdship by requesting the subdivision approval. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. F. 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. Approval of the vaziances and accompanying subdivision would result in the potential for construction of a single family residence. There could be impacts to the property to the east as what is currently vacant land would be developed. As such, the amount of air and light to the adjacent property may be reduced. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it increase the danger of fire. The request will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The home would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent street and would not impede the sight distance triangle. Staff is more concerned about public welfaze and that approval of the subdivision would allow the sale of Lot 2 which under existing conditions is essentially unbuildable. The future owner will have relied upon the City's approval of the subdivision as ensuring a house can be built on the property. Without ditch relocation and piping at a great deal of expense, and/or future setback vaziances, the property may not be developable. Again, staff would be inclined to support the vaziances and subdivision if a specific plan for ditch relocation were presented. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There aze other properties in the area impacted by the Rocky Mountain Ditch. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. H. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Planning Commission Case No. WA-07-25/MS-07-04/ Johnson Approval of the variances would not result in the accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes aze not subject to accessibility requirements. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 1. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Low density residential development is not subject to the requirements of the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. IV. AGENCY REFERRALS The proposal was referred to all of the appropriate city departments and outside agencies. All responding agencies have indicated that they can serve the property and the applicant will bear the cost of installing improvements to the property. Wheat Ridge Public Works: Has approved the technical elements of the plat document. A right-of-way dedication of 25' will be required for W. 35t' Avenue. The installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk will be required along Jay with improvements to the intersection radius as well. Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation District: Will require a fee in lieu of land dedicauon for the new unit. Rocky Mountain Ditch Company: Is requiring a 30' easement for maintenance. Wheat Ridge Water District: Can serve the property subject to rules and regulations of the district. Wheat Ridge Sanitation District: Can serve the property subject to rules and regulations of the district. