Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-95-1 ~~ The City o1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION ~1Vheat Rid a Department of Planning and Development g 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone (303) 237-6944 Applicant FPN~ ~~ ' ~+ AcT3ress ~~ ~' Qie~da St. #210 n,_ srn~~ Phone 758-(~y[F ~ caRY zr & M~~ (rru) ~~Ra asrn. ~t nth Ate. mar RILY~, m. Owner ess Phorie ~~ Location of request t Cyr of ~;t 38t3~ tire. & Gxly Stmt Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) Change of zone or zone conditions Variance/Waiver Site development plan approval Nonconforming use change Special use permit Flood plain special exception Conditional use permit Interpretation of code Temporary use/building permit Zone line modification Minor subdivision Public Improvement Exception Subdivision Street vacation Preliminary Miscellaneous plat Final Solid waste landfill/ (] ** See attached procedural guide mineral extraction permit for specific requirements. ^ Other ____ Detailed Description of request Rtttiiast 3 lot residastial subdivisial - 2 duple~c lots arl ~g1? fa~ri 1 V xesir~taal. lot List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee, etc: NAME ADDRESS PHONE FANTF. NJII~TIlZY [Il'ES, I[SC. 2055 So. Q~ida St.#710, Dam, Co. 802?l+ 758-644/+ C,AT~' T . & M4Ri AVf~' (N"ff) 8`A1 in7est nth Asp Td-~t Ridge, CA N7~fuFSP MIZR',K~'„ 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 owns m t submit power-of--attorney £rom the owner which approved of this a ion o his alf. Signature of Applican Subscribed ands rn to me this ~~yk day of ~Ctrlt.Cay~y 19• CIS N ary Public SEAL My commission expires //;,~y 9, /99G~ Date Received Receipt No. Case No. STEWART TITLE OF DENVER, INC. 50 SOUTH STEELE STREET, SUITE 600 DENVER, COLORADO 80209 303-331-0333 _ December 27, 1994 ORDER-NO. 60062843-SJB RE: 8501 W. 38TH AVE. HERRERA/FANTE BROTHERS In connection with the referenced order number, we are tran mitting the following: Title Commitment X_ ~~ G L u o/ ~ll N Endorsement Policy _ Tax Certificate - Documents ~.~ Other _ TO: RE MAX WEST 3000 YOUNGFIELD SUITE #350 - LAKEWOOD, CO 80215 232-2244 ATTN: GEORGE C- - __ TO: RE MAX 100, INC. T0: M M GARY L. HERRBRA 710 KIPLING ST. 5928 NEWCOMB CT. _ SUITE 110 _.-- _ARVADA, CO $0004_ LAKEWOOD, CO 80215 232-4444 ATTN: DAVID L. TO: STEWART TITLE OF DENVER _ TO: FANTE BROS. COVENTRY HOMES 50 SOUTH .STEELE STREET, # 700 2055 S. ONEIDA, SUITE 2104 DENVER, CO 80209 DENVER, CO ATTN: SERENA AUGUST - C E L E B R A T I N G O V E R 1 0 0 Y E A R S O F S E R V I C E T O T H E R E A L E S TAT E C O M M U N I T Y FOR~CLOSING~ASSISTANCE,~~__________-~~~~ PLEASE CALL 3.03-321-9111,. FAX 303-388-7376 FOR TITLE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL PAT MIGHELL, AT 303-331-0333 EX 79, FAX 303-331-0220 ~_I COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas Corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of-the premiums and charges therefor; all subjectto the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective-only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall. cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever- first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as"Effective Date." STEWART TITLE CiIIARANTY COMPANY `IIIPI~\S lE CUV•-a '~ni 1908:;0`` .+. '°~,TfX AS ~lon°` Nllltlllll Company City, State _ r /` [[ 'I ^ ^1 r r p~ ~. ..~ . _ _:. v,. _ ~. _ ~, Serial No. C'1 0~ I " 4 I 1 ~ l '1 / President COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A ORDER NUMBER: 60062843-SJB 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: November O1, 1994, AT 7:45 A.M. 2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANC A. ALTA OWNERS POLICY $ 100,100.00 PROPOSED INSURED: GARY L. HERRERA AND MARLAYNE HERRERA B. ALTA LOAN POLICY __ $ 100,000.OC PROPOSED INSURED: FANTE BROTHERS COVENTRY HOMES, INC. 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN: FANTE BROTHERS COVENTRY HOMES INC.. 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL _. PURPORTED ADDRESS: 8501 W. 38TH AVE. WHEATRIDGE, CO 80033 _ REISSUE RATE: 1992 ALTA OWNER'S TITLE POLICY*: $375.00 1992 ALTA LOAN TITLE POLICY: 75,00 GAP PROTECTION** N/C * TITLE FEE INCLUDES OWNER'S EXTENDED COVERAGE **ONLY WHEN STEWART TITLE IS DISBURSING AGENT ORDER NUMBER: 60062843-SJB EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND_LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 .WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT 345 FEET WEST OF THE OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP_3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST; THENCE WEST 89 FEET; THENCE NORTH 295 FEET; THENCE EAST 89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 295-FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF._._ _ _ B: COMMENCING AT A POINT WHICH IS 434 FEET WEST AND 30 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, WHICH IS THE POINT OF_BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 140.5 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 140.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT IS 509 FEET WEST AND 30 FEET FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE EAST AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SECTIQN 22, A DISTANCE OF 75 - FEET, MORE OR LESS TO A POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO EXCEPT: _ _ _ A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED. IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,_COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE S.E. CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SS 1/4 OF SAID SECTION, 345.00 FEET; THENCE ON A DEFLECTIQN ANGLE TO THE RIGHT OF 89 DEGREES 59'.55", 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING-THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 38TH AVENUE AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CODY STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST_RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CODY STREET ALONG THE SAME ABOVE DESCRIBED COURSE, 105.80 FEET; THENCE ON A DEFLECTION PNGLE TO THE LEFT OF 89 DEGREES 59'55!' PARALLEL TO .- THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY_LINE OF WEST 38TH AVENUE, 85.-07 FEET THENCE ON A DEFLECTION ANGLE TO THE LEFT 90 DEGREES 00'05-", 105.80_FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 38TH AVENUE; THENCE ON A DEFLECTIONT ANGLE TO THE LEFT OF 89 DEGREES 59'55" ALONG-SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; 85.07 FEET TO THE TRUE `POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO COMMITMENT FOR TITLE SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 ORDER NUMBER: 60062843-SJB REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET: ITEM (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (B) Proper instrument(s) creating the. estate or interest to be insured must be executed and. duly filed for record, to-wit: 1. Warranty deed from the vested owner, vesting fee simple title in the purchaser. 2. Deed of Trust from the borrower to the Public - Trustee for the use.of the proposed fender. ITEM (C) Receipt by the Company of a satisfactorx survey. NOTE: Exception will be taken to any adverse matters disclosed. ITEM (D) Receipt by the Company of agreement indemnifying it against unfiled Mechanics' and Materialmens' liens. NOTE: If subject property is currently under construction or new improvements have been made, this commitment is subject to further requirements. ITEM (E) Payment of-all taxes and assessments now due and payable. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSUR SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS ORDER NUMBER: 60062843-SJB THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED WILL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS UNLESS THE SAME-ARE DISPOSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPANY: 1. Rights or claims of parties in-possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public - records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, .for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law. and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects; liens,-encumbrances, adverse claims or-other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records o"r attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights claims or title to water. _ 7a. Taxes for_the year 1994, a lien, but not yet due or payable. (NOTE: This will appear on the Loan Policy only.) 7b. Taxes for the year 1994, and subsequent years; special assessments or charges not certified to the County Treasurer. (NOTE: This will appear on the Owner's Policy only.) 8. Permanent Easement as granted to--the City of Wheatridge over the South 5 feet-of said Parcel A by instrument recorded July 28, 1992 at Reception Number 92091912. 9. Permanent Easement as granted to the City of Wheatridge over the South 5 feet of said Parcel B by instrument recorded July 28, 1992 at Reception Number 92091909. 10. Right of Way over the east 15 feet of the West half of the Continued on next page CONTINUATION SHEET SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 ORDER NUMBER: 60062843-SJB East half of the South east quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 69 West Jefferson County as conveyed in instrument recorded May 5, 1944 in Book 488 at Page 196. 11. Terms, provisions, conditions, and assessment imposed upon subject property by virtue of inclusion within Wheat Ridge Sanitation District,- Fire Protection and Water District as evidenced by instrument recorded July 19-, 1958 in Book 1007 at Page 431. 12. Terms, conditions, stipulations, obligations and agreements contained in Deed recorded May 17, 1982 at Reception Number 82033193. NOTE: "Mechanic's Lien" and/or Gap Protection (Exceptions 4 and 5) may be available with an owner's policy of title insurance on residential property upon compliance with Stewart Title's requirements and payment of the appropriate-premium. NOTE: Upon receipt of satisfactory survey and lien affidavit, Exceptions 1 through 6 will nof..appear on the loan policy to be issued hereunder. NOTE: Upon receipt of satisfactory survey and lien affidavit, Exceptions 1 through 4 will not appear on the owner's policy to be issued hereunder. NOTE: Attached hereto and made a part hereof is a Disclosure Statement pursuant to 'Senate Bi11 91-14 and Senate Bill 92-143. _ CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires, actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed I nsured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (al to comply with the requirements hereof, or {bl to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c}to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the exclusions from coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. STEWART TITLE GIIARANTY COMPANY All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252, and identify this commitment by its printed COMMITMENT SERIAL NUM- BER which appears on the bottom of the front of the first page of this commitment. ~J TO BE FILLED IN PERSONALLY BY SELLER OR BORROWER !N H1S OWN HANDWRITING INDEMNITY AND AFFIDAVIT AS TO DEBTS, LJENS. AND POSSESSION USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH PARTY GF1t SUBJECT. P RO P ERTY: .-STATE OF COVA(TY OF Before me. the undersigned authorin• on this dog penonalic appeared Seller or Ouner-Borrower' Con[ractor (if new con>truction) personally know n to me [o be the person whose name is subserihcd hereto and upon his oath deposes and say's that nn pencecdings in bank: uptry or trceivership have bt<n instimtcd 6y ar against him and that the marital status of aniant has not changed since the da} of acyuurtwn of aid property and represents to the purchaser and or Lender in thu transaction [hat mere arc: L Yo unpaid debts for plumbing fiuures. wa[er heat:rs. Roor furnaces, air conditioner. radio ur tdnision antcnnac, u-trpeting, raga. lawn sprinkling systems. venetian blinds. window shade. draperies. dectrie appliance, fences. street pa<mg. or any penunal prop<m or fiatnres that arc located on the subject proper) dncribed abw e, and [hat eo such items hose been purchased un time pay m<nt mnttaas. and :here are no secusin~ in[eren on such propery' smurcd 6y tinancirg s[atement. security agreement or otharu Lwt e<erpt the following: Second Pally Appro<inute Amoum yo loam ar liens (including Federal o r Smte [.i<na and J udgemen[ Liens l and nu unpaid governmental nr association m.<es or aasnaments of any kind on such property except the following: Crediwr Appro<imate Amount 3. All labor and materiai es<d in :he consvuction aC improvements un the abose described propery haw been paid for and there are now nn unpaid labor ar r..ate^al claims agaimt Inc impros r...<nts or the propery upon w bleb same are srtuted, and (hereby declare chat all sums of money der for :hc ::cc:iur. of ir.:pro+cr„r-t; ha~•c Seca (ally paid and satisi~cd. 4. \o panics in posersion o[hr. than afiiam e..<spt as (allows: f1CNO~E write COVE un blank iinel •5. To be filled in if a ale -'The Scllcr is not anon-mident alien. Wreifn cargo ration. foreign partncnhip. fare:gn tru+t, fa:mgn nwte or other foreign entity tax defined m the Internal Rr<cnuc Cude and Incom<Ta.< Reguimiunss. Sd1:r i C.S. employer idemiticstion number lorsoeial secu:in~ ncmber) is: . Seaer'a aJdress loffir addre++, i(seitcr is ar. enut}: home address i(sdler is an indtsidual) is: .This affidavit may be disdoi<d to [he inmrnal Resenue Sen iceond is furnished to Auyer to inform Buyer that wrthholdmg n(tae n not reyuired under Section ,IUS of the Internal Revenue Codc. - 1\DE>I~IT1'. I AGREE TO P4'i 0~ DE<l:\~U TO THE PORCH:\SERS ADD OP. LE>DER IX THIS TRA~SACTI01. THEIR SCCCESSORS ADD 4SSIGXS. ALL A>tOl'NTS SECCRED t35' :\SF ADD 41.L LIE]5 SOT5H0\f~:\RO\"E. TOG FTHER WITH ILL COS'T'S. LOSS ADD :V TOR~EY'S FEES THAT 5.\fU PAR (IES ytAP IXCCR U C'O~XECTIO~ \\'ITH 5C'CH C~`IE~TIO~ED LIES. PROVIDED 5AC0 LIES EI I'HER CI:RRE~TLY :\PPL1' f0 tiCCH PROPER fF'. OR a PaR'f THEREOF. OR ARE SL'85EQCE~TI. Y' EST.4BLlSHEU ALAI>ST S:\ID PROPER tI ADD .ARE CRE:\fEU BF ~t E. K~OW~ 8F tl E. OR HA\'E .•>.~ I\CEPTIO~ D:\TE PRIOR TU THE CO~SC tt>tAT10~ OF THIS TR.a~SACTtOyi. I«alire [ha[the puyhaier and or Lendern thiatnn+acunnarc rely Tray an the reprncntaunna rnnmined hcetn in purchaaing+ame or lending man<+ thereon and u nuld not punhus<+a r,.e or Iced money thereon nnlexa said rcpraenwuon+ acre made. If Scllcr ur Aorrower is an entiry~. I have authority :u +ign un in behalf. Sworn to and auMcrib<d before me thin _ da} of 19_ Sotan~ Public in and for, ' Counn~, •\OTF.: Thn Inrm i• to he Clled in and •igred by wLLr: m co.r nl +alc .f no sate, it i+*.n be tilled m and signed by the owner-bnrruw'er If there is an. new wnur ucunr., the :unttattor mu+t al•o join m thi. Corm or GII m and +ign a +cparate n ne.. •11 +e:Ie: i+ a ran-re+tdem when. larcign cargo:ntian, etc.. call your manager or Huu+ron l.rgal Department. \OTF. fO RI'\F. R. Ru<er muH rcWmunul end niiiith tawhlryear(ollnwinguaableyearo[tra n+Cerand musr filrwiththe Internal Revenue S<-vre ~f remr^; ~' 6. .- .~ap~nn ar .vhe^a ne l r ~ • DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO (C.R.S. 10-1i-122) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: a) That the subject real property may be located in a. special taxing district; b) That a certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the county treasurer or the county treasurer's authorized agent. c) That information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the board of county commissioners, the county clerk and recorder, or the county assessor. 68/181155 01& ~. ~; i8377f~1846 CiL-(•i A5~ :Ft'fE5 ING PACaE 65 cV LtJ ~ ~ ~ W 0. Z ~ O Y :.8. N0. 9<a9 pul A(.VVIWUV CM L.S. N0. tS214 ~~I \ m v Ni9'l7'DN' S,oD: .._ .. l ~ _._ V 6' bRA1NAGC ESAIT._ p~~~c,~y,$4 21' "'1+~8• ~~ ~! I= ~i DETENTION POND ES1lT _..... ~j ~ I LOT 4 a.7a+ s.r. ~ I xa~xo R-z N ~ ~ ~ _ 580'Si'48"W 87,98' ~-- 2„ C LOT 3 6,241 S.f. LNaa~7'09'E zONEO R_z J 0,07' 40' NVORESS, EGRESS & UTIL CSMT ~~ I LOT ~ 'r ~ L C K 1 #~ ~ ~ 10619 SF. a 6501 WEST 391H AVENUE EftI5~N0It0~ ENCE Q~ ~~ ~~ s ~~~ w ~6 N n ,ti 20NL0 R-4 ~ H ~ ~ ~ W LOT 2 ~~ ~ ~ ~{ 9003 S.F # ~ a~~~. 40' ~ ~~~• i ~ ~~lll' 12" 1T 20NE0 R-T ~~i , ~~ ~20" tj~4, . ~36" ~x , _ 18 _. 75.OD' :D GE O U B'gp'4 W 1883.13' INCIp-ENTIAL PURPCSL'5RY0 MEN y S~D£WALK, 0 TI+E fNCRY ~'~ TRUE W n0. R.O.W. uNE CITY OF WHEAY RIDDE OF WHEAT RIpOE WfGH D< BEOINNi W. 38th AVE. RC.CEPi, N0. 940D1912 THIS PLAT !~, ~o ~~„ i~~~~i t-. ~ ~~ O `~ V~ a ~. !':i ij ~ ~ ;i;l i~3 i~,' ~ ~,,lii I~~~~~~I~~{ o ~;L° ~ui~l!Vl~ ~ ~~!~j~!Ill~t if; ffi.rm 1 e~' • ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~. : ~2 ~~,~ . . , . ~ ~" 8' Orainage and irriga~ion Easemen~ •'/ '~• f P i~TL 10' 8uildna Seth3ck . v ~ ~~` _ • , ~ fl ~t: • `\ LS~~ ~ - tl~: ' `\ ~Y• ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~. \'t. ~ ~ 'r w . '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ~ - ~ ' ,"~ m ~ $ \~ 1 ~'~ ~ • b ~~~~ ~ g F .:. - .. • :.. m ~ a m. ~i. m ~ o 1 m o A~c _, 1. m . -~ -~ ~ ~ . ' ~ -~ ~ - __.._' _ - _ .:: _-_ , ' ~j ~ 1 ~ ~is~',~8 ~~~~ j~ ~CCS ~ i ~,~i_~~i ' r,:` e. I ' ~~ ~ I~y~ •~. T~ ~~~~;„. .. . ., ~~ ~~., . _Ti,~~~ -_. ~ \UC ~ ~ ~/4 ~. _ ._._.~o..,~_~ .~ ~ ~ .r • ' 1 • '~ :S 1 ~~ .~ t • / . `~ii . ~ s ~ , ~:~ , .~ :~ ~ ; .~~~~ ~ ~29' ~17' . I ~. . 30' Buil~Gng Se[back ~ o~ ... ~~'1~~~~ G/r~/' - ~ . .. : ~~ ~nN~~n~m~~ ~G (~r'~{~l~i~ _, ~ :. :. -'i .~ ~Y--_'~fs',M~ ~,,, ~ ; ' . ... ~et~ y G/hea~R~c~ c ~t . . ~ .. .: . . _,- ~_. . ~, I I~ J__ Il~ ~ l I I I i I I I ~~~ ~5.~ West 38th Avenue . m Coventry ~ HQmes ~ - ,.~ ~ ~Q~ ~ 20' I ~ress, Egress. ~~U(iliry Easqment ~Q~ ~ %v~ ~ ~' i`~r.~:y^ ?n;e~ r~ ~j5~~ ~20' ~~0 U~i~~~ Cl,Yl~IPG~i f~5 %rL (~~ ~ iWu~vc Lot >~ ~ lllustrative ~. Site Plan ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 5 10 20 3' ~~ ~4 = Y~ ~ • C :~::'rQ:. .. ~ , nrr [wti ~.u.... ua..r~ ~ A---- ~is~i~~ i~/lin~ ~CGS ~ ~~ ~ ~rn ~'~'~~~~~ ~~~o ,~odr~,, ~~; - -_ _ ~~a• ..__~~r 30' BuJdrw _e1G3ck ~'.~// c~rb- c.uf G c~ri~ec~ West 38th Avenue m Coventry _ ~ Homes .•~~ ~, ~, ~ B~I,•• •-_--__ 8' Dra~na9e and Irriaation Easement ~~ , ~ ~• 1 ~``'~ -~ _.. 10' 9uilyna Setback ~" 7. ~~~ ~ p ry • • `\ ILoLL ~ „ I Y'• ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~ ~~~. ~ 1 . l ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~~y~~~-' . ~.~ .. . ~ ~, ~ _ ~ g~ti. • .. ;,i ~ ~ `~°~ ~f, m ~ ~~`- ~ ~''• ~ ~ ~r 1, _ ~m ~ ~--~ -~y II ' ; _ , _ _ _ `~" i~ ~ ... , ~ - - ~ ~ r' ~ .:: ' ~ ' ~ '_n~~~ e •.~ ~~ $~G~ ~~'~~ . . • _I,• . . • . ?~) h~l I I I I I I I~ ~ ~~l ~ 20' i~ress. Egress, anC UWiry Eas~~ enl ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 7~ /~~F~z~r' ~%5~i'N ~~q^~ke ?'rre5 ~ re~aia ,~ ~ ~~o U~~~~ C1,Y1/7P,G~ii H5 %~?i q..._ (~.~~~ '~- t1~an~C Lot r lllustrative ~~ Site Plan n:~,~..~,~i 0 5 10 20 30 FT ec u w` - ~ ~`?"`~ ~ c.,..-.. ,~.._. .....~. ~~ '~- ~m97701946 0811811996 08:21 ~NOE $ F~''~C~ Fra~.' ~° CH~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~~ ~ rp Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U,~ . a °~~ m ~- ~ N~O ~ y ~ }- ~~'~ ,~y N ~ ~ u, ts 4 . ~ d~ ~~: ~~ W~ Y 5 r Qp ~ a ~qTES IhIC ~LC P{d4ME ~' ' ~ ~~7 i ~ + ~ ~ . i ~ ~~ y~ ~ t i-t ku9.17 1595 a:2&f'M P~1 ~t ~ ' ~ i ~ r ~ '• ~ 1" i~ { ~ ~„4{ ~ ~ ~ tl1 ~j~j~ , ~~, ~~,,.~ r~ ~~. E~~ t~i~~~~~ ~~ s ~~ ~' , G;~ i~ ~~''' t p~t{ 1 'j~~~lFS~ ~t~ a ~ , 1 ~ }~ .\ ~i t ~Z ~ ~ ~~ ; t1 7' ~~ + M I ~t ~ x I t ~ i~ { ~ r ~~ ; ~ ~~ 1 ~' + ~I~ ~ ~ q , ~ - ~~~ . ~E t ~ A l ~ t~) j ~ ~ j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S~~~ L G3LLVM~ ~ ...r' ~ --- -~-~ ^^' ... '"' y ` µ~ -" ~.33231s htJ4~ ~ ~~ N ~ .~s ~el ~~1 1 ~.~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ t~ "~ L .~.~~, ~ .,~.~:, A_. ~,~ _ t~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ Z cv rdein t • ~t~ .. .' isia ~~ 1~t 'A ~~5~ ~ ~~ r ~ {~4~ ,N O iql~ _~`,.. ~` ' ~ ~' NaY ~ 1 ~ ~3t ~ ~ ~ LO Y p c3-~='~r~ ~~a ~ ~ 1~ 1~ i ' ' ~! i f i r 1 1 ~~~~1~ ;~.i ~ ~ ~~ ~ I . ~ ', j+ ~! 4 ~ ~, i ~~~N '~~ ~ w ~ ~{1 t ~ cr t 1}~ L~n dN ~It~~ I4 Q31L~ t 1 ~ t ..- --~~ ~N ~ r ° ... .. 08/18/1995 08:21 ~937701046 CLC AS~ATES INC PAGE 05 • N~9'SS'6~F R~.C6' ~ , ~ N 82.ae' ~ w ~ R' poM~ F°sMr ~°w I ~.~ ~~ Z o~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ h~ m ~ ~~ ~ LQT 4 ~ , tiSY. 7735 "cHiCMfStEk" W It 6,761 S.F. ~& z:.3. IvO. 9a84 w I SONEO R-2 ~~~5 bJ~. ALUM~NNV CnP ~.~. N0. 13212 uu'i ~ ~~ °1 N g 4 P ' ~ I JIO~ ~m / ~ \ ~ .,~ ~~ ~ ~ sao'37'48"W $R,gB~ "` a ~ J a ~ ( ~ = He~u~aa"r IN89'cT08"F 7e,03' 0,07' ,,,[[[AAA~~~+~,,, 75.OU' I ~ \ _.._... / 74" ~ , / ~ . ~ ~ zz~ ~ ~'' ~ L07" 3 ~ M8B'47'pEL'E 74.83~ ~ 6,271 S.F. ~ I ~s ~~~ NB9'17•OS"E 2DNED R-2 a• oaairu~ne FsMr._ ~ ' a,or ~ ~ ~27• ~& ~~~ ~ YO' INORES9, EGRESS de U71L ESMF P~• I I ~ ~ 580`37'26"W 82.95' ^j' 18'' a.AO' ~ i ~. ~..~... ~~ . .~ I p, . ~ ~ ~~ ~-~. _ a~ I ~Q~ 1'Y i~ L~C K I aemtaveNUE EKISTINC RESI~ENCE ~~ f0,&49 S.F. r TO REMAN fv - ~ m ~ ~ M +J ~OKCD R-2 D ~ °_ ~ ~ ~ w LQT 2 ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ N 9,Op3 S,F, ~ = 70NE'D R-Z ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~~ ( ~ za~~ ~, ~ ~.• ~~ ~~ ~~ \1 ~ ,z~ ,~;/~I~'~2°" ,~I'~,~~. `r., ~ W L, ~ G C C ! iz' a5 sa '" ~~+ ~.r / .._-. ~ ~.~.. _..-- -, - ~ ~ , ~ '" ._. ... ., i 75:oa' b3,13~ y ; Z ~ 58937"t8'W 163.13' $` Eg~ T. FpR SpWK. qbT. WAL1, de~ 15' X 75' PERA~Uq~'FNi /• $ ~ ^+ 4 ~ MO. R.O.W. IINE INCIDENTIAL PURPOS~$ TO iHE SIPEWALK TO TME CITV 7RIlE W ' ' W. 3B7M AVE. CIIY OF WHEAT RI~GE OF WNFJtT RIpGE WITH BEGINNi •p RECEPT. N6. 97601p7p 'fH15 PLAT ~ GE m ' - 4 ui ~ D A • a z 0 -~ ~ ~ 'i b m ~ ~ rn ni ~ ~/U~I U~~ ~ ~ rn I ~ rr~-~ I ~ ~ i ~ • • ~I ~..~ ~.~~~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~np m do ~ Z ~~ l' I i~ ~ ~' O fl x rn ~ rn o ;~~ ;o ~ - -~ ln -I n rn ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Lz ~ o~ ~ g ~~~ ~ ~ 7. -~ v ~ O -c z - __.__. . - I ; ~Y y[UY ~ SYOY / ,/, \. \ ~1)/5 /~ YUU'J ~b~t \~ OCO~ OYOY g0~ ~o'~ 9007 3955 -~ CP ,~Ci~ __ y • ) - - d~ ~i .. ~ m ~e / ~m G O 8991 tl~ ~` ~ ~'~ ~,d ~ '~~ :~~';~~ ~';' ~ L~E ~ ' ~~ "j • ~~i \~~ ~~ ]845 ~ 4005 A015 ~055 . _ ~i~ 1 \~ EYERRE'fT pR *oys Y ~~' ",) 3870 J880 3890 A010 4020 /Od0 _ i~l.% / ~8L ~ ~~ 6 91 .'-~ r°~ ~ ,o9p - J°~ -~ vl-~,~ ~- -- /~~lCc_ 8 ~'.-•' , •._ • I •..__ _.. _ . .. ~ ~ ~`' ~~ ^ ~ . -.~ .,BS - `ST S JB71 3BB1 3891 4011 4021 4031 1041 _ 5at~ ~a~ ESTES ST ~ eeoi b g7~7 3850 3868 3BB8 4010 ~020 4050 4070 4090 ~~ q~~ ° GHI FF~ DEC KER p 8795 V~ - a~is N ~ --- - -- -- --- ~ e ~ : i 1 ~~'~, \ , '~ ~ C: ' '.\ . ~ .. ~~~'~`~'~ - CREEK ~\ . ' i ' "" "_ ' _._.' _-_- I' .\. . T..` : _ __'__ _ __ `• !__-~~,, . ~;•;~:•. ... . ~ ~ e G ~.~.~,~.,; . ~ ~m ~ ti., +ws ~ s . tu /V /~ \ ~91'~. y9~ 4140 4}60 - ,a, UB m,SS -oY~`~~ ~ .~4 y41y YyyY P~~ K 8701 ~ 3865 3885 3895 3915 '3925 ~025 q055 4085 q035 1~45 A St 4265 a285 4}OS 4}ZS { PUJLEY ST '~f S61 r p~j~ ET ST ~ Jg2o }Bq~ 786~,38BOI3B96 1}g00~ 3920 3910 3960 ~080 ~ ~720 12~0 l260 ~280 4]00 4120 ~ ~ dbs~ MA RI SUIB E SG.HIF~FERDECKLR ~°O ~ a 4~~ SUB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ se9o - < ~~ ~ . , ~ ~ - - _ ~ i s-r'~~ ~i `i t ; R ~ `~ T'~/ I l~~! S UE3 1~ 866 (~ ~ 38 ~~S'8 N 3895 n~~ p~ 3925 ~; 25~ BfiOG 4105 iU5 '~~y5 /105 ~215 1}11 ~q371 ~1}5 ~15Y ISSI ~~ ~ ` ~-G~JVER ST ~~ - -- ---~- sc 1 I~• 3$ 7@~8 788[ ~19~{ip 391L 3 G 7~3 396 7( 4 a01i a 2( 4( 90 ( ~- ~ I ~ ~i ~ ~ ~,.i y j Qa ~ Q9 ~7 ~aQBO aion ni3n ~iao ~i,o +iso azau ~3io a.t.c.. ~~`5 ~°. q ,i ~~' ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~,~ ~~ILM~~RE / J ~ n ]• r fil II 0 x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~ry ~. w ~ ''(~ ---~---}}}-yy~ ~ I 8 ~ n, i7 ~5 t~k~ 3~ S~:,38 1 ,J4*.. ~`«1~35'. AOk u~~ ~~n09` 1 1 1 `~ CODY ST - I '~ b4~'~ 397C 386( J~71 J~B( 1396IC J9AYC 10~ /O~aQ 4q}C ~} 5 40fi0 -~9~ . 41 IWI' ~ F._. N N 41'LS <1t5 n +]SO S~~Bn , ~ °, <u ; mP ~~a5~0 -~J- --" Z ~ I D P,4 RK /~ a3o5 X~ m ~ z ( O ~ 4IB5 +155 ~795 a}p ~ ~ --- - - GA72H 5T 0' I ~ ~ 1 4242 ~~B I~J _ - ~.~ x ~~ _ ~~ '~~.---ppp~~~ ~~ ~~S!"l " I~ 8155 ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 8955 9125 381_ 782.. 395E JBB! J905 J98_ 05 4015~~6. ~035 ~059~f 407' 9095 4101 - ----- CI.RR ST --- I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 . ~ i I 1 1 I I 3 ' I ~ ~ - a ~ < < ~ ~9'•oz x rY~. r t2.s~~.soa. s.~ $~.tV x 14~'t, t7~(.2,SP2.xS'4 S.F. ~~~ae = rz,>~z.sa $.F. I ~9~ 02' I -_ _. .. - - - - r~ ~ , . L~s ~aM~~+~ _~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ E 1"zx'' ;k __ ..Y _ , _. .+.= , j~ ' a ' ~ ~ ~ ~~.f.o~emr~~~i1' ~ i , , ~ ~ee~eGa"fron ~ ~ ,~ .~lirl~ Zh - 7~+tirs, +: ~ V~ " '~ ~ ' 7oa.6&F .. S ~ ~d~ R lrff 2t ~ ~~r ~ •...- ~'~f~n~,in~ ~rnr,,, Nnur~ U ; ~v~~ I s !• • : ~, ~G~ ~'YvYn~i~ f~rlrrrv~i.rr ~ f1 - ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ -I' 3 ~c~ok h~ s~~y~or~~ 7 r y: ~ ~ .. ' , ~_1 ' f.c,~6+F s.r. ~ I I ~, ,~.~~~so2 S.F. I i ~ I I ± . . 1~,582.~SR S,F. T --3~ t'-..~ _j _ _ LI~_r_~a. C~o ~i+ 5~~. ; _. . ' ! ~ ~ ~ 7y 93 ~ ( ~ I y / /~ _ _ _ ~.-~.6.aM~~h~EFf~}~ ~ ~y~ ~ ~ ~ " s ~~' ~LL ~ ~_~ ~ I ~ -c..re~ ~ ~ , 1 .r ~ ~ ~ ~1zS~v,o4 ,S.F. ~1~f~y F9.t6' ^y. ~ ~m~ _ ~ _ ~ " //_ _ !~l I ~ ~ ~ 'r ; 3D ~ctess _ ~ 9.99 ~1 ''=WfYmenl .,.._ -" . 1.o ..... ~ IG'4 Oy - K~~~srr.F. . / ( ('e~Y7•84SF 74z.DY SF. ,~ u .~:'~~ . q ' ~ ,._,,~~, ~'I/O.z+~r . , ~''~~ '~ - " ;~ ~~ °- _ ~ S I ~--~~ ~1 ~-.'_"~;,_.,~c~jp~ ~ '`r ~~t ! fi ~~ f2 . So 1 S. F ~ ~ _~~z, ~(3a,. oL S~F. .~ ~ ; ~~ qo) ~~ ~ ~ ~I - ~ ~~ ~ 1 - ~ i ~ w.', 74-3z' il~ _ I , ~I °~ i il ~, ~; ;, Y'~?ni~~ ~ro`j'he~t ~nrv6~'M! ~ON'IG! . ~nt. r 2Da"~ o9c. One~dw tTi-: •~,t .?Ja ~.,ve. ; ~~. &~OI~S~ '~ "~~..- e_cf>a5~:.~,=~ I R,oco s.F. 8~, oz`--- -~-~- - T 5~3 oc s~do.zall~, re'1.wa~1r\ . ~nc~d4n~q~ ~.t~usor ~° ~o h °! t~1~y'.-e~ W.P . J _ Be~n"~..~1 DEG 19 '94 IB:28 ~ LEV INf~- PITLER 303-757-0958 BO,A.'I'I~iGYIT ANI] RYI'P' ~..t 4~,w f.ERA,t,[} E. apATAiCHT I)ecembes 19, 1994 Robert L. Puler 2303 Fsstl?artlttcuth Aveaue En8lewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Bob: P 1 ~~ ~~ ODi6 WAOiWOE'fH IOV~vA1D WHEAT Rm6$ cOLtlRAAO $IK1la Tll.a'NOlIE (107)1f191D0 rAx (coal ~pia,ao I reviewed the rorrttact for the repurchase of fire property Prom Hertrrras by t^.oventry Homes, Inn., the pmmiseory note, and fhe deed of trust which were prepared pursuant to the terms of that contract. with respect ro the contract, I would suggest that it specify that the property will be reeonveyed to the Buyer by special Warranty doed rather'than general warxenty deed: that the closing of this transaction be scheduled widtia thirty days after fine! approval of rho subdivision, minor subdivision, or subdivision waiver with respect to the property, whichever is applicable. Also, the cottract provides that rho buyer will maintain public liability and property damage streurance with respect to the property at all times while the property is thled im the t,wm~ of the I-Iarreras. In addition, it would be nppropr'iata to include a proviaiov in the contract that the terms, covenants, and conditions of the contract shall survive the delivery of dead. and notwithstandittg eny provisions of the promissory torte and deed of treat execntixl by the Hcrnras that the terms of the contract shall prevail. I would feel more comfortable if the enached non-recourse provision were included in and made a pert of the promissory note. With respect to rite deed of mist, I think that Paragraph 7, 8, and 9 should be omitted. Let me know if you have any questions. C~EB:me Enclosure Sitrcerely, BO and ~~_. • Get E. oatrigkrt t0'd 6FtL CZ6 £0£ ddItJ '8 1H~JI2yl.tiC)8 9£:SL t+66i-6S-73Q DEC. 19 '94 18:28 -" LEVI~ PITLER 303-757-0958 -- - /`~ - - PRGE 2 Z0'd -Id1A1 NONRRCOVA88 CLAV6E Subject to the exceptigns listed below, the Borrower shall be liable for the payment o£ the indebtedness evidenced by this Note and all amounts covenanted to be paid by the Borrower herein to the full extent (but only to the extent) of the security for the payment of this Note, the same being all properties, rights and estates described in the Deed of Trust and other security instruments. I£ default occurs in the payment of all or any part of the indebtedness, any judicial proceedings brought by the Lender against the Borrower shall ba limited to the preservation, enforcement, and foreclosure o€ the Siens, mortgages, assignments, rights end security interests now or at any time hereafter securing the payment o£ thi^ Note. No attachment, execution or other writ of process shall be sought, issued or levied upon any assets, properties or funds of the Horrower, other than the properties, rights, estates and interests described in the Deed of Trust and other security instruments. Y£ there is a foreclosure of the 11ene, mortgages, assignments, rights or security interests securing the paym®nt o£ tkis Note by power of sale, assent to a decree, or otherwise, no judgment fox any deficiency upon the indebtedness shall be sought or obtained by the Lender against the Borrower. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions hereof, the forrower shall not be liable: (a) far failure to pay taxes, assessments or other charges which can create liens or cncumbrancea on any portion o£ the property described in the Deed of Trust or ether security instruments, which would be senior to the liens of the Deed of Trust or other security instruments, that accrue, are levied, or are payable prior to a foreclosure under the Deed o£ Trust or other security instruments (to the full extent of any such taxes, a®scsements or other charges); (b) for lose or destruction to all or any portion of the property described in the bead of Trust or other security instruments; (c) far breach of any warranty of title; (d) for breach of aay warranty or otherwise regarding environmesatal matters. Z0'd 6£TL CZb £0C . dd12t '8 iH~JILLLFi09 . Lt:St bfi6T~-61-73Q 7500 SNEST 29TH AVEt~ R.o. eox 63s The City of WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80034-0638 ~ - (303) 234-5900 cwheat City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 -1\ldge January 18, 1995 S The wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision I -.. at the property described below.. Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by F'pijrnary 1. 1gg~L. No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or cconcerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: MS-95-1/Coventry, Homes LOCATION: 8501 West 38th Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a three-lot minor: subdivision PURPOSE: ,Construction of two duplexes APPROXIMATE AREA: ,7g acre 1. Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? YES / NO If "NO",,please explain below. 2. Are service lines available to the development? YES / NO I£="NO-", please explain below. 3. Do you f~ave adequate capacities to service the development? YES ~ NO If "NO",.,please explain below. ~. