Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWZ-94-13~Wh eat ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION ~RidOre Department of Planning and Development b 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO -80033 Phone (303) 237-6944 Applicant Paula S. Tutt Address ren woo ' 33-Phone 425-5653 Owner George S. & Linda M. Johnston Address 122 Pine Riage Roa Evergreen. 0 80439 Phone 480-5390 Location of request 7795 tJ c~,,.~ n,,,, i~~ ~.~ __.___ _ .. __ Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) Change of zone or zone conditions Site development plan approval. Special use permit Conditional use permit Temporary use/building permit Minor subdivision Subdivision 8 Preliminary Final ^ ** See attached procedural guide for specific requirements. Detailed Description of Variance/Waiver Nonconforming use change Flood plain special exception Interpretation of code Zone line modification Public Improvement Exception Street .vacation Miscellaneous plat Solid waste landfill/ mineral extraction permit ^ Other _ to Planned Commercial Dist. (PCD)_ nan orabprova o e Lsoste~~l passownerndmortgagees lesseeldoptionterest in the de f p p Y, p scribed real ' nee, etc. NAME ______ I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney from the owner which approved of this action on his behalf. Signature of Appli Subscribed and sworn SEAL Date Received of ~, 19 5'q~ "~, commission expires _g-Z/~_ Receipt No. Case No. a • CITY OF '4VHEA'i' RIDGE D ~U~'2 ~ 199G NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT MEETING FOR REZONING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Paula and John Tutty IS PROPOSING A REZONING FROM Restricted Commercial One (RC-1) TO Planned Commercial Development(PCD) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4217 Xenon st(Vacant land at NW corner of W. 42&Xenon? THE LOCATION OF THIS MEETING IS Country Cafe - 3291 Younafie,ld Svc. Rd. THE TIME AND DATE FOR THIS MEETING IS :September 1, (Thurs.) 6:30 P.M. THE PURPOSE FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS A one story owner occupied 7,000 SF Mechanical Company Office S op ui ing. r.- -~ 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 Cgn 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 / ~~~® ~~ --~ ~a o ~~~ s~ ~o~ ~~_ Ana. ~`as ~~ ~~ a 33 / Y /C~ ~Jt'~~ 3~F39 i/. 72~' ,AN-2 _ ~~ ,,e.ao~j l~/~.;~n,~r/srt~+-_. Paa3o ~~`,,e .SG~vv,s~ 1z`'Z/ //~ine. (pL;~ a2dl )~v ~~/c43~ Ce.e..~p` ~~~ _ °l1"707 ~viE/~l7~GL~00 Gc J'r O~J~J s~ae~yt~l~u~ii/~i~~c `7s~~ ,~~vre5 St ~~03 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE • P.O. BOX 638 The City of WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80034-063& (303) 23a~5900 ~1Vheat City Admin. Fax ~ 2345924 Police Dept Fax # 2352949 Ridge October 4, 1994 The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a rezonin4 from R-C to PCD and approval of a combined outLine_and final development plan at the property described below. Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by OCtobPr 17, i2~• No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: WZ-94-13 LOCATION: 12725 West 42nd Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from R-C to Planned Commercial Development and approval of a combined outline and final development plan PURPOSE:- Construction of an HVAC-office/shop building on eastern lot APPROXIMATE AREA: 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 groposed 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 approv//alppof this request? Please reply to: ~fJ. ;v~X!L~~V- LC-~ 4~"L~M. Reclcert partment of lanning & Development DISTRIBUTION: XX Water District (Valley ) Jefferson Co. Health Dept. XX Sanitation District (Fruitdal~ Jefferson Co. Schools XX Fire District (Arvada ) Jefferson Co. Commissioners Adjacent City ( ) Denver Water Board XX Public Service Co. W R Post Office XX US West Communications W R Police Dept. State Land Use Commission XX W R Public Works Dept. (2) State Geological Survey W R Parks & Recreation Com. Colorado-Dept. of Transportation W R Forestry Div. Colorado Div. of Wildlife W R Building Div. XX TCI-o.f-Colorado _ <pc>referralform is rr,. ~, e.: r.,~~., r . ~ MEMORANDUM Approved Date TO: Meredith Reckert, Planner II FROM: Greg Knudson, Development Review Engineer ~ DATE: October 5, 1994 SIIBJECT: 12725 W. 42nd Avenue/WZ-94-13 - HVAC Office/Shop The Public Works Department has reviewed the development plan for the above ,referenced project, and has the following comments: 1. We will need a drainage study. 2. We will need an erosion control plan. 3. We will need construction drawings for those public improvements that are proposed to be constructed on the,Xenon Street and W. 42nd Avenue frontages. Due to the existing roadway conditions, escrow can be submitted in lieu of the paving section required but curb, gutter and walk will need to be constructed as needed by the developer. GWK cc: Glen Gidley, Director Planning & Community Development John oss, Sr. Project Engineer Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer John McGuire, City Surveyor Chuck Braden, ROW Technician P SUBDIVISION MEMO AND CONTACT RECORD CONTACT NUMBER 1 DATE: 30 AUG., 1994 SIIBDZVISION NAME: JOHNSTON SUBDIVISION ENGINEER: NAME: MILLER ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC PHONE: 770-2015 CITY REPRESENTATIVE: CHUCK BRADEN REMARKS: 1: NEED TIES TO SECTION CORNER SUB REGS 2: NEED BASIS OF BEARING SUB REGS 3: NEED ON CITY SECTION DATUM 4: IN DEDICATORY STATEMENT "CURVES" SHOULD BE "CURBS" I THINK 5: YPE OF MONUMENT AT N-S C L SECTION 20 W. 44th ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE:. REMARKS: How contact made: person phone letter REPRESENTATIVE: City:_ Engineer: Callback 1 Date: Remark: _ Callback _ 2 Date: Remark: Callback 3 Date: Remark: Callback 4 Date: Remark: Callback 5 Date: Remark: Callback 6 Date: Remark: Public Service® October 20, 1994 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue P.O. Box 638 Wheat Ridge, CO 80034-0638 Public Service Company acknowledges receipt of Title Public Service Company of Colorado 2701 W.7th Avenue Denver, CO 80204-4114 We have examined the proposed plot plan of the above-captioned project. We have no conflict at this time. If you have any questions regarding the above subject matter, please contact me on 571-3735. Teresa Wilson TW:lm 6 'CITY GF WHEAT- RIDGE - ~ _ r~.n~ OGT31-1984 ``his PLANNING & DEVEi.DPMENT RE~~~~G 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUG "~ e ~ ~ P.O. BOX 638 ~CAN ~ ..~~TGE WHEAT RIDGE. CO 500310633 I f1 1~P r ~~2 i[}I~~ CityAdmin.Fax s 23a~692~ ~F2~r October 4, 1994 iPLANNiNG ~ y_.:~OPMENT The City of Wheat Ridge The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a rezoning from R-C to PCD and approval of a combined outline and f__inal_development plan ai, ~aac yi vrci ~y ue5c:i lUeu DelQW_._ Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by OCtohar 17, 1994 No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: WZ-94-13 LOCATIQN: 12725 West 42nd Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from R-C to Planned Commercial Development and approval of a combined outline and final development plan PURPOSE: Construction of an HVAC office/shop building on eastern lot APPROXIMATE AREA: 1. Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? YES NO :~ _ . if "~iO", please explain below. Replacement is Alarmed by District in near future.which will ~mvide adequate facilities 2. Are service lines available to the development? YES NO X 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 ser vice this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? YES_~_ NO Sf "NO", _please explain below. 5. Are there any concerns ar pr oblems your agency has identified which would or should affect approval of this request? -, Please reply to- ~Qj~ n~>p~~ ~~ ~?~t,~M R k partment of P DISTRIBU'f2ON: - ~ art lanning & Development XX . , _ ,~, ~t~f"; a.71~y ~ )~ _ Sanitation District Fr itd l~ Jefferson Co. Health Dept. XX u a Fire District (Arvad ) Jefferson Co. Schools a Adjacent City ( ) Jefferson Co. Commissioners XX Public Service Co Denver Water Board XX . US West Communications W R Post Office State Land Use Commission W R Police Dept. XX W R Public Works Dept. (2) State Geological Survey W R Parks & Recreation Com Colorado Dept. of Transportation . W R Forestry Div. Colorado Div, of Wildlife W R Building Div. XX TCI of Colorado <pc>referralform o ~. ~soo wesr 2srN ave~vuF • CITY 0~` V~`HEAT Ed,l`~E • P O. BOX 638 ~~~'p p~'~~ The City o! WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80034-0638 ~p1 ~~g(~3ry Z'3'd'_$~tf~P-+1 l [ f ia~l ,=:s,., ~. ~~~~~1Vheat City Admin. Fax X 234-5924 P~I~ DepV~F'ax `~2~5--2949 ~ -1\idge October 4, 1994 ` PlANNfNG & DEUELDf~d~N[' The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a rezoning from R-C to PCD and annr~~~ai of a ,.,,mr,..,..a ---- at the property described below. Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by O toh r 17, 1994 No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: WZ-94-13 LOCATION: 12725 West 42nd Avenue REQUESTED ACTION• Rezoning from R-C to Planned Commercial Development and approval of a combined outline and final development plan PURPOSE: Construction of an HVAC office/shop building on eastern lot APPRORIMATE AREA: n' jj ~~ 1. Are public,~facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve t s developmeni~? - ~ ~ YES NO If "NO", please explain b'e`low __ Q~LQ~2. Are ser a.cNOlines•available to the development? SP~rwt``c~)ten~eS a~r-e `yam YES. II ~ If, "NO", please explain below.~y~r r'e~p~S~~O~S'~ ~~'3. Do you h e adequate capacities to service the development? V ~`,S YES ~p If ,"NO", .please explain below. `may,(, 4. Can and w'T1 your _agenoy service...this proposed development. subject to. your ru s and regulations? YESNO If "NO", please. explain below. 5. Are there any concerns or problems your agency has identified which would or should affect approval of this request? Please reply to: ~/e ~~i."'>_v ~~, , ,~?~2,~M RP ><ar+ Department of Planning & Development DISTRIBUTION: X Distr -~s'~.lev Jefferson Co. Health Dept. ~~n~a_ on_ Dsts~.ct~(F-r-uit Jefferson Co. Schools 7 is r c d`a~-'~ ~~7~rv' Jefferson Co. Commissioners Adjacent City ( ) Denver Water Board XX Public Service Co. W R Post Office XX US West Communications W R Police Dept. State Land Use Commission XX W R Public Works Dept. (2) State Geological ,Survey W R Parks & Recreation Com. Colorado Dept. of Transportation _ W R Forestry Div. ~ Colorado Div. of Wildlife W R Building Div. XX TCI of Colorado <pc>re£erralform 7500 WES7 297H AVENUE • ~ Clty of P.O. BC'X 638 WHEAT RIDGE. CO 800340638 (303) 23~~5900 cWheat City Admin. Fax ~ 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 2352949 Ridge October 4, 1994 The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request Eor-~proval of a rezoning from R-C to PCD and approval of a combined at the propel ~y uc~~~~~~4 .,.....,... Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by October 17, 1994 No response from you by this date will__constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: WZ-94-13 LOCATION: 1272.5 West 42nd Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from R-C to Planned Commercial Development and approval of a combined outline and final development plan PURPOSE: Construction of an HVAC office/shop building on eastern lot APPROXIMATE AREA: 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 apJpproval of this request? Please reply to: ~Eyl, _ ~~o~M Reclcert partment of Tanning & Development DISTRIBUTION: XX Water District (Valley ) XX Sanitati istrict (Fruitdal~ Adjacent City ( ~:` ) XX Public_Service Co. XX US West Communications State Land Use Commission State Geological Survey Colorado Dept. of Transportation Colorado Div. of Wildlife XX TCI of Colorado Jefferson Co. Health Dept. Jefferson Co. Schools Jefferson Co. Commissioners Denver Water Board W R Post Office W R Police Dept. XX W R Public Works Dept. (2) W R Parks & Recreation Com. W R Forestry Div. W R Building Div. <pc>referralform .~rvada Fire Protection District FIRE MARSHALS' OFFICE P. O. Box 3•D ARVADA, COLORADO 80001 Telephone (303) 425-0850 - FAX (303) 422-4589 October 17, 1994 Ms. Meredith Reckert Department of Community Development City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, CO. 80034-0638 RE: Southwest Mechanical 12775 W. 42nd Ave. Dear Meredith, We have reviewed the site plan for this location and have the following comments. 1. Fire protection is provided_to this site by Station 2, 12195 W. 52nd Ave. and Station 6_, 6503 Simms St. 2. The fire lanes will need to be posted, No Parking Fire Lane with signs that meet City of Wheat Ridge Standards, 3. The Valley Water District is in .the process of completing plans to install a new water line and hydrants in W. 42nd Ave. If possible the water line replacement and hydrants should be installed prior to above grade construction. UFC 91 10.401, 10.402. 