The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/24/1999U113M 0jam I= AGENDA June 24, 1999 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) A. Case No. WA-99-15: An application by Ben Bandimere for approval of a 953 square foot lot area variance from the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement and a 15 foot lot width variance from the 75 foot minimum lot width requirement to allow the construction of a duplex at 4470 Lee Street. Said property is zoned R-2A. B. Case No. WA-99-16: An application by Charles Corson for approval of an 8 foot front yard setback variance from the 30 foot minimum front yard setback requirement for the addition of a 14'x, 14' dining room/sunroom/front porch area. Said property is located at 6435 West 45"' Place and zoned R-2. C. Case No. WA-99-18: An application by Thomas Little for approval of a freestanding sign variance to allow an additional freestanding sign. Said property is zoned C -1 and located at 7605 W. 44 Avenue. A. Approval of Minutes: May 27,1999 8. ADJOURNMENT to July 22, 1999 at 730 p.m. CABa,rbara,,,B0A\990624ag.wpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: June 24, 1999 DATE PREPARED: June 9, 1999 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-99-15\ Bandimere CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 953 square foot lot area variance to the 9,000 square foot lot area requirement and a 15' lot width variance to the 75' lot width requirement. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4470 Lee Street NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) Benjamin Bandimere 13831 West 54`s Avenue Arvada, CO 80002 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: Same 8,047 square feet Residential Two-A Vacant Nand E: Agricultural-One and Commercial-One, W:Planned Residential Development, S: Agricultural-One N:Single Family Residential, E: and S: Church, W: Multi Family Residential DATE PUBLISHED: June 4, 1999 DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 9, 1999 June 2, 1999 ENTER INTO RECORD: Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Q SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) EXHIBITS O OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. A^ l I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 953 square foot lot area variance to the 9,000 square foot lot area requirement and a 15' lot width variance to the 75' lot width requirement to allow the construction of a duplex in a Residential-Two A zone district. Currently the parcel is vacant and shown on the survey as Lot 1. The applicant originally requested approval of this variance before Planning Commission on January 18, 1996. At the time, the applicant was also requesting approval of a rezoning from Agricultural-One to Residential-Two A and a two-lot minor subdivision. Planning Commission reviewed the request for the variance and discussed the future problems that approval of the request may bring to the area. Planning Commission denied the variance request based upon insufficient evidence in support to the variance criteria. The rezoning and subdivision were eventually approved by City Council. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes is attached. The applicant is requesting the same variances as requested before the Planning Commission. Since approval of the rezoning and minor subdivision, the applicant has developed a duplex on the property shown as Lot 2. It should be stated that the applicant will need to comply with the existing development regulations established in the Residential-Two A zone district (i.e. - 30' front yard setback, 5' side yard setback and a 10' rear yard setback for the main structure), whether a single-family dwelling or duplex is built on the lot. To date, staff has not received any opposition regarding this case. II. CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria to evaluate an application for a variance: 1. Can the property in question 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? Yes. According to Section 26-45 (F), of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, a one-family dwelling in the Residential-Two A zone district can be located on a 7,500 square foot property with a 60' lot width. Therefore, if the request is denied, the property may yield a reasonable return in use, service and income. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No. The property was subdivided with the intention that it was to remain a single-family parcel. The applicant knew, during the subdivision process, that the property was substandard in lot width and lot area for the development of a duplex. Also, there are other vacant properties throughout the city which contain substandard dimensions within their parameters. Board of Adjustment Page 2 WA-99-15/Bandimere A-l 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. The property is located in an area that is surrounded by several apartments structures and adjacent to an existing church. Also, the applicant will be required to comply with the existing setbacks established for the specific zone district. Therefore, approval of this request should not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? No. The property currently exists as a primarily rectangular lot. Although the southern property line meanders to the east at a slight angle, there is an adequate building envelope established that would permit proper development of a sizable residential structure. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification? Yes. There are several properties throughout the city of Wheat Ridge which exist as substandard lots of record, which would be permitted to apply for the same type of variance. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property? Yes. The applicant would be permitted, by right, to develop a single-family residence. However, development of a duplex would probably create more of a market value for the property. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Yes. The hardship has been created by the applicant who has sole interest in the property. 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? No. Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood as approval of this variation will only permit a change in density. Any development on the site will be required to comply with the setbacks established in the Residential-Two A development regulations. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? Board of Adjustment WA-99-15/Bandimere A~ 3 No. As previously stated, any development on this site would be required to comply with the setbacks established in the specific zone district, therefore approval of this request should not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties. Also, approval of this request will not substantially increase the congestion in the streets as approval of the request will only allow for the development of a duplex. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? No. Approval of this request is neither a benefit for the community nor for the reasonable accommodation of a handicapped person. This request is based solely upon individual benefit. III. STAFF'S CONCLUSION Staff concludes that the above criteria does not support the request to allow for development of a duplex. Although staff concludes that approval of the request will not alter the essential character of the locality, or increase congestion in the streets, the property is large enough and wide enough to allow for the development of a single-family structure, permitted by right. IV. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS OPTION A: "I move that Case No. WA-99-15, a request for a 953 square foot lot area and 15' lot width variance, for property located at 4470 Lee Street, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The evaluation criteria does not support approval of this request. 2. The applicant may build a single-family residence without need of a variance. 3. Planning Commission originally denied the request." OPTION B: "I move that Case No. WA-99-15, a request for a 953 square foot lot area and 15' lot width variance, for property located at 4470 Lee Street, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Approval of this request should not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. Approval of this request should not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties." E:\McC=ey\cue files\WA-99-15.WPD Board of Adjustment WA-99-15Bandimere A-4 Page 4 SITE OFFICIAL ZONI N6 MAP NHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: -k+ne 15, 1994 Last Revision: September 19, 1996 0 AREA REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE D15TRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DE5IGNATE5 OWNERSHIP) - WATER FEATURE + DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRE55FS NE 21 SCALE 1'-400 DEI'ARTI'BIT Of R"W, AIO DUBLRIEW - 735-2853 A-s s~r>= 5~trvE~' in V n L z J z Q Q - °OINT JF N 39 5J' 15° BEGINNING CV ~ 1 I p i I 7 3 . ~ o '1~ A 4 / 3G 00 r- P Lf) v 1T . v ~ J i - w LOT 2 / 9019.69 S. F. I r I _I I r Jam/ 98 W z z EAST 1/4 ON44ER w U SEC. z,.rs,Mw ctt OF !NEAT ZUGE 3RAS5 CAP M RM .(E 30X Q Q / , i o -,av Ems. 100.00 i.. N IDa of CO MER A I j i 1 _ \ ~11 S 1 ,I I II y Ili r k `r I tD I V - Ii LJ A-} Q 14 ~ I Go NO - i Sa do Sx/o ex /O NOOK p/ooK /2x 19 40 £ nI;L I~~ 12 X l4 Limon /Zr7OM SX/0 I~ K$ hcn II~p ivin 0 0 /Gt<he~ 5 Roo ❑ O ~ ~ O 4 1 4 ' - I A C l.. l I- r6 x 21 //1__6~~X ~-1 I I ~4COsG V~rG9G I i I I 1 z TS' I6 ' 6 2' 1 v p ~opos~p FIRST ~~oo~z.. 0 II I II I I, I 1 40 a Yo I I I T I i II Yo .v yo - - I /5Xv2 /5X 12 Bcdroom ~1 O a9edroom No. / I r y 1 ~I 1~r I ~ OPEN To I rj I LrvinS ~~?`h _ I OPEN TU - I Li v vri Room I - I I 36 I vvxf2 $cdrvom N• Z' vrxvz 13~droom N, 2 I i. .I I it III i I Yoa YO ` I q0• U II I I - - I I~ I , I I I I I I I II Nj I 2 ! Z' I -L I' l _ _ I yr - Yo' A' ' l FPvPo,.;Cp ipECOf4b Fux~pl Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 18, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner ECKHARDT moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of January 18, 1996 as printed. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for the meeting of January 11, 1996 will be available at the February 1, 1996 meeting. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item 7 of the Public Hearing section of the agenda.) No one had signed the roster, nor came forward at that time to speak. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. WZ-96-1: An application by Benjamin Bandimere for approval of a rezoning from A-1 to R-2A for property located at 4470 Lee Street. 2. Case No. MS-96-1: An application by Benjamin Bandimere for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision with variances for property located at 4470 Lee Street. Mr. Gidley presented the staff report, which included both Case No. WZ-96-1 and MS-96-1. Entered into the record and accepted by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, case file, packet materials and exhibits. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the parcel was large enough to accommodate a triplex. Mr. Gidley stated that if the parcel was not subdivided, 12,500 square feet would be needed and the parcel is large enough. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if it was necessary that the utility easement be located through the center of the parcel. Mr. Gidley stated that the Subdivision Regulations require that there are five-foot side and rear lot easements. If the parcel was not subdivided, the easement through the middle of the property would not be necessary. A-10 Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Gidley reminded Commission that three separate motions were required. The motion regarding the variance requires a greater- than-majority vote, or four out of five members. Chairperson LANGDON asked if the variance should be voted on first. What happens if the variance is denied? Mr. Gidley explained that approval of the variance. to put a duplex on Lot 2, to 9,000 square feet a si 1. If the parcel was not triplex on the property. the rezoning to R-2A could pass without The.applicant would still be allowed and upon increasing the square footage zgle-family home could be placed on Lot subdivided, the owner could put a Ben Bandimere, 13831 West 54th Avenue, Arvada, was sworn in. Mr. Bandimere stated he originally had planned to build two houses on the property, however, the appraisal done did not support his plan. He had also considered a four-plex, but decided two duplexes would work better. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the property was large enough to support a four-plex. Mr. Gidley stated that a minimum of 4,000 square feet of land area is required for each dwelling unit in multi-family buildings. The applicant has more than the 16,000 square feet required. Commissioner CERVENY asked if a four-plex would have advantages over two duplexes, other than one meeting Subdivision Requirements and the other does not? Mr. Gidley stated that he felt that the four-plex structure would have a better relationship on the whole parcel, than two duplexes on two smaller lots. He explained that this was true because you have individual side lot requirements and also individual private property associated with the smaller lots. Commissioner CERVENY mentioned possible pros and cons of owner- occupied versus renter-occupied units. Mr. Gidley reminded Commissioner CERVENY that the same argument could be made for any R-2A zone district having a substandard lot situation. He reiterated that the variance criteria asked "How is this parcel different from any other R-2 zone district in the City?" He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked if approving the variance might set a precedent for further actions? A-II Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Gidley stated that when a subdivision is under deliberation, unless unusual/unique circumstances exist, staff will recommend compliance with recommendations. In this case, no unique/unusual circumstances were found. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the fact that a duplex would be allowed on the whole parcel, but that two duplexes would not be allowed on the subdivided lot, would be considered unique or unusual circumstances. He thought that the two duplexes might actually enhance the neighborhood. He elaborated. Ms. Reckert answered that there was quite a bit of vacant land left, especially in that area. Mr. Gidley noted that because of numerous small, in-fill lots within the City, this type of request will not be unusual. He reminded Commission that most variance requests are for individual lots and are referred to the Board of Adjustment. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked what Board of Adjustment would do, for example, if the parcel was already subdivided and requested such a variance. Mr. Gidley answered that they had denied and approved some such cases. He added that he did not know nor could he predict what the Board would do in the incidence Commissioner CERVENY mentioned. Mr. Reckert informed Commission that should the Subdivision be approved, denial of the variance request would not preclude an applicant from applying for variance again in the future. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested the possibility of staggering the unit fronts, attaching them only a corners. He explained. Mr. Gidley noted to Commission that the greatest possibility for ownership would exist if the variance request was denied. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he was not concerned about ownership. Mr. Bandimere stated he had concerns about a four-plex being maintained. He noted that should duplexes be allowed, an owner could live in half, renting the other half and make sure that the units were maintained. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested condominium ownership could be done. A-17- Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Bandimere noted that it was costly to set up condominium ownership. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if a four-plex was constructed, would the units have to be attached? Mr. Gidley answered yes. Chairperson LANGDON asked that Mr. Gidley further explain Mr. Bandimere's options should the variance not be granted. Mr. Gidley answered that if the subdivision was approved but the variance denied, Mr. Bandimere or another applicant/owner would have the option of doing a consolidation plat and after one year has passed any owner can reapply for variance request. Chairperson LANGDON asked if that was only if the lots were still unimproved. Mr. Gidley stated yes, that was correct. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that the request for rezoning from C- 1 and A71 to R-2A for property located at 4470 Lee Street be Approved for the following reasons: 1. The request is compatible with the surrounding use; 2. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and 3. The evaluation criteria presented support the request. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that the request for lot area and lot width variances associated with a proposed minor subdivision be Denied for the following reason: 1. The variance evaluation criteria do not support approval. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-1, with Commissioner CERVENY voting no. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that the request for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision for property located at 4470 Lee Street be approved for the following reason: 1. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition: 1. The plat be redesigned to allow for one R-2A single-family lot and one R-2A duplex lot. Ik -13 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 18, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Commissioner CERVENY suggested that since the request for variance had been denied, perhaps the applicant would not care to subdivide the lot. Mr. Bandimere considered his options. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if there was a possibility of purchasing additional land. Mr. Bandimere answered that he had tried to purchase additional land, but had no success. He explained. Commissioner CERVENY stated that Commission was awaiting Mr. Bandimere's decision whether he wished to proceed with his subdivision request. Discussion followed. Commissioner ECKHARDT thought that if the subdivision was approved, but not recorded, it would make no difference. Mr. Gidley reminded those present that the case would go next to City Council, who will make a decision on the zoning request. The applicant can appeal Planning Commission's decision on the subdivision and variance to City Council. Discussion followed regarding various options for the applicant and procedures for same. Mr. Gidley went through the pros and cons for the various options the applicant has, explaining them to the applicant. Mr. Bandimere decided to leave his request as is. Commissioner ECKHARDT's motion regarding the subdivision request carried, 5-0. 3. Case No. WZ-96-2: An application by Terry Kunz for HJH, L.L.C., for approval of a final development plan and plat for PCD zoned property within the Town Center Master Plan area. Said property is located at 4010 Wadsworth Boulevard. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. Entered and accepted into the record by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive-Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, case file, packet materials and slides. A,IH CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: June 24, 1999 DATE PREPARED: June 9, 1999 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-99-16\ Corson CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney ACTION REQUESTED: Request for an 8' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement. LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) 6435 West 45' Place Charles Corson 6435 West 45" Place Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) Same APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: 9,675 square feet Residential Two Single Family Residential N:, S:, E: and W: Residential-Two N:, S:, E: and W: Single-family residential DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 4, 1999 June 9, 1999 June 2, 1999 ENTER INTO RECORD: Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Q SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) EXHIBITS Q OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 13-1 I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an 8' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 14'X 14' dining room. If approved, the dining room will be approximately 22' from the front lot line. The applicant has chosen the proposed location based on the layout of the existing 1,060 square foot residence. The applicant stated that the existing kitchen is located in the front of the residence and the proposed dining room will allow for direct access. They had considered placing the dining room addition on the east side of the structure, but felt that location would not be very functional. Along with the 14'X 14' dining room, the applicant is also proposing to construct an enclosed sunroom on the front of the structure. The sumoom will be placed in-line with the existing structure, and will be located approximately 8' from the front of the residential structure (22' from the front lot line). Pursuant to Section 26-14(F) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, structures built within the Residential- Two zone district must maintain a 30' front yard setback from the front lot line. To date, staff has not received any opposition regarding the variance request. II. SITE PLAN According to the attached improvement location certificate, the property is relatively rectangular in shape and measures 75'X 129', or 9,675 square feet. The property is located on the north side of West 45" Place just west of Lamar Street, which is a topographically flat area. The property currently has a 1,060 square foot residence and a 336 square foot single-car garage located on the west side of the property. There is a concrete driveway located in front of the existing dining room, and the applicant has stated that if the variance is approved, they will be removing the existing concrete, and replacing it with sod. Also, when the finances permit, the applicant has stated that they intend on constructing a 3-car garage, with a concrete driveway, in the rear of the property. III CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria to evaluate an application for a variance: 1. Can the property in question 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? Yes. If the request is denied, the existing single-family residence may continue to yield a reasonable return in use, service and income. The applicant has stated that the request is based on the need for additional living space. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No. The applicant has stated that the request is purely for convenience and space. There aren't any other unique circumstances attributed with this request. 5 -2 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? Yes. There aren't any other structures within the immediate neighborhood which currently have a 25' or less front yard setback. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? No. The property currently exists as a primarily rectangular lot. Also, the property is topographically flat and does not create any construction hardships. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification? Yes. Any resident of the City may apply for the same type of variance. However, each request is reviewed on a case by case basis, thus the outcome may not be the same. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property? No. The purpose of the request is to allow for additional living space and greater convenience. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Yes. The hardship has been created by the applicant who has sole interest in the property. 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? No. Because the request is to allow for an addition to the front of the house, and there will be at least a 22' setback for the proposed structure, approval of this request should not be injurious to the public's welfare or injurious to other property improvements. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? No. As previously stated, the proposed addition is for the front of the structure. Therefore, if the request is approved, the structure will comply with all other setback requirements and should not impair the adequate supply of light, nor increase the danger of fire. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be Board of Adjustment Page 3 WA-99-16/Corson detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? No. Approval of this request is neither a benefit for the community nor for the reasonable accommodation of a handicapped person. This request is based solely upon individual benefit. IV. STAFF'S CONCLUSION Staff concludes that the above criteria does not support the request to allow for the 14' X 14' dining room addition. Although the proposed addition will probably offer the most convenient solution for additional space, there is still the ability to construct a 10'X 20' addition to the east side of the structure, while complying with the established setbacks. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for Case No. WA-99-16. V. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS OPTION A: "I move that Case No. WA-99-16, a request for an 8' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement for a property zoned R-2 and located at 6435 West 45' Place, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The evaluation criteria does not support approval of this request. 2. The applicant may build a 10' X 20' addition to the east side of the residence without need of a variance. 3. Approval of this request could alter the essential character of the locality." OPTION B: "I move that Case No. WA-99-16, a request for an 8' front yard setback variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement for a property zoned R-2 and located at 6435 West 45`s Place, be APPROVED for the following reasons: The applicant has stated that this location would be the most logical and convenient place." LAWCa ey\case fi1es\WA-99-I6.WPD Board of Adjustment Page 4 WA-99-16/Corson R-3 T)k V, w 4sT P 7 6 ~ e u ~ S $ S _ B ~ 3 ^ c n -3 - R L K R~ a Sum 9 I _i i g R v S R fi T 1- 9 i i R- l~ l ~I~ ~1T1 OFFICIAL _ ZONE DISTRICT. BOUNDRY ZONING M MAP AD f - PARGEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) ^I `SHE/ T RIDGE - CITY LIMIT LINE COLORADO ° DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 Last Revision: September 19, 1996 D6+AR'TM@ff OF RLAMON6 MID DEvajopm T - 2352852 L:\DRAWINGS\PLANNING\DS\NW24 $-S I n ty; k f € w Q f e 8 E?: v H 46 H A J ~n n I: S R R~n ~ d wT~ NX 24 o x ao aoe vo 4'JD SCALE 1.400 - w 46TH nve ^e \ e-~- I 9ILLANS INCORPORATED Architecture, Engineering ✓f, Surveying V Z Ll n nQ 8471 Turnpike Drive, Suite 200 Westminster. CO 80030 (303) 426" 1731 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE Address: 6435 W 45NJPL Borrower(s): CORSON Title search by: Commitment No.: Legal Description: PER CLIENT Lot 14, VINNOLA SUBDIVISION, Canty of JEFFERSON State of COLORADO 75 5" un~. ~y,'r NoT G~~C7G ¢ CONGC'GTE ~''y«CNES E5ry7, AS yb.J~ .~03 4.7' ~PC4 T' METAL7 1,41 Il -lANL~t ~I I' 4y1 h L 1-6TORY 0 -I STUCLo cli 1 N # 6135 I ,7 ji' 14° On 3v! .o suN ¢oom ~lALE~ Ia=20 I(0,, Z' I I co rll I )1zopOS6D I pp ~ 1 z~ 71NIrJGT 1 10 131 ROCK I _ f RE I I I,i I -I 75- FouuD W L}rjTI-F PLACf= -4-3 FE BAR ( 50' Rohl ) On the basis of my knowledge. information and belief i hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was prepared for CHARLES 8 CHARLEEN CORSON under my supervision and that it is not a Lord Survey Plat or Impmvemem Survey Plat, and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or other future improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described Parcel on this daze, except utility connections and fences and landscaping, are entirely within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown. that there are no enemuchments upon the described premises by improvements om my adjoining premises, except as indicated, and that these is no apparent evidence or sign of any casement crossing or burdening any part ofsaid parcel. except as noted. 'Notice: According to Colorado Law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event. may any action based upon any defect in this survey he commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hemon " Job Number. 1677-1999 0 Fee: $ $ 150 150..00 Census Tract No.: 708.03 Dare ?,h•,__ . W` Z. ectobert 196& lma. nW. AccenWble eta FeLieeale National M-'..aa .Woelatlon. DEED OF TRUST 59257-5 COLORADO THis INDENTURE, made this 10th day of July A. D. 19 68 , between CHARLES E. CORSON AND CHARLEEN E. CORSON, his wife ,whose address is 6435 W. 45th Place, Wheatridge, Colorado 80033 , County of Jefferson , State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to ae the grantor, and the Public Trustee of the County of Jefferson , State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the trustee, Witnesseth: WHEREAS, the grantor as executed his certain promissory note, bearing even date herewith, payable to the order of WESTERN FEDERAL SA VINiS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF 1jMVER whose present address is 6011 West 44th Avenue Wheatridge, Colorado 80033 hereinafter referred to as the beneficiary, for the principal sum of ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND 110/100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dollars 11,500.00 - with interest at the rate of six and three fourths per centum ( 6 qo) per annum until paid, payable in monthly installments of. SEVENTY FOUR AND 6OA00 - - - - - - - - - - Dollars 74.60 commencing on the first day of August , 19 68 , and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter until the said note is fully paid, except that, if not sooner paid, the final payment of principal and interest shall be due and payable on the first day of July , 19 98 . Said principal sum, together with interest thereon, and other payments provided to be made under the terms of this indenture, are hereinafter referred to as the indebtedness; AND WHEREAS, the grantor is desirous not only of securing the prompt payment of the indebtedness, but also of effectively securing and indemnifying the beneficiary for or on account of any assignment, endorsement, insurance or guarantee of the indebtedness; NOW, THEREFORE, the grantor, in consideration of the premises, and for the purposes aforesaid, has granted, bargained, sold, and conveyed, and does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey unto the trustee, in trust forever, all the following described property situate in the County of Jefferson , and State of Colorado, to wit: Lot 14, vI1wu SDwIVISION, Jefferson County, Colorado together with the improvements and appurtenances thereunto belonging and all fixtures now or hereafter attached to or used in connection with the premises herein described; and in addition thereto the following described household appliances, which are, and shall be deemed to be, fixtures and a part of the realty and are a portion of the security for the indebtedness herein mentioned: vent fan P + ~F WHEgr LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION of WHEArA P ~ ti O ~ o Planning and Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 °ptoRnoo Phone(303)235-2846 °o~oRro° (Please print or type all information) Applicant 4'o-/e'5 1G/ ~~~7DP✓Address J~ / 5 ~G Phone me` /7~0 City d ~Di/~ Owner( /l4, 2Address /,q-3`S k97 9'5 1 ""cQ Phoned'0'T "-2-(-/~ City ea l ~,cd~~° r ~D Location of request (address) Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) ❑ Change of zone or zone conditions LK Variance / Waiver ❑ Site development plan approval ❑ Nonconforming use change ❑ Special Use Permit ❑ Flood plain special exception ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interpretation of Code ❑ Temporary Use, Buildings, Signs ❑ Lot line Adjustment ❑ Minor Subdivision (5 lots or less) ❑ Planned Building Group ❑ Subdivision (More than 5 lots) ❑ Street Vacation ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final ❑ Other: Detailed description of the equest: /F~u~" ~r-c - Fill out the following infor ayf tign to the. best of your knowledge. Current Zoning: ML!! Size of Lot (acressquare footage): Current use: !!J~ Proposed use: Assessors Parcel Number: I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-att/orrp y fypm the owner which approved of this action on his behalf. Signature of Applicant Subscribend sworn to me this 1-7- day of p; 191 4 NOLaf y Public My commission expires/12:i_ 3-o r' Date received Receipt No. Case No. ° -'5 K Related Case No. Zoning ~f Quarter Section Map W R f3 'O CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: June 24, 1999 DATE PREPARED: June 9, 1999 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-99-18\ Little CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of an additional freestanding sign. LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) 7605 West 44" Avenue Thomas Little 7605 West 44' Avenue, unit F Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) Vera Vahoska 7605 West 44t' Avenue, unit E Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: 1.15 acres Commercial-One Commercial Retail N: Residential-Three, S:, E: and W: Commercial-One N: Multi-family, a: and, E: Commercial, and W: Residential DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 4, 1999 June 9, 1999 June 2, 1999 ENTER INTO RECORD: Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Q SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS Q OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. co-1 I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval to allow for an additional freestanding sign for his business that fronts West 44`h Avenue. If the request is approved, there will be two freestanding signs located on West 44`h Avenue. The sign in question will be used to advertise "Vern's Restaurant and Lounge", a historical establishment that was recently relocated from the northwest corner of Wadsworth Bl. and West 44' Avenue. The proposed sign is actually the roof sign that was previously located on the roof of the old Vern's Tavern (the classic "martini glass"sign). A sign company will be hired to renovate the sign and place it on a freestanding pole in front of the new "Vern's". Currently, there is an existing freestanding sign in front of the liquor store, located in the same strip center. Pursuant to Section 26-410(e) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, business establishments located in the City are allowed a maximum of one freestanding sign per street frontage, and no more than two per development. II. SITE PLAN The property in question located on the north side of West 44' Avenue, and is adjacent to the Walgreen's property. The property is relatively rectangular, measuring 222'X 226' and is relatively flat. There is a recently completed 11,595 square foot commercial structure on the site, that provides 4 leasible units, in addition to Vern's. The liquor store on the east of the commercial building already has a freestanding pole sign, while the other units use wall signs to advertise their businesses. According to the site plan, the applicant is proposing to place the additional freestanding sign approximately 15' from the front column of the restaraunt / lounge. The proposed location will not only be aesthetically consistent with the existing freestanding sign, but will also be located far enough from West 44`h Avenue as to not create a traffic hazard. III CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria to evaluate an application for a variance: 1. Can the property in question 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? Yes. If the request is denied, the business may continue to be used for commercial purposes. However, approval of this request would allow for the historical sign which has given "Vern's" it's character for a number of years. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No. There aren't any unique circumstances attributed to this request. C-Z 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. This property is located in a primarily commercial zone district which allows the use of freestanding signs for advertising purposes. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? No. The property currently exists as a primarily rectangular lot. Also, the property is topographically flat and does not create any construction hardships. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification? Yes. Any resident of the City may apply for the same type of variance. However, each request is reviewed on a case by case basis, thus the outcome may not be the same. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property? Yes. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow for additional advertisement for his business establishment and to maintain the character of this Wheat Ridge institution. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Yes. The hardship has been created by the applicant who has sole interest in the property. 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? No. Because the proposed sign will be located approximately 120' from West 44`s Avenue, and there is at least 84" of clearance from the bottom of the sign and the parking lot surface, approval of this request should not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other properties. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? No. As previously stated, the proposed sign is going to be located approximately 120' from West 44' Avenue, and about 35' from the western property line. Therefore, approval of this request should not impair the adequate supply of light and air, nor increase the danger of fire to Board of Adjustment WA-99-18/Little Page 3 C-3 the adjacent properties. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? No. Approval of this request is neither a benefit for the community nor for the reasonable accommodation of a handicapped person. This request is based solely upon individual benefit. IV. STAFF'S CONCLUSION Staff found that, although there isn't any hardship attributed to this case and there weren't any unique circumstances found that would warrant this request, approval of this request should not alter the essential character of the locality. Also, approval of this request would allow the placement of a historical landmark, which was used as the corner stone of the identity of the area for so many years. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Case No. WA-99-18. V. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS OPTION A: "I move that Case No. WA-99-18, a request for an additional freestanding sign for a property zoned C-1 and located at 7605 West 44`h Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Approval of this request would allow for the placement of a historical landmark. 2. The sign will be located far enough from West 44' Avenue as to not be detrimental to the public's welfare. 3. Approval of this request should not alter the essential character of the locality. With the following condition: Approval of this request is for `Vein's Restaurant and Lounge' only and cannot continue as a freestanding sign location for any other establishment." OPTION B: "I move that Case No. WA-99-18, a request for an additional freestanding sign for a property zoned C-1 and located at 7605 West 44' Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: The evaluation criteria does not support approval of this request." LAMcCaMef\case files\WA-99-1 8.WPD Board of Adjustment WA-99-18/Little Page 4 C-4- ~,v OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: -line 15, 1994 Last Revision: September 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT OF FUMN6 AND DEVBOPMINi - 235-2852 L:\DRAWINGS\PLANNING\QS\NW23 5JJ2Y1 r •--,i 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE DISTRICT 5OUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) WATER. FEATURE • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES G-5 SITE LOLd.T[oP N~ 23 NX 23 r r~ 0 w a0 a00 w0 100 SCALE I'-4W I z c 1 p - O 6' PRIVACY FENC _ _ _ ~ Ekl9iMG. P_PH21'ERiY LME--22200" - _ S,, . _ rnmry ~ 3' &yA5~ ~NU 1 "'xF~ tpi➢W O lI1Sj~~ ~I~~~v~ 151 Q' QN r~ ky'L~ S Fn ou SIC?N m _I-~ __I ~ ~ h vyu S,~m A O d~'~W"n~°ir`':s"y,1[i Itiq}ri1 ~'S1 O I~ _ ~'D" fn .p v~'~'erde.b;rrr"~b)a61s,S4~a,7 g Ii t° I~ 'Yn MEN ' ~ NQ O Il~dl~,t "N'yyy5 , Y". Vri' ~ 4 sr~n , I I N' ~I m' xl iy 6 I I I ~ (rmt~ro0-` _ ~L ~ 1~ 1 Y F~~1}~~~~~p y~, ~1PtkF q yyof _3 O ° Ie ~1~`'fj d4 wn~~ jb.)(JR'~1➢j[2Y i ]L' `j A y II s ; t l'i't +~r+}"+i'"~ A p -tv+q 1 ~ Gr ~ 3yt~ txrykl~'~'F 'I"pt`'~y`~iS~~~ak' A I ZZ I E figgtw~,a»r~'~~u, a.a'Ja'~41+1,, , >k e ag Ir I 0 ~ D[++'F tf A 43 !a ~ I I rJv~'r'fn t~at4t`f~nYa'ai" k I yy ~!v¢~'U rI JlL~~~~F`r4~ f§Yr~t~S'S~1J Y' I j rn v I air w S ~Ata{ G I s 1' t a I l i ~ * js Fist I~ t,r>f'~wh~t NY~~' 1 I .Q d. M pl ~~4.'Ikv~" r 'F;'~' iµr11{ 1 ~ +,;,t;~4 ay saerh 1 11 ~ + s ~r Si I p rtt 11 av\Il Ik-<e j l O '0 U '~7ji' 11 1 A~q 4YI 1` y.~,hp'KI~f ; l A I AY MJh ~ I Z ~ 1~j~5 I~FY9 1 f 7 ✓4~ 1 Y { a' I Ic 0 (f' F U y,Y ,R~,C•?/ e ~ ~4J.~ v~'C~~J F''t 'S~` «a ++N'~+' A / ` mi➢~V ~~.1 1 f3YtJ! YC 5+~ 4>yi f I I ~ ['ul] ~ ~ ~~~11~j!"~i"1~:1'~~5~5(}f~5~ff~!~K~SI~'~i➢~., I I -II m iT~,~ f a1v f+kShB~ 6S ti5 r h.~f ,3 <f r II (/5V y(J(fi y~,3 4 (l a 'p Tyo ° l ~ O ~~~5~4~I~~jJ/]!'F';~f'~`2~~~A (",t•5 r, ~ S y _ . ! r (lEyrf~r' , RNIN a -06 ar W yI n~. zlZ / ~5~~~tt~`IM„~V{j'yesk~w,lr , (K~.15 Ul '7~~-~r~ "eXq~~t~ tt, n{'J rrt,f V F ,Y~ 1.. I I Re rv l mA ~ ~4~^ sr S-1' d( ~i r~~~".