HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2008atY aF
~ Wheat~idge
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
November 20, 2008
Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission on November 20, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City
of YVheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in
advance ofa meeting ifyou are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
3. PLEAGE 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 - October 16, 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.)
7. PUBLIC AEARING
A. Case Nos. MS-08-01 & WA-08-14: An application filed by Davis Reinhart for
approval of a 2-lot minor subdivision plat with a lot width vaziance and a side yard
setback variance for an exis6nggarage and a waiver of street dedication requirements
for property zoned'Residential-One (R-1) and located at 2690 Pierce Street.
B. Case No. ZOA-08-05: An ordinance amending Section 26-803 of the Wheat Ridge
Code of Laws pertaining to floodplain control.
8. OTHER ITEMS
9. ADJOURNMENT
♦~~I
CIfY Of
Wheat Kidge
(
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
October 16, 2008
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair BRINKMAN at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat
Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Commission Members Present:
Anne Brinkman
Jim Chilvers
John Dwyer
Dick Matthews
bavis Reinhart
Kiin Stewart
Steve Timms
Commission Members Absent:
Jerry Scezney
Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Adam Tietz, Planner I
Tim Parauto, Public Warks Director
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner REINHART to approve the agenda as presented. The motion
passed 7-0.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 4, 2008
It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner
DWPER to approve the minutes of September 4, 2008 as presented. The
motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner TIMMS abstaining and Commissioner
SCEZNEY absent.
6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for auy person to speak on any subject not
appearing on the agenda.)
~Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 16, 2008
There was no one to address the Commission at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WZ-08-06: An application filed by T-Mobile for approval of a
Final Development Plan amendment far the Foothills Medical Center
Planned Commercial Development located at 8550 West 38°i Avenue to
allow roof-mounted C.M.R.S. facilities.
This case was presented by Adam Tietz. He distributed revised copies of the T-
Mobile Communications Site Final Development Plan Amendment to the
Commission. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff
recommended approval for reasons, and with one condition, outlined in the staff
report.
In response to a question from Commissioner TIMMS regarding locations of
nearby CMRS facilities, Ms. Reckert stated that there are several facilities in
various locations on the nearby Lutheran medical facility.
Steve Warner
275 Olive Street, Denver
Mr. Werner, Reliant Land Services, explained that the request froin T-Mobile is
necessitated by inegular service that T-Mobile customers have been experiencing
in the area surrounding the proposed antenna. He stated the proposed equipment
adheres to all public safety cominunication standards.
Curtis Linville
T-Mobile `
In response to a question from Commissioner REINHART regarding the amended
subinission given to the Commissioners prior to the presentation, Mr. Linville
stated that engineers found the antennas could be moved closer to the parapet aud
lowered by 18 inches from the original plan without significant impact to the
signals.
In response to a question from Commissioner TIMMS, Mr. Linville stated that in
order to minimize the visual impact, the facility would only accommodate T-
Mobile antenna equipment.
Chair BRINKNIAN asked if there were members of the public who wished to
speak. Hearing no response, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner DAVIS to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-08-06,
request for approval of a Final Development Plan Amendment to the
Foothills Medical Center Planned Development to allow for a roof-top
Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 16, 2008
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) facility at 8550 West 38th Avenue
for the following reasons:
1. The CMRS facility will adhere to all regulations set forth by the FCC
and will not constitute a threat to any public health or safety issues.
2. All outside agencies are able to serve the property and will not pose an
undue burden on any public utilities or their grids.
3. The facility will provide increased cellular service in an area that
currently lacks in service.
4. The CMRS facility is in compliance with the regulations set in City
Code Section 26-615(F) for roof-mounted facilities.
5. The amendment to the FDP will not alter the character of the area
and will have little or no impact on the surrounding properties.
6. Additional screening by mature landscaping on the site helps to
further mitigate visual impacts'the screened antennas and equipment
may have.
With the following condition:
The height of the antennas and accessory equipment may not exceed 50 feet
in height pursuant to City Code Sectiorr 26-615 (H).
The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner SCEZNEY absent.
B. Case No. MS-08'-03: An application filed by Coors Brewing Compaiiy
far approval of a 3-1ot minar subdivision plat for vacant land generally
located west of Lot 9 of Cabela's/Coors Subdivision, north of Clear Creek
and south of State Highway 58 at Indiana Street extended.
This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent
documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to
hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Because the
plat meets iequireinents listed in Chapter 26, Article IV concerning form and
content of subdivision plats and because the property is under consideration for
annexation, staff recommended approval with one condition as outlined in the
staff report.
Coinmissioner DAVIS asked if the property could be platted without addressing
floodplain issues. Ms. Reckert explained that there is a requirement to have the
floodplain notation on the plat and the property can be platted at this time.
Floodplain issues would be considered at the time of future development.
Ben Moline
Manager, Water Resources and Real Estate
Coors Brewing Company
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 16, 2008
Mr. Moline stated that he was in agreement with the staff presentation.
Chair BRINKMAN asked if there were members of the public who wished to
speak. Hearing no response, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner STEWART to recommend approval of Case No. MS-08-03, a
request for approval of a three-lot subdivision plat for property located west
of Lot 9 of the Cabela's/Coors Subdivision, north of Clear Creek and south
of Highway 58 at Indiana Street extended for the following reasons:
1. The property is currently under consideration for annexation to the
City of Wheat Ridge.
2. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met.
With the following condition:
1. The trail easement at the western corner of Lot 3 be corrected.
Commissioner DAVIS offered a friendly amendment to place another
condition that approval is subject to annexation approval. The amendment
was accepted by Commissioners MATTHEWS and STEWART.
The amended motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner SCEZNEY absent.
8. OTHER ITEMS
There were no other items to come before the Commission.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner
STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The motion passed
unanimously.
Anne Brinkman, Chair
Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 16, 2008
City of
Wh6atlwgle
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE OF MEETING: Nov. 2Q 2008 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert
CASE NO. & NAME: Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a two lot minor subdivision with variances to lot
width and side setback with a request for waivers (variances) of
right-of-way dedications
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2690 Pierce
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Davis Reinhart
2690 Pierce Street
Wheat Ridge, CO
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
ENTER INTO THE RECORD:
.68 acres
R-1, Residential-One
Single family residence
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
(X) CASE FILE AND PACKET
MATERIALS
(X) DIGTI'AL PRESENTATION
(X) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Planning Commission
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
Aerial with zoning overlay
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting reguirements
have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
1. REQUEST
The property owner requests approval of a two lot minor subdivision on .68 acres of property
located at 2690 Pierce Sueet. The property in quesuon is zoned R-1, Residential-One. (Exlubit 1,
applicant letter) The property is a corner lot with street frontages on Pierce Street and W. 28'h
Avenue. There are a single family residence constructed in 1940 and detached gazage of the
same vintage on the property.
The property was platted as a part of I,ot 2, Block 8 of Henderson's Subdivision
Amended which was recorded with Jefferson County in 1884. At the time of platting
Pierce Street was called out as Henderson Street and W. 28`" Avenue was idenufied as
Park Street. (Exhibit 2, Henderson's Subdivision,amended) There aze no specific street
widths designated on the plat document.
Planning Commission
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
The next subdivision activity occurs in 1954 which subdivided property to the east into
four pazcels (Exhibit 3, Moore-Ream Subdivision). The plat document references a 20'
( right-of-way vacation along the south side of W. 28"' Avenue. This vacation appears to
have occurred in 1951. (Exhibit 4, right-of-way vacation resolufion) A subsequent
vacation occurred for 10' of right-of-way adjacent to the subject property in 1954
(Exhibit 5, right-of-way vacation resolution)
R-1 zoned property abuts the pazcel on the north, south and east. Property to the west, across
Pierce Street, is zoned R-2. Adjacent land uses are predominately single family residences.
In order for the subdivision to be approved as submitted, the following must occur in the order
listed:
1. Granting of a variance to the minimum lot size with an associated sideyard setback
variance for the gazage. (A three fourths vote of the members present is needed to
approve a variance.)
If this request is approved, then the following can occur.
2. Approval of waivers or variances to the requirement for right-of-way dedications for
Pierce and 28"' Avenue. (A three fourths vote of the members present is needed to
approve a variance.)
Regardless of recommendation, the following can occur:
3. Approval of a two lot minor subdivision either with or without right-of-way
dedications.
A two-lot minor subdivision would typically by reviewed by Planning Commission as the
final authority except when there are right-of-way dedications or vacations involved.
Planning Cominission will be giving recommendations to City Council on all three
components of this request.
U. AGENCY REFERRALS
The proposal was referred to all of the appropriate city departrnents and outside agencies.
All responding agencies have indicated that they can serve the property and the applicant
will beaz the cost of installing improvements to the property.
Wheat Ridge Public Works: Is requesting 5' of right-of-way along Pierce Street and
10' of right-of-way along W. 28'h Avenue. They aze requesting that public improvements
along both street frontages be constructed at the time of development of Lot 2. (Eachibit
6, Brossman memo)
Wheat Ridge Sanitation District: Can serve the property from an 8" sanitazy sewer line
in Pierce Street.
