Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WS-96-3/WZ-96-15
INTRODUCED BY.COUNCIL MEMBER Siler Council Bill No. Ordinance No.6 Series of 1996 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL-ONE AND AGRICULTURAL-TWO TO RESIDENTIAL-ONE A DISTRICT ON LAND LOCATED AT 12345 WEST 38TH AVENUE, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Upon application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a rezoning, in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Case WZ-96-15 and pursuant to findings made based on testimony and evidence presented at public hearing before the Wheat Ridge City Council, Wheat Ridge maps are hereby amended to exclude from the Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zone district, and to. include in the Residential-One-A the following described land: - Tracts A, B, and C and Lots 1 through 4, Prospect Ridge Minor Subdivision, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. Section 2. Vested Property Rights. Approval of this rezoning does not create a vested property right. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of Section 26(c)of Appendix A and the Code of Laws of the city of wheat Ridge. Section 3. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Ordinance No. Page 2 Case No.: WZ-96-15 Section 4. Severability., If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5 Suipersession Clause If any provision, requirement or standard established by this Ordinance is. found to conflict with similar provisions, requirements or standards found elsewhere in the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, which are in existence as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the provisions, requirements and standards herein shall supersede and prevail. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. Ordinance No. _ Case No.: WZ-96-15 Page 3 INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 5 to 3 on this 25th day of November , 199_, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for December 16 199 6, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 199. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of DAN.WILDE, MAYOR Wanda Sang, City Clerk 199 APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: November 29, 1996 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: JEFFERSON COUNTY RECORDING SYSTEM RECEIPT A: 314902 CREATED..: 9/05/2000 11:40:37 CASHIER..: VJ ISSUED TO: APPLEWOOD BUILDING CO FOR: 1 CERTIF CK 8697 i CHARGES TYPE *CERTIF 3.50 .00 L .00 .00 C .00 y 50 3 RECEIPT TOTAL . HOW PAID: CHECK: X CASH: $ORDER- PRE-PAID-ACCT BEG.BAL: .00 BRL.ADJ: .00 END.BAL: .00 THANK YOU 'o `oo 'C - ~ ~ ~ ~. N ' ~ ° ' o C •oou i ~~ y $ i ~ ~'s < n m Nno # s° F- ~ v 2 ~~AA . I _ N O \ K Zfln I Z V A oo ~~~ N -i SN Q 2 Go m 5H :,:: ~ .. ~:;s .~, .~. ..: :.~ ...., ... ... .. 1 -~ ~__ _ 1 30' ° 1 I I . ... ~..... .. .. .. N l P r ' ± K tm +~$' ~ ~ I UNION COURT ~ ~~ o t 1 ~ f ~1` ~ >»- - -- m --- ~~m I~~ 1 y-n P- ® N N 1 2+2 ' .._. .. ... n1c -. _._._._ 0_9~ ~ L P ` c 1~ - TF~.Db"" - - 1 o TpAC T A - PRIVATE D RIVE. EM 1 m r W N M q m ~~~ ZYHi®~ WNO H2 gQ'yj 2 ~qr r p FN O yp N M CeL] MYMFIY~ mNm ~^A ~a~~ "P~~p: Ea~ H n ~ $~E `_' 9 H ~H g ;,°" ~W~~ aR~ g ~b ~ ~ ,gym ~m~ ~uysn K~[ ~p~[^]' yqyyyy ~~yy t.3p C y~p0 )0 OO qMZ iK ii29Z i~®K'99 C~ i o~~ ~ ~.Y. ~ ~ n v z"~ N m N 00'07'- _~S 271.76' D-1 ~ N b 0 K ~ ~p '-- r ~ u 1~1 i ~W O P w~ r p O -~ ~ sm N m IV m- -zip _ I ? 1 s m '~_ 30' SETBACK UNE. J -/ C2 - - IdS9]~ -. - AND SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS EASENENT §~ I~ ~m~n I~ fri~$^2 ~~ o aA ~' `nn X9-1-1 u ~°o~ r zz uIa " am dN = I c, r ~~~~~a ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ r[~~a~~ H mqp'yyy~O Yp my~ mPee Hmmm ,jcc L W~hi'eY Z~PTeY LC ~YO~Z~GOWp~~Hp= w~ 0 € 9r . K ~~r ~ VHNN ~ A~~ a m SP 9rm u n ,m A •~ m~~w~ a ~ ~m~=F a~~y~~~ ~~ E~~~~~~@@~~~-~~ ,~.~~ n G ny °~ ~r ~ ~ . ~0..~ ~PNe NW O®~ ~~~ D K AY9aac y~Pmmm~ oooom Yo ~~~m~~A _vo.. Nr _: -SN. ,OObP PPP Om PP0 C9R mSH q[Y"~L i0 OE QQQ$A~HS ~~5 N05~C^rB pppNNN ~tP"O®PoC :w~[O"n ~MMMA Cs TT~CH~~ r{p~NNNN~~ ~PP~~ ;••P~m ~. L+qp y H ~F51 P rE'!!!R^RR^OR^O??? Q~ A11®M ~ H O J ~~$ ~H~ ~~JNNNp5556 ~~n $~~~ ¢Pryry qq~oo ,N, p_ W S A D 61m ~oAY N 99 M ~~~ .~PP4V rGi m O p ' n c e •r 6 i tt .. ¢¢$$ '~ru}{ ~'1~. :e M P~ P O ~~~ ~P a ~ ~ ~R; ~' ~a w .~ ~s~ ~ ~= ~~ ~~~~~~f ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~a~ b~ ~~$y~~ N 99 g ~ ~n ~ ~$~~~~~ ~t .Y V 4k ~~ c` '~~S'~~ 1 ~: r ~i 1 n~•.V I Lnr P19 N - ~~ rv :,_ °-~ c~ :NO ~ 1 yn o°. 1 Sm W D n 8~ 1 m ~~ Cq - S 00'I]'DO'E 995.3D' 0 t. ~ . ~~ ~ i..:..... . , o en ~ ~m n r ~~„ 3~~ ~a ~„ z "~: s ~ °m n n :[ b H ~H . a ~~~ ~M A ~~ g~ ~ ~g g F, ~e~ ~i g ~$~ . :~ n e~ ~ ~~ • 9 f9~ E e~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ n m K O~ ~'Ab[f V o~~~s ~~~~ @6a ~~ @~,~"~~ ~~Zn r rrrrrrr r'rrr --um.~wN~uN-m -o z zPmzzzzzzz VNa~-NPVN 8Ya.;y.q.; ;a, ~ O N O a l N N W A JW-NON/P~bPVP2 O P V 4 b- O j N P P O r% o g- iu~W»w~aN:v L:L g °u ila'iaui=°N ism I` 1 N O T 1 =.°z 1~ a' I ~_R ~S. ~ m V~ fj O> 1 n ^ gym, ryti ~s F 1 \ ~T = N ~ 1 -r ~ ~ 4.. u0 1 ~g p~E ~~ a.~ ~!~ A amp 1 ~.p ~ .g-r g l / mm 1 • < o ~yy ~OPL ~~~o Nnm ~~ F~~ ; s~ ~ 9 m N g ~j ~ ~ e e F ~,, mK gZ p1 P~+c [[[0••• ~ L ~i 3 G YY H y ` 9 W®y K m sg+ yp ii m _ ^~ m ~II -- 8~~~ S~ o~ ~ ~~ ~' ~IK gC ~,~ • %~ ~~~~ E~ :~~= o~ R..~;~ E w ~~ ~~ y °~~~~ ~~ F~ .Y. ~~ ~n ~~ mm N~ ~~ y , '1i "~ ~ l .,, ..~ ,i ~• , I ~~yr t t ~ 'I -,? n-r-r t ~ „ , ~. ' o--~4 ~~ Ti + ,. ., „ , f9 P ~1 ' ---- 1 -- ~ „ I "r ,ur ., wr ~r.r ou' - n~ , u 9n cu ..loo 00 I a9 ~4 _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_ r I ~ J ,~fi .,~~ ~ n ~. r1 . . o > o o o a ,n J o i T ~ m -e r, 9 4° ` I I ' m L I m ~ ~ ' g p t ~. \, -°-im'a> --9e aa'- _ ' i9 9e '__ _ °-ort~oe _ 9o-aa m°9a-no - " '~a-e~ v .~~ ONION COURT 2 \ V r f~ N `1{ V~ r. n I 1r~ ' rim ai"~ <~ _.'' _En ~n P " i-n s=_ I, O I ~ i 3~ r~ r'r U N ~i N ~:O IJ F' T _ N OU'Il 00"x _ 664 61 '__ ~ i <5~~ ' I. " ' 90' RI<ui OF~ +r'MF Nf B~ OEb iGefED MI (XIS OUr.IrM(N! \S'. ,' nyUUo '~, "~ a oA o q. °c 9~ rt `+ ~ i 89 96' 90 00 vQ 00 - 9p pG ~'Sp pR _ __99. PO' _ .e m s ~ ~ `r _ - m°~6y __ I J ~ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ 0 ~ i _ v9 Q~ 0 19yy °ui H 5 4 Df r S/Qa me vtl t.~' 0'QaP I _ _ _ , _ 0 _ wr ~y ~ ° ~ V y p d O N O 4 rv p o p _0 o ~~ yam o y ..I y (R n<i ~ m n : SEE mNOIE~ 9 I r y 1 0 ° 0 ~'~" ~' ~~ o r K 1'- 83 00 `-"90 00 -' `90 00 90 0U`" ~ x-90 U0 "' I- 9U 00'~ 1 1-'99 00~?~ J , l4E ]5 i~ -- } N ~ , ., ~~..r nn W .a. ~ - - n e0•I)'00'w 009, )1' :'- mm x x 2: I ~ ° _ u L _ ~ ? .S2 c~ 2 A I m ° m v ^ I J IN h _ (> - ~= n ~~ pia ~i~ - „~. >m ~E -F = _ _ ~ 0~4 __ _ "~ ~a= _ - 'z ~s sYU C mC t i0 i2+ •i fi° .~ ~m - - n ;gym=` _ ~. = G g i m: ~ a e .: 3Y 3 ~ ~ V Y4mmmm o~ v~ N~ m~ o~y Y .'O O Cn m n -~ D ~ ~ ° N ti +n C o fFi [A ~ ° ~~-~ _-<Q .~z-Cn O En w~_~ CC~nm ~ W ' „=°~-I mn« ~~-oA nm~-I- m ~ O - ~~ Z - f. ni m -i m a ~ W i ~ m Q m T ,^ Z ti ~ ~ V < m ~ _ g ~ 0 1~ 07 o=~D~ ~~oz- ~z°< cn -i _ ~o DCn ~' n _ A<nc~n0 o~ Dz ~~ Z-n oz ~° W N o O ~ D Z ° N b O A D ~ m m I a y Z Z O WR~6HT ST u i 382 38 ~~ V 1` .i ~ 92399 aS00 ~p Z T << t~ 92225 92209 POOLE YIN01 SUBpI VI510NG j ~ = 1 12200 ~ : L ~ - ~ ~ a ' w v,~~~...,~,.,._a _ --~~--- ~J URBAN STRE a ~'~~ ti` ` 3 ~" - ~ Fz r - ~ ~ r - ~ s~ (- ~ L > ~ L ? 6 L ~ L ~ L _ J J J J 12100 Is la.. - ~ - + _ ' ~__ ~ ~=-r=r ~: _ ,- ~- - Y ~ . Y _ : 375s 12000 7.. I ..... .,.. ., ~..~_ _ ~ ,_ ~ i i ~ - t 3~ss 377a 37g.{ y ~'1 J ~I .. R -1 - ~` i87S ~~ __~ 9 1 1 ~.~ i j '~ . i' 1 ,i ~ _:,-•.' ~-~..~•- I~ 1~ \~ ~, i err ~~ ~~~. _: October 8, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert Planning and Zoning Department City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Town Meeting Regarding the Rezoning and Replatting of Prospect Ridge Subdivision Dear Ms. Reckert: Please find attached a copy of the letter and the people that were invited to attend the town meeting next week. Thank you in advance for attending this meeting. Si rely, Daniel F. Schneider 233-6883 cc: Mr. Glen Gidley October 7, 1996 Subject: Neighborhood Meeting to Discuss Redevelopment Plan 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Neighbor: 1 would like to take this opportunity to invite you to a neighborhood meeting regarding the redevelopment of the property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the redevelopment plan, allow you to ask questions and to have community concerns openly discussed. The meeting will be held at The City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. on October 15, 1996 in the Glass Conference Room on the 2nd floor. Ms. Meredith Reckert with the City of Wheat Ridge Department of Planning and Zoning will also be in attendance in case you would like to ask her any questions. I am looking forward to meeting those of you I have not already met while I have been working on the property during the last 4 months. Thank you in advance for your time and participation. Sincerely, Daniel F. Schneider 12345 West 38th Avenue cc: City of Wheat Ridge, Planning and Zoning, Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge, Planning and Zoning, Mr. Glen Gidley Barry Schafer 3801 Urban Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Dale Squier 3825 Urban Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Alvin Alberts 12355 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 John Moore 12201 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Stephen Williams 12300 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Stephen Williams 12310 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Oscar Herzman 12250 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Lois Tate 12100 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 William Campbell 3785 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 James Ratzloff 3784 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Roger Key 3774 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 St. Mark's Lutheran Church 12200 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Kullerstrand Elementary School 12225 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Children's World Learning Center 12225 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Vernon Quevli 3755 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 John Carroll 3754 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Charles Jorgenson 3734 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 William Allen 3725 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Steven Deitemeyer 3724 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Charles Mauro 3605 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Richard Ruettgers 3694 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Charles Lombardi 3684 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Dale Parker 12083 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Carlyle Harris 12103 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Harvey DeLockroy, Jr. 12104 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Robert Shideler 12084 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Martha Rau 12012 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Richard Longsdorf 12042 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Horst Paulmann 12082 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 William Wagner 12101 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Kathleen Wright 12101 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Douglas Lambert 12081 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Mr. Cal Jenks 11885 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Mr. Doug Jenks 11885 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Homer Sessions 11900 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Shelly Gladwell 11824 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Beverly Wilson 3781 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 John Routa 3780 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Albert Kalisker 3760 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 0 Marie Revelle 3760 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Donald Leclere 3741 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Carlton Fleshig 3740 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Timothy Wright 3720 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Fred Grigsby 3721 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Lester Nelson 3690 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Timothy Green 3671 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Daniel Capra 3651 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wasyl Holtz 11849 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Marvin Slotterback 11869 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Jeff Pothast 11835 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Malcolm Gunter 11836 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 James Gonzales 11856 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Thomas Osvold 11855 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Viola Serra 3642 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Joseph LaRocco 3643 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Julia Kotowski 3623 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Ronald Mann 3693 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Gayle Midgley 3683 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 David O'Connor 3682 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 David Barchus 3673 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Betty Ferrin 3662 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Carma Hale 3663 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Stephen Jones 11875 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 ~` _ ~ _ ~ ~. 11 _ ______- --------~---- ' -~ -~C~~?12_~S- - _~ __~_ ----- __ r _~ ~--. - - Q Gk.-may '-- -- ~--' __ U ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION ~ ' CJ~ Department of Planning and Development VIII 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 cOIOR ----~ Phone (303) 237-6944 ~' --~ me c;ry or If. Wheat Ridge Applicant~tn~ -I ,~~~'`a~ Address Owner ~SctWlf~ $ cL~M2 Phone z33- (o~tY~ Location of request _ Type of action requested (check one-or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) Change o£-zone or zone conditions 8 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 8 Final Solid waste landfill/ [] ** See attached procedural-guide mineral extraction permit for specific requirements. ^ Other Detailed_Description of request List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee; etc. ADDRESS PHONE I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct_to-the best- of my knowledge and that in Filing this apglication, I am acting with the knowledge and consent_o£ those persons listed above, without whose consent the equeste ac ory~cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than ow er must w b~ /j~,bweryy~f-attorney from the owner. which approved of this cti~n_o s a f. 7`~ Signature of Applicant Subscribed and sworn to me this ~~ day of DG~~B~~.19 SEAL.. .- _ C~ f ~ (~. My commission-expires (j llate ,KeCelV.ea _ rceceipy ,rv cr. ~,aae ivu. _ ~_ ~ ;, s-_, .: ~~S~EPT'~lON N0. F0259134 i 61.00 PG: `001-002 -~ 744 RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 6/26/96 10:55 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED (Testate Estate) THIS DEED is made by Grant W. Cobb and Sharon E. Gardner _ as Personal Representative of the Estate of Julia Marie Cobb, aJk/a Jewell Marie Cobb and Jewel M. Cobb and Julia M. Cobb ,deceased, Grantor, - - to Daniel F. Schneider and Sherri E. Schneider, 'as point tenants ,Grantee, whose legal address is 2562 Taft Court _J/t Lakewood, Colorado-80215 of the *Countyof Jefferson ,State of Colorado - WHEREAS, the Last Will and Testament of the above-named decedent was made and executed in the lifetime of the decedent, and is dated Apri 1 3 0 , 19 9 2 ,which Will was duly admitted to (f6>/in'a)5 (informal)** probate on .February 22 ,19.94 ,by the District. Court inandforthe County of Jefferson ,State of Colorado, Probate No. 9 4 PR18 3 , WHEREAS, Grantor was duly appointed Personal Representative of said Estate on February 2 2 , 19 94 ,and is now qualified and acting in said capacity. NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers conferred upon Grantor by the Colorado Probate Code, Grantor does hereby sell, convey, assign, transfer and set over unto said Grantee (in joint tenancy)** (for and in consideration of ra. __.. ~,.-_a_,.a rn,,,..,,.,.,a ~.,a ..,,iron rr~nn nnn nnt_ _ _ _ _ -- -- .-„_„__..,*. ~~ LL 4, {~ rx ~ CV w ~ (~,~h~/p~~o4t/ait}Sti(efl/t~,~i~tiit~i~ti~oii,~1~Y~~~a~~rt~y/i>'i/t>fe/a{~6v~/c~p4i6rlefl/y6ifl~'* the following described real property situate in the County of Jefferson ,State of Colorado: Property described in Exhibit A attached hereto. and incorporated by this reference ;State £Axumen^ ~ Date a, i.. O,~>~.ti "°^~- - alsoknownbystreetandnumberas: 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 assessor's schedule or parcel number: With all appurtenances, subject to covenants, easements and restrictions of record, and subject to general property taxes for the year l9~,andsubjectto zoning and building code. As used herein, the singular includes the plural and the tR ~ Executed / , 19 9 b . Personal Representative of the Estate of Julia Marie Cobb, a/k/a 'acnall Maria Cnbb and Jewel M. Cobb and,Deceased Julia M. Cobb STATE OF COLORADO ~ ss. COUNTY OF FFER40N The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of May , 19 9 6 , bx ~„i~~tit W Cobb and Sharon E. Gardner ~s~erson~~~resentativeoftheEstateof Julia Marie Cobb a/k/a Jewell Marie Cobb tii3.rgd"3~e s, M. Cobb and Julia M. - ,Deceased. , ~f t ~S '~ and official seal. Cobb s Q ~ : t ~ 9 expires: 3.$-.O St~ r2Q~nM,.;~ NatarY Public 970. . ~~~ ~ - , ,, Name aq~,A,ddress of Person Creating Newly Created Legal nesrxipiion(§38-36-106.5, C.RSJ- ^ - No. CPC46. R¢v.1A6. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED ('[Estate) . /L- ~ ~ ~ / L~ ~C~ Bradford Publishing, 1743 Waza st., Deover, CO 80202 - (303) 292-2500 - 2-96 Copyright 1987 (~ WHEAT RIDGE OCf 211996 October-18, 1996 Mr. Glen Gidley Planning and Zoning Department City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Dear Mr. Gidley: t'LANNING & OEVEIOPMENT Notice of 2nd Town Meeting Regarding the Rezoning and Replatting of Prospect Ridge Subdivision Please find attached the 2nd notice for a town meeting regarding the subject property. I appreciate the fact that you are concerned that the first notice may not have been acceptable to City Council, however, a copy of the letter and the people that were invited was sent to you and Ms. Meredith Reckert on October 8, 1996, one week in advance of the meeting. If the letter was not satisfactory, I would have appreciated prompt notification by telephone so that we could amend it accordingly. I filled out and made copies of the City-approved notice and they were mailed today at 11:00 a.m. I was relied to hear you say that I would still be scheduled for November 17, 1996 in front of the Planning Commission and that this 2nd meeting would not have an impact on the scheduling of this hearing. I don't know if you are aware of the tremendous pressure that I am under to develop the site with lots that will allow me to quickly repay my debt at the bank. As you are aware we have lost at least one major sale which was a tremendous setback and frankly which prompted this redevelopment plan. I have always kept my word to do everything I could to comply with all of the guidelines, regulations and recommendations set forth by the City of Wheat Ridge. I am asking your help to assist me in complying with these requirements by reviewing what I submit efficiently and to notify me promptly of necessary changes. I have dedicated the next 3 months of my life to solving the multiple of concerns and problems which I face with this development. Tho this end, I want to thank you and your staff for all of the help they i ~ have given me in the past and I want to ask you and them to continue on with what I believe to be a win-win situation for both the City of Wheat Ridge and myself. Thank you again for your help in this matter. I have scheduled the 2nd town meeting for Friday, October 18, 1996 at 6:30 p. m. at the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building. Thank you in advance for sending a planning department representative to attend the town meeting next week. Si rely, 7 Daniel F. chneider 233-6883 cc: Ms. Meredith Reckert NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT MEETING FOR REZONING DQni~ ~'. ~ ~ ~PA7i ~ ~yihri dwr' ~~ PROPOSING A REZONING FROM r4-I/~-f TO -2~1..-A _ ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1~~12( lf44f~ u4 bl a,....1 !!YS! IA! 3fi' {}y~~µt ,,.,., r~ . 12,3'tSW, THE LOCATION OF THIS MEETING IS ~, Wnar~+R.idf ~.N~ :og! da 3f"~~_~"""- THE TIME AND DATE FOR THIS MEETING IS C7,~ob r ~qY~ p~ ~,~~ , THE PURPOSE FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS }o c~5~~~_ nr© oosrrl IIPr:Olw.euv~ne'!- _ >, •~ The City of Wheat Ridge has adopted a requirement that, prior to application for rezoning of property to a higher use, or for properties in excess of one {1) acre, and for Special Use Permits which allow a special use of land, an applicant must notify all -- residents within 600 feet and invite them to a Neighborhood Input Meeting. The purpose for this meeting is to allow the applicant to present his proposal to the neighborhood and also to allow the neighborhood to express directly to the applicant, their concerns, issues and desires. 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 kinds of concerns residents normally have include the following: * Is the proposal compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning? * Are there adequate utilities and services in place-or-proposed to serve the project? * What is the impact on our streets? * Where will the storm drainage go? * How will the project be designed to enhance rather than detract from the neighborhood? * What specific changes can be made in the proposal to make it more acceptable to me? After attending the following space and concerns, issues or proposal. Please s required to provide application. Neighborhood Input Meeting, please use the the back of this form to list any specific suggestions which you may have regarding this ign it anti-give it to the applicant, as he is these forms to the City along with his PRINT NAME ADDRESS PHONE <pc>notice/neighborhoodmtg/zk Kathleen Wright Donald Leclere Malcolm Gunter 12101 West 36th Place 3741 Tabor Court 11836 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Douglas Lambert 12081 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Carlton Fleshig 3740 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 James Gonzales 11856 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Mr. Cal Jenks 11885 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Mr. Doug Jenks 11885 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Homer Sessions 11900 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Shelly Gladwell 11824 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Beverly Wilson 3781 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 John Routa 3780 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Albert Kalisker 3760 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Timothy Wright 3720 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Fred Grigsby 3721 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Lester Nelson 3690 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Timothy Green 3671 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Daniel Capra 3651 Tabor Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wasyi Holtz 11849 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Marvin Slotterback 11869 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Thomas Osvold 11855 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Viola Serra 3642 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Joseph LaRocco 3643 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Julia Kotowski 3623 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Ronald Mann 3693 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Gayle Midgley 3683 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 David O'Connor 3682 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Marie Revelle Jeff Pothast David Barchus 3760 Tabor Court 11835 West 37th Place 3673 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Barry Schafer 3801 Urban Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Dale Squier 3825 Urban Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Alvin Alberts 12355 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 John Moore 12201 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Stephen Williams 12300 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Stephen Williams 12310 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Oscar Herzman 12250 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Lois Tate 12100 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 William Campbell 3785 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Roger Key 3774 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 St. Mark's Lutheran Church 12200 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Kullerstrand Elementary School 12225 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Children's World Learning Center 12225 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Vernon Quevli 3755 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 John Carroll 3754 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Charles Jorgenson 3734 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 William Allen 3725 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Steven Deitemeyer 3724 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Charles Lombardi 3684 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Dale Parker 12083 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Carlyle Barris 12103 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Harvey DeLockroy, Jr. 12104 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Robert Shideler 12084 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Martha Rau 12012 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Richard Longsdorf 12042 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Horst Paulmann 12082 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 James Ratzloff Charles Mauro William Wagner 3784 Union Court 3605 Union Court 12101 West 36th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Richard Ruettgers 3694 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Betty Ferrin 3662 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Carma Hale 3663 Taft Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Stephen Jones 11875 West 37th Place Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 -50C NEST 29TH AVENUE F.O. 5OX 638- NIHEAT RIDGE. C-0 SOC3^0638 1303) 23=-5900 C!:y Admin. Fax d 23=-592c PoGCe Dent. Fax = 235-29=9 October 21, 1996 The City o; Wheat Ridge The wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request £or approval of a rezoning from _R-1 and A-2 to R-lA and a 17-lot mayor at the property described below. Your response to the following questions and any comments on this pro osal P would be appreciated by November a, 1996 No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/SClineider LOCATION: 12345 West 38th Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a rezoning from R-1 & A-2 to R-1A & for approval of a 17-lot major subdivision PURPOSE: Construction of 17 single-family residences APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.683 acres 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? `.. e~ Please reply to: _ M Rarkari- epartment of Planning & Development DISTRIBUTION: XXWater District (Con. Mutual XXSanitation District (Westridg~ XXFire District (Wheat Ridge Adjacent City ( ) XXPublic Service Co. XXUS West Communications State Land Use Commission State Geological Survey Colorado Dept. of Transportation Colorado Div. of Wildlife XgPCI of Colorado Jefferson Co. Health Dept. XX Jefferson Co. Schools XX Jefferson Co. Commissioners XX Denver Water Board XX W R Post Office XX W R Police Dept. XX W R Public Works Dept. XX W R Parks & Recreation Com. XX W R Forestry Div. W R Building Div. <pc>referralform c, ~;. , .,,.:,, =l0 60X o3~ 'u~. ^'C.ai ;~~~ ...fin-. ~_. co s~~~-~~aas - October-21, 1996 -Ridge ~%tb-,~~c.7' ~'~ The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has for annrn~ral of a ra~nn~nrt frnm R-l and A-~ i-n R-lA am a ~~~~ )~~L[ L _--~ ~;, rz- st . -_ L,~.,L,..~ ..S .. .... .. _ Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal .would be appreciated. by November 4. 1996 No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this prPggosal. f'FCc~rv~a - ----- ASE 0: WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3 scnneiaer - QCT 2 4 1996 LOCATION: 12345-West 38th Avenue REQUESTED-ACTION: A PR~PFRNMANAG pproval of a rezoning from R-1 & A-2 to R-1A & for EMENT approval of a_17-lot major subdivision PURPOSE: Construction of 17 single-family residences ~ APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.683 acres-- - ~~ ~` ~~ 1. Are public.-facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? YES - --NO Sf "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? ti ~_ . Please reply to: ~ mr RP„kArt epartment of Planning & Development - -- D TRIB TION: XXWater District (Con. Mutdal XXSanication District (Westridg~ XXFire Distr.YCt (Wheat Ridge Adjacent City ( ) XXPublic Service Co. =_. -. XXUS West Communications State-Land Use Commission State Geological Survey Colorado Dept. of Transportation..-_ Colorado Div. of Wildlife ggI'CI of - Colorado- - The City of :acs; ~,=-~~~~~ Wheat Jefferson Co: Health Dept.- XX Jefferson'Co. Schools _ XX Jefferson Co. Commissioners XX Denver Water Board XX W R Post 0£fice - XX W R Police Dept. XX W R Public Works Dept.- XX W R Parks & Recreation Com. XX W R Forestry Div. W R Building Div. Zpc>referralform :~ ,: she Are Ope, GOVNTYyyP00 a~ R'3 ~(~ y o JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1829 Denver West Drive, Building 1f27 / P.O. Box 4001 / Golden, Colorado, 80401-0001 / (303) 982-6500 OOCORPOO~ PLANNING COMMENTS JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. R-1 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER 1829 DENVER WEST DRIVE P. O. BOX 4001 GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401-0001 SUBDIVISION NAME; Prospect Ridge LOCATION: 12345 W. 38th Ave. DATE: December 6, 1996 AREA: 0391 STATUS: Rezone, PP Number and Type of Dwelling Units: 17 SFD Total Dwelling Elementary Junior Senior Total Units Yield Yi Id Yi Id Yi Id 17 SFD .50 .26 .26 TOTAL FROM THIS PROPOSAL: 9 Elementary 5 Middle School 5 Senior High 1.02 19 Total It is estimated that costs to provide classroom facilities for the students anticipated from this proposed development will be $239,920. Currently students from this proposed development will attend: Kullerstrand Elementary School - 12225 W 38th Av, Wheat Ridge 80033 Everitt Middle School - 3900 Kipling St, Wheat Ridge 80033 Wheat Ridge Senior High School - 9505 W 32nd Av, Wheat Ridge 80033 Page 2 Comments Prospect Ridge, Rezoning, PP The present capacities and enrollments for these schools are: ENROLLMENT CAPACITY 10196 97/99 98/99 CPC NEW ADDN NEW PC PERM DESIGN CAP TEMP BLDG TOTAL CAP Kullerstrand 324 326 328 324 5 459 351 4 459 Everitt 698 720 730 1159 0 1159 907 15 1285 Wheat Ride 1553 1560 1585 1461 0 1461 1486 4 1587 CPC - Current Program Capacity represents the number of student spaces that are available if there are no temporary buildings at the school. NEW PC -New Program Capacity: the CPC+the New Additions Capacity. This represents the number of student spaces that will be available at the school when additions or additional spaces are constructed (ram the 1992 Band Issue. PERM DSGN CAP - Permanent Design Capacty (Ihe way the schcol was built) Total CAP -Total Capacity Is the Permanent Design Capacity plus the capacity of the temporary building(s). NOTE: These are estimates from School District computations. They are subject to change and are far planning purposes only. SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING COMMENTS: Kullerstrand Elementary is currently using four temporary classrooms, Everitt Middle has fifteen, most of which will be removed when the building renovation is complete, and Wheat Ridge Senior has four temporary classrooms. The School District would request fees in-lieu-of land dedications for this plat based on the new Jefferson County Land Development Regulations. 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 Prospect Ridge, Rezoning, PP Based upon projections from this development and subdivisions in this area which have been approved or are pending approval, the current school capacity at Wheat Ridge Senior is inadequate to serve the anticipated student population from this proposal. However, the passage of the Bond Issue on October 6, 1992, will provide a five classroom addition at Kullerstrand Elementary, a building renovation at Everitt Middle School and various improvement projects -which do not indicate additional capacity - at all three schools at a cost of $3,104,400 for this area. ~y ~ ~~~~ Kathy Capron Tully Director, Property Management ~1P xc: Barb Monseu Ellynor Martinez Dick Ransom Dave Hendrickson Central Transportation Jeff Hall CONTACT NUMBER: ~. DATE: ~3.-`~-~ 1996 SUBDIVISION NAME: PT08 R~dtt Amended S1+bd'vision ENGINEER: NAME: LANE ENGINEERING PHONE: ~3 FAX: 3~3 4FNTATZVFi Tnc*~T~ M_ r_ ~UTRE CI'T'Y REPRE REMARKS: rna724F 5 AND TA4T DIST E TN LEGPT DO NOT AGREE WITH BE lrv DRAT~ITN R E E S N arm g 2- Tnn ANn DTr~~ e cnR STRIP BETWEEN LOTS 10 3_ N bU _ ..+ mo i4'I p sh li ~ mR7a('T B DIFFERSBY 45' 4 rc vnOM QUARTER ['ORATF'R TO EAST LINE ~ nTSTPS _ _: _ _ . '' .:, - , . $- TFVE T TS'~'ER n,rTrlT,TC_ gig ggpRESENTATIVE:_ S REMARKS : _ ___ ..,.. .,n,+ mvc TTTLE E ONSOLIDATED mutual water October. 28, 1996 - - ~B i f EeE ~,~F:EAT RIDGE '$~ -OCT 2 91996 PLANf~t~~ & DEVELDPMEi1T Ms. Meredith Reckert City of-Wheat Ridge Department of Planning and Development 7500 West 29th Avenue P. O.-.Box 638 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80034-0638 Re: City of Wheat Ridge, Case Number WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3, approval of a rezoning - from R-1 to A2 to R-1A and a 17 lot major subdivision, for property located at-12345 West 38th Avenue Dear Ms. Reckert: This will. acknowledge receipt. of your correspondence dated - October 21, 1996 regarding the above referenced property.- Please be-advised-that the above referenced properties are in an area served by The Consolidated Mutual Water. Company by virtue of a Distributor's Contract with Denver Water. Domestic water. service. may be_ provided to .these .properties subject to compliance with the Company's rules, regulations _ and requirements -for such service as well as the water tap allocation policies as established by Denver Water:- Please be_advised that the Company does not have the water facilities in place o serve-the subdivision as proposed. ATl water. improvements that may be required by this-project-would be at the sole..expense of the Owner/Developer. Fire protection- requirements should be- obtained from the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District and those requirements forwarded to this office by-the Fire District.. at the earliest possible time. We can then determine if additional system improvements would be. :required to meet-the demands set forth by the Fire-District. THE CONSOLIDATED ML11'CJAL WATER COMPANY ' 12700 West 27[h Avenue • P.O. Box 150068 • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Telephone 238-Oi51 Fax 237-5560 _' • • Ms. Meredith Reckert City o£ Wheat Ridge Department a£ Planning and DeJelopment October 23, 1996 _ Page 2 If you should .have .any questions or .comments .regarding this correspondence, please contact this office. ,_ _._ Sincerely, M c~ hael r:.' Qi:een Water Distributi:ou P'lanager /ds cc: Dave Roberts, Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District Walter .Welton, PLS/PE,'CMWCo President .-. John Allen, CMWCo Engineer ~~ MEMORANDUM TO Meredith Reckert Planning and Development FROM Deri Patt Police Department SUBJECT CASE NO: WZ-96-15 and 1l~ 96-3/Schneider 12345 W. 38 Avenue DATE October 24, 1996 CITY OF W!-tE!~T RIDGE ,~~~~nn nf~: I, ~ ~c~ 2 ~~ ~sss 1 L1~ ~ 1~ L J V`- PLANNING & DE'd~LOPMENT I have reviewed the above listed site plan. From this plan, I do not have any issues regarding Crime Prevention to address. Thank you. Deri M1:MUIZANDU~ Approved Date TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner FROM: Greg Knudson, Development Review DATE: October 23, 1996 SUBJ: 12345 West 38th Avenue, WZ-96-15 & CITY JF WHEAT RIDGE ~~~I'~~ ~1~~!~ ~~ ~~ 2 `_ X996 ~++ ;I ~t ~.., ,YY~' ,...: t,i IJ t~7 i ~'.J PLANNING ~ DEVELDi'iv1ENT WS-96-3/Schneider The Public Works Department has reviewed the Planning Department referral dated October 21, 1996 for the above referenced site, and has the following comments: 1. We will need a final drainage report. 2. We will need engineered construction plans for those proposed public improvements on Union Court. -_ 3. We will need a completed Dumping/Landfill Permit. In conjunction with the requirements of this permit, an erosion- control.plan may need to be submitted for review and approval. 4. Escrow, in lieu of those public improvements required along the West 38th Avenue frontage, will need to be submitted prior to issuance of the first building permit for this site. An estimate for the cost of-these improvements will be provided by the Engineering Department. 5. The-terms of Section 5.20 - Street Width Designation - of the City Charter, will need to be satisfied by the developer for the proposed Union Court right-of-way dedication. 6. The proposed Prospect Ridge amended subdivision plat will be reviewed upon completion of the process for the variance: that has. been requested. cc: Bob Goebel, Public Works Director Glen Gidley, Planning & Development Director Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer John McGuire, City Surveyor File -511^, ll~=S~ 291 H AVcNL'~ =.c. sox a3s IVnEAT RICGE. CO SD03=-Do3S G:y A~,-.~n_ Faz = 23'-59<^= October 21, 1996 .. ;303123_-5~0q ?c^ce D=_, :, F_x=2;;-2949 The Ciiy of ~1Vheat Ridge The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a rezoning from R-1 and A-2 to R-lA and a 17-Iot major _ suk~divi ' at the property described below. Your response to the following questions and any' commants.on this proposal would-be appreciated by November 4, 1 9~6 _- No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE N0: WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/Schneider LOCATION: 12345 West 38th Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a rezoning from R-1 & A-2 to R-1A & for approval of a 17-lot major subdivision. PURPOSE: Construction of 17 single-family residences APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.683 acres 1_ Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve th's development? YES ~ NO If "NO", please explain below. 2. Are sere ce lines available to the development? YES ~ NO If "NO", please explain below. 3_. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? YES u~ NO If "NO", please explain below. 4. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your ru s 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? }Jau6 ~`( ~!-4:. i~we ~~~ r'~`""w.2i'.P.D. ~m-z~4G Pleas-e reply to: M_ Ra rka rfi epartment of Planning & Development DISTRIBUTION: XXWater District (Con. Mutdal XXSanitation District (Westridg~ XXFire District (Wheat Ridge Adjacent City ( ) XXPublic Service Co. XXUS West Communications State Land Use Commission State Geological Survey Colorado Dept. of Transportation Colorado Div. of Wildlife- ggI'CI of Colorado Jefferson Co. Health Dept. XX Jefferson Co. Schools XX Jefferson Co_ Commissioners XX Denver Water Board XX W R Post Office XX W R Police Dept. XX W R Public Works Dept. XX W R Parks & Recreation Com_ XX W R Forestry Div. W R Building Div. Cpc>referralform r, . ® Public Service® October 29, 1996 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Department 7500 West 29"' Avenue P. O. Box 638 Wheat Ridge, CO 80034-0638 Attn: Meredith Reckert ~}~' 1+VFIEAT RtISG~ n ~r~~ f^ 0~ 31 1996 i~ pIANNING & DEVELOPMEI~T~ Re: Prospect Ridge Amended Subdivision Public Service Company of Colorado 55015th Street, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202-4256 FAX (303) 571-7877 Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) has reviewed the development plans for Prospect Ridge Amended Subdivision.. To ensure that adequate utility easements are available within this development, PSCo requests that the following dedication language, or plat note, be placed on the preliminary and final plats for the subdivision: Eight-foot (8) wide utility easements are hereby granted on private property adjacent to the front and rear lot lines of each lot in the subdivision or platted area. These easements are dedicated for the installation, maintenance, and replacement of electric, gas, television cable, and telecommunications facilities. Utilities shat! also be permitted within any access easements and private streets in the subdivision. Permanent structures and water meters shall not be permitted within said utility easements. PSCo also requests that these utility easements be depicted graphically on the preliminary and final plats. While these easements should accommodate the majority of utilities to be installed in the subdivision, some additional easements may be required as planning and building progresses. As a safety precaution, PSCo would like to remind the developer to call the Utility Notification Center, at 1-800-922-1987, to have all utilities located prior to construction. If PSCo has existing gas or electric distribution facilities in this area, the developer should contact PSCo's Engineering Department at (303) 425-3867, regarding the use or relocation of these facilities. If you have any questions about this referral response, please contact me at 571-7735. Thank You, ~tLr/.~-Q /~/~ Teresa Wilson Right-of-Way Processor NMD: Single-family ~ENVE~ VVATE~ 1600 West 12tli Avenue•Denver, Colorado 80254 Phone (303)628-6000•Telecopier No. (303)628-6999 October 30, 1996 Meredith Reckert Deparirnent of Planning and Development ~'.~.~, r r. ip r ~ n City of Wheat Ridge -- _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ` 7500 West 29th Avenue, P. O. Box 638 ~; "' ~ :: 1 , Wheat Ridge, CO 80034-0638 ~ ~ `~ ~ ;` r, _ ;;,~ Re: Case No. WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3/Schneide~i :1; ~.. - .... Dear Ms. Reckert: The above referenced development, a proposed 17 single family resident subdivision, is located within the Contract Service Area of the Consolidated Mutual Water Company. This proposed subdivision is eligible to receive water service subject to the Operating Rules, Engineering Standards and Charges of both the Consolidated Mutual Water Company and Denver Water. Questions concerning water service requirements of the Consolidated Mutual Water Company should be directed to the Company's President, Walter 5. Welton, at 238-0451. Questions on Denver Water's requirements should be directed to one of our Plan Review Coordinators at 628-6100. Sincerely, ~- ~ ames F. Culligan Distributor Services Supervisor 7FCIrma cc: Walter 5. Welton, President, Consolidated Mutual Water Company N:IWPUPC\RECgERT.DOC CONSEtVE ~.., x October 23, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 CITY OF V~?-€E~"` ~i1DGE O nr~~- o~~~~ ui.~i~ ~ PLANNING & ~~ Subject: Union Street (as proposed) north of West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Ms. Reckert: As we discussed on Monday, October 21, 1996, Mr. Glen Gidley inforrne~ me that Union Street as proposed within the Prospect Ridge Subdivision exceeds the ~ifnum length for cul-de-sacs. As I told you and Mr. Greg Knudsen with Public Ya'orks, the adjacent landowners (the Jenks) are not in favor of the proposed extension beca~ss t) this would commit them to possibly planning around the extension and 2) as the Planning Department had indicated to them a "looped" subdivision was the most fitc$iy Hevelopment plan for the Jenks property. 1 have also researched the zoning map book in an effort to locate cu4-riQ~ac that exceed the standard which I believe is 500 feet. The following table indicts these non- conforming cul-de-sacs: " - ~e.., . Street Name Location Zoning Section #y~ W. 35th Avenue West of Simms Street Ne zR W. 35th Avenue East of Union Street NE zq W. 47th Avenue Easi of Robb Street NW 21 Routt Street South of West I-70 Frontage Rd. NW 21 Owens Street South of West 44th Avenue NW 2°t Pierson Street North of 38th Place SW ~ Hoyt Court North of West 39th Avenue NW 5 00' ti S ov. (o oU gy0~ 4~U~ 52~ ' 5~ ~ ~~ Hoyt Court South of West 44th Avenue NW 22 `~``'~ Hoyt Street South of West 44th Avenue NW 22 ys~'~ Yukon Court East of Yarrow Street NVV 23 Brentwood Street North of West 38th Avenue SW 23 Ingalls Street North of West 35th Place NW 25 Yukon Court South of West 38th Avenue NW 26 Reed Street North of West 30th Avenue SE 26 Quay Street South of West 29th Avenue SE 26 Independence Street North of 32nd Avenue NW 27 Owens Street South of West 38th Avenue NW 28 Routt Street North of West 32nd Avenue NW 28 9SU~ ~ s~ ` -mil zoo -~ vo ' Nov' ~6D /GLro ` s~-v' ~gv' S~v ~O~ , I would like to receive an opinion from your department on 1) if in fact these streets are all non-conforming 2) if this non-conformance has presented any difficulty in administering City services to the best of your knowledge and 3) the approximate dates of the above subdivision approvals. These items would seem to be important in the matter of approving anon-conforming length of cul-de-sac. Mr. Gidley had also mentioned that the non-conforming length may still be approved at Planning Commission and/or City Council. Is it necessary to apply for some sort of variance or can this be handled within the current process we have initiated? I hope that you or your staff may have the answers to these questions by the time we meet on Friday, October 25, 1996 at 6:30 prn. and we can discuss them at that time. I would also appreciate it if I could be supplied with the section of the subdivision code which refers to this item and any related items such as the requirements for a variance. Thank you for your help in this matter. ce: Mr. Glen Gidley Mr. Bob Gobel 232-8983 October 25, 1996 Daniel L. Schneider 2562 Taft Court Lakewood, Colorado Deaz Dan: This letter is in response to your submittal for aseventeen-lot resubdivision of property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue within the City of Wheat Ridge. I have reviewed the plat and have noted that the following must be added to the plat face or addressed otherwise: 1. A case history box with the following case numbers: MS-96-5, WS-96-2 2. Vicinity map 3. Adjacent zoning on the east (A-2) and south (R-lA) 4. Address and phone number of owners 5. Signature block for the Chairman of the Planning Commission needs to be corrected 6. The street (with width dimensions) should be named Union Court with the statement that the right-of--way is "hereby dedicated by this document" 7. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the City `s standard of 500'. This is a specific variance that needs to be addressed as part of the subdivision approval process. Please answer the attached questions regarding justification of the variance to be included in the staff report.. 8. Utility easements l0' wide along all rights-of-way, 8' wide along reaz lot lines and 5' in width along side lot lines 9. All existing easements need to be shown as being "hereby vacated by this document. 10. Planning staff will be requesting the dedication and construction of a 10' wide crusher fines pedestrian to the property to the east. There maybe other items needed which haven't been addressed by this correspondence. Attached are copies of.refenal responses received-from other City deparments and outside agencies. All of their concerns must be addressed. This case is scheduled for public heazing in front of Planning Commission on November 21, 1996. I will need fifteen copies of the revised plat no later than November 11, 1996. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert cc:WS-96-2 file ._Zs _~ _~~_~~~- "t/~<,'v _-_ _ _ _ r~-~ .. - - .. .. ___ ~1,~ ~ ~ r Scao (. ~ __. - - -- - -- o -- - _ ~a~~_o~. __ __ ~ `i -- -- _.._. 4----------- _. f I ,2~-t~y%~"~""' r _~ -_ II ~~-~-e-~Q- ~ - - - -~ ---___ ~-~c'Q~ .__ -- - -- - --- --- __._ - ---- ---- - -- -- --- - - ---- .-_ ..__._ ~. _.G~.~~~-c s - - - - --Ii~GV`-~a-~'-_ -w`_--~2 L~~u~_~~-T_ --`3~-- -- ----- - -- - - I -- _ --_-- ~__~ ~~ .• _- _ --- -'~- --/~ -~ / ~ _ .rte-~~~--~- _._ _,2~_-- f ' _ -- ___- ------ - ii ~~~ -- ,., i y~~ ---- ._ - -- - --- ~ --=v`im'-- --- - - - ._ - -- - - fs~ , ~ _ ~ ...~._ NOTICE OF THE LOCATION OF THIS MEETI THE TIME AND DATE FOR THIS THE PURPOSE FOR THIS PROPO . ~ GITY 0~ ~1?FfF_..~T RIDt'~ ~~~~~!~ f7f~i 7 IGHBORHOOD ZNPUT MEETING ~~ 2 Q 1996 ~ FOR REZONING T' ~i `J' ~-I ~ ~~ °"'-e r ELOPMENT PROPOSING A REPAE'~ TO f2~1 - A IS . IL3°kS W , .3f'~A~se..~.s- di The City of Wheat Ridge has adopted a requirement that, prior to application £or rezoning of property to a higher use, or for properties in,excess__of one {11 acre, end for Spedial U32 Fermits which allow a special use of land, an applicant must notify all residents within 600 feet and invite them to a Neighborhood Input Meeting. The purpose for this meeting is to allow the applicant to present his proposal to the neighborhood and also to allow the neighborhood to express directly to the applicant, their concerns, issues and desires. - 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 o£ 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 kinds of concerns residents normally have include the following: * Is the proposal compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning? * Are there adequate utilities and. services in place. or_pzoposed tc serve the project? * What is the impact on our streets? * Where will the storm drainage go?