Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/1998AGENDA CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION October 1, 1998 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on October 1, 1998, at 7:30 p.m., 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 3, 1998 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 HEARING Approved A. Case No. WV-98-04: Application submitted by Russ and Jan Anderson for approval of a vacation Of unused public right-o'f-way f"()r a portion ofMarshall Street tor the purpose of maintaining the area. The area is zoned A-1 and C-1 and located act to 6465 West 48"' AVCuU(' (,north of" 1-70). Approved B. Case No. MS-98-05: Application submitted by C. B. Euser for approval of a minor two-lot subdivision for the purpose of selling one lot. The property is zoned R-2 and located at West j nd 6745 -)- Avenue, 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUISINESS 11. DISCUSSION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. AD.JOURNMENT to October 15,1998 at 6::00 p.m. in the Police Department Training Room I 001,kvpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE .PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting September 3, 1998 Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Alan White, Planning Director Bob Goebel, Director of Public Works Greg Knudson., Development Review Engineer Martin Orner, Economic Development Specialist Ann Lazzeri, Minutes Specialist . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning ommission minutes for the public hearing of September J, 1998. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the Cite of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the August ` 0, 1998 Wheat Ridge Planning Commission were presented for approval. Commissioner COLLINS moved and Commissioner SNOW seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The notion carried by a vote of -0, with Commissioner GOKEY abstaining; and Commissioners DUNN and SHOCKLEY absent. 09/ 3/98 5. PUBLIC FORUNI Chair THOMPSON asked if there was anyone present who wished to discuss any subject not appearing on the agenda. The following individual appeared before the Commission: Lew Higgins 3720 Yukon Street Mr. Higgins stated that he had heard rumors that a high profile retail center is being planned for the present Chesrown Ford property. Chair THOMPSON informed Mr. Higgins that this issue should • addressed under t1i public comment portion of the public hearing on Case No. WZ-98-13. C"As No.'WZ-98-13: An application by The Chesrown Automotive Group for approval of a Planned Commercial Development amended Outline Development Plan and a Planned Commercial Development combined preliminary and Final Development Plan. Said property is zoned PCD and located at 3601 Wadsworth Boulevard. Commissioner SNOW asked for further explanation about an agreement with Wheat Ridge Plaza in regard to Yukon being opened. Mr. White explained that there is an emergency access which comes in right next to the entrance to Valencia. That development plan Planning Commission Page 2 09/3/98 amendment provided that when this property developed, the City would require dedication of Yukon Street and this ernero'ency access would be dedicated to the City as a street. Commissioner SNOW asked what the proposed circulation for the site would be if Yukon Street were not opened. Mr. White replied that there is potential for some drive aisles which Would function as connections through the development and perhaps be directed onto Yukon Court. Commissioner SNOW asked for explanation of the swale in the middle of the wetlands. Mr. White replied that the applicant could address that issue. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked when the applicant was advised of the shallow water assessment. Mr. White replied that it was probably a few days after the City received it. Bob Goebel stated that the date of the report was June 30, so the applicant probably received it during the first part of July. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the presented outline development plan and the preliminary and final development plan were in conformance with findings of the recent Wadsworth Corridor Study. Mr. White replied that this question would be difficult to answer because the Wadsworth Corridor Study is just in the early stages, Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if based on the proposed location of the wetlands and the shallow water assessment on 34th Avenue, it could be assumed that it would be difficult for water to get from the back to the front of the site and get tinder Wadsworth. Mr. White replied that he understood that it was subsurface movement of water, so effect on the wells need to be investigated. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if pumping of the surface water affected the subsurface water and drainage into the other wells. Mr. White replied that this was correct and that there was a pump at the corner of the ditch to pump water across 35th Avenue into a storm sewer which the City's consultant felt had an impact oil the \vell situation. Chair THOMPSON expressed concern about buffering protection of neighbors to the south I of the SLIbjeCt property. Mr. White replied that there was required landscaping for a public street. Chair THOMPSON asked if the City could have a guarantee that the parking lot would be for employee parking only. Mr. White replied that it would be an appropriate condition for the final development plan. Planning Commission Page 4 09i3/98 Chair-THOMPSON asked if the auto dealership could have an auto body shop if the southern portion of the property were to become an auto dealership. Mr. White replied that it would depend on whether or not it was an allowed use under C -1 zoning. Commissioner SNOW read from the code which states that body repair and painting is allo)'ved in C- I zone districts as a conditional use, dealership. At this time, it was explained to the staff that the applicant did not control ownership of the entire parcel. The applicant owns the subject eleven acres but leases the property where the existing dealership sits and, therefore, does not have any type of control for any long-term development of the