4. The proposed trash enclosure will need to be of non combustible constauction including doors. UFC 91 11.201.(b). Amended. Sincerely, Arvada Fire Protection District ~~ Steve_~tei leder Deputy Fire Marshal _, ~' -500 WEST 29TH AVENLE The Clty Of P.O. BOX 63B WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80034-0635 '3031 234-59CC ~1Vheat City Admin. Fax234-592= Police Dept Fax '.235~29~9 Ridge November 1, 1994 Ms. Paula S. Tutty 4464 Brentwood Street Wheat Ridge CO 80033 . Dear Paula: I have reviewed your submittal for a rezoning from R-C to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan and have the following comments which need to be addressed on the final plan: 1. Allowed uses on the eastern lot should be specified all R-C uses pursuant to Section 26-21 of-the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and a mechanical contractor's office and shop. Any retail uses allowed on Lot 1 will have to be limited•to 2000 square feet. total. This limitation needs to be included on the plan as well.- 2. Allowed uses on the western lot should be C-1 uses. pursuant to Section 26-22 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws except the following: Automobile service and repair and lumberyards. 3. Height limitations on both lots should not exceed 35 feet. 4. A note should be added. to the pla`p indicating that no construction can occur on Lot 2 until a final development plan has been approved by Planning Commission and City Council. 5. A unified control statement is needed. 6. A description of the character of the .development is needed. 7. The building on the eastern lot should be more residential in character with .the use of brick accent treatments and a peaked or mansard roof. _ _. __ 8. Show the access easement with future connection with Lot 2. 9. Sidewalk should. be shown in front of Lot 2. 10. A minimum of`.2.5,parking spaces is needed for the proposed use. There is not enough parking to accommodate 7000 square feet of retail space. Again, a note needs to be added under the use restrictions limiting total retail space in the GO H.. „4d l'eprr 4 ' ~~ .' Ms. Paula S. Tutty Page 2 November 1, 1994 building to 2000 square feet total. Otherwise, for a 7000-- square foot retail building, a minimum of 30 spaces is needed. 11. Note #6 should also disallow any outside work activity. Based on the semi-industrial nature of the use proposed on Lot 1, Staff still believes that the proposed shop is more appropriate for Lot 2. However; this is an issue-that will have to be discussed in more detail- with Planning Commission and City Council. Attached are suggested red marks and responses from outside agencies. If you would like to discuss any of my comments, do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2848. Sincenr~e'l~y~ ~~/~V V th Reckert Planner MR:slw cc: George Johnston . Nick Zimmer WZ=9-4=13- 1 SOUTHWEST MECHANICAL MANAGEMENT INC. November 7, 1994 Ms. Meredith Reckert Planner City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80034-0638 Dear Meredith, IT .,... ~~ ~` ~~~t;-19J,t PCANN~NO• & D~y~OA~{gfi~ ""~ In response to your letter of November 1, expressing some concerns over our proposed development on the site known as 42nd and Xenon. 1. As we are not a retail business, there is to be no retail usage of the site. 2. We are planning development on the eastern lot only. 3. Building height per plans will be 18' 6". 4. We are planning development for the eastern lot only, and note that future development on lot s_ to the west must be approved by Planning Commission and City Council. 5. See Attached 6. See Attached 7. Our proposed building is to be a contemporary design. I beleive it will blend in very well with the neighborhood concept. 8. Access easement with future connection with lot 2 would seem unnecessary as there is to be no retail usage of-lot 1. 9. Lot ~~2 is owned by Mr. George Johnston. 10. Shere is to be no retail usage of lot ~~1 the eastern lot. 11. Attached Description of Development disallows any outside work activity. P.O. Box 1311 Arvada, Colorado 80001 420-5470 November 7, 1994 Ms. Meredith Reckert Planner City of Wheat Ridge Page 2 As to the use of lot 4~1 or 9i2 being more appropriate, I reflect back to our earlier discussion when it was decided to apply for PCD, that everyone would prefer the lower and lesser used building on the corner of 42nd and Xenon. Our business generates a very low traffic flow and it was felt this would be more adaptable and amiable to the current neighborhood conditions. The lots to the west being better appointed for heavier usage. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know. Sincerely, ~~~/~~" Paula Tutty V President PT/sr Enc. cc: George Johnston Nick Zimmer SOUTHWEST MECHANICAL MANAGEMENT INC. November 7, 1994 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT ~1 Southwest Mechanical Management Inc., is a H U A C Contractor, doing business in the Denver .Metro Area since 1986. We area WBE Certified privately owned, small business. Southwest employs 30 people of which 22 are field personnel. The remaining 8 are in the office and shop daily. It is our expressed desire to bring our business and these additional people into the Wheat Ridge market place. We presently live in Wheat Ridge and wish to relocate our business from Arvada to Wheat Ridge. The proposed facility to house Southwest would be a 7,000 square foot concrete tilt up building of contemporary design with smooth painted walls. The height of the building will be approximately 18' 6". Store front glass (tinted) will be utilized in the office area and entrance. The building will be home to our office and shop. Our shop assembles the duct work that is to be used on job sites, material for this is contained in our shop. There is to be no outside storage, and no .work will take place outside of the building. Traffic flow to and from-our building is'very minimal, we have 5 office employees, and 3 in the shop. The remaining 22 are field personnel, reporting to their job assignments in the field. We are not a retail business so there would be no traffic flow from this usage. Our focus is in the new construction arena, with service and maintenance of HVAC equipment. We firmly believe that our proposed development would be an asset to the area. P.O. Box 1311 Arvada, Colorado 80001 420-5470 ,.•,~' 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 17, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions --.-- shall be heard: 1. =Case No. N7Z-94-13e An application by Paula S. Tutty and George and Linda Johnston for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan. Said property is located at 12725 west 42nd Avenue and is legally described as follows: A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH/SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 20 WITH THE CENTERLINE OF WEST 44TH AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89°50'00" WEST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF WEST 44TH AVENUE 567.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 32' 00" EAST ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF XENON STREET 1054.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH O°32'00" EAST ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF XENON STREET 1054.50 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 42ND AVENIIE; THENCE SOUTH-89°50'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 42ND AVENUE 217.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH O°32'00" WEST 30.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°50'00" WEST 63.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°32'00" EAST 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAI1~ NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 42ND AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89°50'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE 147.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH O°10'00" WEST 145.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°50'00" EAST 426.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.382 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 2. Case No. MS-94-4: An application by B. A. Wyatt for -- approval of a two-lot minor subdivision for property zoned Planned Commercial Development at 4940 Ward Road. Said property is legally described as follows: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF -- SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO; AND BEING PART OF PLOT 3, NICHOLAS GARDENS, A RECORDED PLAT IN THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO,- MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE N00°16'00"E ALONG THE NORTH/SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 1'7, A DISTANCE OF 936.52 FEET; THENCE N89°41'00"E, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET, ,~, _~ ~. TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF .SAID PLOT 3, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N89°41'00"E, A DISTANCE OF 168..49 FEET,. TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOR 2091, PAGE 392, JEFFERSON COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE S00°16'00"W AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 2091, PAGE 392, JEFFERSON COUNTY-RECORDS, A DISTANCE OF 98.73 FEET; THENCE N89°41'00"E AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 2091, PAGE 392, JEFFERSON COUNTY RECORDS, A DISTANCE OF 155.00 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 2091, .PAGE 392; JEFFERSON COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE S00°16'00"W AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK-1580, PAGE 388, JEFFERSON COUNTY RECORDS, A DISTANCE OF 133.00 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PLOT 3; THENCE 589°41'00"W AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PLOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 323.49 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PLOT 3; THENCE N00°16'00"E-ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PLOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 231.73 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 59,656.10 SQUARE FEET OR 1.37 ACRES MORE OR LESS. \ ~. ~~ dra Wiggins,~$~~etary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: .October 26, 1994 -- Wheat Ridge Sentinel C:\WP60\PC\PC11394.PHN b:\pc11394.phn ~~ l • ?500 WEST 29TI-' AVENUE P.O. BOX 638 - - ~ _ . ~Y:ity Of ' WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80034-0638 ~ X3031 234-5900 ~- - heat City Admin. Fax a 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax r 2352949 ~1(ige POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. ~Z-~4' ~~j PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADJiJSTMENT (Circle One) HEARING DATE: Q~. 17~L~ i, ~~eo~'o~P S • Sohy~Sku/~ ~-% (name) residing,at (y 2 a d d r e s as the applicant for Case No. 1N Z~Ol~k~ ,,hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at '. w • _ ~~- A~~. ~- X~wmn S-~• Jy1 1J W Go v tno,~. (1 ottc a t i o n) on this ~- day of __ /JdVe..ytn.y}Pi~. 1g _~ and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. shown on the map below. The sign was posted in the position Signature: ~~k- s• NOTE: This form must be submitted at he pu is t and will be placed in. the applic s case Department of Planning and Development. <pc>postingc rev. 05-19-9 ~ on this case at the t __ -500 WEST 29TH AVENUE - F.o.Box s3s The City of l'JHEAT R1DCE. CO BC~s~-Oo38 ~- ~ 13031 23=-5900 heat City Admin. Fax ~ 234-5924 ?olice Dept. Fax r 235-2949 ~ ~1dgPi November 2, 1994 This is to inform you that Case No. WZ-94=13 which is a request for ~ r_DVa7 of a rp -oval ~2~J nnina frnm R r fn Pt'il nn fnr ar~n of a nnmhir,cra .,,,+i ;,, an r7 final plan for property located at 1772. W s 4 nd AV Pr+np will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Planningx Commission in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7.30 p.m. on ~nz,p~ ~ ~ ~ 1 994 All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the Planning rnmmiccion _ As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division.. Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION <pc>phnoticeform ca r; , ~, r:,r," Dear Adjacent Property Owner: If-you have received this notice, you reside or own property adjacent to a property involved in a land use case being processed by the City of wheat Ridge. This notice is intended to inform you of the process involved in land use development applications. Prior to application for rezoning or special use permit, the developer is responsible for holding an informal neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the opportunity for citizens to become aware of a proposed development in their neighborhood and to allow the developer to respond to citizen concerns in the design of their project. All residents within 600 feet are required to be notified of the meeting. A staff planner will attend the meeting to discuss City policy and regulations and the process involved, however, the planner will remain impartial regarding viability of the project. Keep in mind that this is not a public hearing. Although a synopsis of the meeting will be entered as testimony, it is the public hearings in front of Planning Commission and City Council where decisions are rendered. If you want input in the decision- making process, it is imperative that you attend the public hearings. The public hearings you will be attending are quasi-judicial in nature. .Please do not contact your Planning Commissioners or Council people to discuss the merits of a case prior to .the public hearing. It could jeopardize your representatives' ability to hear the case. If you are an adjacent property, you may have the right to file a "legal protest" against the application. The result of this filing is that it requires a 3/4 majority of City Council to approve a request. If'you have questions regarding any of the information given above, do not hesitate to contact a planner at the City offices by calling 235-2846. The Planning & Development Department is open Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. <pc>adjpropowner N m ~ m ~ >c ~ m >3 fL []- N t N N > '~ U y y - ° ~ w ° ~~ a a o . °' * W ~ o m a .. ¢ a f 1 ~ m w m m ~' ^ ^ ~ _ ' ~ CJ p r '° (V (.7 z N [r ~ U ~ o o ' °- ~- ~ m .. . Q fn N _._ .E ~ C C 1~ ~ - i~ ~o < d ov a~ ~ <~ ~~ ~+ r+ A ~+ M Ql ~~~ M v ~ O L on_ ta: 1 s ~ d ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ a U I1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ S, " .~§ E ~~~ ~ °"~ C l9 .~'E r Nm~ `o ~'~~ ~ w :v '~ ~ `Cf t '.T i ~~~ ¢~ O t 3 gmg ~ S o O m a o. ~C N N N ZJ O \~~ ~~~ E~'y"Y c m ~ ' b -~ d7 11 3 I ~~~((( I 3 rE .4 a m~ m vv~ .~=; ~ a n m > N j ii~c4~~.<3~m¢ i N~~~B~~~'IS Mau-~.. ~--- N d C \ w 6~ ¢o `I ~ e f({ ~~ w 1 3v a °i S _ I a < ~ . ~ ~ = U E 6 W > 1 ~- U 2 i u u.w T n E in N ~ Q-- "~ W ~ w F- W E a c•f ~ ~ v Q Q ~ c} U ~ :V Gt 1 Q ~ ~ yy. .W 1 o u :~ (.. ~ w ,•{ '~v tw m L d ~ D Z .... ~ '., ~ I~ r~ ~~ w_ w U e r` ~ - f ~ ~ I ~' M "~ 07 i ~ .> ~ m ..: t!I ~ ~ ~ ~ > I 0 ~` d ~x N r s+ ~ I_ ,~ ~Q1 ~. o I ' ~ ~' ° ~, C + gi ~ a ~ ~ ~ v ~~ ~~W :t OW ~ ~ I' ~ cti'i a crs c, r7 n w ~ m ... !h ~ ~ o ~ ,-q j ry r-I ~ I Gw e~ ~y ~ ~ € ~ ue' ~~~ p e-d ?s ~ C.3 U~ ~e ~ w' U ~ . J U~ z C C7 O E ~ N il+ E >o LL ,< ~o ~ .tea .U ,_, o LL ~ . • a3 .-i ^G, k o ca ~? ~ c n ~ ~ ~>» .: (0 ' v ¢ W ~ = U¢ I W ~ C C n ~ i = ¢ 'JWI U' r j L26 L99 E`C6 d 0' w• W N ~ ~_ n W 3 ~ o U j ~O N N N O r n 0 m m m 9 Z °m_ ~ ., ° ._ 9 Z ~.v T .. ~ .. i M.__ LL N a, W LL F- W U tL O w r a w U W c 0 C LL a 226 L99 E26 d I h2S L99 E`C6 d ' I ' T t ~_. w m N w ai $ X d > w O , d d a N >c a >wo 'dm¢- Q. V ~ N ~ al ~ ~ a N [ o y y ~ E ~ ( J y U N 'C q ~ O p 3 ~ a q, Q ovi ¢~ d m ~~'CJ^ c ZQ~.. O ~ ~ (V ~ o sa 9 ~ 6 ' E o _W LL a U N U n d ~ ai~ m $ ~ $ r.. s ws` xA~ ~ H 8 ~ ~ ...' € ~aa ~ a 8 N e' m Y ~ y YjVC .6.Q ~ W a •r . ~~3~ a 5 Lei $ 5 B E ~ -et a .-i ~ xa~ ~~ a ~ a~~ ~~ ~ c ~ s g~E _ o°~` ~ a '•1 f'i Cv' ~,; ~c~~ ~ ¢ W N 3 . „~ g ca 9 « ~ m 4~~ fi~~~ ~ •Ni 3 s y r ~ o a 11 ' f ~ I ~ i' f ~ F I! \ I+ ' • I o ~e <w - i o~ OU i 3~ _ o xc - j ? a ,~ j J y ~ W W W . ¢ m i >+j ~. CS c:, i O o w .r rn ~ e `~ U \ z i m ~i rn ~ •tE k D.'~ ~ G '3'~ :~ rt '7 « L.l nb % s' -? C i u • , . ~ n . ut ~ a C W N ' ` Q' ' Z a N ~ N ~~ h~ . w v ~ ~ N~- a2 ~ jn- ~ ~J I ~ ~ ~ V i~ N _ r ~:: :~ I •ryi ~.. 1 .. 5. _ I v 1 ~ I ~ ` _ ~ 1 ~ m m 4 ~¢ ~ ` C vT ~ ~ °' I O c ~` . o^i m o °' ~ : Q ~ ~ ~ ( ,, ~ 9 ~ ~-! ~ ~ ~ a ~ a ui ~ ~ ~~ o w~ a w l f-? i U~ ~~ O~ ~ a W~ U ~ i - ~" `° ° I W ~" ~ ± a ° ~ ~ i =v a o ~~ s ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ (n ~ v w I d ~ ' s v~ D26 t99 E'CE, d i ~ ~.- ~; 1 -i , v ~ C ~ i .~ O ~ 9 ^ x ~. ^3 w ~ iu . u, .4 •-~ s e"t v7 ^} ti 3 P ~ ':y ^3 ~.i ~ iri 526 t99 E~6 d i a W U Z _ Q ~ ~ W _ LL ~ ~ U_ I w U H o,= f o-_ rn v- a._ o:= Z~ IE ~ ti cd a ~ a r{ E f ti !~ i \! - JG L^ se, - of ~~ w ~I ~~ ~I O' T G U ai e ~ ~, t ___~ ~ ~. ~ ~ a , , c . m w , rr`` V~ D ~ a 1 a l N ~ ~ ~ y .~ ~ J ~ Q I M G1 M ~+ ~ i ~ (~~ \,~ . ` N ~ ~ :r: i ro ~ ~ i y N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m m c m vi i6 .~. M v M 0 c ~-s ~ f ~ J i h ;P, 'y i~ ° a ~ -. t C~ x a k .~ :l '? w; . ~ re ;~ ,y 6 -v +: ~:J ~ E26 t99 EI6 d I 0 m a Z b a a W LL w U O LL H a W U w LC 0 0 m ~ ~ m r- ' ~ a x °' N a a ~ o m 4 '~ ~ y ~ d J D N ~ w ~ ~ U N ~ Q i ~ N "' T 'DO N ^y' a c a m Q w dt~ a~ '~3~^ o Zp- F'T U > Q y ~ ~ O ~- N d V ~Q( y `~ ~ N~ O O G ~ Q Q ' c V V t~ ~ _ € F _ _ _ E o y ~ U M °~ "~ ~ .. ~ ° B~5 .7'9~ ~ w m E ~ ~ ~ 3 dv oa Jf Q LSD 1 ~ _ f8 'M~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ d ~' ~ 'bE- o~m,o~ i ~ ~~~ .4 ' ' m ~ ~~~ W O ~ °~ C m ~ oe~ g'~w o ~ U QJ 1 m a ~yyM~ mm~ Ec2 .9 A ~ Q T 9 M N d4 ~. c-Lr rvr $ i m h f~1 @ .ryw. I ~ c~ <\ ~5 _ f J i I y ,~ ,~r M ~ ~ ~ tt 'rl 33 Q1 r+ `~ r U ~! 41 J y ;i Ft ~? :~3 Li i3 ~ ej r $ r-i k s C lT [ J O *9 .y, n ~ U R3 !"+ f a ~ "ti +3 ~ ~ X26 L99 E'C6 d I ~~ ~ ~~~,m a ~~ d c p z T i r ~ M m E ~ C ~ LL ~ v, ~ a ~~ w; ~t~ W ~, , I ~~ ~ ~ O r ~ ~ ~ = I W ~ ~~ ./~ P o i o s ~( ~ o N m W > )mil ~ -o Z (n Q ~ Q ~ r ~ b receive the ,Y (for an extra fee): I S + iee's Address `d Delivery rn ~ ter far fee. v f ~ ~ ~ t7 928 '+S 1 U d ,~ U m a I ra pa ~ a r~ 3 I 'C~ C „~ t+t 'pr ti _ ~ ~ U I ., I V ~i \ al U~~ o ~ ~a i ~y i ~: I \ ¢ p ° w &LL -~ o ?'4 w I = ~ w ° n O i z 0 m r: I ~ ~ I? a v ~ i ° W > UJ - J ~ a _ ~ t a W ;-, ~ .{ G t G + .A ¢; E ~~.' ~ .. 7-! R: a' i~ :~ B :ti ~S !J ~ '~ ,f ~ J i 926 L99 E'C6 d '~ o W p I ~ I ~ I I m z Q i i ~ fee Paid.) I ~ M I ~ E I ~ o I I rn ~ I ~ ~ °- N RECEIPT I ~- - I I LLI \ wI U LL~ ~ ~ a ~ '" M c~ of ~ M -~ C3 o R{ p ~ F? od f* ri _ 'oE ~ M 1 wig a e .~ u ~ J . - ~ W 0¢ /1 V ~ ~. aw '~' c wz `..~ i ~ ~3 ~ ~ Qo yy ~ ~ ~ a y~ o ~ ° ' ? ~ o ~ ~ a.7 it p .. ~ W . i tlS t' ".~ ~ ~~ ~ '•d c? :~ OLL ~ a a u ~ ~ ~ V` '~. ~.i ~ U 2 ~ 'S C VJ t i. I I -1 O ~ o l Z o m 9 m ~ I I I i i I w U O LL I-- a w U W [r 0 O m c'~ 2 O V_ Cn a g26 L99 E46 d I ~~~ ~ x ~ ;~ ~ ~~-~~ W (~ `f 3 ~ u/ x- ~/ i c~~c- x~,,~ ~-. sz~~ x~ ~. Cc.,~ ~ z~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ lam"- ~~~ 2 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 1,_1994.. 2. Case No. WZ-94-13: An application by Paula S. Tutty and George and Linda Johnston for approval of a rezoning 'from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development anal for approval of a combined outline and final development plan.. Said property is located at-12725 West 42nd Avenue. Mr. Gidley presented the. staff report. Entered into the record and accepted by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, case file, packet materials and exhibits. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Gidley about future plans to pave West 42nd Avenue. He wanted to know..if property owners would be assessed when the paving is complete. Mr. Gidley answered it is possible that a narrower portion of the street could be paved and that property owners to the north would be assessed only for pa£chback, curb, gutter and sidewalk. Commissioner CERVENY questioned why the developer is assessed for normal street construction costs, when .the City would foot the bill should the land remain vacant. Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley stated that the Subdivision Regulations and Uniform Building Code require the developer be assessed for those improvements. Commissioner CERVENY asked if could be waived. Mr. Gidley answered that the case had not been presented to_ Planning Commission with a request for waiver,-nor posted or -- published that way. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if the City planned to pave 42nd Avenue in the near future. Mr. Gidley answered not to his knowledge. He elaborated. Commissioner-ECKHARDT asked if Commission could proceed with the question at hand. Chairperson RASPLICKA asked Mr. Gidley if he .understood correctly that if the-case before Commission is approved, curb, gutter sidewalk and patchback would be required on Xenon Street, but the funds for half-width improvements to West 42nd would be escrowed.. Mr. Gidley stated that was his understanding. He read the staff -- report pertaining to that requirement. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 ~ December 1, 19.94 Paul Pennock, 2727 Bryant Street, Denver was sworn in. Mr. Pennock stated he represented the applicant and he was a member of an engineering/architectural firm. He explained further the planned use of the proposed development. A total of eight employees would work at the site, six would be office help. He added that three. times weekly vans would bring metal sheets to be fabricated into ductwork. That. material would then be taken to the job site. The increase in traffic would be minimal, he felt. Mr. Pennock noted the landscaping that would be installed to buffer the neighboring residential area. He elaborated. - Commissioner-CERVENY asked Mr. Pennock if the applicant had considered placing the contractor's office and shop on the western lot, leaving the eastern lot with R-C zoning; as suggested by staff.- - Mr. Pennock stated he-saw two problems. One, applicant considers the plan before-Planning Commission less dense than say, an - office building. Secondly, traffic would be much heavier with an office building than the proposed plan. Commissioner. CERVENY stated that his concern. was there was no assurance that the applicant would remain on the site into the ~ future. Mr. Pennock stated that the .change off zoning was unimportant, so long as the applicant could proceed with the planned development. Commissioner CERVENY stated that his concern was that another owner might intensify the use in the future. Mr. Pennock stated that another owner could propose an intensified use with the present zoning, as well. Mr. Gidley passed out copies of a letter of legal protest, which was received November 17. Planning Commission did not meet that night due to a power outage. Mr. Gidley stated receipt of the legal protest required 6 out of 7 (greater than majority) Council votes to pass. Commissioner OWENS asked the applicant if there .was a reason why the proposed development could not be built on the other lot. Mr. Pennock stated that-the owner, Mr. Johnston, is discussing with the southern property owner, the possibility of combined usage. Changing the plan as suggested would create a burden. Chairperson RASPLICKA asked if the applicant had seen a-copy of the legal protest. Mr. Gidley reported that the owner had been provided a copy. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 1, 19.94 Mr. Pennock requested .the definition of "legal protest".. Mr. Gidley stated that a legal protest was a provision of State law and Wheat Ridge City Charter which provides adjacent property -. owners, including those across a street (within l00 feet), the opportunity to file a legal protest when a rezoning request is submitted. The protestors must own property which comprises 200 of any one particular side of the parcel being rezoned. Mr. Pennock asked if the legal protest_ was an automatic thing, or was it up for judgement? Mr. Gidley stated there was no judgement. Two things must be determined; one, are the protestors the legal owners of the.-- property; and two, does their property comprise 200 of one side of the subject property. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that the letter of legal protest was not distributed on November 17 was that Commission held a very brief meeting that night due to a power outage. Mr. Gidley asked if the Murphys were present. They were. Kathryn Murphy, 12710 West 42nd Avenue, was sworn in. Ms. Murphy stated she and her husband live directly south of the subject property and they were protesting the rezoning request. Her concerns were increased traffic and that the neighbors would have _ no guarantee that a more intensive use of the land wouldn't occur in the future. She elaborated: There were no questions. Ralph Mangone, 2781 Berry Lane, Golden, was sworn in. Mr. Mangone=pointed out two parcels of land he and his wife own near the subject parcel. He explained that he had attempted to develop his land, but had been denied. Mr. Mangone complained that he and his wife are paying a high rate of tax on..the property, but have been unable to develop either piece. He was hopeful that a plan could be made for the entire area, enabling the land to be developed. He doubted his land along Youngfield _ would be developed residentially. Mr. Gidley placed a zoning map of the area on the overhead. He stated that numerous discussions have occurred regarding .