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? YES / NO If "NO", please explain below. 5. .Are there any concerns or problems your agency has identified which would or should affect approval o f / this request?-~ r > ~ , "Cr° kc~ ~'c ~n,a Fv~cr~~~ `7'kd~~f' w~ f -L,ssti.e5 ' l/ be a~~~ersecQ ~ Please reply to: ; 'C ~Z~GG~~~ti~~~ ~ L ~ Kee a,r~ses , ~, Reckert ~~,~Z , Department of Planning & Development ~~~JJ~ DISTRIBUTION: ~ W 'f XX Water District (Wheat Ric)ge ,zc Jefferson Co. Health Dept. XX XX Sanitation District (Wheat Ric}ge XX Jefferson Co. Schools Fire District ( Wheat R~ldge Jefferson Co. Commissioners XX Adjacent City ( ) Denver Water Board public Service Co. W R Post Office XX US West Communications W R Police Dept. State_Land Use Commission XX W R Public Works Dept. State Geological Survey XX W A Parks & Recreation Com. Colorado Dept. of Transportation W R Forestry Div. Colorado Div. of Wildlife W_~t Building Div. XX TCI of Colorado <pc>referralform ~, x,.,,,,,~~,,,, ,, 7500 WEST 29TH AVEt\~ P.O. BOX 638 WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80034-0638 ..~ (303)234-5900 City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 January 18, 1995 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 The City of -Wheat Ridge The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision ' at_ the property described below.. Your response to the following questions and any comments ,on this proposal would be appreciated by February 1, 1995 No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: MS-95-1/Coventry. Homes ~'' "" "°' '- LOCATION: 8501 West 38th Avenue CITY OF WHERT ~~~~~ ..~1~r--ail ~ REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a three-lot minor sub ~'sion JA€~ 2 ~ ?4~a PURPOSE: Construction of two duplexes ~~LJ~ PLANNING & DEVELDPMEN7 APPROXIMATE AREA: ,7g acre 1. Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? YES NO if "NO",,please explain below. 2. Are service lines available to the development? YES_~- NO If "NO", please explain below. 3. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? YES~_ NO If "NO", please explain below. ~4. 'Can and wi1T your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? YES ;x NO If "NO", please explain below. 5. Are there any concerns or problems your agency has identified which would or should affect approval of this request? Please. reply to• ~~`G`LZ2LGC.t~~~-G~~~-C~I. Reckert Department of Planning & Development DISTRIBUTION: XX Water District (Wheat Ricjge XX Sanitation District (Wheat Ridge XX Fire District ( Wheat Ridge Adjacent City ( ) XX public Service Co. XX US West Communications State Land Use Commission State Geological Survey Colorado Dept. of Transportation Colorado Div. of Wildlife. XX TCI-of Colorado Jefferson Co. Health Dept. XX Jefferson Co. Schools Jefferson Co..Commissioners Denver Water Board W R Post Office W R,Police Dept. _ _-_-- XX W R Public Works Dept. XX W R Parks & Recreation.Com. W R Forestry Div. W R Building Div. <pc>referralform co io, ~~r.dr.,,„~, ?f' • 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE . CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE• P.O. BOX-638 ~~?')Il ~ he Crty Of WHEAT RIDGE. CO 800340638 _ ~... -_..~. ~ 0042'3,4-59001 heat n ., PJ J City Aamin. Fax'# 234-5924 Police ~ . Fax # 2352949 _ _ ldge January 18, 1995 b ~LF~N~IIING & DEVELOPMENT The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a_three-lot minor subdivision ___ __ - _ at the property described below. Your response to the following questions and any comments ,on this proposal would be appreciated by br,ary 1, 1995 No response from you by this date-will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: MS-95-1/Coventry. Homes LOCATION: 8501 West 38th Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a three-lot minor subdivision PURPOSE: . Construction f two duplexes } ~~~~ ~ • ~~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~~ APPROXIMATE AREA: ,7g acre 1. Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? YES NO If "NO", please explain below. 2. Are. service lines available to the development? YES NO If "NO", please explain below. 3. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? YES NO If "NO", please explain below. 4. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? YES NO If "NO", please explain. below. 5. .Are there any concerns or problems your agency has identified which would or should affect approval of this. request? Please reply to: ,_ L ~~GLGC.t.C~~~-~~~~NI. Reckert Department of Planning & Development DISTRIBUTION: XX Water District (Wheat Ridge XX Sanitation District (Wheat Ridge XX Fire District ( Wheat R~tdge Adjacent City ( ) XX n:.',;.' is Ser-i.ra Co. t'.. i.~. .. .~ '"r .. ,, ... .., .tions ~ol~_ado-L'ept. o~ T~aiisportation Colorado Div. of Wildlife XX TCI of Colorado Jefferson Co. Health Dept. XX Jefferson Co. Schools Jefferson Co. Commissioners Denver Water Board W R Post Office W A Police Dept. XX W R Pu?,J.i.~ id%'+r~;:'; P~pt. XX W R Par>•...> f,~ P,~=.;.s ~:ation Com. W k Forestry Div: W R Building Div. <pc>referralform , a~ rc;.,~n;rr.e,., .TRN 30 ' 95 6:~ FROM PSCO 7TH RUE. S Public Service Company of ~'th Avenue Service Cenror Our PAX Number: (3Q3j to Camparty: Attention/t~hono: PAX Number. Number of pages including cover sheet: 2 i=rcm:/Phone: _..TereS,a_Nilson - 572=3735 _ .. M SSSAGS: public Service Comaanv acknowledges receipt of the following oreiects. We are. not_ab]e to respond by the tro3ected due date. Ne dre .~. r..examfning the. proposed plot ~il.ans for conflict and wit] send a response upon completion, ~. Public Setv~Ca~ TMCIic Semce €onpnry a.tawtie++:9Ri w 1A ~werc ~ tkare[. Caanao ~ tt~ x ~ ) ' :x~ TOTRL PRGE.001 ~~ ptanninq~ rtment .~35~- -~''9~5~ ' she pre p~jQ~ i GOVNTY pV0( r R-1 c p o JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ^ " 1829 DENVER WEST DRIVE / BUILDING 27 / GOLDEN, COLORAD080401 / (303) 273-6500 OOLO R4D0 PLANNING COMMENTS JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. R-1 PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER 1829 DENVER WEST DRIVE GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 SIIBDIVISION NAME: Cody Subdivision LOCATION: 8501 W. 38th Ave. DATE: Jan. 31, 1995 AREA: 0422 STATUS: PP Number and Type of Dwelling Units: 4 SFA Total Dwelling Elementary Junior Senior Total Units Yield Yield Yield Yield 4 SFA .34 .14 .12 .60 TOTAL FROM THIS PROPOSAL: 1 Elementary 1 Middle School 0 Senior High 2 Total It is estimated that costs to provide classroom facilities for the students anticipated from this proposed development will be $20,772. Currently students from this proposed development will attend: Wilmore-Davis Elementary School - 7975 W 41st Av, Wheat Ridge 80033 Everitt. Middle School - 3.900 Kipling St, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge Senior High School - 9505 W 32nd Av, Wheat Ridge 80033 s Page 2 Comments Cody Subdivision, PP The present capacities and enrollments for these schools are: ENROLLMENT CAPACITY 10/94 95/96 96/97 *CPC NEW ADDITION **NEW PC Wilmore- Davis 428 393 396 432 0 432 Everitt 699 736 794 754 0 754 Wheat Ridge 1481 1472 1477 1312 0 1312 * CPC -Current Program Cnpacity represents the number of student spaces that ara available if there aro no temporary buildings at the school. ** New PC -New Program Capacity: dre CPC }the New Additions Capacity. This tepresrn[s the number of smden[ spaces that will be available at the school when additions ar additional spaces are conswcted from the 1992 Hond Issue. NOTE: These are estimates from School District computations. They are subject to change and are for planning purposes only. SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING COMMPsNTS: Wheat Ridge Senior is currently using ten temporary classrooms. The School District would request-fees in-lieu=of land dedications for this plat. In that regard, the School District also requests that the computation of fees be calculated based on the full market value of the land per acre-as zoned and improved for residential purposes as opposed to raw land or any value based upon prezoning approval. The school District has offered the same comment for consideration by the City Council and the Planning Commission for two years with no response. The District would again request that a new method be established for calculation of fees in-lieu-of land based on zoned land values, thus representing a more reasonable fee compensation to offset the impact of developments on school capacities. Any fees in-lieu-of amounts would be held in escrow accounts for future application by the School District in accordance with our procedures and the Jefferson County Land Development Regulations. ~~ Page 3 Comments Cody Subdivision, PP Based upon projections from this development and subdivisions in this area which have been approved or are pending approval, current school capacity at Wheat Ridge Senior is inadequate to serve the anticipated student population from this proposal. However, the recent passage of-the Bond Issue on October 6, 1992, will provide a building addition/renovation/upgrade at Wheat Ridge Senior and various improvement projects at all three schools at a cost of $9,702,831 for this area. Kathy A. Tully Property Management/Planning Services /jP xc: Wayne Carle Bob Sparks Roy Burley Dick Ransom Dave Hendrickson Central Transportation Jeff Hall ~ • ~~IDII~TIIS~II®1`T ~!i[I~1~1[` ® ~k`~lID ~®`i~TICA(~7C I~(~®~ CONTACT NUMBER 1 DATE: _7 -FEB. _, 1995 SUBDIVISION NAME: CODY SUBDIVISION ENGINEER: NAME: CHESSNOE & ASSOC. PHONE: 722-3267 FAX: 722-5128 CZTY REPRESENTATIVE: CHUCK BRADEN REMARKS: FIRST REVIEW 1: NEED 10' ROW DEDICATION ON CODY 2: NEED 15' BY 15' TRIANGLE ROW DEDICATION AT SOUTHEAST CORNER 3: HAVE 5' EASEMENT ALL ALONG SOUTH LINE OF PROPERTY 4 NEED BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ON CITY DATUM fall lines) 5: NEED SIDEWALK ON CODY_ _^-„^^^ 8. LEGAL~MISSES ROW ON CODY STREET (1.56! SE COR) (3.78+' NE ccx~ 10: MONUMENT DESCRIPTION WRONG il: THERE MIGHT BE 5' ROW ON EAST SIDE (CODY ST.) EXISTING 1: 2•-_ 3: 4• 5: 6• 7: 8•-_ 9: 10: 11: ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE: MIKE CHESSNOE REMARKS: How contact made: person phone letter FAX REPRESENTATIVE: City:_ Engineer: Callback 1 Date: Remark: Callback 2 Date: Remark: Callback 3 Date: Remark: Callback 4 Date: Remark: _ Callback 5 _ Date: Remark: MEMORANDUM Approved Date _ ~, TO: Meredith Reckert, Planner II. FROM: Greg Knudson, Development Review Engineer. ~. DATE: February 22, 1995 SUBJ: Cody Subdivision, Easement Variation Per your request, I am providing a comparison table (see below) of the square footage available for lots 2 and 3 after deducting the area required for a five foot and a ten foot easement along the Cody Street frontage only. Please note that the easement area for the handicap ramp/radius at the comer of lot,2 is required and has been deducted accordingly. Subsequent available lot 2 area totals are based on the 8,887 square footage shown. No easement Lot 2 - SF Available 9,000 Handicap Easement (required) 5' easement 10' easement 8,887 8,358 7,829 Lot 3 - 3F Available 12,604 N/A 11,898 11,193 v ~ ~ CHESSNOE AND ASSOCI~ES ENGINEERING/PLANNING/SURVEYING 2430 So. University Blvd. #203 Denver, Colorado 80210 722-3267 Ms. Meredith Reckert, Planner c/o City of Wheat Ridge P.0. Box 638 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Co. 80034 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE !JFF~~~ i~ `~ 1995 i ULS~~ FLANNING & DEVELOPMEfli February 23, 1995 Re: CODY SUBDIVISION at N.W. Corner of West 38th Avenue and Cody Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Dear Meredith: fts of this date we have made all the revisions to the final plat requested by you and have made the revisions to the final plat requested by Chuck Braden of your Engineering Dept. in his memo of February 7, 1995, with the exception of the following: 1. Need 10' ROW dedication on Cody - As we discussed we prefer to accomplish this with a 5 foot sidewalk easement because the gross area of the site will accomodate the planned uses- two duplex lots and one single family lot and if we had to dedicate any property, the site would not be able to accomodate the planned uses. 2. Need 15' by 15' triangle ROW dedication at Southeast Corner - Same argument as above, again we would prefer to handle this with an easement. 4. Need bearings and distances on City Datum (all lines) - Chuck Braden is on vacation this week and no one else has this infor- mation at City, but we would be willing to make these changes. 6. Need ties to two section corners --Our survey crew is out in the field today and will come back with an additional tie to another section corner (one tied on plat at present). We will provide you with this information on the revised copies of the final plat that you will receive on Friday February 24, 1995. 8. Legal misses ROW on Cody Street (1.56 '_ S.E. Corner) 3.78' N.E. Corner) - We will get this corrected but again I must see Chuck Braden on this matter. 10. Monument description wrong - Our field crew is check- ing this out today and we will have this corrected on revised final plat copies. 11. There might be 5 feet right-of-way on East Side (Cody St.) existing - I discussed this matter with Chuck Broden before he left on vacation and he furnished me a copy of the doc- ument that supposedly dedicates this additional ROW. The document is a Release Trust Deed dated April 12, 1947. I checked with Stewart Title on this matter and it was their feeling that this Ms. Meredith Reckert Feb. 23, 1995 was not a proper conveyance because deeds recorded after April 12, 1947, on the property did not except the additional 5 feet from the property mentioned in th s Release Deed..--.However, they will do a title search on this issue to see_if there is further mention of the five foot strip in the County records. We are also revising the drainage plan and study and will submit a revised one to the City shortly. We will provide you with 12 prints of the revised final plat by Friday, February 24, 1995. If you have any further questions, please feel free to con- tact me. Sincerely, I 'chael S. Chessnoe, P.E. & L.S. MEMORANDUM CASE NO. MS-95-1 EXHIBIT 'A'~ Approved Date TO: MEREDITH RECKERT, PLANNER FROM: JOHN OSS, SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER RE: RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ON CODY STREET, CODY SUBDIVISION, 3.8TH AVENUE AND CODY STREET DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1995 Engineering Division staff has been providing plat, drainage and plan review services relating to the Cody Subdivision as required since the property owners approached the City concerning their proposed redevelopment of the property, The City's local street standard requires a total right of way width of 50 feet. Under most circumstances this requirement is satisfied by property on either side of the street dedicating equal amounts to the City for right of way purposes. The existing right of way width on Cody Street is 40 feet from West 38th Avenue to about the 3900 block where the right of way widens to a total width of 45 feet to 41st Avenue. 25 feet was dedicated for the length of Cody Street between West 38th Avenue and West 41st Avenue along the east side of Cody Street. On the west side, 15 feet was dedicated from West 38th Avenue to about 465 feet north of West 38th Avenue where the width of the dedication tapers from 15 feet to 20 feet over a distance of about 100 feet. The 20 foot dedication extends from the end of the taper north to West 41st Avenue. In addition to the existing right of way, we found a 5 foot easement for roadway purposes along the west side that extends for about ,465 feet north of West 38.th Avenue. This easement was created during a property transfer in 1946. In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, Public Works has identified the requirement for an additional right of way dedication of 10 feet along the subdivision's Cody Street frontage: Cody Street was recently reconstructed from West 38th Avenue north by the City in 1984.. These improvements were constructed to local street standards and were centered in the existing 40 foot right of way leaving little unimproved right of way remaining on either side of the street. Sidewalks were not constructed as part of this project. 1 t'•. In the event the City were to construct new sidewalks on this section of Cody Street, we would most likely construct them adjacent to the existing construction. This construction would require acquisition of permanent easements four to five feet wide along both sides of Cody Street. In the event building permits for remodeling or new construction were issued along Cody Street that required construction of Public Improvements in accordance with Section 5-44 of the City's Code of Laws, Public Works most likely accept a permanent easement about 4 to 5 feet wide for the sidewalk. There are a number of other locations in the City where the existing right of way is less than the 50 foot required by the Subdivision Regulations. In areas like this where Public Works will. be constructing an improvement project our policy is to acquire sufficient right of way to construct the curb and gutter within right of way,and acquire additional permanent easements for the sidewalk. In accordance with this policy, we have also allowed builders and other non subdivision related developers to construct sidewalks in permanent easements dedicated to the City. In conclusion, Public Works does not feel acquisition of 10 additional feet of right of way along the subdivision's Cody Street frontage is required for construction of public improvements (sidewalk) required by the Subdivision Regulations. Dedication of an additional 5 foot of right of way along the subdivision's Cody Street frontage would be the most desirable event, but granting of a 5 foot permanent easement in lieu of dedication would satisfy Public Work's needs for construction of new sidewalk along the subdivision's Cody Street frontage. 2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held befmn the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on March 2, 1995 at: 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th. Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Ali interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing .~ 'submit written comments. The following petition shall be heard: 1. Case No. MS- 5-1: An application by Fante Brothers Covent"--/ Homes., Inc. for Gary and Marlayne Herrara for approval of three-lot minor subdivision with variances for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue_ Said property is 1ega1L°°; described as follows: A parcel of land located in the SEl/4 of .Section 22, Township 3 South,, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of _Jefferson, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows:.... Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Section_ 22, Township South, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.; thence westerly al ors 'the South Line of said SE1/4, 345.00 feet; thence on a deflection angle.to the right of 90°.32'17", 30.00 feet the intersection of the North 'Right-of-Way line of West 38th Avenue and the West Right-of-Way Line of Cody Street, whit is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence on a deflection anC3 to the left of 90°32'17'! along said North Right-of-Way Lire of West 38th Avenue, 164.39-feet to a No ._ 5 rebar with cap- marked CHICHESTER L.S. No_ '7735; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°40'00", 140.99 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on deflection angle to the right of 90°00'56", 74.93 feet to a No: 5 rebar with cap 'marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; then" on a deflection angle to the left of 90°05'25", 124.57 few to a No. 5 _rebar with cap marked .CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflectiork angle to the right of 89°52'21", 89.02 feet to a No. 5 rebar with, cap marked CHICHESTER L_~ No. 7735 said point being on the West Right-of-Way Line of Cody Street; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°04'25" along said West Right-of-Way Line, 263.94 feet ~-_ the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains ,34,105 square feet (0.7829 acres) more or .less. i ndra Wiggins, retary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: February 16, 1995 Jefferson Sentinel C:\WP60\pc\ms951.phn it a The JEFFERSON SENTINELS 1224 Wadsworth Blvd Lakewood, CO 80215-5108 239-9890 02/17/95 THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W 29TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO .80215 INVOICE: LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION Our number: JW0046.216 Your identification: PUBLICATION DATES: 95/02/16 through 95/02/16 NUMBER OF LINES: 57 COPIES REQUESTED: 2 Printing: 25.08 Copies: -0.50 TOTAL DUE: $ 24.58 Thank you for advertising- in the Jefferson Sentinel Newspapers! sE f;a-a Range t18 ' m, County do, more la ~ ^ evrS~We aYOOI Cerlmins aa,llN aQUxa ~ teal (O.78EB eaea)_mere or leas. /r7 Sandra Wiggins, Secretary ATTEST: /a/ Wanda Sang, City Cbrk Pubgahed: February 16. 7995` Pubiiahed In: The Jaftenan Sentinel JW0046216 -50:.::'E~- c TN - . civL'E _ _ o. ~~x ~:~ `.'VHEA-= DGE. C,~ °_~C2a-0c'a ~- .- - - (~ ~Tn~e City o,} -:~30~3J-~_:~ ~~~ - - VV ~Pial City Ao,-~~, max a 2?=-592= °aiice Qeot- Fax ~ 235-2~-9 ~1dgPi POSTING CERTIFICATION ~7 CASE NO. . ' -~ CANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARZN~DATE: ~~~~ I, n a m e residing at a a a r e s s as the applicant for Case No. that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at ~~~ ~ ~~ l/~/Y~~ o c a t i o n - , hereby certify on this day of _~~,~G~,/ 19p=~!~and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for fifteen (I5) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. .~~ ~/i en/~` ~JGO d~~S~.~i./G ~~ Signature: ~o~ G ..~~s'~T NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Planning and Development. J <pc> rev. 05-1 T ~, I ~o R i R G:; n wc9pTM ~~E ~~_!_! ! n ~-----~ ! Li N., .~ .. ~. l i 000 NJEST 25TH AVENUE °.O. SOX 636 ThB C%ty Of l^JHEAT RIDGE. CC SCC34-0oo8 3031 234-59CC cWheat C;4yAamm.rax=234-5924 ?ciice:Deot.Fax~235-29-9 ~Rldge February 16, 1995 This is to inform you that Case No. MS-95-1 which is a request for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with ~~a ri an~Pc for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission in the Council Chambers of the Municipal 'Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7:30 p.m. on March 2. 1995 AlI owneis and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the Planning Commission As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public xearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you.. PLANNING DIVISION <pc>phnoticeform Ca x~",. ,,,~r.,.... Dear Adjacent Property Owner: If you have received this notice, you reside or own property adjacent to a property involved in a land use case being processed by the City of Wheat Ridge. t ~ This notice is intended to inform you of the process involved in land use development applications. Prior to application for rezoning or special use permit, the developer is responsible for holding an informal neighborhood meeting. .The purpose of the meeting is to provide the opportunity for citizens to become aware of a proposed development in their neighborhood and to allow the developer to respond to citizen concerns in the design of their project. -All residents within 600 feet are required to be notified of the meeting. A staff planner will attend the meeting to discuss City policy and regulations and the process involved, however, the planner will remain impartial regarding viability of the project. Keep in mind that this is not a public hearing. Although a synopsis of the meeting will be entered as testimony, it is the public hearings in front of Planning Commission and City Council where decisions are rendered. If you want input in the decision- making process, it is imperative that you attend the public hearings. The public hearings you will be attending are quasi-judicial in nature. Please do not contact your Planning Commissioners or Council people to discuss the merits of a case prior to the public hearing. It could jeopardize your representatives' ability to hear the case. If you are an adjacent property, you may have the right to file a "legal protest" against the application. The result of this filing is that it requires a 3/4 majority of City Council to approve a request. If you have questions regarding any of the information given above, do not hesitate to contact a planner at the City offices by calling 235-2846. The Planning & Development Department is open Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. <pc>adjpropowner CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: March 2, 1995 DATE PREPARED:,,~F!ebruary 23, 1995 CASE NO. & NAME: MS-95-7 CASE MANAGER:Y Meredith Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a three-loo subdivision with variances LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8501 West 38th Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. 2055 S Oneida, # 270, Denver 80224 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): APPROXIMATE AREA: .78 acre PRESENT ZONING: R-2 Gary & Marlayne Herrera 8501 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge PRESENT LAND USE: Single-family residence SURROUNDING ZONING: N, W. E: R-2; S: PCD, R-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N, W, E: single family residential; S: office, church COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Low-density residential DATE PUBLISHED: February 16, 1995 DATE POSTED: February 16, 1995 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: February 16, 1995 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) ATTACHED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ATTACHED ENTER INTO RECORD: ( )COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ( XX) ZONING ORDINANCE ( )SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ( )OTHER ()NOT REQUIRED ( )NONE ( XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS ( )SLIDES (XX) EXHIBITS 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. Planning Division Staff Report Page 2 Case No. MS-95-1 REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a three-lot subdivision with variances for property addressed as 8501 West 38th Avenue. The property in question is located at the northwest corner of Cody Street and West 38th Avenue, is zoned R-2 and contains .78 acre of land. There is an existing single-family residence on the site which has been incorporated into the subdivision. II. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The applicant proposing athree-lot subdivision to create a separate lot for the existing house (Lot 2) and create two duplex lots (Lots 1 and 3). Lot 1 will be a "flag" lot which is allowed provided there is adequate fire access and utility service. There are numerous mature trees on the property. Staff has requested the largest ones be shown on the plat and a note be added regarding removal. There is an existing easement for access to the ditch which runs along West 38th Avenue for the property to the north of Lot 1. This easementwill also act as a drainage swale. A retention pond drainage easement is shown at the northwest corner of the Lot 3. No right-of-way dedications are required for West 38th Avenue other than a corner radius for a handicapped ramp. Cody Street is substandard in width and will necessitate aten-foot-wide dedication. The applicant Is proposing the subdivision without dedications in order to maintain Lots 1 and 3 as duplex-sized lots. They would be willing, however, to grant a sidewalk easement on Cody, which would allow them to build walk and maintain the duplex-sized lots. A minimum of afive-foot-wide walk easement would be required for the installation of a sidewalk along Cody Street. Please refer to the attached Exhibit'A', which discusses the need for dedication versus easement. in the R-2 zone district, a minimum of 12,500 square fleet lot area is required for duplex development. Asingle-family lot must have a minimum of 9,000 square feet of lot area. The following is a table which compares lot sizes with the different right-of-way options. The corner radius dedication is non-negotiable. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 No dedication (sidewalk easement) 12,501 sq ft 9,000 sq ft 12,604 sq ft Corner radius n(a 8,887 sq ft n/a 5' ROW dedication 12,415 sq ft 8,358 sq ft 11,898 sq ft 10° ROW dedication 12,330 sq ft _ 7,829 sq ft 11,193 sq ft All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. Planning Division Staff Report Page 3 Case No. MS-95-1 111. VARIANCES M right-of-way dedications are required which reduces one or two of the lots below the minimum lot size andJor lot widths for duplex development, the applicants are requesting variance(s) so duplexes can be built. Variances must be considered separately from the other cases and requires agreater-than- majority vote based upon Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 2-53(s). and Section 2&6(D)(2). Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evacuate 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? If the right-of-way dedications are required, the property could still be used for single-family development. Staff, however, cannot ascertain whether the return in use, service or income would be reasonable to the developer or not. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Circumstances are not unique since dedications for right-of-way are a standard requirement for any new development in the City. 3. ff the variation was granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The property is surrounded on three sides by single family residences. Although duplexes are still considered low density development, it may be said that it could alter the character of the area if duplexes are built within asingle-family area because they would be different than what is already there. 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? Staff concludes that there is no hardship in this case. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other properly within the same zoning classification? If variances are granted, a precedent could be set for allowing development based on gross lot area (prior to dedications), rather than net lot area (after dedications). 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property'? Planning Division Staff Report Case No. MS-95-1 Page 4 The request for variance is based solely upon a desire to make more money out of the property as duplex development will generate more income than would asingle-family development. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant maintains that the City has created the hardship by requiring right-of-way dedications. 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? The variance would not be detrimental to public welfare. It is difficult to determine how it would affect improvements in the neighborhood. 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 ar endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? Duplex development could restrict more air and light to adjacent properties as there would probably be more building mass than a typical single-family home. The number of vehicle trips per day would double although it is questionable as to whether,it would create congestion in the public streets. Adjacent property values could be affected with the denser development. Staff has concluded that the request for variance is purely economic and fears that a precedent would be established for figuring allowed density on gross land area rather than net land area. For these reasons, Staff concludes that the evaluation criteria does not suppor4 approval of this request. N. AGENCY REFERRALS All agencies responding can provide service to the property. Parks and Recreation Commission will review the request at their March meeting. Public Works is requesting aten-foot-wide right-of-way dedication for Cody Street. See attached Exhibit'A'. There are problems with the legal description which must be corrected. A preliminary drainage report has been reviewed. V. PETiT10NS Included under Exhibit 'B' are copies of petitions presented relating to this case. The petition signers oppose duplex development on this property, however, would not object to single family, R-2 lots. Planning Division Staff Report Page 5 Case No. MS-95-1 VL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff concludes that the right-of-way dedications for the corner radius for a handicapped ramp and the ten toot dedication for Cody Street are standard requirements. Staff believes that these requirements need to be applied universally. Staff further concludes that if the dedications are required, this is no rationale to justify variance approval and that the criteria do not support approval. For these reasons, a recommendation of Approval is given for the subdivision with the condition that the 15 toot corner radius and a ten foot right-of-way be dedicated for Cody Street. A recommendation o4 Denial is given for any variances for duplex construction due to right-of- way dedications. VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Subdivision OPTION A: "I move that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, be Approved for the following reasons: 1. All requirements of the Subdivisions have been met. With the following conditions: 1. A 15-toot corner radius and ten feet of right-of-way be dedicated for Cody Street. The plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 2. Problems with the legal description be corrected'°. OPTION B: "1 move that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue be Approved for the following reasons: 1. A five-foot sidewalk easement has been provided for Cody Street improvements. 2. Ail requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. A 15-foot corner radius be dedicated and the plat be revised to reflect this dedication. 2. Problems with the legal description be corrected. Variances (Only it right-of-way dedications for Cody Street occur) OPTION A: "I move that the request for approval of lot size and lot width variances to allow duplex construction at 8501 West 38th Avenue be Denied for the following reasons: Planning Division Staff Report Page 6 Case No. MS-95-7 1. The variance requests are purely economic. 2. Circumstances are not unique. 3. A precedent could be established for calculating density on net lot area rather than gross lot area. 4. The evaluation criteria da not support approval of this request". OPTION B: "I move that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, be Denied for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. " Case No. MS-95-1 AGENCY REFERRALS SUMMARY Fire: (Wheat Ridge) Can serve. Schools: Can serve. Water: (Wheat Ridge) No problems. Sewer: (Wheat Ridge) No response. U S West: No response. Public Service Co.: No response. State Land Use Comm. (over 5 acres): State Geologist: State Highway: Jefferson County: (Health, Commissioners, Planning) Adjacent City: TCI: No response. CITY DEPARTMENTS Public Works: Problems with legal description. Ten foot dedication required for Cody Street. See Exhibit 'A'. Parks and Recreation Commission: Will require $75 for each new unit. Police: Building Inspection: c:~wp60~pc~pcros951.ars Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 2, 1995 explained that the request had been amended to dispel concerns by the neighbors. Harold Wiler, 4355 Pierce Street was sworn in. Mr. Wiler stated the neighbors had opposed-the request for rezoning, however, he stated. they were in agreement with the Special Use Permit request.. Catherine Fedel, had signed the roster and stated from the audience she agreed with Mr. Wiler. Lee Wiler, had signed the roster and indicated from her seat in the audience she agreed with Mr. Wiler. Tony Flasco, 4440 Reed Street was sworn in. Mr. Flasco stated he agreed with Mr. Wiler. Commissioner LANGDON moved that Case No. WZ-17-95, a request for a Special Use Permit for property located at 6709-89 West 44th Avenue, be Approved for the following reasons: 1. The area residents are in support of the special use as opposed to rezoning the property. 2. The evaluation criteria supports approval of this request. With the following condition: 1. The special use be granted to Bunkbed Bobs under the- operation of Bob Glusica. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Case No. MS-95-1: Aa applicatioa by Faate Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. fos Gary-and Marlayae Herrera for approval of a three-lot minor subdivisioa with variances for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue. Mr. Gidley presented the staff report. Entered into the record and accepted by the Vice Chairperson were the Zoning Ordinance, case file, packet materials and exhibits. Mr. Gidley stated that he had been given by the applicant, a single copy of a five-page letter for distribution to Planning Commission. He suggested that the applicant read the letter into the record. He added that the applicant had provided a copy of the Posting Certification, indicating proper posting had taken place. • s Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 2, 1995 __ Vice Chairperson CERVENY reiterated that the subject property had R-2 zoning, which would allow duplex construction providing requirements are. met. Once the proper. dedication has taken place, the potential for two single-family lots and one duplex lot would exist. Mr. Gidley verified that was correct. Lot lines would have to be modified, however. He elaborated. Commissioner JOHNSON asked Mr. Gidley about .the possible 800 feet discrepancy regarding the legal description. Mr. Gidley stated that Planning Commission could review the case and make a decision relative to the requested subdivision and indicate necessary modifications (to legal description and survey) to be made to the plat. Commission would not make a decision regarding duplex or single-family residences other than the issue of the variance(s). He elaborated. Michael S. Chessnoe, 3012 South Josephine, was sworn in. Mr. Chessnoe stated he represented Mr. Fante of Coventry Homes and spoke of the need for duplexes in the area. He explained how he prepared the property survey. Vice Chairperson CERVENY asked those in the .audience to hold their comments until they take their turn at the microphone. Mr. Chessnoe continued, reading into the record a five-page letter .from Mr. Fante, the applicant. Dan Fante, 2170 South Beeler Way, President of Coventry Homes was sworn in. Mr. Fante stated he felt he had been misled by staff regarding his proposed development. He elaborated. Vice Chairperson CERVBNY asked those wishing to speak not be redundant and to state their agreement,_if they agreed with a previous speaker. _ Doug Gallagher, _4065 Cody Street was sw~ opposed to granting the subdivision and elaborated. Charles "Bud" Lehrer, 3838 Dover Street had a prepared statement which he read. 57 petitioners who opposed the proposed variances. - ern in. He stated he was requested variances. He was sworn in. Mr. Lehrer He stated. he represented subdivision and Commissioner JOHNSON asked if any of th_e 57 petitioners had basement apartments. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 2, 1995 Mr. Lehrer stated not to his knowledge. Commissioner JOHNSON suggested the zoning in this area could be changed to R-1. Mr. Gidley stated that mass rezoning of the area to R-1 or R-lA had been_discussed. Betty Ayres, 3877 Cody Street was sworn in. Ms. Ayres read a brief prepared statement in opposition to the proposed development. Willard Krieger, 3965 Cody Street was sworn in. Mr. Krieger voiced his opposition to the duplex development. Jack Wasmund, 4190 Yarrow Court was sworn in. Mr. Wasmund stated his son had recently purchased a home in the neighborhood_.__Mr, Wasmund spoke in opposition to the request. Lavaun Brewton, 3945 Cody Street was sworn in. She feels safe in the neighborhood. Ms. Brewton opposed the granting of this request. She added that a street light should be installed at Cody and West 38th Avenue. Bessie Mateski, 3925 Cody Street was sworn in. Ms. Mateski spoke in opposition to the requested development. Cheryl Major-Jaramillo, 3910 Dover Street was sworn in. Ms. Major-Jaramillo opposed the proposed development. Hazel Krieger, 3965 Cody Street was sworn in. Ms. Krieger opposed the proposed development. Nancy Breitweiser, 9325 West 32nd Avenue was sworn in. She stated she did not live on Cody Street, but some good friends live directly across the street and she was present to support them, since they could not attend due to a death in the family. She opposed the proposed development. Audrey Carnegie, 8505 West 38th Avenue was sworn in. Ms. Carnegie spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Bob Ebisch, 4090 Cody Street was sworn in. Mr. Ebisch told of the need for a signal light at Cody and West 38th Avenue. He opposed the proposed development. Tricia O'Leary, 3995 Cody Street was sworn in. Ms. O'Leary opposed the proposed development. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 2, 1995 Debra Jean Schmidt-Davies, 3960 Dover Street was sworn in. Ms. Schmidt-Davies stated her opposition to the proposed development. Tamra Hamilton, 4205 Dover Street was sworn in. Ms. Hamilton was in opposition to the proposed development. She felt that the same requirements for a duplex should be maintained throughout the City. Vice Chairperson CERVENY stated that both the applicant and Mr. Lehrer (representing the 57 petitioners) would be allowed three minutes for recap/rebuttal. Mr. Chessnoe explained that the Planning Division had requested that Lot 1 access Cody Street rather than West 38th Avenue. Mr. Gidley stated that without access onto Cody Street, a duplex could not be constructed on that lot, because it was not 100 feet wide. He agreed that the City preferred access to Cody Street. Mr. Chessnoe stated that he doubted that the duplexes could be competitive as rentals, given the cost of land and construction. He added that the spruce trees would be retained. Mr. Chessnoe noted that he had been informed a neighborhood meeting was not required, because applicant was not requesting a rezoning or special use permit. Mr Lehrer stated he had nothing further to add and appreciated Mr. Gidley's explanation regarding the requirement for neighborhood meeting. He was glad to hear the spruce trees would be saved.. Commissioner LANGDON commented that he had previously owned the subject property. He elaborated. Mr. LANGDON asked about regulations governing basement apartments on R-2 zoned property. Mr. Gidley explained that in the R-2 zone district if there is 100 feet of frontage and 12,500 square foot of lot area, a two- family dwelling is allowed. He elaborated. Commissioner LANGDON spoke about duplexes constructed behind his residence. Mr.. Gidley noted that there had been recent subdivision cases (not necessarily in Wheat Ridge) that been denied or required modification to a lesser density, even though the zoning allowed higher density. He added that the proposal had been substantially different from the character of the neighborhood. He elaborated. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 2, 1995 Commissioner JOHNSON asked what the difference was when building __ a single-family home with a basement apartment compared to the proposal before them. Mr. Gidley stated that if the required lot area and zoning is there, there is no difference. Commissioner LANGDON asked for clarification of the question before Commission. Mr. Gidley explained. Commissioner LANGDON asked Mr. Gidley if the request was denied, would the applicant have an opportunity to present his request to City Council? Mr. Gidley stated the applicant would have the right to take his request to City Council. Commissioner LANGDON suggested that perhaps residents should consider a mass rezoning of the area. Vice Chairperson CERVENY recapped the two questions before Commission at that time. Mr. Gidley stated that, before this case is considered by City Council, the property size discrepancy will be resolved, which could eliminate some issues. Iie added that Commission should therefore not concern itself with that at this time. Discussion followed.. Commissioner LANGDON moved that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at-8501 West 38th Avenue, be Approved for the following reason: 1. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. A 15-foot corner radius and ten foot of right-of-way be dedicated for Cody Street. The plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 2. Problems with the legal description be corrected. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-l, with Commissioner JOHNSON voting against. ~ i Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 March 2, 1995 Discussion was heard regarding the lot size discrepancy. Commissioner LANGDON moved that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for lot size and lot .width variances to-allow duplex construction at 8501 West 38th Avenue be Denied for the following reasons: 1. The variance requests are purely economic. 2. Circumstances are not unique. 3. A precedent could be established for calculating density on net lot area rather than gross lot area. 4. The evaluation criteria do not support approval of this request. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-1, with Commissioner JOHNSON voting no. A short recess was called at 9:50 p.m. by the Vice Chairperson. Meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m. 3. Case No. ZOA-95-1: Consideration of a proposal to amend the Wheat Ridge Zoning Ordinance, Section 2b-7, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. This proposed amendment, if approved would revise or eliminate the 15-year amortization schedule for nonconforming uses. (Continued from 2/16/95) Mr. Gidley explained that this item was before Commission as a result of issues arising over the past year. He explained in detail, going over the recommended changes (recommended additions are in bold; strike-thru indicates recommended deletions) in the ordinance . Commissioner JOHNSON asked about regulations for commercial properties. Mr. Gidley stated that Section 1. (E ). dealt .with commercial as well as residential properties. He elaborated, explaining the current regulations and how the proposed amendment would change them. Discussion followed Commissioner LANGDON moved that Case No. ZOA-95-1, an amendment to the Wheat Ridge Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-7, Nonconforming Uses and Structures be Approved and forwarded to City Council. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 8. CLOSE THE PIIBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BIISINESS PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: MS-95-1: DATE: March 2, 1995 REQUEST: An application by Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. for Gary and Marlayne Herrara for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with variances for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue. ._.-- Position o Request Please heck RESS & PHONE (PLEASE PRINT) ADD E, M SPEAKER NA IN FAVOR OPPOSED f/ R / + U`rGl/4!'U~ ~ • ., ,/ o~lesn'ian. ~or~ vl. er ~~~-~~ ~/ 1 v ~t / ~ - As ~ ~ , d.. _ /B .~- ,,~ ~'~...J/y-p~~~~ y s ~ ~ ~~~5 9 ~~ e dom. ,~ CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE N0: MS-95-1 LOCATION: 8501 West 38th Avenue APPLICANT(S) NAME: Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. OWNER(S) NAME: Gary and Marlayne Herrera REQUEST: Three-lot subdivision with variances APPROXIMATE AREA: .78 acre WHEREAS,' the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list of factors is attached hereto and incoipoxated herein by reference, and made a part hereof; and _ WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions reached, it was moved by Commissioner LANGDON, seconded by Commissioner WILLIAMS, that Case No. MS-95-1, an application by Fante Bxothexs Coventry Homes, Inc. fox approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue be Approved fox the following reasons: 1. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. A 15-foot corner radius and ten foot of right-of-way be dedicated fox Cody Street. The plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 2. Problems with the legal description be corrected. VOTE: YES: Williams, Cerveny, Langdon, Crompton N0: Johnson I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a 4 - 1 vote of the members present at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 2nd day of March, 1995. axl Cerveny, Vice rperson ra Wiggins, S c tart' WHEAT RIDGE PLANNIN OMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANN COMMISSION c:\wp60\pc\ms951.xes ~ ! CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO: M5-95-1 LOCATION: 8501 West 38th Avenue APPLICANT(S) NAME: Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. OWNER(S) NAME: Gary and Marlayne Hexreia REQUEST: Three-lot subdivision with variances APPROXIMATE AREA: .78 acre WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and Conclusions reached, it was moved by Commissioner LANGDON, seconded by Commissioner WILLIAMS, that Case No. MS-95-1, an request by Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. for approval lot size and lot width variances to allow duplex construction at 8501 West 38th Avenue be Denied for the following xeasons:_ 1. The variance requests axe purely economic. 2. Circumstances axe not unique. 3. A precedent could be established for calculating density on ne_t lot area rather than gross lot area. 4. The evaluation criteria do not support approval of this request. VOTE: YES: Williams, Cerveny, Langdon, Crompton NO: Johnson I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary .to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a 4 - 1 vote of the members present at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 2nd day of March, 1995. a 1 Cerveny, Vi _ Chairperson San Wiggins, Secret WHEAT RIDGE P NG COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING CO 5SION c:\wp60\pc\ms951b.res rl~ t~F WHEi~1' RIbGE D ..nr~r~n ~~ e~~~ ~~:~ ~I PLANNING & DEVELOPMt~17 3870 Cody Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 February 28, 1995 To: The Wheat Ridge Planning Commission Members Dear Representatives: We ask that you DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD DUPLEX TWITS ON THE PROPERTY AT 38TH AND CODY STREETS. Cody Street from 38th to 41st Streets consists of all single-family homes. We have a great sense of community pride on this block which is shown by an annual block party as well as block involvement with neighborhood crime watch. We have a street roster which lists the names and phone numbers of homeowners on this block. We have already tolerated growth from Luthern Medical Center's new emergency department. The lot in consideration is on the same intersection and the traffic is already quite heavy. For safety reasons, it would be unwise to add to the problem with multi-unit buildings. Cody Street is also quite steep and to increase already fast-moving traffic would be hazardous. ~1Ve have a unique balance of older and younger families on our block. There are no sidewalks and we want to minimize traffic for the safety of our children and other pedestrians. Secondarily, we want to protect our property value especially in light of the growing Luthern Medical Center and heavy 38th Street traffic. We feel that allowing multi-unit buildings at this site will have a negative impact on our property value and on our sense of community. Please use care when considering the developer's request. We urge you to deny the request and preserve our neighborhood! Thank you for your time and efforts! ! Ve~}c,Sincerely, u~~ ~y7.27~e7C.~ Vik~delberg, RPh Laura Azuma-Odelberg, RPh and our sons Sol and Judith Bassow 4000 Dover Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge Planning Commission Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 March 2, 1995 RE: Multiple Unit Construction on Cody Street and West 38th Avenue Dear Planning Commission Members: We are strongly in opposition to the proposed building of two family or multi family homes in our neighborhood. We think that this might encourage absentee ownership and this in turn decreases property values. Please do not allow this proposed construction! Sincerely yours, Sol and Judith Bassow /S ~~~~ ~ ~~~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGY nt~nn nth i ~ I~Y~ 'f'~.k{~iV1N~'& ~. a _- EASE t~FO MS 95-1 ~ --_ m Coventry EXH{BIT'B' Homes March 2, 1995 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission Case No. MS-95-1 8501 W. 38th Ave The following is submitted in response to the variance criteria of the staff report. 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? Planning Staff is focused on whether duplexes or single family detached housing should be built at this location. The highest and best use of R-2 zoning is for duplexes. The property was purchased for this use. The price paid was for this use. Given our investment in the property we can not build a competitive single family detached product profitably. Please see attached analysis. The need for dedicated right-of-ways should be based on the need to construct public improvements, not as a tool to down zone property usage. The real question should be what is needed here. The answer is a sidewalk and a better handicap ramp than the city built. Does the city need a right-of way to achieve this. No. An easement will be perfectly acceptable to Public Works, the people who are in charge of these things. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Yes!__Eailure of the City Planning Staff to notify us of these apparently iron clad right-of-way dedication requirements before we purchased the property. George Caughlin of Re/Max West met with Meridith Reckert to discuss the viability of duplex construction on August 31, 1994. Mr Caughlin recalls that the response from Ms. Reckert was positive with no mention of the right-of-way dedication requirements. Mr. Caughlin then proposed the project to Dan Fante of Coventry Homes. Mr. Fante met with Ms. Reckert on September 9 and again on September 14, 1994 to gather information regarding subdivision requirements. Again there was no mention of dedication requirements. Mr. Fante accompanied by Sheila Weaver of Re/Max West attended an informal planing staff meeting on September 22, 199-4. The issue of a five .foot right-of-way dedication along Cody Street was raised and discussed at this meeting. We were told that there would be no problem satisfying the City's requirements by creating a five foot sidewalk easement in lieu of a right-of-way dedication. There was no mention of a 10' right-of-way or the 15' corner radius dedication. Coventry Homes purchased the property on September 29, 1994 believing it had purchased two duplex sites and 2055 S. Oneida St. Suite 210 • Denver, Colorado 80224 ~ 303-758-6444 ~ Fax 303-758-8829 a single family site. The purchase price reflected this belief. If we had not been mis-informed by Planning, we would have negotiated a lower price or would not have purchased the property. Our first hint of trouble came on about October 13, 1994, two weeks after the purchase of the property, when Glen Gidley told our engineer, Mike Chesnoe, that "I would have trouble supporting this density " The issue here should not be one of density. The property is zoned R-2 and duplex construction is a permitted use. Public Works has stated in their report "In conclusion. Public worxc Anac „~+ wee, Regulations." We feel that Planning's reversal on the right-of-way vs. easement issue is a very thinly disguised attempt to down zone our property and is essentially a taking. 3. If variation was granted, would it alter the essential character' of locality? Again the issue is whether easements or dedicated right-of-ways are -- required for public improvements (sidewalks). Using an easement for the sidewalk instead of a right-of-way will not "alter the. essential character of the lnaality" However, if we must argue about whether we should be permitted to use our property-for~its! highest and best use under the current zoning and going beyond the properties immediately adjoining this site, the "locality".has-_very mixed use. From the hospital to multi-story apartments, to other duplexes, to single family detached. A duplex will not "alter the essential character of the locality " Surely "the 'essential character cf the locality" was considered when this property was zoned R-2. Again Staff is engaged in this loop hole mentality to alter the permitted use of an R-2 zoned piece of property .instead of focusing on the need for public improvements. 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? The Cody Street lot is only 89 feet deep. If we loose 10 feet to right-of-way, then 30 feet for front setback and 10 feet for rear setback we are left with only 39 feet to build on. If [ae use all of-this (a 40 foot depth would be reasonable) we end up with a highly unsatisfactory condition of a 40 foot front yard and only a 10 foot rear yard. If we have to have something custom designed that is long and narrow, it will increase costs and make the project even less viable. (see #1 above). Also whatever kind of structure is built it will be set considerably farther back than the other homes on Cody. This nonconformity of front setbacks would alter the character of the locality more than a duplex.. 5. Would conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification? This is apparently already the case at various locations within the City. See Public Works report, paragraph 8. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property? The purpose of the variation is to allow the highest and best use of our property. We need the variation to keep from losing money (see #1). Besides, since when is it wrong to make money. It is how the people who work for Coventry Homes feed their families and pay taxes. It has been estimated by the National Association of Homebuilders that 16,000 pairs of hands touch the building of a single home. That provides a lot of benefit. We are not-trying to destroy anything here. We are homebuilders. We create value. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The hardship has been created by the Planning Staff through misinformation. (see # 2) 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. The Staff report states the variance would not be detrimental to public welfare. We concur. In fact, granting this variance would allow us to get on with our project thereby enhancing the public welfare by providing a sidewalk where there is none now, and improving the handicapped ramp at the corner of 38th. and Cody. The Staff report also states that it is difficult to determine-how it would affect improvements in the neighborhood. We do not feel this is difficult to determine, granting this variation would not be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood: 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? The Staff report again responds to this question within the framework of whether or not duplexes should be built on land zoned for duplexes. It could be argued, as the Staff report states, that a duplex could restrict more air than a single faini.ly-home: However restricting is not impairing. The duplexes will not, as the Staff report states, restrict light to adjacent properties. The height limitations are equal and given the orientation of the site, a duplex will not restrict more southerly sunshine than would a single family home. Staff reports the number of vehicle trips would double, this is not the case. We are not talking about going from one unit to two units, we are talking about going from three units to four units. Which is a 33% increase, not a 100% increase. Staff concedes that it is questionable as to whether this would create congestion in the public streets. Adjacent property values are generally enhanced by new construction, particularly in older neighborhoods such as this one. In conclusion, we appeal to a sense of fairness in allowing us to use our property for its' highest and best use in accordance with the R-2 zoning, particularly in light of the misinformation provided by the Planning Department during our due diligence investigation. Also, we request that the real issue with respect to the need for public improvements be addressed and the implementation of this, dedicated right-of-ways vs. easements not be used to down-zone our property. Si ely, Daniel C. Fante President .. i C1TY DF WHEAT RIDGE ~D ~r~nn n~ LIAR p ~ 1995 -;~~ PLAI'~NiNG & pFJELOPMENt CASE NO._MS-95-1 t EXH{BIT 'E' ~~ I~' . g00~3 - --- :~- ~ ~~ Guv~s-~ ~-~-~- ~ Vic, . c~Do ~-3- - ~ ~ ~~ .-- - ~~ .~~ ' 35 01 .~ - _ _.~-_ _ ~-.~ ~~, . ~?_• ~ ~. . -- ,~-~ G~ .