site. He informed the Commission that Republic Industries bought the Chesrown interests and, therefore, the applicant is only interested in Commissioner BRINKIMAN asked \Mr. Sthe urer if lie agreed \,vith the 34th Avenue shallow ground water assessment report. He replied that they received the report around July 15 which did not allow enough time for analysis and response in time for the Planning Commission meeting. Ile stated that they have read tile report and will be hiring their own hydrologist to study the matter and have agreed with City staff to defer the wetlands issue until the study is done. Commissioner GOKEY asked for clarification regarding ownership of the property. Mr. Scheurer replied that the subject property was owned by Republic Industries doing business as Chesrown Friendly Ford. He explained that the present dealership property has several owners. one of which is the Johnny Harper Estate. Chair THOMPSON asked if it would be setting a precedent which would allow the entire parcel to be used for car sales if the plan is approved tonight for the parking. Mr. White replied that'the Commission still has the ability to restrict uses in tile planned commercial development, Plannin- Cominission Page 6 09/3/98 Mr. Scheurer responded to Chair THOMPSON's concerns about use of the parking lot by statin- that they have restricted the parking area to employee parkliffil. CLIStOrner parking and parking Of Customer service cars. In response to questions regarding buffering on the south side, Mr.. Harper stated that there is a fifteen-foot landscape buffer called for in the plan in addition to the street landscaping. In regard to questions about the canal (or swale), he stated that the canal intercepts Water that seeps out of the ground and, in turn, provides a way for the water which comes from the West (offsite) to flow toward the pump. He stated that he views this situation as a temporary condition which can be modified, and that when the wetland and drainage facilities are designed, the canal (as far as an open facility) will go away. He noted that the groundwater issue is important to this site because there is a need to dispose of extra water. Historically, the wetland captured the water and, according to the City's study, it appears that water has percolated into surrounding, soil, drained to the east and is part of the water table that feeds the shallow wells. He stated that if this premise is true, they could build an infiltration galley oil tile site which would solve the shallow well problem, and that is why they Want to explore the issue with their own consultant. Commissioner COLLINS took exception with the islands being located on the perimeter of the parking lot and asked where handicapped spaces were located. Mr. Harper replied that Z� they Could stripe handicapped spaces within the lot to meet the requirement. He further Planiiiii- Commissioii Page 7 09/3/98 stated that the Friendly Ford lot has handicapped parking spaces. Commissioner COLLINS noted that handicapped spaces on the existing dealership lot cannot be counted toward the required spaces for the additional parking lot. Todd Maul Chesirown Automotive Group 7320 North Broadway, Denver Mr. Maul was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON, In response to an earlier question by Commissioner COLLINS, he stated they employ approximately 120 people. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked Mr. Matil if he had attended any of the kk"adsworth Corridor studies. He replied that he has attended some in the past, but did not attend the most recent rneetini. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Mr. Maul stated that Ford dealerships are not required to upgrade their facilities in order to keep their dealerships. Commissioner SNOW asked if the original temporary use permit gave permission to pave the parking lot. Mr. White replied that it did not. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if they planned to snow the weeds and maintain the lot. Mr. Harper replied that they will keep the property in compliance with City codes. (Chair THOMPSON declared a recess at 10:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10: 10 P.m) Tom Lund)! 3500-3502 Allison Street Mr. Lundy was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON. He stated that he had a revocable license agreement between residents of Allison Street and the City of Wheat Ridge which was signed on July 27, 1992. tie urged staff to review this license agreement before proceeding any further with the Subject case. motion failed Unanimously, leaving the City Attorney in the position of having to defend the lawsuit on the basis of his position with the City, but not being allowed to on the basis of the motion. A lawsuit ensued which resulted in an agreement to approve the rezoning oil the provision that Allison Street would be closed. In 1992, a subsequent City Council voted to open Allison Street on conditions of the subject license agreement. Dick Scheurer adcFfessed the Commission and stated that in addition to this Allison Street agreement. there was one for Yukon Street as well. He stated that this was another reason Z� for not addressing rezoning at this time. These issues need to be addressed before all outline development plan can be established for the eleven acres. Commissioner GO KEY sti( that some confusion regarding condemnation could have arisen as a result of the Wadsworth Corridor Study meetings. Dick Sclicurer reiterated that tile subject application regards the removal ota building envelope on the site to make the parking lot legal, approve a preliminary and final development plan for that site, and was not a request for rezoning. He stated that the applicant's objective is to comply with the agreement to legalize the parking, maintain status quo until plans for the entire site come in and to keep peace in the neighborhood. Chair THONIPSON referred to item no. 4 on the amended outline development plan was its feet and therefore it was included oil the drawings. however the original plan was for a 35-foot building height and a 50-foot spire or bell tower. He stated that Mr. % had Z� indicated a 35-foot building height limitation would serve his purposes. Commissioner