- development of this.-area, including the possible need for urban renewal. He elaborated_ Commissioner OWENS asked when the property was rezoned R-C.. Mr. Gidley stated about one year ago. _ Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 December 1, 1994 David Murphv, 12710 West 42nd Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Murphy complained that should this proposed rezoning be approved, the view from his home would be the rear of the proposed development, the entrance to the parking lot, etc. The view of the project from Xenon Street would be quite nice. He added that his desire is to maintain the neighborhood as it is and he is concerned with increased traffic in the area. He-feels he is being squeezed out by commercial development. He elaborated. George Johnston _122 Pine Ridge Road, Evergreen, was sworn in. Mr. Johnston stated he did have an interest in the area, beyond just owning the parcel of land in question. He read a portion of the legal protest letter, disputing the statement that no one would benefit from the proposed development other than himself and the Tuttys. Mr. Johnston stated the benefits to the neighborhood would be curb, gutter and sidewalk; better drainage; cost for street improvements will be escrowed, plus, a new fire hydrant may be installed. He pointed out detrimental effects from other development in the area. Chairperson RASPLICKA reiterated that Planning Commission could not act on the legal protest; that City council must do that. Mr. John on highly recommended the Tuttys as good neighbors who take care of their property. Commissioner ECKHARDT reminded those present that in the recent past, Planning Commission. had approved a rather low-impact office facility on this parcel of land. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated his concern is that it is a residential area and he had a problem locating a sheet-metal fabricating operation in the neighborhood. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. WZ-94-13 be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of Denial for the following reasons: 1. Incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; and 2. Increased traffic generated and types of traffic introduced into the neighborhood. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Commissioner CERVENY stated that it was his belief that the applicant had every intention of running a clean__operation. He had concern,-however, that should the property change hands, another owner would not be so conscientious. Commissioner CERVENY added that he had been involved in the development of the Fruitdale Master Plan, one of- the goals of the plan was to "protect the character of the neighborhood". Therefore, he was in support of denial of the request. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 ( December 1, 1994- Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he agreed with Commissioner CERVENY, although the proposal. presented is very nice-appearing. Chairperson RASPLICKA commented that if the request was moved to Lot 2, he felt it might be considered more. favorably. Commissioner ECKHARDT pointed out it would then be directly across from the Murphy's residence. He thought perhaps the land adjacent to the lab might work. Commissioner LANGDON stated that he property from 32nd to 44th would be because it borders a high-traffic a he felt. Commission had no choice, protest submitted, but to recommend applicant .could take it before City was pretty certain that the developed commercially rea. It could be a nice area, however, due to the legal denial. Then, he added, the Council. Mr. Gidley informed Commission that if the Commission denies the case, it will not go before City Council, unless the applicant appeals Planning Commission's decision. Motion failed 3-3, with Commissioners RASPLICKA, LANGDON and OWENS voting against. A revote was taken, to-make certain there was no error in the original vote. Motion failed again, ,3-3, with Commissioners RASPLICKA, LANGDON and OWENS voting against. Mr. Gidley explained that the vote taken (a tie) was considered- Denial of the request. However, if the applicant wishes, he can submit a letter within ten-days requesting that the matter be placed before City Council. Mr. Gidley explained the procedure. Discussion followed. Commissioner ECKHARDT reintroduced.-his original motion for denial of Case No. WZ-94-13 for the reasons previously stated. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-'2, with Commissioners RASPLICKA and OWENS voting against. With this vote, Case No. WZ-94-13 was denied. 8. CLOSE THE PDBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BIISINESS A. Draft Resolution - Governor Romer's 9-Step Plan Coors Brewing Company Golden, Colorado 80401-1295 December 13, 1994 George S. Johnston, Vice President GS HECTOR CONSTRUCTION 2006 Bryant Street Denver, CO 80211 RE: Proposed Rezoning Case W2-94-03 Johnston Subdivision at the NW corner of W. 42nd Avenue and Xenon Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado Dear Mr. Johnston: Coors Brewing Company owns land south of W. 42nd Avenue across from the above proposed project. At this time, Coors Brewing Company has no objection to approval of the proposed rezoning and development of the site as proposed. Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed project. Sincerely, CO WING COMPANY e E Bush, Director Land & Water Resources LEBSrp:L81PRCJ5 R"Y`~e~~e~EIVED DEC 1 5 1994 - .. ~_i PROSPECT RECREATION DISTRICT 4198 XENON STREET WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 P HON E: 424-2346 January 10, 1995 Ms Meredith Ruckertt, Case Planner Planning Department City of ?•h~eat P~idge 7500 W, 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Ms Ruckertt: The Prospect Recreation District headquarters office and shop are directly acress Xenon Street from the proposed rezoning and partial plat of Tutty & Johnson, Case ~~WZ-94-13, Our concerns with this rezoning were (1) side setbacks, (2) the unplatted building envelope which shows no .rear setback on the ODP, (3) height restrictions and the VCT, (4) road development and any requirements on our District, The developer,-George Johnson, has informed us that there will be setbacks when they return for platting the western portion of this rezoning, He also has told me that the landscaped "back" of the building to the east on the drawing will face Xenon, There is a 30' setback indicated there, D1r, Johnson also informed us that the height restriction will be 18 feet, Considering the distance across the street and the setback, this should not affect our angle of sight for. mountain view, A few months ago Gene Gidley of your department informed us that there would be no requirements made upon our District for road improvements, nor would we be required to constr~~ct sidewalk, curb and gutter, So long as all of the above statements are in force, our District-has no problem with this rezoning, In fact, we would recommend approval by the Wheat Ridge City Council since it could enhance the neighborhood, However, if any of our above .concerns are not being answered as has been represented, then please_ca11 me immediately so that we-can work. on this, You may reach me mornings and evenings at 279-3522 or 278-0357 (ans, machine) or leave word with Don Klima at District headquarters for me, 424-2346e Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Boafd~o Directors RECEIVES .i~N 1 3 1995 ~' -50o wES T 2~Th AvErv~E - The Cify of ?.O. BOX 638 - -- l"JHEAT RIDGE. 008603=-;'633 _ - i3D31234-5900 - ~(~I1PiSt City Admin. Fax # 234-592= - - -: °-d!ice Dent. Fax # 235-2949 - __- _ -1\ldge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. (~~-gy^/3 PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNC L - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARING DATE: ~-3 / ~Q~ _ n I, residing at ~~0 t~ - ~ ~`- ;` a d d r e s s as the applicant for Case No: G~ ~ ' q`l'~-3 hereby certify that i have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at o c a t i o n on this ~ ~ day of ~ 19 ~, and do hereby certify that said sign has been. posted and remained in place for. fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing of this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. Signature: NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Planning and Development. i ~_ f t - 4 .~ - - t-~" - t'-~~ ~ ` -'t ~ n a m e ~ e aKxM_prW_ '~' , ~'' ~ ~ ' I ~~:-.... b_I `00W.EST 25 H AVEhi;E o. sox s3s_ The City of .HEAT ^nIbGE. ~0 5Cc3--vo38 3431 23t-Sc.~p Wheat :y Aam~r. Fax = 234-SP2- Police Deot. Fax ~ 235-25-5 ~Rld.ge January 9, 1995 This is to inform you that Case No. wZ-94-13 which is a request for approval of a rezoning from R o n anc~ fr„- pz rnval of a combined outline and final plan for property located at 1725 W a+ 4 nd Avg will be heard by the Wheat Ridge C;+y Co ,n~;i in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7:pp p.m , on. Januarv 23 1995 All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the City Counc;l As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION <pc>phnoticeform' ca n."., ".~r~„~.,, Dear Adjacent Property Owner: If you have received this notice, you reside or own property adjacent to a property involved in a land use case being processed by the City of Wheat Ridge. This notice is intended to inform you of the process involved in land use development applications. Prior to application for rezoning or special use permit the developer is responsible for holding an informal neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting. is to provide the opportunity for citizens to become aware of a proposed development in their neighborhood and to allow the developer to respond to citizen concerns in the design of their project. All residents within 600 feet are required to be notified of the meeting. A staff planner will attend the meeting to discuss City policy and regulations and the process involved, however, the planner will remain impartial regarding viability of the project. Keep in mind that this is not a public hearing. Although a synopsis of the meeting will be entered as testimony, it is the public hearings in front of Planning Commission and City Council where decisions are rendered. If you want input in the decision- making process, it is imperative that you attend the public hearings. The public hearings you will be attending are quasi-judicial in nature. Please do not contact your Planning Commissioners or Council people to discuss the merits of a case prior to the public hearing. It could jeopardize your representatives' ability to hear the case. If you are an adjacent property, you may have the right to file a "legal protest" against the application. The result of this filing is that it requires a 3/4 majority of City Council to approve a request. If you have questions regarding any of the information given above, do not hesitate tb contact a planner at the City offices by calling 235-2846. The Planning & Development Department is open Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. <pc>adjpropowner CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: November 17, 1994 DATE PREPARED: ~~N/ovember 8, 1994 CASE NO. & NAME; WZ-9413/Tutty CASE MANAGER:f''"Meredith Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Rezone from R-C to PCD and approval of a combined outline and final development plan LOCATION OF REQUEST: 12725 West 42nd Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) Paula Tutty George Johnston 4464 Brentwood St., W R 122 Pine Ridge Rd., Evergreen NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) George Johnston 122 Pine Ridge Rd., Evergreen APPROXIMATE AREA: 1.382 acres PRESENT ZONING: R-C PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING ZONING: N & W: A-2; S: A-1; E: A-1 & A-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: dog kennel; S: vacant, single-family residential; E: park district office, single family; W: vacant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Multiple Use - Fruitdale Valley Master Plan DATE PUBLISHED: October 26, 1994 DATE POSTED: November 3, 1994 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: November 3, 1994 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) ()NOT REQUIRED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ---------------------------- ENTER INTO RECORD: (XX) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) ZONING ORDINANCE ( )SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ( )OTHER ()NONE ()OC) 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-94-13/Tutty REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan. The property in question was rezoned from A-2 to R-C pursuant to Case No. WZ-94-1. A two-lot subdivision plat was