~ ~z~. _ ~ mod . CASE NO. MS-95-1 ~. IBIT 'C' .. }~~r~ ~ '~~~ 1 2 t:;95 TO: Mayor, City Council, City of Wheat Ridge RE: Case Number MS-95-1 ~ ~``~ ~ ~ L] From Gary and Marlayne Herrera PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DATE: April 6, 1995 We are the legal owners and applicants in the above application for a subdivision on the property at 8501 West 38th. Avenue. We have the above comments about and requests for changes in the plan, which we ask you to consider as you review the application. First, we would like to give you some history of our "ownership" of this property. In the fall of 1994, we were shown the single-family house on the property by our real estate agent Dave Livingston (He was our agent, not the lister of the property.) Attached is a copy of the brochure on the property. Although we understood that the land going with the house was part of a larger parcel, no mention was made of the fact that the division of the land had to go through a legal process to divide the land legally. We are first time homebuyers and had no idea at the time what a subdivision was, nor did we understand the difference between a legal or illegal subdivision. We liked the house and put an offer on it within a week. The offer was a~epted and we applied for and were approved for a loan. We were first scheduled to close on November 23rd, but were informed just before closing that we might not close because of some legal problems with the division of the property. In order to solve the problem and be able to close,(which finally happened on December 20th) the owners arranged for us to "buy" the remainder of the property for $100,000, so that we would be the legal owners of the whole property for purposes of the subdivision application. No money actually changed hands, and our contract provides that we will sell the property back once the subdivision has been approved. We do not disapprove of this arrangement, but some problems have come up which we wish to have disposed of in the approval of the subdivision. They are as follows: 1. There were no marked boundary lines when we viewed the property, but we were told the property we were buying inchided 10,000 feet. The actual contract says 9000 feet, which we now understand is the legal requirement for a single family home on R-2 property. Since we did not know that a subdivision hearing was required, we also had no idea that several dedications for sidewalks would be required from our lot. If this happens, our lot would be less than what we purchased and less than the 9000 square feet that is required under the zoning ordinance. Therefore, we ask that the boundary line between our lot and the one to the west be moved so that we still have at least 9000 square feet. 2. We do not want the 9000 square feet preserved by having the sidewalks on easements instead of dedications. This would cut down the amount of our property that we actually would be able to use. Also, if there were an accident on the sidewalk and the property was in our names, there is a possibility that we could be sued. as legal owners. 3. The brochure for the property showed that the utility shed went with the property. ('That's the tJT on the attached brochure.} Later, we were told that the utility shed was not ours. Eventually, we were told that the shed was ours, but, the way the subdivision is drawn now, it is not on our property and there is no access unless we move it. 'The last information we were given was that we would be half owners of the easement from Cody, but the plat shows "easement for lots 1 & 3," not for Iot #2, which is ours. We would like to have this matter cleared up. Again, we do not object to the subdivision, but it is essential that our property rights are preserved in the process. Sincerely, Gary and layne Herrera. /k~j/~+~,~. J ~ ~ 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE The City of WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6797 (303) 234-5900 cWheat City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 Ridge April 17, 1996 Mr. Dan Fante Fante-Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. 2055 South Oneida, #210 Denver_ CO 80224 Dear Mr. Fante: In regard to your request for a minor subdivision approval per Case No. MS-95-1 for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, the City of Wheat Ridge has still not received a photographic Mylar of the subdivision so it can be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder's office. . Pursuant to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, if a recordable Mylar is not provided to the City within 60 days of final approval, a public hearing can be scheduled to rescind the decision- The date of-plat approval was August 28, 1995. Should you have any questions regarding this information, do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert Planner cc: MS-95-1 Approved_ Date MEMORANDUM TO: MEREDITH RECKERT, PLANNER II FROM: JOHN OSS, SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER RE: DEVELOPMENT AT 38TH AND CODY DATE: APRIL 27, 1995 Based upon our previous discussions, I understand that the Developer has requested the minor subdivision located at the northwest corner of West 38th Avenue and Cody Street be placed on Council's Agenda for the meeting of May 8th for consideration. Public Work's concerns are addressed in more detail below: 1. The nominal length of a section line is 5280 ft. In practice, the length of a section line is rarely ever this exact length. In this event, there is prescribed methodology used by surveyors to prorate excess or deficiency of length during the breakdown of the section of land into smaller parcels. This methodology was used when the parcel of land immediately east of Cody Street was created. When this portion of land was developed, a 25 foot wide strip of right of way was dedicated for roadway purposes. When the parcel of land lying to the west of Cody Street containing the minor subdivision was created, the surveyor who surveyed the land did not appear to prorate the excess length of the section line. During the subsequent sales and development of this parcel of land, a 15 foot strip of land was dedicated for right of way for the west half of Cody Street. When the 15 foot strip of right of way and the 25 foot strip of right of way are plotted from their legal descriptions, the 15 foot strip of right of way overlaps the east line of the minor subdivision. This overlap results in a right of way width that is less than the 40 feet that is supposed to be there. 2. In addition to the overlay of right of ways issue, there are also questions relating to the validity of the quit claim deed which dedicated the 15 foot strip of right of way. Our :search indicates the property containing the right of way ~s sold by warranty deed prior to dedication of the right of iy by the seller. 1 • The matter of the overlap between the right of way and the minor subdivision has been discussed with the Owner's engineer who was laying out the properties as described in the deeds. He suggested we contact John Lambert of Sellards and Grigg who established both the right of way on Cody street as part of the City's monumentation program and staked the boundaries of proper- ty containing the minor subdivision. Mr. Lambert was contacted by this office and indicated that while he did indeed establish the right of way on Cody Street for the City, he also staked the property based on the information contained in an existing legal description. Mr. Lambert offered to do some additional research and also mentioned in a subsequent communication to us that there were some questions relating to the validity of the deed which dedicated the 15 feet of right of way. In response to the complexity of these issues, Public Works asked Trans America Title to perform a title commitment relating to the right of way on the west side of Cody Street. We have received information from them relating to the status of the minor subdi- vision but have not received information relating to the right of way at this time. The City's out of pocket costs for the work by Trans America Title is $750.00. We are requesting Council require the Develop- er compensate the City for this out of the ordinary expense as a cost of development. If there is a problem relating to the dedication of the 15 foot strip of right of way, this matter should be relatively easy to settle through an additional dedication of right of way by the developers. The issues relating to the overlap of the rights of way dedicated on either side of Cody Street is a much more complicated issue. 1. The developer is attempting to place two new duplexes on two of the minor subdivision lots. Without dedication of additional right of way and assuming the legal description of his property is the correct one, there is sufficient surface area to allow construction of these duplexes without a variance. 2. If the description of the property to the east is correct and the legal description of the minor subdivision is incorrect there will thusly be a decrease in available surface area of approximately 800 square feet. This decrease means that there will be enough surface area to construct one duplex and one single family without need for a variance. 3. Planning Commission required the developer dedicate an additional 10 feet of right of way to meet the requirements 2 ~~ of the Subdivision Regulations. We need to know where the west right of way line Por Cody Street is to establish the area of the new dedication to provide 50 ft of right of way, if Council supports the Planning Commission's requirements. 4. The exact location of the west right of way line will affect setbacks of the proposed structures from the right of way. 3 ~,scnbutedby Ciiy r:...u.iistrator ~ (((~~~ To: .Date: S ~ 3 55 ~~ Mayor ii' Councff v ` City Clerk City Atty. ~ ~ i ~ r ~ ~ }. ~ ~y r~ t. /y , .,, City 1Yeas. Depi Heads: ( I.LJ.~Lt D ~-W~ other: _ n , ~ 1 1- i('1 /I ~ n i ., ,_ 0~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert C. Middaugh, City Administrator SIIBJ: PLANNING CASE MS-95-1 FANTE BROTHERS COVENTRY HOMES APPLICATION FOR SIIBDIVISION AND VARIANCES DATE: May 3, 1995 Attached please find the staff report and supporting materials for the Fante Brothers application for a subdivision and related variances at 8501 W. 38th Avenue. This particular application has a number of issues that have been raised either by the applicant and/or residents in the area that may introduce some confusion to the decision before members of Council. In several pieces of attached information, the question of density is raised relative to this specific subdivision application. The developer has alleged that staff is making veiled attempts to affect his density and resident concerns also focused to a great degree on land use and density questions. The members of Council should be very clear that the application before Council is in no way related to density or to land use issues. The subject property is zoned R-2 and the zoning is not an issue in the application before members of the City Council. The land uses which have been discussed at some length by residents and by implication by the applicant are also not at issue. The applicant has a legal right to develop property consistent with the permitted uses in the R-2 zone. The permitted uses in the R-2 zone do include both single family and duplex housing. The question of density or land use only comes into play as a consequence of other subdivision requirements being recommended for this specific application. As indicated in the attached staff report, there is a recommendation that a certain right of way dedication be required from the applicant. When the requested right of way dedication is applied to the subdivision request, the lot sizes of the subdivision are reduced. The reduction of lot sizes may and probably will affect the applicant's ability to place a two family dwelling on at least one of the subject lots. As a direct consequence of the potential reduction in lot size, the applicant is also asking for a lot size variance together with the subdivision approval. The City's request for a right of way dedication is what has precipitated the applicant's concern regarding lot size and the potential need for a variance. In the attached materials Council will find a reference to both a 5 foot right of way dedication and a 10 foot right of way dedication. The Engineering Division is specifically indicating that the minimum required dedication for right of way is 5 feet. A 5 foot right of way dedication would enable a sidewalk to be constructed at some point in the future within the right of way provided on Cody Street. Anything less than 5 feet would require that the City acquire additional right of way in order to build a sidewalk. A 10 foot right of way dedication is mentioned in that it is consistent with subdivision regulations and also would provide for the same size of right of way dedication as was provided on the east side of Cody Street when that property was subdivided. The City is recommending that a minimum of 5 feet be dedicated and is simply pointing out that a 10 foot dedication could also be required and still be consistent with other practice and regulations of the City. The practical reality is that the 10 foot right of way dedication probably exceeds the City's need for right of way in this particular area. The applicant also raises the question of granting an easement for the 5 foot right of way requested by the City rather than an outright dedication of the right of way. Staff is strongly suggesting that the City Council give no consideration to an easement in lieu of a dedication in that this would effectively provide a back door variance for the applicant. Were an easement to be granted in lieu of a dedication of right of way to satisfy the City's concerns, the City would be artificially increasing the lot size of the applicant and effectively granting a variance without the application of the appropriate variance standards. The developer clearly has a remedy in that a variance can be and has been requested for the change in lot size as it is affected by the right of way dedication. The dedication of right of way is also consistent with the City's practice as it relates to raw land that is being developed within the community. Typically easements are considered in instances where existing dwellings are involved for infrastructure or related public improvements. The applicant has also raised a question regarding information provided to him by staff on his particular application. The developer has alleged that he was misled by staff and acted in reliance upon the staff's advice in securing this particular property. In reviewing the conversations between staff and the applicant, it is apparent that several conversations did transpire between the applicant and staff during the course of the review of this particular application. While-the developer alleges that the staff misled him, it is apparent in our review of conversations, that it was made clear to the applicant by the Director of Planning and Development, the right of way requirements and options that might be pursued by the City. No representations as to a final outcome or guarantee were made by the staff and the applicant's determination to secure the property absent final review and approval by the City of the subdivision was the applicant's own judgment and risk. The specific motion suggested by the Planning staff in the staff report addresses the right of way question appropriately and consistently with the City's subdivision regulations. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Robert C. Middaugh City Administrator A5.81 Sales Analysis North/South: 3200 N - 4400 N East/West: 7500 W - 9000 W Sales_in last six months SQR FT PRICE PRICE/SF ~ BSMT FIN -- 875 65,000 74.29 0 1139 98,000 86.04 60 955 98,250 102.88 0 1275 100,000 78.43 90 1319 109,009 82.65 0, 2570 109,900 42.76 0 1356 112,500 82.96 0 966 118,900 123.08 95 1620 130,000 80.25 60 1653 131,500 79.55 50 1993 134,000 67.24 0"' 1465 149,500 102.05 35 1459 150,000 102.81 _ 85 1671 158,000 94.55 0 1560 160,000 102.56 0 1932 164,500- 85.14 50 1468 165,000 112.40 80 1769 165000 93.27 90 2196 215,000 97.91 50 -- 3100 ------ - 286,000 ------- 92.26 0 AVERAGE 1617 ... 141,003. -------- 87.20 -------- 37 New Construction Comparison -- 1617 SF SFH 1350 SF Duplex Sales Price 141,003 __ 117,717- Commissions @ 6% (8,460) (7,063} Closing Costs @.5% (705) (589} Hard Costs @ $60 SF (97,023) (74,250) -$55 SF Raw Lot Cost (32,200) (16,100) Engineering (2,200) (1,100) Improvements - (3,000) ------- (1,500) -------- (2,585) 17,115 ~~ 05-93 RI PM„CONEHTRY HOMES Coventry Homes May 5, 1995 Mr. Glen Glidley City of Wheatridge Planning Department RL: 8501 W. 38th Avenue Dear Mr. Glidley: I am requesting a two week continuance oP the City Council hearing scheduled for Monday, May 8th, 1995 for the above referenced subdivision. We have engaged our legal council to research some of the issues involved, in particular the legal description and boundary problems. That research has not been completed. We also wish to schedule a meeting with staff to discuss alternate plans that would seek staff support. Thank you for xour cooperation. Sincerely, COVEN7,'k2,X AOMfiS, FSiC. ~~ . Daniel C. Fante President P. 01 2055 S. Oneida St. Suite 210 • Deaver, Colorado 80224 ~ 303-758-6444 ~ Fax 303 758-8829 758 8829 NOTICE OF PIISLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City .of Wheat Ridge City Council on may 8,-1995 at 7:00 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: 1. Vase No. MS-95-1: An application by Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. for Gary and Marlayne Herrara for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with variances for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue. Said property is legally described as follows: A parcel of land located in the SE1/4 of Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.; thence westerly along the South Line of said SE1/4, 345.00 feet; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°32'17", 30.00 feet the intersection of the North Right-of-Way line of West 38th Avenue and the West Right-of-Way Line of Cody Street, which is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence on a deflection angle to the left,of 90°.32'17" along said North Right-of-Way Line of West 38th Avenue, 164.39 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°40'00", 140.99 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°00'56", 74.93 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the left of 90°05'25", 124.57 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 89°52'21", 89.02 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735 said point being on the West Right-of-Way Line of Cody Street; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°04'25" along said West Right-of-Way Line, 263.94 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 34,105 square feet (0.7829 acres) more or less. 2. Case No. MS-95-2: An application by David Townsend for Faith Bible Chapel West for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on R-1 zoned land located at 3010 Newland Street. Said property is legally described as follows: A part of Lot 3, Block 2, Henderson's Subdivision Amended Plat, situated in the southwest one-quarter of Section 25, _ Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 3, Block 2; thence north 00°16'31" west along the west line of said Block 2, a distance of 162.44 feet to the south line of Longs Subdivision; Thence along said south line, north 89°41'22" east, 400.00 feet; thence south 00°16'31" east, 162.34 feet to the south line of said Block 2; thence along said south line, south 89°40'30" west, 400.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. ~-- ,-. ~` Sandra Wiggins/~cretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: April 20, 1995 Jefferson Sentinel b:\5895.phn The JEFFERSON SENTINELS 1224 Wadsworth Blvd Lakewood, CO 80215-51.08 239-9890 ~n .~~/' 4~ y~ 04/21195 THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, C0 80215 INVOICE: LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION Our number: JW0086.420 Your identification: PUBLICATION DATES: 95/04/20 thrvugh ~35i04/20 NUMBER OF LINES: 90 COPIES REQUESTED: 3 ii~/ Printing: 37.80 L" ~$ Copies: 0.00 ~ 1 y~Q~S TOTAL DLIE: $ 37.80 '\ lit' Thank you fer adver~i~:ing' in the Jefferson Sentinel Newspapers! i'he JEFF-ERSON SENTINELS 122r~ Wadsworth Blvd Lakewood, CO 802]5-5108_ 239-9:.'.3v 04!211. c_ T'HE CITY r_LERK'S OFFICE O CIl'Y OF WHEAT RIDGE ` 4 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE.. WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 j INVOICE: LEGAL I~JOTII'.E FUEL.ICA'IION Our-number: JW0086.-420 `(our identif-ivativn: PUBLICATION DATES: 95/04/20 through 95104/20 NUMBER OF LINES: 90 COPIES REQUESTED: 3 Printing: 37.80 Copies: 0:00 TOTAL DUE: $ .37.80 NOTICEOF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby Olven that a Public Hearing is to M hdd beforo the City d Wheat Ridge Ci4y Council on May 6, 4985 of 7:00 p.m. at 7600 West 29th I Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Ail i IMermted citizens are invited la speak ' it the Public Hearirg or subm8 wrMen comments. The folbwirp pelhbns shall be heard: t. Cefe Na. M9AS1: An applbetlon by Fante Brothers Cavenlry HOTei,Inc. for Oarv sntl Matlavna Herrare tot 8501 Weal 38th Avenue. Said property is lepaly tleacribed sa fdlows: A parcel d land looaletl in IM SE1/[ d Swtbn 22, Townahlp 3 Sodh, Range 6B Weft of the 6th Principal Msridlan, Coudy of Jefferson, Stale of Cobratlo, more partleubrly tleseribed as lallows: Commencing st the Soulheest Corner d Section 22, Township3 Sodh, Ran9a 6B Weal of IM 6th P.M.; Mers:e weatorly along the South Line of said SE7/4, 346.00 feet; thence on a delledion angle to the dBhf of 90°32'1 T, 30.00 feet the inienection of the Narth RIBht-ol-Way line of West 38th Avenue sntl the Weal RiBhtat-Way Line d Cody Street, which is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; IMnoa on • delbel'an argb ro the bil d ~~ dOs32'17"'e1dK911a1d'HotiriRiplayf-Wry Lineol Waat 38th Avewa,l .381ed to a No. 6 rebar with cap msrkad CHICHESTER LS. No. 7736: theiwa an a deflection •n la to iM rigaht of 00°40'00', 110.90 feat ro a No. 6 rabu with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7736; thnnce on adeflediort angle b IM right d 90°00'66-, 74.93 feet Io a No. 6 rebar wIN tap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7736; thence on a deibcdon angle lothe IeH d 80°06'26', 424.67 feel to ~e No. 6 rebar with cep msrkad CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7736; thence on , a deflection an01o la the right of 90°62'21', 88.02 lut to a No. 6 rebar with up msrkad CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7736 said point being on the West RiOhl~ei-Way Llne of Cody Street; Ihence on a delbctlon an9b to the right 01 ~90e04'26' along uid Waat ' Right-of-WsY Line, ;!63.81 iwt to IM TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Tha above dewnbed panel aantiins 9.1,706 square leet (0.7828 tyros) Moro or lap. E. Cue No. M9.96-E: M apgkadm , by David TownaonA for Feith Bibls ~ Chapel Wsat for approwl d + twoid minor subdrvhkn on R-1 mmd land loealad et 3010 Newland Siroal SaN Aro~r~ol Lo3lyBbtk 2~ NoMarson a Subdivbbn Amended Plat, sduffied In the stuf hwest one-gqwwrter al Sadbn 26, Township 35ouM, Ran9e6B WMdtM 6lh PrinciDSl Meridian, County of Jelleroon, SIffiad Cdorod0. Mlnp moro partkularN dncribed n Idbwa: BeOinnin9 at Ma uuMwul oormr d said-Lot 3, Blook 2; Ihanoa north 00_18'31' woffi alorq iM mart IIM d said Block 2, adlNrwa d 182.14 Mlb the aoulh Ilna al Lonpa Subtlirlalon; Thanoa along said aoulh Iina, north B9 47'22' anat. 100.00 iNl; tMma aadh~ 16'31'uffi, 182.34 faffi to tM aadh line d wid Block 2;1Mnea abnp aald~wdh line, south 9B 10'30' wMt, 400.00 fed to the Pdnt of Boyinninp. _, Thank you for advertising in the Jefferson Sentinel Newspapers! -~CC'.VES-29iH AVENliE ~ The City or :HEAT ~IDGe: CD SGD3=~Cc35_ _ x.303: 23~-59CC ~WYIeSt ,.:: Ac^~^. ^ax T 234-5°_2~ °ol~ce Deot. Fzx = 235-25~° ~ ~idge April 24, 1995 This is to inform you that ,Case No. MS-95-1 which is a r request for annroval of a three-lot minor subdivision with _ __, for property located at 85ni west 38th Avenue will be heard by the Wheat Ridge City Council in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7:00 p.m. on May 8 1995 All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration mu be present, at this hearing before the r;+~, C•ouncil r As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION <pc>phnoticeform' _, ,,~:,, Dear Adjacent Property Owner: If you have received this notice, you reside or own property adjacent to a property involved in a land use case being processed by the City of Wheat Ridge. This notice is intended to inform you of the process involved in land use development applications. Prior to application for rezoning or special use permit, the developer is responsible for holding an informal neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the opportunity for citizens to become aware of a proposed development in their neighborhood and to allow the developer to respond to citizen concerns in the design of their project. All residents within 600 feet are required to be notified of the meeting. A staff planner will attend the meeting to discuss City policy and regulations and the process involved, however, the planner will remain impartial regarding viability of the project. Keep in mind that this is not a public hearing. Although a synopsis of the meeting will be entered as testimony,, it is the public hearings in front of Planning Commission and City Council where decisions are rendered. If you want input in the decision- making process, it is imperative that you attend the public hearings. The public hearings you will be attending are quasi-judicial in nature. Please do not contact your Planning Commissioners or Council people to discuss the merits of a case prior to the public hearing. It could jeopardize your representatives' ability to hear the case. If you are an adjacent property, you may have the right to file a "legal protest" against the application. The result of this filing is that it requires a 3/4 majority of City Council to approve a request. If you have questions regarding any of the information given above, do not hesitate to contact a planner at the City offices by calling 235-2846. The Planning & Development Department is open Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. <pc>8djpropowner f~ ~v~-3 ,~C,, ~ o _ i y r¢x i t ~ ~;~ ~.. ;.- :.~. ~ #~. § `1 a ~4'_ ~~~'l~!- r, ~~~~ 802 ~,~ a.y m Y~ ~ N:T Ih"',~~. I ~•J a2f C? CL ~I N 3~ N M ~ i-+ ~ _" ~ ui (~ L!~ W! N (7 ~ ~ y Q W 3 ~ S= ~ ~ n 3 M M o a O ,•~ CO r-I cv 1 O a ~l 1~ 7 " ~Y k~ gam. Q13dOl3AN3 WVtl1FiOdYY1 . J Q 0 W LL W U LL a w U W ~~ Ld f i 4. cn ~~ o ~ 'Sfi ~~ r w ~ ro oaf \ ¢ o ~ § ~ w W ~ w c3 `.> E3 1 ~ U ¢ ~ ~ p _ $ 6 ~ U~ O ~ C O W LL j r a s C- ~ Vi M ~o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i j ' ~ ( M} ji [ ~ ¢ U F ~ a1. H Q M 0 d U y.M - ?~. v`~S ~ n 5 ~ U ~ Z _ W LL v~ ~ d 62~ 9hh L'C6 d ~1 ~, c ~ ~ d w Q ~ ~ = 3 ~ "' .~ ° ~ ~ @ oa o ~~~~~ s ~4 c 2 . _~~ , W C-~~ ~ 7 ~ ~ Z N '~~ ~W~ ~ M M M ~' i Q a a O P1 O ~." U N u 'SS3aOOtl Naf113tl d0 iHJla aHt Ol 3dOl3AN3 d0 d01 ltl a3NOLLS 30tl1d _ i1NV1k10dW1 I~ ~/~ ~ I F ,~ as ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ l c' r .i u` ~~ 'het J _ Q W LL r ~ W ---'-' a ... U o ~ N. F a~ a ~ m w U ry. M W UR CJ ~ CG ~ >~ cw/ G ~W ¢O F d ao y Q ¢ ~ Q Z W Z U i/~~ ~ ~ YL ,y ~ wQ W u O~ y ~ V ¢ Z ao w F ° ~ LSS ~ t ~ yi 1~ ~ o `~ ~ ~ ~ w u w ~ per. ~~~ CEO 9h_h L'C6 d ~ _ a g 5 ~1 J ~I "-'- - "-.'_ _ - .~ ~ .~ _ --.__ ~ - POSTMAA~ SEkDER__" _" _ '^ _ _ _ ' -_ _ - PO$TACE • como~ere ae~ ~~aior z ior aaanro~i serv~~es. I also wish to receive the ~ aeruaN 1 sHOw rowHOM,on,E nNO aesraicreo ~ • comoie~e ne~+sa, am aa s n. following services (for an extra fee1: RECEIPT ~ ~~DFESS OF OEOV[~Y ~ oELNEm' • f}int you~ nam° aiM atldress an ~ne revarse o~ ~his form so Ihat we cen reNm this card ceRnFiEOFee+aEluarvneceivr ~0~~ 1. ^ P~ddressee'sAddress SEHVICE Aflach this fomi to fhe tmM oi the mailpiece, or on the back if space doea irot permH. roluaa~rncenHOFees . ~ ~te^FeWmRecElptRequested",onMemailplecebelmv~hearticlenumber. 2. ^ ReStflCtedDeliVery Tlre Retum Receip~ Fee will provde yuu ~he signaNre of Iha person dciivarad ~o arM IY~e Consult postmaster for fee. ~ NOINSUPF C COV EvRVVNeIi- ~ CBIEO~tl21NBIV. I N - s`EN~' T~: NOTFOPQ~NtEnNOTIaNAIMPIL ~ ' 3. (1hIC12 AddfE55C(1.[O: Q~. /~((IC~2 NIlf11b2f ~ I ,~ I`~,yr~~caa~.z Lf ~r~i:ty' L, *'1yzu3s „ ' ~, ~a,y,~,,. ~ P 917 4 4 6 0 2 5 ~ ~ 4b. Service Type I ~ ~s77 ~.~~x s~, ti . . ~e~~ ~aa~ s~ r ~ til~~t :idg«s C!1 8At733 N. ~ ~itae~at~ Bl3.dg~F G'~C7 f34m33 ~ a I - . ~ a Td,es l~S~,u~~5-2 #211 t+iR. ln~t ~~95-I (21) !dF€ y '~`... ~ 5. Signature - (Addressee) , PS FORM 3800 ~p ~ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED ~~ ~i~~1~~ / ~~,~ = I -~.w~- _ --r--- -- - --- ~ 6. igna re - (Agent) ~ ' a ~ ^.^- _^ - -P0.STAGE PdSTM ~. ~ ? ~ .d ~ ~ r r3 0-' d I~_ - T (J m I ~ 0 PETURN ^ SH(riN TO VJI10M. ~ATE RND/ RESTFIGTED / OELN[RY II aeceiar AOF~RGSSnF0E1lVEPV ' PS Form 3811, December 199~ T CFFIIFIEO FEE+qENPN FECFPT ~, ,, SERVICE TOTNL PO$TA(iE ANO F[ES VVV ~~ SENT T~. NU INSUNPN(:t VOVtXPIit VXV VIYGU ~ NOTFOF~NTETMNOl10NALMPIL pyy' ~{'x~~ . _ _. ~'.~..~~}'~{~ ~ ~~'~Y~il W~io~~ t~~znc~ ~;r~itw~i~n~r . . , F.~,~.~rsa~ ~~;a'J Ird .~a1ClL~ klf~'@k7t1eL , ~ Y Wi»aC ~i.uge CU A04~3 u~73aa~,t 3223..c~qc3 CU k30~33 . ~~t !~s-93-1 (.1) i~ ~aaS Y~S.b`-•g,~y'M~. {2~.} PsR . . . ~ 5. Signature~ - (Addressee) ~ ' PS FORM 3800 . ~'~+/Z ~ Y ~ ' ` ,~'~ ~~'~ L ~ /~ ~' ~ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED h~} s. Signa~ure -(ngen (~ " ~ ~ Po~,a~E . . __- - - _ _ - ~ rosrm RETURN ~ SHOW l0 WMOM, ~ATE AND/ aezmicreo ~ _ ; PS Form 3811, December 1991 m REGEIPT AO~aE55oP0EWEPY oEWERV LEWIFlE~ FEE+qETUPN FECPPT SEfNICE - TOTALPOSTAGEANpFEES NV INdYXPNV[(:UVtNPUernVVll]EO- SENT f~ NOTFOPINTEPNATONFLMPIL :~F ,~ ~~,.~ I.f1 V~.'L1T1 .f3 ~e3C~?i".AA ' ~~~J (:C~#~.Z( $~G . . ~nifz~ti.#: ~idr~~ Gt3 ~flt~3~ , ~ S T N ra 0~' ~ ~~ z~: Ms-~S-~1 tZ2) t~7~t t ~ PS FORM 3800 sJ4~ C~1t~~ $C wJtxeatG FRidg~ iteax &~k;-9~w1 5. Signature - (Addressee) ~IJ `- .~Gr~.tC~it~; / 6. Signature - (Agent) ~ CERTIFIED 7. ~•.. .f~ver~ I ~ ~~,~,~~ ~ i ~/ 8. Addressees Address (ONLY if requested and fee paid.) DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT ~ ---Y ~ L 7 R R 1] CTZ-~I" - ~ 4b. Service Type , ~ CERTIFIED ' 7. Date pf Delivery v~@d see'sAddress ~ ~~'~~~ requested and fee paidJ I~nr~l .J ~r `B,C~~fFSTIC RETURN RECEIPT ...r.-,r'~ r~,~ ~ ao. service lype ~~ $a4~$ ~'~I~ ~ CERTIFIED ~~a,~ r~ ~ 7.Date of D livery ~-~-9~~ 8. Addressee's Address '~ ONLY if requested and fee paid.) .~.JJ~r~ ~v-,e. ( ~'' RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED t PS Form 3511, December ~99~ VMIlEO5T4lF5 PoBIOASEfMCE DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT ~ --`. - - -.-_ - vosratiE ._.- -..-' - .- POSTMk SEH9ER: __ .,._ -.