BRINKMAN expressed concern about the weeds, etc, oil the vacant portion of the property and commented that future development on that lot would probably be more accepted by the community if the lot were kept Up until the development comes before the City again. Commissioner BRINKMAN referred to the islands and the handicapped parking requirements. Mr. White replied that the applicant meets code requirements for one island per fifty parking spaces, Commissioner COLLINS stated that federal ADA regulations require one handicapped parking space per every 25 parking spaces. In response to ail earlier question by Chair THOMPSON, Mr. White stated that parking requirements are one parking space per every 1,000 square feet of lot area. This lot would require 192 spaces plus one per employee on maximum shift. Commissioner COLLINS commented that required handicapped spaces on this lot must be in addition to those oil the existing lot. z l.� Commissioner GOKEY commented that there are plenty of on-site spaces for employee parking. Commissioner COLLINS commented that there are new cars sitting on these on- site parking spaces and the applicant had therefore created his own problem. I In regard to comments about the islands, Mr. White stated that fie felt having the islands on the perimeter of the parking lot would provide additional landscape buffering for residents to the South of the property It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN that Case No. WI -q8-1 3, a request for approval of an amended Outline Development Plan, be DENIED for the follwving reasons: Althou-11 there have been changes in the area since the approval of the existing PCD, these have generally been toward becoming a more retail and service oriented area. None of the changes justify placing such a large area into parking for employees and cars being serviced, a use producing very low sales tax revenue. The proposed change neither brings the plan more into conformance with the previous comprehensive plan nor Would the plan, especially the parking lot portion of the plan, be in conformance with the intent of the proposed comprehensive plan fear this area, Planning Commission Page 10 09/3/98 3. The expansion of the parking portion of the existing auto dealership with its expected lights and large amounts of paving is not compatible with the residential uses to the west, southwest and northwest. 4 The fact that the existing dealership is crowded on its present site does not justify the expansion onto a site more suitable to retail and service uses of greater benefit to the City. 5. The major and most significant change from the current PCD is the expansion of the parking area for the existing dealership. Since there is no void in auto dealerships in the Citv of Wheat Ridge, this change does not meet the criteria of filling a void for needed services, products or facilities. 6. The property can reasonably be developed tinder the existing PCD. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if Commissioner SNOW would be agreeable to adding an additional reason for denial as follows: It is not known what the impact of the development will be to the shallow ground water situation. Commissioner SNOW responded that, although she had considered it, she felt such a condition would imply that the use of a car lot is acceptable if the drainage problem is corrected, and that she didn't feel a car lot was the proper use for this piece of land regardless of the drainage situation. Chair THOMPSON asked if' Commissioner SNOW would consider downsizing the parking from 2 18 spaces to a smaller lot to help alleviate parking on Yukon Court, Commissioner SNOW responded that she felt that the dealership should utilize their existing space for employee parking. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0 with Commissioner DUNN absent. Commissioner BRINKMAN moved and Commissioner SNOW seconded that the Planning Commission not make an additional motion on the preliminary and final development plan as it is not relevant since the outline development plan has been denied. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0 with Commissioner DUNN absent. Chair THOMPSON requested that, at such time as a future development plan for this property comes before the Planning Commission, that the revocable license agreement for Z;1 t� Allison Street as well as the Yukon Street agreement be made a part of the packet for the Commission's consideration and, further, that it be made a part ofthe City Council packet for the Chesrown hearing. Planning Commission Page 11 09/3/98 Commissioner BRINKN/IAN requested that Planning Commission members receive copies of the minutes to review before they go to Council since the Planning Commission nieetin�x of September 17th has been canceled. 7. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair THOMPSON declared the public hearing portion of the meeting closed. A. Commissioner SNOW asked the date of the mass rezoning meeting. Mr. White replied that the meeting would be held September 15. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Commissioner BRINKMAN reminded Commission members of the Montessori open 11OLISe. B. Alan White advised the Commission that there would be neighborhood meetings regarding the Wadsworth Corridor on: September 30, October 1- and October 20. All of the meetings will be at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner GOOEY stated that some people in his neighborhood are concerned about the Wadsworth Corridor. Mr. White replied that staff was aware of these concerns and held a meetiriv at the middle school to address their concerns. It. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS Thcre no reports. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOOEY to adjourn the meeting at 11: 10 pm to September 10, 1998. Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Janice Thompson, Chair C'�Bobara I'ClUrl'S PLANGCONI VC M I Nlfrl:1 1 998\980903,wJul Planning Commission Page 12 0911,31,98 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planninc Commission October 1, 1998 DATE PREPARED: September 24, 1998 CASE NO. & NAME: WV-98-041Anderson CASE MANAGER: Sean tAcCartney ACTION REQUESTED: An application by Russ and Jan Anderson for vacation Of Unused public right-of- way (Marshall Street) LOCATION OF REQUEST: Adjacent to 6465 West 48th Avenue (north of 1-70) NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) Russ and Jan Anderson 6465 West 48th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) Same APPROXIMATE AREA: 6,600 square feet PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural-One and Commercial-One 1. PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant / public right-of-way SURROUNDING ZONING: N.- and E: Commercial -One, W: and S: Agricultural- One SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Light Industrial, E. Retail Commercial, W: Service (night club)-, S: Interstate 70 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial Activitv Center DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: September 11, 1998 September 17, 1998 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: September 10, 1998 ENTER INTO LIE ,JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notificationand posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST This is a request for approval of a right-of-way (right-of-way) vacation for an Unused portion of Marshall Street running betvveen Interstate 70 (south) and West 48th Avenue (north). The property is approximately 40' wide (east to west) and 320' long (north to South). It is currently undeveloped. 11. CASE HISTORV This case was originally heard before Planning Commission on November 20, 1997. It was approved by Planning Commission and forwarded to City Council. City Council denied the request based on the idea that the right-of-way could bused for future development and may be needed to access the developments that are created. The original request was to vacate the property to allow for the then three existing billboards to remain ill place, ,vhile property owners leased the land. Since the original request, the billboards have been C� removed, and the right-of-way property remains vacant. One billboard now remains on the property adjacent to the right-of-way (east). The applicant is requesting the vacation of right-of-way so they can Z1.7 .. maintain, grade and , room the land. They believe that the unused and disregarded strip of land is becornin- all eye-sore and every summer it grows high with weeds. It is staffs opinion that the right-of-way will most likely not be developed. This right-of-way strip is an unused remnant of"i'vlarshall Street that was bisected during the creation of Interstate 70. There has never been ativ j in prove tile tits oil this portion of right-of-way, nor are there any plans for any future use. The remnant rigflit-of-wvay is located on top of a sloped berm. To the west, the property Slopes Suddenly and continues to Slope until it reaches the Disabled American Veterans (D.A.V.) parking lot. Any future development of tile property or the rie lit-of-way Would require Sufficient grading and retaining of soil to allow for proper development. Therefore. future development of tile right-of-way is unlikely. There are no restrictions in tile zoning code regarding submittal of the same vacation request -,within a specified tirne period (like variances). Ill. CC NIPREFIENSIVE PLAIN The Comprehensive Plan Currently does not show this portion of Iviarshall Street on the master plan, as a street because this is undeveloped right-of-way. The existing parcel is located within the Commercial Activity Center land use designation, Approval of the vacation will be for the transfer of ownership; there are no future plants for development of' this property that will not comply with the existing land use designation. Planning Coninlission Page 2 WV-98-04/Anderson M IV. CRITERIA Before a street right-of-way vacation is approved, the applicant shall show and the Planning Commission shall make the following determination: 1-1 I. That the proposed vacation will not leave any adjoining land without ain established public road connecting said land with another established public road. If approved, the proposed vacation will not leave the adjoining land without an established public road as this right-of-way is not developed and has never had public improvements. No property would be land locked if the property is vacated. That the proposed vacation is in conformity with the goals and policies of the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Wheat Ridge. Currently, the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan shows this property as a local street, even though it has never been developed. Approval of this request will not hinder the future plans of 1 - 7 the city's future Master Plan and should be omitted,as a designated public right-of-way from the revised Master Plan. 3. That the proposed vacation will not have a negative impact on the infrastructure of the City of Wheat Ridge. Because the right-of-way in question has never been developed with public improvements, approval of this request will not have a negative impact on the infrastructure of the City of Wheat 4. That adequate casements have been reserved for use and / or maintenance by the City or other utility agencies. This request was referred to the Director of Public Works, Bob Goebel. I'Ar. Goebel requested that the vacated parcel should be designated as a utility casement for tile existing Public Service power poles. Future development on this site, as part of a larger parcel, Would require approval Of tile Utility company and compliance with the development standards established in tile Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. V. AGENCY REFERRALS This request was referred to all of the outside agencies. Most of them made verbal replies over the phone. There were no outside concerns from any of the agencies. The Public Works Department requested that the property should be designated as a utility casement for the existing Public Service power poles (see attached). Planning Commission Page 3 C ' WV-98-04/Aildersotl M X*I. STAFF COiNCLUSIONNS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that because this portion of public right-of-way has not been used as a street nor does it provide access to all adjacent parcel since it serves no other purpose than a utility easement for the existing Public Service power poles, the proposed vacation should be approved as requested. VII. RECONMMENDED MOTIONS OPTION A: "I move that Case No. WV-98-04, an application for approval of a right-of-way vacation of all unused portion of Marshall Street (approximately 6465 West 48th Avenue), be recommended to the City Council for APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1, Tile property is and has always been an unused for street or access purposes. 