Planning Commission
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
Consolidated Mutual Water District: Can serve the property subject to nxles and
regulations of the district.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission is asking
for fees in lieu of land dedication.
III. SUBDIVISION DESIGN
The plat will subdivide the property into two lots. (Exlubit 7, proposed plat) Lot 1 will
contain the elcisting single family residence and the existing garage will be located on Lot
2 with the new pazcel line running between the two existing structures. The R-1 zone
district standazds require a minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet of azea with a lot
width of 100'. I.ot 1 on the proposed plat exceeds the standazds of the R-1 zone district
with 16,027 s.f. of lot size with 155.98 of lot width (measured along the Pierce Street
side).
Proposed I.ot 2 exceeds the minimum lot size standazd for the district at 13,371 s.f.,
however lot width which is measured at the 30' minimum front setback line is only 94',
requiring a lot width variance of 6'.
The new pazcel line is somewhat irregulaz in order to accommodate the existing
structures on the property. Attached is an exhibit showing the locations of the proposed
structures and the resultant setbacks. (Elchibit 8, survey exhibit) Both the rear and side
setbacks in the R-1 zone district are required to be 15'. With the proposed configuration,
the house will have a 15.6' reaz setback which is conforming, but the gazage will only
have a 10.7' side setback, thus requiring a variance of 4.3'. Another item of note is that
the house and gazage both have nonconfornung setbacks from W. 28th Avenue. As this
lot line currenfly exists, a variance is not required; these aze considered legal
nonconfornung setbacks. See chart below.
Dev. Standard Re uired
Dev. Standard rovided
Develo ment Standard met?
Lot width: 100'
155.98'
Yes
Lot
Lot size: 12,500 s.f.
16,027 s.£
Yes
1
Setback from 28th: 30'
27.4'
No, but considered legal nonconfornung
Rear setback (east): 15'
15.6'
Yes
Lot
Lot width: 100'
94.0'
No (variance required)
2
Lot size: 12,500 s.£
13,371 s.E
Yes
Setback from 28`h: 30'
20.2'
No, but considered legal nonconforming
Side setback (west): 15
10.7'
No (variance re uired)
It would be possible for the property to be subdivided without the need for variances;
however, it would necessitate the removal of the existing gazage. The applicant has
provided rationale for the variances. (Exhibit 9, applicant responses to evaluation criteria)
Planning Commission 4
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-01/Reinhart
V. VARIANCE CRITERIA
This is an azea which has a variety of housing styles and construction dates. A cursory review of
the existing pazcel lines in the azea reveal that there are many nonconfornuties to the R-1
development standards including lot widths and lot sizes. As an example, the property directly
to the south has a nonconforming lot width of 76' but is over a half an acre in size. Much of the
existing platting and development in the azea occurred prior to incorporation of the City.
A review of the land use atlas which tracks City land use case approval activity indicates that
subsequent to incorporation, there have been numerous variances granted in the azea including
but not limited to front setback, side setback and rear setback variances.
Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance
request. Because the variance requests aze inter-related, they must be approved as a
package; therefore, the variance requests will be evaluated together as one discussion
item. In other words, Planning Commission can not deny the lot width variance and
approve the gazage side setback variance. Planning Commission shall base its
recommendation in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates a
majority of the following criteria have been met:
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 is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The
existing single family residence may remain. However, in order to subdivide without
variances, the exisfing gazage would have to be demolished which may impact the
character of the property.
Staff concludes that this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
If the requests aze granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. There aze
numerous nonconfornung lot widths and structure setbacks in the immediate vicinity.
While the proposed lot width and garage side setback are slightly below the R-1 zone
district standazds, the lots and 'unprovements will be consistent with the conditions of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Staff concludes that 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 project represents an investment in the community due to construction of a new
single fanuly residence. While the property could be subdivided without the variances,
~ the property owner has strived to take advantage of the existing shuctures and chazacter
of the property. Demolition of the existing garage on the property would increase the
Planning Commission 5
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-OI/Reinhazt
amount of investment required with new construction which could be prohibitive to
development of a home on the new pazcel.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
4. The particular physicai 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 no unique conditions related to physical surrounding, shape or topograplucal
conditions that create a hazdship. The hazdship has been created by the property owner
who desires to keep the exisung gazage on the property while subdividing.
Staff concludes that 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.
The difficulty has been created by the property owner by requesting a subdivision which
does not meet the R-1 development standazds.
Staff concludes that 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 wluch 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 welfaze and would be not injurious to the
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair use of adjacent
property. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of
this request. The request would not increase congestion in the street due to the additional
trips generated by an additional single family residence. There would be no nnpact on
fire danger. The request may have a positive effect on property values.
Staff concludes that 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.
There are numerous nonconfornung lot widths and setbacks in the immediate vicinity.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
Planning Commission 6
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
S. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a
person with disabilities.
Approval of the variances would not result in the accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
Staff concludes that 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.
Low density residential development is not subject to the requirements of the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
VI. VARIANCE (WAIVER) OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS
When a subdivision is submitted to the city for review and approval, one of the
assessments that occurs by the Public Works Department is whether the streets abutting
the proposed subdivision meets the city standazds for width and whether the construction
of public improvements will be required.
For residential subdivisions, if Public Works concludes that the public improvements
should be installed now, a subdivision improvement agreement with a letter of credit for
125% of the cost of the improvements is required, as well as civil design documents
detailing the construction. Conshuction of the public improvements would occur prior to
the lots being developed.
If it is deternuned that public improvements aze not suitable for construcuon at this time,
a development agreement with letter of credit for cost of the improvements is required for
future installafion. If street construction does not occur within ten yeazs, the funds are
released back to the property owner.
Pierce Street is classified as a collector street, with a standard width of such as 60', or 30'
from centerline. Pierce Street abutting the property is only 50' in width; therefore, Public
Works is requiring the dedication of 5' of right-of-way.
W. 28"' Avenue abutting the property is considered a local street which requires a total r-
o-w width of 50'. Since 28th Avenue abutting the property has only 40' of width, Public
Works is requesting a dedication of 10' for right-of-way. Staff would point out that
Section 26-416.K. of the subdivision regulations allows a right-of-way width for local
streets to be reduced to 40' through a variance process accompanying a subdivision
request.
Public Works has deternuned that they would like the construction of public
improvements on both frontages to occur now.
Planning Commission 7
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1Beinhart
The existence of public improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) varies widely in this
azea. Pierce Street from 32nd Avenue to 26t' Avenue has vertical curb, gutter and 5'
sidewalk on the west side only. Thisgortion of Pierce was constructed in 2000 as a
capital improvements project. W. 28 Avenue has roll-over curb, gutter and sidewalk
along portions of the north side of the street. There aze no public imptovements of any
sort along the south side of the street. Vacations of the right-of-way along the south side
of 2e Avenue previously occurred in the 1950's.
The applicant objects to both the requirement for dedication and also the request for
installation of public improvements or the requirement for an escrow agreement with
funds for future improvements. (Exhibit 10, Applicant justification)
Planning staff concurs with the requirement for dedication of right-of-way along Pierce
Street. Pierce is one of the only collector sueets which extends through the north-south
expanse of the city from 26'h Avenue north to W. 48th Avenue. It has an average
weekday vehicle count of 4599 at the Pierce intersection with 28`" Avenue with 5467
daily vehicle uips at the Pierce intersection with 35`h Avenue. It has heavy pedestrian
traffic by school aged children as a primary route to Jefferson High School at 22"a
Avenue in Edgewater, Wheat Ridge Middle School at 38th and Upham and Sts. Peter and
Paul school at Pierce and 40`h Avenue.
Public Works staff would like, at a minimum, the 286' Avenue right-of-way dedicated in
the event of the need for future street and drainage improvements. Dedication of 10' for
W. 28t' Avenue would reduce the current lot size proposed for Lot 2(13,371 s.f.) down
io 12,381 s.f. which reduces it below the minimum lot size of 12,500 s.f. Dedication of
10' along W. 28`h Avenue also reduces the existing structure setbacks to 10.2' for the
garage and 17' for the house. If Planning Commission recommends approval of the
dedication along 28~' Avenue, an additional vaziance to lot size must be advertized for the
City Council public hearing.
The impact of dedicaflons for 28t' Avenue and Pierce would reduce the lot size for L.ot
from 16,027 s.f. to 14,357 s.f.
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a vaziance or
waiver request. The proposed waivers will be evaluated sepazately as Request A(Pierce
Street) and Request B(W. 28`F' Avenue) where appropriate. Planning Commission shall
base its recommendation in consideration of the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates a majority of [he following criteria have been met:
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.
Requests A and B: If the requests for variances or waivers are denied, the property may
still receive a reasonable return in use as the existing single family residence may remain.
If the variances are denied, the dedications and construction of public improvements will
be required.
Planning Commission
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
Staff concludes that this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Request A: If dedication and construction are required along the Pierce frontage, this
would be the only built portion along the east side between 26th and 32nd Avenue.
However, based on the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Pierce, staff feels
the public welfare should take precedent over "the look" or character of the area.