~ * How will the project be designed to enhance rather than detract from the neighborhood? * What specific changes can be made in the proposal to make it more. acceptable to me? After attending the following space and concerns, issues or proposal. Please s required to provide application. .~- Neighborhood Input Meeting, please use the the back of this £orm to list any specific suggestions which you may have regarding this ign it and give it to the applicant, as he is these forms to the City along with his PRINT NAME ADDRESS PHONE <pc>notice/neighborhoodmtg/zk ~~ P.O. BOX 638- -- - -TELEPHONE; 303.'237-6944 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE .WHEAT RIDGE..COLORADO 80034 October 31, 1996 ~~ The City of Wheat Ridge This is to inform you that Case No. WZ-96-15/WS-96-3 which is a request for approval of a rezoning from R-1 and A-2 to R-lA and for approval of a 17-lot major subdivision with a variance to the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue will be ,heard by the Wheat Ridge Plannina Commission in the Council Chambers o£ the Municipal Complex, 7500 west 29th Avenue at 7.30 n.m. on November 21, 1996 All owners and/or their legal counsel o£ the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the Plannina Commission 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. I£ you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION <pc>phnotice£orm "The Carnation City" i I , rq 617 S m a a ..n rr a RETU~ sr+ow'ro wROm oA ~ print ur name aM address on the reverse of this tam so that wp can reurn [hi; ADDR'cSS OF OSCINE ~ RECEIPT - Ito yroar- . ~ ., , CERPFIED FEE * RE1 Alta tNs form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does rat permit. SERVICE TOTAL POSTAGE ANO - ~ Tfiw ReL mn RaceTOt will show [O Whom Iha ankle wa3 tlelivered dmd the data tleivere( Debbie _ `= ~e>3d5i~ :x~or~ 12741 i. .:1_ ,.,, -~~~;c i+~ 3ctit r,ves.1F, 64heat Ridge -~t;aeat ltfr.dge C,t ~ ~ 0 3 3 Ret WZ-96-1'.c ~E~e: Cn:i.--~£-I9 (I?) ':_' -_ n PS FORM 3800 U~=,. I also wish to receive the I awing services (for an extra fee): I 7. ^ Addressee's Address 2. ^ Restricted Delivery - P 960 413 451 Service Type CERTIFIED 7. Dat~ `f Delyvery 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY ii requested and tee paid.) --'"' ' r~ p XRMr381 rJa uay ASSSt) `Domesfic Return Receipt ~` ' ~_ _ - _ POSTAGE m 6r7 m a S D" 12 RETURN RECEIPT SERVICE -ENDER: I also wish to receive the t eta. ems n_..pr _ _ iddal serv ea. - -~ -- - _ - following services (for an extra fee): I arne~rr 3ddr~s on the reverse of this farm so that we can return this card 'r to you. 1-.-^ Addressee's Address a rte- a is arm the frotnt orttie maTlplece, 6ranthe back iF space tloes not permit. 2. ^ RBShICted DBiVery =•~The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. ('ionSUlt pOSlmaSter for fee. -~ TOTAL POSTAGE ANO F_ -- - - - - ~~.~-'~aAdicCe.Ed_dlessec to VZ]:Oc_ NOT FOfl INT ° ISFF. eA Dtui SchTteit3e~' _ 2~SG2 °I'aPt t;ourt ~r36x rJ.°g~~ ~C315.- - .. _ LELjC43WOOd CO ~- - - :- 5: Receiv` d By' ~ Print Nar1r~J' PS FORM 3800 X, or ~Ar_ticle_Cdumbe~.__ ~~__- _' °P 96~ 413 453 b. Service Type CERTIFIED .Date of De ivery . Addre see's Address _(ONLY i£ requested and tee paid.) - "" -'~'~ 9 SENDS R •' ~ ~ ~4 ~ I also wish to receive the ~-• W ems t and/or 2 for additional services. •Cemplete items 3, 4a, and 4b. fOIOWIng SBNICBS (far an . _ m • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this gXtra fee): Y^-,^ _ -.-»~--s= d a ~ •Attach this form to the Nont of the mailpiece, or on en1YL the back if space does not t , ^ Addressee's Address ~ . PperAGE _~ p •Wdte'Retum Rece/pt Requested'an the mailpiece below the article number. 2,^AeStrioted DeliVefy ~n RETURN scow To wHON,. ~ ADDRESS GF DEU_ •The Betum Receipt wdl show to whom the aniGa was delivered end the date delivered Consult postmasterfor fee. ~ - ' ~ RECEIPT C CERTIFIED FEE tF . m 6rI SERVICE 9 TOTAL POSTAGE N 3. Article Addressed to: 4^a. Artlcle Number v S ~ I ~ - c ` (J , ~ ~ rrl SENT TO:- Hor For c. - ~ Jenks & Eileen L i L C l 4b. Service Type ~ _ - s C81Vi.n y San . a v n . Certifted ^ Registered L 8ileeA T1 JaA ] j $$j W. 38 Ave ^ Express Mail ^ Insured ~ ~ 11$85 4T 3$tYs ¢ Wheat Ridge C~ $0033 - ^ RetumRecelptforMerchanrGse ^ COD ' I' ~' 'ilQZle~'t Ridges a 7. Date of Delivery . ~ ° ' d ~~ ~ ~ ' T ~ GF T+~ f ~Z~~~+ 5. Received By: (Pdnt Name) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested ~ ~ and fee is paid) ,~ PS FORM 3800 ! T ~r ~eT ~_ ~ ~_ ~ PS,F''o 1Y, Dece be fssa Domestic Return Receipt Q~ s m a 4 d NDER: ~ I also wish to receive the I PosTAGE c- _rpete l am ~d~ar~a a"+°"al ae °"es' following services or an extra ee : h RETURN SNOW TO canon ~ Rrint your name and address on the reverse of [his form so that we can return this caN y ~ AddreSSeE s Address RECEIPT ADDRESS OF nE - to Yore SERVICE CERTIFIED FEE - ~ Attach [hls form to the front of the mailplece, Or On t e ~ tr' space does not pe~m4- - 2. - ^ ROStYICfed Delivery - TOTAL POSTAGE _~ urn ecelpt vinyl s11av t0 whom trcEartde was delivered and the tlate delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. _ - - d t . ~ n~ Crtirlo nlnmHar !NTTO:- NoTFC- ~eAtldress€ o. Xl'1-3.IS ~ ;~. ~= ~ Y}.i. :. ~i~:.s3Y~6 :: Y7.13 "r' Ri'au::tt~a ~ _YA..u.tt~ 'iY':xstet• AiR22e~'~e ~ :-_- - qy'} {~ y L-~a ~;jJ 64 ..yi "3 t71 diV°P. Li E' 12355 1~1j ; k lJ'> 3 r,. ~~ y yy . 1 ~'4Y~ ,njt,.'~ •TI}:t.~dt ~a i;ti V.- ~p~1 1.J ~3.i ... R65 ~~.... ..~_ ~=Received By: (Print Name) PS FORM 3800 X or L 13- 449 46. Service Type CERTIFIED 7. Date of Delivery /I-s- 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if requested and _, -.- - ary,199s _ _ . , .. - - - ~ Domestic Return Receipt -= ~, _ _ - _ -aGtluionei services.--- ~ ~ - - - I also wish to receive the POSWGE _ following services (for an extra fee): RETURN ~~~va nd-tld-~~ f tnts~o[~soJh i_•~ ~-[etur[t_thisrar4 r snow Ta wHOM r ro ycu. 1 ^ Addressee's Address RS V'1 7 m a 0 Ir d aooRESS oR Deu RECEIPT • Attar-thrs krm to (he >ront ort~i~iece, or on tie back If space does rw[ permit. 2. ^ RBStriCfed 081Very CERTIFIED FEE R SERVICE TheRe[urn Receipt willshpw [o whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. (;OnSUf pOStmaSter for fee. - TOTAL POSTAGE AP- - P~ddCOSS.DG_IO' No IN u A ~ -4a. Article Number SENT.TQ Noreaq,_ __'•g~~,~. w y-s33~fi7t's~~ __-.- - - -- -- ~'ames E itatt~ ~ ~ ~v2~Fg _ -~ P Y6 r~d~5t $ Rt~t3,.. _ 3744 Fii3 5.021 C6d:3St 4b. Service Type 378+3 t2sfioa t - i irdatk'ett I2ifigel c:D ::;933 - ~ CERTIFIED W3~eat dge - g ~ Y £i~s ,~72--~5-is (Iwo .._. Res 4~Z-95-: 7. Date of Deliv§ry ~,~ 8. Addressee's Address - (ONLY if requested and fee paid.) PS FORM 3800 ~-- - - - -- --- --- -- - - ~~6. Signature: Addressee or Agent) ~~ -~ ~ ° - --^ ~FQ 3811 January yeas Domestic Return Receipt I l I ----- -- - - - RosTAGE RETURN sHOV - PDSTMAAK OR DATE - - ,,- o ~ - - - ~ /TO WHOM, MIE AND RESTRIDTEO RECEIPT ADDPE55 OF DELIVERY ~ DELIVERY ~ d ~ SERVICE CERTIFIED FEE+RETUflN RECEIPT - O - ' S TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES _ j y ~ fT"t M NC vEFAG P I ED- SENT TO;.. - NOT FOP INTERNATIONAL MAIL - ~ ~ lyO LL s . . ._ ~,t _ .D,6Wli H/°'}30~t~T zy ~7„j.~.L'8 .~.13~SJr.OTIiK a a, - „ 0 208& R.i.derbazry mad aw ~ °-' .. GOldesa CO 80401 . ..mil ` .-. ~.. .. moo ; _- - - --- ~ F=; r Res wZ-96-15 432) MR ,., . _ „ .. U¢, ~w af! PS FORM 3800 US Postal Service ROCelpt fOr a F Certified Mail o _..._.....r. .r- _ ~_ _,_ ~ , _ _ - _ {17 to S m 7 0 ~' a SENDER: ~ _-~_.~ ~--`~D'i- - s 1 -- di' Ise v'c s. - POSWGE - ~ Print year name ant atltlress on the reverse of this form so that we can return this a RETURN SHOW To WHOM DAi to-yc ' RECEIPT AODRESe OF OEUVERi" ~ ~~~~to the tmnt of tM malQ ece or on the back if space tloes not r2> CERTIFIED FEE +PETLrt~ e e urn Redel i will show to wMm the article was tleiveretl and the tlate deliveetl, SERVICE TOWLPOSTAGE AND F~T~ ~ICfE Atldressed t0: ~TQ..I ••••••NOT FOP MT~~~~c.. tl1~l.wK ~' _ ~F ~~ 3sc~is J Tat• -1ast;J 'v: 3::;t1, <se _ 12240 ~ ~~~a=~= Oat ~.~~ c:~ ,~n~, `- 'Fl~t~aati RS.dg ' - . ' . r~C 3 ~r'~-iii-3.:i (1~) ,-., »c ;51TTeceived By: (Print Name) PS FORM 3800 I also wish to receive the ~ing_services_(for_an extra- ^ Addressee's Address 455 CERTIFIED 7. Date of Delivery 1~- !3 -4(e 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if requested and fee paid.) _~4,.~_,_. _ PSEOA~t3811, d aryl ~sss Domestic Return Rgceipt _ ~ ~_ _.. - - SENDER: - -----------r I also wish to receive the s - ---- -~ - ----~-COmpiete Hems t ana/crz for aad¢ionai services. following services (for an extra fee): '- TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES , ~ print your name and address on the reverse of this form So that we can retum this card - 1. ^ Addressee's Address -yp~~, - m ~ to yev. SENT TO: NOT FOP INTERNA • pdach this form [e the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. 2. ^ RBStrlCted DeIlVery S S -The Return Receipt wll show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 8averly & iiae.i.cl -~ ~ ~ -~~ _ ~- _ COnSUIt pOSYmaStef fOr fee. =3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Amide Number ° 3781 Tabox' Gous - tyf•,ver.l~ w ;~.~.vi.a :°ilsem - P 960 413 456 tr _ A°aat: ~,(~C~$ ~ 46. Service Type i~t WZ-98-18 ( ki~~~t :;~,cire ~.. ;s3733 ~ CERTIFIED .~ ~ = -rte __~y_~~~ t3+. 7. Date of Deli ery PS FORM 3800 ~ US Po° - - ~ ~- - ~- 5. Received By: (Print Name) ~ ~ _ 8. Addressee's Address -- I - (ONLY if requested and fee paid) - _.,_.. ..- -- -r___ _ - r fi. iqn ddressee or Age ) ,9 _ ///_/ i ~_, _ _., . PS FORM 3 ,11a,,~anuzry , 9gs , .. , ., _ __ ~_. ~ ~ . Domestic Return Receipt ~ ~„~ ,_ .. SENDER: - .Qom ete items 1 arltl/or 2 for additional services. .~=.-e..--. -._ ~~.:==mow-~ i._. .PI. _: -.. _ .._..._ ~, .....v._.....,.__._.-_ ' POSTAGE - - n ur ddr34~or~ihe reverse 6t-tlSis YOrrirso that we can RETURN - t2Ypc. SHOW To wlionn._ ~ Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does [~ RECEIPT ADDRESS OF DELF N cEF11FIED FEE+{ ~~he R2tuln RaCeipt Wii shOW b wfpm the article W25 rTelVefed dllSthe~3 sERVicE ~ 3g7hcle Aadresse~, - S roru PosiAGE a m SEN~T.yTO: ry -y,{NO~NyOr FOi i{y2Ss' tDCJC".S S ~'as~yl Li®4~ ~ ~d,.Z. Y,/ {'~ ~-7ta~ 1 ~C14~f' 0 12$49 ~-' 36t Yih=..at Rig;,;!+s c.`c) ~ _t~333 .q Q' )!~hea~ Ridge. ~ Ref 9{FZ+-9&-® __..- ` 5. Received By: (Print Name) PS FORM 3800 L_g~~ig(oatuce:/(A~dressee or Age - / ` `~U~~~ _ r I also wish to receive the i following services (for an extra fee): t 7. ^ Addressee's Address 2. ^ Restricted Delivery 4b. Service Type CERTIFIED Date of Delivgry ~ _ ~~ Addressee's/Address (ONLY it requested and fee paid.) i PS FORM 3811, nuary T996 Domestic Return Receipt -- .~~.~ -...-._.. ~ •- : ~ tit sr~ , tf f ft :k# ki f{_ --_ .~ C7 .D m a s 0 Q-, a RETURN RECEIP SERVIC SENDER I also wish to receive the -~,®~----~----+~_a~-r~mplete rtema t andror z ror additional sen'~ces following services (for an extra fee): PosTAGE -~ r Frrrr~ t Is orm ~ rwe can return this card ~ ^ Addressee's Address SHOW TD YMOM. .. - . ......_. .._. .. -. - . .. .- -. T AnORESS OF DEIN • At[ach this form to 1M front of the mailp'Iece, or on Me c I space P~emiR. 2. ^ Restricted Delivery CERTIFIED FEE i RC • T}le Ralllrn R¢Calp[ Will S ow o W Dm Ica a iuared and the date delivered. ConSUli pOStmastef for fee. E __ - ~ '' ~}a_ArUcle_Number TGTAL POSTAGE ICe YesGe O. l'O: - Nor RaR -- 13c1nZA !s ~tAe; ip-9~-413 460 Daniel & Sh+, _ _ ~,.`',L~ Td~t Ct ervlc gpe -_ ___ - -- 2562 'i'a'~t G' - i~kmWOOCi ~}: 135321:r ~ CERTIFIED j.~•,@WpC?d C~_ ~_ ;i .,.~; ,_;J t 2 ,~ ~ riz? 7. Date of D liver RSg '~~i'~g6°F_ 8. Addressees Address 5. Receiv : (Print Nam (ONLY if requested and tee paid.) PS FORM 3800 U,~ 6. Signature: (Addressee or Agenq -..t ___ ~/_ _ /~ ..a -- ~~ ---gym i 1 PoSTAGE :• I RETURN sr+ow ro weo ADORESSOFU 0-. RECEIPT _ CERTIFIED FEE ~rl SERVICE ,S ~- TOTALPOSTAGE'~u,JARlple t\GOBSSeuu '-"""'-- - - N U ~ ~ ~- m SENT_TO:. -. Nor~'__ _ ~ ~ P 96CJ 413 459 a `~ - - - - - - _ 4b. Service Type S Steve T~tt ~.- p .ten 12042 (+d Sa- d.eat• ~"~ £..i ?1833 CERTIFIED o- - _ ~~,~ ~1 f ~ 7. Date of Delivery _ ' {1}} "~ a _:-~':-+r~- ~~ $e g ~~^' :) 8. Receiv ~(P t Name) ' - _ S. Addressee's Address ,,~ (ONLY i£ requested and fee paid.) PS FORM 3800 - ~ _~_ ,an ur ~ ddrpssee f76~c+~ ~ - m rs1~~ 7 m a S 0 a" a j. ~.~ POSTAGE ~ RETURN SHDwIDVmOM ADDRESS OF OEL. RECEIPT SERVICE OERTIFIED FEE ~ p TOTAL POSTAGE A _ ., _..uamesucnctulll.,~,..,,r. $ FORM 381 i, January 1996 - - - -----.. - --~_-..~_.._.~~._ - -- t ENDER: I also wish to receive the ~ Complete items f andror z ror adaniona_I services. following services (for an extra fee): ' n your n a a e I a"-CA~FI~TUlR T~s c~dr - t ^ Addressee's Address rto_yw __.-~.~.,..m .,.-rhe rn~l of me mailoiece. or on the back it space does not permR. -2. ^ RE!ShlCfed D@IlVery l? - oa_M 3811,,Jan lsss ~ ~ « C - - - - Uomestlc I-return rseceipt _ t ' - ~ --T--~_-- °~-------~ - - - - SENQER: ~ _ I also wish to~receive the . Complete gems T antlror z ror additional services. following services (for an extra fee): I -- aD DYSae_g.~.adESS§i~on the reverse of this rorm_ so that we can return this cartl t ^ gddressee'S Address ~_ gttlEhitGi~to[Ii~t the Fron~Diece or on the back i/ space tloe3 not permR. u 2. ^ ReStrlCled DBIVery -iiFle Return Aeceip[ wlll show to whom the article was deliveretl and the date tlelivered. COnsUlt pOStmaster fOr fee. -- _-_-_ __----_-_ T' -__..... ._.--._..I ~~rCDTe Ad ressedto - ~ ~ ~-'- 4a. Article Number S+;d3€sat ::7.;:P C..i ~ CERTIFIED 373 unicm - _ :,. . w}.'leat RiBCJfl_t~P. = .ti ~i."-`.?;: `I ~ { I "? ~ ~'; . "' 7. Date of Deliver g 91t~-$6- 5. Received By: (Print Name) .: ~- S. Addressee's Address + (ONLY if requested and fee paid.) --- T f~(Aridiessae urAyent) PS FORM 3800 C_~ =f' RM 38 1, Januar tss- _ - - - - Domestic Return -Receipt NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on November 21, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. A11 interested citizens are invited to.speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: 1. Caste No. WZ-96-15: An application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a rezoning from Residential-One - and Agricultural-Two to Residential One-A; and 2. Case No. WS-96-3: An ,application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a 17-lot major subdivision with a variance to the Subdivision Regulations. Said property for both cases is located at 12345_ West 38th Avenue and is legally described as follows: Tracts A, B and C and Lots 1 through 4, Prospect Ridge Minor Subdivision, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. -- - - 3. Case No. WZ-96-12: An application by Western PCS III for an amendment to a Planned Industrial Development final development plan with a height variance. Said property is located at 4836 Van Gordon and is legally described as follows: Tract 6, Nicholas Gardens Subdivision, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson,_State of Co/l~or~ado. '~J"" ; Sandr~Wiggins, etary ATTEST: - Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: November 1, 1996 Jefferson Sentinel c:\wp60\pc\112196.phn _ __ _, ~ ~, - HAND DELIVERED _ _ November 6, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Zoning Department 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Street Width Designation -Union Court, North of West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Ms. Reckert: I have had several discussions with the City of Wheat Ridge Public Works Department representatives, Mr. Greg Knudson and Mr. Bob Gobel and with you and Mr. Glen Gidley of Planning and Zoning regarding whether or not Section 5.20 ofi the City Charter applies to streets within an newly platted subdivision. I understand that the City Attorney's office has been contacted and asked to prepare a written position on this issue. However, to date, I have not received this correspondence. My understanding is that this law was enacted to allow adjacent property owners and owners within a 300-foot impact zone of either side of the street under consideration to voice opposition in the form of a protest. This protest would then be considered by the City Council for final street designation. However, I have repeated stated, I do not believe that a street within a platted subdivision which is designed to current City of Wheat Ridge standards falls into this category. Nonetheless, as stated in the attached Section 5.20 of the City Charter, The City Council shall have the sole authority and responsibility to determine the width of all city Streets within the boundaries of the City of Wheat Ridge." And as noted on the correspondence that was given to me yesterday by you, Mr. Greg Knudson has listed compliance with the terms of Section 5.20 under his comments dated October 23, 1996. Therefore, at this time, I am formally requesting that Union Street as planned within our subdivision be reviewed under Section 5.20 of the City Charter. __ Please find attached the following information which was requested in the "Proposed Street Width Designation Procedure and Process": Enclosure #1 Mailing List of Owners of Properties Within 300 Feet of Either Side of Union Court as Proposed Enclosure #2 Area of Potential Protest Map Indicating. Adjacent Property Owners on Either Side of Union Court as Proposed Enclosure #3 Area of Potential Protest Map Indicating Property Owners Within 300 Feet on Either Side of Union Court as Proposed ~. Enclosure #4 Section 5.20 of the City Charter Enclosure #5 Section 21-4 of the Code of Laws Enclosure #6 Preliminary Street Improvement Plan prepared by Lane Engineering Service, Inc. It is my understanding that the next City Council meeting which could hear this case would be November 25, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. This would allow the publishing of the required notices under Step 3 of the process outlined by the City of Wheat Ridge, Department of Public Works. By completing this portion of the Street Width Designation process, this will allow for the 45-day protest period to begin on November 26, 1996 and expire on January 9, 1997 which is prior to the final City Council approval of the rezoning and subdivision. Please let me know what additional requirements and costs are necessary to continue this process. I have always complied with all City of Wheat Ridge regulations and requests for this project and will continue to do so. If I can help in any way with this process, please contact me at 232-8983 at your convenience. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 'n erely, Daniel F. Schneider, P. E. cc: Mr. Bob Gobel w/o enclosures Mr. Greg Knudson w/o enclosures Mr. Glen Gidley w/o enclosures Mr. Dick Romberg w/o enclosures _ __ ___ _. __ ! i HAND DELIVERED November 8, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Wheat Ridge Parks Department Response to Proposed Prospect Ridge Subdivision, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Ms. Reckert: I have received from you copies all of the referrals that apply to the referenced property with the exception of the Wheat Ridge Parks Department. As you remember in May, 1996, I was handed their request for land dedication 3 hours before the Planning Commission was scheduled to hear our case. This presented a significant hardship both mentally and financially at that time, as we were not allowed the time to review possibilities and even discuss this with them. Although we were able to respond immediately and get approval for our plan by the Planning Commission, I am concemed about not repeating the same scenario for this subdivision. It is my understanding in talking to you and Mr. Gidley that it is unlikely that since we have already dedicated 0.29 acres to the Wheat Ridge Parks Department in May, 1996, that we will not have to dedicate additional land to the parks department. However, I am concerned about whether or not we will still have to pay money in lieu of land dedication. I think that we have complied with the request for land or money in lieu of land in May of this year and would like to have a formal opinion from you and the Wheat Ridge Parks Department by November 13, 1996. 1 ~~ Since you have requested that the final plat be submitted on Monday November 11, 1996, based upon our discussions I have included the original parkland dedicated land and easement in satisfaction of the anticipated requirement. Please let me know if this is not acceptable. Assuming that I do not hear from your office within this timeframe, I will continue on with the understanding that in fact my initial parkland dedication was acceptable and will suffice for this replatting of the property within 5 months of the original plat. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. S" ce ly, i9 r Daniel F. chnei r, P. E. cc: Mr. Glen Gidley Mr. Jeff Wardle 2 HAND DELIVERED November 12, 1996 Mr. Robert Middaugh City Administrator City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Request for City Council Hearing on Street Width Designation - Union Court, North of West 38th Avenue within the Proposed Prospect Ridge Subdivision, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Mr. Middaugh: I wanted to thank you for taking the time to speak with me late Friday afternoon, November 8, 1996. I know how busy you schedule is and I can appreciate that my situation is a unique set of circumstances. As I indicated to you during our telephone conversation, I have formally notified Ms. Meredith Reckert of my compliance with the requirements for the Street Width Designation process outlined by the Department of Public Works director, Mr. Bob Goebel. Please find a copy of the information which was requested in the "Proposed Street Width Designation Procedure and Process" with the exception of Enclosure #4 and #5: Enclosure #1 Mailing List of Owners of Properties Within 300 Feet of Either Side of Union Court as Proposed Enclosure #2 Area of Potential Protest Map Indicating Adjacent Property Owners on Either Side of Union Court as Proposed Enclosure #3 Area of Potential Protest Map Indicating Property Owners Within 300 Feet on Either Side of Union Court as Proposed Enclosure #4 Section 5.20 of the City Charter Enclosure #5 Section 21-4 of the Code of Laws Enclosure #6 Preliminary Street Improvement Plan prepared by Lane Engineering Service, Inc. Although I have requested the information necessary to complete the Section 5.20 of the City Charter and Section 21-4 of the Code of Laws, Ms. Reckert informed me that neither of these sections had been "codified" as of November 8, 1996. She requested the original language from the City Clerk from the City Council hearings and instructed her to call me so I could come down and make copies for distribution. However, I have not heard from the City Clerk as of the delivery of this letter. Based upon the fact that Ms. Reckert did not publish this request to be heard by the City Council on November 8, 1996, this matter can not be heard at the November 25, 1996 City Council meeting. The next City Council hearing that could hear the matter with the appropriate notice being given is December 2, 1996. As I indicate to you, I am asking that the City Council hear the matter of whether the proposed Union Street width be approved since it meets or exceeds the current street width standards set forth by the City of Wheat Ridge. And although this matter may at first be confusing to the council without hearing the entire zoning and subdividing case, as was case in the reconstruction of West 41th Avenue, the City Council designated the street width that was acceptable to them given the information on engineering related to the section of street to be reconstructed. The information regarding the street that I have proposed is that the street width that we have preliminarily chosen meets or exceeds the minimum standards set forth by the Department of Public Works. Therefore I am asking that City Council decide if the street width that is proposed is acceptable to them. Otherwise, I can redesign the street prior to the final City Council hearing scheduled for the beginning of January, 1997. By not hearing this matter now, giving proper notice as required by the law, puts an unfair hardship on me as the applicant since if the street width is not accepted at the final hearing, I would be required to redesign and resubmit the redesigned street and start the subdivision process over. This would be disastrous to me financially as the development loan on the property comes up for reconsideration and hopefully approval, in January, 1997. If the case is that, the street width will most likely be approved because it does meet or exceed the standards set forth by the City of Wheat Ridge's Department of Public Works, by hearing the case now allow for the 45 day protest "clock" to start after the approval by City Council. The significance of this clock starting in that roadway construction can not begin until this period expires. And although I understand that I can always "proceed 2 .., ~ ~ i with the roadway construction at my own risk" since I am financing the entire roadway construction the bank would not let me take that risk with their funds. I appreciate your offer to talk to the City Council president and get their opinion as to when this matter should be heard. However, I think that if this matter is not heard as soon as possible, a significant, undo hardship will be created for me which is not mandated by the law nor any precedent. Less than 10 minutes would be required of the City Council and this may give City Council some additional insight in the law which they passed and the impact to developers who intend to develop land within the City of Wheat Ridge. I have also repeatedly requested a written position on this issue from the Planning And Zoning Department and the Department of Public Works. However, to date, I have not received this correspondence. I would appreciate it if you could facilitate this correspondence as we may be going through all of this for nothing. However, I would rather err on the side of caution in this matter as I. can not afford to miss the Planning Commission or City Council deadlines. Please let me know what additional requirements and costs are necessary to continue this process. I have always complied with all City of Wheat Ridge regulations and requests for this project and will continue to do so. If I can help in any way with this process, please contact me at 232-8983 at your convenience or you can page meat 821- 3043. Sin ely, Daniel F. Schneider, P. E. J , n cc: Mr. Glen Gidley J//•/y~•~ Mr. Bob Goebel 3 HAND DELIVERED November 18, 1996 Mr. Glen Gidley City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Zoning Department 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Case Nos. WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3, and Associated Street Width Designation, Prospect Ridge Subdivision, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Reference: Meeting with Mr. Glen Gidley and Mr. Sean McCarthy, November 15, 1996 Dear Mr. Gidley: Based upon on meeting last Friday, November 15, 1996, it is my understanding that the City of Wheat Ridge has made the determination to hear the above subject cases and the street width designation hearing at the same time. You indicated that the combined hearings for rezoning, variance, subdivision and street width designation are set for Monday, December 16, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. and that these items have been placed on the agenda with the approval of Mr. Bob Middaugh. As I indicated to you in our meeting, I sincerely appreciate your and Mr. Middaugh's efforts to resolve this situation. 1 am looking forward to presenting my requests to the City Council at that time. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. ncer ly, Daniel F. Schneider, P. E. cc: Mr. Bob Middaugh CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: November 21, 1996 DATE PREPARED: November 9, 1996 CASE NO. & NAME: WZ-96-15 & WS-963 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning from R-1 and A-2 to R-1A and 17 lot major subdivision with a variance. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 12345 W. 38th Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Daniel & Sherri Schneider, 2562 Taft Ct., Lakewood, 80215 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Same. APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.8 acres PRESENT ZONING: R-1 & A-2 PRESENT LAND USE: single family residential & vacant SURROUNDING ZONING: N: A-2; S: R-1A; E: R-1 & A-1; W: R-1 & A-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: greenbelt; S: single family; E: single family; W: family, vacant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: low density residential DATE PUBLISHED: November 1,1996 DATE POSTED: November 7, 1996 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: October 31, 1996 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) ATTACHED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ATTACHED -------------------------- ENTER INTO RECORD: (XX) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) ZONING ORDINANCE (XX) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Q )OTHER ( )NOT REQUIRED (XX)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. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/Schneider I. REQUEST The applicant's request is three-fold for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue: 1. Approval of a rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One A, 2. Approval of a variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; and, 3. Approval of a seventeen lot major subdivision. Separate Motions will be needed for each portion of the request. II. CASE HISTORY Earlier this year, this property was subdivided into four "estate "lots consistent with the underlying zoning pursuant to Case No. MS-96-5. A copy of the reduced plat is included as Exhibit `A'. The owner has subsequently concluded that construction of only four single family residences is not monetarily feasible based on the cost of infrastructure improvements and is pursuing rezoning and subdivision. If the existing zoning on the property were maximized with a resubdivision of the current plat on file, approximately 11 dwelling units could be built. III. REZONING Zoning on the property is currently Residential-One on the southern two-thirds and Agricultural-Two on the northern one-third. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to Residential-One A. Please refer to the table below which sets out design parameters for the individual districts. ZONING STANDARDS MINIMUM MR~IIMUM ZONE LOT AREA LOT WIDTH UNITS PER ACRE A_2 1 ACRE 140' 1.0 R-1 12,500 SQ. FT. 100' 3.5 R-lA 9,000 SQ. FT. 75' 4.8 In regard to the criteria used to evaluate a rezoning, Staff has the following comments: Planning Division Staff Report Page 3 Case No. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/Schneider 1. The City's Future land use map designates this property as low density residential. Both the existing and proposed zoning would fit within this classification which is defined as having one to 6.9 dwelling units per acre. 2. Zoning surrounding the property includes property within the City9s Clear Creek greenbelt zoned A-2 to the north. To the east is R-1 and A-2 zoned property used as low density residentiafl and as agricultural. Vacant land zoned R-1 and A-2 abuts the property to the west with low density residential beyond. Low density residential with R-lA zoning is south of the property across West 38th Avenue. 3. There aze no obvious social, or physical benefits to the City of Wheat Ridge because of the rezoning. The Parks and Recreation Commission will evaluate the recreational impact at their meeting on November 20. There wilfl be an increased tax base because of the additional homes which will be built as a result of the zone change. 4. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of installation of the infrastructure improvements including installation of water and sewer lines and full width street construction. 5. The proposed rezoning and subdivision will generate roughly 170 vehicle trips per day based on an industry standazd of 10 vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit. If the subdivision were replatted with existing zoning, but maximizing allowable density with a resulting 11 lots, 110 vehicle trips per day would be generated. Drainage on the property will have to follow historic flows. Public Works is currently reviewing a drainage study for the property. With the R-1 A zoning versus existing zoning, there would be no decrease in the amount of light and air to adjacent properties. 6. If not rezoned, the property could be developed in accordance with the existing plat or by maximizing the existing zoning through a replatting process. Approvafl of the R-lA zoning will not create spot zoning as there is adjacent R-lA directly south of the property and further to the east.. 8. Staff is unable to ascertain whether the proposed zone change will fill a void in services, products or services. Staff has concluded that the proposed zone change will result in an additional six dwelling units as opposed to maximization of current zoning on the property. Because there would be six more units constructed, there will be a small increase in traffic congestion on the public streets and slightly more impact to adjacent residences. This figure, however, will be nominal. Staff further concludes that the proposed rezoning would be in conformance with the low density residential classification on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Planning Division Staff Report Page 4 Case No. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/Schneider The subdivision and variance cannot occur unless the rezoning is approved. IV. VARIANCE Section 4.B.5. of the Subdivision Regulations specifies that "cul-de-sac center points shall be no longer than 500 feet from the centerline intersection of streets serving the subdivision" (in this case, West 38th Avenue). As the applicant has pointed out in his justification regarding the variance request, there aze numerous dead-end streets in the City of Wheat Ridge that exceed this 500' standard. See Exhibit `B and C'. Staff has checked these street lengths and has confumed that all of them do exceed the 500' maximum with the exception of two; those being Owens Street south of West 44th Avenue and Yukon Court south of West 38th Avenue which both appeaz to be about 480° from the centerline of the collectors from which they achieve access. Regazdless, the City did not approve these streets as a part of a subdivision process. They were dedicated under the county's jurisdiction. Pursuant to the subdivision plat being proposed, the applicant is requesting a 190' vaziance to allow the cul-de-sac 690' long from the centerline of West 38th Avenue to the center point of the cul-de-sac bulb . If the vaziance is not approved, the applicant's subdivision design must be denied or redesigned to show a public street connection with the property to either the east or west. In regard to the standard in the Subdivision Regulations, it is in place primarily to address fire access issues and to encourage an integrated public street system instead of a series of unconnected cul-de-sac bulbs throughout the City. Please refer to attached Exhibit `D' which is a letter of no objection from the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District. The property owner to the east does not wish to tie into this subdivision, if and when, their land develops. Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria to support a vaziance request. The property could still be developed without benefit of the vaziance by connection to either the east or the west. To the west is a parcel of R-1 zoned property under one ownership which, if and when, subdivided could dedicate additional right-of--way for Urban Street and provide a curve at the north end of the property to the east to connect with r-o-w connecting with the subject property. The same is true with the undeveloped (R-1 and A-2 zoned) land to the east. See Staff's attached exhibit 'D' showing future potential connections with these adjacent properties. 2. Circumstances are not unique in that there is undeveloped land to both east and west allowing future street connections. The unique circumstances do not support the request for variance. 3. If the variance were granted, it could negatively affect the character of the area. Multiple pedestrian access points to the greenbelt, similaz to the one at the north end of McLaughlin Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/Schneider Page 5 Subdivision, will be needed to serve this subdivision and the potential subdivisions on either side. If a street system is designed so as to connect these three subdivisions, only one access point would be necessary. 4. There is no physical hardship (i.e., topographical or odd shape) which creates the need for exception to the Subdivision Regulations. 5. A precedent may be established for similar requests on either side of this property. 6. The purpose of the variation is not exclusively for the desire to make money out of the property although if a full width connection to adjacent property is required, the subdivision will loose a develop able lot. 7. Staff concludes that there is no hardship. Granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public welfare in regard to emergency services as only one street access serves this subdivision. It could also be detrimental based upon multiple greenbelt access points as described under #3. 9. Granting of the variance would not impair the amount of light and air to adjacent properties nor would it cause significant street congestion. Staff has concluded that there are no unique circumstances in that there is adjacent, undeveloped property which would allow future connection with this subdivision. There is no physical hardship involved and there may be detriment to adjacent greenbelt if the variance is granted. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the variance. IV. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The proposed subdivision plat shows full-width a cul-de-sac centered on the property extending north from West 38th Avenue. All of the proposed lots will have direct access to Union Court. All lots meet or exceed the standards for lot area and lot width in the R-lA zone district. Tract A, encompassing 16,000 square feet, will be used for storm water detention. A sanitary sewer easement runs between lots 9 and 10 from the property to the east. The applicant has already negotiated with the property owner to cross this land with the sewer line from the McClaughlin's Applewood Subdivision. farther east. Upon the request of Staff, the applicant will be providing a 10' wide crusher fines path on this easement to provide pedestrian access to the property to the east. The Planning and Development Department would suggest a full width street connection with the property to the east and west. These connections could occur as shown on attached Staff Exhibit F. Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/Schneider Page 6 Since the cul-de-sac bulb exceeds the maximum allowed length, Staff concludes that the subdivision regulations have not been met. V. AGENCY REFERRALS The Public Works Department is in the process of reviewing a drainage report. The applicant will be responsible for full width street construction of Union Court. Funds must be escrowed for the future installation of public improvements on W. 38th Avenue. The Westridge Sanitation District can serve the property from the east. The applicant will be responsible for conveyance across this property. The Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District has no objections to the vaziance for the cul-de-sac bulb allowing Union Court as only access to the subdivision (i.e., no connection to the east or west). The applicant will be responsible for the installation of two fire hydrants on the property. The Consolidated Mutual Water District can serve the property. The Pazks and Recreation Commission reviewed the previous proposal (four "estate" lots) and requested a 5% land dedication for protection of the slope adjacent to the Clear Creek greenbelt. The Darector of Parks and Recreation thinks this is still a valid exaction, except for the portion of the property used as maintenance access running along the eastern property line. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the new proposal at their November 20 meeting. VI. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 15, 1996. Those in attendance included the following: Meredith Reckert (staff) Dan Schneider (applicant) Doug Jenks - 11885 West 38th Avenue Subsequent to the meeting, Staff concluded that the applicant had given insufficient notice to the neighborhood regarding the zoning portion of the request. The applicant held an another neighborhood meeting on October 25, 1996. Those in attendance included the following: Meredith Reckert (staff) Dan Schneider (applicant) Beverly Wilson - 3781 Tabor Court David Wilson - 3781 Tabor Court Wasyl Hotz.- 11849 West 36th Place Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-96-fly & WS-96-3/Schneider Dauid Wilson - 3781 Tabor Court Wasyl Hotz - 11849 West 36th Place C.E. Jorgenson - 3734 Union Court Steve Longsdorf - 12042 West 36th Place Lois Tate - 12100 West 38th Avenue Page 7 Concerns expressed at the meeting included location and flow of drainage on the property, depth and size of the lots, price of the lots, potential development of the Jenks property (directly to the east) and plans for West 38th Avenue. In general, there were no objections to the density as long as development was single family residential. They thanked Mr. Schneider for cleaning up the property. Staff has received one written response of support included as an attachment to this packet. VII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: Zoning In regard to the rezoning request, Staff has concluded that there are options available which do not require a zone change to R-lA. Rezoning to R-lA results in roughly six additional units to be built on the property. Staff further concludes that both the existing and proposed zoning conform to the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map designation of low density residential and that both R-1 and R-lA zoning is consistent with development in the area.. RE: Variance In regazd to the request for a vaziance to Section 4.B.5. of the Subdivision Regulations, Staff has concluded that the finding regazding the variance criteria do not support the requested vaziance, therefore, we recommend denial. RE: Major Subdivision With regard to the subdivision, Staff concludes that the subdivision regulations have not been met, therefore, denial is recommended. Staff would support a revised subdivision plat which provides for a street system which better serves this general area and which does not violate the subdivision regulations an good land planning concepts. VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS REZONING Option A: " I move that Case No. WZ-96-15, a request to rezone property at 12345 W. 38th Avenue from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential- One A, be DENIED for the following Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/Schneider Page 8 2. There are no changed conditions in the neighborhood that would favor a change of zone to R-lA". Option B "I move that Case No. WZ-96-15, a request to rezone property at 12345 West 38th Avenue from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One A, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The R-lA zoning is consistent with the low density residential designation in the Comprehensive Pflan., 2. The R-lA zoning is compatible with zoning and land use in the area.; and, 3. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request." RE: Variance Option A:"I move that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 W. 38th Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. There is no physical hardship, 2. It does not promote good design. 3. There are no unique circumstances. 4. There may be detriment to safety and to the adjacent greenbelt". Option B "I move that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 W. 38th Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Precedent has been established by other developments in the City., 2. The Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District has no problem with the variance, 3. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request." RE: Subdivision Option A "I move that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a 17-lot major subdivision at 12345 W. 38th Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The subdivision regulations have not been met as the cul-de-sac exceeds 500 feet. 2. Promoting a series of long cul-de-sacs is contrary to good land planning concepts. Option B: "I move that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a 17-lot major subdivision at 12345 W. 38th Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: It is consistent with the R-lA zoning., Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3/Schneider Page 9 2. With the granting of the variance for the extended cul-de-sac all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met: ' _. __ u _ _.. _ _.. 71 ~ `~ ~ :'~~ ; r; ~-'~ ~i ~'. _. I . ~ a . a ~. . i . . . .'.I ,~- I _~~ ~ __ ~l _ -. , - ;. :j~ -- ~_I y ~-i~ 3 ,: - ~',^i I ^1, i 1. y [ aP 1 ~~ F~~~ i I J ~ 1 ~ T + ~ ~' -~~~ - LI I L. Q ' ~ ~' Ncc=~=. _ ~ ~ i (. _. ~- I `~ ~ m . r _ _.~ __ _ _ _~ _ .` I :~ ~~ V~ 3 ~ 2 ~_~ ion _ _ ' 9y ~~ t Q~~ 111. ~ .._^ ~ :I `~' a 1 0 ~ 1 ~ 't] ~.-~ •~ ~~ `~ _ ~_ i ~ '~ ~ ~ `J .__ _ _ Q_ ~~: )',~ '- ~~~ ~'_ it ~~ ~~~ _ ff ~ ~ Q 1 .~ __~ . F a i ~ t- _ u e' ~ _ j ~ )JI J _,;~. ~ ~ is ~ .,..' d~ ~ f ,~___J _~ ~ ; G i {ji} ' ~ / J/ ( I ~' ~ ~ '~ A f L . .-?--.j-` ~ ~' it _~~ .~~ ~J / ~ ^- ~ ~ ~ ~/ ,i hJ~ ~ ," ' I // T' ~~ ~r -.. iy .. ~. ~-II li 2. Arterial and collector streets shall be aligned to ,Jain with planned or existing streets. 3. Streets shall he designed to tear a relationship to the topog- raphy. 4. Intersections shall approximate right angles as closely as pas- Bibl~e~ S,J~Cu1-de-sacs shall have a turn-around right-of-way diameter of at east ninety (90) feet; however, for those cul-de-sacs less than two hundred C200) feet in length in a single-family area, a turn-around may be used in such cases if the same is approved by the Director of Public_ Works. Surface drainage on bul-de-sacs shall be directed toward the accompanying street or where necessary to a natural watercourse or nat- ural drainage basin if approved by the Cirector of Public Works. Orainag=_ easements may be required through abutting lots where no alternative is capable of carrying drainage. Cul-de-sac centerpoints shall not be longer than 5UU feet from the centerline intersection of streets serving the sut- division. _ 6. Unless otherwise required by the Planning Commission, streets with centerlines ^ff-sets of less than 125 feet shall not be accepted. 7. Dead-end streets, with the exceptions of cul-de-sacs, shall be prohibited unless they are designed to connect with future streets in adjacent land that has not teen platted, in which cases a temporary turn- around easement of 90 feet shall be required. g, Access to a freeway, arterial or collector street shall occur only at intersections approved by the Director of Public Works. The Director of Public Works shall consult with the Traffio Engineer who shall determine the intersection or intersections for access based upon standards fer efficient traffic movement and safety for drivers and pe- destrians. 9. The dedication of a half street shall not be accepted unless: a. The half-street to be dedicated lies on the perimeter of the proposed subdivision and it would be impractical to serve such subdivision in any other matter. In parcels of width adequate to have a single street serving all parcels, a half-street shall not be accepted except by approval ^f the Gity Council. Su~.R~~g. ~~c. N.8.1. ~~ ~~ 9~ ~g :~ ~~ ~9 ga ~~ . ie Z 0 N y N°z ~ -a ~o . ~Ny 0 4 myx ~~LLLL~~3 ~NOa 6o O ~ c d Zo~~ 'ilS} NaP ~o~° U' o~~ p d ~Z~~ t 4o F-O_`-- Uyw Wio ~m~ ~ ~~ ~ 4.a s P~ F4z^~oi~ ' 3eg 3 ~'~ s, \ _ ox ~ " 2..f `f >~ 1 ~ -25.8:- 3:S °.i 1 _ ~=isi4~2 ~k@ <s ~~ r ~t p::sco5c ~°~3 ^a a'a0i: 2~e::a_ ~sia:a^k{exx _:i"AS"^"xRi 38888888 9.. "RRR. 'z~aacx^ 88~:~:3 Yi~~tSaeao^_: .~'s 54'sabs ~;3:..55t.g 55?xFSk : 2 9 3~ 3 ~ ~ s at' ~@I~ 9 ~~ ~~ . ~~~ a ~~ A 2.2 ggg ~ tna ~ A" 9~ gel a ~~ .a~ c~ ~~ a~l~ 25_ a ~ s. c ~ g~ gab ~~ ~3a _ 3 .9 aee~§~ g~ ~ 3~a ~~~~~ ~s: tag X259 °~" 3 egg aa~Gg" 2.4 €g S~ ~g g ~ s5~ ~~ ~Y 23ag~e 3s3 3 @a 288:8 =$z3 @e gSF gaa:E9 ~ 4e 8 y~ P~'~'9 `'~$2 g 5 g. SR g. ~ 3xpa ' gea 2~a .' 223 22L~~~ 9.3@ 3s5 ~ :" .. a 3 ~"e r~ 'S s~$ ~'4~ ;:~ 9w ;H: .Et'SH 3.00.[1 A] t ` v1.WN ~• a= ' 1 0l1 {~ li n l ~ lNT3tyltll>T 31]INN ~3i~1YN V11 !]N BYT 3 '311 Y03lvl ivY•Jt~vl]vY{ o § 1 ~( 5 ~ 1~ ~ ~~ G ~ Ah' J4'vYt3~.u<-~ ' I Y ~r~YC---~--- -,1 '~~~ .I - ~-y g1`-$ `~ =~ ~ R, ' I S I ~ ~.8 '. ~.4 two> wlNi i-e .... .J I _ "I •1 3 .a . .....ea. N ~ ~ 3 :!! , ~ ~ i' s ,'. 3 _• 3 ~ RR S F .. u, 2 I y L€~ 5 ~ ~,== \s ~...~ _~ _ i Ee~~ _ P t s ~ "Y s a$;e ~ ~i. a ~'~'~• s~~gk.. 4 ~ ~ ~~ ~' YyYy §g ga~ g ~ ae~ 9g 9 °- g~~ ~` C ~~ 2~~ - 2 a_ ~r g2 P~2 ~ • 3 b 3 CSi .~~~ ~F 9q C 8 t> 9 p@p a5e~ 3_3 H S 2 §~§a 2~Q a B n~ ~~ ~~9~ ;~al~~3a ~a~ -~,g~ ~~e s 's~9~p $29 g9 ag:a ~ ~.~~~ pi i 9 ~~ a. g s.r §g9: _ Kpy4E y X51 CC r yy ' Itlg~Y ~ZE9~ A@~~~E~C 9~~C Y kRk~Pa9. gg3 ! °° ~`' `,~ g~jsaa 39~re93 ~s9 Ee 33g:o~ 2e +a n` g~~~6 aa~ ~~~9~xg~~ G! Ea~9Cgi agya _a2~95a~ °Pp~p~; "2 'Sg~S 2~9a eaP e~'~bea s3a .~~2 4 eP_ d~eP": ¢33823 r °-•2~g gg 92 8:'~' 3 g gets 53S:QQ 29~gg 3~~29~gg ~~ ~s2S@~ November 20, Glen Gibley, Dear Sir: As the owner at 12345 West to convey our property. ~J`dy'' GITY Cy^v_~-'_ +t RIDaE ~,~ .513 r w~ gb-~ (; ~'' I996 ~j ~ ~~"'~ Director of Planning & Development j ~ .~~ Iu. ;_ . ' l__.' i_ L' L' i 1 PLA[VN{P!G & Dc~ic~Ji'i'uiENT of the property directly East of Dan Schneider's 38th Avenue, I would like to take this opportunity ideas concerning the proposed re-zoning of his After lengthy discussions with Mr. Schneider, a number of issues have come up which relate to our property and it's future dev- elopment. The first item of concern is the Planning Department's concept of adjoining streets running East from his Cul-de-Sac to our property line, it being your assumption that when we plat, this street would continue East .connecting on our property. It has also been stated that the department felt we might ask for two overlength Cul-de-Sacs if precedent is set at Schneiders. It is our intention, and for very practical reasons, to plat a single entry subdivision off of 38th with two North/South streets connected on the North with a drive running parallel an8'-approximately 150 feet South of the bluff. This street layout is necessary because bf~the sanitary sewer easement which we and Mr. Schneider have agreed upon.