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIMENDATIONS Staff has concluded that the majority of the criteria used to analyze variance requests are not supportive of the lot width variance. If the lot width variance is not approved, then the subdivision, as proposed, is not approvable. Staff recommends denial of all three components of the request with the reasons listed in Section VI of this report. VI. RECOMIIENDED MOTIONS VARIANCE TO LOT WIDTH (A three-fourths vote of the members present is needed to approve a variance.) Option A: Planning Commission Case No. WA-07-2584S-07-04/ Johnson "I move to DENY Case No. WA-07-25, a request for approval of 25.21' lot width vaziance and a 3' side yard setback vaziance for property located at 3516 7ay Street, for the following reasons 1. Although the setback vaziance is not out of chazacter with the azea, the remainder of the evaluation criteria does not support the requests. 2. There will be an impact on public welfare as an approved, platted lot gives the assurance that a property is developable, which based on the impact of the ditch easement, is not the case." Option B: "I move to APPROVE Case No. WA-07-25, a request for approval of 25.21' lot width variance and a.3' side yazd setback variance for property located at 3516 Jay Street, for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3." SUBDIVISION Option A "I move to DENY Case No. MS-07-04, a request for approval of a two lot subdivision at 3516 Jay Street, for the following reasons: 1. The property is essentially undevelopable without relocation and piping of the ditch and/or potential future setback vaziances. 2. There will be an impact on public welfare as an approved platted lot gives the assurance that a property is developable." Option B "I move to APPROVE Case No. MS-07-04, a request for approval of a two lot subdivision at 3516 Jay Street, for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. With the following conditions: 1. The plat shall not be recorded until the existing structure on I.ot 1 is converted to a single family residence upon approval of a building pernut and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Fees in lieu of land dedication be required to meet the requirement for pazks contribution. This fee is to be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit." Planning Commission Case No. WA-07-25/MS-07-04/ Johnson ~ _ _ . . ~ A R~SU~DIVISION (JF A PART QF LtJT CONWA SITUATE~ IN THE NW 1l4 C)F SECTIC~N 25,1".3~., R.69W. CiTY 4F WMEA1' ~IDGE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ~T`A^ / q SHEET 1 OF 1 I G~~JG~~i}~% ~ 1?~ GOtiMJ~tIQ~'G~C~,'OC~N~ N 1 a R or~~~ o~ Q~ ~ , T ,69W., OF (FQUND 3 1 4" BI N0. 1 2i2 II ~ ...,a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ PJ ~ ~ a C'NC~~'I~G~C~(9~DDU0~'~C~~`iI ~ ~l~G~"~11~D~C ~ ~ ZONED.° 19=2 a ~ ~ i Z ~ f'v . i o d ~ pQ~~0~Q0o~'~ G~O~~~l %~~'91~G~~ ' zONEO.° H=P f ~ Y~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N89'47`40"E i i 14.33 / . . ~ » saa ao zo ~ ~ FOUriND P!N dc PlA5fiN C4P . ~ FOllND 3 REBAR U.3'Sx1.5'W . ~ a i / LS. 0. 22094 2 7~ E o~ Gnt. uu~r~o ~ moN} ~V89 47 40 E 125.67 • oF ca~.cuu~hro mor~~ z2.~o' ~ r : 5 ~r 7 ( unurr~+~n~r ~ I , / . `W s3r~s 3o~w ~ , I , ~ 25.68 ~ qi ~ ~ 1 s° ~e+auoc~ ~ / I , ~ vncnr ~+~~xr s~rr,~;~w o I , ~ ~ , ~ ~ / I i ~o~r ~ ~ - ~ , e~ I ( 9,751 SQUARE ~~T ~j / ~ 0.2239 ACRES / ~0 / ~ o I i / ~ I ~ C i ~ ~ , 1~ ~ , ~ / ~ c~ ~ ~ .h , I ~ ae~u' h ~ r I untrrr ~,s~r~ivr / .o ~ ~ i / o~'` / , ~ , • I ~ ~ q O t a z NEn.