- - _ - _ .,- _. _ - _ - , aeruaN SHpNTOWHOM,~ATEAND R[STPICTED •CompletePemsl~sM/w2brantlifwnelservices. IaI50wiShto~eCBIVOIhB RECEIPT I ~oRessoFOEwEM ~oElrveav ~ ~ •co,,,p~e~ens~a,armnaxn. followingservices(foranextratee): CEqrIFlEDFEE+PETI1FNflECEiPT • R'iM you~ ~Bme and atltlres9 on iM 2verae of this form s0 ~hai we can retum Ihis cartl SERVICE ~ ~ ~ovw. 1. ^ Addressee'sAddress ..~ TOTAL POSTAGE PND FE[5 • AtlaCh ~h5 M~m to iha hon~ d ~he maiipiei~, or on ~he back i~ space does ~rot permi~. p ~ ~ • Wnte "RaNm Receipt Heq~usied° on Ihe maitpiece bebw the adicle numben 2. ^ R83trICiEd DEIIVBIy. - N nu~na~nqNCE ~~vtna~t Nxuviue~- - I • The Re~u~n Recs4~ Fee will prohtle yrou ~he sgralure o~ Ihe person AHlvared to ahtl ~ire (`,p~SU~t 0 n SENTTO[ NOTFOF~NTERNFrwaTONqLMPIL aa~Pm,hiNxN. P stmasterforfee. a Articie Addressed to: - , 4a, qrticie Number ~ ~ui~rey C~arn~c~~.~ ~ ~y~~~,~~. ~~~~~~~~~ P 917 4 4 6 0 2 6 ~ SSC}5 #~t 98~h .~v'~ ~3~l.5..~t. _ ° „;. z 4b. Service Type ~~ ~ h;~`ia~3At 4ti$~~ Cq ~t3i~3~ ~• Wh~t Ri.dgw ~f3 84C133 ~ CERTIFIED ~- ~x bt~""$5-J. {~1}~{{, ~ 7.Dateo oelivery ('~ ~- . ~y b~^~`~"~ 4.~X~1"E~t ~~ 2~ rZ T , PS FORM 3800 9 5. 5' ature -(Addressee) 8. Addiessee's Address ~' RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED fu ~~~ ~L~i[~L_ Q/C-JC~ ~(~NLY if requested and fee paid) ;ENOER: I also wish to receive the I ' I Pos.ace ^ " POSTMi Complete items i and/w 2 br additional services. ~~ ~~-' FETURN SHOW TO WHOM.DATE AN~ aesmicreo • co^w~ece aems a. znd aa a n. following services (for an extra fee): ' 4 1 ~ noonESS oF OewEav ~ Oetrvear ~ • Print your name s~Nf adAmss on ihe mrrse o~ ihi~ torm so ~ha~ wx can re~u~n ihis cartl ' REGEIPT ~ m yw. 1. ^ Addressee's Add2ss ~ I CE(i11FlEO FEE ~~ flEIUFN FECBPT • Attach N~s ~wm lo ~he iron~ of Ihe iuailpece, or on Ihe back i( 90ace does ra~ permit. SEftVICE • Write "RelurnReceip~ Repuested° on Ihe mailpiece hebw lhe atlick numbec 2~ ^ RBSII'ICIEd DBIIV21'Y 1 (jJ ~ I TpTALPoSTAGEANO FEES • The fteturn ReceNt Fee wifl pravide yw h'~e si9nature af the person delrv62tl to ard IM1e ~~sult postmaster for fee. ~ ? rvo MS~NCt wvenw~c pxovmeu - tlate of tleliverv- } I~ ~ SENT TO: NOTFONMTE~XEHnONPLMAl4 3. AYIICIE AddYQS52d IO: Qy, AfIICIE NUI11I72f ~ I ~~b ~~~~~~ P 917 446 042 i I, I ;_° ;~ts2x ~1i3.st~Yc : t ~ .~ ~g~ ~~~y ~~ ab. Service Type , ~Qt'~~Q +:~7~~' ..S''~'. ~ I ~ hTheaG Rfdgtd CQ~ $OA33 ~`'~.'¢^~ ~ CERTIFIED a ;ritaet~~ ~~.tAg~ Ci3 ~4A3~ ;~ , ~ ~ 7. Datef,pFt/ey~ln~eryf/ ' ^` I~ L 3~"~ .r~"' j. { 2 X. j AS E~. ~ RB @ ~+b8"g r~""' ~. {.2 ~. ~ k~ ~// L-~ C1 1 ,~ =: ' ' '~ 5.ry-~~~, natu (Addresse n 8. Addrd§~ee's A dress~ PS FORM 3800 V,l~~, ~,~-~) '/~_ _/~ (ONU~it req~ted and fee paidJ ~ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED ~, vJ ~'U" v _ Xl ~" _ _„~~,~,,,h~~~_~__ _~__ _ 6.Signature-(Agent) RETURN II P~TAGE ~ POST~'~~ ~ I ( A~Dq 530FDEUVEBYRND/ OEL£RVED~ ~ ' aeceiPr PS Form 3811 ~ December tssi DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT ' I LEqTIFlE~FEE+FETMNPECEIPT I ~~ • SERVICE ~ ~ 47 I TOTALPOSTAGEANOFEFS I ! I V N NVINJVXPNI:[GVVtNPVt~IUtU~ ~ - ' " O SENT TO: e,o*.on,~H mANOATIONALMqIL - ~ - - - „n ~'h'~'~~ ~~'~+~~ ~ $~p~~ ~ CERTIFIED ~. '1'$loli~ilPi r'}' f u+'- S11C3.~lA 3: ~'~,dCiE$S . . ; . ~' ~~~~ ~,.~~~ $~ ttNtt :~'1£6-95-~1 (~21} ~ 7.DateofDelivery ~, a Ylh~t~~ :~idg~ ~3 8tD033 , ~ ~- ~ ~-~ l Q., ~~ ~ 5. Signature -(Addressee) ` 8. Addressee's Address d ' ~f ~^•~~w~ (~~.j ~"~ . . . S.~A.~~.~[., ~~~ (O~Yrirequestedsndleepaid) 6. SignatLre - (Agent) ` ~ PS FORM 3800 ~ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED :, PS Form 3811, December i99~ DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT ~~ ', ~ VNIIEOSA25 ~ PoSTIL5EIM[E I ~ x i I ::. „~ ....-~ --^^ ,__,., ._..-- .~- ~---^ ._..r~P'~~ ~- - r PJS_~...~. n 5E PNO~ A.~S~AYE~ ut m O .~ S 5 r a u- ~ou9 ~a1l,a~~3~~x A~taS ~'cdSl'y ~'CZ'~6~'~ Y~~t~'+Dt~ ~'.c~~~ ~ 0. ~ _ i~ PS FORM 3800 1 - ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .~ S S C`- a ~- 0. ~„~ ~ SEIJT ~v. 3,S~,c~..cy5•1 ~;2~.) 2~41L >>~~ f.EIPT ~-,E'~R(IFl~EO FEF i -RE~TJPNPE TOWLPOSTAG~ ....lus~R~ ......wu inONO 1 ~~zs~~ ~~17.~~ Y $~+4~rJ ~1f?Y+P17C ~uC~ ' S1~Y~lE!'~. ~~'~~ ric.,.-•_ ~ _ - ` POS1M~ ~a`vE0`` `l r- I also W ish to YeCerve me fo11ow1~J services (for an extra Fee1~ , k ~ y~~pr Z for add~bnslserviws ~ retum ~~ ~d ~, [] Addressee's Address i ilete it~%3. and dz & b. se of ihis fa~m so ihal ~~ ~ , ~~e~e'~~"'~ ~es ,wi ce~~~ 2, [] Restric[ed Delivery your nam= and add~ass a~ l~ ~'''~ ~ Qn ,~ ~~'rf s~ace n~n~s ~,,,, ro me trort o~ me maupe`e: ~pnsult postmaster for tee. f 3RB~M1R~~P'~Fp¢quesle~~ iF~=ma~lpecebe'~owtMe~liclenum ~ ya 1M1'~y s~9naNre M 5he F~~^ derwred to ard tM 4a. A~ticle Numberµ 4~ ~ 3 5 G e~ pddressed to: P 917 ~_ L)~cYLI"~ C3~11~'~6~ ~ , gQ{~~.~ LRM.+6~A~.' ~,G1~~ ~3 ~o'S~~rei ~~i~ ~°~ PS F mo1 3811, December ~991 ... w~i4~ n ~,~,~,~ ~ id0a Upvraz St .. .. t FtYY+e~t ~"(} ~~~~~ .. . .. ' t ~,~.~~"). ~~}•} ~ es el ~ ~~~~M~ ~~~~ ~ ~~i 5. Signature --~ (~~ 7 ~ ~ RECE~PT FaR CE1~~FtiED ~ 6. Siqnature -(A9en ) ~ - -f -L- '~ PS FaRM 3800 ~~ J x~~! _ ---^ pecem6~f 1995 ;~nw,ER.x~ ~ pS Farm 3811 j y;~~ : ~~~ Hflfl33 4b. Service TyPe ~ CERT{FIED `, 7. Date of D,e~iyer±~`~ ~ -. /~ 8. Addressees Address (ONLY it reQuested and fee paid.l ~ . ~ 1 DOMESTtC RETURN RECEIPT ~, ~ ~ JI - ~I p 517 N46 (145 _i , qp. Service TyPe '~ CERTIFIED ~ G ~ nAip f Deli ery .~,~" 7 r^ , ~- l 1` g!Addressees Address d'eB ~~d.~ (ONLY if requested an -- '~ ~ DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT ; ~ 1 m d W R N .t. X ~ ~. N N 9 ~ ~ N (' d m Q ~ fiJ j t W N p W O f o N y m~ .~ { L U Nj = h S 7 ~ 3 v a ~ Q ~ ` N ¢ ~ N EN T ~ Q N ~ O ~ N V N O- U ~ O ~- Ga v N ~ ~ E E ~ ~ E ~ ~ m ~ 'o 0 i @ ~$'$~ • __ ~. ._ _T F' ~ a w , U ~ w p c f m Z ~ p ~ W F s _ ~- U ~ r ~ U > rr N ~~ o' W ~ ~ o _ Y L ~ la ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a of mE~ 3 m°u~ L Y t~0 ¢ ~ ~' ° a~~ m Qy o m gym `oa3 ~ ~+ _ C V ~ V 'T r ~ O q p I q Sb N ~ J U d ` p O ~ ' a ® ~~ /.f •1 =l d t Vf ~ m E~~ ~ ~y .,,,. o<~ ~~~ o ° c~ i a fmm LL ~V.~ ~ ~ ~ 'y M d ~~~ Pc t ° ~ ~ C r L.0 ~. ~ mm a 2Q :9 T ~ ,.y 9 M J cn>. c. rt o 4 i wEEc m ~`-`-~.Y o'.- RI SY CS ¢a d- W Z 6 N ~ ¢ w aw ~ V O~ FOFNa w t7 3LL0 LL o¢ °w a F z J p iQ ~ O U ~ W C W W W 6 2 //1 '~ ~ ~~ y ~ry D h E LL a m m ~ 9 N N ~ m ,~ N .~ N T ~ J o Z a O y Y' 9~ ~ ~~ M ~,~ ~ C5 .L 1"'3 W ~ ry V ~ `~ ~ M ~ Ci N N ~ N y d '~ ~ t..E ~ ~ Lf1 ~ ~ a ' N ~ N s,. a 1~ a h ~ w p a W_ ~ N ~ W T , ¢ N ~ ~ U - Nd m ~_ N Q ~ ~ \\~ o O ~•v ~ I ~ A v ~1 W q4 a-a ~ V y ~ N E ~ !h m ~ ~ ~ c m o d 4 ~ ~ m , ~ ~ ~, . y y ~ 6i C ~ ~ w ' -~ o €~! G& o~ ` M •• ~ ~, ~ ~ ¢ N a~ ~ y 4M 'R w ~ N¢ C = V V Y /~ j j 1 O ~ ryr~ ~ p O ~ JJ ` F{ J ' w 00 w ~ G .! Q # ~ ~ ' LL si0 o G ~z f w V• zIF • `["~ 1 II Q ~w G O 6 ~ ~ d ' V r~ i ~ #s f v ao ~ ~ p ~ ' ! ~ fj 9.• C (~ ~ 4 N6 V FV ~ ` Yt 3=? v~{y~ ~a M W Y 1 - I $ if . a W . A YI ~~~•• 1~ y i 4 Wt `~ 0~ ~ ~ U Z "~ •'~f :L ~' ~ y wU~ W KSF N. ~1 ¢ ¢ rWi ~ i 9E0 9hh Z`~6 d Z20 9hh ~.`C6 d ,{} p ~ h w ~ £ ~ ~ L rsy. r i'~'t ~~~ I y ,,,-- a ^ c" s~ J °J J~ ~ -. m - 2 ~ ~ y ~° W a _ W F- ~ ~§ W ~ ~ U O ~ ,~ 4 f \ F ~ a ~ as W U I ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ I w ' ~ a ' ~~ ~ ` ... . ~~ ~"~ o ~ I a m nk ~ = ~ VV x~ w LL~= M R ~ o '~ m y ffi 3 sW OV o G ~F K 30 ~ H i°OZ rJ 9 `"i° #~ w ON rN - ¢ a _ Y~1 ~yy p I r r 6 xo w o ~ LS ~°~' O t a m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q LL _ z ~ m ~ W F- ° Z ~ w w ~ ~ a ~ Q (L N _. EE U 9 hh Z't6 d 01 d a m 0 T T OD M E li Id -r -° 0 w lL W U OC O LL a w U O m a s a "'-=-~-'--~_'__' a_ m~ N ~ a w p U ~m-a T w p n W > ~ a i ~ ~. fr m`o w ~ ~ O ~ C Z -°' -p ~ ~ \ ~ c U ~ ~ ~ m ~ p E .~ w ~ m 7 J m > ~ w ° ~ ~ ~ ~ W - .3 Y D m ° ~ S ~ ~ ~ _ oaiC¢ a a w ~~ U J w ~i E M1 ~, (J m p ._ N N 0' U ~C]( ~ w rn ~ W ~( Q d [q ~ ~ ~ O .' ~ V V r N 5 C O O ~ ~8~ s~ ~~~ a w N a T O w v ¢ ~ w ~ N ~ w p ry ? 2 r,~ 5 ` ~ BYE ~ E Y§'o C y °~~ ~ C ~- ri r4 z ~ g, ~ ~.. ~ w m ~ ~ ~:~ W ~ ` .i $^ __ _._.. . O ~x ETmu? Y~Q G~ ~°1 p ~ ~ ~ t V N A. S&~ ~ LL Rca 5_ ~ O o ~ ~ ¢ ~ a (]._ I M ~ i D 'o Q N m ~ ~ N ~ IJ'dl ~ w T R W Q v~~ °~3' m ~ I ~ I prp I I _~~ °o ~ » ~ M d m ~ SVU6 ~a5~Q~ 6 ~ (n (lJ ~fn ~ 0 m.......•~ vi <p a ui' cd f ~ -- ~ __~s ~_ _._ -- . r ~ ~ I y o 0. ~ W y o d ~ { U ~LL ~ \ 4 ert o >~ c a A N~ F po 6 _ o ~ W +5i o a ~~~ w ~ LL w~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ _ ~ W ~ ~ Z W W ~ IOi { q 5 zOzD ~ LL r =2 .~ KK P 'J ~ 3 pW O ~ _ .y p AIE W "V ~ ~ } ~ [ ~ C ~ u ~ ~ i yw{ ~ W ~ y R ~ M ~4 ~ y~ a Z = ~ z jJ F } W ¢ 6 6 w ~ Oho 9hh L'I6 d w s+s ~1 UC ~~ C sib ri NW~ r OS '~ CO ~ 2 ~q ~a .~ r a~ z ow= ..t 00 W Q~ ~~` sh~ y~ LL 6 ¢h' % F 1 A O v v.~ O O OO W o Z rta4 V 'U'{ G ~a l: <~ ~ 6 N6 V C ~~A ~ c~ p~ Y S i(( c~ G ~ O W ~ ~ b G ~' yyppyy sg ~~^}g O ~ J W > Z µq M Y LSf W W W W '' 2 ~ ¢ ¢ w ~ a f 6E0 9hh L`L6 d II 0 w LL W U O tL F a w U w w a h S x m a? ~ U m ,~a~o a B. w nt a _~ m d m w ~ ~ m , c i ~ m m° m ~ ~ O ~ a O ~ ^ "1 ~.. a ° m m m E . 0 w N N 7 .~ w y ~ U N C N m . S LL' 0 D F- S LL N ~O .~ .n N a ~ ~ m m 6~ ~- ~ 9 i- ~ ~ a .a.? ~ " ¢ j W ~ CL `m ' p ~ ~ ~` a L 'p ¢ ~ O ~ l~ 4 W T U N ~ ` 'ry N - V ~ ~ ¢ W T U N l p^~ y N ^ ^ C - -3 ~ ~ Z rl I- m d „ ~ Z ri (n - 1- v ry p N m „~ o ~ (V ~ ~' ~( ~ lol o h .- ~ ~ m W ~ Q'" .~ ~ o m ~- ~ ~ p ¢~ °~' m --OOp O as in m ap - o a~ o ate. .E ~ V h N ~ -~ V I~ c0 ~ ~ m `0 0 m o ~ v$ ~R ~Eo ~y 5~ @ z N `mc ~~~ ~ (~7 e ~ ~'~ W G g 3 € $ yy g Gd o Q~ ^ r9 W ~ .~~~ C `s = ~o$ °m ¢a 'o °m ~ ~ LYl d F M@ 5Z? ~pf ~ N 3 /i i OS C gm°c omn m ~ L Q $ Q Lei ~~~ m o¢bi ~c¢ m ~ I t=~~ ~ ~ to ~. ~ ~m~ t~v N CC .F! ~~11 ~ C I f~ O {~`i G ~., 05 r1 Y N ~ ~ _ ~ d ~i $ F a A CT if} ~ ~ E 'i ~ ~ ~ ~ m n yy ~ Q Q T ~+ ~ ~ r I i E d t ~ ~$ $ Fie c D) q ~ ~ a Fi ~ m Q I N w d l LL I W - • - - U~ Of LL ~ ~ a I en W i r~Y U I i ~°+ _ ° H ~ ~+ G~ W o u~ ua °J $} C- y. ~ ~~ ¢ ¢~ ~ £ ~ ~} wJ W a o h ¢J .~ O ¢ ,i ~ ¢ O R C ¢Z yy V ~ Q 2 W u Z a R W O C+4 YVS \I I WR ¢ a 4 oWR > ¢ ~ WZ O~ Z ~ 00 + Q ~` ES rA vi ~[ W ~ I OD ~ W I~ U' 1 w y F O_ ?¢ ~J ~ ~ 3 w r ,( G wU' Fw ~ u 0 ~K 4 '! ~ I ~ 3a W ' ~ . o io ~ o z 2i Q [Ft {q Csi ~ I g 4`~°a u s w ~ ~ ~ at ~ ~ ~ = g " Z 1'] ~ ~ p ¢ ~ w ~ w w ~ ~ h w a m . ~ . m .~ - - .. ~, ~. a w U a ~ n Z ~ I- W m ~ w LL ~ a a U ~ w a a h ~ ~ >_ ~ m Q ~ g ~ o m >. o ~. z ^ o ¢o r ~ m N M E I1 a ¢' LL ~ ~ ai m =~ ^ ~+} ~ o '' ~ V 49 _ ,^'S M V w W 9 ' ~ h 'X a a i ~ I 1 I ~ d m y 7 C C Yy i ~J iN ~ ` N ui ib N U 0 M la O LL a w ~ ~.~ `~ o~ ~ it v ,j o e w ~a i~ y~~ ~ ' W WQ ] ~ U~ Il V \~.I/ ~1 E{ O~ W 6 pF 4/ W ~( uJ ~ ~ ~ ~ • W ON W a =Z M4 ~ ~Y U ~w .wt NN J 2 "~J ! ~i YY "~ G Oo w (r[~~ ~ yi~+~ y~~ Q 45a '* M ~ ~ 6 'v=i6 O F W V .}6 V V OJ m Cq"~ cm My y ~{ L ~. ~ O ~ ~} k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z E-s r"s !~. ~ d e w a ~ w w W r..~. - (n ZEO 9hh Z`I6 d f 2E~ 9fih ZZ6 d ! Eh0 9hh ZT6 d E d d ~ ~ ~'` w w ~ a N N ` ~ a S C ~` ~ >~a>s f~l 1 N~ r O O \ ' d o _w m w o __ ~ W O ~ E U N C S - N 'p y B a s ~ ~ ~ T ~ tN' 4 om <~ d °' L LI ~~^^ ~ Za a ~ U _ °J _ N Q m~ 3p ~ N~ N~ y ~( U ~y~ O _ Iq ~, d (7 n Q ~ Q a = ~ ~ C r N ~ E v ~ F ~~ E o ~c~ ~ ~8~ i ~~~ t =a~ w ~~~ _ ~~'o „~ =d~ ~ 4 s ~m~ a7 ~~m "~ ~~_v ~ f`i s ~ ~o °m o `ovg ~ (Q ~ ~ 4 g c m "' S 7a71~ ~ u f Aga o~@_ ~ a ~~~ o¢~ w.~~~~~~a of _ __._. ...u r ~~ ~ ' W ll. a W ~ a w N a Z ~ W a ~ ~ F- LL ~` ~ a T ~ ~ Q F- I F v w 4 -~ d W V ~ ~ ~ ? ~ d Z 0 N Q ~ ~ ~ r ~ C5 6 m ~' (©7 ... "" r ry~ ~ ~ ~ ' tr ri ~ d N ~ C O r ~ }. ~ ~ 1_ a O\ M O ~ r S 3 y~ W3 M C w ~ II a _ _. I _ _._ + _ _. __~ ~ -.. ~I _. W U ~ ( ~f \ ~ _ al w ~ ~ en U l o ~ 0 p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ¢ ~Z ~f .;. ry CA W T ~ y F ¢ _ a e } \ O s ~ i r Ti C W aZ ~f +i • 6 Q w W C WQ j Wi VZ ~ ~ ~ ¢¢ ~ ~ V ? S a ° f' ~ ` y j 3 ~ vs .~,~ yS rI + <~ oa w F ~ i!S 91 ~ ' I ~3o LL ~ X30 'w` 'O t `~! M n ° ~ iz I . w ~ ~ `'~ '~ ~ ~ o S ~s ~ `s ~ _ 6 N U OF O O ~ I O i'• W M ~ ~ Z ~- u Z- ~ rii I j w ~ w w w ~ .. a ~ h ~ ¢ ¢ - ... l V t 45 h $ A ~7. ~ Q! } ° o ~ ~ ~ ae ~ O ~ ~ a hE^ 9hh L'C6 d I hh0 9hh L'C6 d _-~----.r_e~~. __~__-, tl~ a a N Q 1 D W m v- m a w ~m ~ a ~ r U ~ = " d ~ U ~ ~ '~- N ,~ N > d ~ ~ ~ ~ O a ~ ~ m z W LL W U O LL a w U W rat m c ~ o .U ^f .. rl ~ m ~ ~ d E tq Est v~ ~ K (~ y r' T ~ t"3 M R S w O L L a ¢wG = W Q Z W o~ a¢ C Ew + oa y~~ ~$ w 6 o, r c $o w 's a~s~s ~ _ U a w U w Q vi ~~ b 't '~ V Y Y M O ~ `te`a ~ ~ N a LED 9hh L'I6 d ~~, _.~ m m s O E LL a 0 W LL W W U O LL a w U W S ~Z~vjs~~ s/z C~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: May 8, 1995 DATE PREPARED: April 26, 1995 CASE NO. & NAME: MS-95-1 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a three-lot subdivision with variances LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8501 West 38th Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. 2055 S Oneida, # 210, Denver 80224 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Gary & Marlayne Herrera 8501 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge APPROXIMATE AREA .78 acre PRESENT ZONING: R-2 PRESENT LAND USE: Single-family residence SURROUNDING ZONING: N. W. E: R-2; S: PCD, R-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N. W. E: single family residential; S: office, church COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Low-density residential DATE PUBLISHED: April 20, 1995 DATE POSTED: April 24, 1995 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: April 24, 1995995 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX } ATTACHED ()NOT REQUIRED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ATTACHED ()NONE ENTER INTO RECORD: ( )COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS ( XX ). ZONING ORDINANCE ()SLIDES ( XX) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (XX) EXHIBITS ( )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. _ ! Planning Division Staff Report Page 2 Case No. MS-95-Y 1. REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a three-lot subdivision with variances for property addressed as 8501 West 38th Avenue. The property in question is located at the northwest corner of Cody Street and West 38th Avenue, is zoned R-2 and contains .78 acre of land. There is an existing single-family residence on the site which has been incorporated into the subdivision. 11. SUBDNISION DESIGN The applicant is proposing athree-lot subdivision to create a separate lot for the existing house (Lot 2) and create two duplex lots (Lots 1 and 3). Lot 1 will be a "flag" lot which is allowed provided there is adequate fire access and utility service. There are numerous mature trees on the property. These trees are shown on the plat and a note has been added regarding removal. There is an existing easement for access to the ditch which runs along West 38th Avenue for the property to the north of Lot 1. This easement will also act as a drainage swale. A retention pond drainage easement is shown at the northwest corner of the Lot 3. No right-of-way dedications are required for West 38th Avenue other than a corner radius for a handicapped ramp. Cody Street is substandard in width as only 40 feet of right-of-way exists where 50 feet is the standard for a local street. Since the subdivision to the east dedicated 25 feet, only 15 feet of right-ot-way exists west of the center line. Hence, the normal requirement would be ten feet. However, the street was actually built with curb and gutter on both sides within the 40-foot right-of-way, without sidewalks, therefore only five feet of right-of-way dedication is needed to accommodate the required sidewalk. The applicant is proposing the subdivision without dedications in order to maintain Lots 1 and 3 as duplex-sized lots. They would be willing, however, to grant a sidewalk easement on Cody, which would allow them to build walk and maintain the duplex-sized lots. The City usually accepts easements for sidewalks on lots which are already developed, but requires dedications for raw land. Lot 2 is the only developed parcel, whereas Lots 1 and 3 are vacant. Please refer to the attached Exhibit 'A', which discusses the need for dedication versus easement. To further complicate this case, the owner of what is shown to be proposed Lot 2 has submitted a letter (Exhibit C) explaining that when they purchased the property, they thought that they were buying 9,000 square feet of land with the house, however, if dedications for Cody and the corner radius occur, they will have less than they thought that they purchased. They are asking that the sidewalk requirement be a dedication rather than an easement because they do not want the liability. They also ask that Lot 2 be no less than 9,000 square Peet AFTER the street dedications occur. Essentially, the applicant, Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc., violated both State and our Planning Division Staff Report Case No. MS-95-1 Page 3 subdivision laws by offering to sell, and then selling off a portion of this property. In the process, it appears that the purchaser (the Herrera's) were mislead, if not defrauded. They are not opposed to the subdivision occurring, they just want the 9000 square feet that they thought they purchased. In the R-2 zone district, a minimum of 12,500 square feet lot area is required for duplex development. Asingle-family lot must have a minimum of 9,000 square feet of lot area. The following is a table which compares lot sizes with the different right-of-way options. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 No dedication (sidewalk easement) 12,515 sq tt 9,107 sq ft 12,567 sq ft Corner radius n(a 8,995 sq ft nJa 5' ROW dedication 12,430 sq ft 8,535 sq it 11,861 sq ft 10' ROW dedication 12,345 sq ft 8,075 sq ft 11,156 sq ft III. VARIANCES ff right-of-way dedications are required which reduces either or both of Lots 1 and 3 below the minimum lot size for duplex development, the applicants are requesting variance(s) so duplexes can be built. Variances must be considered separately from the other cases and requires a greater than- majority vote based upon Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 2-53(s). and Section 26-6(D)(2). Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance: 1. Can the properly 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? It the right-of-way dedications are required, the property could still be used for single-family development, or possibly two single-family and one two-family lot. Staff concludes that this is reasonable use. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Circumstances are not unique since dedications for right-of-way are a standard requirement for any new development or subdivision in the City. 3. K the variation was granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The property is surrounded on three sides by single family residences. Although duplexes are still considered low density development, it may be said that it could alter the character o4 the area if duplexes are built within asingle-family area because they would be different than what is already there. Planning Division Staff Report Case No. MS-95-1 Page 4 4. Would the particular physical surtounding, 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? Staff concludes that there is no hardship, other than economics, in this case. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other properly within the same zoning classification? If variances are granted, a precedent could be set for allowing development based on gross lot area (prior to dedications), rather than net lot area (after dedications). 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the propertyr? The request for variance is based solely upon a desire to make more money out of the property as duplex development will generate more income than would asingle-family development. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant maintains that the City has created the hardship by requiring right-of-way dedications. Staff, however, concludes that the alleged economic hardship has been created by the applicant by purchasing the properly prior to receiving final approvals and has further complicated matters by illegally selling oft a portion of the property to a second party. 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? The variance would not be detrimental to public welfare. It is difficult to determine how it would affect improvements in the neighborhood. 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? The number of vehicle trips per day would double although it is questionable as to whether it would create congestion in the public streets. Adjacent property values could be affected with the denser development. Staff has concluded that the request for variance is purely economic and fears that a precedent would be established for figuring allowed density on gross land area rather than net land area. For these reasons, Staff concludes that the evaluation criteria does not support approval of this request. Planning Division Staft Report Page 5 Case No. MS-95-1 The applicant has submitted a rebuttal to Staff's comments regarding the evaluation criteria. See Exhibit 'B'. N. AGENCY REFERRALS All agencies responding can provide service to the property. Parks and Recreation Commission is requesting $75 contribution for each new unit. Public Works is requesting afive-foot-wide right-of-way dedication for Cody Street to accommodate the required sidewalk. There are problems with the legal description which must be corrected. The nature of the legal descriptionfsurvey problem may further reduce the lat areas by moving the east lot lines one foot wesC,Shereby further complicating the lot area issues. If it is determined that the east lot lines are incorrectly located, then they will be required to be correctly drawn, and the resulting revisions to lot area and width adjusted accordingly prior to recording the plat. A preliminary drainage report has been reviewed. V. ADDI170NAL CORRESPONDENCE Included under Exhibit 'D' and 'E' are copies of petitions presented relating to this case and letters in opposition. The petition signers oppose duplex development on this property, however, would not object to single family, R-2 lots. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Planning Commission reviewed these requests at a public hearing held on March 2, 1995. In regard to the variances, a recommendation of Denial was made for the following reasons: 1. The variance requests are purely economic. 2. Circumstances are not unique. 3. A precedent could be established for calculating density on net lot area rather than gross lot area. 4. The evaluation criteria do not support approval of this request. In regard to the subdivision, a recommendation for approval was given for the following reasons: All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. A 15-foot corner radius and ten foot of right-of-way be dedicated for Cody Street. The plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 2. Problems with the legal description be corrected. Planning Division Staff Report Page 6 Case No. MS-98'1 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff concludes that the right-of-way dedications for the corner radius for a handicapped ramp and the ten foot dedication for Cody Street are standard requirements. However, because only five feet is actually needed to accommodate the required sidewalk, we are recommending that only five feet additional street dedication be required. Staff further concludes that if the dedications are required, this is no rationale to justity variance approval and that the criteria do not support approval. For these reasons, a recommendation of Approval is given for the subdivision with the condition that the 75 foot corner radius and a five foot right-of-way be dedicated for Cody Street. Lot 2 shall have a minimum of 9000 sq. ft. of lot area, after all dedications occur. The subdivision needs to be redesigned accordingly, which may result in two single-family lots and one duplex lot. VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Variances (Only if right-of-way dedications for Cody Street occur) OPTION A: "I move that the request for approval of lot size and lot width variances to allow duplex construction at 8501 West 38th Avenue be Denied for the following reasons: 1. The variance requests are purely economic. 2. Circumstances are not unique. 3. A precedent could be established for calculating density on net lot area rather than gross lot area. 4. The evaluation criteria do not support approval of this request". OPTION B: "I move that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, be Denied for the following reasons: 2. 3. " Subdivision OPTION A: "I move that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, be Approved with the following conditions: 1. A 15-foot corner radius and five feet of right-of-way be dedicated for Cody Street. The plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 2. Lot 2 shall have a minimum of 9000 sq. ft. 3. Lot lines for lots 1 and 3 may be adjusted prior to recording provided that R-2 district regulations are met. Sol and Judith Bassow 4000 Dover Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge Planning Commission Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 March 2, 1995 RE: Multiple Unit Construction on Cody Street and West 38th Avenue Dear Planning Commission Members: We are strongly in opposition to the proposed building of two family or multi family homes in our neighborhood. We think that this might encourage absentee ownership and this in turn decreases property values. Please do not allow this proposed construction! Sincerely yours, /~~ ,~--/ i~"'v Sol and Judith Bassow ~ f1 ~j~ya..~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ,~.C?nr~nn n~ 1 ~ , ~ nC ,; J ~, ,t ~.~ ~,'~p;~.-;oginn '~i , 1. -f . ,:..muted by Ctty r.,...,_.:is[rator Mayor ~/ Council ~ City Clerk City Atty. ~ ~ t' r ~ ~~ ~ CG' ~'` ~~r , Clty Treas. Dept Heads: '~ + ~ ~,, ,, tJ -~- W~,, " ~+ n/ -...._...- . other. a'~ 1111-1 ~Ct~,s~ J `-Q7 ~ 7JG6,~~ . ,._ _. 0 ___~. __---------_.___.._ .~__....._ 2.,___._L-~ ~ ~ __ __._.-. ~' ~ -~ ~ ~- .Q~-elm '~ ~.~. ~" ~` • E., • CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado. who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Hmergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. NAME I~C~II t.()Pgl ~g~~Ue~ ~~~i~loe Sfoo33 elan .~a~,~~rt ~'n~tUi,,,-,~J .ADDRESS CITY S[(~NAT1)RE ~ ~Z2 -Cp ~-7O LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE 3g;~a p f LAP ~ ' ~ 3 3 ADDRESS CITY ~ SI NATURE ~Z2 -0369 II L~ ~ I $ LAST NAbfE 3~~S~y ~~ / S't` FIRST NAME 6~~3 M.[_ i ~' ~ SIGNING D TE `~' ~ ~.~ ~ v ADDRESS CITY IGNATURE LAST NAME Lt is FIRST NPuYtE /~ M.I. S[GN1tiG DATE 3 oa ueic- i NL ~ G~ ov ~ c` ADDRESS CITY ~ ATURE </2 I - ~fZ ~ 7 LAST NAME FQtST NAME M.[. SIGNING DAT ADDRESS CITY S[G ATL i f~ ~z ~= L.~ST ~A.1~ ~ FIRST N,a,ME SI I ~, SI . TNG DATE .~.DDRESS CITY % SIGrATLTLE /~ " J ,~ ~t CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 25U ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and tl~e Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. _-, ~ 3`f'~o ADDRESS 0 C-v~.( FIRSl!T``NAi W S LAST NAME FIRST NAMt :' • --- ~ ~~ 50 ,ADDRESS ~~\/ l= R St W t{ c ft c Q~ s1C ~- CITY SIGNATUit>r "~-~~ ' ~`t , ` 1~ LAST NA.\tE r FIltST NAME SIGH G ATE ~{ .ADDRESS o ~ ~ -CITY SIGNATURE o -(~i Z9 ~ O..S `N LAST NAME ~v .n - 0.'r FIRST NAME M.L SiGi 'G DATE 3~~ ' ADDRESS CITY SIGNA ~o G-~ ~ I o Sr~;~ r c+-1 ~ lIL1 0~ 1- l~ - 95 SIGNING DATE LAST NA.~fE ~~ FIRST N//AIvtE ~L. ~t.t. /~nJ /GAL ~~~c-r~ 3b _./Ot/O(~ j7_ o I~dLC6L2 SIGNATURE y3/, 546 :DDRESS CITY LAST VA:ME FIRST VAME M.L SIG~7iNC, DATE n1 annR~ee CITY SI URE ~/, j I.~ j ~-z ~'. CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. . We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the, Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. ___ ~ ~~/ LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE y2 S/ - ~Z 7~ LAST NAME FIItST ~1AME M.I. SIGNII~f ATE / ~(o? ~ iJ o ~, c~z. s~ w~k~,~,e.~ c~ ~ . (.v _ ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE h'~3-~-' J /- ~ _ LAST N fE FIRST NAME M.[. ~ ~ NTN AT ~ ~ ~: I ~ ~. r D .Y ADDRESS _ CITY SIGNA y~7 Q9 oL 0 0 ~ ,%~ ~, Gt/ ~/ ADDRESS CITY SIGNATL ~/~ ?j C.m~6 9 LAST NAME FIIiST NAIviF. M.I. ATE D SIGNING t ~ n ;DDRESS C[TY S i ATURE a/ ~~1~-9 / - / I `~1 , K ^, ~, . t..\ST ~;A,ME FIRST NAME fit.[ SIGNNG DATE 6~ir ym/ ' : ~ ~ ADDRESS C[TY SIGN TLI2E C, , ~l~~ ~ A-~ CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and thg Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. L.~~Lyf,~~t' Tu IGGG' ~ ~~c~, ~1 v~/ r/ 77fblJY ~ ~ /~~~ - % 5 LAST N FIRST NAME M.I. SIG G DATE .-\DDRESS CITY IGNAT ~!~/u ~ -~ - X0.5" LAST NAME FI1tST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ~ o D i! ~ ,~ I ~ ~ ,~~ ~az-3.3i ADDRESS CITY SI NATURE L.-\ST NAME FIItST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE .•\DDRESS CITY SIGNATURE LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. S[GNL~iG DATE ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE LAST NP.;~IE EIRST NAME M.[. SIGNING DATE tDDRESS CITY S[GNATLRiE LAST NAME FIRST vAME ~t.I. SIG`iNG DATE .DRESS -CITY SIGNATURE p_~ ~~ ~~ AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR [,~/~ Ar~2s c~..C.ehrer ,swear that I reside at (Circulator Printed Name) 3g3 g ~oye~ c~~-. Street Number and Name W~ea"t~id_ae. C~ ~Vf- V0033 City Co Zip Code that I have circulated the foregoing petition section; that each signature thereon was affixed in my presence; that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be; that to the best of my knowledge and belief each of the persons signing said petition section was at the time of such signing a resident of the City of Wheat Ridge, State of Colorado; I have neither received nor have I entered into any contract whereby I will in the future receive any money or other thing of value in consideration of or as and inducement to the circulation of the above petition by me and that I have not nor will I pay in the future and I believe that no other person has so paid or will pay, directly or indirectly, any money or other thing of value to any signer for the purpo~ ofinducing or causing such signer to affix his/her signature to such petition. Signature ofj~Cir~ulatorl Date STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ti Subscribed and sworn to before me this ('~ (rte day of ~.~ wA 19~ S . Notary Public (SEAL) ` My commission expires: ~~ \ 5 1a11n A ~~ CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and th@ Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. ._ As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. LAST NAME FIRST V M.I. SIGNING DATE .ADDRESS CITY S[GNAT _ ' V "7 LAST NAME FQtST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS ~ CITY SIGNA ~~~FZ.ISF7% C> 1/Jl~ % J/ii~~:~„ 1 it i .r LAST NA;btE r ^ - FIRST NAME M.