Request B.: If the request on 28~' Avenue is granted, the character of the locality would
not be impacted. W. 28`h Avenue varies in total width from 40' on the west portion to
30' on the eastern portion. There are no public improvements along the south side and
intermittent improvements along the north. There could be some azgument that
dedication and construction, or denial of the variance, could impact the visual look on
the south side of the street. Many of the existing mature uees would need to be removed
to accommodate dedication and public improvements installation.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with tlus
application, which would not be possible without the variance.
Requests A and B: The installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk costs azound $60 per
lineal foot. Dedication and construction of public improvements would increase the cost
of the project construction by approxunately $20,000. It is impossible for staff to
ascertain whether development of Lot 2 would become prohibitive with this additional
project cost.
Staff concludes that 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.
Requests A and B: There are no unique conditions related to shape or topographical
condition of the property that create a hazdship necessitating a waiver of dedicafion and
construction of improvements. The physical surroundings of the neighborhood aze mixed
as to the existence of public improvements.
Staff concludes that this criterion has not been met.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by auy person presently
having an interest in the property.
Requests A and B: The difficulty has been created by the property owner by requesting
a subdivision which does not meet the city standazds for sueet design.
Planning Commission 9
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
Staff concludes that 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 wlvch 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 Gght 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.
Requests A and B: Approvat of waivers to dedication and installation of public
improvements could negatively impact the city's policy for protection of the public
welfaze with safe vehiculaz and pedestrian traffic routes. This is more critical for Pierce
Street which is a collector than 28`h Avenue as a locai street. Approval of the requests
could negatively impact future congestion in the street and emergency response.
The waivers would not hinder or impair use of adjacent property or the adequate supply
of air and light.
Staff concludes that this criterion has not been met.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditioas necessitating the variance request are
present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Requests A and B: The existence of curb, gutter and sidewalk along both frontages is
not consistent. These conditions are not unique to this property.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a
person with disabilities.
Requests A and B: Denial of the variances and construction of a public sidewalk with a
handicapped ramp at the intersection could accommodate a person with disabilities
however, as there is no connection beyond the property lines, it is irrelevant. If future
unprovements were extended past the property, it would accommodate a physically
challenged individual.
Staff concludes that this criterion has not been met.
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set
forth in the Architectural and Site Design ManuaL
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
Planning Commission 10
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
VIII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIILENDATIONS
Having found the variance requests in compliance with the majority of the applicable
review criteria, Staff recommends approval of the lot width and sideyazd setback
variances. Staff concurs with the Public Works staff that at a minimum, right-of-way
should be dedicated for both Pierce and W. 286 Avenue. Because the technical
requirements of the subdivision regulauons have been met, Staff gives a recommendation
of approval of the subdivision with the condition that right-of-way be dedicated per the
Public Works recommendation.
IX. RECOMNIENDED MOTIONS
VARIANCES TO LOT WIDTH AND SIDE SETBACK
(A three-fourths vote of the members present is needed to approve a variance.)
"I move to recommend approval of Case No. WA- 08-14, a request for approval of 6' lot
width variance and a 4.3' side setback variance for L.ot 2 of the proposed subdivision, for
the following reasons:
1. Granting of the variance would not alter the chazacter of the azea.
2. There aze numerous lots with nonconforming widths and setbacks in the azea,
including several approved as vaziance requests by the Board of Adjustrnent.
3. Granting of the variance should not impair the amount of light and air to adjacent
properties, increase congestion in the public streets ar increase fire danger."
WAIVER OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS
(A three-fourths vote of the members present is needed to approve a waiver to street
dedication requirements.)
"I move to recommend denial of vaziances for street right-of-way dedications for Pierce
and W. 28"' Avenue in conjunction with Case No. MS-08-01, for the following reasons:
1. It is City policy to bring streets with insufficient right-of-way up to city standazds.
2. It will further the future general health, safety and welfaze of the city's streets."
TWO LOT NIINOR SUBDIVISON
"I move to recommend approval of Case No. MS-08-01, a request for approval of a two-
lot minor subdivision on property located at 2690 Pierce Street, for the following reasons:
L All technical requirements of the subdivision regulations have been met.
With the following conditions:
1. Five feet of right-of-way be dedicated for Pierce Street.
2. Ten feet of right-of-way be dedicated for W. 28th Avenue.
3. All typographical enors on the plat document be corrected.
4. Add the following case number to the case history box: WA-08-14."
Planning Commission 11
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
Planning Commission 12
Case Nos. WA-08-14/MS-08-O1/Reinhart
ledifice
CONSTRUCTION AND DEYELOPIdENT MANAGEIAENT
Davfs B. Aeinhart, n+srs
PRINCIPAL
dreinhart@edificecm.com
January 25, 2008
Community Development
City of Wheat Ridge
7500 West 29`" Ave.
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Re: Minor Subdivision Plat
2690 Pierce Street
Sirs,
I intend to submit for a minor subdivision plat to divide my lot at 2690 Pierce Street into two platted
Iots. The request should facilitate a second single family lot.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
b
0
g4-
U '
Davis B Reinhart MSPE
ti
202'
EXHIBIT 1
ax}
t0204
\
~
~
c~
~
~
E'r sard I N„2
o.
I
O
~
~
v
~
~
II
J
I
~
a
~I
v
t.
S
i
~
r
g I
~
o
4C r.
I
h
a
I
~7
l
I
@
~
~
a
e
I
~
I L
~
~
~ I v
/ Y A
~
3
4
~
~
i
~
I
I
J
v I ^
W
I ~ I
i~ pne;n~.~/Y Yaaix.!' ZaF+a~
~
:
t
L
,
a
~
/~,Z4,
~
~5u~ 1.0
C+I!
A7, ~~~~a xTV~I o \ tl ry+ti~ ~ ~'I
a
~
N
k
M
4
ti
&
h
y
~r
4-
~
z
s
i;
a~ ~y
4
q ~a' o ,G
0.
i 'nh od~.°o~ v
I T ~ C 4
' eCi C1 ~ ~ c F2 ~ .
j I . m~A,k~v~ti atim<r'
c w
~ tl fa ~ Jl~. a V ti~ 01°.{ °l
- -i ~ ~o•~'d~a~~ ro a,k~ i
- .
. . . 'j~.~i"h a r 4 ~
~
I
;
ii
~
i~
~
i~
f,
_I_
i,2i
, .
x~Ji~
V~•~
~ 2 o P~ ErzTy
p N N W ~
h
w
lkz
u~3~+3 5
9
•a
~pMx
Oti ~tl~
/
ItC~i'u'i,~
t i
e '
EXHIBIT 2
<
,
t
.
_AI O O ZE-REA MJlIBDIYI,SIOi1/ BOOK 13 PAGE
A iPESUBD/✓151ON OFA G027-/ON OF L OTS /I AND Z, BLOf/( B flEn/DE,PSONS AMENDED S1j9D1V1S1ON .
- .
' NEY✓ L AND S T.P EET -
P.FOTECT/VE CovEA/ANTS IJED/CAT/0~/
s.
A. No bu:/Cing a~sbu,fure s5a//beervde4, p/a<ea aia/fP~~aranqbvi/~i.ry~ fs' r`'T -T_~si~~ T H.VOW AL[ MEN 6Y 7HE5E PFESEI✓T3: pJo/ in JHi.r s~ddivirian vn/:/ /Ar bu:/6ey p/ans, spP~ /~a/ bn ~ a.rOp/a/ p/en . . I ,vE(oc Laf / I fi
I I That n'e, F ed C. .Pe,,he,l and Maiy S Rei,heit , orvnP/s
sHowiyy the/a~elian olsocb du /S.~y oi sfru~fure have bren Jpp~orrdin I I i I of tHe H'v,rf 242 feet apd MP Ea.r} /jz /eef o/fye NarfH 9Z3 fard
wI:finy as 1a.ganrra/p/an and exfe~na/ desiyn.enCasfo /o~d/ian of /he ~ I . af Lo15 / and Z relaetfi✓e/y, B/ock B, HenCeisorr'a Amendvd Sub-
~nbFi division have /aiO auf .rubOiviGed aqd plalfed the same, fogPf!/er wi/h
~%Jiqy oi sNor/urrw:/H "sperl fa p~opv,ly or reJ(e~k /i.7ar bylyP 5,
ai hi.r /e9n//Y epvoin/vd syvn Jurrasso ~ h-, o/ es.rigq Jlpv/C /He S~r6A~ /ri I J I frye 16fadJ ~aca}ed st~ip /yiny immediafr/y Nor1h 1hereaf anCadja~enl
o"h:sayenl fa:/}oappio~e oi dsapp~ovv so~/~ p/ins~ J'siyn-ene~o~r/ion {ypre fo, %nh /a1s dnCsJiee}s as Hereoq..s.4orvn u"drr Ihe name a74 s/g/e
.,-:/9iy/Hi~fy aayr aFfir sulh p/ans H>re breti J4(/~%{/le f0~ dQ/~/ PYP//f OJ MOO.PE- k'EAM S4BD/V/S/ON d?O ✓o by 1Hrle pirsrofs graaf and ~on✓ey
if no .ruif/a aajo ir fks rl`rfion o/,lurh o. /hP ms,F:ng I I. I - TP~/Y/JO~I C~orin }y~ ~ h fee J(mp/e fnr pub/i~ ure~a// nf /hr s/rrr~s and
dYli/UPS as sfpwo an /bis p/at
of ra~h a//tra11On ~F+s 6?ro rom,q~r+~~C p~ or fe ~ye ro.n,o(rfipn 1hrYro.f, fbe~ f0
svrh aywore/ w~i!/aa/Ev ie!piir~ and /his covrneNl ~'i%/be 4Pe~nrd !a /F+ve dar r roap/irdwi/9: Nei/bei ~he s~bdividr~ nv- h i ayr.r/.sbaU ~are/vi any rs' . I . - . ~P_~ L•. ~y..