- The easement, which we laid out and Lane engineered, will follow a lot line from the East at McLaughlin's to our North connectfng drive running Southwest to a lot line then due West to Schneider's property. Thus no East or West-roads would be necessary for this. Furthermore, because the easement will fallow lot lines between homes, a gravel path would be useless and lead nowhere. Finally, our family has lived on this parcel of land since 1959. In that nearly 40 years, we have bare very accustomed to the wildlife of the Greenbelt. Our's and Mr. Schneider's~ property are situated uniquely :to the Greenbelt. At the foot of this bluff are numerous springs causing dense swamp conditions. This sttd'ation, for the most part, keeps humans to the trail, but allows animals easy access and refuge. A proposed public access anywhere between the existing one at Kuilerstrand School to the West and McLaughlin's to the East, would be contrary i. to and seriously detrimental to the entire-~ concept of the Clear Creek Greenbelt. • It is our intention to add as much input to this zoning process as we can, and if you or any of your staff need further clari- ; fication or information, please feel free to contact either Doug or Cal. ~ _ ' f Thank you, ~~ i '' Doug Jenks ~ 42691 Cal Jenks 424-1562 ,.~. October 23, 1996 Ms: Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Glfl`Y OF WHEAT RIDGE n~nn n~ OCT ? `~ 1996 `~~~ U _ PLA4'iNING ~ DEYFl.Ot.~~ Subject: Union Street (as proposed) north of West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Ms. Reckert: As we discussed on Monday, October 21, 1996, Mr. Glen Gidley informed me that Union Street as proposed within the Prospect Ridge Subdivision exceeds the minimum length for cul-de-sacs.- As I told you and Mr. Greg Knudsen with Public Works,-the adjacent landowners (the Jenks) are not in favor of the proposed extension because 1)-this would commit them to possibly planning around the extension and 2) as the Planning Department had indicated to them a "looped" subdivision was the most likely development plan for the Jenks property. I have also researched the zoning map book in an effort to locate cul-de-sac that exceed the standard which I believe is 500 feet. The following table indicates these non- conforming cul-de-sacs: Street Name Location Zoning Section # W. 35th Avenue West of Simms Street SE 20 W. 35th Avenue East of Union Street NW 21 W. 47th Avenue East of Robb Street NW 21 Routt Street South of West I-70 Frontage Rd. NW 21 Owens Street South of West 44th Avenue NW 21 Pierson Street North of 38th Place SW 22 Hoyt Court North of West 39th Avenue NW 22 Hoyt Court South of West 44th Avenue NW 22 Hoyt Street South of West 44th Avenue NW 22 Yukon Court East of Yarrow Street NW 23 Brentwood Street North of West 38th Avenue SW 23 Ingalls Street North of West 35th Place NW 25 Yukon Court South of West 38th Avenue NW 26 Reed Street North of West 30th Avenue SE 26 Quay Street South of West 29th Avenue SE 26 Independence Street North of 32nd Avenue NW 27 Owens Street South of West 38th Avenue NW 28 Routt Street North of West 32nd Avenue NW 28 I would like to receive an opinion from your department on 1) if in fact these streets are all non-conforming 2) if this non-conformance has presented any difficulty in administering City services to the best of your knowledge and 3) the approximate dates of the above subdivision approvals. These items would seem to be important in the matter of approving anon-conforming length of cul-de-sac. Mr. Gidley had also mentioned that the non-conforming length may still be approved at Planning Commission andJor City Council. Is it necessary to apply for some sort of variance or can this be handled within the current process we have initiated? I hope that you or your staff may have the answers to these questions by the time we meet on Friday, October 25, 1996 at 6:30 pm. and we can discuss them at that time. I would also appreciate it if I could be supplied with the section of the subdivision code which refers to this item and any related items such as the requirements for a variance. Thank you for your help in this matter. cc: Mr. Glen Gidley Mr. Bob Gobel 232-8983 ~lC.r1 t B l 7' ~C ~ HAND DELIVERED November 7, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Response to October 23, 1996 Correspondence Regarding Union Court (as proposed) north of West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Ms. Reckert: As per our conversation yesterday, it is my understanding that 16 of the 18 of the cul-de- sacs noted in the letter currently being used in the City of Wheat Ridge exceed the maximum standard length of 500 feet. Two of these non-conforming cul-de-sacs are within 1 mile of the site in a developed neighborhood, in which the most recent house was completed in 1996. It is my understanding that these non-conforming cul-de-sacs have not posed any additional impact to the Wheat Ridge Fire Department according to Mr. Dave Roberts, who is the acting Wheat Ridge Fire Marshall. And Mr. Roberts informed Mr. Bob Goebel that he is of the opinion that by using the design I have proposed, the Wheat Ridge Fire Department is in support of the variance request. I am currently responding to the variance issues that are outlined in the Wheat Ridge City code. Upon completion of these tasks I will forward this information to you. Thank you for your help in this matter. Daniel F.~c'hneider, P. E. cc: Mr. Glen Gidley HAND DELIVERED November 7, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert • City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Discussion of Supporting Information for Variance to City of Wheat Ridge Standard Length of Cul-De-Sac, Prospect Ridge Subdivision, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Ms. Reckert: It is my understanding that the length of the proposed cul-de-sac will require a variance. As such the Planning Commission and/or City Council will be required to grant this variance based upon the information supplied for their consideration. Upon review of the Wheat Ridge City Code under Section D (Variances, Waivers, Temporary Permits, Interpretations), subsection 1 c, the following questions are posed under Subsection C and supporting responses to these questions have been provided for your review. Issue #1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under fhe conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? Response Two options exist to access the rear 1/3 portion of the site. In the case where the cul-de-sac would only be 500 feet in length, the rear 5 lots on the site along with the future pedestrian access to Wheat Ridge Open Space would require 6 separate parallel driveway/pathway accesses. This type of configuration would require 6, approximately 8 foot wide strips of land side- by-side to access these lots. In addition, the sanitary sewer which requires a 30 foot wide easement would require a minimum of 4 of these parallel drives. I can only imagine the difficulty of not only selling them on the idea of these narrow, side-by-side drives, put also in the practicality of 5 property owners trying to put up fences to secure their property along these long drives. Based upon the complicated nature of having 6 side-by-side lot accesses 4 of which are over 100 feet, it is my opinion that the value of the lots would significantly drop to the point it would be necessary to replat the rear portion of the site to achieve 2 or 3 lots would eventually replace the existing 5 lots: In addition to the financial impact from loss of the lots, it would be necessary to spend additional time and money, both on the developer's side and the City of Wheat Ridge to review a third plat on this property. Therefore, it is my opinion that unique conditions exist at this site which would not allow a reasonable return in use, service and income if this variance is not granted. Issue #2 Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Response It is my understanding that the reason for the length of the cul-de-sac standard is twofold. First, the access to the development during crises such as fire, medical emergency, police, street maintenance, etc. requires sufficient traffic flow into the developed area. As I was extremely concerned with these issues, I personally contacted Mr. Dave Roberts who is the acting Wheat Ridge Fire Marshall and who has reviewed the plat indicating the proposed length of the cul-de-sac. I have attached his letter for your review, but in essence, the Wheat Ridge Fire Department supports our design which exceeds the minimum turning radius for the cul-de-sac bulb. I spoke with Mr. Bob Goebel on the telephone and he indicated that based upon his discussions with Mr. Dave Roberts and his review of the proposed design, he would also support a variance as we have proposed. The second concern is from a neighborhood planning perspective. Although there is a possibility that the property to the east (the Jenks Property) will be developed in the next 5-20 years, the traffic pattern for the development of their property that has been considered "most reasonable" is very similar to that of the McLaughlin Subdivision which lies east of the Jenks Property. The traffic pattem within the parcel would consist of a continuous "loop" with a single point, dual access entrance. This concept has even been reviewed 2 by your department for planning purposes. Based upon my discussion with the owners of the Jenks Property, this concept is what think they would like to do. As such the access to this traffic pattern would require the owners of both properties to each agree where the future roadway would go in relation to their properties. Mr. Cal Jenks is very much against having a future roadway alignment suggested as he has indicated that he may develop his property at all. In addition, both the Jenks and myself would end up dedicating additional land for this purpose. Urban Street to the west is currently a cul-de-sac which is under the minimum standard length and therefore does not need nor require additional access. These circumstances as discussed above are exclusively unique to this piece of property and the granting of this variance will present a good planning, engineering and access solution to these unique circumstances which is supported bythe Wheat Ridge Fire Department and the Departmen of Public Works. Issue #3 !f the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? Based upon our review of the City of Wheat Ridge Zoning maps, 16 non- conforming cul-de-sacs exist with the City of Wheat Ridge ranging in length from over 500 feet up to over 1000 feet. Two non-conforming length cul- de-sacs exist within 1 mile of the site. Since it does not appear that the non-conforming cul-de-sacs have affected the localities, which they are located, it is my opinion that granting the variance as requested will not alter the essential character of the locality. Issue #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? Please refer to responses 1 and 2. Since the property is approximately 282 feet wide and 985 feet on its longest side, the shape of the property is unique and presents some aspects which need to be engineered such as adequate access to the rear 1 J3 of the site. Since there is no possible 3 • ~ access to the north due to Jefferson County Open Space the physical setting definitely creates a hardship for the owner. In addition, I would add that I would consider an inconvenience as something minor does not have a significant impact on the entire subdivision. The ability to reasonably access the rear 1/3 of the site is a major impact not merely an inconvenience. Issue #5 Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally to other property wifhin the same zoning classification? Response It is highly unlikely unique conditions would exist in the same zoning classification which would have similar implications. There are not likely to be very many more subdivisions in the area of this property with the exception of the Jenks Property. Given the size and shape of the property it is very unlikely that a variation to the length of a cul-de-sac within their property or any other developed area with similar zoning would be considered. Issue #6 Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property? Response As the owner of this property and developer of this property, I respectfully submit that this variation is not exclusively to make money on the property. Rather, my request for this variation is based upon the support of the neighbors who came to the neighborhood meeting last month, my discussions and support of the Wheat Ridge Fire Department and Department of Public Works, my civil engineer's recommendations and my own engineering experience. The question of which scenario is better (the extended cul-de-sac or 6 side- by-side 8-foot wide driveways) from a planning, emergency access, etc. standpoint is clearly from the granting of the variance and is not exclusively out of a desire to make more money out of the property. Issue #7 Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Response Based upon my civil engineer's expertise and my own engineering background, I have proposed a cul-de-sac that will serve the entire site. 4 The fact that the length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the standard was not recognized until Mr. Glen Gidley informed me of this fact 2 weeks ago. Therefore, I am requesting a variation upon a condition that I technically have "created". However, what I have not created is the shape of the property, the existing traffic patterns which can not currently serve the site, nor can I control or even influence the adjacent landowner when or even if they will someday develop their property. In addition with the existing 16 non-conforming length cul-de-sacs that are currently in satisfactory use according to the Wheat Ridge Fire Department and the Department of Public Works, I can only assume that circumstances beyond the owner of the land designing the street length initially, must have occurred to have these cul-de-sacs accepted. And to this end, according to both the Wheat Ridge Fire Department and the Wheat Department of Public Works, these cul-de-sacs appear to be functioning adequately as designed. Issue #8 Would the granting of the variations be detrimental fo the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvement to the neighborhood in which the property is located? No. In fact the granting of this variance would significantly benefit the property owners within the subdivision as it would create a simplified lot access plan for emergency services, street maintenance and overall the cul- de-sac as proposed would be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood than the alternative of 6 8-foot wide, side-by-side driveways Issue #9 Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to the 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? Since this variation is a variation to the length of the street, there is no impact to supply of light or air. Traffic congestion will be reduced if the variance is granted. As stated previously, the configuration of 6 narrow side-by-side drives could present some access difficulty under extreme emergency conditions. However, granting of this variation is supported by the Wheat Ridge Fire 5 Department who considers the increased size of the cul-de-sac bulb and the proposed street width, part of the effort I have made to address these type of concerns (see attached letter). Property values without the granting of the variance would most likely adversely be affected by the multiple driveways to access the rear 1/3 of the site. With the granting of the variance, property values with remain consistent with the surrounding neighborhood values and will fluctuate with market conditions as should be the case. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the responses as outlined above. Sin ly, Daniel F. Schneider, P. E. attachment cc: Mr. Glen Gidley 6 ~lClC.6-~l ~ t T ~.~~, a LU}I~flT I~IDGC ~I~G DI~OjDC110D DISI~IC1 P.O. Boz 507 3880 Upham Street Wheal Ridge, Colorado 80034 (303) 424-7323 October 25, 1996 To: Bob Goebel 70-28-9ti-v2945-ARNv D'uector of Public Works City of Wheat Ridge Wheat Ridge, Co. Subject: 12345 W 38 Ave., Schneider Property Dear Bob, After a conversation with Dan Schneider on October 25, 1996, it is my understanding that you have expressed a concern, as a result of your meeting with Mr. Schneider on October 25, that the Fire District is going to object to his proposed development due to the excessive length of the proposed culdesac that is currently designed for the project. Please be advised that I have had numerous conversations with Mr. Schneider concerning this issue and as a result of our conversations, he (Mr. Schneider) has over designed the street width and the turn radius at the end of the street in order to accommodate our needs. I realize that this is an exception to the 500 foot rule, however in this pazticulaz case, the physical restrictions of the property do not lend it to a design that would accommodate dual access and still leave adequate land for development with the additional requirements of the city. Mr. Schneider, in my opinion, has made a concerted effort to insure adequate access through the development with the extended width of the road way and the enlazged turn radius at the end of the road in order to adequately accommodate the physical needs of the fire department. As a result of the proposed design, I have no objections to the development as long as the roadway and culdesac remain at the current widths. The proposed road exceeds the 500 foot length by approximately 130 feet and with the proposed design, it is my opinion that an exception to the 500 foot requirement can be made in this case. Should the design and width of the roadway and culdesac be required to be decreased, the redesign will need to be reviewed by the fire marshals office for compliance or exception prior to any approval from the Fire District. lease contact me at Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue, p 424-7323. Respectfully, ~ ~ ~ ~dt,W /fir-/2u~Ce~ Dave Roberts Fire Mazshal, W.R.F.P.D. cc:Dan Schneider _ __ .~ o :o .h _ ~ ~. 4` ~ ~ ~ F~ p P4` cF \~ y O ` ~'e4,G L LOi 9 8 J ~ .- : 1 8.838 So Fi a° n ' P Jp op ~ O i B ~, ? 8GG 8C F' ~ `' S 01 ~.O v. u :}. .~ ~ __ OY' 1 ~' rn :00 1 o B i c LOi J _ I tl1} 8G F' P u ° U "e 96 50 Gi m ~ :S`93 Jy'F ~.:6 00 ° z n fi9'ai 's J'E ~~5 15 ~~ _Gr t ~ ° G1 6 o ~ «C :. v' a o ° ° ° P t c ~0 383 fip Fi P P ^Y`4:' 5 .. r. 89'a2'SB'E a I` c ~ :v <OS 50 Fi o ~ ~_ ._ ._ o. v ._.. _ _.. - . e9'<a sa'e_ ~ :s ]a - .~ < ~ ~ ~Oi < - o ° ° o J s ° a ° ._ Y m ~ ~ E ~ ~ G. JL ~y'E 9e I pi , _o! , -, J .. _ ~ _ o`• ~ _ _ . N 89'<2'89'E . :i6 Z3 ~ :. _, c c y LOi 2 ~ '_ , .._ >. c ~ °s i __.. - .V• a .. O<: SG : ~ _ ~ ~~po 5F_~ Su,gplvtsloN ----y 1~AR~L r; ~ i~ i ~KtST~c-Llo ~ j ' ugP~N yT. ~ , ~ ~ . , ~ _ , ~..~ I j t I ~- ~-- 3g+'a pYv.. ~!~ . Y~~sr Nonni ~x~~~r~ ~ 1~..- .~ _ Y, n ~ • The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE Wheat WHEAT RIDGE, CO 802Y 5-6713 (303) 234-5900 City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 Ridge November 13, 1996 Mr. Richard Romberg, P.E. Lane Engineering Service, Inc. 9500 West 14th Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Re: Prospect Ridge Subdivision, 12345 West 38th Avenue - First Review Comments of Preliminary Final Drainage Study for Revise Subdivision Dear Mr. Romberg, I have completed the first review of the preliminary drainage study submitted on November 1, 1996 for the-above referenced project, and have the following comments:. Drainage Report 1. Please include in this report how flows on W. 38th Avenue are to properly conveyed through the Union Court intersection. Runoff 1. Page 9 - Please provide the respective D1, D2 & D4 sub-basin technical information. Detention 1. Page 9 - In addition to the detention pond information given, please include discussion for: (1) the detention volume required and provide, (2) release rates and the method of release, (3) the soil type to determine the appropriate detention release rate. Page 10 1. Please provide in the report discussion, supported by the appropriate calculations, analysis of the proposed street including depth and velocity of flow for the minor and major storm. 2. Acknowledge any open channel flow design for the site. 3. Please provide the appropriate_report discussion, supported by calculations, an analysis of all proposed storm sewer pipe/inlet capacities. Page 20 1. Final drainage report will need the appropriate comprehensive analysis/calculations for each respective developed sub-basin CJ R[CYCl.EO PP F'ER ___ Mr. Richard. Romberg, P.E. Lane Eng. Page 2 Page 21 1. Please provide standard comprehensive detention-pond analysis in final drainage report. Drainage Plan 1. Please clarify as needed how W. 38th Avenue flows are. to be properly conveyed through the proposed Union Court __- intersection. 2. Please note the-respective sub-basin acreages. 3. Please provide street grades on W. 38th Avenue and Union Court. 4. Please show street name of Union Court. 5. Please note the limits and depth of ponding at the proposed inlet at the end of Union Court. 6. Typical cross sectional details will be needed for the swales proposed along the east and west property lines, the discharge pipe from the inlet, and the proposed detention pond. 7. Concise and clearly referenced details will need to be provided for_all of the proposed storm sewer structures. 8. Please provide the appropriate erosion control measures at both of the proposed outlet structures. 9. Please note-the surface type to be placed for the detention pond area. 10. Please provide all lot numbers. 11. Please provide proposed Q5 and Q100 values for all design points and sub-basin data. _ _ _ _ '. Mr. Richard Romberg, P.E. Lane Eng. Page 3 Union Court Preliminary Street Improvement Plans Sheet 1 1. Please note requested subdivision name. Sheet 2 Notes Due to the extensive lack of pertinent technical information on these plans, _a comprehensive review can not be completed. Obvious requirements have been redlined and noted below: 1. Please show clearly what improvements are. to be placed at the intersection of w. 38th Avenue, and how drainage flows are to be appropriately conveyed through this area. 2. Please provide typical cross sections for. this street at a minimum of 100.-foot. intervals. 3. Please note the correct widths and boundaries of alI rights- of-way. 4. Please note all existing and proposed utilities within W. 38th __ Avenue and Union Court. 5. Please provide and reference accordingly all relevant details pertaining to the proposed street and storm sewer construction. 6. Please include the general notes provided. 7. Please provide the correct street names and grades of all streets.-- 8. Please note all lot and block numbers. 9. Please provide respective lipline elevation information on the plan and the profile. 10. Please note all pertinent fixed objects located on W. 38th Avenue and Union Court W.38th Avenue Improvement Requirements 1. In lieu of constructing the West 38th Avenue public improvements, the City will require escrow as determined by the respective cost estimate compiled by City staff. - ~ ~ r Mr. Richard Romberg, P.E. Lane Eng. Page 4 Dumping/Landfill Permit 1. A Minor Landfill/Dumping Permit will need to be submitted for review and approval. I am providing a copy of this permit for your information and submittal with the next review package. Please be aware that the stipulations of this permit may require that an erosion control plan;m°y need to be submitted for review and approval. Subdivision Plat 1. The bearing in coarse 5 and the last distance in the legal description do not agree with the drawing. 2. Please provide the name and appropriate dimensions on street. 3. Please provide description and dimensions for the strip between lots 10 an 9. 4. Please provide symbol for pins set in note #1. 5. The distance from the quarter corner to the east line Tract B differs by .46' 6. Please remove "amended" from proposed subdivision title. I f yo}Yhave please contact me at 235-2868. S~ncerel i Greg 'Knudson Development Review Engineer cc: Bob Goebel, Public Works Director Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner File ln.J MINUTES OF MEETING November 21, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION `~~~3 ~r~ 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:30 p.m., on November 21, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl A. CERVENY Robert ECKHARDT Carolyn GRIFFITH Warren JOHNSON George LANGDON Jay RASPLICKA Janice THOMPSON Harry WILLIAMS STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Planning & Development Director Meredith Reckert, Planner Marilyn Gunn, Secretary 3. 4. 5. 6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner RASPLICKA moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of November 21, 1996, as printed. Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Motion carried_ 8-0 to approve the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -November 7,1996 Commissioner JOHNSON moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 7, 1996, as printed. No revisions or corrections were necessary. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-2 with Commissioners THONIPSON AND RASPLICKA abstaining due to their excused absence from this meeting. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item 7 of the Public Hearing section of the agenda.) No one was present to speak. i ~ Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 2 7. PUBLIC HEARING i. Case No. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3: An application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a three-fold request: 1) approval of a rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A ; 2) approval of a variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; and, 3) approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Ms. Reclcert stated she had additional pieces of correspondence to distribute. The first was a response from the City's Parks and Recreation Commission meeting held November 20, 1996, with regard to their park dedication requirement. The second piece is a letter from the adjacent property owner to the east known as the Jenk's property. Ms. Reckert stated that Case No. WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3 was athree-fold request for the property located at 12345 West38th Avenue. The property is currently zoned Residential-One/Agricultural-Two and is currently vacant. Ms. Reclcert stated there were no slides available for the hearing due to the projector being broken. Ms. Reckert entered into the record the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Case File, Packet Materials, and Exhibits. Ms. Reckert stated the property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and established jurisdiction. She stated again that this was a three- fold request for this property. Approval of a rezoning from aResidential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One A, approval of a variance to Section 45 of the Subdivision Regulations, and approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Ms. Reckert stated that she would like to take each section of the request and deal with them separately beginning with rezoning. After completing her comments, the applicant will then make his comments. She advised the Planning Commission that they would have to have a positive vote on the rezoning to be able to proceed with the subdivision and vaziance requests. Ms. Reckert advised the Planning Commission that earlier in 1996 they had reviewed a request to subdivide this property pursuant to Case No. MS-96-5. Initially the applicant had requested to subdivide into four estate type lots approximately one plus acres in size. The applicant, however, has decided to pursue the request at this meeting of rezoning and resubdivision. Ms. Reckert advised that she had performed preliminary, calculations and arrived at approximately eleven (11) single family lots on the property. Ms. Reckert provided overheads to allow the Planning Commission a visual aspect of the application. On the north side of the property, a section has been dedicated for a park plan pursuant to the previous case that was approved in May, 1996. Ms. Reckert reviewed the various lot size minimums as it related to the different zoning assignments. The criteria for consideration of rezoning was not included in the packet. However, Ms. Reckert provided an overhead and read the information to the audience and elaborated on Staff's • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 3 recommendation per item number read. Ms. Reckert concluded her comments and asked for questions. There were no questions at this time regarding rezoning. Mr. Schneider elaborated on the initial zoning of the land beginning in 1941. He provided overheads which showed his interpretation of how the zoning line had changed beginning in 1946 by Jefferson County. He stated that he believed that the zoning line that is currently in use is incorrect which he believes is another reason for granting a change in zoning. He stated that no land had been acquired nor sold since the beginning zoning standard. He maintains that he believes that there is a zoning error somewhere in the City maps. Mr. Schneider provided an overhead that showed the surrounding area and their zoning of Residential-One which he maintains positively contributes to the reason for rezoning as well. Mr. Schneider provided additional justification as it related to the lot sizes being proposed for single family homes. He stated that there could be approximately twenty- one (21) lots. However, he was only proposing that the land be divided into seventeen (17) larger lots. Mr. Schneider listed his reasons for rezoning the property and the potential benefits overall as he interpreted them. He also advised the Planning Commission that he had attended the Parks Commission meeting of November 20, 1996, to review his plan. He stated that the Parks Commission did not particularly like the idea of a pathway. Ms. Reckert stated that the pathway/greenbelt final decision would be that of the Parks Commission. However, she continued that there still needs to be pedestrian access to the adjacent subdivision as it makes good planning design sense. Discussion continued regarding the path/greenbelt access by Mr. Schneider regarding the neighboring land should it ever be developed. Mr. Schneider stated that most of the surrounding land owners were in support of the rezoning. He further stated that he felt that this rezoning was consistent with the goals and policies of the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there were any questions regarding the rezoning request. Commissioner CERVENY inquired about the thought process for requesting a rezoning to R-lA as opposed to PRD (Planned Residential Development) which he believed the McLaughlin Subdivision was. Mr. Schneider said he did not really understand the difference between the two. He further stated that his understanding was that by going with the rezoning the way that he was doing it, he could achieve his purpose. He stated that it was also-his understanding that once the property was zoned as proposed, it could never go back to anything else. He inquired of Commissioner CERVENY if this was correct. Commissioner CERVENY stated that with a PRD, the plot lines basically cannot be changed. Mr. Schneider stated he would not have any problem with the restriction or conditional approval that says the plan is based on seventeen (17) lots. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 4 Commissioner THOMPSON inquired of Director Gidley if there was a problem with the rezoning when there was a discrepancy in the zoning and can the Commission rezone since the Commission would be rezoning all of the property at once? Director Gidley stated the City Council zoned the City in 1972 by adoption of Ordinance 98. All of the zoning that was on the official zoning map of the City of Wheat Ridge at the time that the map was adopted, rezoned the entire City including all of the discrepancies that may have been in place and it institutionalizedthe discrepancies. Even though there may have been discrepancies between 1969 and 1972, they were institutionalized by the adoption of the zoning map and therefore there is no discrepancy at the present time. Commissioner THOMPSON then asked if it was the time to discuss the easement. Director Gidley stated it was a platting issue and that questions regarding easements should be held until that portion was discussed. He further stated that the real difference between R-Al and R-1 in this particular case is not lot I dimensions but sideyard setbacks. The issue is the size of building to size of lot and setbacks. Director Gidley referred to the McLaughlin Subdivision to further clarify the difference between R-lA and R-1 and discussed in more detail the type of buildings in the immediate area. Mr. Schneider went into more detail why he was applying for the change in zoning as it applies to lot size and use. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how many lots could be put into the subdivision for R-1 and R-lA. Ms. Reclcert stated that she had calculated the figures. However, Mr. Schneider interjected that he had the figures readily at hand and stated that there were twelve (12) different scenarios that could be looked at. He further stated that under R-1 the maximum number of lots would be fourteen (14) with all but one of the scenarios which was calculated at twelve (12). Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired the same about R-lA and Mr. Schneider stated the number would be twenty-one (21). Commissioner WILLIAMS verified that Mr. Schneider was asking for seventeen (17) lots. There were no fixrther questions on the zoning. Commissioner THOMPSON clarified that Mr. Schneider was actually asking for three (3) additional homes be built and not an additional six (6). This was verified by Director Gidley. Chairperson LANGDON inquired if those who signed into speak were at the meeting to address the rezoning issue or the whole issue. Mr. Jorgerson from the audience stated he was there regarding the entire issue. Chairperson LANGDON asked if he could wait until later to make testimony on the subdivision portion of the case. He said he could but he may have to leave. However, he submitted a letter to the Secretary which is included in the file. John Moore stated he was there to speak about the entire issue but was concerned about Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 5 the zoning. Chairperson LANGDON swore Mr. Moore in and he stated that his name was John Moore and that he lived at 12201 West 38th Avenue. Chairperson LANGDON advised Mr. Moore to retain his comments to the zoning issue only at this point in time. Mr. Moore stated he owned 3.1 acres west of this proposed subdivision. He elaborated on the reason he and his family purchased the land. He said that he was concerned about the lots being changed from four (4) to seventeen (17) as he has expended a considerable amount of money believing that he would not be surrounded by a lot of houses and would prefer keeping the lots to one (1) acre sites. Commissioner ECKHARDT verified that Mr. Mbore's property was directly to the west of the proposed development site and requested that the aerial photo overhead be displayed. Mr. Moore's property is zoned A- 2. Mr. Moore concluded his comments. At this time Chairperson LANGDON swore in Debbie Moore, wife of John Moore, same address. She stated she had one question regarding the R-1 vs the R-lA zoning. She asked if the Commission would consider placing a restriction on the number of lots being developed and hold it to a maximum of seventeen (17). Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mrs. Moore if she had a choice between a maximum of fourteen (14) or seventeen (17) and if she would state, for the record, her preference. Mrs. Moore responded fourteen (14). Chairperson LANGDON called for a motion on the rezoning. Commissioner WILLIAMS moved that Case No. WZ-96-15, a request to rezone property at 12345 West 38th Avenue from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1) The R-lA zoning is consistent with the low density residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The R-lA zoning is compatible with zoning and land use in the area; and, 3) The evaluation criteria support approval of the request. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded. The motion carved 6- 2. Ms. Reckert presented her overview of the variance portion of the request which concerns the footage limitations from West 38th Avenue to the center of the cul-de-sac bulb. The subdivision regulations currently states that the footage shall be no longer than 500 feet. The measurement according to the plat is reflecting 694 feet. The applicant is requesting a 194 foot variance. Ms. Reckert stated that the applicant provided information reflecting that there are several areas within the City that exceed the standard. Ms. Reckert verified that this information was correct for two of the areas questioned. Ms. Reckert stated that if the variance is not approved, the applicant's request for subdivision design must be either denied or redesigned to include a connection on either the east or west. Criteria to consider the approval for this request was not included in the packet. Therefore, Ms. Reckert read aloud for the Commission each point as she discussed them. Ms. Reckert stated after her presentation that Staff was recommending DENIAL of the request. She Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 6 then asked for questions. Commissioner RASPLICKA commented regarding Staff s suggestion that there was no hardship. He stated that owners on both sides of the property are not ready to develop and that he viewed that as a hardship. Ms. Reckert stated the approach of creating a temporary bulb has been approved for other parts of the City and further stated that the street connection to the east would nothave to be developed. Commissioner RASPLICKA clarified that the connection would not have to be developed until if/when the owners were ready. It would allow the applicant to develop his plot of land and alleviate what he considered a hardship. Ms. Reckert confirmed all concerns. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired about the easement and access to the greenbelt. She felt that there was no access from the adjoining Jenk's property. She stated that if the access point was approved and the Jenk's property developed, the Parks Commission could ask for access through the applicant's property. She was concerned about access to the McLaughlin property and wanted to know how an access could be accomplished. She questioned if there was any place on the Jenk's or applicant's property where the citizens could safely get down the bluff. Ms. Reckert stated that both properties were very steep. Director Gidley interjected that the Parks Department indicated that at the base of the slope there is an area that they would like to maintain as a wildlife refuge. He went into a more in-depth discussion regarding all properties involved and access availability including a foot path to Colorstrand School. A pedestrian connection could remain with a street access or another pedestrian connection to the opposite side. Director Gidley stated that a plan to connect all parcels of land in one way or another is suggested and would be the appropriate direction to take even though there may be opposition. Commissioner WILLIAMS inquired about the easement measurement. Director Gidley stated that this easement would run along the easement that is currently there which is for the sewer line and that it is 116 plus 37 feet. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked who would maintain that area until the Jenk's property was developed. Director Gidley stated that when it was constructed, it would probably be maintained by the public. Director Gidley suggested that funds be placed in escrow until such time that the connection was constructed and further that it be delayed and not built until the future. Commissioner WILLIAMS inquired if there would be a time limit on the easement. Director Gidley said when the Jenk's property develops, the City Council would decide whether or not the other side of that connection would occur. If it did not occur, that easement would be vacated for the purpose of pedestrian access. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she did not understand why the City only provided one access in several other property developments. Director Gidley stated that they were split access points which is very similar to two streets from the standpoint that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 7 they are physically divided and are a loop system. In this property there is no split access or loop. Access discussion continued regarding being able to access all properties should there be an emergency. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the width of the street and cul-de-sac had a 50 foot flowline. Director Gidley stated it was a fifty (50) foot right-of--way, however, the applicant still needed to go through a street width designation public hearing process to establish flow line. He further stated that it was not an overly wide subdivision street except for the diameter of the cul-de-sac bulb itself. This bulb is lazger than the minimums of forty-five 45 feet due to the need for emergency equipment access. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that a compromise of having the trail wide enough when the Jenk's property develops to either construct a street or trail could be included in the motion. She wished to ensure that there was enough land to do either. If it did remain as a trail, the property would. be dedicated back to the lot owners. Director Gidley stated that it could be increased to a minimum of 50 feet and then, if the street was not built, partials could become part of the adjacent lots. Director Gidley provided various scenarios which could happen in the future. Discussion took place regarding Tract A. The tract reflects a storm detention area and access for Parks and Recreation to the greenbelt. It was the general consensus that access and connection to other subdivisions/properties in the immediate area was a concern of the Planning Commission. Several ideas were suggested by members of the Commission including an access be made available either by a connector street or pedestrian access on both the east and west sides of the subdivision with the main entrance into the development coming from 38th Avenue. Mr. Schneider gave his variance presentation with overheads providing three (3) variations of the cul-de-sac drives. His presentation also provided visual information on similar scenarios involving other developments which were approved. Mr. Schneider stated that there were twenty-one (21) options. Four (4) options that exist that would bring the cul-de-sac into conformance. The first one he presented was basically the same that was made by Staff. Discussion was again held regarding the access needs leading to the Jenk's property. Mr. Schneider relayed that Mr. Jenk, who was in the audience, had no intention of developing his land and that the access road would lead nowhere. He went on to say that the larger bulb was introduced after talking to the Fire Department. He further stated that he took a survey of cul-de-sac requirements from fifteen (15) surrounding cities and found that nine (9) of the fifteen (15) had lengths of between 500 and 700 feet. He was advised that it was the Fire Department/Fire Marshal that had the ultimate decision regarding any cul-de-sac. Mr. Schneider stated that the neighboring property owners favored his preferred variance option. ~' Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that he believed that the variety of cul-de-sac lengths from other municipalities could be due to the density of the housing. He said that if this property was going to be subdivided into four (4) lots like it was presently approved, he would not have a problem with a cul-de-sac that long. However, with seventeen (17) units, he believes that it becomes a different situation and has a problem with a cul-de-sac so long. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that the Fire Marshal is only one component of the issue. He is concerned about fire truck access while the Commission is concerned with all internal circulation and density, etc.. She asked if twenty (20) feet were removed to provide access in addition to the thirty (30) feet already provided, why would Mr. Schneider be opposed. He responded that Tract A was pretty much decided and went on to say that it would have to be decided as to what style of subdivision would be recommended. He stated that if there was no way to approve the cul-de-sac, he would be willing to lose some additional land for access to make the development work. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Staff if there was a logical place for the applicant to tie into on the west. Director Gidley stated that the same problems exist on the west as on the east. He stated that he did not know how those sections would subdivide. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired as to how many acres were vacant to the east and west. Director Gidley stated 13.5 to the east and 2.8 to the west. Ms. Reckert stated the west acreage was zoned R-1 which increases the lot availability. Commissioner JOHNSON asked.if it would be right-of--way on the road. Mr. Schneider stated yes. He then asked if it would be built flowline to flowline and Mr. Schneider replied yes. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if it would be thirty-four (34). Mr. Schneider stated he would have to attend the street width designation hearing. Depending on the outcome of this hearing, the designation could be nazrower according to Director Gidley. Mr. Schmeider stated it was not his intention to put in a narrower road. Chairperson LANGDON asked Director Gidley to clarify if the bulb was designated as the correct street sign. Director Gidley said yes. Chairperson LANGDON asked if he misunderstood Director Gidley when he stated that Parks does or does not want access to the area below. Director Gidley stated that their access is for maintenance only, the do not want a pedestrian access down the hill to the base. They would prefer to use the existing McLaughlin and Kullerstrand School access rather than creating additional access points. Chairperson LANGDON also clarified if the access was designated as a street, then there would be no need for the variance because the cul-de-sac would be eliminated after temporary use. Director Gidley stated it was a subdivision with a future street connection, therefore, it would be a temporary cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 9 '~ Commissioner THOMPSON asked at who's expense, if the connection happens, and would Director Gidley clarify statements made regarding lot lines being moved. Director Gidley explained the use of Lot 9 and the problems that it would incur and stated that Mr. Schneider would lose all or most of this lot. Mr. Schneider said that he was aware that this could happen but stated that if he was going to lose a lot he would prefer that it be one closer to the middle/front of the subdivision rather than one in the rear. Additional general discussion was held regarding the location of various access points and the preferences of Mr. Schneider and the Planning Department. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Mr. Jorgerson wanted to speak. Ms. Reckert stated that he had left but submitted a letter supporting the rezoning and seventeen (17) lot proposal R-lA. Chairperson LANGDON asked for his address and Ms. Reckert stated it was 3734 Union Court which is located on the south side of the property to be subdivided. Chairperson LANGDON swore in the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District Fire Marshal Dave Roberts who stated his address as 3880 Upham Street. Chairperson LANGDON advised the Fire Marshal that the Commissioners would be interested in his views of the cul-de-sac size, access, and advantages of what Mr. Schneider has proposed. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Schneider has met all requests for changes and adequately meets the Fire Department requirements. The Fire Marshal stated that the private access road scenazio was totally unacceptable to him. Chairperson LANGDON swore in James Matera who resides at 26 Skyline Drive. He stated that his purpose at the meeting was to state that he is under contract to purchase land to the west of the proposed subdivision and wanted to speak against the connection street. His contract is contingent upon subdividing using the existing R-1 zoning, Bringing the street through into a small subdivision would eliminate the possibility of planning seven (7) lots. Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired if his subdivision was from 38th Avenue north and Mr. Mater stated it was and that it was 2.8 acres. General discussion was held. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Matera about the discussion regarding a path and Mr. Matera stated he would have no problem with that. Chairperson LANGDON asked Director Gidley how that could be accomplished at this meeting. He stated that a comparison would have to be accomplished to see how the lots align. He suspects that there could be a difference but that it would all need to be worked out to be sure. Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired if this item could be continued until the appropriate people get together and work out the details. Mr. Schneider came forward and stated that he has been put in a position which was out Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 10 of his control. He must attend the street designation hearing and that he is scheduled to go before City Council on December 16, 1996. Postponing this hearing would cause a time frame problem and he would really appreciate trying to come to a compromise. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he is opposed to the length of the cul-de-sac, feels strongly that there be circulation east and west of this property, and he would move that the variance not be granted. That would meari would be that the land would have to be resubdivided. Director Gidley advised the Planning Commission that the applicant could continue with his various other subdivision scenarios. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she did not recall the answer to her previous question regarding who would pay for the street installation. Director Gidley advised that there would have to be funds placed in a long term escrow account by the developer for the area that would not be developed. At the time the other side of property was developed, this parcel would get built. If City Council in the future decided they did not want to do that, they would vacate the street and give the money back to the property owners on a pro rata share as part of their lot cost reimbursement. Commissioner THOMPSON asked what would happen if the escrow account did not cover the costs due to inflation. The City would pay the balance.. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the access could go between other lots and Director Gidley stated that was correct. Since it is not a fire hazard and there is access to the east and west by path, what was Staff's objection. Mr. Schneider stated he would be very willing to provide the path access. Director Gidley said that it did not provide a distribution of traffic throughout a street system which Staff believes is a better subdivision design process. Generally Staff prefers a street system, however, it is the option of the Commission as to what they want to do. He further stated that this was a variance request and variance does require a higher standard of consideration and there is criteria established for variance changes. Discussion was held regarding another variance situation and consideration of the through street proposal. Commissioner JOHNSON asked where the problem came up with the street width and who it was that told Mr. Schneider how wide the street had to be. Director Gidley and Mr. Schneider stated that it was City Council. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if he couldn't pick out a width of his own. Director Gidley stated that he could not even if it conformed to the current standards due to the Charter Amendment that occurred in 1995 - Street Width Designation Charter Amendment. Further discussion was held regarding street width. Director Gidley stated that the width could be smaller than fifty (50) feet and elaborated on the operating principles of street needs. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the minimum width necessary for the Fire Department and maintain subdivision safety between the neighborhoods was fifty (50) feet. Director Gidley suggested that a fifty (50) foot right-of--way be maintained and then make a street width determination at Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 11 the time that the street width designation occurs on December 16. He also advised the Commission that they could make a recommendation on the width if they chose. Commissioner ECKHARDT motioned that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue be DENIED for the following reasons: 1) There is no physical hazdship, 2) It does not promote good design, 3) There are no unique circumstances, and, 4) There may be detriment to safety and to the adjacent greenbelt. Motion was seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON. Motion for denial of variance was questioned by Chairperson LANGDON. Director Gidley stated that this was a motion for variance only and that the next question was regarding the subdivision approval or alternate design. It was fiu~ther questioned if City Council could recommend denial and Director Gidley stated not on the variance. Motion FAILED with a 4-4 vote. A majority approval was needed to pass the variance. Director Gidley explained the rules and the City Attorney's voting opinion as it relates to variances. The affect of the vote was that the variance was DENIED. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if a motion could be made regarding the subdivision or was there more information needed to vote. Ms. Reckert stated that the access issue to the park needed to be resolved as well. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue, be APPROVED as it is consistent with the R-lA zoning. However, the condition that there be vehicular access provided to the property to the east and pedestrian access be provided to the property to the west; location of those two access points be determined by Staff after they have met with the appropriate parties; also, that there be access provided to Tract A within the utility drainage easement from the cul-de- sac to the east end of the subdivision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON. Discussion was held. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired if the maximum of seventeen (17) units should be included in the motion. She further stated that the adjacent land owners as well as the applicant preferred not building to the maximum of twenty-one (21) units. General discussion was held and consensus was formed to mandate a maximum of seventeen (i 7) units would be approved without being part of the motion. Motion passed 8-0. Commissioner CERVENY motioned that the connector street width recommendation for thre link to the east, be thirty (30) feet right-of--way and twenty-four (24) feet flowline to flowline. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. General discussion was held. Motion was approved 8-0. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 12 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson LANGDON closed the public hearing. 9. OLD BUSINESS General discussion was held regarding the recent passing of long time Commission member, one of the founders of the City of Wheat Ridge, and resident, Bonnie Scoma. Due to her dedication, the Planning Commission felt that she should be honored in some way. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that Ms. Scoma had mentioned to him that she would like to have a gazebo in the park. Chairperson THOMPSON suggested putting her picture in City Hall. Commissioner JOHNSON asked what happened to the original typewriter and desk that she used. It was thought that they were either in Ms. Scoma's home or in the City somewhere. Her daughter had inquired what she should do with many items that probably had historical value. Director Gidley stated that the desk and typewriter were stored for safekeeping. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that a memorial using the desk and typewriter with her picture would make a nice tribute. Chairperson LANGDON motioned that it be suggested to City Council that the typewriter and desk, along with Ms. Scoma's picture, be placed within the walls of City Hall in a place of honor, as a tribute to her longstanding contributions to the City. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion passed 8-0. 10. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson LANGDON stated that it was time to vote for a new Chair. A confidential vote was taken and tallied by Secretary Gunn. Commissioner WILLIAMS was voted as the new Chairperson and Commissioner CERVENY as Vice Chair after a tie vote was broken with arun-off vote. Chairperson LANGDON thanked everyone for their support and a job well done over the past year while he was Chairperson. 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no reports. 13. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner THOMPSON motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner __ Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 13 GRIFFITH seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:00 p.m.. The next meeting will be December 5, 1996. ~#GENDA ITEM RECAP - -- -QUASI-JUDICIAL X _ Yes No "' AGENDA ITEM, G' December 16. 1996 Meeting Date X ~ PUHLIC HEARINGS _ CITY ADM. MATTERS _ ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS PROCJCEREMONIES _CITl' ATTY. MATTERS - _ ORDNANCES FOR IST READING BIDS/MOTIONS - - _ _ LIQUOR HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING PUBLIC COMMENT ----y_RESOLUTIONS INFORMATION ONLY _ - AGENDA ITEM TITLE: A Resolution establishing street width for streets within Prospect Ridge Subdivision. SUMMARYIRECOMMENDATION: RE: UNION CT. -Staff recommends 34-foot flow-line width. RE: CONNECTOR ALLEY -Staff recommends 26-foot edge-to-edge width, with inverted crown, concrete construction. ' BUDGETED ^ ^ ATTACHMENTS: - ~ -~ ITEM 1) Resolution X513 Yes No Fund _ - DepUAcct# Budgeted Amount ~_ Requested Expend.~_ .. -.. Requires Transfer! Supp. Appropriation Yes No RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: ~ 2 "I move for adoption of Resolution No. ~51? RESOLUTION NO. 1573_ _ Series of 1996 TITLE: A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND DESIGNATING STREET WIDTHS FOR ALL PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN PROSPECT RIDGE SUBDIVISION.. WHEREAS, Wheat Ridge Charter Section 5.20, and Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 21-4 requires that City Council approve "street width designations" for proposed street construction; and, WHEREAS, Daniel and Sherri Schneider have received approval of Prospect Ridge Subdivision, which subdivision plat has dedicated Union Court and a connector alley; and, WHEREAS, it is nece§sazy to designate street widths therefore prior to construction. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, as follows: A. Union Court shall be designed and constructed with a 34-foot flow-line width is hereby approved, and,. B. Connector alley shall be designed and constructed with a 26-foot width is hereby approved. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of , 1996._ . __ - _ __ DAN WILDE, MAYOR ATTEST: - WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Public Hearing shall be held before the City of Wheat Ridge City Council on Decerttber 16, 1996, at 7:00 p.nt. at the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for the purpose of considering a Street Width Designation for all public streets within a proposed subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue. The proposed Street Width Designation and specific plans for such street are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the office of the City Cleric, Wheat Ridge Municipal Building. Cnrtinn 5 70 Street Width Designation: The City Council shall have the sole authority and responsibility to determine the width of ali City streets within the boundaries ofthe City of Wheat Ridge. Sucit authority and responsibility cannot be delegated to any other body or individual(s), the only exception being the election procedure specifically set forth in this Charter section. Street width shall be determined by the flowline of the street. Flowline is defined as the measurement from the inside edge of one curb to the inside edge of the opposite curb. Where no curb is planned to be constructed, flowline shall be defined as the measurement from the outside edge of one side of the driving surface of the street, to the outside edge of the opposite side of the driving surface of the street. Within one (I) year prior to construction or reconstruction of a street, the Cily Council shall hold a public hearing to detetmine the flowline of such street. Following the public hearing, the Council shall adopt such flowline as the street's official Street Width Designation. In the event of a protest against such proposed Street Width Designation signed by the owners of: (1) Twenty (20) percent of the property immediately adjacent or contiguous to either side of such street; or, (2) Ten (10) percent of the property lying within three hundred (300) feet of either side of such street, such proposed Street Width Designation shall not become effective except by the favorable vote ofthree-fourths {3/4) of the entire City Council. Property does not need to be entirely contained within the three hundred (300) foot area to be used in the computation of the ten (l0) percent necessary to file a protest. Only the portion of the property that actually lies within the three hundred (300) foot area is used to compute the ten (10) percent required to file a protest.. Where the City of Wheat Ridge owns property or has right-of--way within three hundred (300) feet of either side of the street, then such city-owned land or right-of--way shall be excluded from the computation of the required percentage of properties needed to file a protest to the proposed Street Width Designation. Owners ofnon-city land shall be considered immediately adjacent or PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 8-0215 antti ~i f PROJECT ~ FiLE ~_ LOCATION - FEATURE DESIGNED BY DATE ~_ ~ :_..i..: ---==1--- ----=- ----~ I. `~ .H. 34 ~~ -~- ----= ---- -- -.I _,~••~__ _. L .._ _ ._ . -3~ ._ R.o.-w_ --....-. ~ 2b Co~JG. Notice of Public Hearing Section 5.20. Street Width Designation Page contiguous to the street, or within three hundred (300) feet of either side ofsuch street, despite such intervening city-owned land orright-of--way. The written protest to such proposed Street Width Designation shall be submitted to the City Council no later than the conclusion of the public heazing on the proposed Street Width Designation. At least fifreen (15) days' notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published in the newspaper used by the City to publish legal notices, and notice ofsuch public hearing shall be mailed by certified letter to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of both sides ofsuch street. Said notice shall contain: (I) A description of the proposed Street Width Designation, and a statement that the specific plans for the proposed Street Width Designation are available for inspection at the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building; and, (2) An explanation of the right of the property owners to protest such proposed Street Width Designation, and how to exercise such right; and, (3) The full and complete text of this Charter section. All publication and notification requirements set forth in this Charter section shall be performed by the City Clerk. If at any time within forty five (45) days after a favorable vote by City Council of such proposed Street Width Designation, a petition signed by at least five (5) percent of the registered electors of the City Council district(s) immediately adjacent or contiguous to such street be presented to the Council against the going into effect of such proposed Street Width Designation; the same shall thereupon be immediately suspended and the Council shall publish notice of and call an election upon the proposed Street Width Designation. Said election shall beheld not less than thirty (30) days nor more than one hundred eighty (180) days afer publication of the notice thereof. Only registered electors in the City Council district(s) immediately adjacent or contiguous to such street shall be eligible to vote on the proposed Street Width Designation. If a majority of the registered electors in the City Council district(s) immediately adjacent or contiguous to such street voting thereon vote for such proposed Street Width Designation, the proposed Street Width Designation shall be deemed approved. for purposes of ballot tabulation, the total voles of all electors who cast ballots from one or more City Council district(s) shall be counted together. Notice of Public Hearing Section 5.20. Street Width Designation Page If any provision of this Charter section or the application in any particulaz case, is held invalid, the remainder of this Charter section and its application in all other cases shall remain unimpaired. Anything in the Charter or ordinances of the City of Wheat Ridge in conflict or, inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter section is hereby declared to be inapplicable to the matters and things covered and provided for by this Charter section. This Charter section shall take effect immediately upon passage. i _ ~~~ Maril Gunn, ecretaz Wanda Sang, City erk To be published: i~Iovember 29, 1996 Wheat Ridge Transcript AGENDA,ITEM RECAP QIIASI-JUDICIAL X Yes No _ PUBLIC HEARINGS PR00.-/CEREMONIES X SIDS/MOTIONS INFORMATION ONLY AGENDA ITEM TITLE: _ CITY RDM. MATTERS ____ CITY ATTY. MATTERS - _-LIQUOR HEARINGS- - PUBLIC COMMENT _ _ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ ORDINANCES-FOR 1ST READING _- _. _ _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ___ RESOLUTIONS Closure of W. 38th Place between Pierson and Parfet Streets. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: A petition from the Applewood Village Estates subdivision has been received requesting the closure of W. 38th Place approximately midway between Pierson and Parfet Streets. The road closure is requested with the understanding that fire and public works approval of the design would be solicited prior to construction and that the construction would be at the expense of the subdivision residents. ATTACHMENTS: 1) RCM memo 2) R.Schneider letter, Pres.,Applewood Village Estates Homeowners Assn. 3) Petition BUDGETED _ ITEM: Yes Fund Dept/Acct ~ Budgeted Amount _ Requested Eicpend._ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that W. 38th Place at the eastern boundary of the Applewood Village Estates subdivision be closed as requested by the Applewood Village Homeowners Association and that emergency fire and pedestrian access acceptable to the Fire..-. District and Public Works Department be incorporated .for the closure design with said closure to be accomplished at the expense of the residents of the Applewood Village Estates subdivision; or No No motion is necessary if the City Council chooses not to undertake the closure.- as requested. No motion or action by the City Council-would leave W, 38th Place- in its current condition. CITY OF AHEAT RZDGE MEMORANDIIM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert C. Middaugh, City Manager SIIBJ: ROAD CLOSIIRE -- DATE: December 9, 1996 Attached please find a petition from residents of the Applewood Village Estates subdivision requesting the closure of W. 38th Place at the eastern boundary of the subdivision. As Councilmembers are probably aware, my home is located in the Applewood Village Estates subdivision, and I am also a signatory to the petition requesting road closure. As such, this letter is simply a letter--of transmittal for the petition. By this cover letter, I am also disclosing my interest in the action before city Council-and as such, I will not be advancing a recommendation for City Council consideration. The attached cover letter from the President of the homeowners association summarizes the position of the residents regarding-the road closure. The road closure request for which the petition has been submitted also has been acted upon formally by the homeowners association and recommended .for approval. as outlined in the attached letter. The map attached to Mr. Schneider's letter indicates all of the owners of the properties who have signed the petition 'and the status of those properties who are not signatories to the petition before City Council. This particular street closure is brought to the attention of the 'City Council~apart'from the neighborhood traffic management program because, 1) it affects only the subdivision in question and a cul de sac road-is at issue, not the overall transportation system; and 2) the residents are willing to undertake the expense of the closure without City participation. Action of the City Council is simply a motion to close W. 38th Place at the point indicated or to refuse to claw the road. Respectfully submitted, ~~! ~ - Robert C. Middaugh City Manager A12.16 -- November I1, 1996 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Wheat Ridge City Council 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Dear Mayor and Council members: Attached please find a petition for the closure of 38th Place at the eastern boundary of the Applewood Village Estates subdivision. All of the residents of the subdivision as well as our adjoining neighbors have signed the petition. We are requesting the street closure to help improve the safety and the security of our subdivision. Applewood Village Estates was constructed as a cul-de-sac with the expectation that our subdivision would not be used as a cut through by others.. Unfortunately the traffic patter€E that has developed is that a significant number ofnon-residents use 38th Place as a cut through ~o avoid the traffic signal at the intersection of 38th Avenue and Parfet Street. The cut through traffic poses a safety hazard for the many small children in our subdivision and for the day care center located at the eastern edge of the subdivision on 38th Place. Our subdivision has also recently formed a neighborhood watch that will be greatly aided by the street closure. With the current traffic pattern, a large number of vehicles from outside the neighborhood pass through the subdivision. The security and the safety of our neighborhood and the success of our neighborhood watch will be improved by reducing the amount of non- neighborhood traffic. The residents of Applewood Village Estates will undertake the closure at our own expense. Yf approved, we plan to construct a gate at the point of closure that will allow fire and pedestrian access. We expect to work with the Fire and Public Works Departments for approval of our closure~design: While some minor in-kind help would be appreciated from the City, we do not expect the City to pay for the closure. Please grant the closure that we have requested and allow the road system to function as the cuI- desac we expected and desire to have. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robert Snyder, P~ident Applewood Village Estates Homeowner Association -- - -. -- - ~ - - -- - I `_ f --_ ___ _._ _. - _. - ~ _ _ f 1 ~. _ i `~-~i ~_ 1 N S O .~ a O ~ ~ N - ' t ---=--- '` 7 RI - R_~ _ ~ .$ _ rl .$ o_ _ O N '~ ~ X002 ~2 - ~ - m a a n ,S o, ° ~ - ,4PPLE O Y n J $ ~ ~ ~ N ,.v'c VILLA E ~T _ ~ r 'g ., g' n ~ v1 ~ N J _ ~ W ~J~ITH ~.. ~ . h ~ a ~~9 ^ $2 x a ' . a n 7t H ~~ - _ r~ ~(~ ~ V /~ "' I I~ n YES , o ~p 1- [ N YES ' - r 9; ,~,~ N N ~' H ~ ~ _ }n75 I n YES ~ Y~5 untocc. : i F ~. - R . ~ ~ ~ --u m+nvz >a ~ ~ S i a ~ Y~ ~ ~ ~yES +~+ - $ '^ H ~ ~i ~ ~ under ~5{-. •_2! n J n n o v ~ U I O~~I GI ~L SON I NG M~~' W~i~~T ill DG~ ~OLO~~DO MAP. ADOPTED Laat Revision: Auqust 17, 1993 ES TE YES , ~ K~ I I ~, ~T,+ ~ - ~ E ~A ~o -~ vg's .~ n ~ -to 8'f5 L ~ ~ vgcl+rv r - ~ _ - ~ serve nve r-- Y ~ S - 5 ~ aj r~ ~cC ~e--k:-i-ro-rt f,.~ ~.io r o ~ Gl.vsur2 -::, ~_•.•., 100-YEaR FLOOD PLhIN ~__~ (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY PaRGEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) - -_- -WATER FEATURE • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES r We the undersigned residents of the City of Wheat Ridge do respectfully request the closure of 38th Place at the eastern boundary of the Applewood Village Estates subdivision or approximately I50 feet east of the intersection of 38th Place and Pierson Street, as shown on the attached map. 38th Place has become a convenient cut through for persons wishing to avoid the traffic signal at 38th and Parfet Street that has introduced a significant.level ofnon-neighborhood traffic to the area. The added traffic poses a threat to the safety of the many small children in the area and increases the concern for overall neighborhood safety and security. The street closure is to be accomplished at the expense of the residents of Applewood Village Estates and with a design that meets the approval of the Wheat Ridge Fire Department and the City of Wheat Ridge Public Works Department. Limited in-kind assistance of the City of Wheat Ridge would be helpful in making the closure. Pedestrian and emergency fire access will be maintained on 38th Place after the closure to traffic. Printed name _ _ Sienahtr•e ~_ ~~.L~SS e!/ o nv~ea ~SSeLLa p .~Sv~~ a:~~rz9o o ~ ~ ZO ~CrSO n M. MQ-1; ss a M,'ddr (~/Tl~-t/R~/~I1E ~ ///J~AOc ~-I d N 9 (r/~c~.a// o~ d c tit Q~ -~J {-; L 38 SO P~ e_ r-sar~ (~ ~ 380 P. er-S~r ~~ _ ..L..~ nL_...~.~ 39~ ~~5« D`l T~ ~~Pi`-J'an X86 O P/~R-.soil si._ - - n n - --- - -, v ~ . ~' ., i ' .....-_ i l`. R'- ~ i ~ N : DECRIES ~"~ev 1"1 : r 1. r~1 i~~ ~.'. . -' ~: E . V -.'.'.'.'. .. '.'.'.':':. II t'~ r r '.\ ~.'.'.'~- my .'.. ..~ ..•.. .~.~....... ,. . .. -. 1 .. _:.... . 1 ..• .. ~~., . - . -~ ~' ~ i ! ~_~:~:-:?::.::.:.-:::~_-'~' ..I x ERs ~o~~_ R-I vI ~ .I = ~ ~ ~ : M yYiN nK _ ~ ' 1 ~ Ri ~ _ I =! ~ F = N WfN n G A ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ 'I r , ~ I I .~, - • cs T- ~ I sj ....I.. AI p .. ~I :I ' a o ' ~ A ; 2 tC x.. ~ S _~ S E; 8~E i 8_' i wseMti x ~ '; N R I II ~ 3 :: i I ~ 3181 '~ r - - - 1 - r .r x~. ,ee -... ---- ~ ~ J ~- ZONI>~d6 i"1,4P c~-"''~PROX.iNJ~TE iOGA'IO\I ^-~ ZO\E: rJ15TR:GT SC 47¢" ~~-"~``~_. _. W f-I E,°~T R i DGE - a,,~~~~oT ~~- GOLORt~DO oes~w, =5 0~~5-=1- = ~;._ -.~ _ .. _ _ i-IATCR P2A.TURE ... ) ~ {~ s4_P p.70~-6T ~nc o, '49~ rjc,107~ Nu71?' ° =77"a=SS=S - LO `-~"[T I O M o F _as: e2<.-san. 7eee^rx• 3...99- 2EQ~E5-("gip ST. C~.os~-t KE }" AZ ~ 1- Q' ~~lW W AV JS/a 0~..°.~_ - I,T7O~J: _ - Petition for road losure Page two of petition for closure of 38th Place Printed name a>_tue - ~- !. ---~.., . ~. -i'-ter c ,,, /_ ~ ~ T :~ ~i~~+ .. c1 J+ MEMORANDUM „ Approved Date TO: Meredith Reckert, Planning & Development J FROM: Gary Wardle, Parks & Recreation ~ W RE: 12345 W. 38th Avenue DATE: November 21, 1996 At the November 20th Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the Rezoning & Subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue. The following motion was made and cazried by the Commission. "I move the City request a permanent easement for maintenance access to the Greenbelt property upon the utility easement and that the 5% of land previously dedicated meets the requirements for Pazk Land Dedication Fees." ~- - , - - AGENDA ITEM RECAP QUASI-JUDICIAL _ _ .. Yes No _ PUBLIC HEARINGS _ CITY ADM. MATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS PROC./CEREMONIES CITY ATTY. MATTERS X ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ BIDS/MOTIONS _ LIQUOR HEARINGS _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING INFORMATION ONLY - _ _ PUBLIC COMMENT _ RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Case No. WZ-96-15/Schneider SUMMARYIRECOMMENDATION: Consider a rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A for property located at 12345 W. 38th Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2) 3) __ _ BUDGETED ITEM Yes No Fund._ DepUAcct# _ __ Budgeted Amount ~_ _ Requested Expend.. Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move that Council Bill be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, December 16. 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second reading take effect 15 days after final publication. _ r_ _ INTRODUCED BY ,COUNCIL.MEMBER _ Council Bill No. _ Ordinance No. Series of 1996 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL-ONS AND AGRICULTURAL-TWO TO RESIDENTIAL-ONE A DISTRICT ON LAND LOCATED AT 12345 WEST 38TH AVENUE, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. BE IT-ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1; Upon application by_Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a rezoning, in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Case WZ-96-15. and pursuant to findings made based on testimony and evidence- presented at public hearing before the Wheat Ridge City Council, Wheat Ridge maps are hereby amended to exclude from the Residential-One-and Agricultural-Two zone district, and to include in the Residential-One-A the following described land:. Tracts A, B, and C and Lots 1 through 4, Prospect Ridge Minor Subdivision, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. _ Section 2,_ Vested Property Rights. Approval of this rezoning does not create a vested property right. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of Section 26(c)_of Appendix A and the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat_ Ridge. Section 3. Safety Clause. ..The City Council hereby .finds, determines., and declares that this ordinance is promulgated. under __ the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that'it is promulgated for the ,health, safety, and welfare of,the_public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The. City Council further determines that the ordinance bears_a rational relation to the proper legislative object .sought to be attained. _. _ _ Ordinance No. Page 2 Case No.c WZ-96-15 Section 4. Severabilit~ If any clause, sentence, paragraph; or part of this Zoning Code or .the application thereof to any .person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5e Supersession Clause. If any provision, requirement or standard established by this Ordinance is found-to .conflict with similar provisions, requirements or standards found elsewhere-in the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, which are in existence as of the date of adoption o~ this Ordinance, -- the provisions,- requirements and standards herein shall supersede and prevail. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect days ,after final publication. ~,,•- Ordinance No_ Page 3 ___ Case No.: WZ-96-15 INTRODUCED, READ, .AND ADOPTED on first. reading by a vote of to on-this. day of 199_, ordered published in full in a newspaper of_general circulation in.the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing-and consideration on final passage set for 199_, at 7:00 o°clock p.m., in the Council-Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to this day of ,_ 199 - - SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 199 DAN WILDE, MAYOR ., .- - ... Wanda Sang, City Clerk APPROVED AS'TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: __ Wheat Ridge Sentinel Effective Date: r~ 1_J HAND DELIVERED December 9, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Request for Change in Application Regarding Zoning from A-2/R-1 to R-1 for the Property Located at 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Case Nos. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3 Dear Ms. Reckert: As per our discussion last week and my previous conversations with Mr. Glen Gidley, I am formally requesting that our application for rezoning from A-2JR-1 to R1-Abe changed to A-2/R-1 to R-1. This request is based upon the fact that the City Council voted 5-3 at the first reading for this case. Due to the financial constraints that we are operating under on this project, we could not afford to have the City Council deny the original request for rezoning and then be faced with the situation of having to start over and resubmit everything again for a revised rezoning request. And based upon my discussion with Mr. Gidley essentially we would be starting over with a 3-5 month timeframe to get approval on a revised request. I delivered 17 copies of the revised plat which shows the subdivision with the revised zoning of 14 lots all which exceed the minimum R-1 standards by the deadline requested by the Planning Department staff last Friday. It is my understanding that these have delivered to the appropriate parties. As requested by the Planning Commission we have included a connector alley to the northeast and a pedestrian pathway to the west. However, we are still requesting a variance for the length to the cul-de-sac. I am currently circulating a petition requesting signatures in support of the variance by the surrounding neighbors including adjacent landowners. _ .. It is my understanding that I can ask City Council forthis variance during my final hearing on December 16, 1996 without jeopardizing my subdivision. After presenting the evidence supporting the variance, if City Council denies the variance, the subdivision is still under consideration because I have a viable option which was approved by the Planning Commission. I think that these issues are important enough that this scenario should be presented to the City Attorney for a legal opinion to verify that in fact this is the case. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter. Si rely, Daniel F. Schneider, P. E. cc: Mr. Glen Gidley 2 AGENDA ITEM RECAP -QUASI-JUDICIAL _X_ _ Yes No i a PUBLIC HEARINGS _ -CITY ADM._MAITERS _ _ ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS . „ ... -. _ PROC./CEREMONIES _Cll'Y AIIY. MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ _ _ 111DS/MOTIONS _ LIQUOR HEARINGS _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND R2iADlNG _ INFORMATION ONLY FUBLIC COMMENT RL-SOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Case WS-96-3: Request for a fourteen (14) lot subdivision with a variance for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Variance: Planning Commission and Staff recommend DENIAL of the variance. Subdivision: Planning Commission and Staff recommend APPROVAL of the fourteen (14) lot subdivision. ATTACHMENTS: BUDGETED ~ 1) Staff Report _ - ITEM ~ t-- 2) Plat Yes No MOTIONS; Fund _ Dept/Acct # _ Budgeted Amount ~_ Requested Expend. Requires Transfer/ ^ ^ Supp. Appropriation - Yes No RE: Variance: "I move that the variance portion of this request be DENIED, as the findings do not support the variance, there is no hardship, nor are there unique circumstances". RE: Subdivision: "I move that the Prospect Ridge Subdivision be approved, and that all public street dedications be accepted. The pedestrian easement shown between lots _ and _ shall be constru_cted_as a concrete or aspha_It sidewalk b_y th_e subdivider, however, once constructed, shall be maintained by the City. The G~oi P.O. 6i~X 638 TELEPriOnC b~iz3~-69cn y 7500 WEST 29?H AVENUE WHEAT RIDG[, COLORl+DO 84033 cwhea~ ~1C~gE November 29, 1996 WZ-96-15 and This is to inform you that_ C_ ase No. Ik~S-96-3 'yyhich is a request approval of a rezonin from R-1 and A-2 to R-lA and for approval of a - ,_ .. 17-lot major subdivision with a variance to the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 W. 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 December 16, 1996 _ All owners aid/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 ~~~ ~. ,. ,. "r~2N ~_(l.I7t(I~IU17 ~~df}' ~ N P 2 9 7 6 5'5 2 5 I E Is yo TURN ADDRESS complex _ Is Your RE RESS compl TUR eted on the reverse side? ~ W N ~ < ~ -nJ ti m '^" 1..p ~ W ~ OS~~.s~~o ` m ° a' ~ Z US PasNal Service - a ~( °-' m w ~ o n N ~ n m 3, mm Too~ ~0 • Receipt for Certified l ~ m ~ ~ ~ 5' 3 ~ ~ ° m , ~ ~ ~ m y ~ a 3 ~ No Insurance Coverage Provided: ~ _ ~ m . ~ ,~ ~ ry ~-" ~ • w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ q N .. Do notuse for International Mail (. - y ~ \ ~ ~ ~ W d ~• s -~ m a, W S ~.~ ~~ o qn G _ eQ 00 w ° a~ g ~ Debpie Moore ~ John B & L ~ Z O ~ ~ y ~ P ~ ~ cc ~ ° 4 ~ 3 ~ Q _ _ ~ r° ' ~ m ~ ~ ~ 9 `° ~ a~ sg s ^' P 297 655 25 : ~ o ~ y ~ n ` o o ~; ~ ~ ~ O K ~ ~ a ~ W CD 4~ m. ~ ~ US Postal Service _ ~' W ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ a v, ~ ~ 3 Receipt for Certified . a° _- m No Insurance Coverage_Provtded ~ ~ m mg ~ Do noluse for International Mal ( ' F ° ~ Alvin L. Alberts Trustee ~ m w ~m -~ P 297 655 2 ;; SENDER v .Complete lb 'm •COmptele iN US Postal SerVlCe ~ _ m •Pdnt yours card to you. Receipt for Certified ' 'Attach this I No Insurance Coverage Provided : . .wn e~aerur Do not use for International Matt; ~ .The Return ~ delivered. a 3. Article A 13every ScDavid Wilson d 3781 Tabor Ct ~ -- ' 3 $every & David Wilson P 297 655 2. w US Postal Service • D ~ Receipt for Certified No Insurance CoveC.~ge Provider. . ~ Do not use for International Mail (Se t- G Steve Longesdorf 12043 W 36 P1 , Wheat Ridge CO 80033 : v > CeNtled Fee ~ i Spedal Delivery Fee c a to __ Restdded Delivery Fea ~ m c m Return Receipt ShowMl to , E _ Whom &Date Derivered ~ Rdum RexiptShmviigroy+fiun, m Oate,dAddresseeY Adfress w o m TOTAL POStagea Fees o ~ Posanadc or Dale IL ~ a m . IS I also wish to receive the following services (for an :en velum this eXtrd fee): ' ~ ~ does not s Address f, ^ Addressee ~ I number 2. ^ Restricted Delivery N I thedate Consult postmaster for fee. ti ~ ~ 4a. ANcle Number ~ ~ 4b. Service Type ~ 'I ^ Registered ~Certlfted ~ ^ Express Mail Insured ~ l ^ Return Receipt far Merchandise ^ COD ° I ` 7. Date of Delivery o; ~ I-3o r 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested ~ and fee Is paid) r of the mailpiece, or on the back If space does not tsred' on fhe mailpiece below the anicle number. w to whom the article was delivered and the date Steve Longesdorf 12043 GV 36 PI Wheat Ridge CO 80033 ,..,,,.....,,, ....._.....--- r- extra ee): ~ 1. ^ Addressee's Address •~ 2. ^ Restricted Delivery m Consult postmaster for fee. ~• nber ~ c r~ ~_J cx~7~ E rpe ^ Registered Certified °C _, ~ m ^ Express Mail Insured ~ - w ^ RetumReceipt•LforMerchandisa ^ COD ° '_ 7. Date of Delivery ~°- 1 I °-~~ ~ . 8. Addressee's Address (Only i/requested ~ and /ee !s paid) t H 6. Signatu~e: (~dressee or m /~ ~ PS Form 381 /Decem`ber' ER: r,Q ~; ~ $ ~~~ I also wish to receive the 9 ' P 2 9 7 6 5 5 2 5 ~w _ •COmplelodemsland/or2foraddNOnalservices. .Complete items 3, 4a, end 4b. lhl following services (for an - , a • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so t s hat we can return extra fee): ~ m cardtoyou. •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not t, ^ Addressee's Address '~ US POS18I SBNIce _ Receipt forCertifiedM m permit. •Wnte'RetumRecelprRequested'onthemailpiecebelowthearticlenumber. to whom the artide was delvered and the date h ll 2.^ReatdCtedD0liVery ~ N °' No Insurance Covera a Provided. - ~ 9 ow s •_The Return Recelpl wi delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. $ - Do not use for Intemanonal Mail (Se o - 3. Article Addressed to: 4 rtlcle N ~ ~ u er / ~, ~ ~/ )C E ` e Dan Schneider ° £ ab. service Typ d m ` v 2562 Taft Ct Dan Schneider ^ Registered ~ Certifie ~ . N 2562 Taft Ct. ^ express Mail ^ Insured Lakewood CO 80215 _ o wood CO 8021 S k L ^ Return Receipt for Merchandise ^ COD ~ , ---'G e a 7. Date of alive o P 2 9 7 6 5 5 2 5 9 ¢ A dressee's Address (Only if requested g 0 ~""" F 5. R eiv By: (Pri e1 . and fee is paid) m ~ US Postal Service ~ m '~7 -~ Receipt for Certified M. ~ 6. Signature: (A dressee or Agent) No Insurance Coverage Provided. °>, X - - - Do notusefor Intemationai Man (Sef, ~+ 1994 b Domestic Return Receipt F er PS Form 3811, Decem ~~) James E. & Janet S. Ratzlof` a 4b. Service Type ~ ~ 3784 Utuon Ct James E. & Janet S. Ratzloff _ ^ Registered '~ Certified ~ . Wheat Ridge CO 80033 , rn 3784 Union Ct. -- ^ F~cpress Mail ^ Insured 5 ,~_ a Wheat Ridge CO 8003 P 297 655 260 ~ US Postal Service F 5. Received By: (Pdnt Name) Receipt for Certified Ma No Insurance Coverage Provided. - c 6. Signa/tulre f(Addressee orAg, ~, Do not use for_Intemafional Mail (See ~ X; !; 'r 1 PS Fo 381 ,December 1994 Calvin L. & Eileen L. Jenks 11885 W. 38 Ave Wheat Ridge CO 80033 ^ RetumRecelptforMerchandlse ^ COD 7. Data of 6elivery I I~~ a 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested ~ and fee is pa(d) z P 297 655 261 iI I i US Postal Service - Receipt for Certified Mai l--_- - No Insurance Coverage Provided. ~, SENDER' W ~ ~{~ ~ ~~ I also wish to receive the Do not use far International Mail(: - a, v .Complete itemsl andfar2 for additional services. f0110W1ng SBNiCBS (fort an m et • Complete items 3, 4a, and db. •Pdnt your name and address on the reveme of thi s form so that we can velum this extfa fee): m Lois J. Tate ~~ °1 eardt°y°°~ .Attach tole forth to the from at the mailpiece, or an the bade if apace does not 1. ^ Addressee's Address ~ 12100 W 38 Ave ~ permit •Wdte'Rerum Recelpf Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ^ RestdCted Delivery m W Wheat Ride CO 80033 g m $ •TheRetumRecelptwillshowtowhomiheertide d wasdeliveredandthedate Consult pOStmasterforf0e. °' ~4! ~ delivere . - ~ 3. AAlcle Addressed to: 4a. Article tJumber f l _S a~ iL _ e' E ifi d F C 'ffi ~ c I -~- ee ert e - .a _ 4b.ServlceType ~ fu Spada) Derivery Fee. ~ Lois J. Tate ^ Registered Certified ~ - 12100 W 38 Ave ^ Express Mail Insured y 'n Resldded Delivery Fee w Wheat Ridge CO 80033 ~ ^ RewmReceiptforMerchandise ^ COD - ~ Return Receipt Showing to ery Date of Deliv 7 ° _ z whom $ Daze Delivered 6 - ~ ~ . rn o ~ Retun Recap Shoavg [oWhan, ~ cr< ' Y •. j Date,$AddressBes Address ~ Re i 5 By: ( tNam ~ 8. Address e's Address (Only if requested m , o TOTAL Postage $ Fees $ ~ . ~ and fee is paid) ~¢ ~ 6. SYg ~. X PS Form ' p 297 655 262 3 tJ$ POStaI $efVICO - t for Certified Mail i m i p Rece No Insurance Coverage Provided. v ternational Mail (See re( I n Do_ n_ot use for 0 U Wasyl Hotz 11849 W. 36 Pl Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 °o - -- - - - z, CemFied Fee -_ ;W SPedal Delivery Fee ~ s~-= - -- o.. o p 297 655 26:9 US Postal Service m Receipt for Certified M No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (Se ~ c 0 9 Jim Mature ,~~, 26 Skyline Drive a Lake~roodt CO 80215 N Certified Fee- .. - _ _ ~~ C Special Delivery Fee 4 Z p 297 655 26yW 3 O US Postal Service 3' Receipt for Certified M = No Insurance Coverage Provicl""-_ Do not use for International Mti ~ SE a •C q •( m •F ` qiV `~ I also wish to receive the - iENDE Rems i andlor2 for additional services. ~ ~ following SBNICBe (for an •Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. eMfa fee): .Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we ten return this ~•, card to you. Z ` •Attach This torn to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not ~, ^ Addressee's Address permit. ~ •yydte'Refum fiats/pt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number 2.^Restricted Delivery N, .The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consult postmasterfor fee. °~ delivered. article Addressed to: 4a. Artlcle Number ~] ,~4 ~ ~ y ~~ ~ J m ~ c - 4b. Service Type , r Wasyl HOtz ^ Registered LQI Certified ~ ` 36 PI 11849 W Insured ^ Express Mail ~ H . Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 ^ RetumReceiptforMerchanSse ^ CAD w y 7.aDate pf Delivery ~ ~,'°113 v ~. Received By: (Print Name) ~ ~- ~" B: Addressee's Address (Only ifrequesfed ~- ~ ~ and-fee is paid) :r r ~gnafutg' fAddressl;+e`drAgent) :, ..-, ,~ _- _- _ - r ~ _ - F )ER: i W~ `~~! ' ~ I also wish to receive the a ces. lists Rems t andlar2 for additional serv f0110W1ng services (fOr an ^' Mete items 3, 4a, antl 4b. eXlra fBe): your name and address on the reverse of this farm so that we can return this u o you. h mis form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. ^ Addressee's rase 2 u. ietum Race pt wllRl showtowhomhlha a~rticlewas der Bred andthedate 2.^Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. ~ - Jim Mature 26 Skyline Drive Lakewood, CO 80215 PS F`em~38i'9, December 1894 ^ Registered ^ Express Mail ^ Ret 7. A ;ems i anrUor 2 for additional services. ~~ .iy' L J `~ items 3, 4a, and 46. Jt~// name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this C E Jor enson - ~ card to you. g ~ - m •Attach mis fomt to the front of the mailpiece, ar on the back if space does not 3734 Union Ct. - ~ parmtt• ® •Wdte'Rafum Hecelpf Requested'on the malpiece below the article number. Wheat Ridge CO 80( +~- •deliveretdmReceiptvnllshowtowhommeartidewasdeljveredandmedate - - _ _ - --~ z CAicle Addressed to: ~ `~' Afhr Cerfified Fea _ ;; m Special Delivery Fee E Residcted Delivery Fee °' Return Receipt Shawing to - rn w Whom&~ate Derrvered _ p ~~ Rewm ReceiptSMv+bgjoyJhoin, ' _ Q s Address f7ate,aAddressee O 70TAL Postage A Fees Q 00 c"r Pastmadc or Date _. w E O ~- ~ T m a w - C E Jorgenson 3734 Union Ct. Wheat Ridge CO 80033 6. Of PS ~' ~E 3 d Certified ~ ^ Insured .~ . ^ COD 1 also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): `~ 1. ~ Addressee's Address • -~ 2. ^ Restricted Delivery r'A Consult postmaster for fee. .~ °' ---- - ul ~ "' - 4b. Service Type -- ^ Registered - ^ Express Mail _ _ ^ Reium Receipt -= ~ Hate nf~elivE ll-3~ and fee is paid) ~~, ~,~ c 3 v Certified ~ Insured •~~ ^ coo w 3 T requested ~ is John B. & Debbie Moore Dan Schneider 12201 W 38 Ave 2562 Taft Ct. Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Lakewood CO 80215 Alvin L. Alberts Trustee Annette D. Alberts Trustee 12355 W 38 Ave Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Bevery & Dauid Wilson 3781 Tabor Ct Wheat Ridge CO 80033 James E. & Janet S. Ratzloff 3784 Union Ct. Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Wasyl Hotz 11849 W. 36 P1 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Calvin L. & Eileen L. Jenks 11885 W.38 Ave Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Lois J. Tate 12100 W 38 Ave Wheat Ridge CO 80033 ' 1 & Sherr' eider 2562 ewood CO 15 Steve Longesdorf C E Jorgenson Jim Matura 12043 W 36 P1 3734 Union Ct. 26 Skyline Drive Lakewood, CO 80215 Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Wheat Ridge CO 80033 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 December 16, 1996, 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: Case No WS-96-3: An application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a subdivision with a variance to the Subdivision Regulations. Said property for both cases is located at 12345 West 38th Avenue and is legally described as follows: Tracts A' and B and Lots I through 4, Prospect Ridge Minor Subdivision, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. 1~ IP, rv'a, b Wanda Sang, CV Clerk To be Published: November 29, 1996 Wheat Ridge Transcript f^ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: December 16, 1996 Page -3- Item 2. Council Bill 55 - An Ordinance establishing the position of City Historian. Council Bill 55 was introduced on second reading by Mrs. Fields; title read by the Clerk; Ordinance No. 1059 assigned. Motion by Mrs. Fields for the approval of Council Bill 55 (Ordinance 1059); seconded by Mr. Siler; carried 7-0. Item 3. Council Bill 54 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, concerning Sales and Use Tax. Council Bill 54 was introduced on second reading by Mr. Siler; title read by the Clerk; Ordinance No. 1060 assigned. Motion by Mr. Siler for the approval of Council Bill 54 (Ordinance 1060); seconded by Mrs. Dalbec; carried 7-0. Item 4. Public Input for 1997 Budget. There was on one present to speak. Item 5. A. Council Bill 53 - An Ordinance providing for the approval of rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One A District on land located at 12345 West 38th Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. (Case No. WZ-96-15) (Daniel and Sherri Schneider) The applicant has revised his rezoning request from R-1A to R-1 since C.B. 53 was approved on first reading. Council Bill 53 was introduced on second reading by Mr. Siler; title read by the Clerk; Ordinance No. 1061 assigned. Applicant Dan Schneider was sworn in by the Mayor, gave presentation and answered questions. Glen Gidley presented the staff report. Doug Jenks, 11885 West 38th Avenue, was sworn in by the Mayor; he is representing property owners to the east; spoke mainly in favor of the development; had concerns about the two long cul-de-sacs; sees no need for street to the east; has reservations about sewer access across their property; not in favor of public access to the Greenbelt. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: December 16, 1996 Page -4- John B. Moore, 12207 West 38th Avenue, was sworn in by the Mayor; he owns 3.14 acres to the west of the property; is satisfied with the planned residences; has concerns about the proposed road to the east; sees no reason for it. Mrs. Worth asked to read a letter from one of the Councilmembers into the record. Mayor Wilde stated that was against the Council Rules. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec to suspend the Rules and allow a letter from a Councilmember to be read into the record; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 6-1 with Mr. Siler voting no. Mrs. Worth read a letter from Janelle Shaver into the record, which was against the rezoning; applicant can subdivide according to current zoning. Motion by Mr. Siler that Council Bill 53 be approved on second reading, with an amendment to revise Residential-One-A (R-1A) to Residential-One (R-1) for the following reasons: 1. The rezoning conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and, 2. R-1 is compatible with adjacent uses and zoning; and, 3. The applicant has revised his request from R-1A to R-1; seconded by Mr. Eafanti. Mrs. Dalbec offered a substitute Motion. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec that Council Bill 53 be denied on second reading with the amendment R-1A to R-1 for the following reasons: The proposed change of zone is not compatible with the surrounding area and this is the change from A-1 to R-1; the proposed rezoning would adversely affect the public health by causing problems for the Greenbelt; the property could be rezoned and developed under the existing zoning conditions with the R-1 and A-2 that are currently part of this parcel; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 4-3 with Councilmembers Siler, Eafanti, and Solano voting no. B. Public Hearing on application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a 14-lot subdivision with a variance for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge. (Case No. WS-96-3) C. Public Hearing on street width designation for all public streets within a proposed subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge. Resolution 1573 - establishing and designating street -widths for all public streets within Prospect Ridge Subdivision. Motion by Mr. Solano to continue these two Agenda Items to January 13, 1997; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 7-0. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: December 16, 1996 DATE PREPARED: December 9, 1996 CASE NO. & NAME: WZ-96-15 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning from R-1 and A-2 to R-1 LOCATION OF REQUEST: 12345 W. 38th Avenue NAME 8< ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Daniel & Sherri Schneide~ 2562 Taft Ct., Lakewood, 80215 NAME 8 ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Same. ~ APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.8 acres r PRESENT ZONING: R-1 8 A-2 PRESENT LAND USE: single family residential & vacant SURROUNDING ZONING: N: A-2; S: R-1A; E: R-1 & A-1; W: R-1 & A-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: greenbelt; S: single family; E: single family; W: single family, vacant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: low density residential DATE PUBLISHED: November 29, 1996 DATE POSTED: November 29, 1996 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: November 29, 1996 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) ATTACHED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ATTACHED ENTER INTO RECORD: (XX) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) ZONING ORDINANCE (XX) 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 Case No. WZ-96-15/Schneider I. REQUEST Page 2 The applicant's request is for approval of a rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue: The applicant's original request was for a rezoning to Residential-One A. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the request was reduced to Residential-One (See Exhibit `A'). A subsequent and separate case involves a subdivision with a variance. II. CASE HISTORY Earlier this year, this property was subdivided into four "estate" lots consistent with the underlying zoning pursuant to Case No. MS-96-5. A copy of the reduced plat is included as Exhibit `B'. The owner has subsequently concluded that construction of only four single family residences is not monetarily feasible based on the cost of infrastructure improvements and is pursuing rezoning and subdivision. If the existing zoning on the property were maximized with a resubdivision of the current plat on file, approximately eleven (11) dwelling units could be built compared to fourteen (14) if rezoned to Residential-One. III. REZONING EVALUATION Zoning on the property is currently Residential-One on the southern two-thirds and Agricultural-Two on the northern one-third. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of all the property to Residential-One. Please refer to the table below which sets out design parameters for the individual districts. ZONING STANDARDS w MINIMUM MINIMUM ZONE - LOT AREA LOT WIDTH UNITS PER ACRE A-2 1 ACRE 140' 1.0 R-1 12,500 SQ. FT. 100' 3.5 R-lA 9,000 SQ. FT. 75' 4.8 In regard to the criteria used to evaluate a rezoning, Staff has the following comments: ___ Planning Division Staff Report Page 3 Case No. WZ-96-15/Schneider That the change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance, with the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies, comprehensive land use plan and other related policies or plans for the area, and, The City's Future land use map designates this property as low density residential. Both the existing and proposed zoning would fit within this classification which is defined as having one to 6.9 dwelling units per acre. 2. That the proposed change of zone is compatible with the surrounding area and there will be minimal adverse impacts considering the benefits to be derived; and, Zoning surrounding the property includes property within the City's Clear Creek greenbelt zoned A-2 to the north. To the east is R-1 and A-2 zoned property used as low density residential and as agricultural. Vacant land zoned R-1 and A-2 abuts the property to the west with low density residential beyond. Low density residential with R-lA zoning is south of the property across West 38th Avenue. The proposed Residential-One will be compatible with surrounding areas. That there will be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the community derived by the change of zone; and, There are no obvious social, or physical benefits to the City of Wheat Ridge because of the rezoning. There will be an increased tax base because of the additional homes which will be built as a result of the zone change. The owner previously dedicated property for parkland with Case No. MS-96-5. 4. That adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the type of uses allowed by the change of zone, or that the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are under capacity; and, The applicant will be responsible for the cost of installation of the infrastructure improvements including installation of water and sewer lines and street construction. 5. That the proposed rezoning will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare by creating excessive traffic congestion, creating drainage problems, or seriously reducing light and air to adjacent properties; and, The proposed_rezoning and subdivision will generate roughly 140 vehicle trips per day based on an industry standard of 10 vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit. If the subdivision were replatted with existing zoning, but maximizing allowable density with a resulting 11 lots, 110 vehicle trips per day would be generated. Drainage on the property will have to follow historic flows. Public Works is currently reviewing a drainage study for the property. With the R-1 zoning versus existing zoning, there would be no decrease in the amount of light and air to adjacent properties. Planning Division Staff Report Page 4 Case No. WZ-96-IS/Schneider 6. That the property cannot reasonable be developed under the existing zoning conditions; and, If not rezoned, the property could be developed in accordance with the existing plat or by maximizing the existing zoning tlrrough a replatting process. 7. That the rezoning will not create an isolated or spot zone district unrelated to adjacent or nearby areas; and, Approval of the R-1 zoning will not create spot zoning as there is adjacent R-1 zoning. 8. That there is a void in an area or community need that the change of zone will fill by providing for necessary services, products or facilities especially appropriate at the location, considering available alternatives. Staff is unable to ascertain whether the proposed zone change will fall a void in services, products or services. Staff has concluded that the proposed zone change will result in an additional three dwelling units as opposed to maximization of current zoning on the property. Because there would be three more units constructed, there will be a small increase in traffic congestion on the public streets and slightly more impact to adjacent residences. This figure, however, will be nominal. Staff further concludes that the proposed rezoning would be in conformance with the low density residential classification on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The subdivision and variance cannot occur unless the rezoning is approved. IV. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 15, 1996. Those in attendance included the following: Meredith Reckert (staff) Dan Schneider (applicant) Doug Jenks - 11885 West 38th Avenue Subsequent to the meeting, Staff concluded that the applicant had given insufficient notice to the neighborhood regarding the zoning portion of the request. The applicant held an another neighborhood meeting on October 25, 1996. Those in attendance included the following: Meredith Reckert (staff) Dan Schneider (applicant) Beverly Wilson - 3781 Tabor Court ~' Planning Division Staff Report Page 5 Case No. WZ-96-15/Schneider David Wilson - 3781 Tabor Court Wasyl Hotz - 11849 West 36th Place C.E. Jorgenson - 3734 Union Court Steve Longsdorf - 12042 West 36th Place Lois Tate - 12100 West 38th Avenue Concerns expressed at the meeting included location and flow of drainage on the property, depth and size of the lots, price of the lots, potential development of the Jenks property (directly to the east) and plans for West 38th Avenue. In general, there were no objections to the density as long as development was single family residential. They thanked Mr. Schneider for cleaning up the property. Staff has received one written response of support included as an attachment to this packet. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff has concluded that the rezoning to R-1 results in roughly three additional units to be built on the property and unifies zoning for the entire property. Staff further concludes that both the existing and proposed zoning conform to the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map designation of low density residential and that both R-1 and A-2 zoning is consistent with development in the area. Staff recommends APPROVAL. _ i HAND DELIVERED December 9, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 ~~XNf81T `~ ~ Subject: Request for Change in Application Regarding Zoning from A-2/R-1 to R-1 for the Property Located at 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Case Nos. WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3 Dear Ms. Reckert: As per our discussion last week and my previous conversations with Mr. Glen Gidley, I am formally requesting that our application for rezoning from A-2/R-1 to Ri -A be changed to A-2/R-1 to R-1. This request is based upon the fact that the City Council voted 5-3 at the first reading for this case. Due to the financial constraints that we are operating under on this project, we could not afford to have the City Council deny the original request for rezoning and then be faced with the situation of having to start over and resubmit everything again for a revised rezoning request. And based upon my discussion with Mr. Gidley essentially we would be starting over with a 3-5 month timeframe to get approval on a revised request. I delivered 17 copies of the revised plat which shows the subdivision with the revised zoning of 14 lots all which exceed the minimum R-1 standards by the deadline requested by the Planning Department staff last Friday. It is my understanding that these have delivered to the appropriate parties. As requested by the Planning Commission we have included a connector alley to the northeast and a pedestrian pathway to the west. However, we are still requesting a variance for the length to the cul-de-sac. I am currently circulating a petition requesting signatures in support of the variance by the surrounding neighbors including adjacent landowners. 1 .. It is my understanding that I can ask City Council for this variance during my final hearing on December 16, 1996 without jeopardizing my subdivision. After presenting the evidence supporting the variance, if City Council denies the variance, the subdivision is still under consideration because I have a viable option which was approved by the Planning Commission. I think that these issues are important enough that this scenario should be presented to the City Attorney for a legal opinion to verify that in fact this is the case. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter. cc: Mr. Glen Gidley 2 a `- - ~„ L l ___~ ; 1 u 4 r 1 .. .. 1 : - E-r -. ~. • / -:o 1t L t • : uio- fwt f a1.` : 14~ ~ [ - , . t ~ ~ ~ 11 .c~ • ... ., ~_ - ~lC 8 . S C xtrrBrT °'~' . iq_~~-~ S'tY< `~G ::PY:i:::Yd :i::P-Y::=: ~. ~~~ ii '1 1L a. E p cE g '~~ _ "s Y. r °ti ~~ P ;CN l ~ Y: ~ ,~ o.i> ~ _ _ _ _ _ Fc= nab= Fi¢~:E iFEF fib aa~ ~`~ d ~ 3~5€ i6c~ 69Eisi f"' 5S•¢cF i?~ ?~ EE ~ ersi cYc h-a iE~Ec 6E- f 'c' see ELF - i t2S.zE ~H: ° 2F 4c i i =:i fEi€€ 8_~ ~€a a a a~ -~ ~ce -~t +-t c '~i .E z ' F6„aEE 5' 6 :c. $~ i_ a 'c`4 ge¢y EF C~G:iE ~ $ i i~R FF6tc'c ~~ E££5 ~~~R&&Ep acs~~52 Gii~ ~ i P..90 a. C4 §cE 665~t~~iic EEsii EsiF~: 5~ Eccyy~diEae64EF_ Fuca ecFF4_ ii ~~iF2 c6pFR~ E.~, a - c €F -c sEc3~g~kFF FEF ~'EE;~E ir: ~;¢c5f EE `c~ @5na3~r?¢ c3:FP 4~ iir 5: ~, Eai 9¢F¢e°6c seEE 4+ ! 5C 4 a. ~ i FacE EFi¢¢;~Fi .i- EEFE pp~..,, ~F¢:~a Q YFcE ~~SEi25F ci ~SF~ :e. tc h iFE:~ 4 5e~e F aii5. Eee:. r. F~~ Ec--: E ¢cic 6QES5i~,=; EFgic cgp'IFFi cE;"° ~¢5 c•~E~E~i F:E~ €f ctle~ E F~ a- ~E2 : 3 E ~6{ "~ c ca -~~ ¢ ¢ 9 P t r- 56 a c e ~' T~~ `~M`r Ec i¢ ~ ~ '4 i ' cc cE E .~ :~c _E ['€ _ ~~i c EE ;hj ~? {cp Fc Ri : caoYt: /.o':. ~ S€ F6 °L ::~: ' `~SS ° 1 ~_ ~I I F1, o CF\ _ti .. :''B ph~^ _.~ .._..:= SY Y• t: 4' ::434aSC Y--::a8. =:xc:::E 86888684 :Y.,::-[ t i',Y'['° °:ax:::~ :.1'.,._ ---?id~ ..__.:.i V ~ c n ~ ~ c0 m~ O ~ ;< _~o-~-~ ~ }8u0~ } T Cc~- ~ .xvC] rn • > ~aAm ¢ r ACC ~~ ~ E E ~ ~_a ~ 5G k~i '~ ~C~y - ~ N ° Z ~}l i i:E iti iE+¢ ~5~5I ~~2 ~ Ee ~65 --~ E+I ~ ~ ~~~~ 6 E,~ i~ ° e,E E ¢ P o C ~ ! i ~~¢a E ~F ¢ SNF.U~ ( ¢ f [p ro ~ f~P a°FO.~I~ is 4i r g6:, < ~~~F ~ ~ ~ ~ E~ ' ~ o ~' r z ¢a CE F; Q F~ eE i is E Ec ¢ cE g x: ~a C :5 I •, ~ - _ ~ Charies E Jorgenson ~ 5 96 3734 Union Ct. 5-U g M ~ ~7j ~ 7.. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 ~ i _ L~ - 9 6 P. C, November 21, 1996 Wheat Ridge, CO Wheat Ridge City Planning Division Wheat Ridge, CO Re: Case WZ-96-IS/WS-96-3 for property at 12345 West 38th Ave. My interrtion is to attend the '7:30 p.m. meeting tonight in support of the rezoning of this property, but I wanted to have our support also docurrtent~i to you in the form ofthis letter. My wife and I are both in wmplete support ofthis rezoning and feel that the addition ofthe homes across 38th Avenue from us will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles E. E. c: Mr.Daniel F. Schneider ~~~ ~ j~ ~ ®~-- © ~ ~ ~ ~o ~s / ~~/. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING 1. raga No WZ-96-IS & WS-96-3: An application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a three-fold request: 1) approval of a rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A ; 2) approval of a variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; and, 3) approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Ms. Reckert stated she had additional pieces of correspondence to distribute. The first was a response from the City's Pazks and Recreation Commission meeting held November 20, 1996, with regard to their park dedication requirement. The second piece is a letter from the adjacent property owner to the east known as the Jenk's property. Ms. Reckert stated that Case No. WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3 was athree-fold request for the property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue. The property is currently zoned Residential-OneJAgricultural-Two and is currently vacant. Ms. Reckert stated there were no slides available for the hearing due to the projector-being broken. Ms. Reckert entered into the record the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Case File, Packet Materials, and Exhibits. Ms. Reckert stated the property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and established jurisdiction. She stated again that this was a three- fold request for this property. Approval of a rezoning from aResidential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One A, approval of a variance to Section 45 of the Subdivision Regulations, and approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Ms. Reckert stated that she would like to take each section of the request and deal with them separately beginning with rezoning. After completing her comments, the applicant will then make his comments. She advised the Planning Commission that they would have to have a positive vote on the rezoning to be able to proceed with the subdivision and variance requests. Ms. Reckert advised the Planning Commission that eazlier in 1996 they had reviewed a request to subdivide this property pursuant to Case No. MS-96-5. Initially the applicant had requested to subdivide into four estate type lots approximately one plus acres in size. The applicant, however, has decided to pursue the request at this meeting of rezoning and resubdivision. Ms. Reckert advised that she had performed preliminary calculations and arrived at approximately eleven (I1) single family lots on the property. Ms. Reckert provided overheads to allow the Planning Commission a visual aspect of the application. On the north side of the property, a section has been dedicated for a pazk plan pursuant to the previous case that was approved in May, 1996. Ms. Reckert reviewed the various lot size minimums as it related to the different zoning assignments. The criteria for consideration of rezoning was not included in the packet. However, Ms. Reckert provided an overhead and read the information to the audience and elaborated on Staff's -_ Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 3 recommendation per item number read. Ms. Reckert concluded her comments and asked for questions. There were no questions at this time regarding rezoning. Mr. Schneider elaborated on the initial zoning of the land beginning in 1941. He provided overheads which showed his interpretation of how the zoning line had changed beginning in 1946 by Jefferson County. He stated that he believed that the zoning line that is currently in use is incorrect which he believes is another reason for granting a change in zoning. He stated tltat no land had been acquired nor sold since the beginning zoning standard. He maintains that he believes that there is a zoning error somewhere in the City maps. Mr. Schneider provided an overhead that showed the surrounding area and their zoning of Residential-One which he maintains positively contributes to the reason for rezoning'as well. Mr. Schneider provided additional justification as it related to the lot sizes being proposed for single family homes. He stated that there could be approximately twenty- one (21) lots. However, he was only proposing that the land be divided into seventeen (17) larger lots. Mr. Schneider listed his reasons for rezoning the property and the potential benefits overall as he interpreted them. He also advised the Planning Commission that he had attended the Parks Commission meeting of November 20, 1996, to review his plan. He stated that the Parks Commission did not particularly like the idea of a pathway. Ms. Reckert stated that the pathway/greenbelt final decision would be that of the Parks Commission. However, she continued that there still needs to be pedestrian access to the adjacent subdivision as it makes good planning design sense. Discussion continued regarding the path/greenbelt access by Mr. Schneider regarding the neighboring land should it ever be developed. Mr. Schneider stated that most of the surrounding land owners were in support of the rezoning. He further stated that he felt that this rezoning was consistent with the goals and policies of the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there were any questions regarding the rezoning request. Commissioner CERVENY inquired about the thought process for requesting a rezoning to R-lA as opposed to PRD (Planned Residential Development) which he believed the McLaughlin Subdivision was. Mr. Schneider said he did not really understand the difference between the two. He further stated that his understanding was that by going with the rezoning the way that he was doing it, he could achieve his purpose. He stated that it was also his understanding that once the property was zoned as proposed, it could never go back to anything else. He inquired of Commissioner CERVENY if this was correct. Commissioner CERVENY stated that with a PRD; the plot lines basically cannot be changed. Mr. Schneider stated he would not have any problem with the restriction or conditional approval that says the plan is based on seventeen (17) lots. PIanning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 4 Commissioner THOMPSON inquired of Director Gidley if there was a problem with the rezoning when there was a discrepancy in the zoning and can the Conunission rezone since the Commission would be rezoning all of the property at once? Director Gidley stated the City Council zoned the City in 1972 by adoption of Ordinance 98. All of the zoning that was on the official zoning map of the City of Wheat Ridge at the time that the map was adopted, rezoned the entire Ciiy including all of the discrepancies that may have been in place and it institutionalized the discrepancies. Even though there may have been discrepancies between 1969 and 1972, they were institutionalized by the adoption of the zoning map and therefore there is no discrepancy at the present time. Commissioner THOMPSON then asked if it was the time to discuss the easement. Director Gidley stated it was a platting issue and that questions regazding easements should be held until that portion was discussed. He further stated that the real difference between R-Al and R-1 in this particular case is not lot I dimensions but sideyard setbacks. The issue is the size of building to size of lot and setbacks. Director Gidley referred to the McLaughlin Subdivision to further clarify the difference between R-IA and R-1 and discussed in more detail the type of buildings in the immediate azea. Mr. Schneider went into more detail why he was applying for the change in zoning as it applies to lot size and use. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how many lots could be put into the subdivision for R-1 and R-lA. Ms. Reckert stated that she had calculated the figures. However,. Mr. Schneider interjected that he had the figures readily at hand and stated that there were Twelve (12) different scenarios that could be looked at. He further stated that under R-1 the maximum number of lots would be fourteen (14j with all but one of the scenarios which was calculated at twelve (12). Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired the same about R-lA and Mr. Schneider stated the number would be twenty-one (21). Commissioner WILLIAMS verified that Mr. Schneider was asking for seventeen (17) lots. There were no further questions on the zoning. Commissioner THOMPSON clarified that Mr. Schneider was actually asking for three (3) additional homes be built and not an additional six (6). This was verified by Director Gidley. Chairperson LANGDON inquired if those who signed in to speak were at the meeting to address the rezoning issue or the whole issue. Mr. Jorgerson from the audience stated he was there regarding the entire issue. Chairperson LANGDON asked if he could wait until later to make testimony on the subdivision portion of the case. He said he could but he may have to leave. However, he submitted a letter to the Secretary which is included in the file. John Moore stated he was there to speak about the entire issue but was concerned about Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 5 the zoning. Chairperson LANGDON swore Mr. Moore in and he stated that his name was John Moore and that he lived at 12201 West 38th Avenue. Chairperson LANGDON advised Mr. Moore to retain his comments to the zoning issue only at this point in time. Mr. Moore stated fie owned,3.1 acres west of this proposed subdivision. He elaborated on the reason he and his family purchased the land. He said that he was concerned about the lots being changed from four (4) to seventeen (17) as he has expended a considerable amount of money believing that he would not be surrounded by a lot of houses and would prefer keeping the lots to one (1) acre sites. Commissioner ECKHARDT verified that Mr. Moore's property was directly to the west of the proposed development site and requested that the aerial photo overhead be displayed. Mr. Moore's property is zoned A- 2. Mr. Moore concluded his comments. At this time Chairperson LANGDON swore in Debbie Moore, wife of John Moore, same address. She stated she had one question regazding the R-1 vs the R-lA zoriing. She asked if the Commission would consider placing a restriction on the number of lots being developed and hold it to a maximum of seventeen (17). Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mrs. Moore if she had a choice between a maximum of fourteen (14) or seventeen (17) and if she would state, for the record, her preference. Mrs. Moore responded fourteen {14). Chairperson LANGDON called for a motion on the rezoning. Commissioner WILL:IAMS moved that Case No. WZ-96-15, a request to rezone property at 12345 West 38th Avenue from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1) The R-IA zoning is consistent with the low density residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The R-I A zoning is compatible with zoning and land use in the area; and, 3) The evaluation criteria support approval of the request. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded. The motion carried 6- 2. Ms. Reckert presented her overview of the variance portion of the request which concerns the footage limitations from West 38th Avenue to the center of the cul-de-sac bulb. The subdivision regulations currently states that the footage shall. be no longer than 500 feet. The measurement according to the plat is reflecting 694 feet. The applicant is requesting a 194 foot variance. Ms. Reckert stated that the applicant provided information reflecting that there are several areas within the City that exceed the standard. Ms. Reckert verified that this information was correct for two of the azeas questioned. Ms. Reckert stated that if the vaziance is not approved, the applicant's request for subdivision design must be either denied or redesigned to include a connection on either the east or west. Criteria to consider the approval for this request was not included in the packet. Therefore, Ms. Reckert read aloud for the Commission each point as she discussed them. Ms. Reckert stated after her presentation that Staff was recommending DENIAL of the request. She Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 6 then asked for questions. Commissioner RASPLICKA commented regarding Staffls suggestion that there was no hardship. He stated that owners on both sides of the property are not ready to develop and that he viewed that as a hardship. Ms. Reckert stated the approach of creating a temporary bulb has been approved for other parts of the City and further stated that the street connection to the east would not have to be developed. Commissioner RASPLICKA clazified that the connection would not have to be developed until if/when the owners were ready. It would allow the applicant to develop his plot of land and alleviate what he considered a hardship. Ms. Reckert confirmed all concerns. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired about the easement and access to the greenbelt. She felt that there'was no access from the adjoining Jenk's property. She stated that if the access point was approved acid the Jenk's property developed, the Pazks Commission could ask for access through the applicant's property. She was concerned about access to the McLaughlin property and wanted to know how an access could be accomplished. She questioned if there was any place on the Jenk's or applicant's property where the citizens could safely get down the bluff. Ms. Reckert stated that both properties were very steep. Director Gidley interjected that the Pazks Department indicated that at the base of the slope there is an area that they would like to maintain as a wildlife refuge. He went into a more in-depth discussion regazding all properties involved and access availability including a foot path to Colorstrand School. A pedestrian connection could remain with a street access or another pedestrian connection to the opposite side. Director Gidley stated that a plan to connect all parcels of land in one way or another is suggested and would be the appropriate direction to take even though tlrere may be opposition. Commissioner WILLIAMS inquired about the easement measurement. Director Gidley stated that this easement would run along the easement that is currently there which is for the sewer line and that it is 116 plus 37 feet. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked who would maintain that azea until the Jenk's property was developed. Director Gidley stated that when it was constructed, it would probably be maintained by the public. Director Gidley suggested that funds be placed in escrow until such time that the connection was constructed and further that it be delayed and not built until the future. Commissioner WILLIAMS inquired if there would be a time limit on the easement. Director Gidley said when the Jenk's property develops, the City Council would decide whether or not the other side of that connection would occur. If it did not occur, that easement would be vacated for the purpose of pedestrian access. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she did not understand why the City only provided one access in several other property developments. Director Gidley stated that they were split access points which is very similar to two streets from the standpoint that __ __ Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, fl996 Page 7 they aze physically divided and are a loop system. In this property there is no split access or loop. Access discussion continued regarding being able to access all properties should there be an emergency. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the width of the street and cul-de-sac had a 50 foot flowline. Director Gidley stated it was a fifty (50) foot right-of--way; however, the applicant still needed to go through a street width designation public hearing process to establish flow line. He further stated that it was not an overly wide subdivision street except for the diameter of the cul-de-sac bulb itself This bulb is lazger than the minimums of forty-five 45 feet due to the need for emergency equipment access. Conunissioner THOMPSON stated that a compromise of having the trail wide enough when the Jenk's property develops to either construct a street or trail could be included in the motion. She wished to ensure that there was enough land to do either. If it did remain as a trail, the property would be dedicated back to the lot owners. Director Gidley stated that it could be increased to a minimum of 50 feet and then, if the street was not built, partials could become part of the adjacent lots. Director Gidley provided various scenarios which could happen in the future. Discussion took place regarding Tract A. The tract reflects a storm detention area and access for Parks and Recreation to the greenbelt. It was the general consensus that access and connection to other subdivisions/properties in the irnmediate area was a concern of the Planning Commission. Several ideas were suggested by members of the Commission including an access be made available either by a connector street or pedestrian access on both the east and west sides of the subdivision with the main entrance into the development coming from 38th Avenue. Mr. Schneider gave his vaziance presentation with overheads providing three (3) variations of the cul-de-sac drives. His presentation also provided visual information on similar scenazios involving other developments which were approved. Mr. Scluieider stated that there were twenty-one (21) options. Four (4) options that exist that would bring the cul-de-sac into conformance. The first one he presented was basically the same that was made by Staff. Discussion was again held regazding the access needs leading to the Jenlc's property. Mr. Schneider relayed that Mr. Jenk, who was in the audience, had no intention of developing his land and that the access road would lead nowhere. He went on to say that the larger bulb was introduced after talking to the Fire Department. He further stated that he took a survey of cul-de-sac requirements from fifteen (fl 5) surrounding cities and found that nine (9) of the fifteen (1 S) had lengths of between 500 and 700 feet. He was advised that it was the Fire Department/Fire Mazshal that had the ultimate decision regarding any cul-de-sac. Mr. Schneider stated that the neighboring property owners favored his preferred variance option. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 2l, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that he believed that the variety of cul-de-sac lengths from other municipalities could be due to the density of the housing. He said that if this property was going to be subdivided into four (4) lots like it was presently approved, he would not have a problem with a cul-de-sac that long. However, with seventeen (17) units, he believes that it becomes a different situation and has a problem with a cul-de-sac so long. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that the Fire Marshal is only one component of the issue. He is concerned about fire truck access while the Commission is concerned with alI internal circulation aztd density, etc.. She asked if twenty (20) feet were removed to provide access in addition to the thirty (30) feet already provided, why would Mr. Schmeider be opposed. He responded that Tract A was pretty much decided and went on to say that it would have to be decided as to what style of subdivision would be recommended. He stated that if there was no way to approve the cul-de-sac, he would be willing to lose some additional land for access to make the development work. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Staff if there was a logical place for the applicant to tie into on the west. Director Gidley stated that the same problems exist on the west as on the east. He stated that he did not know how those sections would subdivide. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired as to how many acres were vacant to the east and west. Director Gidley stated 13.5 to the east and 2.8 to the west. Ms. Reckert stated the west acreage was zoned R-1 which increases the lot availability. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if it would be right-of--way on the road. Mr. Schneider stated yes. He then asked if it would be built flowline to flowline and Mr. Schneider replied yes. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if it would be thirty-four (34). Mr. Schneider stated he would have to attend the street width designation hearing. Depending on the otitcome of this hearing, the designation could be narrower according to Director Gidley. Mr. Schneider stated it was not his intention to put in a narrower road. Chairperson LANGDON asked Director Gidley to clazify if the bulb was designated as the correct street sign. Director Gidley said yes. Chairperson LANGDON asked if he misunderstood Director Gidley when he stated that Parks does or does not want access to the azea below. Director Gidley stated that their access is for maintenance only, the do not want a pedestrian access down the hill to the base. They would prefer to use the existing McLaughlin and Kullerstrand School access rather than creating additional access points. Chairperson LANGDON also clarified if the access was designated as a street, then there would be no need for the variance because the cul-de-sac would be eliminated after temporary use. Director Gidley stated it was a subdivision with a future street connection, therefore, it would be a temporary cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 9 Commissioner THOMPSON asked at who's expense, if the connection happens, and would Director Gidley clarify statements made regarding lot lines being moved. Director Gidley explained the use of Lot 9 and the problems that it would incur and stated that Mr. Schneider would lose all or most of this lot. Mr. Schneider said that he was awaze that this could happen but stated that if he was going to lose a lot he would prefer that it be one closer to the middle/front of the subdivision rather than one in the rear. Additional general discussion was held regarding the location of vazious access points and the preferences of Mr. Schneider and the Plaiming Department. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Mr. Jorgerson wanted to speak. Ms. Reckert stated that he had left but submitted a letter supporting the rezoning and seventeen (17) lot proposal R-lA. Chairperson LANGDON asked for his address and Ms. Reckert stated it was 3734 Union Court whickis located on the south side of the property to be subdivided. Chairperson LANGDON swore in•the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District Fire Mazshal Dave Roberts who stated his address as 3880 Upham Street. Chairperson LANGDON advised the Fire Marshal that the Commissioners would be interested in his views of the cul-de-sac size, access, and advantages of what Mr. Schneider has proposed. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Schneider has met all requests for changes and adequately meets the Fire Department requirements. The Fire Marshal stated that the private access road scenario was totally unacceptable to him. Chairperson LANGDON swore in James Matera who resides at 26 Skyline Drive. He stated that, his purpose at the meeting was to state that he is under contract to purchase land to the west of the proposed subdivision and wanted to speak against the connection street. His contract is contingent upon subdividing using the existing R-1 zoning. Bringing the street through into a small subdivision would eliminate the possibility of planning seven (7) lots. Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired if his subdivision was from 38th Avenue north and Mr. Mater stated it was and that it was 2.8 acres. General discussion was held. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Matera about the discussion regarding a path and Mr. Matera stated he would have no problem with that. Chairperson LANGDON asked Director Gidley how that could be accomplished at this meeting. Fie stated that a comparison would have to be accomplished to see how the lots align. He suspects that there could be a difference but that it would all need to be worked out to be sure. Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired if this item could be continued until the appropriate people get together and work out the details. Mr. Schneider came forward and stated that he has been put in a position which was out _ _ _ __ Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 10 of his control. He must attend the street designation hearing and that he is scheduled to go before City Council on December 16, 1996. Postponing this hearing would cause a time frame problem and he would really appreciate trying to come to a compromise. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he is opposed to the length of the cut-de-sac, feels strongly that there be circulation east and west of this property, and he would move that the variance not be granted. That would mean would be that the land would have to be resubdivided. Director Gidley advised the Planning Commission that the applicant could continue with his various other subdivision scenarios. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she did not recall the answer to her previous question regarding who would pay for the street installation. Director Gidley advised that there would have to be funds placed in a long term escrow account by the developer for the area that would not be developed. At the time the other side of property was developed, this parcel would get built. If City Council in the future decided they did not want to do that, they would vacate the street and give the money back to the property owners on a pro rata shaze as part of their lot cost reimbursement. Commissioner THOMPSON asked .what would happen if the escrow account did not cover the costs due to inflation. The City would pay the balance.. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the access could go between other lots and Director Gidley stated that was correct. Since it is not a fire hazard and there is access to the east and west by path, what was Staff's objection. Mr. Schneider stated he would be very willing to provide the path access. Director Gidley said that it did not provide a distribution of traffic throughout a street system which Staff believes is a better subdivision design process. Generally Staff prefers a street system, however, it is the option of the Commission as to what they want,to do. He further stated that this, was a _.,... variance request and variance does require a higher standazd of consideration and there is criteria established for variance changes. Discussion was held regarding another variance situation and consideration of the through street proposal. Commissioner JOHNSON asked where the problem came up with the street width and who it was that told Mr. Schneider how wide the street had to be. Director Gidley and Mr. Schneider stated that it was City Council. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if he couldn't pick out a width of his own. Director Gidley stated that he could not even if it conformed to the current standards due to the Charter Amendment that occurred in 1995 - Street Width Designation Charter Amendment. Further discussion was held regarding street width. Director Gidley stated that the width could be smaller than fifty (50) feet and elaborated on the operating principles of street needs.' Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the minimum width necessary for the Fire Department and maintain subdivision safety between the neighborhoods was fifty (50) feet. Director Gidley suggested that a fifty (50) foot right-of--way be maintained and then make a street width determination at Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 11 the time that the street width designation occurs on December 16. He also advised the Commission that they could make a recommendation on the width if they chose. Commissioner ECKI-IARDT motioned that the request for vaziance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue be DENIED for the following reasons: 1) There is no physical hardship, 2) It does not promote good design, 3) There aze no unique circumstances, and, 4) There may be detriment to safety and to the adjacent greenbelt. Motion was seconded by Cormnissioner THOMPSON. Motion for denial of variance was questioned by Chairperson LANGDON. Director Gidley stated that this was a motion for vaziance only and that the next question was regarding the subdivision approval or alternate design. Yt was further questioned if City Council could recommend denial and Director Gidley stated not on the variance. Motion FAILED with a 4-4 vote. A majority approval was needed to pass the variance. Director Gidley explained the rules and the City Attorney's voting opinion as it relates to variances. The affect of the vote was that the variance was DENIED. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if a motion could be made regarding the subdivision or was there more information needed to vote. Ms. Reckert stated that the access issue to the pazk needed to be resolved as well. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue, be APPROVED as it is consistent with the R-lA zoning. However, the condition that there be vehicular access provided to the property to the east and pedestrian access be provided to the property to the west; location of those two access points be determined by Staff after they have met with the appropriate parties; also, that there be access provided to Tract A within the utility drainage easement from the cul-de= sac to the east end of the subdivision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON. Discussion was held. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired if the maximum of seventeen (17) units should be included in the motion. She further stated that the adjacent land owners as well as the applicant preferred not building to the maximum of twenty-one (21) units. General discussion was held and consensus was formed to mandate a maximum of seventeen (17) units would be approved without being part of the motion. Motion passed 8-0. Commissioner CERVENY motioned that the connector street width recommendation for thre link to the east, be thirty (30) feet right-of--way and twenty-four (24) feet flowline to flowline. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. General discussion was held. Motion was approved 8-0. CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CTTY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMN CASE NO: WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3 LOCATION: 12345 W. 38th Ave. APPLICANT(S) NAME: Daniel and Sherri Schneider OWNER(S) NAME: Same REQUEST: Approval of rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One; variance to Sectiou 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.683 acres 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, the following motions were made as stated regarding Cases Nos. WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3, an application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One; vaziance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; and, seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Item A (Zoninel Commissioner WILLIAMS motioned, Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded, that Case No. WZ-96-I5, a request to rezone property at 12345 West 38th Avenue from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The R-lA zoning is consistent with the low density residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan; and, 2. The R-lA zoning is compatible with zoning and land use in the area; and, 3. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request. Motion carried 6-2 with Commissioners THOMPSON AND GRIFFITH voting against. Item B (Variance) Commissioner ECKHARDT motioned, Commissioner THOMPSON seconded, that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property at 12345 West 38th Avenue be denied for the following reasons: 1. There is no physical hardship; and, 2. It does not promote good design; and, 3. There are no unique circumstances; and, 4. There may be detriment to safety and to the adjacent greenbelt. Motion failed 4-4 with Commissioners LANGDON, ECKHARDT, GRIFFITH, and RASPLICKA voting no. (A majority approval was needed to pass the variance, therefore the variance was denied.) Item C (17-lot major subdivision) Commissioner ECKHARDT motioned, Commissioner THOMPSON seconded, that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue, be approved for 4he following reasons: I. It is consistent with the R-lA zoning; With the following conditions: 1. That the subdivision include vehicular access to the east and pedestrian access to the west; 2. Access locations points to be determined by Staff after meeting with appropriate parties; 3. Access provided to Tract A within the drainage easement from the cul-de-sac to the east end of the subdivision. Motion passed 8-0. Item D (flowline) Commissioner CERVENY motioned, Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded, that the connector street width recommendation for the link to the east, be thirty (30) feet right-of--way and twenty-four (24) feet flowline to flowline. Motion passed 8-0. I, Marilyn Gums, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a vote of the members present at their regulaz meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the day of , 1996. George Langdon, Chairperson Marilyn Gunn, Secretary WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Council Bill No. 53: An application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a rezoning from Residential-One (R-1) and Agricultural-Two (A-2) to Residential One-A (R-lA) for property located at 12345 W. 38th Ave., Wheat Ridge, Co. (NOTE: The applicant has revised his rezoning request from R-lA to R-1 since CB 53 was approved on 1st Reading) Case No. WS-96-3: An application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a 14-lot subdivision, with a variance, for property located at 12345 W. 38th Ave, Wheat Ridge, Co. November 20, 1996 Glen Gibley, Director of Planning Dear Sir: __ _ GJ S ~ ~' ! (S90 & Development '- ' ~ 3 {,-; ' ~,u-;:~_.:. ~~U Lam' L._. i ~ i 1. PLANNIf~:G ~ Cz'v-L:;reviENT As the owner of the property directly East of Dan Schneider's at 12345 West 38th Avenue, I would like to take this opportunity to convey our ideas concerning the proposed re-zoning of his property. After lengthy discussions with Mr. Schneider, a number of issues have come up which relate to our property and it's future dev- elopment. The first-item of concern is the Planning Department's concept of adjoining streets running East from his Cul-de-Sac to our property line, it being your assumption that when we plat, this street would continue East .connecting on our property. It has also been stated that the department felt we might ask for two overlength Cul-de-Sacs if precedent is set at Schneiders. It is our intention, and for very prad:ical reasons, to plat a single entry subdivision off of 38th with two North/South streets connected on the North with a drive running parallel aad-approximately 150 feet South of the bluff. This street layout is necessary because of the sanitary sewer easement which we and Mr. Schneider have agreed upon. Tfie easement, which we laid out and Lane engineered, will follow a lot line from the East at McLaughlin's to our North connecting drive running Southwest to a lot line then due West to Schneider's property. Thus no East or West roads would be necessary for this. Furthermore, because the easement w1Il follow lot lines between homes, a gravel path would be useless and lead nowhere. Finally, our family has lived on this parcel of land since 1959. In that nearly 40 years, we have becare very accustomed to the wildlife of the Greenbelt. Our's and Mr. Schneider's- property are situated uniquely :to the Greenbelt. At the foot of this bluff are numerous springs causing dense swamp conditions. This sita:'ation, for the most part, keeps humans to the trail, but allows animals easy access and refuge. A proposed public access anywhere between the existing one at Kulierstrand School to the West and McLaughlln's to the East, would be contrary~.Loand seriously detrimental to the entire- concept of the Clear Creek Greenbelt. It is our. intention to add as much input to this zoning process as we can, and if you or any of your staff need further clari- fication or information, please feel free to contact either ,; Doug or Cal. _ /~~ ~~' _ Thank you, ~ ~ ~,~ Doug Jenks 424-6691 ' Cal Jenks 424-1562 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: December 16, 1996 DATE PREPARED: December 9, 1996 CASE NO. & NAME: WS-96-3 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: 14 lot subdivision with a variance. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 12345 W. 38th Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Daniel & Sherri Schneider, 2562 Taft Ct., Lakewood, 80215 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Same. APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.8 acres PRESENT ZONING: R-1 & A-2 PRESENT LAND USE: single family residential & vacant SURROUNDING ZONING: N: A-2; S: R-1A; E: R-1 & A-1; W: R-1 & A-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: greenbelt; S: single family; E: single family; W: single family, vacant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: low density residential ------------------------------------------------------ DATE PUBLISHED: November 29, 1996 DATE POSTED: November 29, 1996 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: November 29, 1996 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) ATTACHED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ATTACHED -------------------------- ENTER INTO RECORD: (XX) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) ZONING ORDINANCE (XX) 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. WS-96-3/Schneider I. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The proposed subdivision plat shows afull-width public street with a cul-de-sac centered on the property extending north from West 38th Avenue. All of the proposed lots will have direct access tb Union Court. All lots meet or exceed the standards for lot area and lot width in the R-1 zone district. Tract A, will be used for storm water detention. A sanitary sewer easement runs between Lots 9 and 10 from the property to the east. The applicant has already negotiated with the property owner to cross this land with the sewer line from the McClaughlin's Applewood Subdivision farther east. Since the cul-de-sac bulb exceeds the maximum allowed length, of 500 feet, and because a better sense of "community" and "neighborhood" would be achieved, both Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended a vehicular and pedestrian connection be required to the east and a pedestrian only connection to the west. This will provide for future linkages between subdivisions which is a better land development configuration than long, unconnected cul-de-sacs, The applicant shows these cormections upon his subdivision plat. However, he prefers that these not be required. Hence, the related variance request. II. VARIANCE Although the applicant has shown a connection to the property to the east by-way of a thirty (30) foot wide connector alley, he is requesting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations so this connection does not have to be made. If the variance is approved, sole vehicular access would be from Union Court. Section 4.B.5. of the Subdivision Regulations specifies that "cul-de-sac center points shall be no longer than 500 feet from the centerline intersection of streets serving the subdivision" (in this case, West 38th Avenue). As the applicant has pointed out in his justification regarding the variance request, there are numerous dead-end streets in the City of Wheat Ridge that exceed this 500' standard. See Exhibit `C' and `D'. Staff has checked these street lengths and has co~rmed that all of them do exceed the 500' maximum with the exception of two; those being Owens Street south of West 44th Avenue and Yukon Court south of West 38th Avenue which both appear to be about 480' from the centerline of the collectors from which they achieve access. Pursuant to the subdivision plat being proposed, the applicant is requesting a 190' variance to allow the cul-de-sac 694 feet long from the centerline of West 38th Avenue to the center point of the cul-de-sac bulb . If the variance is not approved, the applicant's subdivision design can be approved as submitted with a public street connection with the property to the east. In regard to the 500 foot oul-de-sac length standard in the Subdivision Regulations, it is in place primarily to address emergency access issues and to encourage an integrated public street system instead Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WS-96-3/Schneider Page 3 of a series of unconnected cul-de-sac bulbs throughout the City. Please refer to attached Exhibit `E' which is a letter of no objection from the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District. The property owner to the east does not wish to tie into this subdivision, if and when, their land develops. However, the City may require such connection when it reviews development plans for that property in the future. Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria to support a variance request. 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? The property could still be developed without benefit of the vaziance by connection to either the east or the west. To the west is a parcel of R-1 zoned property under one ownership which, if and when, subdivided could dedicate additional right-of--way for Urban Street and provide a curve at the north end of the property to the east to connect with r-o-w connecting with the subject property. The same is true with the undeveloped (R-1 and A-1 zoned) land to the east. See Staff's attached exhibit 'F' showing future potential connections with these adjacent properties. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Circumstances are not unique in that there is undeveloped land to both east and west allowing future street connections. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the variance were granted, it could negatively affect the character of the area because there would be a series of unconnected streets and subdivisions. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or typographical 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? There is no physical hardship (i.e., topographical or odd shape) which creates the need for exception to the Subdivision Regulations. 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 may be established for similar requests on either side of this property. Planning Division Staff Report Page 4 Case No. WS-96-3/Schneider 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property? The purpose of the variation is not exclusively for the desire to make money out of the property although if a full width connection to adjacent property is required, the subdivision will loose a developable lot. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Staff concludes that there is no hardship. 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? Granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public welfare in regard to emergency services as only one street access serves this subdivision. 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? Granting of the variance would not impair the amount of light and air to adjacent properties nor would it cause significant street congestion. Staff has concluded that there are no unique circumstances in that there is adjacent, undeveloped property which would allow future connection with this subdivision, and there is no physical hardship involved. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the variance. Asuper-majority vote of City Council, separate from the subdivision, is required to approve the variance. III. AGENCY REFERRALS The Public Works Department reviewed and approved the drainage report. The applicant will be responsible for full width street construction of Union Court and construction of the "connector alley." Funds must be escrowed for the future installation of public improvements on W. 38th Avenue. The Westridge Sanitation District can serve the property from the east. The applicant will be responsible for conveyance across this property. The Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District has no objections to the variance for the cul-de-sac bulb allowing Union Court as only access to the subdivision (i.e., no connection to the east or west). The applicant will be responsible for the installation of two fire hydrants on the property. Planning Division Staff Report Page 5 Case No. WS-96-3/Schneider The Consolidated Mutual Water District can serve the property. The applicant will be responsible for a main line extension. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the previous proposal (four "estate" lots) and requested a 5% land dedication for protection of the slope adjacent to the Clear Creek greenbelt. The Director of Parks and Recreation thinks this is still a valid exaction. Access to the dedication will be across Tract `C'. See Note 4 or 6 on the plat. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This case was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public heazing held on November 21, 1996. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance portion of this request, however, annroval of a seventeen (1 ~ lot subdivision plat which corresponded to Residential-lA zoning and which specifically provided for analley-connector to the east, and a pedestrian connection to the west. The subdivision plat which you have, includes those two connections, however, has been revised to fourteen (14) lots so as to meet Residential-One requirements. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: Subdivision With regard to the subdivision, Staff concludes all the requirements of the subdivision regulations have been met and therefore recommend APPROVAL. RE• Variance in regard to the request for a variance to Section 4.B.5. of the Subdivision Regulations, Staff has concluded that the finding regarding the variance criteria do not support the requested vaziance and Staff recommends DENIAL of the vaziance.. Planning Division Staff Report Page 6 Case No. WS-96-3/Schneider I~E• Variance Option A::"I move that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 W. 38th Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. There is no physical hardship, 2. It does not promote good design. 3. There are no unique circumstances. 4. There may be detriment to safety and to the adjacent greenbelt". Option B "I move that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 W. 38th Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Precedent has been established by other developments in the City., 2. The Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District has no problem with the variance, 3. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request." _ _ ___ _ ,., _, , ~___ __ ,. ~ a -~~ -i-h \ ~ ________-- _ . ------- - - , . ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~. ~~~ . 1 f I ~ .1. ~. ~'. .-, i • .y 1.'.•. .~ / ~ . ••~~ l•.'.'. .','~ 11658 \ . J7 . 1 1. .-.J, . , C T ~ ~ \w 1s~~ ] I ~ ^ V 1 ~ V lei s6 i N s I ~ ~-2 L~ ~~ro _ h ._ MO ORE MINO R S s :; N N 3 O i. f ~ ~~ E N MINOR t W ~ SUB ~ - -- m Kullerstrand ~ ~ _ ~ `~ elementary ? Y ~ m ;;;;:::::.:r;,fi;;;;;o;s~;:: ~ N 3 School 838 ~ V N O F n ";;Yrf:$:":;:;:r:iiiiinFrf:::::. .:::;iiS:ii1:1:K:;:::::i::SAi:i~~ ::. N ~ I N a ~ o ~ -_ ~~ W m ~ ry M ~ q H A`~ ~ O LI N ~ M N N 3g C W N O ~ ill m MN m $ f _ fig o n a ~~ W 37T 3693 H PL O „' W ~ 3750 G ~ n- f ~ J375\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M N Q 376 ~ ; 370 N ~ - ~ W 5 ~ 5 36 Q `n o b ~ 36 ~ V O M 36y / 0 p 362\ ~ n - ~ o w 37TH PL ~ " . F- M m ~nUy ~ n Z n w M m b tip M ~4,TFV PL .~_ N U M F N IL n ~ f- N m fO M M W ~ M m ~ M m b ~ m T in ~ f0 M f ~ M W 36TH Pt n N io < h ~ m m n 1 W _ M 'S q y m m ~ o W ~ n o ., . n r M M - 6V m a ~ `T m ~ m a C:\DPAWINGS\0S\SE20 Tue Dec 10 15:51:09 1996 M O M {In 1- e AOIH GR W 3" ~~ ~~ U N __~ a N 39T}1 GIR e~ N ~j 3764 3764 N ~, 3754 W n w Z ~ 4 Y ~ •~ ... F ' y ~ _ ~ ~ \`\ - - _{ YV ' b t L ' Y _ i- ' p c: ~ I d t . r, { ~'n I ( ... . ~.~ . T .-J ~A. - ~ g f .' O 8 ..s m++ ,1,:-'Y ~ L~ F: ~I 4~t .c0 (I 1 _ .t //.\ ~ ^a jF:i ~Z~ 22 YI? i5 jai ~ ~ '= i ijS~ . 9i%~ i3E5ci 63eYC Ea i5j :{~ a ~ coo: .- ss €^ € a ~acE ° . ~ j i-Y p i5~ic ~ 6E°i 1 .E e;~ ii5.23 -j: Y -@F E°Y p3 Y 2icj ~ ~sc, a . '~~ ~t3~ f !!ji aii ~~~ i' ` ` i E j~° i:§ j ~?YY '~ :22 }~~ 5 i i E9dE!! tR 2E6' ¢~ Ec~ii3Ea~'Qe~c 9Y {~ i °°~ E aECia ai 2jitt iE gEiFlc~E CEsS~ ccj {`CE ~iu3Ec~-a4 2~ io §EYE ~`-6°°`iE ~ai.`~ i EY•E E i`j~E 'iY:~a j c~~:c ~ j~22 EE Yji:~ ~ jc=c E~ . a2 5 .Y .js c F i°,-~ F"FCj t~ F ~ °i ..~^ Fe jE2 ~ E - E 2 j ~Y EF { { - i _~~ g2 Ei r 2E ~'Y i ~ i, I 5 FF }} L:~ E sa s. Y ~ ~ F ~ E EY a E I k I .# ~L "e::' /..e: ' ~ ttp d ats- -~'t`~;S K °,i _ FF~~rE ~ ~f I GiE~^ 2`•zt= E4CCa °';cE 2;~9€ ~ c_.- s a•E in jj~ E ~2:'C icai3 ~ YEYE ppCt: _ L ~jc 2c EpE5~j~ 2=55 e ~ [Y m s c~ r : €iii i .52 55 ~ 'Y_ a ~.. E; o > i:5 e Ee~~~;~@i ia: EEEE 5 it i j 5 ~'~2 2 ~=~ i i~5 :cc IY~ Y~a~~~ ~ Ite £' ~~jF ~~, _._ _______i ___.__ ^ H::i St G Y Y f4 i _Ya :: Ct' G ScC'. i-i__-_ ~ _ - _. YYY8866' C' __ ._Y __ t2"`-[7~ C:1- _ _ "" F h ~Y:-Y::_~ ~-" pS ? 1 ~ - ~ ::~;;c8.r -obi x'41 ,-gD ::'i E~' _.f n~ N ~ ~ ~o m ~ O ~ k ~ ~_m ^iH~ ~ -,o °u~ ~~°z _~~o a;,pm ea Yet 5 ~ ~EI~ c~o~ €e~a =~ :Y jE ° ° e°"- ij : F`F ~~ ~~°z EE '- ~ t E Ii j "~y0 oB EQ ~Fjy __" j 1 _ ~"~~ 5 gm~'cn i -E @ ~~ '=C ~[1 Y i m W', ^ ~{ ~ iy~ CN~ c °5 ~ < ~ i. aj ~ >- i New ~ Ear Z 81 _E G ~? ~~ YE ~i ~~ c6 ~ "o ~a o .~ L 2. Arterial and collector .,treets shall be aligned to loin with planned ar existing streets= 3. Streets shall be designed to bear a relationship to the tapog- raphy. , 4. Intersections shz11 approximate right angles as closely as pos- - Bible. _ ~~Cul-de-sacs shall have a turn-around right-of-way diameter of at mast ninety (90) feet; however, for those cul-de-sacs less than two hundred C200) feet in length in a single-family area, a-.turn-around may i be used in such cases if the same is approved by the Director of Public Works. Surface drainage on cul-de-sacs shall be directed- tpward the accomcanying street or where necessary to a natural watercourse pr nat- l:r al drelna.ge ba51n 1` aporCVed by the D1reCtOr Of PUbli[ Works. Draln2~e - ezsemen_s-may be required through abutting lots where ne alternztive is czpable of carrying drzinagn. Cul-de-szc centerpoints shall not be lan.;=_r -- than X00 r.eet from the centerline intersection of streets serving the s~t- division. ,. 6. Unless otherwise required by the Planning Commission, st`r""eels with C 2nt°-rline3 'O "-Sets Of less than 125 feet Shall n0 t_ be accepted. 7. Dead-end streets, with the exceptions of cul-de-saps, shall be pronlblted U'l l°_ss they are Ges ign°_~ `G COnne Ct wlth future 5``POts In adjacent lanC that has not been platted, in which cases a tempcrzry turn- around easement of 90 feet shall pe r=wired. g, Acce=_s to a freeway, arterial or collector street shall occur only at intersections approved by the Director or" Public Works- The Director cf Public Works shall consult with the Traffic Engineer who shall determine the intersection or intersections fqr access based upon standzrds fer efficient traffic movement and safety far drivers and pe- destrians. 9. The dedication of a half street shall. not be accepted unless:- a. The half-street to be dedicated lies on the perimeter of the proposed subdivision and it would be impractical to serve such subdivision in any other molter. In parcels of width adequate to have a single street serving all parcels, a half-street chall not be accepted except by approval pf the City t.0UnC11. 1~ ~ ~x~~B~T October 23, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Dear Ms. Reckert: ,~ X11-1' OF WHEAT RIDGE J~ CCT 2 ~' 19S6 uLS~i U l~ P1AMNiNG & ITi_Yfi.O>'~iE1±~ Union Street (as proposed} north of West 38Th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado As we discussed on Monday, October 21, 1996, Mr. Glen Gidley informed me that Union Street as proposed within the Prospect Ridge Subdivision exceeds the minimum length for cul-de-sacs. As I told you and Mr. Greg Knudsen with Public Works, the adjacent landowners (the Jenks) are not in favor of the proposed extension because 1) this would commit them to possibly planning around the extension and 2) as the Planning Department had indicated to them a "looped" subdivision was the most likely development plan for the Jenks property. I have also researched the zoning map book in an effort to locate cul-de-sac that exceed the standard which I believe is 500 feet. The following table indicates these non- conforming cul-de-sacs: Street Name Location Zoning Section # W. 35th Avenue West of Simms Street SE 20 W. 35th Avenue East of Union Street NW 21 W. 47th Avenue East of Robb Street NW 21 Routt Street South of West I-70 Frontage fad. NW 21 Owens Street South of West 44th Avenue NW 21 Pierson Street North of 38th Place SW 22 Hoyt Court North of West 39th Avenue NW 22 Hoyt Court South of West 44th Avenue NW 22 Hoyt Street South of West 44th Avenue NW 22 __ Yukon Court East of Yarrow Street NW 23 Brentwood Street .North of West 38th Avenue SW 23 Ingalls Street North of West 35th Place NW 25 Yukon Court South of West 38th Avenue NW 26 - _ .._ Reed Street - - North of West 30th Avenue SE 26 Ouay Street -. :.. .: South of West 29th Avenue SE 26 Independence Street North of 32nd Avenue NW 27 Owens Street South of West 38th Avenue NW 28 Routt Street North of West 32nd Avenue NW 28 I would like to receive an opinion from your department on 1) if in fact these streets are all non-conforming 2) if this non-conformance has presented any difficulty in administering City services to the best of your knowledge and 3) the approximate dates of the above subdivision approvals. These items would seem to be important in the matter of approving. anon-conforming length of cul-de-sac. Mr. Gidley had also mentioned that the non-conforming length may still be approved at Planning Commission and/or City Council. Is it necessary to apply for some sort of variance or can this be handled within the current process we have initiated? I hope that you .or your staff may have the answers to these questions by the time we meet on Friday, October 25, 1996 at 6:30 pm. and we can discuss them at that time. I would also appreciate it if 1 could be supplied with the section of the subdivision code which refers to this item and any related items such as the requirements for a variance. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Daniel F. chneider, P. E. 232-8983 cc: Mr. Glen Gidley Mr. Bob Gobel HAND DELIVERED November 7, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 ~Sc.N 187' t D Subject: Response to October 23, 1996 Correspondence Regarding Union Court (as proposed) north of West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Ms. Reckert: As per our conversation yesterday, it is my understanding that 16 of the 18 of the cul-de- sacs noted in the letter currently being used in the City of Wheat Ridge exceed the maximum standard length of 500 feet. Two of these non-conforming cul-de-sacs are within 1 mile of the site in a developed neighborhood, in which the most recent house was completed in 1996. It is my understanding that these non-conforming cul-de-sacs have not posed any additional impact to the Wheat Ridge Fire Department according to Mr. Dave Roberts, " who is the acting Wheat Ridge Fire Marshall. And Mr. Roberts informed Mr. Bob Goebel that he is of the opinion that by using the design I have proposed, the Wheat Ridge Fire Department is in support of the variance request. I am currently responding to the variance issues that are outlined in the Wheat Ridge City code. Upon completion of these tasks I will forward this information to you. Thank you for your help in this matter. cc: Mr. Glen Gidley HAND DELIVERED November 7, 1996 Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Discussion of Supporting Information for Variance to City of Wheat Ridge Standard Length of Cul-De-Sac, Prospect Ridge Subdivision, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Ms. Reckert: It is my understanding that the length of the proposed cul-de-sac will require a variance. As such the Planning Commission and/or City Council will be required to grant this variance based upon the information supplied for their consideration. Upon review of the Wheat Ridge City Code under Section D (Variances, Waivers, Temporary Permits, Interpretations), subsection 1 c, the following questions are posed under Subsection C and supporting responses to these questions have been provided for your review. Issue #1. Can the property in quesfion 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? Response -Two options exist to access the rear 1/3 portion of the site. In the case where the cul-de-sac would only be 500 feet in length, the rear 5 lots on the site along with the future pedestrian access_ to Wheat Ridge Open Space would require 6 separate parallel driveway/pathway accesses. This type of configuration would require 6, approximately 8 foot wide strips of land side- by-side to access these lots. In addition, the sanitary sewer which requires__ a 30 foot wide easement would require a minimum of 4 of these parallel drives. 1 I can only imagine the difficulty of not only selling them on the idea of these narrow, side-by-side drives, put also in the practicality of 5 property owners trying to put up fences to secure their property along these long drives. Based upon the complicated nature of having 6 side-by-side lot accesses 4 of which are over 100 feet, it is my opinion that the value of the lots would significantly drop to the point it would be necessary to replat the rear portion of the site to achieve 2 or 3 lots would eventually replace the existing 5 lots: In addition to the financial impact from loss of the lots, it would be necessary to spend additional time and money, both on the developer's side and the City of Wheat Ridge to review a third plat on this property. Therefore, it is my opinion that unique conditions exist at this site which would not allow a reasonable return in use, service and income if this variance is not granted. Issue #2 fs the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Response It is my understanding that the reason for the length of the cut-de-sac - standard is twofold. First, the access to the development during crises such as fire, medical emergency, police, street maintenance, etc. requires sufficient traffic flow into the. developed area. As I was extremely concerned with these issues, I personally contacted Mr. Dave Roberts who is the acting Wheat Ridge Fire Marshall and who has reviewed the plat indicating the proposed length of the cul-de-sac. I have attached his letter for your review, but in essence, the Wheat Ridge Fire Department supports our design which exceeds the minimum turning radius for the cul-de-sac bulb. I spoke with Mr. Bob Goebel on the telephone and he indicated that based upon his discussions with Mr. Dave Roberts and his review of the proposed design, he would also support a variance as we have proposed. The secorid concern is front a neighborhood planning perspective. Although there is a possibility that the' property to the east (the Jenks Property} will be developed in the next 5-20 years, the traffic pattern for the development of their property that has been considered "most reasonable" is very similar to that of the McLaughlin Subdivision which lies east of the Jenks Property. The traffic pattern within the parcel would consist of a continuous "loop" with a single point, dual access entrance. This concept has even been reviewed 2 by your department for planning purposes. Based upon my discussion with the owners of the Jenks Property, this concept is what think they would like to do. As such the access to this traffic pattern would require the owners of both properties to each agree where-the future roadway would go in relation to their properties. Mr. Cal Jenks is very much against having a future roadway alignment suggested as he has indicated that lie may develop his property at all. In addition, both the Jenks and myself would end up dedicating additional land for this purpose. Urban Street to the west is currently a cul-de-sac which is under the minimum standard length and therefore does not need nor require additional access. These circumstances as discussed above are exclusively unique to this piece of property and the granting of this variance will present a good planning, engineering and access solution to these unique circumstances which is supported by the Wheat Ridge Fire Department and the Departmen of Public Works. Issue #3 !f the variation were granted, would it after the essential character of the locality? Based upon our review of the City of Wheat Ridge Zoning maps, 16 non- conforming cul-de-sacs exist with the_City of Wheat Ridge ranging in length from over 500 feet up to over 1000 feet. Two non-conforming length cul- de-sacs exist within 1 mile of the site. Since it does not appear that the non-conforming cul-de-sacs have affected the localities which they are located, it is my opinion that granting the variance as requested will_not alter the essential character of the locality. Issue #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? Please refer to responses 1 and 2. Since the property is approximately 282 feet wide and 985 feet on its longest side, the shape of the property is -- unique and presents some aspects which need to be engineered such as adequate accesslo_the rear iJ3 of the site. Since there is no possible 3 access to the north due to Jefferson County Open Space the physical setting definitely creates a hardship for the owner. In addition, I would add that I would consider an inconvenience as something minor does not have a significant impact on the entire subdivision. The ability to reasonably access the rear iJ3 of the site is a major impact not merely an inconvenience. Issue #5 Would the conditions upon which the petition fora variation is based be applicable, generally fo other property within the same zoning classification? Response It is highly unlikely unique conditions would exist in'the same zoning classification which would have similar implications. There are not likely io be very many more subdivisions in the area of this property with the exception of the Jenks Property. Given the size and shape of the property it is very unlikely that a variation to the length of a cul-de-sac within their property or any other developed area with similar zoning would be considered. Issue #6 is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property? Response As the owner of this property and developer of this property, I respectfully submit that this variation is not exclusively to make money on the property. Rather, my request for this variation is based upon the support of the neighbors who came to the neighborhood meeting last month, my discussions and support of the Wheat Ridge Fire Department and Department of Public Works, my civil engineer's recommendations and my awn engineering experience. ' The question of which scenario is better (the extended cul-de-sac or 6 side- .. by-side 8-foot wide driveways) from a planning, emergency access, etc. standpoint is clearly from the granting of the variance and is not exclusively out of a desire to make more money out of the property. Issue #7 Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Response Based upon my civil engineer's expertise and my own engineering background, I have proposed a cul-de-sac that will serve the entire site. 4 The fact that the length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the standard was not recognized until Mr. Glen Gidley informed me of this fact 2 weeks ago. Therefore, I am requesting a variation upon a condition that I technically have "created". However, what I have not created is the shape of the property, the existing traffic patterns which can not currently serve the site, nor can 1 control or even influence the adjacent landowner when or even if they will someday develop their property. In addition with the existing 16 non-conforming length cul-de-sacs that are currently in satisfactory use according to the Wheat Ridge Fire Department and the Department of Public Works, I can only assume that circumstances beyond the owner of the land designing the street length initially, must have occurred to have these cul-de-sacs accepted. And to this end, according to both the Wheat Ridge Fire Department and the Wheat Department of Public Works, these cul-de-sacs appear to be functioning adequately as designed. Issue #8 Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvement to fhe neighborhood in which the property is located? No. In fact the granting of this variance would significantly benefit the property owners within the subdivision as it would create a simplified lot access plan for emergency services, street maintenance and overall the cul- de-sac as proposed would be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood than the alternative of 6 8-foot wide, side-by-side driveways Issue #9 Would fhe proposed variation impair fhe adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety orsubstantially diminish or impair property values within tine neighborhood? Since this variation is a variation to the length of the street, there is no impact to supply of light or air. Traffic congestion will be reduced if the variance is granted. As stated previously, the configuration of 6 narrow side-by-side drives could present some access difficulty under extreme emergency conditions. However, granting of this variation is supported by the Wheat Ridge Fire 5 Department who considers the increased size of the cul-de-sac bulb and the proposed street width, part of the effort I have made to address these type of concerns (see attached letter). Property values without the granting of the variance would most likely adversely be affected by the multiple driveways to access the rear 1/3 of the site. With the granting of the variance, property values with remain consistent with the surrounding. neighborhood values anti will fluctuate with market conditions as should be the case. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the responses as outlined above. Si~ rely, ~ "' iI ~ h, ~ Daniel F. Schneider, P. E attachment cc: Mr. Glen Gidley 6 ~,~lf r r~ r T u~~~l ~io~~ ~~~~ ~~oT~c~~oo oisl~icT P.O. Box 507 3880 Upham Street Wheai Ridge, Colorado 80034 (303) 424-7323 ~~, October 25, 1996 To: Bob Goebel t0-29-~-v39d5-P.RNv Director of Public Works City of Wheat Ridge Wheat Ridge, Co. Subject. 13345 W 38 Ave., Schneider Property Dear Bob, After a conversation with Dan Schneider on October 2~, 1996, it is my understanding that you have expressed a concern, as a result of your meeting with Ivir. Schneider on October 25, that the Fire District is going to object to his proposed development due to the excessive length of the proposed culdesac that is currently designed for the project. Please be advised that I have had numerous conversations with Mr. Schneider concerning this issue and as a result of our conversations, he (Mr. Schneider) has over designed the street width and the turn radius at the end of the street in order to accommodate our needs. I realize that this is an exception to the 500 foot rule, however in this particular case, the plwsical restrictions of the property do not lend it to a design that would accommodate dual access and still leave adequate land for development with the additional requirements of the city, iv1r, Schneider, in my opinion, has made a concerted eftbrt to insure adequate access through the development with the extended width of the road way and the enlarged turn radius at the end of the road in order to adequately accommodate the physical needs of the fire department. As a result of the proposed design, I have no objections to the development as long as the roadway and culdesac remain at the current widths. The proposed road exceeds the 500 foot length by approximately 130 feet and with the proposed design, it is my opinion that an exception to the 500 foot requirement can be made in this case. Should the design and width of the roadway and culdesac be required to be decreased, the redesign will need to be reviewed by the fire marshals office for compliance or exception prior to any approval from the Fire District. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue, please contact me at 4~4_73'?3. Respectfully, ~~~ /~ Dave Roberts Fire Marshal, W . R. F. P. D. cc Dan Schneider ~~U 1 g 195 _~~u u.I PLANNIt'^• R, DEVElOf~?~S~~f~ November 13, 1996 Mr. Gary Wardle City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Wheat Ridge Parks Department Response to Proposed Prospect Ridge Subdivision, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Mr. Wardle: Thank your for talking with me yesterday about the park land dedication issues we discussed. My understanding is that your position is based upon the amount of land dedicated along with the easement accessing the land completed in May, 1996. Since the Wheat Ridge Parks Commission accepted the land as designated by the plat and the _ ~°~ land had been deeded to the City of Wheat Ridge, no additional land or fees will be assessed for the replotting of the Prospect Ridge Subdivision. As I indicated to you, I had instructed Lane Engineering to show the awes easement to the land deeded to the City of Wheat ridge to wincide with sewer line and stormwater detention pond access easement. This has been indicated on the latest revised plat dated November 11, 1996, which was submitted to Wheat Ridge Planning and Zoning Department, yesterday, November 12, 7996. I am still concerned about the timing of the Parks Commission hearing which is scheduled on November 20, 1996 which is 1 day before the hearing. I asked you whether or not you thought I should write each of the Park Commission members and verify that there would be no additional land or fee requirements. However, you indicated that this was not necessary since I had fulfilled their requirements in May, 1996. Please let me know if I can attend the Park commission hearing as I would like to if possible. Thank you for your help in this matter. Si ely, Daniel F: Schneider, P. E. cc: Mr. Glen Gidley 2 ~+D ~'~ I ~ls~ ~~ ~~ppoSF_D SU$AIVfSlo~ ~----~ ~/ 1 sx~sr~~ ~ u~Bb.N sr• l~ I 1 N ~ [^ N ~.•~ ~~ E VJ~S ~-~• l 1 1 l l NoRT'u ..u., . ~x~i~~~ ~ .. • HAND DELIVERED December 20, 1996 Mr. Glen Gidley City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Zoning Department 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Revised Plat -Prospect Ridge Subdivision, 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Reference: Meeting on December 18, 1996 Dear Mr. Gidley: As we discussed on Wednesday, December 18, 1996, I have revised the plat on the subject property to reflect the use of the underlying zoning. As I mentioned to you at that time, there are three issues that we agreed upon and I am reiterating them at this time. 1) The length of the cul-de-sac has been reduced to 500 feet which is the maximum allowed without a variance. Based upon the revised length, you indicated to me that a street length variance is no longer necessary. You indicated that you and staff would recommend approval. 2) Based upon using the underlying split zoning, the plat reflects 12 lots, the rear two lots being an acre or larger to comply with the A-2 zoning requirements for subdividing. Based upon our discussions, you indicated that you and staff will be recommending approval. The subdivision requirements having been met "connections" to either the east (vehicular) or to -the west (pedestrian) are not required o~,~~ recommended. If City Council requires either or both connections, this is noiase upo~he subdivision regulations, public safe or public sentiment .~ • based upon the 34 signatures protesting these connections by the adjacent landowners and neighbors in the area. Rather as we discussed, these connection would only allow increased traffic and/or pedestrian flow to future neighborhoods when developed. I appreciate the time you have taken and your support of this the fourth plat we have submitted to the City of Wheat Ridge. As we discussed, the items as mentioned above will be reflected in the staff report and I am assuming the City Council presentation. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the revised plat or the project in general. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. S" c rely, Daniel F. Schneider, P. E. cc: Ms. Meredith Reckert .~ ~~ a ~fi~ rl /~ ~~ ar~9L~~~ + ~ ~~ z . ~D ~;.~^,~ . '~.~ ~~'~ .~~~ ,'! n s CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: January 13, 1997 Page -2- Tom Shockley, 11605 West 46th Avenue, asked that Planning Commissioners listen to citizen input before making up their minds and that they have more to go by than just criteria. Motion by Mr. Siler that Agenda Item 17. be moved up to be Item 7. A.; seconded by Mrs. Dalbec; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Fields that Agenda Item 8. C. be moved up to be Item 7. B.; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Shaver, Worth, and Dalbec voting no. Mrs. Dalbec stated that there were people present to speak on Item 7.; that they had attended neighborhood meetings and Planning Commission meetings and it wasn't fair to make them sit through Item 8. C. first. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. A. Application by Daniel & Sherri Schneider for approval of a 12-lot subdivision on Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zoned land at 12345 West 38th Avenue. (Case No. WS-96-3) Case No. WS-96-3 was introduced by Mr. DiTullio; title and summary read by the Clerk. Applicant, Dan Schneider, presented his proposed development and answered questions. Glen Gidley was sworn in by the Mayor and gave the staff report. The following speakers were sworn in by the Mayor: James Matera, 26 Skyline Drive, Lakewood, spoke in favor of the 12-lot subdivision, is not in favor of the roadway; he owns 2.8 acres of land to the east of this property and is planning a 7-lot subdivision; is opposed to joining the two properties by a pedestrian pathway. Van Wedgwood, 3251 Tabor Court, urged Council not to approve the pedestrian pathway; but is in favor of the subdivision. Al Alberts, 12355 West 38th Avenue, and Randy Alberts, 14412 West 70th Place, are not in favor of the pedestrian pathway; it will only lead to trouble. Dr. John B. Moore, 12201 West 38th Avenue, does not want pedestrian pathway going through his property. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: January 13, 1997 Page -3- Charles Jorgensen, 3734 Union Court, is in support of the subdivision as proposed tonight, but does not want the pedestrian pathways; it's good for children to walk. Doug Jenks, 11885 West 38th Avenue, supports subdivision but not pathways or street. Motion by Mr. DiTullio that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a twelve-lot subdivision on property zoned Residential-One and Agricultural-Two at 12345 West 38th Avenue be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has revised his request to be consistent with previous City Council action. 2. All minimum requirements of the Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zoning have been met. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition: Pedestrian and Vehicle access easements not be required; seconded by Mr. Siler. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec for an amendment that a separated sidewalk be developed at the north edge of the right-of-way in a similar manner to the McLaughlin Subdivision, at the time of development of the property; seconded by Mr. Solano; carried 8-0. Original Motion as amended carried 8-0. B. Resolution 1573 - establishing and designating street widths for all public streets within Prospect Park Subdivision. (continued from December 16, 1996) Resolution 1573 was introduced by Mr. DiTullio; title read by the Clerk. Motion by Mr. DiTullio for approval of Resolution 1573 without Section B.; seconded by Mr Solano; carried 8-0. Item 2. Application by Karl Koch for approval of a four structure planned building group and a replat on Residential-Three zoned land at 4420 Jay Street. (Case No. PBG-96-1) (to be continued to January 27, 1997) Case No. PBG-96-1 was introduced by Mr. Siler; title read by the Clerk. Motion by Mr. Siler that Case No. PGB-96-1 be continued until the January 27, 1997 City Council meeting because the drainage plan has not been completed; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: January 13, 1997 CASE NO. & NAME: WS-96-3 DATE PREPARED,:~JJ'~anuary 2, 1997 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 12-lot subdivision. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 12345 W. 38th Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Daniel & Sherri Schneider, 2562 Taft Ct., Lakewood, 80215 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Same. APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.8 acres PRESENT ZONING: R-1 & A-2 PRESENT LAND U5E: single family residential & vacant SURROUNDING ZONING: N: A-2; S: R-lA; E: R-1 & A-1; W: R-1 & A-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: greenbelt; S: single family; E: single family; W: single family, vacant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: low density residential ------------------- ------- ----- - DATE PUBLISHED: November 29, 1996 DATE POSTED: December 2, 1996 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: November 29, 1996 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) ATTACHED O NOT REQUII2ED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ATTACHED ONONE ENTER INTO RECORD: (XX) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (XX) ZONING ORDINANCE O SLIDES (XX) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (XX) EXHIBITS ()OTHER ------cx6----------------------------------------------------- . _ 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. WS-96-3/Schneider January 13, 1997 I. REQUEST The applicant's original request was for a rezoning to Residential-One A, and approval of a seventeen (17) lot subdivision with a variance to the Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning and plat with conditions, however, subsequent to the public hearing, the applicant reduced his request to Residential-One. This case was published, posted and had adjacent owner notification for the December 16, 1996, City Council meeting for a rezoning to Residential-One and for approval of a fourteen (14) lot subdivision with a variance to the Subdivision Regulations. At the December 16 meeting, the rezoning portion of the request was denied. As such, no action was taken on the subdivision and variance. The applicant has revised the subdivision design in conformance with the underlying Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zone district classification. The need for variance has been negated with the revised proposal. Staff would note that this property was subdivided in the spring of 1996 into four "estate" lots pursuant to Case No. MS-96-5. A copy of the reduced plat is included under Exhibit `B'. II. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The proposed subdivision plat shows afull-width cul-de-sac centered on the property extending 499.21 feet north from the centerline of West 38th Avenue. All of the proposed lots will have direct access to Union Court. The original submittal required a variance to Section 4.B.5. of the Subdivision Regulations. This code section requires that "cul-de-sac center points shall be no longer than 500 feet from the centerline intersection of streets serving the subdivision" (in this case, West 38th Avenue). With the revised design, the length of the cul-de-sac was reduced to 499.21 feet from the centerline of West 38th Avenue, therefore, there is no need for a variance. With the revised design, all lots meet or exceed the standazds for lot area and lot width in the Residential-One zone district and the Agricultural-Two zoning on the rear. A storm water detention area has been incorporated into Lot 7. A thirty (30) foot wide sanitary sewer easement runs along the south side of Lot 7 with a thirty (30) foot wide access easement extending north along the eastern property line. This access easement is for the City to access and maintain land dedicated for parkland purposes along the northern property line of the subdivision. In regard to the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant has already negotiated with the property owner to the east to cross this land with the sanitary sewer line from the McClaughlin's Applewood Subdivision farther east. This sanitary sewer easement needs to be called out more specifically on the plat along the south side of Lot 7, down the "neck" of Lot 7 to connect with the northern bulb of Simms Court. Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WS-96-3/Schneider January 13, 1997 Page 3 Notes need to be added clarifying the location and use of the access easement and sanitary sewer easement. A ten (10) foot wide pedestrian easement has been provided between Lots 3 and 4 to connect with the land to the west. Staff would recommend that at a minimum, a similar pedestrian easement be provided to connect with the land to the east. If City Council would like to see a future, integrated vehicular street system connecting adjacent subdivisions to the east and/or the west, street right-of--way dedications should be required at this time. See attached Exhibits `C' and `D'. Staff would point out for clarification purposes that regarding testimony given on December 16, 1996, Dr. Moore's to_the west driveway does not lie directly adjacent to this subdivision. There is another Residential-One zoned piece of land between this land and Dr. Moore's driveway. This department has just received an application for subdivision of this property which will allow the extension of the pedestrian link from Schneider's subdivision to the east to Urban Street. Children walking to Kullerstrand School can then follow the sidewalk south along Urban Street to 38th Avenue and then continue west along 38th Avenue to Kullerstrand School, thus crossing Dr. Moore's driveway at it's connection to 38th Avenue. Staff concludes that all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. III. AGENCY REFERRALS The Public Works Department reviewed and approved the drainage report. The applicant will be responsible for full width street construction of Union Court and any pedestrian link to the west and east, if required. Funds must be escrowee for the future installation of public improvements on W. 38th Avenue. The Westridge Sanitation District can serve the property from the east. The applicant will be responsible for conveyance across this property. The Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District has no objections. The applicant will be responsible for the installation of two (2) fire hydrants on the property. The Consolidated Mutual Water District can serve the property. The applicant will be responsible for a main line extension. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the previous proposal (four (4) "estate" lots) and requested a 5% land dedication for protection of the slope adjacent to the Clear Creek greenbelt. They ratified this recommendation at their November 20, 1996, meeting. Access to the dedication will be across the east side of Lot 7. Planning Division Staff Report Page 4 Case No. WS-96-3/Schneider January 13, 1997 IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This case was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on November 21, 1996. The Planning Commission recommended vial of the variance portion of this request, however, a~oroval_of a seventeen (17) lot subdivision plat which corresponded to Residential-lA zoning and which specifically provided for analley-connector to the east and a pedestrian connection to the west. Their recommendation has no relevance to this revised subdivision request.. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Staff concludes that the applicant has revised his request to be consistent with previous action taken by City Council. Staff further concludes that all minimums of the Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zoning have been met and all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. For these reasons, a recommendation of APPROVAL is given with the following conditions: 1. A ten (10) foot pedestrian easement be provided to the east, and, 2. Notes be added regarding location and use of the access easement and sewer easement on Lot 7. If City Council would like a vehicular connection to the east and/or west, right-of--way dedications should occur at this time. Substantial revisions to the plat would be, required if a street connection is required, hence this case should be continued two (2) weeks to revise the plat. VI. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS OPTION A: "I move that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a twelve (12) lot subdivision on property zoned Residential-One and Agricultural-Two at 12345 West 38th Avenue be APPROVED for the following reasons: __ 1. The applicant has revised his request to be consistent with previous City Council action. 2. .All minimum requirements of the Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zoning have been met. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met." With the follow conditions: 1. Notes will be added clarifying the location and use of the access easement and sanitary sewer easements. 2. At a minimum, a pedestrian easement will be provided to the east. Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WS-96-3/Schneider January 13, 1997 Page 5 OPTION B: "I-move that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a twelve (12) lot subdivision on property zoned Residential-One and Agricultural-Two at 12345 West 38th Avenue be DENIED for the following reasons: 2. .,> OPTION C: "I move that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a twelve (12) lot subdivision on property zoned Residential-One and Agricultural-Two at 12345 West 38th Avenue be CONTINUED to January 27, 1997, so that the applicant can revise the plat to show a public street (alley) connection to the (EAST) (WEST) (BOTH EAST AND WEST). M I~ ~~CTI ~~~ryry .~` M 6 t lY N ~ J N i ~ I S~ S \ M rite NI 49Lt r 48L£ ~ N1 .~ „~~ [{ m N j N an lu r~ M !n ` ~ V 3 ~ ~~ N ~ ~ Iu N [b ld V!!GG M xm ww 9661 60 ~65 ~56 OI ~a6~ and ;i~~5\S6\S9NIMdcit7\ ~~ 3AY H19E M ~yt I ~~ m m V _... _.i > ' r~~ ~' •. T i m o ~ L 4 -. _. W A V F w N N -U fd H19E M N I~ b 1~0' I NI ...~ Z~ p N ~ -i u ~ ~ O2~ N 8g£ ' IN„ - 1d H1 9E N ~ n W w - O u N ~ N ^' u O J ° m n N w W u _ u ~ H1LE 7d H1L6 M £sgF J I ' m Ba m ~~ '.~~_~ N- _. ~~. ~_~ Ivy '~ F\ 6 OZ9£ N 0 0 k N o D 59t _ _-~ ~ In ~ I -~ ~ > ~°°`t ` . o J~ m' Z - ~~ o _ 06Lt ~ ~ _ N 1 jl O W 0 8 ~~ Ny9e rM1 (P 0 N I ~ \ U C. O N / l.-~..L N m O ~~„ r- -{7yy m ~, ~ ~ "GZ9L~ ~~4~5 ~ p n _ ! RuD}uawal3 A ~, A pupa}s.lall">I A i ors Z+ON!W '- IN I 4 V ! C ~ I A z N D O lP C [A NI i~ ~ °f 0 ! F.I N, ~..! (P ~., ' _ ! < f I _ _ I \ t [ _ -~ ~~• ,, l L la I o ~ m s o ! 9 a = Y~ f S ~a a iQ : - 9~ ! is t Y~ a~ a 3t~~ i6 Z ~N No y9 ~ s - a ! °( 1 >o ,~ $e 3 Te ~l ] mNS ° ~ o' cn~.