[. SIGNING DATE ~`~-C~ ~G `r' Si~2Cr ~ t~rle/t i ci[I)L•r= c~:J, ,inn- /~ ~ ~ ,.G 1-~ CITY LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING ATE k'~~' c'~~v ` sT ~ ~~ti ~ 2~~G~ ~' cJ ADDRESS , CITY SIGNATURE ~~ vim ~ ~ _ 8", 9S LAST : A.ME FIItST NA,'vfE M.I. SIGNING DATE 3S~S~ C ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ 1DDRESS CITY ~ SIGNATURE `~" ` -"'~"~ FIRST NA,~tE M.[. SIGNING DATE c7 CITY SIGNATLItE R-i CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. I ~--ter Yl ~R v~`~ s I )-I~. ~ ~~, I .T I ~/~i ~ 5 LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE PRESS m CITY u SIGNATURE ~"!` /~ _ .-c LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS - CITY SIGNATURE !/ ~ SIGNING DATE LAST NA: FIRST NAME M.[. - ADDRESS ~ CITY SIGNATURE ~ LAST NAME FIRST NAME ~ M.I. SIt'iNING RA'Z`E L y _ [ /\ "~ ., ADDRESS - CITY SIGNATURE; :'. ;. I ~ LAST VA~ME'" FIRST NAME M.[. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE :~!' L.aST SAME FIRST NAME ~t.I. SIGNC~G DATE ADDRESS C[TY SIGNATURE g-z ~; CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area hat been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. _ : ___ •;~ t l ~ /fir! ~ < z ~}~( - - ~- ~ ~ f i S LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.I. ~ IG G DATE , ADDRESS CITY SIG A G ~ Ci P. f ~CY rn C% ~ . ~ ' ~ `7J` LAST N FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE % Cam ( 5 t L E'~ ,~ ~. ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRES CITY ~ S[GNA y ~y LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.[. SI ~ 'G DATE 1.-'~ ~' ~J \~ ti\ ~~ i, ,,t.~. ~ ~ c i ~'\.,~. , ADDRESS CITY ~ NATURE G S / d./ / ~ ~ ! ' LAST NAME F ST Nr4ME M.I. SICrNING DATE ~~~o~ C~i.~ ~ l~ -zl.L ~ l~ ,~ ., Imo- ~~ , \DDRESS C[TY SIGNA r z' `~' LAST vA.ME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE :. L~t ~:.~,... '>S 4' ~ C ~. 11.. <-/~ \tc.l~, a,' i r~i'~.J. `` . ADDRESS CITY ' ' SIGNATLTiE ` ~- (3-3 CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above aze nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all wtthin 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street nn W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and thF Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that aze in keeping with our neighborhood. _ __ i dnr. ~ j . ~ 11//f~A~ ~' CITY FIRST N ME M.I. SIGNING DATE LAST NAME NA^~ S C~ ~ i ,~ ~i ~~=~~ LAST NAME r uca i 3~ia n~~r, sf ~ l~~ .ADDRESS CITY ~oG caF ~ LAST NAB `~/n G/3C~ ~ ~J ~ ADDRESS ~a~~ ~ s FIItST NAME // )l^ cc>f~ CITY ~~~5~~ I I`chPr L.~ST NAME FIRST VA,YiE Uc`fn ~ac~y f~- ( t-J~~.-t .ADDRESS CITY ~rcf9-~ r, M.I. SIGMA ~-x'-95 ~~/-3~yJ SIGNING DATE 8'~ r~ '~ CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. _. As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. FIRST ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE ~C'~J+"er C{~Grlr?s ~ /-~3-95~ LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE 383 over S7- cheat id ~' lu ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE S~2t -0117 v LAST NA.~ F[ItST N ;~t.I. S[G~ G DATE ~/i DATE .ADDRESS u~~i ~~c ics ~ ~r~i/« ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~5°-yam ~ LAST NA1~fE FIRST NAME St.I. J SIGNTG DATE ADDRESS "' CITY LAST NA,\.t~ _ FIRST NPu~ ~t.t. S[G.NNG DATE ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE _~r ~~ AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR 1, j i,y~~ ~rj , ~' ] U ~-' L, swear that [reside at (Circulator Printed ame) ~Fs' c~~ . s y ~~ ~a-~~., Street Number and Name City County Zip Code that I have circulated the foregoing petition section; that each signature thereon was affixed in my presence; that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be; that to the best of my knowledge and belief each of the persons signing said petition section was at the time of such signing a resident of the City of Wheat Ridge, State of Colorado; I have neither received nor have I entered into any contract whereby I will in the future receive any money or other thing of value in consideration of or as and inducement to the circulation of the above petition by me and that I have not nor will I pay in the future and I believe that no other person has so paid or will pay, directly or indirectly, any money or other thing of value to any signer for the putpos~,of inducing or causing such signer to affix his/her signature to such petition. STATE OF COL~RADO COLNTY OF~F~rSVt~- Signing Sttbscribed and sworn to before me this ~S~w day ofl9 ~{ 5 - _ r ~ ?/ , Notary lic (SEAL) My commission expire' Coat!ur~sr~o~5i SX n1RLS~tYnv, t7, 2977 ' Denver, Co;or.:do "'- {~ . CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the' Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. - °- As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. _. LAST NAME FIItST ?TAME ;n.i. , - ----- ADDRESS ' CITY ~~vi. rti..,..~. LAST NAME FIItST N M.I. SIGs G DATE oo Cox-u ~ '~' ~ ADDRESS CITY SIGNA ~ ,~ y~._ ADDRESS C~ LAST NAME ~a ~~~ ADDRESS ~~n LAST NAME %~o~a / ;DDRESSII 4 l ~i LAST VA.~tE i l >C ADDRESS =,.. CITY FIRST M.I. CITY /~~- I ~ IItST NAME ' %vh~~; , CITY 6IGNATURI L ~~ ' ~ ~ FIItST V A:'vfE M I ,-.T~ SIG`ATL'RE rs ~ ',t i ~7 5~ dING D~ ,~~~ DING DATE ~__--~. C- I r~ CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly alI single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and ttie Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential azea has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that aze in keeping with our neighborhood. _ I~C~iv~~r~~ I ~~~ I L I / /~9 /sue _ __l LAST NAME _ FIRST NAME M I. T_ SIGNING DATE 13/n~ ~ ~4//f7 ST L f~~FrFrTiziG~9f ~-~tr~ ~~~r.~ .ADDRESS -CITY ~ SIGNAT~{LE / ~ ~ ' L AST NAME /'tJ __ _ 6 ~i FIRST M.I. ~ SIGNING DATE ~l' CP ~~ ,G~ ~ ~ ~ / ADDRESS CITY ~GN -el/ a` ~ L / ~ `/'~ LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIG G DATE 3~3v c~~e~ w~ P~~ ter" 1~ ~~ ~ ,.~ ADD RESS TY CI SIGNATURE /C ll~ (-G -P ~~ ` / ~-E~ C % - ~- 7.5 LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. IGNING DATE ADDRESS CITY SIGNA LAST V,$,ME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE . f I L.~S V?;.A¢ , FIRST N '~ M.I SIGNING DATE ~ U ~~~..= I ~ / E G. i ~ I 'I (,&L' ~ 1 ~~.~i-~'Yl i' ____ ADDRESS lc: CITY ~ ° S[GNATL ~ c- z f~ CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential azea has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that aze in keeping with our neighborhood. _ CITY SIGNATURE i-i5 LAST NAME FIRST NAME ~`.i/. '""'•"." "..." ADDRESS CITY I Ml=~se`~ LAST NAME I~A.~F~s FIItST NAME i ,Y~ M.I. ~ t~~~~ y~ SIGNING DATE 3810 C.oo y ~; ~~I~~ ~"" / ~~ ADDRESS CITY S ATURE LAST NAME FIItST NAME M SIGNTNG DATE 3~4,D (AD`1 Wb!'t7tZ K,toc E ADDRESS CITY SIGMA 'RE T ~ .I SG ADD S ~~ ~~, LAST NAME CFTY Ch~~ ~- FIRST NAME S[ ~ AT[, M.L ~ a3-q~~ DATE o ~ ~.~ d ~ ADDRESS Cf Y S(GNAT(;RE C-3 i ~• CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and tt~e Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. 5 LAST NAME FIRST NAME ~n•i. - --- ~ nna.FCC CITY SIGNAT f ACT NAME FIRST NAME M.I. ~ SIGNING DATE i ~ ~ I ADDRESS CITY SIGNA . .. ~ -:- lit ;~-t ~ tJ 1 ~ ~ /~ t!? C (___.. 2 -3 - ~•S 1 LAST NAME FntS1T' NAME ~ M.I. _/ ~gi>JQING DATE '' ~( ~l '~ C' ~ .s, L>~' ~ l - ttt~i~ l ~ l~ ~l- C: ~ / tom ADDRESS CITY_ Jlvly r~~ vcu: , V LAST NAME .1!.,;c' -C°C-L~Y St FIILST NAME ~1%~/~ f7 ~"~~ ~n<..,'c M.L z~i./-•-c't~ S[GN[NG DATE '~~ t. ~ nno c c c CITY SIGNATURE ~ . r Cr~~TNG DATE ..tST ~IA.ME .:.~ ADDRESS ~~.- C[TY M.I. L:tST NA.~[E .ADDRESS CITY DA -~ CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are neazly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. .- As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. L-w i :vAnat FIRST NAME ( M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS ~ CITY ~ ~ (~ SI NAT 'fR:2 - Ca ~ 7 CJ -~ S OL - - - 7 S L.aST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ~S~~C)L~n~r-rn, C~ Ill~n ~.J~- IT. „ o fr~;~sz z ~,_%/_ _n ~ ~ lJo J CITY v -036 ~US~ ~I/b t~~.~ J(~ I.1'~ (p Ti Kl ~ I1~t1.1 "/ /~~9~fi7/~A9Y'1•~/fC r~l l69/~1 ADDRESS CITY IGNATIJRE 3 oa ueic.. i ~f ~ Gt ov & ADDRESS CITY i ATURE s~2 f - /jl2l 7 LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNTG DAT Co ~oJ~'7P Wl1e~~ ~~'~ e i ADDRESS CITY _ _ SI A ~} z ?-~ .~ e - 7 - '' "~ LAST NA,.ME FIItST . AME M.I. SI , G DATE :ADDRESS Q '~ CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed deve]opment. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. -~ As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that aze in keeping with our neighborhood. _ : ; __. CUe.~ c.~r~ I ~.. I l~`6~ 9S LAST NAME rueJ t :veuv~ - - 1~„k ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE ¢Z! ~ ZS :ADDRESS -!rt Z9 - ' ~ - NAME ADDRESS t X610 !-!G - ~t.t. s3 ~-~ S~~~ier2 S7 11~~2 /~ ~~ .~ iyi~~ ~-~-~ SIGNATURE ~/ 3 / ~~/ 6~ tESS CITY ' S0 ~~~'~ j.-Jy- mrr ne N,S,~ FIRST NAME ~t. t. oo ~~/~~ S~ li~,~~~~~ - ~- S ` r ~ ~~~~ CITY J /~~2 ~ A-z CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. . We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W.' 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are neazly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that aze in keeping with our neighborhood. LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ~o o ~Y. GUY C`'~ - r~.e-.~-~ ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE y2 ~/ - ~Z 7~ i LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.i. SIGNIN ATE ~~z s~ yo~~ ,~ / ~ ~~ ~ o ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE _ ya,3-~~ _ _/ ~ - LAST N FIItST NAME M.[. ~ VTN AT ~ ~ c7 ~' ADDRESS _ _. CITY S[GNA Y(o7 9 oZ ADDRESS CITY Y SIGNATUTYE ~/a-?j-~~'6~ p LAST NAME FIRST NAIv¢ M.I. SIGNING DATE O ~ 5~~~-i,~Ul~ < ~~ . ADDRESS CITY S ~ ATIJRE ~~.-~~~L~ - - I • r ~/ ~i LL ~l(S~ tiJ LAST NAME FIRST Nr4ME M.i. SIGNNG DATE D l,~ ,Q.r,-„~a~v -~. _'~ . ADDRESS CITY SIGN TUBE ~~ '-~6 ~D A~3 CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents, of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 25U ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential azea has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. -~,~ - 9 5 ADDRESS CITY _ IGNAT ~,5 ~ q ~ 5' D a it ~ ~~ Ltil lP ~ f/,.v/~~~~ yzz-33~~/ ADDRESS ____ CITY SI NAT[JRE -T ADDRESS _ crix, -- __ CITY SIGMA r ~cr va~,tF FIRST NAME ~t.I. SIGNING DATE SIGNATURE L.iST VA,ME FII2ST NAME I.I. S[GNPIG DATE CITY SIGNATURE A_y AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR [,(.~~iAr~~es c1~~~~irer ,swearthat I reside at (Circulator Printed Name) 38'38 .over ~-1-. _ Street Number and Name ~ ~-DO 3.3 W~eatl~i~ap c~ ersvvl City Corn Zip Code that I have circulated the foregoing petition section; that each signature thereon was affixed in my presence; that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be; that to the best of my knowledge and belief each of the persons signing said petition section was at the time of such signing a resident of the City of Wheat Ridge, State of Colorado; I have neither received nor have I entered into any contract whereby I will in the future receive any money or other thing of value in consideration of or as and inducement to the circulation of the above petition by me and that I have not nor will I pay in the future and I believe that no other person has so paid or will pay, directly or indirectly, any money or other thing of value to any signer for the purpo~ ofinducing or causing such signer to affix his/her signature to such petition. ~-~-95 Signature o Cir ulator Date of Signing STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF __ ti Subscribed and sworn to before me this (ems day of ` wa 195 . ~~~ ~. 9-~ti~. Q, ~.. Notary Public (SEAL) \ My commission expires: ~l\ \ 5 Lei to A CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit aparUnent building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. LAST NAME FIRST N M.I. SIGNING DATE r1DDRESS CITY SIGNA ~~~ ' - ~- ~r LAST NAME FQtST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRE$$ !'TTV cr~u• me G LAST NAME ADDRESS CI'T'Y SI('rNATI IRF LAST'NApp.'1--~ ~-a FQtST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE 30~ Ci ~ _ kc.-~ 1DDRESS CITY SIGNATURE 9~ lr ~HVAu '/`~9~ L.>ST NAMME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE CITY O SIGNATURE B-t CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the Following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that aze in keeping with our neighborhood. __ :: _ e~ LAST NAME ! 3 CJ ~uct L ~ - ruc~ i ~amr. ~ ~ Pfd ~ (~ P , C~ ~ - / /~ 1 ~- - -I P.~O~v- ~ Y ~ Cc ~1~~ C- RESS CITY SIGNATURE ~" " /~ LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE ~cr ~/-. , ~., ,~ ~~~`,'.._t; J /l!'/ fl~~ 13 ~, ' 1 -311 f S , i. 1• LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.I, ~ SIGNING DATE ADDRESS ~ CITY SIGNATURE _ M [ SIt?NING DATE LAST NAME FiftST NAME . _ . ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE , L ~I SIGNING DATE L>ST NAME" FIRST NAME . ~ l r. c~ 7 ~ ~ ,. SIGNATURE ADDRESS CITY r yr'T ~ ' t ~ ' ~ i ^,~\(,~ , l~ \ ` ~ t ~ t - ~ST NAME L FIl25T NAME M.I. ~ G DATE SIGNNi . C ~11~t 77 ~nnncFc CITY SIGNAT[~RE B-z CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST -38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. - -- As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that aze in keeping with our neighborhood. _ __ ~;1 LAST NAME FIItST TAME . M.L IG G DATE ADDRESS CITY SIG A LAST N F1ItST NAME MI. SIGNING DATE C/ ~°y~ ems( S t e~~ ~~ `- ~-... ADDRESS CITY GNATURE ~'c~,~, -~~'~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~-- I ~ - s~ ~ s LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. ~ SIGNING D TE -cr ADDRES CITY SIGNA `x ,~~ - ^ ;~ ~' t ~- ~ ~7 LAST NAME FIILST NAME yet SI i 'G DATE 1 ~ G NATURE ADDRESS CITY _ J S l O .~ / ~ Y / / `- LAST NAME F ST NAiv¢ M.I. S NING DATE ADDRESS CITY SIGNA_ I ~ ~ 1..- f , ~ ~~-~ LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE / ~ ~ ADDRESS CITY ~ SIGNATURE t y:. (3-3 CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more.. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. .ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE LAST NAME FIRST N M.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS CITY SIG A ^ N cti ~~r ~ _ ~ S LAST NAIv1E FIRST NAMEME :~[.I. SIGNING DATE ADDRESS LAST TAME .FIRST NAME M.I. i'G'DATE 3~~a s . , ADDRESS CITY `S NATURE i 06c~~ ~ ~a~vre3 ~ /?i' ~ ~-~"-9~ LAST NAIL F[FtST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE 3 i?/O CITY LAST Nr1.ME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE 0 O Ca c~ •j fi- v 1. ~ ~ 'I` Q ~' c4 -e Q.e~ ~" " X .ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE 8-~ CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential azea has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. _.. As neighboring residents, we would not abject to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. L.~IST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE .ADDRESS - CITY SIGNATURE LAST NAME FntST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE 3B'3~ over ~7- ~hewt id Colo . ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE S~2/ -~17 ~~ ADDRESS ~a M.I. CITY LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE SIGNATURE D-~ AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR I, SL'5~3,~ ~~~)~u u',S ,swear that I reside at (Circulator Printed ame) i~ `f F ~ (ti _ 3 Y J-~,.. ,~ vim, Street Number and Name i~~~1 ~~~f ~~~ ~ ~ 1zFl-Zrs X11 ~V~ J City County Zip Code that I have circulated the foregoing petition section; that each signature thereon was affixed in my presence; that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be; that to the best of my knowledge and belief each of the persons signing said petition section was at the time of such signing a resident of the City of Wheat Ridge, State of Colorado; I have neither received nor have I entered into any contract whereby I will in the future receive any money or other thing of value in consideration of or as and inducement to the circulation of the above petition by me and that I have not nor will I pay in the future and I believe that no other person has so paid or will pay, directly or indirectly, any money or other thing of value to any signer for the purpos~of inducing or causing such signer to affix his/her signature to such petition. Date STATE' OF COLPRADO COUNTY OF dC~.~erSOL~- Subscribed and swor//n to before me this ~S`~~ day of `,~9~19 g 5 . Notary lic (S~) M commission ex ire$A~ rpk~ssaoN Ex£~R~s: ;~a.,. ty, sir Y P ~~ isertsn S.re,t Denver, Co7orzdo v:,)e,, .' ~.. - - B CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover .streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential area has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. - -- As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that aze in keeping with our neighborhood. ~ ____. /, CITY o s--~-- - t~ ,etie, y L ,~.~ I L I ~/~ /~-~ r r SiCDIIIYG DATE L.aST~NAM L.-"- ADDRESS ~~ rJc~ f. ", - L.aST tiA:ti1 CITY / /~/ 9S" r-s ~~ ~Y~ ~ ~o so \DDRESS ~3°iSu C<, L r CITY FIItST NA~~ CITY FIItS \T NAME ~''I w he<~l ~-1 L~~~4.~ ATURE %~ ~ ~ DATE c ~t.I. _ ~_. ~~,. ADDRESS `'' ` ` C- t CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential azea has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the area even more. - As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. _ L l LAST 3 ~3v c 4~~~2 I lc1l pay ~~ ~-. ~~~ve ~iy~ ~,~ ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE -~ `TS U /. ADDRESS _ ~ CITY ~' LAST ~.~,4; c,, z~rrf., l.)Lt! ~ l~`~:,+- ~~r;~-~rJ ('r,~ I -'S--~-~ Y .~~i ~~-; I ADDRESS _~,I_ PIING DA ADDRESS CITY c- z CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above are nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential azea has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping - with our neighborhood. AD RED SS CITY _ ~ivivr..~..n ~.~ '1'Li~w~-~Q 'h.. i - i S ~ <1 LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE ~ ~~'*-"" ' ~~ a~t~ / /I • 3107 ~ ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE -E VQ =~ AMCS M I ?z 5 . LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNIN DATE 38~D Gooy ~ ~iD~ a~-r ~ ADDRESS CITY S ATURE LAST NAIL FIRST NrVME ~t SIGNING DATE 3~0 COD'1 w1+1~tz K,toc~ E M.I. ADDRESs ruRE C-3 CITIZENS PETITION PROTESTING PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON CODY STREET & WEST 38TH AVE. We, the following residents of Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, State of Colorado, who reside either on Carr, Cody, or Dover streets and W. 38th Ave. between W. 38th Ave. and 41st Ave. wish to voice a protest against the proposed duplex residential development of two vacant land sites included in a proposed subdivision of the property numbered 8501 W. 38th Ave. Properties within the area mentioned above aze nearly all single residential homes with the exception of the following: a multiple unit apartment building, a group nursing home and one duplex residence, all within 250 ft. of the proposed development. Additionally, across the street on W. 38th Avenue, there is a medical building, a church, and the Lutheran Medical Center Emergency building. The adjacent residential azea has been heavily impacted by this dense growth. This proposed development will impact the azea even more. -- As neighboring residents, we would not object to single family residences being constructed that are in keeping with our neighborhood. _ 5 LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.t. Jlv,~u.v vl..,. ..~ i, ~ s' CtJ..D~, GJ I~.~ ~~ ,'~-t- W ~C1 l ~. ~~I ~ ~r t//-1 ~n l._ ~ i z --~ _ ys-I NAME M.I. i~`3IGRING DA~TE T LAST NAME FIltS II /1 ~ ~/~r ~ ~~ ~Cl~i~' l (~ l~ G~ ~L ~ l/ `riJ ~~ U ~ s. L7 ~ - ADDRESS CITY SIGNATURE ,~ S , LAST NAME FIRST NAME M.I. SIGNING DATE i .~ ~, ; ~ ., ~C;v .y s. t , r/ y;/~ fl7" i2,n c,° ~ ti--'~-~'~-~ 'F~? L. ,,~ annRFCS CITY SIGNATURE IRST Nt4ME CITY LAST NAME FIItST NAME M.L SIGNING DATE ADDRESS -CITY mv,vr~ i ~ nc ~-~ AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR I,J ere. Logue, ,swear that I reside at (Circulator P ted Name) 3g ra c®~_ ~f Street Nu ber and Name WI~P~- ;~~. S City County Zip Code that I have circulated the foregoing petition section; that each signature thereon was affixed in my presence; that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be; that to the best of my knowledge and belief each of the persons signing said petition section was at the time of such signing a resident of the City of Wheat Ridge, State of Colorado; I have neither received nor have I entered into any contract whereby [will in the future receive any money or other thing of value in consideration of or as and inducement to the circulation of the above petition by me and that I have not nor will I pay in the future and I believe that no other person has so paid or will pay, direc y or indirectly, money or other thing of value to any signer for the purpose of i~ucing or cay~ingh signer to affix his/her signature to such petition. ~~~ of Signing STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF .J ~ ~ ~.LSorJ Subscribed and sworn to before me this \~- .~`" day of___I9 9 S . c~ss.,.~~yh 6 Notary blic (SEAL) My commission expires: ~'1 ~'2~ 9 6 C • ~~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: May 8, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Gidley was sworn in by the Mayor and presented the staff report. Motion by Mr. Edwards that Case No. MS-95-2, a request for a two-lot subdivision on property located at 3010 Newland Street, be approved for the following reasons: 1. All minimums for R-1 development have been met. 2. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been--met; seconded by Mr. Solano; carried 8-0. Motion by Mr, Solano .to move up Agenda Item 3 to be heard at this time; seconded by Mr. Edwards; carried 7-1 with Mrs. Dalbec voting no. Item 3. Application by Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. 'for Gary and Marlayne Herrera for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with variances for property located at SSOI West 38th Avenue. (Case No. MS-95-1) Case No. MS-95-1 was introduced by Mr. Solano; title read by the Clerk. Robert Pitler, attorney for Fante Brothers, was sworn in by the Mayor; he was recently retained by Fante Brothers and asked that this matter be tabled for a period of two weeks for the following reasons: there is a substantial dispute with the title and the public records he has reviewed; had problems with easement and sidewalk requirements; some items need to be discussed further with staff; there is opposition to this plan and 'maybe things can be worked out to everybody's satisfaction. Glen Gidley presented the staff report. Motion by Mrs. Worth to continue this Item until at least two weeks to clear up many problems and inconsistencies; seconded by Mr. Siler. After discussion, Mrs. Worth and Mr. Siler withdrew their motion. Michael S. Chessnoe, 3012 Josephine Street, Denver, was sworn in. He is the engineer and surveyor of the property. He explained how he had prepared the property survey. Dan Fante, 2173 South Beeler.Way, Denver, President of Coventry Homes, was sworn in. He gave background on how the property was sold to the Herreras; there was no fraud and nobody was lied to. John McGuire, City Surveyor, was sworn in and explained how the City survey was conducted and what the results were. ES: May 8, 1995 Page 4 Speaking in opposition to this application and sworn in by the Mayor were: Bud Lehrer, 3838 Dover Street; Teresa Logue, 3810 Cody. Street; James Logue, 3810 Cody Street; Cheryl Major-Jaramillo, 3910 Dover Street; Mary Madison, 4015 Dover Street; Jack Wasmund, 4190 Yarrow Court; Lavaun Brewton, 3945 Cody Street; Helen Naanes, 3945 Cody Street; Willard Itrieger, 3965 Cody Street; Betty Ayres, 3877 Cody Street; Ray Ayres, 3877 Cody Street; Audrey Carnegie, Vik Odelberg, 3870 Cody Street; Tamara Hamilton, 4205 Dover Street. Their comments were: They are not in favor of duplexes; this is a single family home community; traffic and noise have already increased since the expansion of Lutheran Medical Center; don't downgrade this neighborhood; the lot sizes call for single family homes, not duplexes; don't cut down the trees; concern about absentee ownership or rentals; listen to the neighborhood opposition; 57 households have petitioned the City to vote against this plan; this kind of development should be discouraged throughout the City of Wheat Ridge, not only in this neighborhood. Gary Herrera, 8501 W. 38th Aveaue, current owner of the property in question, was sworn in by the Mayor; he answered Councils' questions as to the background of his purchasing this property and the subsequent deeding back of the building lots to Fante Bros. Motion by Mr. Solano that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, be approved with the following conditions: 1. A 15-foot corner radius and 10 feet of right-of-way be dedicated for Cody Street. The plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 2. Lot 2 shall have a minimum of 9000 square feet. 3. Lot lines for lots land 3 may be adjusted prior to recording provided that R-2 district regulations. are met. 4. problems-with the legal description be corrected; seconded by Mr. Siler. ~,. Motion by Mr. Edwards_fo_r a substitute motion that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located . at 8501 West 38th Avenue be denied for the following reason: subsection 2 of the subdivision regulations have not been followed; we have no authority to grant this; seconded by Mrs. Fields. Mr. Siler and Mr. Solano will vote against this motion because they don't agree with Mr. Edwards.' Motion carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Behm, Solano, and Siler voting no. Motion by Mrs. Worth that our City Attorney, Mr. Dahl, do a finding of fact to see if our Subdivision Regulations have been violated in this case -and if so take the proper steps to prosecute .this. case; seconded by Mr. Siler; carried 6-2 with Mrs. Behm and Mr. Solano voting no. MAIN OFFICE DARIMOUn7 PROFES90NAL CENIFR (Danma.ah 6 t1.:~mvN • 7701 East Dartnvrth Avmue • Engkvood IDenver5, Col«do B01I4Hg9 releptwrc 7o7nse.zul T<letapier 707/757-0958 May 17, 1995 FAX TO: 234-5924 LEVINE AND Prr~R, P.C. ATIORNElS AND COUNSEI.O LAW The honorable Dan Wilde Wheat Ridge City Council ATTN: Glen Gidley Planning Director CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215-6797 RE: FANTE BROS. COVENTRY HOMES, INC. Planning Case MS-95-1 Cody Subdivision City of Wheat Ridge State of Colorado ^ rEOCnm nusE ceacr m DENVER OFFICE DF1awnRE FAlANC1AL euz • 1150 Delawrt Sheet • Deter Calaada &12045692 'CfTY OF WHEAT D RIDGE +?~n n h?AY 1 8 ;°95 pLANNIN6 & DEVE1,ppMENT Dear Mayor Wilde, Mr. Gidley and City Council Members: The Applicant is making this request for rehearing, pursuant to §2G-6 (5)(B) of the City Zoning Code, for the following reasons: A. That the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States were violated by Council action. To avoid damages being assessed against the individual Council Members, the issue of the Application should be reheard. B. As a matter of law, when a subdivision complies with the zoning use by right, the failure to grant an approval is in error resulting in the courts imposing the rule on the City thereby the City losing control of the process. All Council Members were advised, in open hearing by their legal counsel, that any alleged violation of an improper sale does not constitute a violation of the Development Regulations and, hence, the Council Members have no basis to argue that they were acting in good faith or upon the advice of counsel. The individual Council Members could be personally liable for all damages suffered by the Applicant. In addition, there was a conspiracy, on the part of some of the City Staff and Council Members, to deprive the Applicant of due process of law in that the Staff Report given to the City'Council Members was materially different than that mailed by Certified Mail to the Applicant. Hence, the Applicant was not given an opportunity i~ provide the City with applicable information. The Honorable Dan Wilde Wheat Ridge City Council ATTN: Glen Gidley Planning Director May 17, 1995 Page - 2 - C. There is still a substantial question as to the title of the area which is the subject matter of the dedicated area. D. The Applicant has contacted the City Attorney to provide all relevant documents and information concerning the alleged violation of City ordinances. The City Staff and Council should have the benefit of that information prior to any decision being made, as the issue was the main basis upon which the decision to reject the Application was made. E. The Application before the Council stated it wanted to meet with Staff to make changes in the Application. The changes should be reviewed by ,Staff and this Council. F. A rehearing will enable the Parties to reach an amicable resolution without having judicial intervention and potential expenses to the City and personal liability for damages to Council Members and to the individuals who were responsible for mailing false reports to the Applicant and providing false information to the Council Members. Sincerely yours, LEVINE AND PITLE~R~,/ P.C. Robert. L. Pitler .~ cc: Fante Bros. Coventry Iiomes, Inc. Chessnoe and Associates FANLCITY,Q20J150 M E M O R A.N D II M T0: City Council FROM: Meredith Reckert, Planner RE: Case No. MS-95-1/Coventry Homes DATE: June 5, 1995 Attached please find a revised copy of the submittal for Case No. MS-95-1. In regard to the new submittal, the following changes have been made: 1. A 5' wide right-of-way dedication will occur for Cody Street. 2. The corner radius has been shown as a permanent easement. 3. The "flag -pole" access to Lot 1 has been eliminated. The plat, as designed, will require access from West 38th Avenue. Public Works does not support the access from West 38th Avenue. 4. The request for variance to allow duplex construction on both Lots 1 and 3 has been withdrawn. As shown, a single- family dwelling can be built on Lot 1 and a duplex could be built on Lot 3. A11 other requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. MR:slw attachment ~ MEMORANDUM ` _ Approved Date TO: MEREDITH RECKERT, PLANNER II FROM: JOHN OSS, SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEE~ RE: CODY SUBDIVISION DATE: JUNE 5, 1995 ciN c~"'r~"nn nQGE D i~E~ i! 5 1c95 . ~V~LSV PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT I met with Mr. Gidley and the developer last Friday to discuss the developers proposed changes to the above referenced project. Public Works has the following comments and concerns relating to the proposed plat that Council will be presented with at the June 12th meeting. These are outlined below: 1. The developer has modified the plat to address the overlap between the existing west line of the right of way and the east line of the subdivision satisfactorily. 