romprnJr/ibq /~ar sury :r/~v&e,s Tdepx"rs e.sd dofie.r, ov1li.redhPie..r shai/ - 1 I Yi `
~rasvv.s andal/ri 7ayru.y ~ /97$ TYrrevtlrr su~hapO~`~/'a/ sha//noJbe ' Ow~r s and Subdiri~ecr r,
ivqmit6uq/rJ>~~o/fasdldcl~le gndrlf<t~i✓e%hr/Pah aYVriffPniaafrom'enf I ~ e STATE oF~OLO,PADO 7S.S_
I W A I ~ COUNTY Of JEFFfKSON
R!O/APC SHdUl1P PXPfUIPCby J.yP /A(A /P(O/CPCPN/9PyS O/d MdfO/iIf+OJlHC ki
/O~J~ dQQO/ryf/i1902P0/IryOIP /eIYPTFqd/J/YPS F~/lYPdffP/ JO P/P(OSP'I/OJP POHPYS. I~ I \ ry, fa.,qo,ey Wd5 O(E00✓lPC9P4/6PFOlP IAP /~/J~
~ o/-Wo.. mbr>, A.D. /9591 6y Fi~4 G Keirherl and 011y 3' .Pei
8. No naxioar oi o/fe.uivr 1iaCe ara~firi/y.rHa//br ~o~Cv~}rsopan ~ny~a/no~ I W I 2 .
eHa// anylkiqy be Jor~e lqriron rvb.~b.wag de o~ brrome ap vn.myaa~e ar nviran~e ~ ' v 0 W/fqpsv my hanJ add o/ioe/ ~Py
>a fhe nr.ghdaihood I Q ~ I .h My romwrrian exp~et N !fz
C NOlIIVP/I/H9 J/N/IGP FfP~~>eOlQp/y//~~P~Ory dqy ~OfW IH d9/OUdC`IO4/A/P9 N
PX(ILS/YfOJO~1P-SIO/t~OPPNvOYlI(PJ2r/,AfJld/fPJ, /eJS. 14Jtl ~O,f9uJlPflef/O/
si~y/e-sfv~y slrvdu~>s arless lyan 100 J94JOP f Pf f/ P/U/~f0/fi s~iUlfU/!J.
~
y
~ Q .
I
~
'
1
D. NO LHJFIAPOf {PnI, .ryark, qara9e, 6drn, a, MaMii, a, any a/kri
"
br attupieC a/ urrd as a residewte trmporevdy ¢ipvrmanrn
no, t{H//d~/ f ap+iary
/ JpPCidl M/%J/~y "fiOiJJ/OA fa4i
1f/UfI(//f O( O(!UP/W dJ9 ✓PIleFO(P PXCPfI~b
. '
I
e. .
, A .
fa
.
s
fllP SO/J~✓~P J FO/dQ!/%OCi/p~f0 P/'MPCJ/L ///OO~Hl CU/'/H9 ~o~rl~o7liai of
. ?
' 2
' ~
I
y~
'
~
/
E/~MN31PM'F//f l/✓P~fPFW/~P/S/PJM✓PddlOq9d/IYPdld//CS/VPl/. . .
~
I ~
NE~O/ZOfZ
W
erla//r/io4anCmaia/rnane. AnySlo/rv~yir~uv edf> a~y igahon
~
. I
F .
' .
a lrhr, sM+.no.r 1dsp~et
F WArn ~Db! sewa~.r.derome a~ ~6/e ONP~I////~S fIl(4 V//eP/ ranr/rorlan o
.+v61r9.i.n{/Y /o de tv://murl ma~fe wv 1Nrreo! P'nding araJab,/~y o/rewar.r
W
ENb/NEER'S - CERT/F/fATE
ea<h drv//iny musl au < sanifaiy Oirposd/ fyilrn af CPJiqw appiarrd by 1He
S/ale.dawd~HeaNh, aodror~re1/y brs.b//edasJobehrim/ :r{ adavrny
~
"s.
I, T. RasseC6ir b'rr a "9is/pird Profrlsione/ Enylna.. w,4G
Survvyar in 1FeSla/toirom~ea do 111116y rer/ily /ha/ /bep/af~
arorananJrvunw:~bY6a.GnSa~S.zdaN6i~da//,varlia,rJnda//pr,savs'
G7Hr
svirv .o{ MOO.PE-,PEAM Sf/8D/Yl~NY~v,,r tirade by me a.rd vndir my,-;
.ipririsiahaqdffv/(bfb>~ea~c~ra/~fofi~ebrsta/.~y
.
da.~.aNy o4Cri f6P.n u.r/./ Janaaiy /97'F, ai NNi,3 lime }/~y rhal/ bv a kaitra//y.
.in/e.rr dya ratv ol ~hr awyur of
ex}ended far suctesMa /pnY~yr pa~Fadi
'
l E
/
'
P
,
3 O//ly a{ 1//a /a/.r saiJ rortnsn}s are /~l/P// rllJ/J4Pe/.H +•hofr orm pa~~
~I ~o
, .
~
W
yyi re
rss
ooa
4
~7rf ~ed
. ~n4'LsxC 3urreyi~ Na url."
H I~ra/Jafion afany rF/~Fere ~a~..,~„i~ 6r r~d enf a, ~wI Qrder sJ1~~/1
/9 76 ry'i.fl a/}~i[f Jr/r~ Of I~Y O~~II /lA~YeFiO%DJ ~I JI~'d// YP?!~l%/R /lI fi/f~ /YA"P.: .
.
.
~
i
I
' I
. . . -
and tFfvcf. .
_ . . . . .
.
I
.
i
-
I ~ I
~
.
. .
. . . . . .
I
I
v
. . . . . .
,
. . . .
_ _ .
~
~
I
.
. .
.
A P P. )P O✓ A LS APORDYED bylh< JEFFE25QN 0U Ty PGAN.v7.v6 COMM/S3/QN /b+'slidayalA~TA.
~Secred . ~iirrla_»
Thr farvqo:.rg.p/a~is aypraraJ far fi/iny~ erJ ranvoyenct of Ilt/. -
-y 6/ie ways roaGs and s1rre/s s -molhe'eda I s s,ceplPC ~5y fRe< .
' ~ fyof.~f}rrtn q ~Clo~efa)yiro/t-jeasf'D/95f~ssdjac/fo
fbs rondifian !Ha! fh~ Foon}y sHa/! u.rdvfi¢r irsi~fvnenre ofa.ry sv~h- .
F~d/.'~ way~ raa4.. or' slre<~ on/y a{lvr ro.s>{.ocIia, "y J/'es beea safisfa~to>:/y ~e np/efed dy fHe sutrdiridtr.r. . .$0A2D Of- COUMp7-~yf0~A1~MlSS/DA/E,PS
.:s
~ ~ a.. . . '
II
f~ P~-U P-E
I~ ~ . . . . - . .
I i.-.VIY(b~[aJ2 I . . ca(/NTV CGERM AI/D RECORpEIP'3 ACCEP74NCE
- STKEE T . -
R C E
_-_-.r-~-__-----
I
a
OK~
rrvp/es fai Ii.+~-/o ihr aFf,e a1f/.e CLERX aed RFC.dER f
A
,FEFFERSoN fWNF✓fl~rsj~t~ayaFA.D/93¢. Firvpf on No.
- ~ -
EXHIBIT 3
k ~
c I
i
~
~r
~
k
?°n
C
a . a~ir:; eD~tkioo
+ "MWA9, T6ex sppeeiraof seeorII 3n Haot 1 of Pists st Page 23 of
the Cle# and Aecordxr ef deSleYeon CoimFy, Coloradol the 'Ameaded Plnt of
Hendereon'e 96bdivieioa', u@oa~ttliich thera ie delineated a certain area
deaigay}.ed ge 'pntk 6Sreet' 171n6 between Blocks 7 md S of asid euhdlvision;
and
pH5MLi8l 8aifl street We aever Deea opened nor uaed Por public travel;
sad
{iHU,g,pg, Improvemea6e, dltchee and fencee are situate upou parts
thereof; nnd
WMWA8, Hsrry F. Ream and Mary S. Ream, ae ovnere of the North
92.3 feeC of Lot 1, Block 8 of eaid subdiviaion, eeek a formal vacatioa of
the 9outh 20 feet of such etreet eajacent to the north of their
property aforeseld; end C'7
A
WHEREAS,, The vacation of eeld portion of roadxay shall not leave v
9
any land ad,Joining the eame vithout an eetabliehed road connecting such ar
Y
land vith another establiahed roed,
gORj THEREPOAEp HE ST AF$OI.tBD, Thet the 9outh 20 feet of Park y
0
9treet as delineated on the recorded A/¢ended Plat of Henderson'S Sutdivisioii
Sn Book 1 of Plataet Pege 23, xhich 20 feet le Samediately north of and
adjaceat to the NorCL 92.3 Peet of Lot 1~ Block 8 of eaid euLdivlsion, Is
hereby vacated, ead all right, title or interest of the County of JeffersonW
State of Colorado, Sn ead to euch portlon of roadvay is hereby divested 0
~
pursuant to the provSelon of Chepter 217, 1949 Colorado Seeei.oa iaws."