~$ v ~ _ ie (~y~ ~ O Q )) di$ p -,cgs ~.c ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~o~'~ Q6F• -uo~ ~o~ z ., a w U°_io w>o a__ ~m o= N < ~ a n ~ a 1 6 ~ a I~ ~~Aia ]~: ji ~ ~r~a ~nl ~_! cQ a,- ~ij1 .-! ct! [ .L !d[ p ~ ~ ~' 225 •i Y p a ~ a..9 ~~- z'~a " ` p _[~~ 16 ~. ~ ~g sa~~i ~ Y` 9q ss _ _ ~ ~~ : e ~ -~_-~ • '~~••~` iS i3~~3 85 a' ;~ : ~q L~ ~ a~~ $ :9 g i~~ c4, ga g t.. :~ 3 a~~ ?~ .1 i' :a ap`. E 9 r E i~! i e ' iiS° :c a~t ~g p aan] S = yi3~ co 3 ]t' \~~e~: :23i! qqc°:_ iyey3 Vt~?3A ~~Sl~ '1 '!:'~ i,',~ ~j 3ri~J 3_-.3 ° 9S:e1 ai~]a e]513 Y~--. ~ ti;27 j 5 ;.-._ / ._} ss;a ~: - ii=[ .~ ° gt~ ~ n` ] @ r_ :.a a--'con. , t g7 of ~ _ ~3 +~ f~'' ~~i ~ o, ~ _~ Te: _ - r5...---- _ _~ 1 ~ ~ - - _ _E_ -... - i J'_ $ - 'i3~ set ~ ~ 3 - ~ I J ~_ _ .: T -:S ic.-_-_. l3cc_r.:c cc: ~ ' a x_-_ -a 3 _ ~ _nYnxxxa e ~ ~ .c { ~ ~ s.[p ] C i Y • __ _ _. I •ui - __ _ ~ 1 :: ? jai 9 5~~3° a~~ ~ is ]Caii °~il~~'e qag 3 .tF33 ~°$t9~Pg 3t:p b ee pp e312t~ 1`~ nci~i ~ ~-a$. ii~gtgi3 i]zq t 4,5~;~ ig]aa93~ fe3~ .g !- 3y~f~5~°li~s~i i; a~;~aY r ] =~ ,t : v:i 55 Y ata9~ie !a~° s -i3lS3 ;~?~_.;ig3e3?f?3 qp e .g 17~-- . ~3• . i9]41~3t.t i~i~ '!~ at9i~ a - v it] ~aa g 3! ene~ ! p'• a: ~ ~ '~,'. fit:; ?.: ' =~5 t2•i~Y Ufa 3~ fiEq fp~5z c.! v ae ;c S: qtr`-!.t :pvS~ ~z ~~! ~sarg ~-9a $ pz~ japi°g ~S4t 9_ Sat ie~nii :9ta 33 :: i9c t? :~~ !-art 5: - t '. -, '^,~ a~,, p ' _ 1 } e~ c l Y • ~.`, 3 t .v .~~.. S .5\: ve ~', i! z. =a c 1=$,,~ _~ ! -%$'~ j.i W:t~IM1.. d - ~, ? ~ ,'S'i (? ~ d +EXf"l iBi-T ~$ ~~ ~~~~~~ I RDPo SF_n ,~ ~ SIa.gAIVl51aN =-----~~~ }~AR~~ 1 l /~' ! 1 / ' f c ~ S STl [-1fo- ~ i ' i rsr~BO.N sT. ~:~~ ~ j ~ i 7 t ~ ( N ~ 3aTµ A~ esr- ~~~ ~~ Noa-ru ~x~u~~~ _ _ __ Noverizber 2d, 199b ~i~-~lfJ~ g~~ ~''~ ^~~. , cJ 5 - ~ F~uV " i39o ' Glen Gibley, Director of Planning & Development '~ - jj (,. ~ ! Dear Sir: PIANNIP,G fx Dc'd£~0!'iv1ENT As the owner of the property directly East of Dan Schneider's at 12345 West 38th Avenue, I_would like to take this opportunity to convey our ideas concerning the proposed re-zoning of his property. After lengthy discussions with Mr. Schneider, a number of issues have come up which relate to our property and it's future dev- elopment. 7he_first item of concern is the Planning Department's concept of adjoining streets running East from his Cul-de-Sac to our property line, it being your assumption that when we plat, this street would continue East .connecting on our property. It has also been stated that the department felt we might ask for two overlength Cul-de-Sacs if precedent is set at Schneiders. It is our intention, and for very practical reasons, to plat a single entry subdivision off of 38th with two North/South streets connected on the North with a drive running parallel aad~'approximately 150 feet South of the bluff. This street layout is necessary because of the sanitary sewer easement which we and Mr. Schneider have agreed upon. Tile easement, which we laid out and Lane engineered, will follow a lot line from the East at McLaughlin's to our North connecting drive running Southwest to a lot line then due West to Schneider's property., Thus no East or West roads would be necessary for this. Furthermore, because the easement wiI1 follow lot lines between homes, a gravel path would be useless and lead nowhere. Finally, our family has lived on this parcel of land since 1959. In that nearly 40 years, we have mare very accustomed to the wildlife of the Greenbelt. Our's and Mr. Schneider's- property are situated uniquely :to the Greenbelt: At the foot of this bluff are numerous springs causing dense swamp conditions. This sita'ation, for the most part, keeps humans to the trail, but allows animals easy access and refuge. A proposed public access anywhere between the existing one at Kullerstrand School to the West and McLaughlin's to the East, would be contrary :: to and seriously detrimental to the entire- concept of the Clear Creek Greenbelt. It is our intention to add as much input to this zoning process as we can, and if you or any of your staff need further clari- fication or information, please feel free to contact either ' Doug or Cal. ~ %~' i / Thank you, ~~~~ ~(~--~„ . , \_. Doug Jenks 424-6691 ' Cal Jenks _ 424-1562 HAND DELIVERED December 20, 1996 Mr. Glen Gidley City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Zoning Department 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: Revised Plat -Prospect Ridge Subdivision, 12345 West 38th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Reference: Meeting on December 18, 1996 Dear Mr. Gidley: As we discussed on Wednesday, December 18, 1996, I have revised the plat on the subject property to reflect the use of the underlying zoning. As I mentioned to you at that time, there are three issues that we agreed upon and I am reiterating them at this time. 1) The length of the cul-de-sac has been reduced to 500 feet which is the maximum allowed without a variance. Based upon the revised length, you indicated to me that a street length variance is no longer necessary. You indicated that you and staff would recommend approval. 2) Based upon using the underlying split zoning, the plat reflects 12 lots, the rear two lots being an acre or larger to comply with the A-2 zoning requirements for subdividing. Based upon our discussions, you indicated that you and staff will be recommending approval, 3) The subdivision requirements having been met "connections" to either the east (vehicular) or to the west (pedestrian) are not required or recommended. If City Council requires either or both connections, this is not based upon the subdivision regulations, public safety or public sentiment based upon the 34 signatures protesting these connections by the adjacent landowners and neighbors in the area. Rather as we discussed, these connection would only allow increased traffic and/or pedestrian flow to future neighborhoods when developed. I appreciate the time you have taken and your support of this the fourth plat we have submitted to the City of Wheat Ridge. As we discussed, the items as mentioned above will be reflected in the staff report and I am assuming the City Council presentation. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the revised plat or the project in general. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. in erely, , ~ .,~.~ ~ 2_.. r Daniel F. Schneider, P. E. cc: Ms. Meredith Reckert Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ( November 21, 1996 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3; An application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a three-fold request: 1) approval of a rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A ; 2) approval of a variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; and, 3) approval of a seventeen (1'n lot major subdivision. Ms. Reckert stated she had additional pieces of correspondence to distribute. The first was a response from the City's Parks and Recreation Commission meeting held November 20, 1996, with regard to their park dedication requirement. The second piece is a letter from the adjacent property owner to the east known as the Jenk's property. Ms. Reckert stated that Case No. WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3 was athree-fold request for the property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue. The property is currently zoned Residential-One/Agricultural-Two and is currently vacant. Ms. Reckert stated there were no slides available for the hearing due to the projector being broken. Ms. Reckert entered into the record the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Case File, Packet Materials, and Exhibits. Ms. Reckert stated the property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and established jurisdiction. She stated again that this was a three- fold request for this property. Approval of a rezoning from aResidential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One A, approval of a variance to Section 45 of the Subdivision Regulations, and approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Ms. Reckert stated that she would like to take each section of the request and deal with them separately beginning with rezoning. After completing her comments, the applicant will then make his comments. She advised the Planning Cormission that they would have to have a positive vote on the rezoning to be able to proceed with the subdivision and variance requests. Ms. Reckert advised the Planning Commission that eazlier in 1996 they had reviewed a request to subdivide this property pursuant to Case No. MS-96-5. Initially the applicant had requested to subdivide into four estate type lots approximately one plus acres in size. The applicant, however, has decided to pursue the request at this meeting of rezoning and resubdivision. Ms. Reckert advised that she had performed preliminary calculations and arrived at approximately eleven (11) single family lots on the property. Ms. Reckert provided overheads to allow the Planning Commission a visual aspect of the application. On the north side of the property, a section has been dedicated for a pazk plan pursuant to the previous case that was approved in May, 1996. Ms. Reckert reviewed the various lot size minimums as it related to the different zoning assignments. The criteria for consideration of rezoning was not included in the packet. However, Ms. Reckert provided an overhead and read the information to the audience and elaborated on Staff s Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 3 recommendation per item number read. Ms. Reckert concluded her comments and asked for questions. There were no questions at this time regarding rezoning. Mr. Schneider elaborated on the initial zoning of the land beginning in 1941. He provided overheads which showed his interpretation of how the zoning line had changed beginning in 1946 by Jefferson County. He stated that he believed that the zoning line that is currently in use is incorrect which he believes is another reason for granting a change in zoning. He stated that no land had been acquired nor sold since the beginning zoning standard. He maintains that he believes that there is a zoning error somewhere in the City maps. Mr. Schneider provided an overhead that showed the surrounding azea and their zoning of Residential-One which he maintains positively contributes to the reason for rezoning as well. Mr. Schneider provided additional justification as it related to the lot sizes being proposed for single family homes. He stated that there could be approximately twenty- one (21) lots. However, he was only proposing that the land be divided into seventeen (17) larger lots. Mr. Schneider listed his reasons for rezoning the property and the potential benefits overall as he interpreted them. He also advised the Planning Commission that he had attended the Pazks Commission meeting of November 20, 1996, to review his plan. He stated that the Parks Commission did not particulazly like the idea of a pathway. Ms. Reckert stated that the pathway/greenbelt final decision would be that of the Parks Commission. However, she continued that there still needs to be pedestrian access to the adjacent subdivision as it makes good planning design sense. Discussion continued regarding the path/greenbelt access by Mr. Schneider regarding the neighboring land should it ever be developed. Mr. Schneider stated that most of the surrounding land owners were in support of the rezoning. He further stated that he felt that this rezoning was consistent with the goals and policies of the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there were any questions regarding the rezoning request. Commissioner CERVENY inquired about the thought process for requesting a rezoning to R-lA as opposed to PRD (Planned Residential Development) which he believed the McLaughlin Subdivision was. Mr. Schneider said he did not really understand the difference between the two. He further stated that his understanding was that by going with the rezoning the way that he was doing it, he could achieve his purpose. He stated that it was also his understanding that once the property was zoned as proposed, it could never go back to anything else. He inquired of Commissioner CERVENY if this was correct. Commissioner CERVENY stated that with a PRD, the plot lines basically cannot be changed. Mr. Schneider stated he would not have any problem with the restriction or conditional approval that says the plan is based on seventeen (17) lots. Planning Comrission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 4 Commissioner THOMPSON inquired of Director Gidley if there was a problem with the rezoning when there was a discrepancy in the zoning and can the Commission rezone since the Commission would be rezoning all of the property at once? Director Gidley stated the City Council zoned the City in 1972 by adoption of Ordinance 98. All of the zoning that was on the official zoning map of the City of Wheat Ridge at the time that the map was adopted, rezoned the entire City including all of the discrepancies that may have been in place and it institutionalized the discrepancies. Even though there may have been discrepancies between 1969 and 1972, they were institutionalized by the adoption of the zoning map and therefore there is no discrepancy at the present time. Commissioner THOMPSON then asked if it was the time to discuss the easement. Director Gidley stated it was a platting issue and that questions regarding easements should be held until that portion was discussed. He fixrther stated that the real difference between R-Al and R-1 in this particulaz case is not lot I dimensions but sideyazd setbacks. The issue is the size of building to size of lot and setbacks. Director Gidley referred to the McLaughlin Subdivision to further clazify the difference between R-lA and R-1 and discussed in more detail the type of buildings in the immediate area. Mr. Schneider went, into more detail why he was applying for the change in zoning as it applies to lot size and; use. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how many lots could be put into the subdivision for R-1 and R-lA. Ms. Reckert stated that she had calculated the figures. However, Mr. Schneider interjected that he had the figures readily at hand and stated that there were twelve (12) different scenarios that could be looked at. He further stated that under R-1 the maximum number of lots would be fourteen (14) with all but one of the scenazios which was calculated at twelve (12). Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired the same about R-lA and Mr. Schneider stated the number would be twenty-one (21). Commissioner WILLIAMS verified that Mr. Schneider was asking for seventeen (17) lots. There were no further questions on the zoning. Commissioner THOMPSON clarified that Mr. Schneider was actually asking for three (3) additional homes be built and not an additional six (6). This was verified by Director Gidley. Chairperson LANGDON inquired if those who signed in to speak were at the meeting to address the rezoning issue or the whole issue. Mr. Jorgerson from the audience stated he was there regarding the entire issue. Chairperson LANGDON asked if he could wait until later to make testimony on the subdivision portion of the case. He said he could but he may have to leave. However, he submitted a letter to the Secretary which is included in the file. John Moore stated he was there to speak about the entire issue but was concerned about Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 5 the zoning. Chairperson LANGDON swore Mr. Moore in and he stated.that his name was John Moore and that he lived at 12201 West 38th Avenue. Chairperson LANGDON advised Mr. Moore to retain his comments to the zoning issue only at this point in time. Mr. Moore stated he owned 3.1 acres west of this proposed subdivision. He elaborated on the reason he and his family purchased the land. He said that he was concerned about the lots being changed from four. (4) to seventeen (17) as he has expended a considerable amount of money believing that he would not be surrounded by a lot of houses and would prefer keeping the lots to one (1) acre sites. Commissioner ECKHARDT verified that Mr. Moore's property was directly to the west of the proposed development site and requested that the aerial photo overhead be displayed. Mr. Moore's property is zoned A- 2. Mr. Moore concluded his comments. At this time Chairperson LANGDON swore in Debbie Moore, wife of John Moore, same address. She stated she had one question regazding the R-1 vs the R-lA zoning. She asked if the Commission would consider placing a restriction on the number of lots being developed and hold it to a maximum of seventeen (17). Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mrs. Moore if she had a choice between a maximum of fourteen (1,4} or seventeen (17) and if she would state, for the record, her preference. Mrs. Moore' responded fourteen (14). Chairperson LANGDON called for a motion on the rezoning. Commissioner WILLIAMS moved that Case No. WZ-96-15, a request to rezone property at 12345 West 38th Avenue from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1) The R-lA zoning is consistent with the low density residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The R-1 A zoning is compatible with zoning and land use in the azea; and, 3) The evaluation criteria support approval of the request. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded. The motion carried 6- 2. Ms. Reckert presented her overview of the variance portion of the request which concerns the footage limitations from West 38th Avenue to the center of the cul-de-sac bulb. The subdivision regulations currently states that the footage shall be no longer than 500 feet. The measurement according to the plat is reflecting 694 feet. The applicant is requesting a 194 foot vaziance. Ms. Reckert stated that the applicant provided information reflecting that there are several areas within the City that exceed the standard. Ms. Reckert verified that this information was correct for two of the areas questioned. Ms. Reckert stated that if the vaziance is not approved, the applicant's request for subdivision design must be either denied or redesigned to include a connection on either the east or west. Criteria to consider the approval for this request was not included in the packet. Therefore, Ms. Reckert read aloud for the Commission each point as she discussed them. Ms. Reckert stated after her presentation that Staff was recommending DENIAL of the request. She Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 6 then asked for questions. Commissioner RASPLICKA commehted regarding Staffls suggestion that there was no hazdship. He stated that owners on both sides of the property are not ready to develop and that he viewed that as a hazdship. Ms. Reckert stated the approach of creating a temporary bulb has been approved for other parts of the City and further stated that the street connection to the east would not have to be developed. Commissioner RASPLICKA clazified that the connection would not have to be developed until if/when the owners were ready. It would allow the applicant to develop his plot of land and alleviate what he considered a hardship. Ms. Reckert confirmed all concerns. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired about the easement and access to the greenbelt. She felt that there was no access from the adjoining Jenk's property. She stated that if the access point was approved and the Jenk's property developed, the Parks Commission could ask for access through the applicant's property. She was concerned about access to the McLaughlin property and wanted to know how an access could be accomplished. She questioned if there was any place on the Jenk's or applicant's property where the citizens could safely get down the bluff. Ms. Reckert stated that both properties were very steep. Director Gidley interjected that the Parks Department indicated that at the base of the slope there is an azea that they would like to maintain as a wildlife refuge. He went into a more in-depth discussion regarding all properties involved and access availability including a foot path to Colorstrand School. A pedestrian connection could remain with a street access or another pedestrian connection to the opposite side. Director Gidley stated that a plan to connect all parcels of land in one way or another is suggested and would be the appropriate direction to take even though there may be opposition. Commissioner WILLIAMS inquired about the easement measurement. Director Gidley stated that this easement would run along the easement that is currently there which is for the sewer line and that it is 116 plus 37 feet. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked who would maintain that area until the Jenk's property was developed. Director Gidley stated that when it was constructed, it would probably be maintained by the public. Director Gidley suggested that funds be placed in escrow until such time that the connection was constructed and further that it be delayed and not built until the future. Commissioner WILLIAMS inquired if there would be a time limit on the easement. Director Gidley said when the Jenk's property develops, the City Council would decide whether or not the other side of that connection would occur. If it did not occur, that easement would be vacated for the purpose of pedestrian access. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she did not understand why the City only provided one access in several other property developments. Director Gidley stated that they were split access points which is very similar to two streets from the standpoint that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ~ November 21, 1996 Page 7 they aze physically divided and aze a loop system. In this property there is no split access or loop. Access discussion continued regarding being able to access all properties should there be an emergency. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the width of the street and cul-de-sac had a 50 foot flowline. Director Gidley stated it was a fifty (50) foot right-of--way, however, the applicant still needed to go through a street width designation public hearing process to establish flow line. He further stated that it was not an overly wide subdivision street except for the diameter of the cul-de-sac bulb itself. This bulb is lazger than the minimums of forty-five 45 feet due to the need for emergency equipment access. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that a compromise of having the trail wide enough when the Jenk's property develops to either construct a street or trail could be included in the motion. She wished to ensure that there was enough land to do either. If it did remain as a trail, the property would be dedicated back to the lot owners. Director Gidley stated that it could be increased to a minimum of 50 feet and then, if the street was not built, partials could become part of the adjacent lots. Director Gidley provided various scenarios which could happen in the future. Discussion took place regazding Tract A. The tract reflects a storm detention azea and access fox Parks and Recreation to the greenbelt. It was the general consensus that access and connection to other subdivisions/properties in the immediate area was a concern of the Planning Commission. Several ideas were suggested by members of the Commission including an access be made available either by a connector street or pedestrian access on both the east and west sides of the subdivision with the main entrance into the development coming from 38th Avenue. Mr. Schneider gave his variance presentation with overheads providing three (3) vaziations of the cul-de-sac drives. His presentation also provided visual information on similar scenarios involving other developments which were approved. Mr. Schneider stated that there were twenty-one (21) options. Four (4) options that exist that would bring the cul-de-sac into conformance. The first one he presented was basically the same that was made by Staff. Discussion was again held regarding the access needs leading to the Jenk's property. Mr. Schneider relayed that Mr. Jenk, who was in the audience, had no intention of developing his land and that the access.road would lead nowhere. He _ went on to say that the larger bulb was introduced after talking to the Fire Department. He further stated that he took a survey of cul-de-sac requirements from fifteen (1 S) surrounding cities and found that nine (9) of the fifteen (15) had lengths of between 500 and 700 feet. He was advised that it was the Fire DepartmentlFire Marshal that had the ultimate decision regarding any cul-de-sac. Mr. Schneider stated that the neighboring property owners favored his preferred variance option. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that he believed that the variety of cul-de-sac lengths from other municipalities could be due to the density of the housing. He said that if this property was going to be subdivided into four (4) lots like it was presently approved, he would not have a problem with a cul-de-sac that long. However, with seventeen (17) units, he believes that it becomes a different situation and has a problem with a cul-de-sac so long. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that the Fire Marshal is only one component of the issue. He is concerned about fire truck access while the Commission is concerned with all internal circulation and density, etc.. She asked if twenty (20) feet were removed to provide access in addition to the thirty (30) feet already provided, why would Mr. Schneider be opposed. He responded that Tract A was pretty much decided and went on to say that it would have to be decided as to what style of subdivision would be recommended. He stated that if there was no way to approve the cul-de-sac, he would be willing to lose some additional land for access to make the development work. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Staff if there was a logical place for tyre applicant to tie into on the west. Director Gidley stated that the same problems exist on the west as on the east. He stated that he did not know how those sections would subdivide. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired as to how many acres were vacant to the east and west. Director Gidley stated 13.5 to the east and 2.8 to the west. Ms. Reckert stated the west acreage was zoned R-1 which increases the lot availability. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if it would beright-of--way on the road. Mr. Schneider _ ,. _ . _, stated yes. He then asked if it would be built flowline to flowline and Mr. Schneider replied yes. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if it would be thirty-four (34). Mr. Schneider stated he would have to attend the street width designation hearing. Depending on the outcome of this heazing, the designation could be nazrower according to Director Gidley. Mr. Schneider stated it was not his intention to put in a narrower road. Chairperson LANGDON asked Director Gidley to clarify if the bulb was designated as the correct street sign. Director Gidley said yes. Chairperson LANGDON asked if he misunderstood Director Gidley when he stated that Pazks does or does not want access to the area below. Director Gidley stated that their access is for maintenance only, the do not want a pedestrian access down the hill to the base. They would prefer to use the existing McLaughlin and Kullerstrand School access rather than creating additional access points. Chairperson LANGDON also clarified if the access was designated as a street, then there would be no need for the variance because the cul-de-sac would be eliminated after temporary use. Director Gidley stated it was a subdivision with a future street connection, therefore, it would be a temporary cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 9 Commissioner THOMPSON asked at who's expense, if the connection happens, and would Director Gidley clarify statements made regazding lot lines being moved. Director Gidley explained the use of Lot 9 and the,problems that it would incur and stated that Mr. Schneider would lose all or most of this lot. Mr. Schneider said that he was aware that this could happen but stated that if he was going to lose a lot he would prefer that it be one closer to the middle/front of the subdivision rather than one in the rear. Additional general discussion was held regarding the location of various access points and the preferences of Mr. Schneider and the Planning Department. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Mr. Jorgerson wanted to speak. Ms. Reckert stated that he had left but submitted a letter supporting the rezoning and seventeen (17) lot proposal R-IA. Chairperson LANGDON asked for his address and Ms. Reckert stated it was 3734 Union Court which is located on the south side of the property to be subdivided. Chairperson LANGDON swore in the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District Fire Mazshal Dave Roberts who stated his address as 3880 Upham Street. Chairpersop LANGDON advised the Fire Marshal that the Commissioners would be interested in his views of the cul-de-sac size, access, and advantages of what Mr. Schneider has proposed. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Schneider has met all requests for changes and adequately meets the Fire Department requirements. The Fire Mazshal stated that the private access road scenario was totally unacceptable to him. Chairperson LANGDON swore in James Matera who resides at 26 Skyline Drive. He stated that his purpose at the meeting was to state that he is under contract to purchase land to the west of the proposed subdivision and wanted to speak against the connection . street. His contract is contingent upon subdividing using the existing R-1 zoning. Bringing the street through into a small subdivision would eliminate the possibility of planning seven (7) lots. Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired if his subdivision was from 38th Avenue north and Mr. Mater stated it was and that it was 2.8 acres. General discussion was held. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Matera about the discussion regarding a path and Mr. Matera stated he would have no problem with that. Chairperson LANGDON asked Director Gidley how that could be accomplished at this meeting. He stated that a comparison would have to be accomplished to see how the lots align. He suspects that there could be a difference but that it would all need to be worked out to be sure. Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired if this item could be continued until the appropriate people get together and work out the details. Mr. Schneider came forward and stated that he has been put in a position which was out Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 10 of his control. He must attend the street designation hearing and that he is scheduled to go before City Council on December 16, 1996. Postponing this hearing would cause a time frame problem and he would really appreciate trying to come to a compromise. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he is opposed to the length of the cul-de-sac, feels strongly that there be circulation east and west of this property, and he would move that the variance not be granted. That would mean would be that the land would have to be resubdivided. Director Gidley advised the Planning Commission that the applicant could continue with his vazious other subdivision scenarios. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she did not recall the answer to her previous question regazding who would pay for the street installation. Director Gidley advised that there would have to be funds placed in a long term escrow account by the developer for the area that would not be developed. At the time the other side of property was developed, this parcel would get built. If City Council in the future decided they did not want to do that, they would vacate the street and give the money back to the property owners on a pro rata share as part of their lot cost reimbursement. Commissioner THOMPSON asked what would happen if the escrow account did not cover the costs due to inflation. The City would pay the balance.. ' Commissioner CERVENY asked if the access could go between other lots and Director Gidley stated that was correct. Since it is not a fire hazard and there is access to the east and west by path, what was Staff s objection. Mr. Schneider stated he would be very willing to provide the path access. Director Gidley said that it did not provide a distribution of traffic throughout a street system which Staff believes is a better subdivision design process. Generally Staff prefers a street system, however, it is the option of the Commission as to what they want to do_. He further stated that this was a - vaziance request and variance does require a higher standard of consideration and there is criteria established for variance changes. Discussion was held regarding another variance situation and consideration of the through street proposal. Commissioner JOHNSON asked where the problem came up with the street width and who it was that told Mr. Schneider how wide the street had to be. Director Gidley and Mr. Schneider stated that it was City Council. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if he couldn't pick out a width of his own. Director Gidley stated that he could not even if it conformed to the current standazds due to the Charter Amendment that occurred in 1995 - StreeT Width Designation Charter Amendment. Further discussion was held regarding street width. Director Gidley stated that the width could be smaller than fifty (50) feet and elaborated on the operating principles of street needs. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the minimum width necessary for the Fire Department and maintain subdivision safety between the neighborhoods was fifty (50) feet. Director Gidley suggested that a fifty (50) foot right-of--way be maintained and then make a street width.determination at Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 11 , the time that the street width designation occurs on December 16. He also advised the Commission that they could make a recommendation on the width if they chose. Commissioner ECKHARDT motioned that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue be DENIED for the following reasons: 1) There is no physical hardship, 2) It does not promote good design, 3) There are no unique circumstances, and, 4) There may be detriment to safety and to the adjacent greenbelt. Motion was seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON. Motion for denial of variance was questioned by Chairperson LANGDON. Director Gidley stated that this was a motion for variance only and that the next question was regarding the subdivision approval or alternate design. It was further questioned if City Council could recommend denial and Director Gidley stated not on the variance. Motion FAILED with a 4-4 vote. A majority approval was needed to pass the variance. Director Gidley explained the rules and the City Attorney's voting opinion as it relates to vaziances. The affect of the vote was that the variance was DENIED. Commissioner ECI{HARDT asked if a motion could be made regarding the subdivision or was there more information needed to vote. Ms. Reckert stated that the access issue to the park needed to be resolved as well. Commissioner ECICHARDT moved that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue, be APPROVED as it is consistent with the R-1 A zoning. However, the condition that there be vehicular access provided to the property to the east and pedestrian access be provided to the property to the west; location of those two access points be determined by Staff after they have met with the appropriate parties; also, that there be access provided to Tract A within the utility drainage easement from the cul-de- sac to the east end of the subdivision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON. Discussion was held. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired if the maximum of seventeen (17) units should be included in the motion. She further stated that the adjacent land owners as well as the applicant preferred not building to the maximum of twenty-one (21) units. General discussion was held and consensus was formed to mandate a maximum of seventeen (17) units would be approved without being part of the motion. vlotion passed 8-0. commissioner CERVENY motioned that the connector street width recommendation for hre link to, the east, be thirty (30) feet right-of--way and twenty-four (24) feet flowline to Towline. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. General discussion was field. Motion was approved 8-0. i -- AGENDA ITEM RECAP ~~. !AGENDA ITEM _ n ~ ~ December T&: 199& : . ~~ Meeting Date - -QUASI-JUDICIAL X Yes No ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS _ CITY ADM. MATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ PROCJCEREMONIES -CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR IST READINO _ BIDS/MOTIONS _ LIQUOR HEARINGS !ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ _ - - _INFORMATION ONLY _ PUBLIC COMMENT k RESOLUTIONS - AGENDA ITEM TITLE: A Resolution establishing street width for streets within Prospect Ridge Subdivision. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: RE: UNION CT. -Staff recommends 34-foot flow-line width. RE: CONNECTOR ALLEY -Staff recommends 26-fdof edge-to-edge width, with inverted crown, concrete construction. ATTACHMENTS: ~ BUDGETED ^ 1) Resolution ITEM Yes No Fund _ Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount ~ i Requested Expend.~_ Requires Transfers ~ ~ - Supp. Appropriation Yes Na RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "I move for adoption of Resolution No. RESOLUTION NO, Series of 1996 TITLE: A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND DESIGNATING STREET WIDTHS FOR ALL PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN PROSPECT RIDGE SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, Wheat Ridge Charter Section 5.20, and Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 21-4 requires that City Council approve "street width designations" for proposed street construction, and, WHEREAS, Daniel and Sherri Schneider have received approval of Prospect Ridge Subdivision, which subdivision plat has dedicated Union Court and a connector alley; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary to designate street widths therefore prior to construction. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, as follows: A. Union Court shall be designed and constructed with a 34-foot flow-line width is hereby approved, and,. B. Connector alley shall be designed and constructed with a 26-foot width is hereby approved. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of ,_1996. DAN WILDE, MAYOR ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 SHEET ~J PROJECT FILE # LOCATION FEATURE DESIGNED BY DATE . _ _ ._ .I . - - ._...~_. f~ ~ ~ { .. ~ 5~~i _SE[-"nom. i .. ! ~ t r t Page -2- CITY CQUNCIL MINUTES: January 13, 1997 Tom Shockley, 11605 West 46th Avenue, asked that Planning Commissioners listen to citizen input before making up their minds and that they have more to go by than just criteria. Motion by Mr. Siler that Agenda Item i7. be moved up to be Item 7. A.; seconded by Mrs. Dalbec; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Fields that Agenda Item 8. C. be moved up to be Item 7. B.; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 5-3-with Councilmembers Shaver, Worth, and Dalbec voting no. Mrs. Dalbec stated chat there were people present to speak on Item 7.; that they had attended neighborhood meetings and Planning Commission meetings and it vdasn't fair to make them sit through Item 8. C. first. PUBLIC HEAFiINIaJ Hrvu vn~~~.r•,•••~.... -. - _ , Item 1. A. Application.by Daniel & Sherri Schneider for approval of a 12-lot subdivision on Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zoned land at 12345 West 38th Avenue. (Case No. WS-96-3) Case No. WS-96-3 was introduced by Mr. DiTullio; title and summary read by the Clerk. Applicant, Dan Schneider, presented his proposed development and answered questions. Glen Gidley was sworn in by the Mayor and gave the staff report. The following speakers were sworn in by the Mayor: James Matera, 26 Skyline Drive, Lakewood, spoke in favor of the 12-lot subdivision, is not in favor of the roadway; he owns 2.8 acres of land to the east of thedestr andyathwa Planning a 7-lot subdivision; is opposed to joining the two properties by a p P Y• Van Wedgwood, 3251 Tabor Court, urged Council not to approve the pedestrian pathway; but is in favor of the subdivision. AI Albertf the3edestrian pathway; it will o ny IeadAobeouble44i2 West 70th Place, are not in favor o P Dr. John B.. Moore, 12201 West 38th Avenue, does not want pedestrian pathway going through his property. CITY. COUNCIL MINUTES: Sax~uary 13, 1997 Page -3- Charles Jorgensen, 3734 Union Court, is in support of the subdivision as proposed tonight, but does not want the pedestrian pathways; it's good for children to walk. Doug Jenks, 11885 West 38th Avenue, supports subdivision but not pathways or street. Motion by Mr. DiTullio that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a twelve-lot subdivision on property zoned Residential-One and Agricultural=Two of 12345 West 38th Avenue be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has revised his request to be consistent with previous City Council action. 2. All minimum requirements of the Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zoning have been met. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition: Pedestrian and Vehicle access easements not be required; seconded by Mr. Si(er. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec for an amendment that a separated sidewalk be developed at the north edge of the right-of-way in a similar manner to the McLaughlin Subdivisioh, at the time of development of fhe property; seconded by Mr. Solano; carried 8-0. Original Motion as amended carried 8-0. B. Resolution 1573 -establishing and designating street widths for all public streets within Prospect Park Subdivision. (continued from December 16, 1996) Resolution 1573 was introduced by Mr. DiTullio; title read by the Clerk. i~ofion b_y Mr. DiTullio for approval of Resolution 1573 without Section B.; seconded by Mr. Solano; carried 8-0. Item 2. Application by Karl Koch for approval of a four structure planned building group and a replat on Residential-Three zoned land at 4420 Jay Street. (Case No. PBG-96-1) (to be continued to January 27, 1997) Case No. PBG-96-1 was introduced by Mr. Siler; title read by the Clerk. Motion by Mr. Siler that Case No. PGB-96-1 be continued until the January 27, 1997 City Council meeting because the drainage Plan has not been dompleted; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. MEMO To: Chief Hurst, Via Chain of Command From: Deri Patt Subject: Site Review - 12345 W. 38 Avenue Date: January 10, 1997 On Tuesday, January 7, 1997, I was contacted by Mr. Dan Synder, the owner/developer of the property located at 12345 W. 38 Avenue. Mr. Snyder was referred to me from the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Synder requested a brief meeting with me to review a proposal from City Council to require an easement on his property to connect with a proposed development adjoining his property to the west. I met with Mr. Synder on Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Synder showed me the attached site plan. I have highlight the proposed easement path that would create a pedestrian walkway between the two streets. Mr. Snyder is concerned that the walkway has the potential of creating problems and a higher fear of crime in the neighborhoods. He is concerned that the objective of integrating the neighborhoods as the intent of Council will not be met with this design. I have outlined my concerns and recommendations on the attached document. Mr. Snyder would like to have this information to present to Council on Monday, January 13. If there is no objection, I will give this to him. Thank you. Deri REFERENCE: 3800 Blocks of Union Court and Urban Street Site Plan Review Based on the attached site plan for the 3800 blocks of Union Court and Urban Street, I have the following concerns and recommendations, regarding a proposed easement between lots 3 and 4 on both streets being developed into a pedestrian walkway: Concerns: The building of traditional 6' wood privacy fences that often occurs in suburban neighborhoods along this walkway will create aclosed-in or canyon-like feeling on the pathway causing a higher sense of feaz. An increased fear of crime will cause the normal users to refrain from using the walkway, leaving the area free for abnormal users. Because the lot property lines do not match up between the two developments, a pathway is created that has blind areas. These areas offer cover and concealment to abnormal users from any natural visual observation from the residents or streets. The location of the pathway will lend itself to inadequate lighting. This will discourage use by the intended users, while giving abnormal users a sense of safety and security with less scrutiny by the residents of the area. ` A path that is located as the proposed one often becomes an eyesore due to accumulated trash- and vandalism. Residents tend to not associate "ownership" with or feel little attachment to azeas that are fenced off or otherwise distinguished as not their property. Recommendations: It is recommended that a pedestrian pathway not be built in the proposed easement. The path will not serve as a short-cut to anywhere or as an access to anything for the residents of the two streets due to the short length of the streets. The path connecting the streets will not serve the intended purpose of integrating the neighborhoods in this situation and street design: The path does have the potential of creating a "hang-out" place for persons who are not residents of the immediate area. Deri Patt Wheat Ridge Police Department 01-10-97 _~ AGENDA ITEM RECAP QUASI-JUDICIAL ~_ _ Yes No X PUBLIC HEARINGS _ CITY ADM. MATTERS PROC./CEREMONIES _ CITY ATTY. MATTERS BIDS/MOTIONS _ LIQUOR HEARINGS _ INFORMATION ONLY _ PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Case No.: WS-96-3/Schneider _ ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS ORDINANCES FOR IST READING ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING RESOLUTIONS SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a twelve (l2) lot subdivsion on Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zoned land at 12345 West 38dt Avenue. A recommendation of approval is given. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff Report 2) Bob Middaugh Memorandum 3) BUDGETED ^ ITEM Yes No Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount ~_ Requested Expend.~_ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: OPTION A: "I move that Case No., WS-96-3, a request for approval of a twelve (12) lot subdivision on property zoned Residential-One and Agriculyural-Two at 12345 West 38th Avenue be APPROVED for the following reasons: I. The applicant has revised his request to be consistent with previous City Council action. 2. All minimum requirements of the Residential-One and Agricultural-Two zoning have been met. 3.. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met " W ith the fallowing conditions: 1. Notes will be added clarifying the location and use of the access easement and sanitary sewer easements. 2. At a minimum, a pedestrian easement will be provided to the east. AGENDA ITEM RECAP _ QUASI-JUDICIAL -i- Yes No AGENDA ITEM ~, G i December i6. 1996 Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARINGS _CITY ADM. MATTERS _ ELEC._OFFICIALS MATTERS ORDINANCES FOR-1ST READING PROCJCEREhtONIES - _CITY ATTY. MATTERS LIQUOR HEARINGS - - _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ BIDS/MOTIONS -INFORMATION ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT ~-RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: A Resolution establishing street widt h for streets within Prospect Ridge Subdivision. SUMMARYIRECOMMENDATION: RE: UNION CT. -Staff recommends 34-foot flow-line width. RE: CONNECTOR ALLEY -Staff recommends 26-foot edge-to-edge width, with inverted crown, concrete construction. ATTACHMENTS: 'BUDGETED I 1) Resolution X513 ITEM Fund _ _ DepUAcct # Budgeted Amount ~_ Requested Expend.~_ _ Requires Transfer! Supp. Appropriation Yes No _ -- RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: ' "I move for adoption of Resolution No. ~5~3 RESOLUTION NO. 1573 Series of 1996 TITLE: FOR ALL PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN PROSPECT RIDGE SUBDIVI ONS WHEREAS, Wheat Ridge Charter Section 5.20, and Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 21-4 requires that City Council approve "street width designations" for proposed street construction; and, WHEREAS, Daniel and Sherri Schneider have received approval of Prospect Ridge Subdivision, which subdivision plat has dedicated Union Court and a connector alley; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary to designate street widths therefore prior to construction. NOW THERERORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counci! of the City of Wheat Ridgc>., Colorado, as follows: A. Union Court shall be designed and constructed with a 34-foot flow-line width is hereby approved, and,. B. Connector alley shall be designed and constructed with a 26-foot width is hereby approved. ,1996. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of ~_ DAN WILDE, MAYOR ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Public Hearing shall be held before the City of Wheat Ridge City Council on December 16, 1996, at 7:00 p.nt. at the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for the purpose of.considering a Street Width Designation for all public streets within a proposed subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue. The proposed Street Width Designation and specific plans for such street are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the office of the City Clerk, Wheat Ridge Municipal Building. e c ~n a r yu;Ath Designation: The City Council shall have the sole authority and responsibility to determine the width of all City streets within the boundazies of the City of Wheat Ridge. Suclt authority and responsibility cannot be delegated to any outer body or individual(s), the only exception being the election procedure specifically set forth in this Charter section. Street width shall be determined by the flowline of the street. Flowline is defined as the measurement from the inside edge of one curb to fire inside edge of the opposite curb. Where no curb is planned to be constructed, flowline shall be defined as the measurement from the outside edge of one side of the driving surface of the street, to the outside edge of the opposite side of Qte driving surface of the street. Within one {1) year prior to construction or reconstruction of a street, the City Council shall hold a public heazing to determine the flowline of such street. Fallowing the public heazing, the Council shall adopt such flowline as the street's official Street Width Designation. In the event of a protest against such proposed Street Width Designation signed by the owners of: (1) Twenty (20) percent of the property immediately adjacent or contiguous to either side of such street; or, (2) Ten (10) percent of the property lying within three hundred (300) feet of either side of such street, such proposed Street Widtlt Designation shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of tluee-fourths (3/4) of the entire City Council. Property does not need to be entirely contained wit}tin the tltrec hundred (300) foot area to be used in the computation of the ten (l0) percent necessary to file a protest. Only the portion of t(te property that actually lies within the three hundred (300) foot area is used to compute the ten (10) percent required to file a protest.. Where the City of Wheat Ridge owns property or has right-of--way within three hundred (300) feet of either side of the street, then such city-owned land or right-of--way shall be excluded from the computation of the required percentage of properties needed to file a protest to the proposed Street Widtlt Designation. Owners ofnon-city land shall be considered immediately adjacent or _ PUBLiC WORKS DEPARTMENT • ENGINEERING DIVISION 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 -- -- PROJECT f1LE ~_~ LOCATION FEATURE DESIGNED BY DATE ~~i I .. ----SECT __SFLT1Lt ~-. -.- - . 2b C.orJG. ,i ~} :~~~~~=- Notice of Public Hearing Section 5.20. Street Width Designation Page contiguous to the street, or within three hundred (300) feet of either side of such street, despite such intervening city-owned ]and or right-of--way. The written protest to such proposed Street Width Designation shall be submitted to the Ciiy Council no later than the conclusion of the public hearing on the proposed Street Width Designation. At least fifreen (1 S) days' notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published in the newspaper used by the City to publish legal notices, and notice of such public hearing shall be mailed by certified letter to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of both sides of such street. Said notice shall contain: (1) A description of the proposed Street Width Designation, and a statement that tfte specific plans for the proposed Street Width Designation are available for inspection at the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building; and, (2) An explanation of the right of the property owners to protest such proposed Street Width Designation, and how to exercise such right; and, (3) The full and complete text of this Charter section. All publication and notification requirements set forth in this Charter section shall be performed by the City Clerk. If at any time within forty five (45~ days after a favorable vote by City Council of such proposed Street Width Designation, a petition signed by at least five (5) percent of the registered electors of the City Council district(s) immediately adjacent or contiguous to such street be presented to the Council against the going into effect of such proposed Street Width Designation; the same shall thereupon be immediately suspended and the Council shall publish notice of and call an election upon the proposed Street Width Designation. Said election shall be held not less than thirty (30) days nor more than one hundred eighty (I 80) days after publication of the notice thereof. Only registered electors in the City Council district(s) immediately adjacent or contiguous to such street shall be eligible to vote on the proposed Street Width Designation. If a majority of the registered electors in the City Council district(s) immediately adjacent or contiguous to such street voting thereon vote for such proposed Street Width Designation, the proposed Street Widtlt Designation shall be deemed approved. Tor purposes of ballot tabulation, the total votes of all electors who cast ballots from one or more City Council district(s) shall be counted together. Notice of Public Hearing Section 5.20. Street Width Designation Page If any provision of this Charter section or the application in any particular case, is held invalid, the remainder of this Charter section and its application in all other cases shall remain unimpaired. Anything in the Charter or ordinances of the City of Wheat Ridge in conflict or. inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter section is hereby declared to be inapplicable to the matters and things covered and provided for by this Charter section. This Charter section shall take effect immediately upon passage. i ~~ ~t~ Maril Gunn', ecret Wanda Sang, City erk To be publ islied: November 29, 1996 Wheat Ridge Transcript 7500 West 29th Avenue The City`of' Wheat Ridge, Colorado , _ _. _ - hV heat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 Rldge February 27, 1997 OFFICIAL ADDRESS NOTIFICATION NOTIFICATION is hereby given that the following address has been assigned to the property/properties as indicated below: PROPERTY OWNER(S): Daniel Schneider OLD ADDRESS: 12345 West 38th Avenue NEW ADDRESS: 3802 3805 3818 3821 3834 3837 3850 3853 3866 3869 3882 3885 Union Court SUBDIVISION: Prospect Ridge LOT(~l 1-12 BLOCK LEGAL DESCRIPTION: AUTHORIZED BY: DISTRLBUTION: TE: 2/25/97 _ 1. Property Owner 2. Jefferson County Assessor, ATTN: Data Control, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, 80419 3. Jefferson County Mapping, ATTN: Addressing, 100 Jefferson County Pazkway, Golden, 80419 4. U.S. Post Office, 4210 Wadsworth Blvd., Wheat Ridge, 80033 . 5. Public Service Co., ATTN: Correspondence, 990 Bannock St., Denver, 80204 6. U.S. West Communications, 1801 California St., Room 2400, Denver, 80202 7. Water District: ta~soufl-,rev -tVtVAL ~z'foo w . z~+++ svE ~..sue~ov, cv bo2is _ 8. Sanitation District: +^+E`~-~D'°E X35 taPUa~ yr wu~ ~up~,E, co Soo33 9. Wheat Ridge Building Division 10. Wheat Ridge Planning Division 11. Log File 12. Other: NOTE: Please notify all other parties concerned. ADDRESS MAP UPDATED BY: Cc r~ HAND DELIVERED September 4, 1997 Mr. Greg Knudsen, P. E. Department of Public Works City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Subject: West 38th Avenue in front of Prospect Ridge Subdivision, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Mr. Knudsen: As per our discussion last month, I am writing you to go "on record" about the City of Wheat Ridge's decision to remove the bicycle lane in front of our development. Originally, as art of the subdivision process we were required to submit a plan to your department for approval. This plan indicated that a portion of the roadway between the existing pavement and the newly constructed sidewalk would remain natural vegetation (i. e., exposed soil). However, I repeatedly asked throughout the design and hearing process why I couldn't just duplicate the curb and gutter section that was installed at McLaughlin Subdivision which is located on the same section of West 38th Avenue approximately 600 feet east of our development. Instead, the section which was required by the City of Wheat Ridge is what was built. After the 8-foot sidewalk was installed, the area adjacent to the sidewalk was paved at the request of the Citv and paid for by the City of Wheat Ridge. However, it is my understanding that after 2 members of the City Council complained that 38th Avenue had been "illegally widened", the asphalt was removed. Not only did the Cit waste the taxpayers money with this exercise but they also removed the bicycle path which had previously been m place resultmg m an unacceptable and extremely dangerous traffic situation. Now, bicylers that approach this section, immediately veer from the existing designated bicycle path (that they have been using up to this section of West 38th Avenue), out into the mainstream traffic; or as an option they must control their bicycle as they negotiate mud and deep, hardened ruts and even possibly losing control immediately adjacent to a very busy section of roadway. This action of removing this pavement including the bicycle path by the City of Wheat Ridge has now created a traffic hazard for both vehicles and bicycles as evidenced by the numerous ruts in the newly created "mudhole". In addition, the RTD buses now stop in the lane of traffic to pick up and drop off riders rather than pulling out of the traffic lane. Moreover, bus riders now must walk through the mudhole created by the City of Wheat Ridge and that was never there before. This is particularly difficult for the elderly and/or handicapped riders. I am suprised that someone has not complained to the Americans With Disabilities organization who has been so instrumental in making access to public transportation easier rather than more difficult. Although this sounds bad enough, now the City of Wheat Ridge has decided to place metal poles on the traffic side of this "mudhole". These metal poles have been placed so that all vehicles travelling 30-40 miles along this stretch of West 38th Avenue drive within 24 inches of hitting them. According to the traffic count supplied by the Department of Public Works that I researched during our application process, over 6500 vehicles travel through this section every day! THIS CONDITION IS UNSAFE FOR PEDESTRIANS BICYCLE AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. The City of Wheat Ridge needs to be informed that THIS IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN!! Whether the accident involves a pedestrian, a bicycle rider, motor vehicle or the loss of control by a vehicle or bicycle when they go from pavement to mud or hit a metl pole should be a serious concern of the City of Wheat Ridge. I have asked the City staff and planners and to the best of their knowledge, this condition does not exist anyhere else within the city limits. Why has this condition been created and more importantly, why is this condition being allowed? There is an elementary school within 300 feet of this City-created problem with hundreds of school children, drivers, RTD buses and bus ridersall interacting on a daily basis. The solution to this problem is to repave the street and reestablish a SAFE. CONTINUOUS BICYCLE LANE as well as an area for RTD buses to pull out of the normal traffic flow lanes allowing easy access to bus riders. As the developer of the subdivision of which I was required to install the sidewalk along West 38th Avenue, I have always complied with the requirements set forth by the Planning Commission, City Council and all of the other City agencies for public safety issues and concerns. However, the creation of this unsafe obstacle and "mudhole" also is adversely affecting the marketability of my subdivision. 2 Many of the neighbors as well as those who have purchased lots within the subdivision are very upset that the asphalt has been removed and have asked me why the City of Wheat Ridge is doing this. I honestly have to tell them that I do not understand what the City is trying to accomplish by creating this unsafe becaa1use I do not know. COn4i}lon As you can see by the attached list of people copied on this letter, this is a very serious situation and one that can have very serious impacts if not corrected. Please be advised that this condition needs to remedied immediately before someone is hurt through the actions entirely responsible by the City of Wheat Ridge. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter. Thank you for your attention to this unsafe condition which has been entirely created by the City of Wheat Ridge. Sin ly, ,~ Daniel F. Schneider, P. E. cc: Mr. Bob Goebel, Public Works Mr. Robert Middaugh, City Manager Mayor Dan Wilde Mr. Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engr. Ms. Meredith Reckert, Planning Mr. John Eckert, Risk Management Ms. Betty Colazzi, Kullerstrand Elementary Mr. Ray DiLorenzo, Sr. Citizens Advisory Comm. Police Chief Jack Hurst Mr. Gerald Dahl, Esq. Mr. Albert E. Anderson, Esq. Ovation Homes, Mr. James Matera Womik, LLC, Mr. Mike Roberts Mr. Lee Kunz Mr. Larry Kellerman Mr. Wally Rice Mr. Jerry DiTullio Ms. Jean Fields Mr. Don Eafanti Ms. Janelle Shaver Mr. Ken Siler Mr. Tony Solano Ms. Claudia Worth Ms. Teri Dalbec Ms. Ann Brinkman Mr. Harry Williams Mr. Jay Rasplicka Mr. Carl Cerveny Ms. Nancy Snow Mr. Thomas Shockley Ms. Janice Thompson 3 ` The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE - _ _- -___ WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713 - ~ (303) 234-5900 ~+ ~/~! ~ ~] dT City Admin. Fax ?i 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax q 235-2949. 111i111dVge` August 25, 1998 9 "~"`"_ NOTICE: To all builders issued permits in Prospect Ridge Subdivision after iVIay 18,1993 To Whom It My Concern, This letter is to inform all builders applying for a building permit in the Prospect Ridge Subdivision that Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for permits issued after May 18,1998 until landscaping along 38~' Avenue adjacent to Prospect Ridge Subdivision has been completed. Please see the attached letter to Mr. Dan Schneider stating what is required to complete the subdivision requirements and enable the City to issue Certificates of Occupancy to permits issued after May 18, 1998. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me at 235-2853. Sincerely, ~~ Darin Morgan Codes Administrator cc address files ' Bob >ddaugh, City>Vlanager a~n White, Planning and Development Director ti/Planning Division Building Division Public Works Department i~ RECYCLED PAPER .. r 7500 WEST 297H AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713 -, (303) 234-5900 City Admin. Fax k 234-5924 May 18, 1998 Police Dept. Fax k 235-2949 Mr. Dan Schneider Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. 2562 Taft Court Lakewood, Colorado 80215 The City of ~Wh e at Ridge RE: PROSPECT RIDGE SUBDIVISION LAi~1DSCAPING Dear Mr. Schneider: In previous correspondence from the City, you have been requested to provide plans for and install the landscaping along 38th Avenue adjacent to the Prospect Ridge subdivision. This landscaping was a condition of the subdivision approval by City Council. As of this date the Engineering Division has not received any plans for these improvements and you are not in compliance with the conditions of your subdivision approval. This letter is to inform you that no additional building permits will be issued to you in this subdivision until the landscaping is completed. If I can answer any questions, please contact me. Sinc//~e~r,/el~y, (^ /~~ ~%2~'~+'~ `' U'l/rv- `cam Alan C. White, AICP Planning and Development Director cc: Bob Middaugh, City Manager Building Division Planning and Zoning Division ~~ RECYCIED.PAPER ~~. CASE NO: • r CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WZ-96-15 & WS-96-3 LOCATION: 12345 W. 38th Ave. APPLICANT(S) NAME: Daniel and Sherri Schneider OWNER(S) NAME: Same REQUEST: Approval of rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One; variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. APPROXIMATE AREA: 5.683 acres 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, the following motions were made as stated regarding Cases Nos. WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3, an application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One; variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; and, seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Item A (Zoning,) Commissioner WILLIAMS motioned, Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded, that Case No. WZ-96-1.5, a request to rezone property at 12345 West 38th Avenue from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The R-IA zoning is consistent with the low density residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan; and, 2. The R- lA zoning is compatible with zoning and land use in the area; and, 3. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request. Motion carried 6-2 with Commissioners THOMPSON AND GRIFFITH voting against. Item B (V lance) Commissioner ECKHARDT motioned, Commissioner THOMPSON seconded, that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property at 12345 West 38th Avenue be denied for the following reasons: 1. There is no physical hardship; and, 2. It does not promote good design; and, 3. There are no unique circumstances; and, 4. There may be detriment to safety and to the adjacent greenbelt. Motion failed 4-4 with Commissioners LANGDON, ECKHARDT, GRIFFITH, and RASPLICKA voting no. (A majority approval was needed to pass the variance, therefore the variance was denied.) Item C (l7-lot major subdivision) __ Commissioner ECKHARDT motioned, Commissioner THOMPSON seconded, that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue, be approved for the following reasons: It is consistent with the R-lA zoning; With the following conditions: 1. That the subdivision include vehicular access to the east and pedestrian access to the west; 2. Access locations points to be determined by Staff after meeting with appropriate parties; 3. Access provided to Tract A within the drainage easement from the cul-de-sac to the east end of the subdivision. Motion passed 8-0. Item D (flowline) _ Commissioner CERVENY motioned, Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded, that the connector street width recommendation for the link to the east, be thirty (30) feet right-of--way andtwenty-four (24) feet flowline to flowline. Motion passed 8-0. I, Marilyn Gunn, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a vote of the members present at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the day of , 1996. George Langdon, Chairperson Marilyn Gunn, Secretary WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE N0: VJ~.-~(o-~J~(~j-- ~~...~ DATE: ~ ~ Position On Request; ' ~ (Please Check) ~ SPEAKER'S NAME ~ ADDRESS (PLEASE PRINT) i IN FAVOR ~ OPPOSED i ,~y~ ~ i i ' i , ~ ~ , ' ' ' , --- .. , -- , ' ' , -- W H E A T 7500 \V EST 29TH AVENUE F C s M L E ,., ,_ \- IRr~tf~am:~,:,.___._ -...W.-...,.",,,,,- > NU '"/.ONING - PARKS ANU RE('REATION PUBLIC \\'(1RRS ---~----------- (;0;123??X77 ( } _• R I D G E WHEAT R2DGE,. COLORADO ~R02I5 l # (303) 235-2857 To: rr ~ - From\\~- - .., - - No. of Pages prof inclu mg cover sheet) Comments: tp ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ C~ CTS W W C3 ~ Q ~ 4 ~ TL~~c\I I- d C~ ~~Or~ ~ ,~r~Q W ~ W C3C.~~X ~ ~0~~ W L~ Q ~ ' ~ / 9~ • , f. ~ l / ~ ! w ~ . • . f 9 i ,_.9 M ~ '~I •i'~1 s / ' •i• i ~ ' ~ f r 1 ~ _ ~ w : U'Y ~'il• ~r~,c: ~ ~ ~ ~ • _ M ~ t. ~ II• f ~\t` .±t~ t { ~ ~ __r""~ ~ ~ '.f. c ~ 1't~ ~ T.~ ~ , i ~ •I,, ' , ~ ~ ,.tF~iR f 'J" ..r ( 7, I X11 ~I i~ M I~ r' ~t 1~~, 1{ tip 'It' ~{Y'' ~ 1 ,'~t r ~ ~ i i 1 {1f I{ rl j~. r i ~ IE ~ ~ ~ it ' i ~ SCALE' ~ ' ~ ~ ~r t r`'~ 9~FirAli~illl(~ ~ { } I r~ - 1000' , I r' A; i u, 1 . , , ~ ~ I li ~ .,t.~l ~ ~ 1 t 'T ~ ~ ~r , r ~ , 3 ~ , - I ~ ~ _ 1 ■i~~' W. - ~ ,i~ I' I ~ ~ I i ~~r~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f t., t.. ~ i I ~ ti< ~ R ~ ~ ~ 70 1 SITE VICINITY MAP ~R ~~-'1 i i INFORMATION ON THE fOILOWiNG DRAWiNG$, PERTAINING TO THE L@CATION OF UNDERQROUND UTILITIES, REPRE8EN1$ ONLY THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER A8 TO "HE LOGATIOH OF 8UGH U7ILITIEB AND IS INCLUDED ONLY FOR THE PO88181E CONYEN1ENGf OF BEDDERB. NO REBPON$IBiLITY 18 ASSUMED BY THE ENGINEER OR BY THE OWNER FOR THE 8UFFICfENCY OR ACCURACY OF EXI8TIN9 UNDERGROUND UTILITY I LOCATION INFORMATlO1 SHOWN ON THE PLANS. IT 8HALL BE THE RE8►ONSIBiLiTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY, TO LOCATE, TO CAREFULLY EXCAVATE, AHD TO PROTECT ALL EXiSTfNG UNDERGROUN? UTILITIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY ANY CON8TRUCTION ACTIVITY. J ' ~b7^ ~.^;<N$~~`iQ ~8Y5 hJOIi^c G123SP _ J ~ r in ► ► Nn i nth I1Vt1E l I 114v I PLEASE DIG VERY CAREFULL" 1E" BENCHMARK: ON EACH SIDE OF PAINT LINE OR SI.KES NOTE Two workmo days before you DIG. GRADE, Pfir!.IMINARY PR!NIT S211wl TOP OF BRASS CAP IN CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE o' :-XGAVAT;. cal! the Urilily Notification DATE a 3f jq& RANGE POINT BOX AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER SUSJSCT TO CF-ANGIr OF SECTION 20. ELEVATION IS 6458.86° COLOR CODES Center oiColoradc, 1.800 .972 1981 for E..... rELL~„ 534.6700 ir. Metra Denver;, for the NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NO. r MIn~. V. mar Ylnq of member unaeroround utilities. .."iFv t: l4"urT: C.^.ELd4Rr: Y„)f?Y 1 i• Z R ~ ~.1.~ ~ ~ ~ d' t0 L~ ~ ,N C? 0~ ~ WQ~~ ~n U7 ~ 0 © M r~ Ur Zp~N 1 ~ Q CY_ ~OU►~® 3 U M ~ ~ ,W ~~Z~ rn ~~r,®Q . I r x ~ STA. 037_,63 Z ;BEGIN WALK i m ~ r f . Z~ UN i 4N CO T (n o - N w ~ cn ~0 0 0 o a o a e ~1 rn o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ w r~ " STA._0±56,38 ~ S BEGIN WALK SEE INTERSECTIONS BETA I L , SHEET 3 G G' I . r r, i BENCH#tARK tOP OF BRA88 CAP IN CITY OF WHEAT RIOOE RANQE POINT BOX AT THE 8OUTHEABT CORNER OF SECTION 20. ELEVATION 18 5169.8i' .t y, v F- _ is . . ~ i h_ ~ _ _ f- _ I _ i f r _ 1 1+ 1 r i ■ t _ I , r ! } _ _ , _ _ . ~ _ f _ r . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ j . _ . _ , . t _ r , { _ _ f . ~ . ~ _ , . _ _ I _ tt f ~ _ ~ ~ 'I ....-.1.._._._ _ ~ _ _ , - --r--_.___ - ~ .L~___..__.---~r_..._.- T- T ~ I ~ _ _ - i ~ I ~ { _ . _ . r _ _ _ _ . _ ~ SCALE l ~ f _ _ i_. a . _ . I _ _ _ . _ I I ~ r ~ I - 50 HORlZ f ~ r_ ~ ~ 1 ~ i" 10' VERT . ~ ~ . ~ G _ _ _ _ _ . 4-. . i F.. _.ti_._.--~ _ ____.T.TT. G , _ _ , i . _ i _ _ _ _ _ j . _ _ . ~ I _ C . . ~ I ~ F _ ? ~ , ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ I _ _ _ ~ ( _ _ _ F # _ _ Tr ~t _ , _ . ~ _ ~ _ _ . _ t I ~ , ~ i I E ~ j . . . i_. 1. _ i , ~ . . , ~ ~ i t _ , . . ~ t. ( ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ t~------F - _ --t------a--} ! ~ I ~ _ 5 _i_ ~ _ _ f _ ih . f~ a _ ~ _ _ 1._. ~ _ l.. ` ~ ~a r . . r. j ~ , . _ 1 . , _ . _ _ r_ _ _ _ T _ _ _ _ ~ - - a . I_... _ . { t _ I _ _ _ _ _ { _ F_ ~ _ _ _ . i . _ . _ { _ . { _ _ ~ _ I ~ ~ _i_.. ~ _ . ~ I _ _ , } _ 1 ~ . t ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ i_ ~ ~ J { f_ _ I . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . _ . ~ _ , f , . ~ _ . ~ _ ; _ ~ _ EX SI l NG. CEN ERl* 1:~E _ _ . t { _ . _ _ I r , _ _ _ , _ . . _ i _ ~ _ _ _ . G _ _ _ . _ _ - _ - ~ I 1_._ a _ _ I ~ G_ _ i - ~ . _ . ~ I .I_. _ _ . . , , _ _ ~ f . _ _ ~ ! _ _ _ _ i _ C.._.. . _ is _ _ _ __._t_~_.___ y--- _ I . _ t ~ } 1 } ~ _ : _ , . . l _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . , , . - , _ _ _ . _ ~ _ . I _ , ~ ~ _ _ _ . _ _ . { t _ _ , a ' . ~ ~ : _ _ . ~ Pr~POSED ~C~ld~~Rl~!•t~ _ _ . _ ~ ~ t ~ i . _ . _ _ . . _ ~ _ I ~ ; f I I_ _ _ , . _ _ . -~-----~---rt- i , . f ~ - - I _ . . I _ , . ~ ~ _ _ 1 f I : C 1 , I • ~ I C~ 0~ SIGH'' Or WAY 5 W ~ 5`-O , jj co I ~ ~ Z cal a fJ1 ~X~S'INv ! ~ SAWCJr ~X,STING A.C. ~ W w a STR~Wr pA.V~MEN i 12" MIN. ~ ~ ~ V~a~ i lCA~ C ~ G ~ > ao i ~ ~ 4 r7 ~ 5~C?'~ON E PRIOR TO PLACcMEN i 0~ W/MONOl~ITHiC WAl,K7 ~ ~ t+~ r~~ ~ ~ ~ / r,,~ cv ~ PvcW ~'A VM~ti` 5 :C i IOr\ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Q cv .J, r ~ at'7 r - ' 2 H GR. ~X ~ ~ ~ Shy, r ~ ~ a j ',_i i i :c ~ r z ,W - 11~ ~ _ ~ Oa=~ ~~"H.S.~.GR.~ j \ Z o~o~ C ~ 5" MIN, COMPAC?~~ ~ w 5U6GRAGE ~ ~ Q ~ ~ aOND SR~AK~R HIRE WHEN 5U6GRAD~ COMRAC"'~~ "O A6U1'TENG ~X15TING CONC. Q IOO°o Oi MAXIMUM ~~NSi~`Y SAWCUT ~XiSTING WHEN REQ' N ACCORJANC~ WI i H AA5H1"O i -99 LOCAL ST~~~1' ~~o MAX. TYpICAI. SECTION ~ ~~a CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, C01.ORADO ! M~'v~s~~ivs ~~p,a~Nt~i ~u~~Ic wo~Ks ENGi~v~ ~KiNG ~IVIsICN ~,,~c ~ ~ ~c~.uVJ~„ r cn D r /'r l ~ m R.O.W. LINE _ 0 v, ~1,~ ti SAW CUT ~ ~ 1 Q . W . ~ . 1 Z fl V' p b O O to O N o o a NmQ dNOC ,30 M p W 1 ~ ~ . - zZU W w aJ W -o v~ r i q~ i Z~4 N ~ •2 S i m vF= Q~ G W d } ~y i Q ~ 0 CENTERLINE ac W. 38TH AVE. ~ ~ a 1 ~ EDGE OF I bDn ic~r^~ ain I ASPHALT ZZ I IN v%JL 1 11v . PRELIMINARY PRINT DATE 1 31 S211=1 I NTERSECT I 0--~~ DETA I L SUBJECT CHANGE NOT FOR CONSTRUC inns c uC C r Kin _ ,~,~Mr~. ,e.~ CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC CHORD CHORD BEARING " i 7G° 58 `37° I5.00` 20 i 5' 18.67' N 38° 12' !9"E ~ 2 E03 2., X5,00 _6,97 23.48 N 5i 47 41 W C ~ 7(~°?i 15,00 '8.4G' €7.32' N 34°58'S2`W C ~ 250°3I'44° 45,00 !96.76' ' ~ ' ~ ~ , ^a i ~(i ar i ~ ~ CI T'/ OF ~!H~AT R f DGE. JE~F~RSO~, . I~~ ~ ~ ` i 4 L.~:_. BEARING DISTANCE + ~ b /1 + ' - i N ~9 i 6"E 4~ . 40 ~ I ~ L 2 h,i 76° 57 16 E 64.98 I ~ ~ MAYOR S CERT I F I CAT ! OP~~ p r~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ a PHIS IS TO CErtT.FY THAT THE L 4 5~s°48`24°E 30.?i E! ~ ~Lt~,' V `I MOT # ON OF i TS C t T , COUNC ~ ~ L ~ N I O° 46 " 29 °'~f 33.04 ~ ~ i 99~., ADOPT AND APPROVE TFi t ~n E ,q ~ 6 .d .4 02 ` c 1 " W t~ w , L7 N 83`43 00"E 20.=JD 4~ .c.~~ ~ ATTEST: i ~ T ~ ~ tf~ 49.223 SOFT. ~ _ C~ E3 C i TY CLERIC ri ~ ~ i " f APPRO"dALS v. ~ I. I', PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ~ ~ I OF COLORADO ~ ~ ~ 74.63 ~ 'X s ` CONCRETE . °ILL.AR I i DETENTION ~ A~I ZONENG CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ ~ ~ ' PARKS AND RECREATION COMMfSS ~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE JT: _iTY ~ ROND ~ Q I~' ' DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND EA`>Ehi~r l~~T SEE ~ " ~ R-i BONING COMMISSION ~ e~, EASEMENT' i' ~ - ~ SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE: ~r ~O,~t~D _ ~ I ~ - ~ T 1. SEVEN D. (~iS ER, DO h~RE~ it LOT 5 BOUNDARY OF TNT PROS"'ECT R I Dt - ~ 43.563 SOFT. cij ~ a ~ ~ SUPERVISION. RESPONSiBIL1TY ~ I ~ ~ 6 ~ a E t~ y' 00" TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. r' 10 ACCORDANCE WITH A~.L APPLiCABI ~ ~ i R-1 ZONkNG - ~ a EDITION. AS AMENDED. i z ~ j ~ r, r r ~ ~ ~ c~ r 5 ' 35.39 ~ ~ tc~(~ - ~ ~ 11j~r'o~ E ~ , 1; _N 89° 43 ~~0 E._.__.,._.~~ 1 ~ LOT 8 ~ 3 4 T 115.2 8 ~ a___._ ~ w ~ i 50 S O . F . , ~ ;Y ~ ~ m 5~ U~ 1~ t Y ~n c' I EASES NT ~ ~ SEE ~ iE 7 _ _ ~ _ _ _ . Q . ~ _ I N, 89 43 00 ~ NOT i CE T I ; ~ ~ ___3 ~ ~Q 5 _ ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW . Yti _ T._. C ~ . 7 6.49 ~ , ~ ~ BASED UPON AN4 DEFECT !N THIS ~ '1j~~ ~ F'iRSTDIS (1~JFR 5' " 1 C, ,tJCN DErEk.., l~- ~ UPCrN .ANY DEFECT I N T~ ~ , Ssl=7i'~ - „ , I<( C1 v e v E - J _ . - $ ~ i l 3 - , ~ ~ LOT ~ ~ ~ ~ . ; s F~_ NOTES:: u1 L. YY L. 4, i n . ti V ~y f L ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 k I n o I255b SO. ~T. ~ ~I~~ ~ 518 ~NCHD~AMET:R ',E..AR _ ~ , , ~ ~ i 6837 SET AT POINT S!-.>,~`~ T€-ii. t: > \ ~ ~ 11LL 9 4 t~ av N 89 43' QO' E: 2. S/8 (NCH DIAMETER BRAG; , ~ I ~ ~ c~ 1 16.00 ' SHOWN THUS ~ G~ ~t`~ v; j 5 ' j ~,r r ~ ~ 13. THE S SURVEY DG~WS N01 C~t~~ 10 ~~~Jt . ~ SrR„~N ~ ccz _,t~__S 89 '~7~2~" - EP~GIVEERING 5ERVIG'=~ Ii''!`. ~~T b r5J _r . VV _ ~ , ~ _ ~ ~ THE OYdNERS FQR EA4~ =PvTS AND ~ _ i✓.UJ ~IC~ ~ ~ LOT I O ~I X2,528 ;30,FT. 4 THE BASIS FOR BEAR>Na5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PLAT ! S BASED ON THE ASSUMF'T I - ~ SE CORNER SECT l ON 20 ~ ' LOT 3 ~ NORTHEAST I /4 OF T I ~T~ ~ ~ I i NE CORNER SECT I 29 SEC 0~ ~9 G I2.530 SO.FT..~ ~ 5' ~ i 3 I/4 BRASS CAP IN WHEAT RIDGE BEAR3NGS ROFA~E _ ~ - I.__ ~ RANGE. POINT BOX LS 13212 O°I4'18 SUBTRACTING FROM SC ~ _ _ N 89°3'00 E F~I ADDING TO NORTH4~ ST A~ T~- i E ND SOU,. ASIS FOR ^A S 89 30 42`W 5. THE STORMWATER DETENTIO~~ ~ ~ B BED.. R i NGS _ _ _ ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _r., ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ CONSTRUCTED AND MA f N A' , i ~ 13 19.24 T ~ NEB B'~+ i~'4 C~ORNi~' ~C~IO°. 20 ~--5 89°47"25`E--__ - ASSIGNS. IN THE EVENT TFIAT Sp - , ; i-. I ~ ~I + ~ NOT PREFORMED BY SAID OWNER , . ~ ..4 ~ORNFx ~~~4E - r~-- 1,6, 17~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °.RA ~ P ~ ~ i , ~ ~ ~ THE RIGHT TO ENTER SUCH AREA ~ S „ w ~ ~ . l ~ LUT ! I ~ ~r ~ ~ - ~~NT BtvX LS 3~2,:' 12.528 SG.FT, ro COST OF WHICH. SAID OWNER. HE TO PAY UPON BILLfNG. NO BUILD E L t7 T 2 ~ 1 r ~ ~ ; 1- I N THE DETE~hdT r ON/RE ~ ENT i O~~ AR f2.56~ ;,(~.FT. ~ ~ ~ ! AFFECTING THE HYDRAULI c.~ r5' ' I ~ C CHARA I< ~ DETENTIONfRETENTION AREA 'WILL ~ ~-N $9°43'00°E-!-~ ~ OT'`f ENGINE~:R. 0 y - ~ _-1 16.00 ' ~ n, ~ E ~ r ~~5. E 6. IQ~ UTILITY ~ASEMENT,~ AR r jd - r. ADJACENT` TO THE FRONT AND REA 5 ~ ~ 84~ Ic5' 7'E--' to ~ DIVISION OR PLANED AREA. THE " ' ~ ~ INSTALLATION. AUNT --16.99 ~ ~ LOT i2 ~ o M ~ ENANCE., AN i ii TELEVISION CABLE, AND TELECOM _ ' ~ 26 SO.FT.' ~ SHALL ALSO BE PERMITTED Vd" ?HI , T _ - v I`I e rn _ L:ASEMENT ~ 2~'~ 25. - ~ SUBDIVISION. PERMANENT ~TRUCT ~m ~ a ~ iO' UTELITY ( o- <`!F~I~,A~} ~ 1 ~ ~ PERMITTED WE ~F!1N SAID EAS~M~.P c> ~ ~ EASEMENT : V I r r n I I 7. r.X1STING ASEMNTS 12 ,564 S~~,FT. ( ! E E ~,~~,iC i,-t r ~ "--T~'0. MINOR Sll13DPVISIO~i ARE HER~E?Y ri ✓ i € 1, I tl ~ i ; ~ , ~ _ p,2 8. A i0' WIDE PEDESTRIAN EA AND 7NE NORTH 5' ~OF LOT S A_~.., ~ i ' 37 ~ ~ BE MAINTAINED BY ~ FIE ~,t ~ ~'~E `~~~U~" 2 ~ - , _ E ~ ~ ~ h p, , ~'~~~.~lR ~ ''S~ ~ ~ ti + `~E.~~ r_ _ 4 E _ I m.m.~.________.._ - ~ ~ 1, i I `ry ~_I~' i BONING R~IA i _ ~ f Y ~ ~ ` w , K 704 CERTIFICATION: T J PT . ,.r IT C __.w.. 2, y PREPARED BY: LANE LN6i NEERINC SERVICE, INC. RECORM, 0540 WEST 14TH AV'ENL~:- . LAKEWOOD. CO 80215 :d 0, TEL: (303) 233-4042 FAX: (303) 233-01 Oa a z i P 5 ? ~f 1~ CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADI!JS ARC CNORD CHORE BEARING C: ! 76°`s8'37° 15.p0' 20. i5' 18.b7' N &°12'19.E C 2 !03°pl'23" 15.00' 25,97' 23.4$' N 5(°47'41"W 5`'°pl'12" 15.00' 13.52' 13. i5' N 2b°17'35'W 3 C 4 52°{)I ' 12" 15.pc?` 13.52' 13, 15' N 25°43'35"E f~/~° I 5p . Op ~9 . p8 71 .09 N p6° 25 47 " E 5 90 ~ .r I`~7°14'12" Sp,Op' I37.35' 98.05° N 26°23'53"E c 6 ~ ~1 - ~ . / ~ ,I C { T~WNSN I ~ ~ ~~TN , R~,NGE 6 W~;'~T Q~ l ~ ~ I ~ T~r ~r- w~+EAT RIDGE . JEFFEUSOr~ c A-2 zpNIN~'a L i NE BEARING D I ;;TANCE ~ ~ TRACT A l.. I N 5!4° 36 ' 15" E 42.40 ' ~ ~ SEE: NOTES ~ MAYpR " S CERT i F I CAT i pN ,i 1. 2 N 7k~° 51 ' 15' E {}4.9$ " 4,, 4 AND 6 i L 3 N $ 125 I C 2 , C2 ~ ~ ~ TF I S 1 S Tp CER E ° ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,S'. \ M~iT { ON pF ITS CITY COUNC I L - C, r, 1 199.. ADAPT AND APPROVE TH L S N lk:}°4I~'29~W 33.04' Q~ ~ p i ~ ( x s 5 N 44°02' (I "W 15.13' ~ ~ k9 'V ATTEST: e ~ C, ~ CITY CLERK L3 t,~` ; ~ LOT $ a i ' i ~ IT.fi84 SO. FT. / ' ~.2 ~ ~ APPRpVALS ; / ~ ,,o ~ ~ ,i-- < ti,~' ~ _ r~ i Zt.)Pl l NC ° ~ ° J ~ PUBLIC SERVICE CpMPANY s~~ ~ f, ' ~1 q~,^~ , 1 OF CpLORADp 6' . C? C,'~ ~ f 1 X I CpNCRETl~~ ~ C~ CITY OF WHEAT R I DCaE ~ , ,r ~ ~ ~ I e~ , P ? LLAR ~ ~ ,Z ~ 0 A N CRE:AT I ON COMM I S ~;g_2 PRKSADRE ~ L O "T 7 4 _ A- I ~_pld 1 N~, _w _ r~ ~ ~ CITY pF WHEAT R I DC~E - C~ OJT I l_ I TY ~ 1 RECTOR OF PLANNING AND D EA:;E~'ENT SEE ~ ' ' ~ i ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ - CpMM i SS I pN ~ NOTI~ $ ; cv ~ DEVELOPMENT ~I- 5 " C ~~m i 1 n ° !RV CR~fIFICATE: ~f-_. 96.33 , ~ I ~ SI. EYflR E r t ;I. ~N $9°43'G~ E~ i ~r T. H-R I STEVEN D, L S E.R. DO C ~ 9.9{~'~ LC T 9r ,I- 5 " ~ ~ , ~ ! 9 , p08 ,70 . F I~j. ~ BOUNDARY pF THE PRpSPECT R I G~? ~ I SIPERVISipN, RESPONS161LITY ( 1 ,I ,I.; ca Tf THE BAST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICA G_~ LC)T F _ , ,M1 EDITION. AS AMENDED. 4 ~ - N $9 ° 43 ` pp " E c~ ~r o _ C ~ ~ ca ' - 116 . p~:.~-i ~ s ra J I h. i 5 ~ ° ! ' ~ i ~ t .LOT 1 O iJTII,iT'r' ! / I2.528 SOFT, I _ ~ EAS~;FiENT ' SEE NpTE , ~ ~ c~ l.pT N`89° 43 ` 00 E ~ ACCORDING TO COLORADp E~AW, _ 112 . SC'}O SO . FT . ~ 116 . p0 1 BASED UPON ANY DEFECT !N ~IH l ~ 'k FIRST DiSCO'~E~R Si.!':H IE~ECT. r~ R; L1~ON . NY DE, ESC f S a J I f 7 , F ' , ~ @ ~ r m_ ~ r1':G~~ THE DATE C7F ~I~NE i"~R , 1 F _ E 4N , r ~ ~ ~ C, LOT I 1 ~ c~. 41' F ~ ~ - ~ ~ 12.51$ Sp.FT,, _ ~ - _...a..~ _ ~t LOT ~ ~ - I , 5/$ I N{,H L)I AMETEK R~1~A ~ t7 r '$c uABLE 1 50 ~ 12.72$ FT.~ ~w ~ ~ #5$37' SET AT POINT SHOWN T 5 r`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5I8 INCH DIAMETER BRA ° c~~ -N $943 p0E.~ 2 , , ~ SHAWN THUS : 0 e~ ~ t- ~ j I 1 ~a . 00 ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~'r ~ u_ ~ -5 3. THIS SURVEY C}pE5 NOT C ENGfNEERING SERVICE INC. BL 1O' WfDE PEDESTRIAN ~.~~_--1i5,~~6°-----.~..:.. C~ ~ R-1 Z(~NiNG - , . _ ~ 1 THE pWNERS 1=pR EASEMENTS AN f~Y F.ASCeMENT SEE NOT( 9 ~-N 89 4.,~ 00 E c~ ~ ~ ,~_5. LpT 12 ~ ~ a~ 12,52$ SO.FT,;~ 4. TRACT A IS FOR STORM ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OF PRpSPECT RIDC7E MINOR SUB 1 _ ~ SE CORNER SECTION 20 _ € ~ I , MAiNTAIN~D 8Y THE HOMEOWNER LOT .3 ~ i NE CORNER SECTION 29 ~ ~ ,r ~ `5~ 3 !/4" BRASS CAP IN I~.518 Sp.FT. ~ _ _ ~ ~ _ RANGE POINT #30~ LS 132 I ? 5 . THE BASES f pR BEARINGS c7 , - s~ `::_w T E.~N 89° 43' pp"; -~-.3 PLAT I S BASED ~N THE ASSUMP i ~ NORTHEAST Il4 OF SECTIpN 29 I16.p0 HAT ! ARINGS ROTATE ~ ~ ~ , S 89°36'42'W ~ W E R DaE BE 5 _ r _ ,~i BASIS FpR (SEAR ! NC~S p 14' ~I , SUBTRACT'I NG F`ROM _ _ _ _ a~.._ _ .__m _ ___4 E 6. 15'_~-_-- ` ~ ADDING TO NpRTNW'EST AND 5171. n '~OU~F1 II4 CORNER SE;:,TI{7N LO ~-.';~N 9°43'Op•E~. ! t~ . i NORTFI ~~4 CORNER SECTIUN 29 ( $ ' ~v ~ 6. THE STpRMWATER DETENTI 1 " 1 ~ , ~ ~ ~ LOT 13 ~ ~ 4 .3 I~4 BRASS CAP N RACE I -5 ~ ~ , ~ CGNSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED 1'OI~JT BOA LS 13212 12.528 SQ.FT, _ ASSIGNS. IN THE EVENT THAT NAT PREFpRMED BY SAID pWNER r~ ~QT 2 ~ l _ NT UCH AR 12.56p 50. FT. THE RIGHT TOE ER S E . 5 c a COST OF WHICH . ,.AID OWNER . ~ .N [(y) "43~'Op•E-_-' ~ Tp PAY 1JPON BELLING. Np BUI - ~~.w I 15.00' 1 N THE DETEN ~ I ONIRETENT (ON y ~ i! o AFFECTING THE HYDRAULIC CH>~ 5 ~ ~ 5' j DETENTIONIRETENTION AREA WI ~.~-I l5.~#~~;_._ ~ `I ~ CITY ENGkVEER. a ° ~ ~ N 89 43'pp"E ~ ~ LOT I4 ° ~ l - , c~ 7 , $ ° UT I I TY EASEMENTS ~ R- 174NING ~a-.-5` UT1LiTY ? 12,611 Sp,FT,,+~ A JACENT Tp THE FRONT AND F -ASEI~ENT I '~I ~ G 1 C ~ ~ ~ DIVISION flR PLATTED AREA. 1 ! I TYP I {;AL 3 _25 2,, ~I !i ' ~ j IO' UT€L1TY ~I INSTALLATION, MAIPTENANCE. LOT I G EASEMENT ,J ~ ~ TELEVISIpN CABLE, AND TELEC a SHALL ALSO BE PERMITTED WI1 E ~ ~ f~ S11BD I V I S I ON . PERMANENT STR1 , , ~ _ ip' liTILITY ~ PERMITTED WITHIN SAID EASEh - ~ EASEMENT - - 2~ ~ - $ . EXISTING EASEMENTS DEC ;33"'~ MINOR SUBDIViSIpN ARE HEREC 7 ~~,9A 76° 4 t t p S _ ~ - Nt1~- - A~~ 9 . A {O W1 DE PEDESTRIAN E 2 ' X 2 CO#4:~RE 1 E. °t 3~~ AND THE NpR CH ~ pF LOT 3 I PILLAR " ~ W~' ~ i1~~- BE MAi NTAi NED BY THE HOMEO~ t i. ~ ~ ~ ~ o U - i I C? ,,t _ I _ 1 pNING R-IA 7C},d . Nt~ R-1 A ~ 2 «i;~` ~ R-~ ~ ~ r, ti`:~~~'`~' ;~r':~ ~ i THIS DOCUMENT ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AT GOLDEN, COLORADO, ON MINOR THE DAY OF 199, AT -,--,-O'CLOCK By: JEFFERSON COl1NTY CL ERK DEPUTY CLERK 9ULLEAlTP AND sue. 1 i 1 ~j AND RECORDER REVISED DECEMBER 5. 1996 1 PRE~'AR(_D PY = LANE ENGINEER ~ NG SERVICE. INC. _ L , 1 1 55 I lJ REVISED NOVEMBER 1 1 . 1996 9544 WE ST € 4TH AVENUE. LAKEWOOD. CO 80215 s PREPARED OCTOBER IS. 1996 MS-96-5 w-96-!5 MS 9 2 PROJECT Q Ii-l-1 I' 500` TEL: (303) 233-4042 FAX: (303) 233-0796 - CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC TANGENT CHORD CHORD BEARING C 1 76°58'37' 15.00' I i ° 20. 5 ~ 93 18.67 N 38 12 i9`E C 2 103°01'23` 15.00' 26.97' 18.87' ° 23.48 S 51 47 41'E ~ i C, C 3 '~2 01 12" 15.00' I ° 3 62 7.32 i3. 16 N 26 17 36°W ~ C 4 52°01`12" 15.00' 13.62' 7 ° 32 13.16 N 25 43 36'E C~ C 5 284° 02' 25' SQ O0' 47 , € ~ ~ ~ ~~WNSH{P 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST pp ~ CITY fJF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFER`, .4, 11 ~ TI IT ,±k , 8 U L Y ~ EASEMENTS- I= _ ITYPICAL). LINE BEARING DISTANCE / L I N 59°36'16`E 42.40' ~ TRACT A L 2 N 76° 57' 16"E q SEE NOTES 6 .98 ~ 1 4 MAYOR S CERTIFICATION: L 3 N 81°26' 12`E ~0 ~ V AND 5 ~ - - 2.02 ~ ~ ~ 16,416 SQ.FT'.~' rq S ~ s THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT TH L 4 N 53°48'24"E 30.21' ~ i q MOTION (?F IT T ~ S C I Y C~UN(, I L L 5 N I p° 46 ' 29 ' W 3 3.04 ' Q~ ~ ~ I P c~ 1 99~, ADO T AND APPROVE T ° p S 0 L 6 N 44 02'!I"W I5.13' ~ ~ Q r ~ ATTEST: G ~ S. r~, G~ LOT 9 ~ F ~ A ~ a - _ ~ 18,838 SOFT. ~ ~ ~a~~ ~ CITY CLERK t_-~s L 2 ~ 1~ ~.-Lf~~,30'U~TILfTY,DRAINAGE ~'~'`~'AND ACCESS EASEMENT~~~ APPROVALS: / ~ ~ ~I -1 / o,~y . tY ° / ~ ~ ' 1 f s. c,+l ` p~ 1 PUBLIC SERF I CE COMPANY i J / °p I; o ~ ~ 1 ~ OF COLORADO Y I ' X 1 ' CONCRETE ( LOT $ 5 ~ ! PILLAR ~ ~~~s~` S. ~ - - 13 , 80 F ~'S5 . 5 ~S, LOT I 0 ~ C i TY OF WHEAT RIDGE O S0. T ~ - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMI 0~ U . ~ ro,03, Sa.FTI 1, N _ , _ 8'UTI ITY UTILITY % c~ L r ~ I CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE EASEMENT 1 EASEMENT SEE o''' "i ~ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND I (TYP i A' ~ NOTE 8 S~ 89-43-' OO=W! C COMM I S S l ON I ~ --91 .01 DEVEI.OFMENT 5 0 ~ ( o ° ~ ~ (--5'UTILITY' ~ N-89r.v42_.57.~E, A _ E SEMENT A2 ZONING -IOO,28~--__._ (TYPICALI. 2.73 ° ~ -S' 3 ~ ~{4 LOT I I ' o , y(~__ i O LOT 7 ~ I rn a 5URVEYOR'S T FI~ o v ~ 0, 823 S0. FT ~ CER I c,ATE i o ,oo r. ' i i .296 SOFT , I ~ ~ 5 " j - i , STEUEN G . LISTER . DO HEI _ o iO ° Q BOUNDAR`f OF THE PROSPECT R _ 3 N 89 43' 00 E- o SUPEIRV I S l OPi , RESPONS I B I L I T' _ i ~ ----f 16.t)0'_~~~~ TO THE BE5T OF MY KNOWLED 1 0 1 L. 5 0 ) tL ~ z r GI ° ~ 5 ~ ACCO+PDANCE WI TN ALL APPL I C. R-I ZONING N 8,a 42 57 E EDITION, A~ AMENDED. _ ~ LOT 12 ~ If5.25'~_ I- 5 ' o is o~ ,,10,440 SOFT, o, LOT 6 z cn ; ~ a~ O ~ to ' 1 L, ~ O ~ 10,83 SQ_. FT . I - ~ ~~l' q° Z - _ 0 10 ~.N 8~ 43'00'E l ~ - o, i 5 ~ r I 16.00 , I . - - -N 89°42'S8`E-.! (w w i J r ~ 115 , 50 ~ ,d of LOT ~l 3 ~ o ~ ~ ~ of ~ o 5 ~ ±.t,... J 0 10,440 SOFT o ~ I LOT 5 ~ Ja o, (v0 T I C E 3 ~ ~ ~ I_~ _ Q ~o p _ O a rn IO.405 SO' FT ~ ° I ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, o b ~ ~-N 89 43'00"E-' ~ ~Iw BASED Uf ON ANY DEFECT IN T~ j r 116.00 ; FIRST D' SCOVER SUCH DEFECT SCALE f ' - 60' ~,-5 ~ ~ ~ w ! UPON ANY DEFECT i N THIS SUf ~ i ~ ° - ( - 5 ' ~ N 8~ 42'58"E-~ i Q FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTif ~ ~~r~ ~ ' . 115.74'--. ~QZ c~ LOT 14 o ~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ i 0 5 ~ pl IO,44O S4.FT, o ~-~.5~ ° ~ ~ ~ o !_OT 4 1ou rn ~ o o io o ~ -5~ ! I . 5l8 INCH DIAMETER REB~ . 10,4 7 FT ~ ~ ~ ( R-i 7.ONING ~ ~ 2 S0. ~ ° 16837 .SET AT POINT SHOWN i o ~ N 89 4,, 00 E----~ ~ ~ ~ a i' ~z 116.00' 2. 5/E3 1 NCH DIAMETER BRAS -5~ ~ - ~ I , ~ SH WN TH ° ~ - 5' SE Ct)RN~R ;`1 I r>~ 0 U5 _ ~ ~ r_ 5 E.'_ ~ 1 ~ 0 N 89 42'S9'E ~ - _ soUTH I/4 coRNER sECTIoN 20 ~ ~ ~ LOT 15 NE CORNER SECTION 29 T i S I NORTH U4 CORNER SECT; ON 29 r (15.98'-~~-~ ~ of ~ ~ o ~ 3, H S .URUEY DOES NOT C _i ~ _-o 0 3 (/4~ BRASS GAF IN ENGIN RIN EE G SERVICE ENC. B~ 3 f/4" BRASS CAP 1N RANGE ~ 5~ _ _ IO.440 SOFT.', ~ RAr~GE POINT 3t7X LS 132!2 ~ _ THE OWNERS FOR EASEMENT,> Al` P01 NT BOX LS 132 12 ! _ ~ o _ o GUTILITY EASEMENT' ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ 5 . THE B A S I S F R AR I ~ s _ ° SEE NOTE 8 1 ~5 ~ --BASIS FOR BEARiNu`j S 89°36'42"W O BE NG~ 0 _ _ _ Y_ _ _ _ F!_AT I S BASED ON THE ASSUM I "q~ NORTHEAST I/4 OF TI m LOT 3 ~ ~ 3 . ~ SEC ON 2., ~ ~ c> ,>l ~ ~ ~ 116.00 i _ WHEAT R ~ DGE. BEAR I N,,S ROTATE r. 5 I ~ ~ ° ~ 0.449 SO. FT ~ I ~ 0 14'18", ~~UBTRACTIN+S FROM IBS. N 89° 42' S9' E ! ADD i NG TO NORTHWEST AND SOI. LOT 16 . _ ! 16,23' ~ ~ a' a ~ 1 6. TRACT A IS FOR STORM N, _ L5' 10,440 SOFT. ~ OF PROSPECT RIDGE MINOR SUB LOT 2 ~ MAINTAIN T ED BY NE HOMEOWNER o o -5~ ~ 3 10,471 SOFT. o N 89°43'00"E-~-~ o r 0 7 . THE= S~TORMWATER DETENT I - ~ ~ 116.00' ~ CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED S ' 1 ~ ~ 25' 25' ~S'UTILI~TY I _ ASSI,NS. IN THE EVENT THAT t~-N 89°43'00'E---~ ~ NOT PREFORMED BY SAID OWN EASEMENT ~ o ER R-I ZONING ~'o o THE RIGHT TO ENTER SUCH ARE 116.47 ~ !TYPICAL) o T F COS 0 WHICH, SAID OWNER, 5'UTILITY LOT 17 v z T 0 PAY UPON BILLING. NO BUI EASEMENT 10,987 SQ.FT.' ~ IN THE DETENTION/RETENTION L i~ ~A (TYPICAL) ~ ~ IO~UTILITY, ~ A F i" F E.,TING THE HYDRAULIC CHA - /EASEMENT; DETENT I ON/RETENT l ON AR A WI E LOT I ~O I ~ ''fib - CITY ENGINEER. 12.041 SOFT . _ Z5 , 10'UTILITY , ~ 8. 8' UTILITY EASEMENTS A j li EASEMENT 290' ADJACENT TO THE FRONT AND R ~ 3~"w ~ " ~ D I U I ~S I O~J OR PLATTED AR A T A ° A ~ E , ( S 76 _ " E INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE , pNENU , 2'X 2' CONCRETE g~h TELEVISION CABLE, AND TELEC 1 1 PILLAR o S~ 3 SHALL ALSO BE PERMITTED WIT - EWE ~ , T R~1N r SUBDIVISION. PERMANENT ,,TRU E`K'E PERMITTED WITHIN SAID UTI I ti - G L ~ ~ 9. EXISTIN A M NT ~ GESEE SDED ~ ~ M {NOR SUBDIVISION ARE HEREB ~ o j c~ 3 Ao„- o _ 3 Z ~ z » ~ ~ _ THIS DOCUMENT ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ZONING R- I A ZONING R- I A MIkO i f~ t, - 1 e J L CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AT GOLDEN, COLORADO, ON THE DAY OF , 199_ , AT O'CLOCK M, MI"On sue. BY: 1 7".. I f w JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK DEPUTY CLERK AND RECORDER }moo j ~ _ ~ _ t N ` PREPARED BY: LANE ENGINEERING SERVICE, INC. 9500 WEST 14TH AVENUE, LAKEWOOD. CO 802 15 I r ~iJ I''• 500' TEL (303) 233-4042 FAX: (303} 233-0796 CASE S T 0 ~ Y REVISED NOVEMBER 11, 1996 MS-96-5 WS-96-2 PREPARED OCTOBER 15, 1996 PROJECT S211-1-1 sad! ~ a x~w aas ~ n~a ZbOb-£~Z t£0£) ~-iizs ~ON l~~ra~d ~~6i •zz ~iadd ~ ~ . a3s I n~a 00 OOOM3~~'1 3Ad Nlbl 'Ah 00£6 1b6 i 8 i I add tl3add3ad ' ~NI 301AN3S JN1~33N1JN3 3Nd1 ~1a01S~H 3Sb~ A8 o3~~d3ad ~lxnaonxx QNti xHH7~ ~ZndHQ x~x7:~ ,T,LNnoo Nosa~~.aHc _ ; a4T •T~„rz,s~o6e•s s~~HB No~~HH NMOTTS SS,NHWnNOW xH~L ~S[ Q;~1~FixNI'iHQ Stt 9Z NQII,OHS d0 6/I ,LSttHH~L2fON .W ?ia070,0 - Zti `966T , _-_30 ~ttQ _ ..__--HHZ '~[H1, 10 HNI`[ HI,2lON :tT{,~; 1~~[H,L NOI~LdwnSSti HHZ NQ QHStT4I SI ,Lti7d 3I H~L :~0 NC) I d,2TOd ~ I HdttTTJ xT[~I~ Nth NMOHS SONI21~tSfl HOd S I Still HHZ ' £ NO `OQFIN07d0 ' NHQ7fl0 ~Ltf b1~Nn0a NOS2IH3.~HC ,~0 2IHQ2TOOx2{ QNti x2IH7a ~,J,Nn00 HHZ ~~0 HOI330 xH,L NI ONI7Ix NOd tIH,LdH00tl ~LN:~WfI~OQ 5IH1, 4 '~tit3 ;3U a,1,li.}Ill ttNtt S~LNxWHStix 2I4d 52tHNM0 HH,L X43 tl;Il7ddlTS NOI,LtiW2{o,3NI NO ~[INSdHQ 1~n4I '~NI H~IA2EHS JNI2IHHNIONH ~HHwnN NoTSdHaH~ :uor~t,~~i::tr~Li~x:~ s,z[~rT7~6:i~x :lNtf'1 ~a T~.~ r xv.a,= ~ ~~,r~, ~ H,Ln~LI~,sNO~~ aaoN ~~TOQ ~r►xns SII1~T~ • 'St1Ti,L NMUH ;LNIUd ~Lti F,HS „LLS9T ~3NI 11dS JN'~i :~iN~E7„ t]:fI~.IW'ti~t:5 dtl:1 H,LI~1 d~HH2i B;~~LHW~IIQ H~NI ' T r SSHTIQQtI ~ SH~LON i OI7Hnd ~2itl,LON SHtfIdXH NOISSIWWO~ Ali 7tiHS 7tlI0I.F30 QNti QNtiN 14W SSHN~lIM 'QHStIHOHQ 'H900 'W ttT7tlr QNti H4I03 'W 7 HMHr QNii S4i00 HIH~IW 77HMHi. ~/x/~ 's4TOO Hlxtrww ~T7nr 3o HJ,tiJ~sH HHS .~o sHnlstisNHSH~dH JN i NN I d 7tiNOS2i;.dd Sti 2IHNQ2tti9 ' ~ NO2itiHS QNti 84100 ' M ,LNH2i0 ~fI 966 T ' Vp~~ d0 ~~Q . b L ' £ M . E S . Z O o? S N tr ~ STH,L HW H2i0dH8 QH9QH7MONxOtf Still d~NHWn2i,LSNI 9NI0'OHK03 HH,I, .96'Z'; M.8Q:6Zo~tr S ~ ~ ~ j .6z•~bl M.L~•1tro9L S Z 7 ( OQflI10707 30 HZffsS , L. ` . b~ £b ~.9£: ~ o'~E S 1 ~ ~SS ' ( ~~Nd1SIC GNla~38 3N1~ / Nos~H~~Hr .~o ~sNno~ ~ ~ ~ .sa'z9z .oo'os .ss. isooa~ ~ ~ L .atr'oi .oo'si .~s:zi7oe~~ z ~ I °Q;~s~HOHa .~z' !z :00'S! .0o•6oois ! a 84IOO 'W FiI7(lr QNti H800 'W 7HMHr QNti 880 HIkTtfW 77HMHr ~/x/ti 'HHOO HT2itIW ttl7nr ~o HSti~LSH HH~L :~o sHnI,L~,LNHSHUaHx 7vrro ~ sae sn ~ aca ~~oNd dl~~a 3nan~ S Hd Stf tIHNQt[tfJ ' H N02iFIHS ~ Z ! ZF ? S-1 X~Jfl 1N ! Od 3~JNba Heaa ' M J,Ntl2i0 N! dye SSdaB .~/I E i1 6Z NOi1~3S a~NaO~ ~N ~ Oz NOll~~S a~Naoa ~S tr/ S2iHNMG L 'I.~LIO HH,L 30 ~.S2iHd0iid HH~L HWOJHg _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ~ ZON 77tiHS QNti liHNMO HH~L 30 ~,L2IHd02id HH,L NTtIWHti 77tiH ~ SJP S 'QH77tf~,SNI ~ HO QH,LOfIH~LSN00 NHHM `SWH~LI HOIHM riNtidW00 SNOT~LtiOINIlWWO~ ~LSHM 'S'n HH,I 210/QNti SHI,LI7T1~n QHSIHJN{i2f.F 1~77ttdI0INnW ~8 QHNMO SWHZI 1 ,LdHOXH ,tZIO QTtiS 30 I+,L2iHdOtid H74S HHZ HWO~HB 77tiH5 HOQI2i ~LtiHHM r d0 A,LI~ HH~L 1~8 QH,LdHJOti NSHM QH77ti~LSNI ti0 QH~L~tl2iJ~SN00 OS WH~LI 1~N41 1,<tH,L QNif 'OQti2{0700 'H9QI2i ~LtIHHM ,~0 ~~LIO HHZ A8 QTtld HS ,i,ON 77tiHS SWtIS HOnS QNH 'H9QIH ZtiHHM 30 1~,LT0 HHZ ~.8 QHA02Tddti HHtI HOIHM t303H2iHH~, iTHQIAIQBnS HH,L ~i8 HxtiW S~LNHWH`JNti2i2iti 210 HHQIAIQ8n5 HH~L ~ i 1~8 H03 QIFId QN~1 QHH~LNtf2itltl'J H8 77tiHS SHaIAHHS QNti SHI,LI7I1,n HOnS iIHH~LO QNti Sx7ttMHQTS '~LNHWHAtid SHH2i,LS 'SIiH,LZnO 'SSHflO '9NIdtiOSQNti7 QNti 9NTQtitlfl '9NI,LH9I7 ZHH2I,LS 'SNItfHQ QNti SIiHMHS WIIO~LS 'SHNI7 QNti SxHOM HOIA2iHS 7HOI2I,LOH7H 'SHNI7 HOIA2IHS 5tI0 'SHNI7 _ ~ QNti Sx2i0M WHSS~LS ~iHMHS 1~iitiZTNtiS 9NT77Fi,LSNI QNti 9NI~~~nH,LSN00 NT QHA70ANI S,LS00 QNfi SHSNHdXH 77ti ~ltiH~L t3HN9ISNHQN[l HH~L ~8 QHH2I9ti QNFI QOO~LS~IHQNn A7SSHiIdXH ONIHB ~,I 'OJ~H2iHH,L SHIN '~1NH,Ltfnddti H 77V QNtf SNltiiiQ QNH SHH~ZIQ H9tiNTtRiQ S,LNtiHQXH S1,2iHA7Tl0 NOHtiHH NMO S NOT~Lt1~I3I,L2IH0 HHT, ,~0 HStiQ HH,L WOti.T 'SZH9I7 J,HH2IZS 'SHNI7 kIHMHS A2ftf~,TNtt'S 'SHNI7Hdid 2fHStiM '`a'~NI7HdId SNtiHJ~ NH,L NtiHT, HtIOW QHONHWW00 H8 1~HArInS SIH,L NI ,I,~H.~HQ INK NOdn -r Stf9 'SH78ti0 QNnOH9HHQNn QNti 5H70d 'xHOM 'SHNI7 QxStiB NOiJ,OFf ANti AtiW ';LNHAH ON NI ',LOH:~HQ Hans 2THAOaSIQ ~,SHI.3 QNtt HN ' ~IHT'OH7H IM AHAIInS SIHZ NI ,LOH3H ~tNti NOdn QHStiB n01~ 2IH~L,Tti S2TtiH,i HH2IH~L NIH~L Q HdH73~L JNIOOHtt03 HH~L d0 I.~LT7ti2IHNH0 HH~L 9NIZIWi~1 ~LnOH,1,TM , r r i JNTQn70NI 'SH~IA2IHS 77ti H03 >LNHWHOti7dHil QNti ~TTfid~ NOTL~tI 7ttOH7 ~[Ntt HONHWW03 ,LSnW n0A Mtf7 OQtiIi0700 O,L JNIQHOJ~ti H '~~~€~NH~Lidl~;a 'NOT~LtiPiHdU 'NOI~.~i`t7tl,LSNI 'NOI , ~,~~i~~sNOO ~cTS Boa I~tiM-i~~-s,LH'~ru QNii S~LNHWHStiH S4i QH~LttNJTSHQ OS xHti H~IHM 1~;L2iHd02id '7ttHtl Qlti ~HOI,LON ~ ~ _ S .~0 SNOI~LHOd HSOH~L SHaIA2iHS QNti SHIJ,I7I~Lt1 QHSIfION~ti,~ ~L7"1#idTOTNQirt HO/QNtf QHNMO 7~77EidIaINtIW 77ti QNti H9QIti ,LtiHHM 30 ,t,LI~ HH~L 30 HSn HH1, OIL H~LtiOIQHQ OQ SSNHSH2Id HSHH~L 1~8 QNti 'OQtf2i07T3~ 'H9QI2I T89T°£EZ-£OE Rs ,LtIHHM ,~0 A~LTJ HH~L 30 ~L2lttd ti d0 NOISIAIQ4If1S tf 'NOISTATQBn 9TZ08 OQtt2i070~ 'QOOMHxtf7 ,LOHd S ,LNTOd H[1NHAti H,L6T 'M 0056 SQHd 30 H7AZ5 QNfi HWtiN HH,L 2iHQNn QHNItiSNO~ NOHiIHH ONTMtt2IQ HHJ, kTHd Sti QNti7 QTtiS QH,L,Lti7d QNti QHQIAIQBnS 'Zn0 TCTti7 HAtiH L£89T IIHBWnN OQti2io700 ~oxHntTns QNti7 QHaH,LSIOHa f' 'SSH7 TIO H2IOW '~,HH3 H2itin{:}S L6L`ZSZ JNTNIti~LN00 '9NTNFITOH$ d0 ZNIOd HnH,L HHZ, Oy ,LHH,F 6Z'trT 30 HONtl3,STQ ti 'M„LE~Tf+a9L'S H~NHH,L 'QHQNHWH Sti 'NOTZIQH ~2iHNH00 HONH,T 9NI~LSIXH Nti OS ZHH.~ OE'S66 30 H~Nti~LSTQ ti HNI7 H~NH,~ QHSIAH2i 1,NH2i?fn0 'SH,Ln,Lti~LS OQtiH0700 H78tiJT7ddti 77t1 H~LIM HONtfQiI000ti GNI~LSIXH Nti 9N07ti 'H„OO~LTo00'S HONSHI, ~2iHN2f00 HONHd ONI~,SIXH Nti NI QNtf 'dHT7H8 QNti NOI,LtiW2i0dNT 'H9QH7MONx AW 30 ~LSHB HHJ, O,L a -~y OIL ,LHH~3 6L'E d0 HONtt~tSIQ tt 'HONH3 JNIZSIXH Nti 9N07ti 'H,~ES,ZOoZS'S QNti 566T `9 HH80,L00 NO 9NIxOHHO QNti ~IyI7T8ISNOdSHtI 'NOISIA2iHdt15 HJNHH~, ~iIHNt~00 HONH3 ONIZSIXH Nti OIL ~LHH3 96'ZT d0 HJNti~LSTQ ~W TiHQNn HQtiW still 'NOISIAIQBnS SNTOd T,OHdS02Id HH,L .30 J~2ItiQN1108 L~ ti 'H,~80,6Zo£iy'N H~NHH~L i6£tr HOtid 1,ti 666 x008 QItiS NI QH8I2IaSHQ HHS 30 ~HA2inS HH,L ~LtiH~L ~tdIS,2IH0 ABHtiHH OQ 'ttH1,ST7 'Q NHAH~LS 'I ZOttH~ ZHH,L 30 HHNi300 ,LStiHH,L2i0N HHZ 'ONTHB 'OZ NOIZaHS d0 6/T ,LStiHHd~nOS HH~L .~0 6/t ZSHMH~LnOS HH~L 30 HNI7 ~LStiH BH,L NO ZNIOd 4i O,L ~H,LtiOIdT,L2EH0 S~iIO~tHAHnS - ZHH.F 3r0' ZL£ 30 HONFIZSIQ ti 6£6 H9tid ,Lti 666 x0041 QTtiS NI QHBI~TOSHQ ~L01i21,L ~,tiHd, d0 HNI7 H~L2ION HH,~ 9N07t1 ' H,~ 66 ~ L5 0 56 `N HJNHH,L ' SQHO~H2I ~LZNn00 NOSkiHd3Hr HH~L ,~0 6£b H9tld ,LEi 666 x008 NI QH8TtI0SHQ ,LNHWd07HAHQ J,ati2i,L ~LtiHJ~ 30 2IHNtT00 7,SHMHJ,2TON HHZ, QNti Z~9 HOtld ,Lti L9£Z x0041 NOISSTWWOJ N NT QH8I2IOSHQ ~,O~Ii~ ~LtfH~L ,~0 2iHNH00 ~LSHMHZ2TON HHZ 9NIx2ItiW ~iti77Id ONTNNti7d d0 NfiW~fItiHO QNtI JNTNti7d .30 2t0,I,~Hi3IQ H~LH2fON00 , T A8 ~ T ti O,L ,LHHd SE' 96L ,~0 HONFI,LSIQ H Ztr9 HOtid ~Lti L9£Z - HOQItI ~L~iHHM ,~0 x,LIO - HOQITI ~LttHHM 30 X~LIJ x005 NI QHHI?IOSHQ ZOti2i~L ~LtfH,L 30 HNI7 ~LSHM HH1~ 9N07ti QNti L£9Z x008 QIttS NI QH8I2IOSHQ ~LOtIkI,L J,tiH~L 30 HNI7 J,SHM HH~L ON07ti 'M„~~,LOoO'N ` HONHH~L iSQ2i00HH X~LNn00 NOS2IHd.~Hr HH,L 30 569 H9tid ,Ltt L9EZ x008 NT SxiIOM ~I78(ld .30 2TOJ~JHtiIQ NOTSSIWW00 NOIJ,tiH~iJH2T QNti Sx2itid QH8I2iJSHQ Z~ti2i~, ,LttH~L 30 HNI7 ~LSHM HHZ NO SNIOd ti OZ ,LHS,F 96'91 H9QIii ,LtixHM 30 1~,LIJ H9QTH ,LtiHHM d0 ~I~,TO _ 30HN ' 'Z 0 ti~LSTQ tt H(1NHAti H~L8£ ZSHM 30 HNT72IH~LNHO HHZ HZIM 'IH77ti2{tid 'M„L£~T6o9L'S HONHH,L ~9NINNIOHB d0 ,LNTOd Hn2is HH.L QNti HnNHAFi Hd~B£ ,LSHM 30 HNI72iH,LNHO HH~L d0 (SH7JNti J~HOIii ~ti QH2InS47HW) °C7HHH~,2i0N `aNT 'dn02i9 OQF12T0700 d0 ~LHH.F 00'0£ ZNTOd tf O+I, ,LHHd £8'68T 30 HONtIZSIQ ti ('M„Z6,9Eo68'S SNOT,LtI~INnWWO~ ZSHM Sn ~.N~idWO~ 30IAt{HS aI78nd S2itfH8 6Z NOI~LOHS d0 6/T ~L54iHH~LHON HH~L :30 HNI7 HJ~2ION HH~L ,LtiH,L { s_ 1 NOIZdWlISSti HH,L NO QHStiB) 6Z NOI,LOHS QTti5 .~0 6/T ~LStiHHF,TTON HH,L .30 T ~LSHMH,LtiON HH~L ,~0 HNI7 ~LStiH HH,L JN07ti ' ' H„E ~ 7tTA ~Id Z, 8Z a 0 S HJNHH~L S 0 dtf •6Z NOI,L~HS QTtiS d0 ~/T ,LSHHHZ2ION HH,L .30 ~/T ~LSHMfI,LifON HH,L :30 ifHN2I00 ZStlHH3~2I0N HH~L stl 9NINNTOHB ~ SM0770d SFi QH8T2i~SHQ °OQtiii0700 '~tJ,NnOJ NOS2EH3dHr 'H'OQI2I ,LtiHHM 30 ~,LI~ `'W'd HZXIS HH,L °I .~0 ,LSHM 69 HO ttW x2IH70 1~~LT0 HON4i2I `HZnoS £ dTHSNMOS 30 H~L08 `OZ NOI~L~HS .~0 6/T ZStIHH~nOS HH,L QNtt 6Z NOTT,OHS d0 tr/ I 4LStiHH~IiTON HH~L NI QHZtl~07 QNtl7 30 ~LOti~I,L tl ZSH,L~Ltf NOI~Ld T2TOSHQ ',Ltt7d NIH,LIM HH,L HA02iddti QNti ZdOQtt '966T ~SM0774d y,30 ~lttQ i 'SIH~I, NO 'QIQ 7IONn00 AZI~ S,LI 30 NOI,LOW Sti QH8Iii05HQ SHt[~ti 08'5 d0 A~L2IHdOtId 7~iHti HH~L 30 SHBN A8 OQtl2i0700 'HOC1I2i J,tiHHM ,~0 A1~I0 HH1~ ,LtiH I.dI,L ONI 8 ' MO HHd~ ~ HHO OZ SI SIH~L H QHStfHOHQ 8800 'W tll7tlr QNti 8800 'W 7HMHr QNti 880J HTHttW _ 7`IHMHr ti/x/ti `8800 HI2ItiW tiI7(lr d0 H~Lti~LSH HHZ 30 SHAI~Lti,LN:IS~3tIdHTi ~NOT~,iiOIdI~L2IH0 5~230XFIW r 7tiNOS2iHd Sti 2THNQHti`J ' H N02itiHS QNV 8800 ' M ZN~dNO `xM y~, s OA~~ h~~ Z 1496-60-5C • ::1 ~ n ~Py~i~J.. ~ ,i M r. : w ~~..a ~._,a ~ ' W ' U [ E .~f1 i C`'~A16 ~C1AiH11 • L.1 1 n~1t~ t°e ~ i t jr~ti~n r u y.7 Ji 1.1. JV 1.)JIII V! J.lIY V ❑ fill IVJ L a I noivmvt 6Z aNd OZ SNOIlDIS ~0 SNOIldOd J0 NOIS{nla8flS d ~l OZ N01103S b/1 3S b/I MS 3N 1 -l 1Sd3 31V0 NO I S I n i agns SON I W 300 Id i33dSOdd 'ON NOIld3O38 3JVd N009