approved as well as a development plan for the eastern lot. The approved development plan showed a single story office with the ability to build up to 6400 square feet. Subsequent to rezoning approval, sale of the eastern lot tell through and the owner now has a contract with the owners of a heating and ventilation contractor. Since this type of use is more intensive than that which is allowed in the R-C zone, a rezoning is necessary. II. COMBINED OUTLINE AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A final development plan has been submitted for Lot 1 with an outline plan approval only for Lot 2. The prospective buyer of Lot 1 is interested in building a heating and ventilation contractor's office/shop/warehouse structure. The business employs six office workers and two shop employees. The remaining 20 personnel are field workers who report directly to the job site with no traffic to and from the office. A small amount of fabrication will take place in the shop but this would consist mainly of bending metal to customize heating and ventilation systems. All large units would be delivered to the job site, however, there are three or so deliveries per week to the office building in 20-foot-long vans. Allowed uses on Lot 1 would be R-C uses plus a contractor's office and shop. Because of parking limitations, retail space would be limited to a total of 2000 square feet. No outside storage or work will be allowed on either lot. The applicant proposes aone-story (not to exceed 18 feet) 7000 square foot office/shop/warehouse building. Building coverage would be 25%, landscaped coverage would be roughly 30% and 47% of the site would be covered with hard surfaces (parking, drives, sidewalks). A minimum of 15 parking spaces is needed with the current proposal. If the whole building was converted to retail, a minimum of 30 spaces would be required. For this reason, retail is limited to 2000 square feet within the entire building. All minimum development requirements in the R-C zone district have been met. One area of concern by Staff is that there is no cross-access provided between Lots 1 and 2. This was an item specifically addressed at prior platting. One of the goals of the design section of the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan was to provide ... "integrated parking lots with cross-access easements... Developments which don't include these recommendations should be discouraged." For this reason, the site plan as proposed is inconsistent with the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan. The property owner is requesting approval of an outline development plan on Lot 2 (western lot). Allowed uses include all C-1 uses except automobile service and repair and lumber yards. Planning Division Staff Report Page 3 Case No. WZ-94-13/Tutty No outside storage or work will be allowed. Development on Lot 2 cannot occur until Planning Commission and City Council have approved a final development plan. III. CRITERIA . CRITERIA FOR REZONING REQUESTS In accordance with Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Sec. 26-6(C.), before a change of zone is approved, the applicant shall show and City Council shall find: 1. 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. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Multiple Use and as general commercial within the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan on the edge of moderate density residential to the east with low- density residential further to the east. The applicants are proposing commercial uses on the eastern property which would allow offices, service establishments, limited neighborhood retail and a contractor office/shop, which is semi-industrial in nature. No outside storage or work activity is allowed on either lot. Allowed uses on the western lot are C-1 uses excluding auto sales and repair and lumber yards. One of the policy recommendations of the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan is to protect low intensity or residential uses through buffering techniques; (i.e., low density residential can be next to moderate density residential, can be next to office/neighborhood commercial.) At the neighborhood meeting there was some opposition for the proposal because it could be too intensive and not compatible with the residentlal area. Staff would note that in the previous zoning case, uses on both lots were limited to R-C. This was the basis for staff's recommendation of approval. Now, the owner is proposing an R-C zoning with semi-industrial use on the eastern lot and C-1 uses on the western lot. Staff would support a recommendation for R-C uses on both lots with an HVAC officeJshop warehouse on the western. The owner has been informed this on numerous occasions. Staff concludes that the proposal submitted does not provide adequate protection for the surrounding residential properties, nor an acceptable land use transition from east to west. 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. Zoning and land use surrounding the property include a dog kennel with A-2 zoning to the north. Abutting the property to the east is A-1 and A-2 zoned land with low density residential and asemi-public office use. To the south is A-1 zoned land which has two single-family homes with C-1 land with a lab on it farther to the west. Immediately to the west is vacant, A-2 zoned property. Staff concludes that although the proposed use as planned and designed is fairly low profile in nature, it is more intensive than that which was intended for transitional commercial adjacent to residential development by the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan. ! • Planning Division Staff Report Page 4 Case No. WZ-94-73/Tutty 3. That there will be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the community derived by the change oft zone. There could be economic benefits to the community if the proposal is approved. 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. All outside agencies can serve with improvements provided by the developer. 5. That the proposed rezoning will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare by creating excessive traffic congestion, create drainage problems, or seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties. The proposal will result in a small increase in traffic in the area, however, the future construction of 42nd Avenue between Xenon and Youngfield, should be able to handle the amount generated by this site although it is more intensive than that which was previously approved. Drainage on and off site will follow historic flows and therefore should not negatively affect general drainage in the area. 6. That the property cannot reasonably be developed under the existing zoning conditions. Both lots could be developed in accordance with the R-C regulations which allows office, service and limited retail. 7. That the rezoning will not create an isolated or spot zone district unrelated to adjacent or nearby areas. Spot zoning should not be an issue as there are other commercial zones in the vicinity. 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. It is difficult for staff to ascertain whether there is a market for small owner-occupied office space with contractor's shop. Based on the statements given above, Staff concludes that the evaluation criteria does not support approval of this request. N. AGENCY REFERRALS All agencies can serve with certain improvements. Public Works will require a drainage plan and report approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. An escrow will be required for the cost of half-width improvements to West Planning Division Staff Report Page 5 Case No. WZ-94-13fTutty 42nd Avenue in front of both Lots 1 and 2, which the City will construct next year. The developer will be responsible for the installation of curb, gutter and. sidewalk and patching of Xenon Street. V. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A meeting for neighborhood input was held on September 1, 1994. Those attending were: Meredith Reckert (staff) George Johnston (owner Nick Zimmer (applicant's consultant) Paula Tutty (applicant) John Tutty (applicant) Stacey Rubenking (applicant) Ken Rubenking (applicant) Richard Beckfeld, 4210 Xenon St Ray Storms, 4250 Xenon St Homer Murphy, 12700 W 42nd Ave Kathryn Murphy, 12700 W 42nd Ave Concerns expressed by neighboring residents are that they don't want commercial intrusion into this primarily residential area particularly, "heavier" types of commercial. They were worried about noise coming from the shop area and the use of chemicals. The applicants assured the neighbors that their fabrication processing is done by bending. The neighbors don't want to have to participate in the cost of paving West 42nd Avenue. They are afraid that the paving of 42nd Avenue will encourage speeding and cut-through traffic trying to avoid the 44thJYoungfield intersection. They indicated that there are no speed limit signs and not enough enforcement of speeders in the area. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS According to the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan, the area residents "are concerned about deterioration of our residential areas by encroachment of commercial use" with a goal to "promote adjacent uses which are of graduated intensity." It is this philosophy that Staff feels the application is violating with the contractor's office on Lot 1 (east). Staff would support this request if the proposed contractor's office and shop was being developed on the western lot with the eastern lot restricted to R-C uses such as office. Staff has concluded that the criteria used to evaluate a rezoning do not support approval of this request and therefore gives a recommendation of Denial for Case No. WZ-94-13. VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: OPTION A: "I move that Case No. WZ-94-13, a request for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined Planning Division Staff Report Page 6 Case No. WZ-9413fTutty outline and final development plan for property located at 12925 West 42nd Avenue, be Denied for the following reasons: 1. It is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan; and 2. The evaluation criteria does not support approval of this request". OPTION B: I move that Case No. WZ-94-13, a request for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan for property located at 12925 West 42nd Avenue be Approved for the following reasons: t. 2. 3. With the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. " G SE ~to• w ~. -q~l - 0 3 ~xN-LR~r ~~' S~TC PI,P~N APP62AVED Pty c~sE Nd• v~ ~ -R~- t M6KG~Ow]E PVApQ,RT 1"' '~,~°; L 1 ~~l ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ gs i ' 1 I ~ I '~ i ~ ' ~ I £ 1 ~ P 1 ~9 ~ r ~~ ~I I I ~ [pI t , NI ~ I li I Z ~1 ~1 N o I II q s z p~ ~ ~ r D n/ d - ~ I °" q ~ •~ ~> 8 ~ .: ~ •c ' I m" Ij fn ~ ~ I p m i ! Sdez u ~ "I'. ~ o ~ ~ IS ' T ~ 9 d I c~ I o+ . u $ (+ I /~ ~ ,4 v 1~5 ~s ! n ~,a~i m n n I~ ' FF ..r_-...__.. .~ ~ . 1.. __ . _... ___ n '~~ z s U R Q I i m ~ ~ - o A th _ ~ 9 O f ~~~ y ~ f \\1 ~ ~~~ ~~ s t L 3- _ I F= ~~+ (t £~ dr TT 5 n; Sm r PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST DATE: November 17, 1994 continued to December 1, CASE NO: Case No. WZ-94-13 1994 REQUEST: An application by Paula S. Tufty and George and Linda Johnston for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan. Said property is located at 12725 West 42nd Avenue. r'~~ CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO: WZ-94-13 LOCATION: 12725 West 42nd Avenue APPLICANT(S) NAME: Paula S. TuttyJGeorge & Linda Johnston OWNER(S) NAME: George Johnston REQUEST: Rezone from R-C to PCD and approval of a combined outline and final development plan APPROXIMATE AREA: 1.382 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, it was moved by Commissioner ECKHARDT, seconded by Commissioner CERVENY, that Case No. WZ-9413, an application by Paula S. Tutty and George and Linda Johnston for approval of rezoning from R-C to PCD and approval of a combined outline and final development plan be Denied for the following reasons: 1. Incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; and 2. Increased traffic gerierated and types of traffic introduced into the neighborhood. VOTE: YES: Eckhardt, Williams, Cerveny and Langdon NO: Rasplicka, Owens I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a 4-2 vote of the members present at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the First day of December, 1994. RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION c:~wp60,pc~wz9413.res ~~ ,3) 234-5924 T0: FOR: GATE: SUBJ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Page 2/2 Job 036 Dec-07 Wed 14:04 1994 • • N O T I C E O F A P P E A L ~#'-'.