2. I Director of Public Works finds that there is no other need for the property other than a utility casement for Public Service. The request will not hinder tile future improvements established on the Wheat Ridge - Conipre liens i ve Plan. 4, Staff recommends approval," OPTION B: "I move that Case No. WV-98-04, an application for approval of a right-of-way vacation of all unused portion of Marshall Street (approximately 6465 West 48th Avenue), be recommended to the City Council for DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. 2. E' NtXamu:y 41 N-97-04AkIlD Plannin- Commission Pale 4 Z C, WV-98-04/Anderson 14-1-1 W 52NO AVE •'�• '{ f . " may \ �,4 imumi I Ijf"' between Interstate 70 (south) and West 4e Avenue (north). It measures 40' wide by approximately 320' long. Currently this land is positioned between two portions of land I , To maintain, grade, groom and care for the land. 2. To prevent garbage or any offensive matter. 1123774= 5 To provide for and compel the removal of excessive weeds and brush. 6. To maintain the land to prevent situations which can alter the value of the MMM��� BEI�� ; �. If P R i 1 0 ,4-6 the property be vested to the owner to the west. Our request does not intend to interfere with the entire property being reserved as a utility easement. 1. On the east by the west line of Block 11, BERKELEY BEIGHTS SECOND FILING, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2. 4. On the north by the southwesterly tine ♦ that parcel ♦ land as described in Book 436, Page 450, from Eliza Reed to County of Jefferson, recorded April 10, 194 1. Said 40 foot strip contains 13,170 square feet (0.302 acres), more or less, The author of this description is Mr. John S. Lambert, PLS 13212, prepared on behalf Sellards & Grigg, Inc., 143 Union Boulevard, Suite 700, Lakewood, CO 80228, October 22, 1997 under S&G No. 97389-21 for Myers, Bradley & Devitt, PC and is not to construed as representing a monumented land survey. -- Axpawor— I 97389/21/jsl/marshaU.rev 20' 40' c5' EAST LINE OF + BLOCK 10 z z x WEST LINE OF BLOCK 11 BERKELEY HEIGHTS SECOND FILING BOOK 2, PAGE 2 ,. *. BOOK 1810, RAGE 256 SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 11 I .29 w j" Cb I I I • • 6trOL I V (T 00 L000g 0OV80100 'VOVA8V 'ZL �,MH 00 HdDSOr YG z w Z > z 04 0 < 0 0 0 IL od w W t4 a: .3 0 w 0 >4 f4 to 0 �r > Oct w z z U E4 w 0 I 0 ft z > Z z 0 z 0 Z D x O 0 u oe 0 Z H u W . W W W X 0 o< 0 ra >4 C4 z E 4 z og z W z 4 w W Dc I: �t w = tn ZI: 0 x .0 0. : H 00 t- 0 z to u z 4rNihwCw w w 4 cm a, 0 tri w 14 W z E. 0 w z t-- 4 — a 14 0 W to 0 w Ca 019 E. = 0: ># :)Zu t n E- w Ct D: W z 2t W > Co :c tn w w w z ru 4 .3 a E- > �c 0 �l . ta 4 oru 0 a 4 to .4 CL 0 0 Z C-- to w >4 ;c z 04 " Z W = W. z .3 w 4 E 4t* U u o 0 ra z z H E-4 0 E- z >4 =) IL E- 0 w 0 >+ 0 z H U4 tn t. o 0 w Z . 09C W r4 E. o 14 �t .3 Ix 4 E = " W = C6 4 W 14 0 E- C� W E- 0 C4 a, < t- al w 0 t- x to 0 . 0 •0 Z .4 E� Z Z "M tz MM I .29 w j" Cb I I I • • 6trOL I V (T 00 L000g 0OV80100 'VOVA8V 'ZL �,MH 00 HdDSOr YG 0 0 0 IL od w W >0 N 0 to 0 �r w a. z w E4 w 0 I 0 ft a. Z I .29 w j" Cb I I I • • 6trOL I V (T 00 L000g 0OV80100 'VOVA8V 'ZL �,MH 00 HdDSOr ��, rr. <a..'• ,., f,j : f. , .., a ..� r r . ' � z .r�srs �.r :�. r .. � - = to ts�yi,e. ` .. ,, 1.,o-'„ er'. t �,. , Type of action requested (check 6i6e or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) Detailed description of the the land Assessors Parcel Number: I Date received Receipt No. Case No. I Related Case No. Zoning ca Quarter Section Map5 ' _/_� CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT 11 111 1 11! !11 11[ 11 � ji � I I � I 1 1111111 E U 1111 5:1 ii lliillgej� LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6745 West 32 "d Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): C.B.Euser 6745 West " Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 PRESENT LAND USE: Residential-Two Greenhouse Single-Family Residential N:, S:, E: and W. R-2 (all sides) DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: September 10, 1998 ENTER INTO RECORD: ( ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE - PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE ( ) SLIDES (X) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS ( ) OTHER /_ _/ REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 2-lot minor subdivision, as well as a maximum building I coverage variance and front, side and rear yard setback variances for a property zoned Residential-Two and located at 6745 West 32 " Avenue. Separate motions will be required. 11. CASE HISTORY The Public Works Department determined that, through county records, this property was never legally Subdivided to allow for tile existence of the two lots. Even though the properties currently provide separate le(lal descriptions, both properties are legally described as being "portions of Lot 6...". Therefore, any change to an existing parcel that is currently deemed as non - conforming, must comply with existing standards and regulations set forth in the corresponding zone district. 