2. The proposed dedication of a permanent easement at the corner of Cody Street and West 38th Avenue for sidewalk purposes on the plat is acceptable to Public Works. • 3. The developer is proposing to dedicate a 5 foot strip along the east side of the subdivision by a Quit Claim deed after approval of the plat by Council. Providing the additional right of way by this method is satisfactory to Public Works but we are recommending Council make prior recordation of the deed a condi- tion of recordation of the plat by the City. 4. The developer is proposing access to lot 1 directly to West 38th Avenue. Public Works does not support this proposal for the following reasons: a. The-existing land slopes to the north away from West 38th Avenue at about a 6 to 1 slope. Construction of a driveway to West 38th Avenue will provide a driveway that will very probably pose problems during the winter with ice and snow that will be exacerbated north slope and shade from the large fir trees. b. Access from a driveway to a collector street is generally considered inappropriate unless there is no other access available. Provision of an access point in this segment of West 38th Avenue is even less desirable because the access point is located in the right turn only lane for west bound traffic to north bound Dover Street. West bound traffic from the access point will also need to make a lane change to~ • the inside lane in an area where West 38th Avenue traffic 1 M will be malting an opposing lane change to make a right turn to Dover Street. • c. Construction of an access to West 38th Avenue will involve removal and/or damage of at least one of the well established fir trees on the lot. d. The downgrade slope of the land to the north from West 38th Avenue will probably dictate that sanitary sewer service be provided from Cody Street. This will require an easement across the south end of Lot 3. e. The developer has not presented plans for any construc- tion on Lot 1. We expect the West 38th Avenue Project to have progressed to the point where the curb, gutter and side- walk and pavement will be constructed in this portion of West 38th Avenue prior to the developer's construction of the required driveway and installation of 'any utility laterals in West 38th Avenue. If this is the case, then any work the developer is proposing which will include West 38th Avenue will involve damage to newly constructed, roadway improvements. Because of the above concerns, Public Works is recommending access and utility services to Lot 1 be made off Cody Street through an easement across Lot 3 as was originally proposed by the Developer. • 2 CITY OF AHEAT RIDGE MEMORANDIIM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert c. Middaugh, City Administrator SIIBJ: RE$EARING ON SIIBDIVISION APPLICATION BY FANTE,BROTHERB~ CASE MS 95-1 DATE: June 8, 1995 The members of City Council voted to rehear Case MS 95-1 which was a request for a subdivision approval by Fante Brothers for property at 8501 W. 38th Avenue. Since the Council decision to rehear this matter, Fante Brothers have submitted a new subdivision plat with several changes from the original version which was denied by City Council. Attached please find a memorandum from Meredith Reckert reviewing the changes made to the original subdivision and also attached is a copy of the subdivision plat. Council will note that on the plat the lot sizes have been corrected to reflect a five foot dedication of right of way'on Cody Street and the appropriate sidewalk easement at the intersection of 38th Avenue and Cody Street. The five foot right of way dedication was the minimum required by the City in order to have adequate right of way in that vicinity. A question remains whether the members of Council wish to require a ten foot dedication. The original plat also indicated an access for lot number 1 by easement to Cody Street rather than to 38th Avenue. The new plat has deleted the easement providing access to Cody Street and intends for access for lot 1 to be from 38th Avenue. Attached please find a letter from the Public Works Department indicating their concern with the access provisions anticipated for lot 1. It is preferred by Engineering that the easement to Cody Street be maintained for access for lot 1 for the reasons stipulated in the attached memorandum. The City Attorney has reviewed the property transaction between the Fante Brothers and Mr. Hererra as the current owner of lot 2 in the subdivision. Mr. Dahl will be prepared to report to the members of Council on his findings. It is the City Attorney's and the staff's opinion that all of the subdivision requirements have been met with the newly submitted plat. Respectfull .submitted C- i Robert C. MiddaugH City Administrato A6.12 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge City Council on June 12;-1995 at 7:00 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments.- .The following petitions shall be heard: 1. Case No. MS-95-1: An application by Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. for Gary and Marlayne Herrera for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with variances for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue. Said property is legally described as Follows: A parcel of land located in the SE1/4 of Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.; thence westerly along the South Line of said SE1/4, 345.00 feet; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°32'1'7", 30.00 feet the intersection of the North Right-of-Way line of West 38th Avenue and the West Right-of-Way Line of-Cody Street, which is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence on a deflection-angle to the left of 90°32'17" along said North Right-of-Way Line of West 3.8th Avenue, 164.39 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°40'00", 140.99 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle .to the right of 90°00'56", 74.93 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the left of 90°05'25", 124.57 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence-on a deflection. angle to the right of 89°52'21", 89.02 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735 said point being on the West Right-of-Way Line of Cody Street; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°04'25" along said West Right-of-Way .Line, 263.94 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 34,105 square feet (0.~9 acres) more or less. ~~ ~ Sandra Wiggins, S~Jtetary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk Rocky Mountain News To be Published: not later than 5-29-95 b:\61295.phn c, -5C^v tVEST25TH-A` ENUE p.o. sox s3s The City of WHEAT RIDGE. CC °0034-Oo"33 - X303) 234~i0C cWheat ,. . City Acmin. Fax ~ 23--592» - Police Dept. Fax ~ 235-299 Ridge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. ~7S ^G~'~'- / PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARING DATE: ~j -- /a ..-~' ,F n a m e residing at lyd5 5 ~ ~r~ ~~ e,~p~ die ~,1,~ ®~rfyrv L ~ ~d~~~ (a d d r e s s) as the applicant for Case No.~s^- Cf~ -~ hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at (1 o c a t i o n) / on this ~~~ day of ~~~/ 19 ~' and do hereby certify that said sign has been .posted and remained 3n place for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. NOTE: This form must be submitted a~ the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Planning and Development. J <pc rev .+ SETN ~~E ~ r ~~~r-r~~ e T _' ;_'~ WEST 29TH Ab'ENUE •~. eGx e3s The City of \':HEAT RIDGE. C09CC34-Oc333031 23-5500 Wheat Gr; Adm:r. Fax ~ 234-592- Police Dept. Fax 235-Z 5,9 Ridge May 26, 1995 This is to inform you that Case No. MS-95-1 which is a request for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue will be heard by the Wheat Ridge city ('o ,nc~;1 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at ~.~~ =-m" , on ,7nn2 l9 199 All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration mus be present at this hearing before the ('i ty COnnri 1 As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION <pc>phnoticeform v r. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 12, 1995 Page -2- He is also not comfortable that Mr. Solano has stated he is acting just as a citizen thrcughc this tax refund petition, but feels he has used his position as Council President to lead peoE to believe that he represents all of Council and that they are in support of this. He moved that Mr. Solano be replaced as Council President by Councilmember Rae Jean ~Behm;.seconded by Mr. Solano. Mrs. Fields asked that this be separated into two motions. Motion to remove Mr. Solano as Council President carried 6-2 with Mr. Siler and Mr. Solanc voting no. Motion that Mrs. Behm be the new Council President; seconded by Mr. Eafanti. Mrs. Behm asked to abstain from voting on this. Motion carried 4-3 with Councilmembers Fields, Solano, and Siler voting no and Mrs. Behm abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. Application by Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc., for Gary and Maflayne Herrera for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with variances for properh located at 8501 West 38th Avenue. ('Case' No.'~11S=_ ,~=1 Mr. Gidley was sworn in by the Mayor and presented the staff report. Mayor Wilde recognized Boy Scout Pack #736, Prospect Valley, who were in attendance tonight. The following speakers were swam in by Mayor Wilde: Robert Pitler, attorney for the applicant, stated that all the information required by the City Attorney has been supplied by the applicant; explained history of this property; and answere questions. Michael S. Chessnoe, 3012 S. Josephine Street, engineering surveyor of the property, feels that the applicant has compromised and agreed to some of the City's recommendation; now it is the City's turn to give a little; he gave various options on how this property could be developed. Bud Lehrer, 3838 Dover Street, he is the spokesman for the 57 households in this area; the neighborhood is still opposed to this duplex development; there has been no communication from the builder to the neighbors; they are concerned to what is going to happen to their neighborhood. < ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 12, 1995 Page -3- Quality single family homes are in demand in Wheat Ridge; but builders want to make more money. Neighbors are not opposed to quality single family homes on this site; they are opposed to duplexes. Gary Herrera, 8501 W. 38th Avenue, stated if the easement would not be granted, he would not have access to his shed. Mary Lou Myers, 3975 Cody Street, pleaded with Council to maintain the integrity of her neighborhood; there is a difference between single and multiple housing. Teresa Logue, 3810 Cody Street, spoke in favor of single family homes rather than multiple dwellings. _I Jim Logue, 3810 Cody Street, feels that duplexes would not conform to their neighborhood. Dan Fante, applicant and President of Coventry Homes, stated this has been a very trcubiing process to please everybody on this; he gave suggestions on a possible turn- around. They have no intention of building shacks or apartment houses on that property. Anna Wassman, 3865 Dover Street, stated that she has lived next to duplexes in the past and didn't like it; people moved in and out every six months and the properties were not kept up; they moved to Wheat Ridge to a big lot to get away from this. Susan Myers, 8485 W. 38th Avenue, thanked Council for listening to their concerns and caring for their neighborhood. They have a wonderful neighborhood, let's keep it that way! Motion by Mr. Solano that Case .MS-95-1, a request for approval of a 3-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, not be approved; seconded by Mr. Edwards. City Attorney, Gerald Dahl, stated that at Councils' request he has investigated the background of this case; no laws were broken that he would feel comfortable to prosecute; Council has the right to impose conditions for the subdivision; this is not a rezoning, but a subdivision hearing. Mr. Solano clarified that there were too many questions unanswered to approve this subdivision, that is why he has made the motion not to approve. Applicant can submit a different proposal at another time. Mr. Edwards stated that he has a written staff report, which states that the subdivision laws were not followed, he doesn't feel we have the authority, based on the subdivision laws, to approve this. Motion carried 7-1 with Mrs. Behm voting no. 'CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 19, 1995 Page -2- ~~ Mr. Middaugh stated the Open Space Advisory Committee has recommended to the Jefferson County Commissioners that the 60 acres at Crown Hill Property be purchased for approximately $3.39 million dollars, and that the funding be done on 50 percent Jefferson County and 25 percent each for Lakewood and Wheat Ridge. It would make Wheat Ridge's share $847,500.00. Staff is recommending the City spread the amount out over a period of years, which will obviously make it much easier for the City to do. A formal resolution will be presented for consideration at the next regular Council meeting. Motion by Mr. Edwards that a new Item No. 4, Purchase of Crown Hill Property, be added to the agenda under Decisions, Resolutions, and Motions, therefore renumbering balance of agenda items; seconded Mr. Solano; carried 8-0. Robert L. Pitler, 2303 E. Dartmouth Avenue, representing Coventry Homes, requested a second rehearing pursuant to Section 26.6 (5) (b), of the Code of Laws, Case No. MS-95-1, an applicatioh by Fante Brothers, Coventry Homes, Inc., for Gary and Marlayne Herrerra for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with variances for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Co. Motion by Mr. Edwards that Case No. MS-95-1 be set for a rehearing at the second regular City Council meeting in August, subject to complying with the requirements as stated in Paragraph C, of Mr. Pitler's letter dated June 23, 1995, specifically meeting with the immediate neighborhood to determine what alternatives might be available for single family development; seconded Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. Council Bill No. 18 - An Ordinance vacating portions of West 42nd Avenue, West 43rd Avenue and Kendall Street within the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, adjacent to 4265, 4275, 4285 and 4295 Kendall Street and 6215, 6217, and 6219 West 41st Avenue. (Case No. WV-95-2) Case No. WV-95-3 was introduced by Mr. Edwards, title read by the Clerk, assigned Ordinance No. 1004. Mr. Gidley, Director of Planning and Development, was sworn in by Mayor Wilde, and presented the staff report. ~_ -. r SUN. 22 '95 15:05 • MAIN bPP1C8 bAtYi'MbtlRi PROPYSGIONAr. CENTEd< t0ue~h & U~urm0v) • 2701 Pas l6~tta:omh Awsmt~ .8t~glccvo.d 4 Cotw.do if0716aDI9 Titephone 703/7S6II27 Til.w;Aee 703/757A670 LEVIJJE & PITLER 303-757-0958 ~,REVINB AND PYTLER, P.C. ATICNJ6IS APID COON6610R8 AT raw ~iM J'tlna 23, 1995 FAX T0: 23k-5824 Mr. Glen Gid1Hy Planning Director Wheat Ridges City Caunoil CTmY OF WHEAL RIDCr73 7500 W. 29th Avenu6 Wheat RidgA, CO 80215-fi797 R8: FAN'TE BROS. Dear Mr. Gidley: M3-95-1 7sitY of Wheat~R~~ state o£ Colorado PFlGE 2 6 a GICR.A IIdA4 Ev1Y'ICa DeNVBROI?MCS URtAWARB PAdANCJAL PLATA • 1116 pelrxan BtRa • Denve6 Cdendo 8076(.769I ~ C1TY Of V~F-TEAT RIDGE , INC. ifli` ~ 2 l~~5 ,, i~ J ~L~. .. .. _ .. PLANiIi J ~ -.. ,. ,I' on behalf of the Developer, Fante SraB. Coventry Homes, Ina., oanaerning the above-entitled subdivision, would you please set Forth the spaaiPias any reason why this particular pro3ect would not be approved by Staff? No matter how small or minute, please set forth the reasons. A1soY the City of Wheat Ridge is put an notice of Fanters claim for damages pursuant to savexeign immunity dHfenses for the wrongful and negligent eats aomtaitted by yourself and the City Staff in not informing the Developer of proper Staff information. Fante also claims you oonspired to inure this Developer and places you an notice of this claim. Please Jl:et forth any additional information which you might have now, in your possession, which in any way would prevent staff approval of this particular project, sincerely yours, TWINE AND PITLER, B.C. r- Rober Pitler cc: .Gerald E. Aahl, Esq. ,~' Fante Bros. Coventry Homes, Inc. FANGRJ0.621J764 ` -- ~' JUN. 22 '95 15:89 MAIN O~FAICE DARtMt)VIN pAOPES'JIONAL CENTRR 0].mranh & Udvr~kq ~ 2703 P~t» h ~@NId1079 ~~ Ti1 ~37Q1~I57AW~i@ June 23, 1995 LEVINE & PITLER 303-757-0958• ~3VINE AND Y~TLER, P.C. krmaNers ~wD oovNSelons xr uw FAX TOt 234-8924 The Honorable Dan Wilde wheat Ridge City Council CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W. 29th Avenue wheat Ridge, Cb BQ215-6797 RSi FAN'~E BROS. COVENTRY HOMES, INC. planning Case Ms-95-1 Cody subdivision Citg of Wheat Ridge State of Colorado D®ar Mayor wilds and City Caunail Members: PRGE 3 o~~~~>n, OAI.AW E FAM1NaA1.I'LAZA • tl30 Rl.em 9neet • Qmvery Co1Md0 009M.3692 The Applioant is making this request far rehearing, pursuant to 826_8 {5)(8) of the City Zoning Code, for the following reaaonss A. That the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution oP the United States ware violated by council action. To avoid damages being assessed against the individual Council Members and City staff, the issu® of the Application should be reheard. Our research indiaatas that 8 1983 of the Civil Rights Aat was violated, as thexe~was a conapiraay to affsat State action. a. 2'ha y ease which has bean ~rsviously acted to thfs Council (Vick v oa+^d oP County Commissioners oP the County o~ r.Ar,~nk' ~, 689 P.2d 699 (Colo. App. 1984), the Applicant has, as a matter of right, the ability to plat the property according to the use by right zoning. The first time the Fants matter came on Pox hearing, written mtltarials which ware sent to the City Council were not sent to the Developer or th® Developer3s attorney. The second time for hearing, 9ta£E approval was reoeived but Mr. Gidlay, without 8taf~ approval and Staff Knowledge, acme in at the very last moment and changed ail of the various aspects of the plat. xt is clear now that Mr. Gidlay has conspired with some members of the city council in order to try to defeat this application and we are requesting a rehearing so as to avoid a protracted trial with the resultant expenses. The zoning provides for use by right. JUN. 22 '95 15:06 • LEVINE 8 PITLER 303-757-0• PRGE 4 ~, The Honorable Dsn Wilde wheat Ridge City Council J'Une 23, 199 Page - 2 C. It a rehearing is granted, it should be granted far enough in the future in order to allow the Developer to seek aommuniaation with the homeowners and oouncii members who serve that Distriot to determine what alternatives might be available ~'or single family development. Suoh a plan would rsquir~ the agreement of all parties in order to provide for appropriate single Pamily development. The Developer is willing to do that provided enough time is given. D. A rehearing will enable the Parties to reach an amicable solution without having 3udicial intervention. sitiCerely yours, LEVINR AND PITLER, P.G. R Dart ' Pitler cos T~ante Bros. Coventry Homes, Inc. pANCITY1.b21J15& 08/18/1995 08:21 -037701046 .'oro>ixat~ Ifrtleslq, auo.+lau ~bEA1t ~. e 1~Ps~aT July 20, 1995 CLC ASS~TES INC PAGE 02 CASE NO. MS-95-1 EXHIBIT 'A' YNMtIrJw`I~If~Y~N RE: Coventry Homes Proposal West 38th Avenu®& Cody Street, Wheat Ridge Dear Neighbor: Qn Juna 12, 1996, Mr. Daniai Fante of Coventry came before City Council requesting approval of a three lot minor subdivision of the comer of West 38th Avenue and Carr Street. The proposal was continued since the City Council felt discussions should occur between the neighbors and the applicant and return before them once those discussions have taken place. As the planning firm recently retained by Mr. Fante, we wholeheartedly agree with this approach. I would like to invke you to an ir>fomtal, informational meeting with representatives from Coventry Homes an July 26, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in Prospect Hall (Wheat Ridge Senior Center) at 6363 West 3bth Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposal and answer any questions you may have. The project is tentatively scheduled for an August 28, 1995, Clty Council Hearing. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. I gook forward to seeing you on July 26, 199b_ Sincerely, CLC ASSO,C}IATES, INC. Kurt D. Prinstow Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture KDP:csl cc: Dan Fante -Coventry Homes Fran CHESSh10E & RSSOO. ~ { 67/26/1999 09:28 3037701046 PHONE No. :722 3267 G.C A55OCIATES INC PAGE 02 Ff2Gh1 : RJ PetStutr .. PRONE: NO. 1034Z`rd493 Jul. 27 1995 ~:a0Ah1 P01 ~; ~/~ d~ltsFS ~t~ai: ~ ~ MEiiIR>t<R 303~us~azzs sseo calaY s~rt:r~r WHBAT ItiDGi'3, CO t~i3 FAX: 303.425.4493 Jnty 2T, 1995 GLL` Assooieles, lac. by FAX tranatnssian Attantiaa: Kurt D. Pdodow f. i Dasr Kurt, 'Thank you sell Dan Fame far meeting with the neighbors surroundiag his propaaod Coventry iiontss development at 3gd1 and Golly. I felt, tut I'm tutus you and Dap did. that it was a very productive meeting. 1 boliova the nciBhbors ware gtntefill la Den for his wiliingness to compromise on this issue. i oens3nly was. t was thinking Chet ii wand bo w gtsalT thing for Dan to write a later tv the ncighbare stating what we rylttxd on at the meeting. As I undenrtood ft, the main points of tho wmplomiao wero the followings T. 3 buildabia iota with Z !wing rwUsianderd size 2. AA 3 to be single faaity dwaliiags a. AI) to ba 1 story as seat! trust the atreot aide (possible watk•a!n on 38th tot ) A. All to ba,ardtitogarally eusnpatihts with the ruigitbartlood S. Bandar to ba t^ovemry Homes (Dmt to 6utid, sot seii lots ) 6. Aa attempt n+atle to a~Cttsemer:t to nx~ietia h~au~ cym corer for b~kyard barn T. Ptwvide iagrasstegtas tt ®, Spia0o trees tdtMg 313th avenue Ib:ranain It weld ba nice ~f his letter were ran w atl oT the petificaers. but I woukt thick it should at stet be fat to all tl-ow who attmafod last tdgilt's !nesting. 'T'hanks again for your help, and good tuck to yoa. dittassefy, ~~~ • James t1+T. Msumr Ju1.28 1995 12:00PM P01 From : CHESSh10E & 7a55CIG~ PHCINE hb. :722 3267 ~ Ju1.23 1995 12:02PM P01 ._ IJR933.SG~, 7.A '._. 82.96' CV b oETrNtION (~ ~ `v PnNn ESMt w I ~> U ~ LOT q~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ I 0.,783 s,l'. ~; N Ro ~ o ~ ~ ~ .n a in 3'/'7H'W R2 (J t.S. N0. 'h S8 "Ci•tlCHFSTCI.° , rv L.S, NU. AARh i/~ IA. ALUMINIUM CAP !,£. No. 7,1272 f 1w td" 6 a ~ 7r f_OT 3 ~, ~ ~~ U ~ 1 N$a'd7•ntt'G )+.$,s• ts.z~t ~.r ,^ ~+ i, in N8Md7'nt5"C ,,, R' nHAINAOL C9MT.` C1.U/' N !~1 '^ ~m ~~ ~~ /ri ~+ 9n INCRE95, CGI71 .. A UTiL esMr eri z C$9'3T1$"W 8?.h5' 11P ~`I~' 8.8d'' -... N' H" m R:~h1 WCSI Vn ~' 1 12° ' K~ ~~ '~ SBtiI AIR NUi' `^"~ ~ v IXISTINt7 RI FII1FNf:6 ~ I 1U,bd0 s.r. ri Tfl REMAIN ;,~ sl 20NC0 N• 2 ;~ o _ w ~~ LaT ~ m r Y., s I ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ IN 9.0(17 ~:.~~. f ~ 1 7C" 6 ~~d» .. C , ~~ 72" bIUlWALK l9MI _ -1 _ f ..__ 7t5.0U r 63.17' ~~ ~ - 22 SKR'.t/'7t5 W 1$3.73' .. f.' ~GMI 1'OR ^bWH.. Ia r, WALL & ~+ NU. R.U.W. LINO INCIDFN NL PURPOSES 7U 111C "f Tr<IJC VUIN7 OF IPtO W. 36TI1 AVL ~ HLCEDT, N0~02U87959 ~) I7L'GINNIN6 iIDGF ~~1 CONTACT NUMBER 2 DATE: 8 AUG., 1995 SIIBDIVYSION NAME: COD SUBDIVISIO ENGINEER: NAME: CHESSNOE & SOC. PHONE: 303 722-3267 FAX: 303 722-5128 CITY REPRESENTATIVE: REMARKS: CODY S' 1: NEED 10~ ROW DEi 7 . rt~x~n ~ ~ i av ~ c i ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE: MIKE CHESSNOE REMARKS: WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE FAX COMMENT SHEET AND ADDRESS OUR CONCERNES How contact made: person PHONE letter FBX REPRESENTATIVE: City: CHUCK BRADEN Engineer: MIKE CHESSNOE Callback 1 Date: Remark: Callback 2 Date: Remark: Callback 3 Date: Remark: TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Approved Date ~ MEMORANDL~ CASE NO. MS-95-7 EXHIBIT 'C' MEREDITH RECKERT, PLANNER JOHN OSS, SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEE~ CODY SUBDIVISION, 38TH AND CODY AUGUST 16, 1995 Public Works has previously commented on the proposed subdivision. The following are additional Public Works' comments relating to this revision of the subdivision plat: 1. The existing right of way on the west side of Cody Street in front of this subdivision is 15 feet, 10 feet less than the width prescribed by the City's Subdivi- sion Regulations. The plat is proposing dedication of an additional 5 feet of right of way by quit claim deed. While Public Works feels this dedication is sufficient to construct the required public sidewalk, this proposed dedication will not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. A 15 ft by 15 ft triangular dedication is required at the corner of West 38th Avenue and Cody Street for construction of the required handicapped ramp and radius. 3. Lots 1, 3 and 4 don't close within the City's required tolerances. 4. There are gaps between the legal descriptions of lots 2, 3 and 4 and the legal description of the subdivision. 5. This revision to the plat requests access for lot 1 to West 38th Avenue. This access is undesirable for a number of reasons previously discussed in a memo dated June 5th: Public Works is continuing to recommend denial of this request. In addition to the requested access for Lot 1 to West 38th Avenue, the plat also provides for a 20 foot ingress, egress and utility easement to serve lot 1. 6. If access to West 38th Avenue is allowed, at least one and probably more of the large pine trees on lot 1 will need to be destroyed to provide room for the driveway. 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing__is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge City Council on August 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m: at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. -All interested citizens are invited to speak at•the Public Hearing or. submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: 1. Case No. MS-95-1: An application by Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. for Gary and Marlayne Herrara for approval of .a four-lot minor subdivision with variances for property- located at 8501 West 38th Avenue. Said property is legally described as follows: A parcel of land located in the SE1/4 of Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, more __ particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.; thence westerly along the South Line of said SE1/4, 345.00 feet; thence on a • deflection angle to the right of 90°32'I7", 30.00 feet the intersection of the North Right-of-Way line of West 38th Avenue and the West Right-of-Way Line of Cody Street, which is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence on a deflection angle to the left of 90°32'17" along said North Right-of-Way Line of West 38th. Avenue, 164.39 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°_40'00", 140.99 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°00'56", 74.93 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S. No. 7735; thence on a deflection angle to the left of 90°05'25", 124.57 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S..No. 7735; • thence on a deflection angle to the right of 89°52'2].", 89.02 feet to a No. 5 rebar with cap marked CHICHESTER L.S.. No. 7735 said point being on the West Right-of-Way Line of Cody Street; thence on a deflection angle to the .right of 90°04'25" along said West Right-of-Way Line, 263.94 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 34,105 square feet (0.7829 acres) more or less. Sandra Wiggins, retary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: August 10, 1995 'Jefferson Sentinel b:\b82895.phn The JEFFERSON SENTIN~ • 1224 Wadswor.th'Blvd Lakewood, CO 80215-5108 239-9890. .. 08/11/95 THE CITY CLERKS. OFFICE CITY. OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80245 .... INVOICE: LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICA'T'ION Cur number: JW0143._810 Your identification: PUBLICATION DATES: 95/08/10 through 95/08/10 NUMBER OF LINES: 55 COPIES REQUESTED: 3 Printing: 27.30 Copies: 0.00 TOTAL DUE: $ 27.30 _ Thank you for advertising in the Je££er.son Sentinel Newspapers! The-JEFFERSON SENTINELS 1224 Wadsworth Blvd Lakewood, CO 80215-5108 239-sago 08i J.1 /95 THE CITY CLERKS OFF'TCE CITY OF WI-TEAT RIDGE 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215____ SanCw wm7~P! seota4ty ATTEST -_- _ Wantla Sony City Cletk ""'- PublBhetl Au0uat 10 199b ' Pubinhad In The JeMenon Senllnef -JW0149810 '= _ INVOlCF:: LEGAL NOT'TCi's PC)BLICA'rION Our number: JW0143.81U Yi)ur identifioation: PUBLICATION DATES: 95%08/10 through 95/08/10 NUMBER OF LTNES: 65 CUPIES.REQUESTED: 3 Irinting: 27.30 Copies: 0.00 TOTAL DUE: $, 27.30 Thank you for advertising in the Jefferson Sentinel Newspapers! i -~ -SOC 1VE5T 29TH A'+ENUE _ P.o. 3ox s3s _ - - The Crty of WHEAT RIDGE. CC 30034~C633 (3031 ~3c~5900 Wheat City Admin. Fax x 23=-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 ~iR 1dQ'e POSTING CERTIFICATION o CASE NO. ~- ~j ~f PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARI/NG/ DATE: ~7~g~~' I. Nl ~YQ/~ r '~l/1 ~C fi~ ~c.v-.-~ ~n a m e) residing at ~~V (N < Z~ r'" ~y~ / /~(a d d r e s s) as the applicant for Case No. !`Z.S- g ~ - y, hereby certify that i have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at ~i o c<a t i o n) on this ~ dap of _ ~~u5 -~- 19 ~~ and do hereby certify that said sign has been .posted and remained in place . for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. shown on the map below. The sign was posted in the position 7 Signature: NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Planning and Development. t s R x# s a a ~ ~ ~ t ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~' ~ I y e e ~ ~° R l i <pc>postingcer-.? ~~~~ •t' •.;: rev, 05-19-94 ~~~11, ~ E~•:- - •••• £•• P.O. BOX 638 TELEPHONE: 303/237-6944 The City Of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE.• WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80034 ~~leat Ridge August ll, 1995 This is to inform you that Case No. MS-95-1 which is a request for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision with for property located at gg01 West 38th Avenue ____,____~ will be heard by the Wheat Ridge ~;t~, (`rnin~il in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Compiex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7~nn =_m_ , on An an at ~8, 1995 All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division..-Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION <pc>phnoticeform ~~The Carnation City" CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: August 28, 1995 DATE PREPARED: August 17, 1995 CASE NO. & NAME: MS-95-1 CASE MANAGER~Meredith Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a four-lot subdivision with variances LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8501 West 38th Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. 