~ f r. I y N ' ~r^ s 'I 1 ~O fi X'P! iI^ udrd.~+P'S!'~e4~ 1~:,4'S si s 1 ~ c+o(}c j ~ tip~f~>)~t~~~sfr,~ L"Nti!w ~,a~~ ° t P`.LnBASLIIE - - - - - - - - 2000' 70' 15.00' 2400'. Ilbl'.. flblr'~ IBflp'.. Ilbl. ::~60g0 ~ 20A r y . ~SF I ~T FX k I y ~ . 0 p ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ 1 e~GGii~•7~~ / ~ I 1 _ } I 1 5ry N ~ 1 ' 1 4 Va 1 I 11 I t a JI 4 r~ ~ ~ Y 50.~`e A ~ ~1 w + + LkY e ~ 1 ~ ~1 a J a.. n ~ (Z I v+A 4 ~~1'>Y/;:' ~~1F ti. ~ i , 'PROPOSED R2er--6rAi4DWe--r SI61-l C_ I b' ri 1 I Reception No..... . .......Reeorder TWS DEEDb !Jade tLis 14th day of June 19 74 I •f,1 j I i') .I betwe" E.R. BACHER, also known as ERNEST R. BACHER - r, J _ IM I~ IN of tha ..-1f County of refferson and S•cate of Colorado, of the first part, and VE hNON t?. VOHOSKA and MARJORIE I. VOHOSKA of v Ci`y & Denver and State Colorado, of the second part: 1 on I _ WITNESSErfl, That the said part IT of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and other valuable consideration- - - - - - - - - - - - DOLLARS to the said pert IT of the first part in hand paid by said pmt leS of the second part, (hs receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledgol, he S granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do e S grant, bargab, sell, convey ani confirm, unto the said part ieSof the second psrtthe :~irein and assigns for. ever, all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in tl. e County of ,Jefferson and State of Colorado, to wit: The South 280.64 feet of the East 10 acres of the SEkLIT of Section 2:3, Township 3 South, Range 69 West 6th P.M. EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof, EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof, EXCEPT that ror.tion thereof described in Book 383, Page 1 and EXCEPT that portion thereof described in Book 1210, Page 280, and The South 252 feet of the West 226 feet of the East 556 feet of the SE~NW~ of Section 23, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of 6th P.m., EXCEPT the East 45 feet of the South 150 feet thereof, I~ TOGETE(ER with all and eirigulsr the hereditainente and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in, anywise eppertaining, and the reversiGn aid reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits there" and all the estate, right title, interest, cledm and demand whatsoever of the said part y of the first part, either in la-.v or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the bereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO DOLD the said promises above bargained and described with the appurtenances; unto the said part i e 9 of the second pmt,theirheire mid assigns forever. And the said part y of the first part, for him set f , his heirs, executors, and adnal,"ratora, do es covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the said part ieS of the second parttheilheirs and assigns, that at the time o'_' the ensealing and delivery of these presents, are well seised of the practices above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible :,state of inheritance, a law, in fee simple, and ha ve good right, full power and lawful' authority to grant, be.rgahy sell end convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the amne are free and clew front all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind or naturesoevsr, subject to general ta;ce:$ for year 1974 due January, 1.975. and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said part ies of the second part, their heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the sold part IT of the Pint rant shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WM'NESS WHEREOF, the said part IT of the first part ha S hereunto get hand and seal the day said year tgrst above wrltten.t ..............(SEAL) . a.ls or.~.J..knquJrr.k...ashJ..j........._.........~.._ (SEAL) ~.rzr.Gyr /✓...1.._~4...7.CXd:.7..FSEAL) STATE OI? COLORADO, Is". } zy.& Crnntyof' Denver j 3se"~tWq i~ 4trmrent was acknowledged bailers me this 14th day of Jung 1>jl' 6:'1$y"'..BACHER, also known as ERNEST R. BACHER ~~lARlt °h' n' June 10 Ip 76 • Witru es my htd sd offidnl eenl. ~ 3aa53 .I1 T1 ' V Cz) Cf) j °F wnegr LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION of w eqr ~ P ti P _ 0 0 Planning and Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 °OtoRno° Phone(303)235-2846 °ptoena° (Please print or type all information) Applicant/#Qm. -S 9 Latr- Address 7(05 L),LO'l,&^c ()rga:r Phone 30r4- W) - LIl City U 0W Cm KW3 3 - Owner U oerNy(1 KA Address )6OS W 9Li11~AU£ OMIT F Phone City IME Cius %0033 Location of request (address) 9± U ✓ C~ $CL'13 Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) ❑ Change of zone or zone conditions lq4ariance / Waiver ❑ Site development plan approval ❑ Nonconforming use change ❑ Special Use Permit ❑ Flood plain special exception ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interpretation of Code ❑ Temporary Use, Buildings, Signs ❑ Lot line Adjustment ❑ Minor Subdivision (5 lots or less) ❑ Planned Building Group ❑ Subdivision (More than 5 lots) ❑ Street Vacation ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final ❑ Other: Detailed description of the request: AM Fill out the following information to the best of your knowledge. Current Zoning: C- f Size of Lot (a Ares or square footage): A Current use: Proposed use: Assessors Parcel Number: Z I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application,, I-am acti g with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the req~iested actin cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorne om the.' n w ich approved of this action on his behalf. Signature of Ap t Subscribed and sworn to me this At)c~ day of, 19 Notary Public My commission expires D614hel Receipt No. ~cef-25:~ Case No. WA'`~-W elated Case No. -le Zoning G' I Quarter Section Map NW 23 .10