L-z
EXHIBIT 4
p nvPE¢71- '64041004
11/05/2008 13:58 FAX 303 271 8160 5Kf3JEc-~~
on,-Reoenfler -
~ aecaxded at 9 •57-1954-~..
_
593553 : ~ BOO`
_GEAL"2FI£~-GOPY OF.=R2SQLUT_JPN
_
VACATIQN QF-$TA~E'F-"PA1fR"
WHEREAS by g plat of -Menderaon' e Amended_ BubQivleion. , reoorded ih 3=ieE Hoo$
~Pege of_-the Jeffgraon-@oanty-reoorde, certain straets, avenuee -end _ ,q~ggi~~own Ehareon-~re.,-d@d.ioeted-to'tbe_p[tiKlic;--and
- . -
i._.. _
I W$E[~A9°tRe-fol2utrin$=deeonibad--n~4lon;of etreet Se no9Ib~geraeaeaeax'Y-f~i'===
-
.___:n"6re-bY._ths=.pssbllc>__.nnd. : . . . . -
; ' . - : . - .
----W'ftEFiSAS ea1 p3 .ortion of etreet lies entlrely Kl$hin tkie County o2-Jeflereoa_
18-`not-wSthSnSh~lYmite"6Leny~~yity;-6rtokn,and doee-n,ot' forM--the._houndary.
oL -B=clty,_ _town-o-r-eou[~t3'-~-~.?.:. . _
- iVHEREAS no.Yand woudd, by a vsc.ation-of-eald-portion oL-e~reet-be.Yaft withoat-~-
anestsbllstsed puUllc.road connecting St.-wiLh enbther eetabliehed nub ie ^oad;-"
ar,a _
. . .
~
. .
WHEAEAS tZie 3efferaon County-Flanni,ng_.CQm~qlsai- _oae-&vPra-ved-tka-Wcsoaea---
- -vacatlonofeaid oortlon..o4 etreet;
. h014; THEREFOe.E, BE-IT- AE50LVEDby the Board--of---Couaty_COmmiseionere oP-Jef-;_.
feraon County, Colbrado, ppreuant to the provleione of--Chapter 1949 .
Seselon La,,!s of Colorado that-the follovring descri'oed-portion of street situete in the Courity o2 Te_*fereon' and State of Colorado, be -andlt le. - herebyvacated eubJect to a reeervation of aaeemente-ror thecontlnued uee
of exieting eewer, gae, water or eimller oige-bine.s end apnurtenancea, axiet-"
1ng dlteh e e and appurtenancee, exieting elecUrlc,telephona and.:slmllar linee _
. ar.d apnurtenances, if sr.y: The_SOUth 10 ieet ot the"ATest 375Yeet of-Pe^'~ 5*ra=t . .
ae delineated on the Amended Ylet-of Hnndereon'e.Amendad
Subdivleian.
EXHIBIT 5
City of
LLf ~Theat~~id,ge
Pusi.tc WoRxs
Memorandum
TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
FROM: Dave Brossman, Development Review Engineer
DATE: October 27, 2008
SUBJECT: MS-08-O1/ Reinhart Subdivision
I have completed the fhird review of the Final Plat for the proposed ReinhaR Subdivision located
at 2690 Pierce Street received on October 17, 2008, and I have the following comments:
l. At only 50.00' in width, the portion of Pierce Street Right-of-Way across frontage of this
property is substandard for a eollector street, and should be upgraded to the standard width of
60.00'. This increase of Right-of-Way is necessary to allow for proper roadway construction
and maintenance for the corridor. Portions of the existing Pierce St. ROW in fhe vicinity of the
subject property are already tlze standard 60' in width. 1"herefore, Public Works will not
approve the plat without the 5.00' of needed ROW dedication along the Pierce street frontage.
2. Public Works recommends that 10.00' of ROW also be obtained along the W. 28"' Avenue
frontage to bnng this street ROW up to current standards as well.
3. PW acknowledges the applicanYs position regarding She dedication of Right-of-Way for this
property and the argument he's made regarding the dedication along the W. 28"' Avenue
frontage. The fact that 10.00' of ROW has been previously vacated along this frontage may be
a valid point. However in an effort to be forward thinking, PW still must recommend that 10' of
ROW be dedicated so that (if necessary) the sUeet can be properly constructed.
4. In addition, if Right-of-Way is obtained along either the Pierce Street or W. 28"' Avenue
frontages, PW also highly recommends the dedication of a small area at the NW comer (at the
intersection of the Pierce Street and W. 28" Avenue Rights-of-Way). The area includes a curve
having a 15.0' radius, and is necessary to allow for proper construction and maintenance of the
federally mandated ADA ramps required at the intersection.
5. All previous comments have been addressed with the exception of the above-mentioned Right-
of-Way dedications. Public Works finds the Final Plat to be approvable if the Right-of-Way
dedication(s) were to be made a Condition of Approval before Planning Commission and City
Council.
6. Please keep in mind that the following items will need to be suUmitted prior fo recordation of
the MylarOO with the County:
a. Civil engineering plans showing a plan & proFile for the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to
be constructed across the two street frontages
b. An itemized engineer's cost estimate for the above-mentioned public improvements.
c. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
d. A Performance Guarantee (Letter of Credit) in the amount of 125% of the approved,
itemized cost estimate. OR
7. A Development Covenant restricting the sale or development of any part of the subdivision
i until such time as the above-mentioned items a through d have been submitted for review and
approval.
EXHIBIT 6 k~~~,hartSubdivision-approvaillydov
D ~
w. 32~ D Av~
~
e- a o r~ o o ~c en e a en+ ~ ~
. . .
oca e in ou w s o ec ~on owns ~ ~ an ~ ~
a . . > ~ C~ °
' ea ~ e oun e erson a ~ ~ ~ ~
m ~ h t f r~ @ e ~
~ ~ w W. 29TH AVE ~
= J POINT 16809 ~ #
~ WEST CORNER OF SECTION 25, ~ ~ ~
W W. P ~ F- T.3S,, R.69 , 6TH .M.
2 FOUND 3 1/4" BRASS CAP IN RANGE BOX ~ PROJECT Z STAMPED: PLS 32429
~ Si7E Q NORTHING: 703180.19 EASTING:121095,96 _
Q ~ ~ ~J i~
W. 26TH AVE r~ ~ ~ , ~x..
~ Q ~ / /2 ~ ti ; , ~ ~ _ . , `~•~6
W ~ ~r
t `~~6'~8F U ,u~ .20,
~ ~o
w W. 24TN AVE ~,o 6~~ u ~1~
~ 1 ~,l ~ B
~i ~ l
~l, 22ND AVE ~ ~ + BOUNDARY CORNER NG I/ ~
u !_.J u 1~ FND. ° IRON PlN ~ ~
, 60UNDARY CORNER N0. 1 ~ , „ u W. 28TH AVE. W/ CAP STAMPED: ( , SEE DE7A/L A ,
, "LANE ENG SRV INC 16 (40 R.O.W.) ~
~l ~ „ , (~$s.oa R~c.) .
, SCALE: 1=10~0 N89'39°53"E 1$8.47' A.M
~ ~ ~ - ` ' 89,00' 99,47 39.00 ~ !