•~z i i~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ < < I a o i . ~ a ~ » ~ , ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ n~z•~e~~ ~ r I R=2sa.so' ~ i , o . N i0 . Q s,, ~ , ~ ~ ~ / i ~ti ~ ~ f L-14.s~ e t,; ~ ~ ~l Chd=S42'35'05 ~ ~ I ~ ~ a v Q 14,97 ~ ` W ~ ~ , / ~ ~ ~ ~ L...._...._____~.. / ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W < ~1 ~ m ~ ~ N i e ~ _ , , 1~ b ~ i Q o ~ ~ o ses~a~ ao~v s~,~~ ~ ~ i I~ cv ~ ~ 1~ - ~ n ~ Q~ N / d - -r■ ~ • ~ I o 4 la / / ty ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ / t . ~ ~ " sl 7'1 ",~5" ir. ~ ~J ~ A { 4 ~ , ~ / ( ~ ~ ~ ,~,~zc~ s , ~ ar ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z I I ~ a~ ~s~n7 ~ I ~ - o I ~ ~ ~iA. o rn ~ ~ / ~ Q r ~ ~ _ 1 ~ ~ ~ / LOT 2 ~ ~n / ~ ~r , / 10,52Q SQUARf FEEf 5' qRIkIG46E' ~ ( ,r / 0.2415 ACRES (/~(/~y E~;~/~' ~ ~ l0' Gi~PA/~WGl~' d~ ~ I r i rrnurr ~vr ~ ~4 , s _ J -______7_---_______ i ~T i 3~ i , i ~ ~,~p,~P ~ l19.67' FOUND PIN dc PlA5fiC CAP S89°47'40"W 14q.Op' L.S. N0. 22094 fQUND ~5 ~EBAR ~ 3,50p SQUARE FEEt OR 0.0843 ACRES, MEREBY Q c~ o a DEdICA1ED TO TFIE CITY QF WHEAT RIDGE ~ ~ AS PUBLIC RIGHT-4F-WAY BY TNIS PLAT cv N 'IC z~,~o° aa.sa' ~ __l__. ~ .e..... ; ► S89'47 40"W 416.4$ CN i 18 GORNER i S89 47 40"W ~'4~.~Q NOTNING FOUND OR SET T. S. R.69W .a " ~ NOINING ' ~ TR`U~"PO/NT OF - - _ _ _ BEG/NNfIVG - ° NOTHING FOi1ND OR SET ~ 1~"' WEST 35TH AVENUE (Puauc ~.o.w. v~ies ~ ° - _ A' ` ~ 11~~o e 4zs~, 1438.52''. - ~"°s ~ ' ~ °n^ e ~ y "A ~ 4 a . r ,g ~ ~ ~ _ _ V/ CAMMENG C 1 4 CORNER OF ,C- t. ~,ssw. o~ r~ FOUND 3 1 4 BRI • (COMINUEU) o. 2e2~s tr~wc 1. TEN-FQQT 10' WIDE ~ASEMENTS AR~ HEREBY GRANTE~ QN PRI4'ATE 3. TkiIS PROPERTY IS GURRENTLY ZONED: R~2 (RESIDENTIAL TWO). ( ) AS ~ PROPERTY AQJACENT TO ALL PUBI.IC STREETS AND FRONT ANQ REAR PROPEftTY 1.1NES OF EACN LOT IN THE SUBnIVIS14N UR PLATT~Q AREA, 4. BASIS OF BEARINGS: FIVE-FOOT (5') WfpE FAS~MENTS ARE HEREBY GRANT~O ON PRIVATE BkARINGS USED HERE4N ARE BASED ON THE AS5UMPTION THAT THE 1. Y PROPFRTY ADJAC~NT TO ALL SIDE LOT LIN£S AF ~ICH LOT (N THE EAST I.INE QF THE Nw 1/4 OF S~CTION 25, ?,35., R.69W., OF THE 6TH StJBDIVISION OR PLATTED AREA. TMESE EASEMENTS ARE DEDICATED P.M,, IS ASSUMED TO BEAR S00'19'08°E 80UNDED BY THE FOR THE INSTALtATION, MAiNTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT OF MONUMENTS SNOWN HEREON. EI.ECFFtIC, GAS, 7ELEVlS1QN CABLE, DRAINAGE AND TELECQMMUNICATlONS FACILITIES, UTILiTIES SHALL Al.SO BE 5• THE THIRTY-FOOT (30') WIDE EASEMENT FOR THE ROCKY M011NTAIN PERMITTED WITHIN ANY ACCESS EASEMENTS AND PRIVATE STREE'TS IN pITGH WAS pETERMINED 8Y A FIEI.D INSPECTION OF THE OITCN 8Y THE SUBDIVISION. PERMANENT 5TRUCTURES AND WATER METERS REpREgENTATiVES Ofi THE ROCKY MQUNTAIN WATER COMPANY (OWNERS). T BE PERMITTED WETHIN SAID UTfI.ITY EASEMENTS. THE GENTERLINE SNOWN HERON WAS DETERMINED BY MAPPING THE SHAIL NO ¢ i PREPARED BY.~ TMREAD OF THE DlTCH. REGARDlNG DITCH RlGNTS-OF-WAY CRS I T WAS BAS~D ON IANp TITLE POLfCY NUMBER TR$4~234 2, i'H S PLA 37-86-102 STATES "THE RIGHT OF AN qWNER WITN RESPECT 70 A DALEYL4ND SURVEYING lnc. CASEH/S, , PC+ CASE N/STORY.