2055 S Oneida, # 210, Denver 80224 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Gary & Marlayne Herrera 8501 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge APPROXIMATE AREA: .78 acre PRESENT ZONING: R-2 PRESENT LAND USE: Single-family residence SURROUNDING ZONING: N, W. E: R-2; S: PCD, R-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N. W. E: single family residential; S: office, church COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Low-density residential DATE PUBLISHED: August 10, 1995 DATE POSTED: August 14, 1995 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: August 11, 1995 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) ATTACHED ()NOT REQUIRED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ATTACHED ()NONE ( )COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS ( XX) ZONING ORDINANCE ()SLIDES (XX) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (XX }EXHIBITS ( )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. Planning Division Staff Report Page 2 Case No. MS-95-1 I. REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a four-lot subdivision with variances for property addressed as 8501 West 38th Avenue. The property in question is located at the northwest corner of Cody Street and West 38th Avenue, is zoned R-2 and contains .78 acre of land. There is an existing single-family residence on the site which has been incorporated into the subdivision. II. CASE HISTORY The applicant's original submittal showed a design containing three lots. Variances were requested for duplex construction on Lots 1 and 3 if street dedications for Cody Street and a corner radius were required. Planning commission reviewed the request at a public hearing held on March 2, 1995. They gave a recommendation for approval of the subdivision with aten-foot dedication for Cody Street and a corner radius dedication. The variances were denied. City Council reviewed the original request on May 8, 1995 where the application was denied. On June 12, 1995, City Council reheard the case with a modified design. The subdivision was denied again. However, it was indicated that if an agreement could be reached with the neighborhood, the case be reheard one more time. The applicant met with the neighborhood on July 26, 1995 in an attempt to come to a consensus regarding the design of the subdivision. See attached Exhibit 'A' outlining the conditions agreed to. II. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The applicant is proposing afour-lot subdivision to create a separate lot for the existing house (Lot 2) and three additional single-family lots (Lots 1, 3 and 4). The previous submittals had three lots shown. There are numerous mature trees on the property. These trees are shown on the plat and a note has been added regarding removal. There is an existing easement for access to the ditch which runs along West 38th Avenue for the property to the north of Lot 1. This easement will also act as a drainage Swale. A retention pond drainage easement is shown at the northwest corner of the Lot 4. No right-of-way dedications are required for West 38th Avenue other than a corner radius for a handicapped ramp. Cody Street is substandard in width as only 40 feet of right-of-way exists where 50 feet is the standard for a local street. Since the subdivision to the east dedicated 25 Planning Division Staff Report Page 3 Case No. MS-95-1 feet, only 15 feet of right-of-way exists west of the center line. Hence, the normal requirement would be ten feet. However, the street was actually built with curb and gutter on both sides within the 40-foot right-of-way, without sidewalks, therefore only five feet of right-of-way dedication is needed to accommodate the required sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a sidewalk easement at the intersection of 38th and Cody in lieu of a corner radius dedication to accommodate a handicapped ramp. A five-foot dedication for Cody Street will be dedicated to the City by deed. In the R-2 zone district, a minimum of 12, 500 square feet of lot area is required for duplex development. Asingle-family lot must have a minimum of 9000 square feet of lot area. Lots 1 and 2 are 10,549 square feet and 9001 ,square feet, respectively. These figures include afive- foot right-of-way dedication shown for Cody Street and a corner radius easement. Lots 3 and 4, however, are both substantially smaller than the 9000 square feet single family lot minimum at 6221 square feet (Lot 3) and 6783 square foot (Lot 4). Variances will be required for both of these lots. These lots would be comparable to R-1B-sized lots (7500 square feet area with 60- foot of lot width). Other changes in the current submittal include the elimination of the "pole" access to Lot 1, which will have access directly to West 38th Avenue. Exhibit 'B' contains the applicant's justification for access to West 38th Avenue. The use of the access easement on Lot 3 by the owner of Lot 2 for access to the shed behind his house. A note indicating this needs to be added to the document. Other conditions of approval by the neighborhood include the following: 1. All houses to be one story in height as seen from the street side with a possible "walk- out" on Lot 1. 2. All houses should be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. 3. The builder shall be Coventry Homes. That is, the lots cannot be sold to another builder. 4. The spruce trees along West 38th Avenue shall be saved. Items 1 and 2 above can be addressed by notes on the recorded document. Item 4 has been previously addressed by Staff in a note on the plat. Staff does not feel that Item 3 is enforceable by the City. N. VARIANCES In order for this submittal to be approved, a variances of 2779 square feet of lot area for Lot 3 is required and a 2217 square foot lot area variance for Lot 4 is required. Variances must be considered separately from the other cases and requires agreater-than- majority vote based upon Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 2-53(s). and Section 26-6(D)(2). Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance: Planning Division Staff Report Page 4 Case No. MS-95-7 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? If the variances are not granted, three-over-sized single-family lots or two single-family lots and one duplex lot would be allowed rather than the four single-family lots proposed. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Circumstances could be considered unique since the revised submittal is a negotiated land use contract between the developer and the neighborhood. 3. 14 the variation was granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The property is surrounded on three sides by single-family residences. If the variances are not granted, a single duplex could be built on Lots 3 and 4, combined. Although duplexes are still considered low density development, it may be said that it could alter 4he character of the area if a duplex is built within asingle-family area because they would be different than what is already there. 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? Staff concludes that there is no physical hardship. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? A precedent will not be set if there are unique circumstances. Staff has already concluded that circumstances are unique due to the negotiations between the neighborhood and the developer. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property? It is impossible for Staff to ascertain whether four single-family homes or two single-family and one duplex would generate more income. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant maintains that the City has created the hardship by requiring right-of-way dedications. Staff, however, concludes that the alleged economic hardship has been created by the applicant by purchasing the property prior to receiving final approvals. Planning Division Staff Report Page 5 Case No. MS-95-1 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? The variance would not be detrimental to public welfare. It is difficult to determine how it would affect improvements in the neighborhood, since the two lots will be substantially smaller in size than surrounding development. 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? Two single-family homes should not reduce the amount of light and air any more than a large duplex. The number of vehicle trips generated would be the same. IV. AGENCY REFERRALS All agencies responding can provide service to the property. Parks and Recreation Commission is requesting $75 contribution for each new unit. Public Works has responded as shown in Exhibit'C'. b:\ms951.sr AGENDA ITEM RECA QUASI-JUDICIAL X _ Yes No X PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY ADM. MATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ PROC./CEREMONIES - CITY ATTY. MATTERS ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ BIDS/MOTIONS LIQUOR HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ INFORMATION ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: REHEARING OF CASE MS 95-1, REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BY FANTE BROTHERS/COVENTRY HOMES SIIMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: This is a rehearing of a 3-lot subdivision located at 8501 w. 38th Avenue. The original application was denied by the members of the City Council at the May 8, 1995 meeting. Modifications from the original submittal have been made and are included in the Council materials. Staff recommends approval of the plat with right of way dedications. ATTACHMENTS: BUDGETED 1) RCM memo ITEM: Yes No 2) M.Reckert memo 3) Revised plat Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount S Requested Expend.S Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that Case MS 95-1, a request for approval of a 3-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 W. 38th Ave. be approved with the following conditions: 1. An easement access for Lot 1 be provided across Lot 3 to Cody Street and that access directly onto 38th Ave. from Lot 1 be prohibited and the plat revised to reflect this condition. 2. That a foot right of way dedication on Cody Street for Lots 2 and 3 be shown (5 or 10 feet) and that the plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 3. That an executed quit claim deed be provided to the City for right of way dedications on lots 2 and 3 prior to recording of the subdivision plat. AGENDA ITEM RECAP Date° PUBLIC HEARINGS PROC./CEREMONIES BIDS/MOTIONS INFORMATION ONLY QUASI-JUDICIAL X Yes No _ CZTY ADM. MATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ LIQUOR HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING PUBLIC COMMENT X RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Reconsideration of Development Restriction, Lot 1, Cody Subdivision SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. ATTACEiMENTS 1) MR ~Yl~r170 2) CC minutes 3) Misc Exhibits BUDGETED ITEM Yes No Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount $ Requested Expend.$ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No exemESTEfromT an heimhte restr ations mothe~n than lthe Cody Subcivision be P y .g R-2 zone district regulations". t'' -AGENDA ITEM RECAP QUASI-JUDICIAL X _ - Yes No AGENDA LTEM. Meet.ing'. Date 'X PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY ADM. MATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS PROC./CEREMONIES CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ SIDS/MOTIONS LIQUOR HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ INFORMATION ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Rehearing of Case MS-95-1, a request for subdivision approval by Fante Brothers/Coventry Homes. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: The original request was for a 3-lot subdivision at 8501 W 35th Ave. The design has been amended pursuant to negotiations with the neighborhood to show four lots, two of which need variances. ATTACHMENTS: 1) R~M memo 2) St' f report 3) Revplat BUDGETED ITEM Yes No Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount ~ Requested Expend. Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation 0 _0 Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: VARIANCES "I move that the request for'lot size variances for Lots 3 and 4 of the proposed Cody Subdivision be approved for the following reason: 1. Circumstances could be considered unique since the revised submittal is a negotiated land use contract .between the developer 'and the neighborhood". SUBDSVISLON "I move that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a 4-lot subdivision for 8501 West 38th Avenue be approved for the following-reason: -3-. The neighborhood supports the revised design. With the following conditions: 1. A note be added limiting house construction to a one-story design with th~ exception that Lot 1 can have a "walk-out". 2. A note be added that the houses be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. 3. A note be added restricting access from Lot 1 to Cody Street". _ " -.- ' F WHEgT O -l Pi r, p U m sac oR Aa° X PUBLIC HEARINGS _ PROC./CEREMONIES BIDS/MOTIONS INFORMATION ONLY AGENDA ITEM RECAP QUASI-JUDICIAL X _ Yes No _ CITY ADM. MATTERS _ CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ LIQUOR HEARINGS PUBLIC COMMENT _ ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: REHEARING OF CASE MS 95-1, REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BY FANTE BROTHERS/COVENTRY HOMES SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: This is a rehearing of a 3-lot subdivision located at 8501 W. 38th Avenue. The original application was denied by the members of the City Council at the May 8, 1995 meeting. Modifications from the original submittal have been made and are included in the Council materials. Staff recommends approval of the plat with right of way dedications. ATTACHMENTS: BUDGETED 1) RCM memo ITEM: Yes No 2) M.Reckert memo 3) Revised plat Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount S Requested Expend.S Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that Case MS 95-1, a request for approval of a 3-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 W. 38th Ave. be approved with the following conditions: 1. An easement access for Lot 1 be provided across Lot 3 to Cody Street and that access directly onto 38th Ave. from Lot 1 be prohibited and the plat revised to reflect this condition. 2. That a foot right of way dedication on Cody Street for Lots 2 and 3 be shown (5 or 10 feet) and that the plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 3. That an executed quit claim deed be provided to the City for right of way dedications on lots 2 and 3 prior to recording of the subdivision plat. QUASI-JUDIC LAI, X _ Yes No X PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY ADM. MATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ PROC.`CEREMONIES CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ BIDS/MOTIONS LIQIIOR HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING INFORMATION ONLY PIIBLSC COMMENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: MS-95-1/Coventry Homes SLTMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: This is a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision located at 8501 West 38th Avenue. A major issue in this case is whether or not a right-of-way dedication should occur for-Cody Street. If a right-of-way dedication is required, the applicant is asking for variance to allow duplex construction on two lots. Staff recommends approval of the plat with ROW dedications, but denial of the variances. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff Report 2) 3) RECOMMENDED MOTIONS BUDGETED ITEM Yes No Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount S - Requested Expend.5 Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation, Yes No Variances _ "I move-that the request for approval of lot size- and lot width variances to allow duplex construction at 8501 West 38th Avenue be Denied for the following reasons: 1. The variance requests are purely economic. 2. Circumstances are not unique. 3. A precedent could be established for calculating density on net lot area h ss lot area rather t an gro 4. The evaluation criteria do not support approval of this request" Subdivision • • ~'I move that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for approval of a three-lot subdivision for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue, be Approved with the following conditions: 1. A _15-foot corner radius and five feet of right-of-way be dedicated for Cody Street. The plat be revised to reflect these dedications. 2. Lot 2 shall have a minimum of 90D0 sq. ft. 3. Lot lines for lots 1 and 3 may be adjusted prior to recording provided that R-2 district regulations are met. 4. Problems with the .legal description be corrected". COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE. SCHEDULE A ORDER NUMBER: 60062117-SJB-3RD REVISION 1.. EFFECTIVE DATE:. November Ol, 1994, AT 7:45 A.M. 2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: A. ALTA OWNERS POLICY PROPOSED INSURED: GARY L. HERRERA AND MARLAYNE HERRERA 3 AMOUNT OF INSURANC $ 99,.950.00 B. ALTA LOAN POLICY $ 99,246.OG PROPOSED INSURED: NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC., ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN: FANTE BROTHERS COVENTRY HOMES INC. 4 THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS SEE ATTACHED LEGAL PURPORTED ADDRESS: REISSUE RATE: 8501 W. 38TH AVE. WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 AS FOLLOWS: 1992 ALTA OWNER'S TITLE POLICY*: $375.00 1992 ALTA LOAN TITLE POLICY: 75.00 TAX CERTIFICATE: 15.00 (SCH. # 024953) FORM 100 25.00 FORM 8.1 25.00 GAP PROTECTION** N/C * TITLE FEE INCLUDES OWNER'S EXTENDED COVERAGE **ONLY WHEN STEWART TITLE IS DISBURSING AGENT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: Auguat 28, 1995 Page -2- LOCAL LIQUOR AUTHORITY MATTERS. Item 1. Transfer of Ownership for Gold's Comer Grocery. Ciry Clerk; Wanda Sang, presented the staff report. Motion by Mrs. Behm to approve the Transfer of Ownership from Robert Gold, Jr., dba Gold's Comer Grocery, 10021 West 26th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, to Gold's Corner Grocery, Inc. for the following reasons: 1. All applications have been filed and fees have been paid. 2. Applicant is in possession of the premises by virtue of an assignment of lease dated June 5, 1995. 3. Applicants have been cleared by the police department; seconded by Mr. Eafanti; carried 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. Application by Fante Brothers Coventry Homes, Inc. for Gary and Marlayne ~~ `\ Herrera for approval of a four-lot minor subdivision with variances for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue. • Item 2 was introduced by Mr. Edwards; title read by the Clerk. Glen Gidley was sworn in and presented the staff report. He stated that the variance would require a super majority vote in order to pass. Kurt Prinslow, Dan Fante and Mike Chesnoe were sworn in by the Mayor. They explained about the neighborhood meeting on July 26 and the resulting changes in their plans. They asked that Lot One not be restricted to a one-story design and that access to Cody Street not be restricted. Bud Lehrer, 3838 Dover Street, spokesman for the neighborhood, was sworn in by the Mayor; he likes the smaller size lots and the single family homes; is in favor of the 38th Avenue access; feels the July 26 neighborhood meeting was very productive and everybody had their needs addressed. He recommended that City Council accept the developer's proposal and thanked Council, for listening to the citizens on this matter. Neighbors would support a house not exceeding 2 stories high on Lot One. Lavaun Brewton, 3945 Cody Street, was sworn in by the Mayor; she has been to all the Council Meetings and the neighborhood meeting regarding this matter; she was not aware that atwo-story home had.been planned; she tentatively approves the developers plans but has concerns about the traffic. .. y. CITY COUNCIL MINDTESe August 28, 1995 Page -3- Gary Herrera, 8501 West 38th Avenue, asked that the developer's plans be approved. Motion by Mr. Edwards that Case No. MS-95-1, a request for' approval of a 4-lot subdivision for 8501 West 38th Avenue be approved for the following reason: 1. The neighborhood supports the revised design. With the following conditions: 1. A note be added limiting house construction to a one-story design with the exception that Lot 1 can have a "walk-out". 2. A note be added that the houses be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. 3. A note be added restricting access from Lot 1 to Cody Street; seconded by Mrs. Felds. Mrs. Dalbec asked for a friendly amendment to add condition 4. That Lots 3 and 4 be limited to 30% building coverage. Mr. Edwards changed Condition 3. to restrict access from Lot 1 to West 38th Avenue; he also accepted Mrs. Dalbec's friendly amendment; second also accepted. Motion carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Solano, Eafanti, and Siler voting no. Mr. Solano doesn't think we, as a Council, should pick and choose what zoning requirements we are going to make someone adhere to; the zoning code. is pretty specific as to what it requires. Mr. Siler feels we are putting limitations on every person that comes before this Council. Motion by Mr. Edwards that the request for lot size variances for Lots 3 and 4 of the proposed Cody Subdivision be approved for the following reason: 1. Circumstances could be considered unique since the revised submittal is a negotiated land use contract between the developer and the neighborhood; Lgts 3 and 4 have a maximum 30% building coverage for each lot; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 6-2 with Mr. Siler and Mr. Solano voting no. ~~ Item 3. Public Hearing on o consider adopting 2 Resolutions and ~n`~ 2 Council Biils on second reading, which, if adopted, would result in annexation ~` of a 50-acre parcel of land located at approximately 13500 West 44th Avenue. Mayor Wilde explained that the annexation procedure and proposal, the Resolutions and Ordinances connected with it, would all be addressed at the same time. Staff would give their respective reports, then the developers would give their report and then public input would be taken. He asked that the meeting be conducted in an orderly manner. The following City staff presented the staff reports: City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; City Administrator, Robert Middaugh; Director of Planning, Glen Gidley; Chief of Police, Jack Hurst; Director of Public Works, Bob Goebel; Economic Development Coordinator, Steven Schmitz. 08/18/1995 08:21 037701046 CLC A59.ATE5 INC PAGE 03 ~nWwMU.Wwwa.uFe ~F.tt~, Srtte~010 August 16, 1995 ttaweot><t 71ES/77iS61N ~FAx Dear Neighbors: On behalf of Dan Fante and Coventry Homes, I want to thank you for attending the meeting of July 28, 1995. it afforded all of us an apportuniry to tliscuss the proposal and options in a more relaxed and open forum than the city Council Chambers. We feel as though an acoeptable solution was reached by all parties. Wa understand the elements of that solution to be as follows: a. Four lots -one for the existing home, one on 38th Avenue and two on Cady Street. The two on Cody sines will be sma~er than the minimum lot size of this zone district, therefore requiring a variance. b. All lots wit! feature single family detached homes. c. The homes on Gody Street will be single story and architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. d. Provide a shared access easement to the backyard of the existing residence. e. Tha neighbors prefer that access to the lot on 38th Avenue be from 88th Avenue and that utility connections be made to the services in Cody Street, This driveway auto 38th Avenue will be sited so as not to require the removal of the existing spruce treas. f. Coventry Homes will be the builder. These elements are illustrated on the enclosed copy of the plat. Dan Fante wants to thank everyone Partaking time cut of their evening to attend this meeting and would hope that you also show your support for this proposal at the City Council hearing of August 28, 1995 at 7pm. We would also encourage you to take a moment and write the City staff and members of City Council. Sincerely, CLC ASSC/C~IA7E5, INC. Kurt D. Prinsiow Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture ttddtxsne rana~pe,uem~ CC: Dan Fante -Coventry Homes Gad ~meyfug enclosure CLC Associates, lnc. • CASE NO. MS-95-1 EXHIBIT 'B' .w,mw~,awo=mwu~w~u irc. 8480 & Orchard Rd. Suite 2000 Englewood, CO 80111 303/770.5600 303/770.2349 FAX August 22, 1995 Mr. Glen Gidley Planning Director City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 RE: Application by Fante Brothers -Coventry Homes, Inc. Case Number MS-95-1 Dear Mr. Gidley: As part of the above referenced proposal, the applicant is asking that Lot 1 have a driveway access to West 38th Avenue. We have met with the neighbors to discuss this matter as well as having reviewed the comments expressed by Public Works in the memorandum of June 5, 1995, and feel that this access should be granted for the following reasons: a. Neighborhood's concern: At the neighborhood meeting, we discussed with the neighbors the possibility of Lot 1 having a shared driveway with Lots 2 and 3 that would access onto Cody Street. They preferred a shared drive for Lots 2 and 3 and having Lot 1 access directly onto West 38th Avenue citing increased traffic in close proximity to what they consider a dangerous intersection in the winter. b. Acceptable slope of the driveway: Where the driveway will be sited - refer to the attached site plan -the existing slope of the ground is 6%, comparable to that of nearby streets that intersect with West 38th Avenue. The finish floor elevation of the home may be raised to eliminate this condition. c. No removal of existing trees: None of the existing Spruce trees will have to be removed in order to build this driveway - refer to the attached site plan. Also, the home has been sited beyond the drip line of trees, thus minimizing the disturbance to their root zone. Planning Engineering Architecture Landscape Architecture Land Surveying d. Utility and home services: A utility easement is provided for along the common property line of Lots 2 and 3, thus providing connection to the sanitary sewer line and waterline in Cody Street. Mr. Glen Gidley August 22, 1995 Page 2 e. Limited damage to recent West 38th Avenue improvements: The West 38th Avenue roadway improvements will probably be completed prior to Coventry Homes starting construction. However, since their disturbance will be limited to a driveway curb cut and sidewalk repair, these are costs they are prepared to pay. f. Homeowner convenience: Should Lot 1 have a Cody Street driveway it would require either a basement garage or a detached garage. Either structure would create an inconvenient situation to a homeowner, requiring them to go up a flight of stairs when going from their automobile to the living area. For these reasons, we are asking the City Council to grant access to West 38th Avenue for Lot 1 of this proposal. Sincerely, CLC ASSOCIATES, INC. ~2~~f ~. ~~~~cu- Kurt D. Prinslow Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture Enclosure -Lot 1 Illustrative Site Plan cc: Dan Fante -Coventry Homes JAMES MEURER /RHEA MEURER 3860 CODY STREET WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 September 11, 1995 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303-425-4325 FAX: 303-425-4493 CITY OF WNE,1T RIDGE Q _c~r~n~ r~~ SEPt-T1-T2r i~95 _~U . ~_. PLANNING & DEVELOPMEfJT Regazding: Proposed subdivision at north-west corner of 38th and Cody To The Honorable Mayor and City Council, On the evening of Wednesday, September 6, 1995, Dan Fante of Coventry Homes, and Kurt Prinslow, his planner/engineer met with the immediate neighbors of their proposed development at 38th and Cody at the home of Bud Lehrer. They showed a drawing representing what Coventry Homes would like to build on the lot which fronts onto 38th Avenue. They wanted this meeting with the neighbors to clear up any confusion over the 2 story versus 1 story issue on that lot. At the meeting, it was unanimously agreed that the neighbors would support a plan for a two story house on the 38th Avenue lot. It would probably have some sort of basement at least partially visible from the rear. We agreed that Coventry Homes should only have to meet the standard requirements (height, setbacks, etc.) that the current R-2 zoning dictates. We believe that Dan Fante is trying very hazd to meet with the approval of the neighborhood, and we appreciate this cooperation. We would like to ask that the City Council drop the 28 foot height limitation on the 38th Ave lot, and that no abnormal requirements be imposed on it. Thank you all very much for your tremendous support. All of the neighbors truly appreciate it. Sincerely, es M. Meur~/~%~ ' M E M O RAND II M TO: City Council- FROM: ~ Meredith Reckert RE: Case No. MS-95-1 DATE: September 15, 1995 At the September 11, 1995 meeting, City Council agreed to reconsider a development restriction placed on Lot 1 of the Cody Subdivision. The subdivision in question was approved on_August 28, 1995 with the following condition: "A note be added limiting house. construction to a one-story design with the exception that Lot 1 can have a walk-out". The applicant has requested the height restriction for Lot 1 be removed. Attached please find a letter from the neighborhood (Exhibit 'A'), a conceptual "section' of the lot (Exhibit 'B') and conceptual site plan (Exhibit 'C'). Staff recommends the condition be amended removing Lot 1 from any height restriction other than the R-2 standard. Suggested Motion: "I move that development on Lot 1 of Cody Subdivision be exempt from any height restrictions other than the R-2 zone district regulations." MR:slw -500 WEST 29TH AVENUE =.o. sox s3s WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80034.0638 .3031 23-5500 CityAcm;n. Fax ;. 234-5924 September 15, 1995 Police Dept. Fax.; 235-29-9 -The City of ~V67heat Ridge This is to inform you that Case No. MG-95-1 which is a request fOT rEaCnnc;Aara+inn of nnndi+innc of a~nrnnal fnr a fnnr-lot subdivision- for property located at 8501 West 38th Avenue will be heard by the Wheat Ridge CitTCn„n~;l in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7.00 p,m. , on September 25, 1995 All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the City Council As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION <pc>phnoticeform' C~ ~;, , . .