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE: I , ~ ^
I -a „ - ~ I, DAVIS REfNHART, BEING OWNER(S) OF REAL PROPER7Y CONTAINING 0.68 ACRES ~ ~ S~9°52 44 E
Q w I 27.87' , ( DESCRIBEO AS FOLLOWS: I . ~ ~ ~ 10 UTLITY EASEMENT ~ J' r
, ~o ~ ~
THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF LOT 2, BLOCK 8, AMENDED PLAT OF HENDERSON S { 10 UTLITY EASEMENT ~ 1 r~_
SUBDIVISI~N> EXCEPT THE EAST 187 FEET, AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 6.5 FEET OF THE m~ ( I N I I ,
NORTH ONE-NALF, TOGETHER WITH THAT ADJOINING VACATED PORTIO~! OF PARK ~ ~ ~ , T ft c~ N I STREET, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEF~ERSON COUNTY, STA E OF COLO ADO. z F- I ~
S 0 0' 2 0 0 9 E ~ L_ w~, ~ , ~ I
N A V E L A I D O U T S U B D I V I D E D A N D P L A T T E D S A I D L A N Q A S P E R T H E D P, A W I N G H E R E O N d W 2 5. 0 6 ~
' WI ~ I ~ ~ ~ Q CONTAlNED UNDER THE NAME ANO STYLE OF REINHART SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION OF I m ~ 4 co o~>, 1~.I LOT 2 ~ z
A PART OF THE CITY OF WHEAT ftIDGE, COLORADO AND BY THESE PRESENTS DO ~ 3~ • ~ N89 39 53 E I o• ~ , ~ 1 3, 3 7 1 S. F o
D E D I C A T E T O T H E C I T Y O F W H E A T R I D G E A N D T H O S E M U N I C I P A L L Y O W I~ E D A N D O R W ~ ~ 1 4. 3 8 ~ ~ o~ ~ o . 0.31 ACRES f W_ I cn , U I oi I- >
MUNICIPALLY FRANCHISED UTILITIES AND SERVICES THOSE PORTIONS OF REAL - o O ~ o_ W A EMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION OPERATION ~ N~~ lOT 1 (~I ~ rn z a ~
P R O P E R T Y S N O N A S E S , , , Q o W.,,~ I w m M A I N T E N A N C E, R E P A I R A N D R E P L A C E M E N T F O R A L L S E R V I C E S. T H I S I N C~ U D E S B U T I S m o a ~ 1 6, 0 2 7 S. F ( L O T L I N E H E R E B Y I~ ~
IN S WATER z 0. 3 7 A C R E S t ~ Q~ z N O T L I M I T E D T O T E L E P H O N E A N D E L E C T R I C L I N E S, G A S L E, A N D S A N I T A R Y ~ I ~ C R E A T E D B Y T H I S P L A T o
I ~ - cn N SEWER LINES, HYDRANTS, STORM WATER SYSTEMS AND PIPES, DETENT{pN PONDS, ~ ~ ► , ~ z
S T R E E T L I G H T S A N D A ~ L A P P U R T E N A N C E S T H E R E T 4. 0 5 U T I L E T Y E A S E M E N T Q Y o ~
o ~ ~ W a ~ ~n N I 5' UTILITY EASEMENT ~ o~ ~
° ° mo I o~ wl ~
OWNER: z ; 10 UTILTIY EASEMENT--~- o . z ~ ~ ~ , I o,I ~ N N w D A V I S R E N H A R T 1 0 U T I L T I Y E A S E M E N T a o =
269 0 PI E R C E S T R E E T ~ ~ a ~ I o ~
~ ~ o W H E A T R I D G E> C O 8 0 2 1 4 ~ ~ N I I ~
303 433-5416 ~ ~ I°ol > ~ ~ ) ( 10 UTLITY EASEMENT ~ 10 UTLITY EASEMENT ~
~ _ { _ ~ I _ I _ _ _ - _ - - ~ STATE OF~COLORADO ~ _ ~ _ s _ _ _ ~ N89°39'51"E _._I L. J
~S.S. > , . BOUNDARY C~RNER N0. 4 25.00,~ T 1»~- 108.00' 80.47'
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON SEE DE AL B ~ , , » . ~ , , S89°39 53 W 188.47 , ,
THE F4REGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME TNIS DAY OF ~
A.D., 20 BY ~ ,
POINT OF BEGINNfNG 6.5 BOUNDARY CORA
( SEE DETAIL WITNESS MY NAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: SOUTH LWE OF THE
NORTH HALF OF LOT 2
I -
NOTARY PUBLIC { N PART OF ~ t° L O T 2 B L O C K 8 AM E N D E D P LA T I~ > > (
L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N: H E N D E R S O N' S S U B D I U I S I O N _L-h:
rn ~ ~
A PARC L OF ~AND BElNG TNE NORTH ONE-HALF OF LOT 2, BLOCK AMENDEO PLAT ~ FND, ~ IRON PIN R-1 ZONING E ( ~
' U DIV~SION AS RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 23 IN TNE RECORDS OF W/ CAP STAMPED: OF NENDERSON S S B , „ „
AND RECORD'S OFFICE EXCEPT THE EAST 187 FEET I LANE ENG SRV INC 16837 THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK , , ~i f
AND EXCEPT THE SOUTN 6.5 FEET OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF, T4GETHER WITH THAT
ADJOINING VACATED PORTION OF PARK STREET, SITUATED IN THE SOUTNWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PF4~NCIPAL ~ SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF ,
MERIDIAN, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COL~JRA00. ( OF SOUTH HALF OF ~ LOT 2, BLOCK 8, r '
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW: AMENDED PLAT OF HENDERSON'S ,i
W T CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25 THENCE ~ COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH ES ,
NORTH 00°20'09" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTNWEST QUARTER, A I ~
DISTANCE OF 488.94 FEET. THENCE NORTH 89°39'S1" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 25.00 { ~ ~ 1
FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID LUT 2, SAID POINT
ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; i
I THENCE NORTH 00'20'09" WEST, ALONG TNE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A DISTANCE ~
OF 155,98 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ~F WEST 28T?i AVENUE;
THENCE NORTN 89°39'S3" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LfNE, A DISTANCE
OF 188.47 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH OQ°20'09" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 155.98 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89°39'S3" WEST, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 6.5 FEET NORTH POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ~1 t
OF 7HE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID LOT 2, A DISTA~~JCE OF 188.47 POINT #168$1 ~OUNDARY CORNER CITY OF WHEAT i~
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGiNNING; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 25, T.3S., R.69W., 6TH P.M, N0. NORTNiNG
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 29,398 SQUARE FEET OR 0.68 ACRES MORE ~JR LESS. FOUND 3 1/4" BRASS CAP IN RANGE BOX
° STAMPED: PLS 23047 1 701185.57 > 7
~ NORTHING: 700540.51 EASTING: 12111L43 2 701186.67
o PLANNING C~MMISSION CERTIFICATE:
; 3 701030.69 APPROVED THiS DAY OF , , BY THE
~ WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISION. 4 701029~59 ~
~
a Z ~
s ° CHAIRPERSON > ~
~ ~ ~ ~ LEGEND
= w CITY CERTIFICATE. w= 0 FOUN4 MONUMENT AS NOTED
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , E~l THE A
WNEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL. SET 18" LONG #5 REBAR WITH
~ W y Y E L L O W P L A S T I C C A P S T A M P E D: P L S 1 9 0 0 3 REVISIONS:
~ m ATTEST ~ N0, DESCRIPTION DATE HARRIs KoCHER SMITH
~ FOUND SECTION GORNER AS NOTED 1 CITY COMMENTS 4-17-0$
CITY CLERK MAYOR ~ 2 CITY COMMENTS 9-29-08 e n g i n e e r s . l a n d s u r v e y o r s
CASE HISTORY 0
~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 30 0 30 60 1391 Speer Blvd. - Suite 390
MS-08-01 Denver, Colorado 80204
-LLo ~wL PLAN SCALE; 1"=30' Phone (303) 623-6300
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS Fax (303) 623-6311
LLZs - -
SURVEY EXHIBIT ~ 1-
i
~
PROPOSED W. 28TH A
VE.
10' UTLITY EASEMENT (40' R.O.W
PROPOSEO LAND USE
EASEMENT
N89'39'34"E
188.47' A.M
(188.00' REC.)
89.00' /
99:47'
~
w
-
'DNIiE-
ro
~
Q
,
}
.WA~' a
.
I
-
~
io
0
i.
CD
n N
~
HOUSE ; FENC£
GARAGE
~Ln
V7
(0 "
I
75.6,"
I
.
I
~
. .
w
iQ
I
PA T/O
m
~
3: V)
-oo I
PROPOSED
; o
~
Q
lOT2
N
b
I
73,371 S.F
'°o
a
w~
DECK
0.31 ACRES
f
m
°
o :0-
PROPOSED
z
16,~ 7 S.F FENCE
~
PROOPOnEE
j.
°N° ~
0.37 ACRES f I
~
PLANTER S
c,°v ~
PROPOSED
'
~
L
o ~
5
UTILITY EASEMENT
w'
I
PROPOSED
00?
~
10' UTILTIY EASEMENT ~
o~
~
I
NI
I
I
o~
; B
~
~
:
. ;
-
- - - -
- - ~ -
~
108.
0.47'
8939'34"W
188.47
30 0 30 60
PLAN SCALE: 1"=30`
171212\LDO-07412 \SUflVET\SUflVET-E%HiBIiDWG LpTOUT: LpY00ii
NOTE:
THISEXHIBIT DOES NOT REPRESENT A MONUMENTED
LAND SURVEY. IT IS INTENDED TO DEPICT ONLY THE
LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURES.
SURVEY EXHIBII EXHIBIT 8
IARRIS KOCHER SMITH
o:acs
.O]131I
1391 SDeer Blvd. SWte 390
R
D¢r1 COIO,OdO BO204
PM1One (303) 623-6300
Fox (303) 623-6311
.F
( I &edifice
Nov. 4, 2008 71ao1e B. neinnsro, s+ece
VRINCIPAI
dre i n ba rtQadi f ice c m. com
Meredith Reckert
Community Development
City of Wheat Ridge
7500 West 29* Ave.
Wheat Ridge, Coloraslo 80033
Re: Minor Subdivision Plat
2690 Pierce Street
Deaz Ms. Reckert,
I have received your plat comments Dated Mazch 18, 2008 as weil as the attached correspondence from
Wheat Ridge Public Works, Wheat Ridge Sanitation and Consolidated VJater. My responses follow:
Letter from Wheat Ridge Community Development:
Comments 1 thmu h6 have been addressed in the attached revised submission.