~ PREPAREp BY LAND TITL.E GUAi2ANTEE COMPANY, W{TH A POLICY dAT~ DITCM EXCAVATED OVER THE PRIVATE LAND OF AN07NER EXTENDS TO 10727F1a lerOrive, Parker, Cokxxrada 80134 QF APRII. 25 2042, ANO DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCN 8Y THIS n Q(flce 3 953-9841 ~ Fex 303) 953-9841 ~ THE BEp OF THE DITCF! AND SUFFIGIENT GROUND pN EITHER SIDEa r~ ( SURVEYOR ~'OR OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR EXGEPTIONS OF RECOEtD. ww,'vo.: o-are piAwpa,aao,,: rPareorcost RBi4slon: TEMPOI 08/10/2007 02/01/2008 J ~ ~ ~ ~ hNN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I - _ J N89'47'40"E 14.33' SOO@ 19'48"W m N= ~ ~ - 1 ~ d• ~ IXISTING HOUSE ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ I PROPOSEO LOT 1 ~ i ZONEO.• i9 I O~ I I I ~ I i ~ ~ - o~ i 1 N ° l I I / ~ o Z i ~ L.~~----~- , ` . . -FOUND'/5 REBAR i i IXISTING GARACiE i D PIN k PLASfIC CAF' OUN S. N0. 22094 (2.7 Nx0.4'E F CALCUVITED POSRION) IF-740L I --.-I l1 ' J ' i / / f I ' ~ I . ; 1 1 S89'47'40"W 140.00 PO/NTOF NonHiNC FouNO WEST 35TH AVENUE . in. i nmc~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ nN ~ ~ ~ Q 4 ~ ~ ~ d ~ ID PIN & PIASTIC CAP N0. 22094 ~ - - _ - _ - ~ - - - -J- IOTHING FOUND EXHIBIT 2 2 12 30 O 6 20 40 Scale: 1" = 20' ~ I I ~ ~ 14.3 3' I SOVZO*ZO~E FOUND PIN de PtASI1C CAP 2.00 ~'c"u°cuin•°rm z.~'rr"Hj'e o uNO u~m ao~°moirj .5~" N89'47'40"E 125.67 22.50' F - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------L-_ ~ ~ I anc~r gigmew i i S3713'30"W 25.69' ~ A ( S' LYPA,41lQG~ st i !/7/[/lYF.1~ I .S.lT1J:fOlY 17.1J ~ LOT 1 j ~ 9•7O.Y239 ~R ~ oo~' I ~ But~DAC3►-E c~~ ~ AREA 6~8'~~ I ~ i utlalV7YMw6r & Q ~ Z~NEO.• i^,-2 ~ y// 4~~53~j1 I 0 . ~ ~ 4R288505• ~ N'T°. ~ / ~ . che-s zss,osw M; g Q 00 - ~ . . 14.97' L---.--- N S89'47'40 68.91 O N . ~i ~ a ~ o 20 Z amv E499ovr ~ ~ . i ~.r. ~ LOT 2 I ~ 10,520 SQUARE `FEEI Lf4ANl4Gr & ~ s'' -can~ c k'"+ 0.2415 nc~s MtMar I i~ a'n°Y~r~ ~ ~'d L-~~ ~ LND 55~ ~ 1f9.67' PIN. de PLASfIC CAP S89'47'40 _ 140.00 LS. N0. 22094 FOUND /8 REBAR 0 3.500 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0803 ACRES, HEREBY o ' v DEOICATED TO THE :CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ° ~ AS PUBUC RIGHT-OF-WAY BY THIS PIAT a., u.~ LSi SS9-4Z#~FO~W 140.00NOTHING FOUND OR SEf WEST 35TH AVENUE (PUBLIC R.O.W. VARIES) EXHIBIT 3 3 TD; Meredith Reckert FROM: Brian Johnson DATE: 2-7-08 Meredith, Good afternoon. In the letter you have provided to me you made three points that you wanted me to address. The following is my response to your inquiries. On point one the required lot for a single family dwelling on a corner unit requires 80' on each road front. Obviously this cannot be accomplished on the Jay St side of the property. No matter how we draw out the split of the land this cannot be accomplished. We currently have the Jay St. side of the land at 54.79'. This land would be used in one of two ways. Either we would put a driveway entering the second piece of properiy coming off of Jay St. or we would merely have this side as yard only. You and I spoke about filing for a variance for this obstacle already and I think that we should move forward with this strategy. You had made mention that we could combine the variance process into the land split process. The second point you have