111. SITE PLAN The property is located on tile northeast corner of both Pierce and Otis Street, along West 32"`' Avenue. There are currently two structures located on tile property; a 2,552 square foot single-family residential and a 36,890 square foot greenhouse. The greenhouse is considered a legal non-conforming structure by use, as greenhouse uses are not permitted within the Residential-Two zone district, but were previously. Currently the two structures extend over their adjoining lot lines and the applicant is intending on adjLlStill6l tile lot boundaries to allow for the structures to situate on separate lots for the purpose of sale. The subdivision plat shows that the boundaries will be created to allow for relative setback compliance for the residential structure, but not the greenhouse which needs variances. The existence of the greenhouse and tile placement of the lot lines around the greenhouse are the underlying factors in the need for the variances. The applicant is requesting variances for Maximum Building Coverage (required: 40%, proposed: 66%), Minimum Side Yard Setback (along the Pierce Street right-of-way; required: 3 )0', proposed: 10', and along an interior lot line; required: 5% proposed: 0'), and Minimum Front Yard Setback (from an interior lot line that is parallel with West 32 Avenue, required: 30', proposed: 0'). The Wheat Ridge Building Division requires that the existing greenhouse must provide either a minimum of 3' setback from any property lines or be retrofitted with fire-rated material along those interior lot lines. Staff recommends that the property line, between the greenhouse and the residential structure, be adjusted to allow for a 3' setback for the greenhouse, IV. AGENCY REFERRALS All outside service agencies are already serving the property. Any improvements will be paid for at the developer's expense, The Wheat Ridge Building Division requires a minimum 3' setback for all structures, from adjacent property lines. If setback cannot be adhered, the structure must be retrofitted with UBC approved fire- rated materials. Any relief from the UBC must be pursued through the Building Code Advisory Committee. - Public Set Company has requested specific language which has been included. All of the other public agencies stated that the minor subdivision Would not impact any of the existing services. The two proposed lots will allow for the existing structures to be located on separate lots. Currently, the described lot boundaries allow for the existing structures to extend over the illegally established lot lines. The proposed subdivision will create a 56,000 square foot lot (Lot 1), and a 10,400 square foot lot (Lot 2). The existing greenhouse will be located on Lot I and the existing residential structure will be located on Lot 2. No changes are proposed for either of the structures. Adequate utility easements are provided on the subdivision plat. Public Service Company has requested that specific language be placed on the subdivision plat. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. VI. VARIANCES , As iously rev stated. approval of this two-lot minor subdivision will require the approval of several P I variances. A separate motion for the two-lot minor Subdivision and the variances will be required, Planning Commission Page 3 MS-98-05/Euser The variances originate frorn the existence of the greenhouse. Currently, both structures extend over the existing lot boundaries. The proposed Subdivision is designed to redirect the boundaries to allow for each structure to remain on a separate parcel. However, due to the fact that the greenhouse cannot meet the zoning code standards for the existing and proposed lot, variances are required, For the structure to remain, Planning Commission is required to decide on the following variances: Maximum Building Coverage (required: 40%, proposed: 66%), Minimum Side Yard Setback (along the Pierce Street right-of-way; required: 30% proposed: 10', and along an interior lot line; required: 5, proposed: 0'), and Minimum Front Yard Setback (from an interior lot line that is parallel with West 32 "d AX'el`IUC; required: 30% proposed U). The existing single-family residential structure would need a rear vard setback variance of at least 5' (the true variance requirement is based on the final location of the rear lot line). Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: f. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to Ile used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? No. The variance request is based on an existing condition in which a non-confortiling structure C and use is too large for the property (i.e.,cannot meet standards). Should the variance request be denied, the subdivision cannot occur and/or several costly modifications Would be required for the structure to conform with the developirient regulations established in the Residential-Two (R- 2) zone district and/or the UBC. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? tl Yes. The plight of the owner is due to the fact that the existing structure, which was constructed prior to the incorporation of the City of Wheat Ridge, does not currently comply with the development or use standards established in the R-2 zone district. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. If the variation were granted it would allow for an existing non-conforming structure to be sold separately from the house. Approval of this request will not change any of the existing physical characteristics Of tile Structure. Theretore, approval of this request will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. NVould the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the Ll specific property involved result in as particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? Plannim Commission Noe 4 MS_98-05 /Euser 6-q No. The particular hardship is based on the fact that the greenhouse structure cannot meet the R- 2 development standards. A smaller structure could comply with the setback requirements and the maximum building coverage requirements althOU011 it would still be a non-confortning use. IZI 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to tile other property within the same zoning classification? Yes. However, each decision is determined on a case-by-case basis. G. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property Yes. The purpose of The variation is based on the request for subdivision approval. If the variation were denied, bringing tile structure into conformance would be a costly endeavor. 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 owner of the property, who has interest in the property. S. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public 8velfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which tile property is located? No. Granting of this request will not result in a change in any of the structures on the property. Therefore, approval of this request will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent tl� property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger tile public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. No. Because approval of this request will not change any of the physical attributes of the existing structures, approval of this request should not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties. Also, because the use has remained on site for a number of years, approval of this request S11OUICI not increase the congestion on tile public streets. However, the Wheat Ridge Building Division has requested that the greenhouse walls adjacent to the interior lot line be protected by 3/4 hour assemblies and all walls shall be one-hour walls when less than 20' from adjacent structures. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above that granting; of the variation Nvould not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in tile neighborhood, and it is Plarinin , g Commission Page 5 N11S_9S_0i!Euser r.� S 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 as benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would aranting of tile variance result in a tl til reasonable accommodation of as pet-son with disabilities? No. The proposed request is purely for individual benefit and will not benefit the community. VII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIMENDATION Staff concludes that a subdivision is required to allow the sale of individual structures and to review the proposal in regard to development regulations established in the R-2 zone district. Approval of the I variances are required to allow the subdivision to occur. Staff believes that because the request will not change the physical attributes Of the existing structures which have remained on-site for a number of years, appro of this request Will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Upon review of the Submitted subdivision plat and the criteria used to evaluate a variance request, Staff recommends approval of Case No. NIS-98-5. Vill. RECONFNI ENDED MOTIONS MERM11{ Option A: *1 move that Case No. MS-98-5, a request for approval of as 26% maximum building coverage variance (greenhouse), 30' front yard setback variance (greenhouse). >' silo: yard setback variance (orceillIOLISe). 20' side yard setback variance - when abutting a public ri Z ght-of-way (greenhouse), and a 5' rear yard setback variance (single-family residence) for property zoned Residential-Two and located at 6745 West 32"" Avenue. be APPROVED lor the following reasons: I Approval of the variance request will not change the physical attributes of tile existing structures. 1 Approval of the request should not be detrimental to adjacent properties or i III provenlents. y. A ppi - oval of the request should not be detrimental to the essential character of the locality. With the following conditions: fol1. lowing greenhouse must be protected by 3/4 hour assemblies and all walls shall be one-hour walls When less than 20' frorn adjacent structures. Option 13: *1 move that Case No. MS-98-5, a request for approval of a 26% maxitIlUrn building coverage variance (oreenlIOLISe), 30' front yard setback variance (greenhouse), 5' side yard setback variance (g 20' side yard setback variance - when abutting a public right -of way (greenhouse), and a 5' 1 1 &1t111ili­ C0111tilissioll Page 6 NIS-98-05'Euser rear yard setback variance (single - family residence) for property zoned Residential -Two and located at 6745 s'st 3'`' Avenue, be DENIED for the follow reasons: '' I. 2. TWO) LOT MINOR SUBbiviSION Option A: "I move that Case No. IVIS- 8 -5, a request for approval of two -lot minor subdivision on property zoned Residential -Two and located at 6745 West 32n Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: I. A subdivision is required to allow for individual ownership of the existing lots. 2. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met." Option l3: "I niov that Case No. MS-98-5, a request for approval of two -lot minor subdivision on property zoned Residential -Two and located at 6745 West-32 "d Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. pl annin" Commission Page 7 IMS- 98- 05 /EUser ■ ©!� . ; w»- FI !� \ t � MR a 1 . - ■ � :� � . ,.. . . � \ ^ t � MR a 1 MAP ADOPTE2 Jim«1s ,994 Lo st P� /_ !«1996 MPw. « 7 PLM#"A 3 DR-Lm¥ -Z5-2552 . . .. . ... . . . . . � � \ � � � . .. .... ... .... .. . . . - . ,.. . . � \ ^ \ � ■` � , \ l��� \ � �,. MAP ADOPTE2 Jim«1s ,994 Lo st P� /_ !«1996 MPw. « 7 PLM#"A 3 DR-Lm¥ -Z5-2552 . . .. . ... . . . . . � � \ � � � . .. .... ... .... .. . . - � MAP ADOPTE2 Jim«1s ,994 Lo st P� /_ !«1996 MPw. « 7 PLM#"A 3 DR-Lm¥ -Z5-2552 . . .. . ... . . . . . � � \ � � � . .. .... ... .... .. . . 1. Mr. Euser has resided at 6745 W. 32 Ave, since 1959, and has also continuously operated the Euser Greenhouses at that location since 1959, as well. 91 This is not a request for rezoning, nor is it a request to change the uses or the buildings which currently occupy the site. The ultimate result of this platting process is that Mr. Fuser may sell the nnociA,,-Ant-ti and th rm=mk^"em to rfiffannmf ^iAir%ers at som p o int in the fu ture . Based upon these facts, we respectfully request your approval. Thank Youl IWO F� TzgvvSv- EA4 &�\ /7I ht AW C C> N S U L T A N T S 210 Mr. Sean McCartney City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W 29 Ave, Wheat Ridge, CO 800033 Re: 6745 Case No. PBG-98-05 Dear Mr. McCartney'. This letter is in response to your request for confirmation of the availability of sanitary sewer service for the above parcel, The subject property is entirely within the boundary and service area of the Wheat Ridge Sanitation District, Treatment of sewage generated within the Wheat Ridge Sanitation District is provided by the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro). Wheat Ridge Sanitation District facilities in this area consist of an 8-inch sanitary sewer main in W. 32nd Avenue. MMEEMIM rilliam K Brown, P.E. Engineer for the Wheat Ridge Sanitation District M Puslix SERVICE COMPANY • COLORADO A NEW CENtURY ENERCI,-S COMPANY September 16, 1998 Siting ond Land Rights 550 75th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202.4256 Telephone 