~:~ ,~~~~~~d.s t;;~rt;;• CITY CLERK, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORA00 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFER~I~cO~JNTIC~~CQLR~DO 12-7-94 ~ Id,- ((jj Case Na. wZ-94-13 ApPLICANT'George S. Johnston PETITION/APPLICATIDN RE: Allow the above case be heard by Cites, Council for review and approval as soon as Possible. REASON DECISION IS BEING APPEALED' There is sufficient adjacent property ownership support to warranty this development beinct built in this area Planning Commission did not understand the low intensit and ualit of this ro osal. YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that appeal is hereby made to the City Council of the Decision rendered by City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission at its meeting of December 2, 1994 concerning the above titled matter. S. Pr~natu yP ~ ~ g e name: G r e S. Johnston (dddress} 1~7 Pine B~~^o u^~~ (city and zip}~gr~, co so4'}~ (telephone} aRn_S~~o DISPOSITION: Appeai scheduled for City Council meeting of: APPEAL: L1 Denied. (~( Approved. DEC-07-1994 14 04 C303) 234-5924 Do not write in this space 96 P.02 AGENDA ITEM RECAP QUASI-JUDICIAL X Yes No PUBLIC HEARINGS _-CITY ADM. NATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS PROC./CEREMONIES CITY ATTY. MATTERS x ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING BIDS/MOTIONS LIQUOR HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ INFORMATION ONLY _ -PUBLIC CO[~IMENT. RESOLUTIONS - - -_ AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Case No. WZ-94-13/TUtty SIIb4fARY/RECOMMENDATION: Consider a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial District for property located at 12725 West 42nd Avenue and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan. Approval on first reading is recommended. ATTACHMENTS: HUDGETED 1) Council Bill No. I ITEM 2) - Yes No 3) Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount S Requested Expend.$ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No _ -_ _ ; SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that .Council Bill be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, , 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Bldg., and if approved on_second reading take effect 15 days after final publication. Suggested public hearing date: January 23,,1995 ! ~ INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER _ Council Bill No. ORDINANCE NO. Series of 1994 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF REZONING FROM RESTRICTED-COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND FOR APPROVAL OF A COMBINED OUTLINE AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON LAND LOCATED AT 12725 WEST 42ND AVENUE, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. BE R ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Upon application by George Johnston and Paula Tutty for approval of rezoning in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Case No. WZ-94-13 and based upon recommendation for approval 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 Restricted- Commercial district and to include in the Planned Commercial Development district the following described land: A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH/SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 20 WITH THE CENTERLINE OF WEST 44TH AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89°50'00" WEST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF WEST 44TH AVENUE 567.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH O° 32' 00" EAST ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF XENON STREET 1054.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH O°32'00" EAST ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF XENON STREET 1054.50 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 42ND AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89°50'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 42ND AVENUE 217.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH O°32'00" WEST 30.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°50'00" WEST 63.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°32'00" EAST 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 42ND AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89°50`00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 147.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH O°10'00" WEST 145.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH Ordinance No. Page 2 Case No. WZ-9413/Johnston/Tutty 89°50'00" EAST 426.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.382 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 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 of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge. Section 3. Conditions. A) The Outline Development Plan for Lot 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby adopted and shall serve as a general guideline for the future development and use of the legally described property. Prior to development and use of the property, a final development plan must be approved in accordance with Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Section 26-25. Right to development shall not accrue until the Final Planned Commercial Development Plan has been legally approved by the Wheat ridge Planning Commission and City Council and recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder, and subject to meeting all other requirements as provided by the Wheat Ridge City Charter and the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. B) Allowed uses for Lot 1 shall be all Restricted-Commercial uses pursuant to Section 26-21 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, plus a contractor's shop and office. Allowed uses for Lot 2 shall be all Commercial-One uses pursuant to Section 26-22 of the Wheat ridge code of Laws except automobile service and repair businesses and lumber yards. C) No outside storage or work will be allowed on either lot Section 4, __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. Section 5. Severabilitv. If_any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this ordinance or the, application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgement shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect days after final publication. Ordinance No. Page 3 Case No. WZ-9413/Johnston/Tutty INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to on this _ day of , 1994, 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 , 1994, 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 , 1994. SIGNED by the Mayor on this -day of , 1994. DAN WILDE, MAYOR Wanda Sang, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY KATHRYN SCHROEDER, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Sentinel Effective Date: c:~wp60~ord~wz9413.ord -500 WEST 29TH AVENUE ~.0. BOX 638 WHEAT RIDGE. CC &CC34-0538 X3031234-5900 The Cify of ~161heat Ridge Gty Admin. Fax ~ 234-5924 January 16, 1995 Pclice Deoi. Fax » 235-2949 This is to inform you that Case No. w~-94-1R which is a request for approval of a rezoning from R-0 t~ pin a~ (.,,- approval of a combined outline and f;nal plan for property located at 12725 weGi- 42nd A{lPn1lP will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Citv Council- in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7:QD p.m. on **February 13. 1995** All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this meeting. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division. Thank you. PLANNING DIVISION **PLEASE NOTE DATE CORRECTION.** <pc>phnoticeform Ci Rn ~. kJ Pmxv Dear Adjacent Property Owner: If you have received this notice, you reside or own property adjacent to a property involved in a land use case being processed by the City of Wheat Ridge. This notice is intended to inform you of the process involved in land use development applications. Prior to application for .rezoning or special use permit,- the developer is responsible for holding an informal neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the opportunity for citizens to become aware of a proposed development in their neighborhood and to allow the developer to respond to citizen concerns in the design of their project. All residents within 600 feet are required to be notified of the meeting. A staff planner will attend the meeting to dis-cuss City policy and regulations and the process involved, however, the planner will remain impartial regarding viability of the project. Keep in mind that this is not a public hearing. Although a synopsis of the meeting will be entered as testimony, it is the public hearings in front of Planning Commission and City Council. where decisions are rendered. If you want input in the decision- making process, it is imperative that you attend the public hearings. The public hearings you will be attending are quasi-judicial in nature. Please do not contact your Planning Commissioners or Council people to discuss the merits of a case prior to the public hearing. It could jeopardize your representatives' ability to hear the case. If you are an adjacent property, you may have the right to file a "legal protest" against the application. The result of this filing is that it requires a 3/4 majority of City Council to approve a request. if you have questions regarding any of the information given above, do not hesitate to contact a planner at the City offices by calling 235-2846. The Planning & Development Department is open Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. <pc>adjpropowner CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 13, 1995 DATE PREPARED: February 1, 1995 CASE NO. & NAME: WZ-9413~Tutty CASE MANAGER:'~Aeredith Recker[ ACTION REQUESTED: Rezone from R-C to PCD and approval of a combined outline and final development plan LOCATION OF REQUEST: 12725 West 42nd Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) Paula Tutty George Johnston 4464 Brentwood St., W R 122 Pine Ridge Rd., Evergreen NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) George Johnston 122 Pine Ridge Rd., Evergreen APPROXIMATE AREA: 1.382 acres PRESENT ZONING: R-C PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING ZONING: N & W: A-2; S: A-1; E: A-1 & A-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: dog kennel; S: vacant, single-family residential; E: park district office, single family; W: vacant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR TWE AREA: Multiple Use - Fruitdale Valley Master Plan DATE PUBLISHED: January 19, 1995 DATE POSTED: January 23, 1995 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: January 16, 1995 AGENCY CHECKLIST: (XX) ()NOT REQUIRED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) ENTER INTO RECORD: (XX) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX} ZONING ORDINANCE { )SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS { )OTHER ( )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-94-13JTutty REQUEST Page 2 The applicant requests approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan. The property in question was rezoned from A-2 to R-C pursuant to Case No. WZ-94-1. A two-lot subdivision plat was approved as well as a development plan for the eastern lot. The approved development plan showed a single story office with the ability to buildup to 6400 square feet. Subsequent to rezoning approval, sale of the eastern lot fell through and the owner now has a contract with the owners of a heating and ventilation contracting business. Since this type of use is more intensive than that which is allowed in the R-C zone, a rezoning is necessary. II. COMBINED OUTLINE AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A final development plan, included as Exhibit 'A' has been submitted for Lot 1 with an outline plan approval only for Lot 2. The prospective buyer of Lot 1 is interested in building a heating and ventilation contractor's office/shop/warehouse structure. The business employs six office workers and two shop employees. The remaining 20 personnel are field workers who report directly to the job site with no traffic to and from the office. A small amount of fabrication will take place in the shop but this would consist mainly of bending metal to customize heating and ventilation systems. All large units would be delivered to the job site, however, there are three or so deliveries per week to the office building in 20-Toot-long vans. Allowed uses on Lot 1 would be R-C uses plus a contractor's office and shop. Because of parking limitations, retail space would be limited to a total of 2000 square feet. No outside storage or work will be allowed on either lot. The applicant proposes aone-story (not to exceed 18 feet) 7000 square foot officeJshop/warehouse building. Building coverage would be 25%, landscaped coverage would be roughly 30% and 47% of the site would be covered with hard surfaces (parking, drives, sidewalks). A minimum of 15 parking spaces is needed with the current proposal. If the whole building w,as converted to retail, a minimum of 30 spaces would be required. For this reason, retail is limited to 2000 square feet within the entire building. The applicant has agreed to provide corss-access between Lots 1 and 2. All minimum development requirements in the R-C zone district have been met. The property owner is requesting approval of an outline development plan on Lot 2 (western lot). Allowed uses include all C-1 uses except automobile service and repair and lumber yards. No outside storage or work will be allowed. Development on Lot 2 cannot occur until Planning Commission and City Council have approved a final development plan. III. CRITERIA CRITERIA FOR REZONING REQUESTS Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-9413/Tutty Page 3 In accordance with Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Sec. 26-6(C.), before a change of zone is approved, the applicant shall show and City Council shall find: 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. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Multiple Use and as general commercial within the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan on the edge of moderate density residential to the east with low- density residential further to the east. The applicants are proposing commercial uses on the eastern property which would allow offices, service establishments, limited neighborhood retail and a contractor office/shop, which is semi-industrial in nature. No outside storage or work activity is allowed on either lot. Allowed uses on the western lot are G1 uses excluding auto sales and repair and lumber yards. One of the policy recommendations of the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan is to protect low intensity or residential uses through buffering techniques; (i.e., low density residential can be next to moderate density residential, can be next to ottice/neighborhood commercial.) At the neighborhood meeting there was some opposition for the proposal because it could be too intensive and not compatible with the residential area. Staff would note that in the previous zoning case, uses on both lots were limited to R-C. This was the basis for staff's recommendation of approval. Now, the owner is proposing an R-C zoning with semi-industrial use on the eastern lot and C-1 uses on the western lot. Staff would support a recommendation for R-C uses on both lots with an HVAC office/shop warehouse on the western. The owner has been informed this on numerous occasions. Staff concludes that the proposal submitted does not provide adequate protection for the surrounding residential properties, nor an acceptable land use transition from east to west. 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. Zoning and land use surrounding the property include a dog kennel with.A-2 zoning to the north. Abutting the property to the east is A-1 and A-2 zoned land with low density residential and asemi-public office use. To the south is A-1 zoned land which has two single-family homes with C-1 land with a lab on it farther to the west. Immediately to the west is vacant, A-2 zoned property. Staff concludes that although the proposed use as planned and designed is fairly low profile in nature, it is more intensive than that which was intended for transitional commercial adjacent to residential development by the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan. A legal protest from the neighbor to the south has also been submitted. 3. That there will be social, recreational, physical andJor economic benefits to the community derived by the change off zone. There could be economic benefits to the community if the proposal is approved. Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-94-13~Tutty Page 4 4. That adequate infrastructureffacilities 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. All outside agencies can serve with improvements provided by the developer. 5. That the proposed rezoning will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare by creating excessive traffic congestion, create drainage problems, or seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties. The proposal will result in a small increase in traffic in the area, however, the future construction of 42nd Avenue between Xenon and Youngfield, should be able to handle the amount generated by this site although it is more intensive than that which was previously approved. Drainage on and oif site will follow historic flows and therefore should not negatively affect general drainage in the area. 6. That the property cannot reasonably be developed under the existing zoning conditions. Both lots could be developed in accordance with the R-C regulations which allows office, service and limited retail. 7. That the rezoning will not create an isolated or spot zone district unrelated to adjacent or nearby areas. Spot zoning should not be an issue as there are other commercial zones in the vicinity. 8. That there is a void in an area or community need that the change of zone will fill 6y providing for necessary services, products or facilities especially appropriate at the location, considering available alternatives. It is difficult for staff to ascertain whether there is a market for small owner-occupied office space with contractor's shop. Based on the statements given above, Staff concludes that the evaluation criteria does not support approval of this request. N. AGENCY REFERRALS All agencies can serve with certain improvements. Public Works will require a drainage plan and report approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. An escrow will be required for the cost of half-width improvements to West 42nd Avenue in front of both Lots 1 and 2, which the City will construct next year. The developer will be responsible for the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk and patching of Xenon Street. V. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-94-13/Tutty Page 5 A meeting for neighborhood input was held on September 1, 1994. Those attending were: Meredith Reckert (staff) George Johnston (owner Nick Zimmer (applicant's consultant) Paula Tutty (applicant) John Tutty (applicant) Stacey Rubenking (applicant) Ken Rubenking (applicant) Richard Beckfeld, 4210 Xenon St Ray Storms, 4250 Xenon St Homer Murphy, 12700 W 42nd Ave Kathryn Murphy, 12700 W 42nd Ave Concerns expressed by neighboring residents are that they don't want commercial intrusion into this primarily residential area particularly, °'heavier" types of commercial. They were worried about noise coming from the shop area and the use of chemicals. The applicants assured the neighbors that their fabrication processing is done by bending. The neighbors don't want to have to participate in the cost of paving West 42nd Avenue. They are afraid that the paving of 42nd Avenue will encourage speeding and cut-through traffic trying to avoid the 44th/Youngfield intersection. They indicated that there are no speed limit signs and not enough enforcement of speeders in the area. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing held on December 1, 1994. a recommendation of Denial was made for the following reasons: 1. Incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; and 2. Increased traffic generated and types of traffic introduced into the neighborhood. A legal protest from the property owners to the south was submitted at the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant/owner has appealed Planning Commission's denial to City Council. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS According to the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan, the area residents "are concerned about deterioration of our residential areas by encroachment of commercial use" with a goal to "promote adjacent uses which are of graduated intensity." It is this philosophy that Staff feels the application is violating with the contractor's office on Lot 1 (east). Staff would support this request if the proposed contractor's office and shop was being developed on the western lot with the eastern tot restricted to R-C uses such as office. Planning Division Staff Report Case No. WZ-9413/Tutty Page 6 Staff has concluded that the criteria used to evaluate a rezoning do not support approval of this request and therefore gives a recommendation of Denial for Case No. WZ-94-13. VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: OPTION A: "1 move that Council Bill No. , a request for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan for property located at 12925 West 42nd Avenue, be Denied for the following reasons: 1. It is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan; and 2. The evaluation criteria does not support approval of this request". OPTION B: "1 move that Council Bill No. a request for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan for property located at 12925 West 42nd Avenue be Approved for the following reasons: 2. 3. With the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. " c:~wp60~cc`wz9413.sr ! ~ Case No. WZ-94-13 AGENCY REFERRALS SUMMARY Fire: (Arvada) Can serve. Schools: Water: (Valley) Will require participation in line hydrant upgrade in West 44th Avenue. Sewer: (Fruitdale) Service line construction will be required. U S West: Public Service Company: Can serve. State Land Use Commission (over 5 acres): State Geologist: State Highway: Jefferson County: (Health, Commissioners, Planning) Adjacent City: TCI: CITY DEPARTMENTS Public Works: Will require drainage plan and escrow for street construction prior to the issuance of a building permit. Parks and Recreation: Police: Building Inspection: agrefsum.frm 1 1 I l I UNINGORPOR/\TID ~.SpN GOLNTY ~ . IJ. ~'' 1 I 1 `I ' •P s ~y~t~ 1 1 1 jI , M'" /I 1 _ /.f ~ 1 I' / ' .1 ,r,,,. 1 ~T~ .,,s • r l i 1 1 ,sso 1 t~ _~~, ,~ 2 I !I' SL•'fER < rfi3Jr I Y~ S'f ,' N a _R WNCORFORAT® ETRSQ7 C.0.Ml' I ' u Sao nve ~ e j•_v^ rrr•~, ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ = ;~ ,~:. , ' ' . ,~ . y ~ •'• 1 r'I ~:i ~ ~ ~_ 1 ' ' 1 ~ \ ' ' ~ •h / . <, ,. - ~1~ ~ O N .. 1~.1 .1 . ~ ~ , \~~ ~ 1 1 I v 1 - .... - l i I r$- I YgN(Flgp ~1l PGD , GAS'E ,.jo, W ~. - G ~ - ~ ~ ~x.N ~ ~,~T ~,~' {{sssei~C~=S3x3 g4 Gib .~ ~~ f ~e @'r}~394}F~e%Gi gg~€t~4d°e ~~ Y@. a x&~ - '?sFYgcsgTy¢ v3~~:g~ii ~` W 3a~ ~ ~p~Fr~a;°~,~ 3Yt}~~~t[ iS I ¢ ^ e Y e ~B 0 ~ 1 e e~~Zpx reY'~2~} ~' ~: i'vl ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ Q ~ 3"5~ i (7 @Y~7 ?34-'?t rR~.~$Y.:y} 6§syf=s`~ ~ yy i {s{ ~ S¢ F i ~ s }~a e W ":e Y~sYse¢gc*a43 ~ei?. j} ~'@; i i p ~ } E 33 J :dig ~SiSE.Ei-2i3&EA Tip.}~~~r9s ~ '§ 3I 1to ~ ~} } ~ dr €5 ~§ 13II 6 c sinieoad ~ ua3eoa~d ~ ua'3eoad wants ~ M3033a A rrnnzHl ~ uNnoJ a05N31J3f i i F Z ) o Q a + V ` F-Z ° ~ \ 2 a ~ ~ox W ~ ~ = o z<g$a ~ a 0 Z ~ r o'~3 ~ J Nw• fi~" ~W V W >~p n p~ o ~~ ~,: _°~ J `_ a< U Nno Zz>' .. 0 p F, 6 E Z CB: Z ~ o==K ~ z 3 a ~ 1' ~ ~ F o~g ''.g? a 5`g~ ~ F z . 3 ~~ ~ }' ~ n U °3ia 'j 6 o ~ .. ro J O.Z ~~ ~ o Cl N tl O ~ ~ U ( o ' < s uaxoae irro9imr a U nt a~ Po 'W to ~° ~~a:a I~Q 18 I~ ~~ 3 ?; loap+p ~~CE IS I~ ~a~~~~ :?~;. tl~68 9.E4Eypp i PTS~ A[~1~4 9M~~G! ~& rceg.E7 Ae.FP Y ¢ yFE 3 ~ 3~ r?S $ §Ye~.°e~ "g' syy €xiS iSf w}Bv ci$ S E r: s i ` °`¢aE a~Q Ac 41[. 3 ~~Eiia~T ~i 2-}~44~ig; {4 ~ s 6~~2 ;!~ S ffS§47 4 ' es <n~ ~ .. V a i I . 3 A I 0~~ .. Y ~i # g ?~d W i $ E q w § § A ~i s $ 3 a 3~~;i ~ J W 4 i i U a g 3 y ¢ p Y g p 5:e L! Z d 0 J E~ ? ~ 9 1?!08/1994 13:28 303 846 SOUTHWEST MEC L GPcs~ 1~ ~ ~,-~(-~~ SOUTHWEST MECHANiGAL MANAGEMENT INC. 1 November 7, 1?~94 M::, Meredith Reckert planner City of Wheal Ridge 7500 West 29L1+ Avenue wheat Ridge, (;olorado 80034-0638 llear Meredith. lft response to your let^_er of November 1, expxeseing same concerns over our pzopused development on the site known as 42nd and Xenon. 1. As we era not a retail Uusiness,,,there,is,•to,be,na_retail usage of ....... .. the site. 2. We are pl:,faning development on the eastern lot only. 3. &uiiding height per plans will be 1$' 6". 4. We are plffnating development fox the eastern lot only, and note Chat future development on lots to the west must be approved by planning f:uffmfi9sion and City Council. 5. SeC Attached 6. Sae Attached 7, Our propo,;ed building is to be a contemporazy design. 1 beloive it will L; end in very well with the neigltbozhood concept, 8. Access eaf;ement with Future connection with lot 2 would seem unnecessary as there is to be no zetail usage of lot 1. 9. T,at f2 ie awned by Mr. George Johnston. lp. There is to be no retail usage of lot 41 the eastern lot. 17.. Attached I;escription of Development disallows any outside work activity. P.O. Box 1311 • Arvada, Colorado 80001 • 420-5470 3i/08/1994 13:28 303 046 SOUTHWEST MEC AL PRGE 03 .,..,..