Comments #7 and 8-"Piease show a five foot wide right-of way dedication for Pierce Street and
Designate it as being designated by this p1aY'. And "Please show a 10 foot wide right-of way dedication
for 2e Ave and designate it as being dedicated by this plat.
The Applicant makes the Following 4 Variance Requests:
I& ID 5' Variance from reauired 100 ft R-1 Lot width on Lot on 28fd Ave.
and Variance from the Side set back variance for the eaistine earaee on lot 2
General Comments
It is possible to wnstruct 2 fully conforcning lots on the existing property. To do so would require the
demolirion of the existing garage and/or trimming the existing house. The existing garage is brick
matches arclritechually the adjoining struchve. Prior to making the submission the applicant met with
the planning department who suggested the alternative shown on the plat. No public benefit was
perceived in the removal of the garage and damage to the structure. It is of addirional note that a prior to
ihe applicanYs purchase of the pmperty was illegally subdivided carving 40 ft. offthe east side of the lot
reducing the frontage from 228 to 188ft. This is being used as a drive entrance to the back of the
adjoining pmperty. From the street the Lot 2 appears to be 145 feet wide.
l
. I
EXHIBIT 9
edifice
CONSTftUCT10N ANOOEVEIAPME1fr MANFOEMENT
D&VI6 B. I{9IIIL&YE, DS9PB
PRINCIPAL
dreinM1art@edificecm.com
A fully confornune lot requires demolition of the gara¢e and/or removing 2 back of house
r--- -i
-
~
.
1
A
'
~
y15
IF..%,~;11.%r;l~~
I
Nous~ fi.~ .
~
~
~
PA7lO ~
I
L
mf
m
vi I
~ I
OECr~
~
~
PROPOSED
Lor 1
18,027 S,F FMCE
o i
0.37 ACRES t
sv~
PROPOSEO
'
o ~
5
UTILITY EASEMENT
- Q--------i
• ~n1Nd€ N i
;:WAY
I~
I~
N
GA?AGE
~
CO
1 v~ PROPOSED j o
LOT 2 I o
I ol 13,371 S.f ~0
0.31 ACRES f ~
I
~ vROVO.~n
1 ~ cOT uN£
I ~ PLANTER'S ~
edifice
CONSTPUCiION AND OEYELOPMEM MANAGEMEN2
Dsvie S. RelnLar6, easee
PPINCIPAI
droinhart@adificecm.com
Formai Variance Criteria
A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable retum in use, service or income if
pernutted to be used only in under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the disirict in
which it is located.
The property is large enough for 2 complying lots. It is co»sistent tivith the gaals of the NRS
to encourage building modern single family homes in the current nefghborhoods. CreaHng
this sub-dtvision without a varlance requires the removal of the garage and/or ►•emoval of the
west most coraer of the existing brick house. These costs likely preclude reinvestment in the
property.
B. The variance wouid not alter the essential character of the locality.
The existing house and garage are all brick and are a traditional architeclure. The removal
and replacement of the garage and replacing the end gable would not be consistent wTth the
current character of the house and the neighborhood. In addition, this activiry is Iike7y to
damage the existing mature vegetation The variance does not alter but preserves the
neighborhood character.
C. The applicant is proposing substantial investment in the property with this application, which
would not be possible without the variance.
Removal of garage and reconstruction of the house represent a prohibitive cost to
development of the site.
D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical wndition of the specific pmperty
results in a particulaz or unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience.
The exisiing structures the are in close proximrry to the logical property boundary. Strict
conformance with the zoning setback for the existtng structures the hardship having to
demolish the existfng garage and modify the house.
E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardslrip has not been
created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
This unique problem was created when previous owners cut a sliver parcel off the west end
of the lot.
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 of permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent properry, substantially increasing the coagestion in the public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or ettdangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing
property values in the neighborhood.
Granting of the variawce allows the exrsting condiHon to be perpetuated and is delrimental to
none of the factors listed above.
ed.if lice
CONSINUCIION AND DEYElOVMENT NIINMEMENT
]IdYiB H. RBIOLRtt, N6P6
PRINGPIIL -
drsinhart6sdif icacm.com
G. The unusual circumstances or condifions necessitating the variance are present in the
neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The u»usual circumstance is unique to this lot however fhe
H. Granting the variance would be a reasonable accommodation to a person with disabilities.
Non applicable
I. The applicafion is in substantial wmpliance with the applicable standards set for the in the
Archttectural and Slte Design Manaal.
The Archttectural and slre design manual is silent on this subJect.
edif ice
CONSTRUCTIOHRNDOEYELOPMENiMAN0.0EMENT
Davis B. IiefnLast, mses
PRINCIPAL
dreinhart@editicecm.com
IIIl Dedication of 5' of Rieht of Wav on Pierce St.
General Commems
Pierce Street is a wmpleted roadway. It has full built out street lanes with an open street section on the
east side of Pierce &om 26°i Ave to beyond 32 Ave. It is in a ful(y developed neighborhood with no
growth possibie to lead to lvgher traffic flows. The semi-rural open section frontage is considered a pius
by many in the neighborhood. There is neither Wheat Ridge Planning Deparmient nor Wheat Ridge
Public works plans to change the essential character of the street. If t3ris variance is denied, the right of
way on this pmperty will not match the remaining properties on Pierce Street. If improvements were to
be made the wood fence and all the mature trees would have to be removed. Finally the imposition of
right of way dedicarion on Piece Sireet will aggravate the lot frontage pmblem on 28°i Ave by narrowing
the frontage to 183 ft.
Mature Trees alone the fence line on Pierce Street
EXHIBIT 10
ed.if ilce
Davle S. Iteinhar6, mses
PRINCIPAL
d re I n h a r t0a d f f i cec m. c o m
Formal Variance Criteria
A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if
permitted to be used only in under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the district in
which it is located.
The property in guestian can yield a reasoxable return without thrs variance
B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance preserves the existing character of the neighborhood.
C. The applicant is proposing substanNal investment in the property with Uris application, wltich
would not be possible without the variance.
Not granting of the variance would impose an unnecessary burden on the development of ihe
site.
D. The particulaz physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
results in a particular or unique hardslrip (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience.
There is no unique physicat conditfon on the site.
E. If there is a particulaz or unique hazdslup, the alleged difficulty or hazdslrip has not been
created by any person presently having an interest in the properly.
NotApplfcable.
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 wlrich the property is located, by,
among other things, substantially of permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in the public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing ar impairing
property values in the neighborhood.
Granting of the variance allows the existing condition to be perpefuated and is detrimental to
none of the factors listed above.
G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance are present in the
neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
If the vartance is denfed it this property will have derent confrguration than all the ofher
properties on Jhe east side ofPierce Street between 26'fi
H. Granting the variance would be a reasonabie accommodation to a person with disabilifies.
Not applicable
I. The applicarion is in substantiai compliance with the applicable standards set for the in the
Architectural and Site Design Mcmual.
The Architectural and site design mamral is silettt on the issue
edif lice
CUN87PUCTION AND DEVElAP1,1ENT MRNACEMENT
Davia B. Reinhart, mses
PRINCIPl11.
droinhart@ediflceem.com
M Dedication of 10' of Rie6t of War on 281e Ave
General Comments
28t' Ave. is a completed roadway. It has fuil built out street lanes. 2e Ave is oniy 21ong. Most of the
street, including the entire southern edge, is has an open street section There is neither Planning
Department nor Public works plans to change the essential ehazacter of the sheet. The semi-rural open
section frontage is considered a plus by many in the neighborhood. If this variance is denied, the right of
way on ttds property will not match U►e remaining properties on the street. The new house will be built
with a different set back from the rest of the houses on the street.
Finally, the city vacated the right of way in question prior in recognirion that the right of way served no
public purpose. There has been no change in circumstances since to justify forced taking of the property
as a part of the plat process.
I
edifice -
CONSTRUCiION AND UEVEIOPMEM MMlAGEMEM
navle B. nelnnaro, mers
PRINCIPAL
dreinhart@edificecm.com
Formal Variance Criteria
A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if
permitted to be used only in under the condirions allowed by the regulations for the district in
which it is located.
The property in question can yield a reasonable return without this variance
B. The variance would not alter the esseniial character of the locality.
The variance preserves the existing character of the neighborhood.
C. The applicant is proposing substantiai investment in the property with this application, which
would not be possible without the variance.
Not granli»g of the variance would impose an urmecessary burden on ihe development of the
site.
D. The pazticulaz physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
results in a particular or unique hazdslup (upon the owner) as distinguished &om a mere
inconvenience.
There is no unique physicat condition on the site.
E. If there is a partictilar or unique hazdslup, the alleged difficulty or hazdship has not been
created by any person presently having an interest in the pmperty.
NotApplicable.
F. The gcanting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in wluch the property is located, by,
among other things, substantialty oFpermanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adeyuate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in the public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substanriaily diminishing or impairing
property values in the neighborhood.
GrantJng of the variance allows the existing condition to be perpetuated a»d is detrimenial to
none of the factors listed above, Failure to grant the variance will mean that this property is
does not match set backs or street section with the rest of the street.