indicated is the setback requirement for the ditch. I have spoken to Wade at the Rocky Mountain Ditch Company and he indicated that the ditch could be buried at the expense of the land owner / developer. When this happened the setbacks for the ditch would be dramatically shrunk as to the new nature of the ditch. We are planning on designing this part of the land as a yard area and should not have to trespass on the setback requirements of a buried ditch to build a single family dwelling. The third point you wanted me to address is the Garage location in relationship to the property line. I will need to get a variance for this tied into the land split as well. The only justification that I have for this is that this garage was here when I purchased the property. It has been there for 20+ years which means that the garage has not met setback requirement for several owners of this property. EXHIBIT 4 .,~rcc.~a....•.~a.~¢..v.ra~mr.r..ssa~a~r.-esaac e,i'~.~~:'4F~:~ir:wnx~m. ._Qm.wa~xasc.camnesaw TO: Meredith Reckert FROM: Brian Johnson DATE: 2-7-08 As a matter of fact the garage was across the property line until we did this quit claim process to re-establish the north boundary line. We have done what we can to this point to at least clear up the mess of the north boundary and will now need the city's help to legalize the garage where it has sat for several decades. I hope that this answer's some of you concerns and questions. If there is more information that you need from me please feel free to let me know and I will do my best to take care of them. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, Brian Johnson b K Ilfo P9 11 R.ec#qq00qoi& I/,39L~ 4;30 ~V~ j*X4M kA q G040 $I0,6-0 ~ ^N 1r~r' w LITTLEJOHN SUBDIVISION FILING N09 i 915Tf - Om1~x0~ cASIiiuTt . O~.B98 aeyp~dvuc~rl6ed halt, af tW [al 9.eN[tl of A Resutrdivisian of the West 118 Feet of Block 4, HIGHLAND GARDENS Nat 13i Ewe of eloek a. llmAtD NR➢06, comtl of - A Part of the NW I/4 of Section 25, TowFlShip 3 South,. Range 69 West of the 6#h P M. I•efec,m, .tu. eE hlevada, ' .aa a..., iaaa eut, awwvvta.a ua ai.ccw via :ma y.r CiTyofWheatRidge,CountyofJefferson,.StaT.eofColorado i~'~:;,~„4;,:a:~~Kw `,:';,~>.~..and ~:';.rt. SNEET I of I 1 ~ I 22 I ^1 N I iNorfh Lim ' NE I/9 SE IK NW IM . ~ n •:•'•y . Sec.25, T35, fl69W ~ - N89°n~35'~E 11 . ~30 _,A W. 35th AVE „ - e424 02.71 2930'. . ' S43.]0'fNaf ~0 9c~ c Nor1h Linc BIOCX 4 i - 5°u ManM~- t- ~'1 . " . N HIGHtPNO GARPENS/~,/ :f ro • 1 ' . , ~5 73.•y~ H ~ 25. VICINITY MAP - zo' aa.sr i 2o ~ TRACT A ~ i/va~•• , , N 1" = 2000• - 90 W"d ROW 0.OSBx.N-//2SS / - CwnryCamm~ssloners I / j I Javnal Cj(H 5910 LEGEND a-zsot I m i,l ~ P 9~.~ N 4 i M HLANO = Sef No. 5 Bar 9 Cap No. 9010 I a,~~F LOT I OfNS ~ O~„ scfN" Q raiepnone Set pfy of Wheaf ftidge Sheet Monument HGRVEY FIRST 4DDITION ~ Eaaemmr I fek407, rvacs, - Zonetl R-2 I// noa.fiMawain PC = Point ol Curvafure ~X PT • Painfbf Tan9anry 20 ~ Za . 3O 10 IS ~o Mff Q~o~~ I, GRAPNIC SCPIE m . ~ ~n" ~ p e " - 30 sores: 1! Pield rvc ey contval biaeL upon Cit) "of X6sB< Ritlqs RSqSbof-iiay Nap [ 8eference Monu~enta fi1M Ea[ [ace tl aa Mwptian Mo. B910B109 and Brea4dow of 9eetiop 25, }38, R69f1, pai Abt 1 of 9 CitY af NFeat Ridge ]ou Xa 05431 31. Caat liue of IIX1/1 oi said Sect;ap 2' bq[aXp0o19'OB'TI aa pes a.id fyeltl cw[[oa r«ora.. 3) xcaet T ahall'nat be wed for rNVdencial covtruetiav purpaae.. 