303.571.7799 Facsimile 303.571,7877 Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) has reviewed the development plans for 6746 W 32"' Ave. MS98-06. To ensure that adequate utility easements are available within this development, PSCo requests that the following dedication language or plat note, be placed on the preliminary and final plats for the subdivisiom PSCo also requests that these utility easements be depicted graphically on the preliminary and final plats. While these easements should accommodate the majority of utilities to be installed in the subdivision, some additional easements may be required as planning and building progresses. Our records indicate that our electric transmission lines are in close proximity to this proposed subdivision. WE! 9M OEM= Telephone 303/ 2' 35-2846 September 11, 1998 No CASE NO: MS-93-05 LOCATION: 6745 W 32"' Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Subdivide property into two lots APPROX11MATE AREA: 1.53 acres ffg�� 1211311111111 T I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 6. Are there any concerns or problems your agency has identified which would or should affect approval of this request? Please reply to; Senn McCartney (303-235-2852) Completed by: zLl Y- Ll i Department of Planning ce, Development (Name, Anency/Departmen'V, Date) 2 M M M-1 W M I EM "The Carnation City City Of A fV/1 eat Ridge Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Re: Fierce Street Minor Subdivision, 6745 West 32 ° Avenue - First Review Comments of Resubdivision :Plat 1. Please provide a Bearing to, and identify Point of Beginning. 2. Please show the existing right -of -way width on Fierce Street. 3. Please move "L1" away from line. Please ct'a� t ct the City Surveyor, Mr. John McGuire, P.L.S. at 303 -235 -2858 with any questions you ay h ve regarding these corrections. � *" + � 30' ` 0 1333FEB!6 N12 "35 Recorded At ".,,_ ................ .........6'C {0C!(...�.... ... Rtreptioa No. C oi2s lyti#6nM140,;mac,"# state 0(CO„ . .: . ,._... Titt9 Drr0. tlntle thi* 3rd e,40( rebruasy . 63 (i hetwren C. B. Euser and Tonr Fuser, it a(thr i J county*( Jefferson And State otCalorAtlo,.a(the part, %nd ' €. LUSER CRM AIOUSFS, 1t , r i whperleaataddr"ola 6745 1 4-zst 32nd / t w nue, µ Imheat,Ftidgc, Colorado 8043' !(the Cannty'lit Jefferson t !i t ( . i. co V �txt `o c m .' Gds! t t, Colorado, or tote second port: 4tiITNF4sFTtt,Thnt the sold pnrt So(the (trotpart~(orand toranAidrralion Ton Dollars and other cunsi deraations ------------------------------------ ; X to the Aanl part its tit the (test port to hated paht by %ahl party at the ,trrntr,# port, t #,w €errtpt wtt.t. (t. herrhy rontemAtd And ark nowledred. heve otrsnttd, hartt: aohi anal renvwytd, And by the -..r jt —'evts •#n itrant, haraain, sell. rnniry nn +t enn(irm, unto lit* oAld`part r! of the Arrand part, it...+etr. and tl tw . tat ever, All the (n #tawirtA ttrArri #tr +l Ent or garret o(Iand. altuate.lrintt still Itring in tttw Cottntirud Jefferson And litatva(Colorado + to wit: ^ x t p;t The south 120 feet of,the east ,&) feet of Lo t O t Block 4, Pierce Street Subdivision Jefferson County, Colorado t t3"JPttEMON kD - (40 CX 4SMUA1TIAV 03 DOCLI-EtT ARY M FU.i&IRED Atst +knrxwnaA.irretat + +lntrn +her 6745 14est 32nd Avenue, 14,eat FIidpe, Colorado 8,Mj Tttr ;MtKi wit limit Ard AlnyulAr the hereditamenta anti A#+purtonaorro thrrrin hrI °,sins!, + °t in aov. - to apprt. talnitur, At+d lit(- rrvermlan Au lt revrr*h+n*, rrmshtiler and rrmotndtro, realm. IA.txro and prol'o, it +r €art(, awl sot the estate, ritht. title, interest, rtolnt anti drumanal whatmorver at the laid port its a(thr (+r.t # °art. rte ttrr wi t.w r.r ego #ty, 0, in An +l #athe al-vo I'mroainrrl prrml.ro, wit it Ise laettdltatntnto And opportr +ton— Tit HAVE AND Tit IIttI.I# #h+• .nirl pretni.ea nla.vv hsraalnrtt And demrrsl "t *it). it +e at.l °trt. !stet, „t,t„ tr,w .aid part y n( it ... ...cwttl part, ittl heirs will A.siortts (xrever. Anti it,. .a +d p ,,st 1(` *.# .,f tt,e #tr part, (nr them a lVes heir., r.ernlor., unit At(ntht #Ai rutnro, da rayertAnt, tents!, !,!*,torn, tit,.# let t.. .+ +,t with the sa #d part Y of t he liertittd pall, it's htlro and asolans, that at the bear t llre rt .not =tw #t+wty utthr.rprr.ents, they are al- ;;mt #erdodtleri +ern +taraai.vArttnvrrr.i,A.r.( , ° #..et+t,t.rrt -a t, #....;.ttwan.t #nde(rnsih #rr.#atro(tnhrr##A+ +el-° #nIn%,I"toltOutpie.Antiha yO at.+. #t +tip °,wrrantts.at °.,rtty W OrAnl, ttarAatn, sell anti Convey till osrnt, to otanur still (meet as a(tirrsatd, Ault that the some .tv free tt - rust (ram Ail (artnrr Anil other tyrants. har¢aino, *till-*, liens. Iasrt, *sor*omrttts at „t ri+rutt+#rratrrr. ,.f •txAtrter tt + „t t.( nattirtAorver., except taxes resta* ctioas, easements and ri)`tts of Way or record, t tit+ de lit ntn +h+ the quirt mail pt are*hlrpoArraslono(l Ito *AW list I y ilttr its I"4r. A 4 assiuna a„razn.t Ali And every prrAon or persons lawrully rInimiitK al- alt €tat +tit #++• « + +�, #. ,,t aa. pate i ttrrro( „. # #te sai,i #,art JOS lit the (trot part *hall And will WA It RANT ASO i'l)h EVER t +KI l:;i #t.. I4AA' iT; i4 ".t:±ttA' #li.lti.tli',#hrou +•ti +set JCS o(tht(irst part ttaye herrt #- 'a.rtthoListan,l s Anil seats (#tr -lay and year(trst ahn.r wrintn it ,. ....... »..._ ...,.._.........» ....,...�........ «.®..,.... ..,..�. ®...«...,:...«+.., .,,.. "t .. .., ^4 »�. ttit..A lot TATi tlVCO1.0ItA00. Toney useTd" ,te Cal tn#va( x T#t+= (areeniny lit .trumrnt was arknawtrdetd befo mt tilts tap atf c t ; A Fuser and Tonny Euser. A �'� ¢ttji4tt.ptreA ,. ifl , AA'itnrs. a +t' hAnd as +. #. +m #.+^o #. 1 �t elc"tces - s al- N Y CWTrti,siott EAT'Ints 0 \ - t- 15, tom! AtTglto +*. _ . ;#,, ;< w 950 1711) ST. 112600 DZNVrR C 80202 � °ttttf tGt�'''•`''t~ r , t' x ' ` I s a No. Nt WARAANTY ilM. - re, r►+t+r.ts.. X-4- an 1t.ea Ca, tl+•w, C.t.n o' 111-111t LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATIOM Plannina and Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Ph�one'303) 235-2846 (Please print or type all information) Applicant L. Address Phone City —L Owner Address Phone -C� M Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) Date received Receipt No. Related Case No. Zoning Quarter Section Map