G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance are present in the
neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
All of the properties on the east side ofPierce Street have this condition. If the variance is
denied it this property will have derent con,ftiguration than all the oiher properties on the
east side ofPierce Street between 26`h
H. GranUng the variance would be a reasonable accommoda6on to a person with disabilities.
Not applicable
I. The application is in substandal compliance with the applicable standards set for the in the
Architectural and Site Design Marlual.
T7te Architeclural aad site design manual is silent on the issue
edi~.ce
CONSTflUCTI0N11NUDEVEIOPMENfMANAGEMENT
Dsvle B. 1telnLert, etaes
PpINCiPAL
dre i n hartOed if icac m. com
Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to move the process forwazd.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Davis B Reinhart MSPE
City of
Wh idg
~ eat Ie
- COMMUNITY DEVELOI?MENT
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meredith Reckert
DATE: November 14, 2008
SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-08-05/Adopting Floodplain Map Revision
This Case is: Quasi-judicial _X Legislative
Proper notice was given for this public hearing.
Coors recently cotnpleted stream overflow improvements to the Clear Creek railroad
bridge east of Mclntyre which has modified the floodplain downstream. As such, the
Clear Creek Flood Hazard Area Delineation should be modified to reflect the changes.
The new study information inust be referenced in Article VIII., Floodplain Control, in the
zoning and development code.
Pursuant to Municipal Code, all zoning code revisions must have a public hearing in front
of Plaiming Coinmission.
Exhibit 1 is a copy of a memo from Tim Paranto, I'lood Plain Adininistrator, with tbe
proposed map changes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move that Case No. ZOA-08-05, a proposed amendment to Section 26-803.G. of
Article VIII., Floodplain Control, of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, be forwarded to
City Council with a recommendation of APPROVAL for the following reasons:
1. The proposed legislation adopts the new study.
2. It will allow the City to administer activities within the correct floodplain
boundaries."
City of
Wheat ~dge
~BLIC WORKS
Memorandum
TO: Meredith Rechert, Senior Planner ~
FROM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works ljv~
DATE: November 10, 2008
SUBJECT: Amending Section 26-803, Adopting Floodplain Map Revision
Coors Brewing Company constructed stream overflow improvements at their Clear Creek
railroad bridge east of McIntyre Street earlier this year. This project contains the flows in
Clear Creek during flood events and, therefore, has changed the 100-year floodplain
downstream. Coors had an engineering study prepared by CDM Engineering and has had
Icon Engineering modify their Clear Creek Flood Hazard Area Delineation. The revised
pages and sheets are contained in an October 27, 2008 letter report titled Clear Creek
Floodplain Revisions at McIntyre Overflow.
It is appropriate that the City accept the new study and inaps aud itlcorporate them into
the Floodplain Control Section of the City Code. Adoption of the floodplain changes will
allow the City to administer activities within tbe correct floodplain boundaries.
Attaclunents:
1. April, 2007 maps
2. August, 2008 maps
EXHIBIT 1
~
wA
g I ~ OsgBBNO/ jss339 ~ i ~ o~ ~
i ~p ~ ~ „ ' a~ w Q <
~w
U zO
D v~) - `w< ~e
~ J
U i
~ ~ ~ In o a
1
~ o
i
iO°' I~ i.~ ~ T r 1 Lr=
~18
~ ~ ~ ~ I lO169 ro~ 'I U
I~ OO~o~ / dC=.~ i I I 1-
I I~ J 0 WU
l ~ 1'II O ¢
00
u0
s~ i,' I o
BOLOL 0
~ Z V W O
¢
I W 000
?
w0
BIBL ~ / / ~ U y o
~ tBK' Q W Q a
J U
j ~ Z W ~ ~ \
1~ i ~ O a ~ ZOSO( `
° I o - a m - xd°S~a
O °
06YZ (j O ~ /ry _^'s
I I I ~ W 8
i <S U o
(I, - Y mzo ~
I o _ I ` I W pY ~
~ LL 6 W
NzO'w'¢OwU
Q°U
W
I I ~ INN S ~ I~oO ~
0
III r ~ ~ II
?
?¢ZU
m0¢
tzeu ~ uw. Hi
~ , ~ O ~
2
~
~ O Ww0
~ Z~i2Jm ~
- B 133HS 33S <
I a' pI 40+SLLNOIIVIS-3NI'1HO1tlW.on g
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l~
- xe ocr 1n .1....1 1-1 - ~~e\m:smzcw~a
'-7 ~ ~ ~ m »~z~i~ t~
,
~ ~ ,r~* :mm~~ _~,..~""-~~"-`t ~.°u'
w ur s~ ~ ow
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
Council Bill No. 21
Ordinance No.
Series of 2008
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-803 OF
THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING
TO FLOODPLAIN CONTROL
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge has previously adopted Article VIII of
Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws pertaining to floodplain control;
WHEREAS, amendment of the description of the Flood Regulatory District is
needed to reflect cunent information;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT
RIDGE, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1. Subsection G of Section 26-803 of the Wheat Ridge Code of
Laws is amended to read as follows:
G. Official maps and engineering reports. The location and
boundaries of the Flood Regulatory District shall be as identified by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency in "The Flood Insurance Study
for Jefferson County, Colorado", dated June 17, 2003, and any
amendments or revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and
declared to be a part of this Article.
The location and boundaries of the Floodway and Flood Storage Districts
shall be as shown in the following engineering reports and accompanying
maps:
1. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels dated June 17, 2003 for
portions of the City of Wheat Ridge.
2. Cleaz Creek: Flood Hazard Area Delineation of Cleaz Creek by Icon Engineering
For the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, April, 2007.
3. Clear Creek: Clear Creek Floodplain Revisions at McIntyre Overflow- Letter Report
by Icon Engineering dated October 27, 2008.
4. Lena Gulch: Flood Hazard Area Delineation Lena Gulch (Lower) by George K
Cotton Consulting for the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, October, 2007.
EXHIBIT 2
The flood insurance rate map and the above-mentioned engineering
reports constitute the current flood insurance study for the City of Wheat
Ridge and are hereby adopted by the above reference and declazed to be
part of these regulations. The flood insurance rate map and the above-
mentioned engineering reports, which constitute the flood insurance study
are on file at the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th
Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado,
Section Z. Safetv Clause. The City of Wheat Ridge hereby finds, determines,
and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City
of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the pubiic
and that this ordinance is necessazy for the preservation of health and safety and for the
protection of public convenience and welfaze. The City Councii further determines that
the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be
attained.
Section 3. Severabilitv. If any clause, sentence, pazagraph, or part of this
Zoning code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any
reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not
affect application to other persons or circuxnstances.
Section 4. Supersession Clause. If any provision, requirements or standard
established by this Ordinance is found to conflict with similar provisions, requirements or
standards found elsewhere in the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, which are in
existence as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the provisions, requirements and
standards here shall supersede and prevail.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final
publication.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to
in this day of , 2008, ordered published in full in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and
consideration on final passage set for , 2008, at 7:00 o'clock
p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a
vote of to , this day of 12008.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2008.
JERRY DITULLIO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Michael Snow, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY
GERAL DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY
1 ST publication:
2°a publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
:a
City of
~ Wheat~dge
~
COMMUNtTYDEVELOPMFNT
Memorandum
~
TO: Planning Commission
THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner II
DATE: November 14, 2008 (for November 20 public hearing)
SUBJECT: Status of Short Term Code Amendments
The purpose of this memo is to provide a brief update to the Planning Commission on the status
of the zoning code amendments project.
Several sections of the short tenn zoning code amendments have been drafted and have
undergone review by planning staff and the city attomey. Before bringing these sections
forward, there are some outstanding policy questions that need to be answered on a few iteins.
With this, we have scheduled a study session with City Council on December 1, 2008 to discuss
some of these items. Following this study session, planning staff will be bringing multiple drafts
forward to the Planning Commission at the next available meetings.
Specifically, the status of the project and the individual code sections identified on our "short
term" list can be suminarized as follows:
Section
Status
1. Extended stay lodging
• New language drafted, finalized
• Need general policy direction from City
Council (e.g., nonconforming existing
extended stay rooms)
2. Floodplain administrator duties
• New language drafted, finalized
• Ready for Planning Commission public
hearing
3. Planned development amendments
Internal staff draft distributed, revisions needed
4. Residential front setbacks
• Reductions in front setbacks proposed
• More evaluation and research on affect on
existing neighbarhoods needed (some done
already)
• Policy direction from City Council needed
• Staff may evaluate all setbacks in one
package to bring forward, which will require
additional time.
5. City-initiated zone changes
Internal staff draft distributed, revisions needed
SkartTerm CadeAmendments
11/20/08
Sec
tion
Status
6.
Zoning district boundary discrepancies
. New language drafted, finalized
• Need policy direction from City Council
(e.g., administrative authority for split zoned
lots)
7.
Parking regulations
No drafts yet
8.
Assembly of R-3 land for developinent
No drafts yet
9.
Residential group homes
No drafts yet
10.
Residential density in planned
No drafrs yet - was pending results of ballot
developments
question(s).
2