31 Coerdiaates of liatsd atraet wenwnb: . tloe. !4[fLiP4" Wl~ 8624 14076.5683 - 4244].6]15 8425 33919.9493 42 443.6155 ' 8630 14016.8600 42535.3946 8630T . 1016.9551 {3519.]644 a] a«u. .u..me u.ee.a e.ratn is ter cne ew.eic oc Lara i aaa z. 1OSICS: Accoidio5 [o Colocado lar yoe t eieece ny ~~rctiov bued upon any defict In Wi outwy v1CAin tLt.e l.wc. ~f[ec you five d5Bewwr h d~foc[. In no me, q- y aeHen puN uyaa .~v1 dnfeec L. thL • rq M c~~eeed rovz 'thaa t.o y~ex~ fvm Un d.ce of~r[L~ <eaiftuaiao eham luxeon. - ♦ P. i 25 HIGHLAND GAROENS Zoned R-2 HARVEY FIRST AODITICN Zoned R-2 xOrIQ; AnS M«m rGa keminqlT isavea, altan oc d.taCq 1 Pablic Lawd 8uraq Men~~u[, Ar 1~W Deunda[) ~enamt. O[ W aeeo pocl. ea~its Cbas 3 Mi.Ouor y¢[fWCt ta lt6* Otahb 19-4-508 C.I.S. I rm ~ < I Nry 0`" L9T 2 ~ - I2,6295.tH- m g m 0.290ac.N- / 2 N ~ : b14M W I nwin secn ~o' o.a;,an Eas<menY T ~<c_fb. B31076101 Seuth Yin< Block 9 H16HLRNU GAFpENS 20" r MORRIS SUBDIVISION N~ ~ Zoned R-2 ~ 25' I 20' roE the City 01 11Leat'!i6].. Cpip[ada, aotl b,'thu."OrNgsta 381h W a= adae<.v. co ca. cter ot xe..a uaa. .m chs wmaa NV4Cp . 4V~ ~tI~K3. [O~di. iCd lY i¢d dlivti u fhWO ~ CG Sec.2R,T35„ft69W " . / . ~4w°nvy ylat far tW publie we tt.voE forwer. (3in amm.cao lb 13212 B 9a. . Abn. BOZ) ROS.1. Li[[ISlebu . 1~IL~S ~I 3U[e ef Gle[ado ) 95 - couaty ef J.ffaraee) - ° The fovpoin9 ivtnrift¢t u~f -cct.dy'nir. er tdi, 3 -r--V( 1 . 'P L I' v. '..!n t 19~V, b, , " m' nYCUni ' ~Virss: 7.,n+V<~c✓1t.G(~.aZ~-EE--' g~ taq eu61'< ro ~~Ua5.~ I lOYRd'] dT4I0S! i I CuGeve A Bu[tlv4, a HpL[azN P[ofus' 1 mqiyee[ BLdPpofos4voml Lmd SeivqoL [qiatorN 1¢ the dtat f C 1 ;i da. ~ herebY roctify tLat the f c Y3 ot tM bomtls[} f LI4lId3pO " I OotUlYI6IOI 11Y1~O ~p. 1. ~ d. unAe[ y.di i t pmsahl3itY. _ up aaam, and cMatanq, apd ezxNne~ ti 11 appaicabl• C t. acted 54cutu, cu.rrant sn1aM Nitiec. n snaad . . . i .a00 iEoi l4100 lYtl: 1tlbYCt Vefte y v Ya! 1. LW viLSan a i 9aatm 43006 haaa[d a . TG Wer. at M tl upw inSOCYtleu. afoernnchd ~~BC Aatl ia aWI~ct ce eha~o du. c buftia cwditiew Eaaf liae +nr Wd m hWtt oE . hW W Sec.25, lO~DIQ OO1~iR T35, k6~ . . aAiw e , !u[ iek, P Y9 A. Yt9 C" coto~aao nro. 91 . so ae r1 s.rv.c< co. en cotoram uc- et un..+. aiaQa I : O1I af Putilie xorb NL atice5 Tela 6?ele9[app Cit= ~~6a~t AICgF ~ aE Parka 6 Rmvution Comnlsa¢on N . Z CiCy o[ ilLVac Ridqe DKEROLOF ~MMING4OEVELO(MFMT _!a euuxac cwwxaaxoM cFarirxcaxe s Q this as w ceeti£y the vi[hi¢ plat haa ce n ap0«vad tiy the PLminq = I= covmazaaon oE the cicy of xhoat Ridqv,. Celerado. - {ij a~ . - l~iCl'i CaSI1i0a O' U~ This Sa ca cc[tiEp [hat tLa C:C) ai NW [ Aift4 COl o, bp mtim of ~its City Coupcil did m YL. 25 da) af G}?~2' 19~~ ~ adoFt eva I aYP[av< CW vitLln Pla[ aed atpPt !G dMiuiiov Lecsop . I m.ae. i ntw 1 axrem: - ~ ~SEAI: I citT CLCk V ' ¢sc rs swus•~ meni~ srxze or cowaw ) - ] 49 cavRr ar a~ 1 . ~ I i newb> cevcvfl tLac tiis o»= u+ fi1" ia a elfi<a - aA, Cenier W Camr I ' iock~~m., en CEe Sec.25.T3~P69M o c (3l4"9rusCUp dWy re<orcad iv elu P Me. i321Z 9 Ba . in Mon. Bo~l W. 32 nd "VE EXHIBIT S