-,--__.r .~......_. ~~- November 7, 1994 Ms. Meredith Reckert Planner City ,of Wheat Ridge Page 2 As to the use of lot ~`1 or f/2 being more appropriate, I reflect back to our earlier discussion when it was dscided to apply for PCI), that everyone would prefer the lower and lesser used building on the corner of 42nd and Xenon. Oux business generates a very low traffic flow and it was £elc this would he more adaptable and amiable to the current neighborhood conditio~is. The lots to the west being better appointed for heavier usage. 1f I can be: of any further assistance please let me know. Sincerely, Paula Tutty President PT/ sr P.nc . cc: Ceorge .Iohnston Nick 7. {miner 11!08/1994 13:28 '303 846 50UTFWAEST ME CACF~ L _ PAGE 04 SOUTHWEST MECHANICAL MANAGEMENT {NC. 1 November 7, 1994 OESCRIPT7.ON OF DEVELi1P}1ENT Southwest Mechanical Management Inc., is a H V A C Contractor, doing business in the Denver Metro Area since 19$b. We are a WEE Certified privntely okmed, sma7.l business. Southwest empl.vys 30 people o€ which 22 are field personnel. The remaining S nre in tl:e office and shop daily. It is our expressed desire to bring our }ns:tiness and these additional people into the Wheat Ridge markee p7.are. We presently live in W1+eat Ridge and wish to relocate our buainesa from Arvada to Wheat Ridge.. The proposed facility to house Southwest would 7>e a 7,000 square foot concrete tilt up building of contemporary design with smooth painted walls. The height of the building will be a.ppxoximately iS' 6". Store fzvnt glass (tinted) will be utilized in the office area and entrancr, The buildint: will he home to our office and shop. Our shop asscmblea the data work th::t is tv be used on job sites, matezial for this is cvnkained in our shop. 't'here, is co be no outside storage, and no work will take pieta outsid+; of the building. Trlaffic five' to and from our building is very minimal, we have 5 office omployees, attd 3 in the shop. The remaining 22 are field personnel, reporting to their jvb assignments in ti+e field. We aze not t: retail business so there would be no traffic flow from this usage. (k+r focus i++ in the uew construction arena, with service and mai.ntenanee of IIVAC equ f I+ment . We Firmly bolieve tlu+t our proposed development would be an asset to the area. P.©. Box 13i t .Arvada, Colorado 80001 • 420-5470 CASE No. W~-wry- i3 EXNI G-31~' ~G~ L~Cr~-~- Pr2o~sT November 15, 1994 The City of Wheat Ridge P.O. Box 638 Wheat Ridge, CO 80034-0638 Attn: Planning Division City Council Meredith Reckert Dear Sirs; Please consider this a written protest of .case 9iWZ-94-13 involving the rezoning of 12925 W. 42nd Avenue from R-C to C-1. Originally this property was zoned A-2, but in `case no. WZ-94-1 the property in question was rezoned to R-C. The business that planned to operate on this property convinced the surrounding neighborhood their building and profession would not pose a problem for the community in terms of traffic, number of employees, type of business, etc. This small office complex wculd have had no fabrication or warehousing. The rezoning from A-2 to R-C was approved. Months later the community has been informed the original applicants, due to some unfortunate circumstances, will not building their complex. The rezoning has been done and it is too late.. Now a "prospective buyer'is interested in building a heating and ventilation_contractor's office/shop/warehouse structure" tha employs six office workers and two shop employees" with "three or so deliveries per week to the office building in 20-foot-long vans". The applicant's business is named South West Mechanical Management, Inc.; referred to hereafter as SWMM. This community is a residential area with a mixture of families, including, but not limited to, retirees and families with young children. It is a quiet and clean community and we all want it to stay that way. . Homer Murphy, 12700 W. 42nd Avenue, Kathryn and David Murphy, 12710 W. 42nd Avenue, had the opportunity to inspect the small "industrial park" of which SWMM currently resides. Upan this inspection, outside only, front and back, the Murphy's found SWMM was the ONLY business with a large amount of waste piled in back of their space on the south side. SWMM previously .assured all parties present at the neighborhood meeting there would not be any outside storage of any kind. If what we saw was NOT waste then why was it outside if they do no intend to store outside? and if it WAS waste this is EXACTLY one of the reasons we do not care to have this business in our residential neighborhood. We also observed they had what appeared to be sheets for window coverings. Another reason for not wanting-this rezoning is simple. We once approved a rezoning from A-2 to R-C based on the information we were given and the type of business to be built. Now that business is NOT being built and because the zoning is already R-C the next step is to C-1. What if SWMM.decides they can't move or_they relocate in the future, the neighbor- hood will have no_guaratees as to what type of business would, could, or might move in. The rezoning would be a "done deal" and we would have little or no say as to what happened. In the Planning Division Staff Report, page 3, III CRITERIA FO REZONING REQUESTS, sub-paragraph 2, it says the applicant must show "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". How is SWMM compatible to the surrounding area when the surrounding area is residential? and where are the benefits to be derived from them? Sub-paragrah 3 says "there will. be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the community derived by the change of zone". How does or will this business provide these things to the community? The only benefits will be economic, for Mr. Johnson, who would have sold property that has been on the market for many years. SWMM would benefit economically because the owners live in Wheat Ridge and would not have to drive so far to work. But neither will be living in the community they are trying to destroy with commercial business. West 42nd Avenue would end up being paved but believe this, we would rather it'.never be, paved if it meant stopping this rezoning. Sub-paragraph 7, "the rezoning will not create an isolated or spot zone district unrelated to adjacent or nearby areas". The answer to that was "spot zoning should not be an issue as there are other commercial zones in the vicinity". If this reply is in reference to the dog-kennels on Xenon then one only needs to see that those kennels are in the back of a residential home with no more traffic than if a homeowner has guests to their home, and not on a daily basis. The other commercial reference my be the laboratory at the West end of 42nd Avenue. This laboratory has been there for years, they have few employees, there is no noise, the only trucks that come through are Federal Express and UPS. The property is kept neat and clean, all landscaping is well taken care of, they do not store any equipment or product outside whether it be waste or not and they have decent window coverings not sheets. "Spot zoning" is an issue, this business does not belong nor fit into this community; SWMM and the rezoning will create an isolated or spot zone in this residential area. __ Sub-paragraph 8, "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". It should not be difficult for anyone to ascertain as to whether there is a market for_ this type of business in this area. We are a residential area and there is NO need for a commercial, light industrial business to position itself in the middle of it. SWMM'will not provide services to the immediate community 'since it is not a retail business and at the neighbor- hood meeting they indicated they did commercial buildings. SWMM will not be providing jobs for anyone in the community since all they are moving is their business and buzlding. In conclusion, the coming of this rezoning and SWMNi does not fit into the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan and the only entities to benefit from this will be Mr. Johnson and SWNQ1. This will not improve the quality of the lives of the surrounding community residents. Mr. Johnson does not care what this means to our community as he does not live there and will not have to suffer what comes in the future if the rezoning application is approved. SWMNI does not care about our community or they would never consider bringing this type of .commercial business into a residential area. We cannot believe if a person had a choice they would deliberately move into a commercial business area and we feel-xhis type of commercial business should .have the decency to stay out of residential areas and not try to disrupt their peacefull existances. Mr. Johnson ought to put himself in our shoes and ask himself "would I want-this going on across or just down the street from where 2 live". , We respectively request the application for rezoning this property to C-1 is denied. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ g5z H1 Q i T `.per PROSPECT RECREATION DISTRICT 4198 XENON STREET WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 PHONE: 424-2346 c~ W~ -1c1- r3 January 10, 1995 Ms Meredith Ruckertt, Planning Department City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W, 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CD 8D033 Case Planner ~~ r, ... , ~ , ;; I J'~- ,ii t~ ~T~j~, Dear Ms Ruckertt: The 'Prospect Recreation District headquarters office and shop are-'directly across Xenon Street from the 'proposed rezoning and partial plat of Tvtty & Johnson, Case ~~WZ-94-13. Our concerns with this rezoning were (1) side setbacks, (2) the unplatted building envelope which shows no rear setback on the ODP, (3) height restrict-ions and the VCT, (4) road development and any requirements on our District, The developer, George Johnson, has informed us that there will be setbacks when they return for platting the western portion of this rezoning. He also has told me that the landscaped "back" of the building to the east on the drawing will face Xenon. There is a 30' setback indicated there. P4r. Johnson also__informed us that the height restriction will be 18 feet, Considering the distance across the street and the setback, this should not affect our angle of sight for mountain view. A few months ago Gene Gidley of your. department informed us that there would be no requirements made upon our District for road improvements, nor would we 'be required to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter.. So long as all of the above statements are in force, our District has no problem with this rezoning, In fact, we would recommend approval by the wheat Ridge City Council since it could enhance the neighborhood, However, if any of our above concerns are not being answered as has been represented, then please call me immediately so that we can work on this. You may reach me mornings and evenings at 279-3522 or 278-0352 (ans, machine)' or leave word with Don Klima at District headquarters for me, 424-2346. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ,~~ / BoDirectors ~~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:. February 13, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Edwards commended Mr. Casement for his plans for a quality development, however, he does not feel the criteria to support a rezoning has been met. Motion by Mr. Siler_that Council Bill 3 (Ordinance 989), a request for approval of a final development plan at 4140 Youngfield Street, be approved for the following reasons: 1. All minimum requirements of the C-1 zone have been met. 2. Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval. With the following condition: 1. The Parks Department continue working with the applicant on design and construction along. the common property line; seconded by Mr. Solano; carried 5-2 with Mrs. Fields and Mr. Edwards voting No. Item 5. Council Bill 4 - An Ordinance providing for the. approval of rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development District and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan on land located at 12725 West 42nd Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. _ (.Case No. WZ-94-13) (George Johnston and Paula Tutty) Council Bill 4 was introduced by Mr. Eafanti on second reading; title read by the Clerk; Ordinance No. 990 .assigned. Mr. Gidley presented the staff report and stated a valid legal protest. by the property owners to the South, the Murphy's; had been filed, and they do constitute more than 25% of the property on the southern side and they are within 100 feet of the property. Paula Tutty, 4464 Brentwood Street, applicant, was sworn in by the Mayor; she introduced her representative Paul Penock, who was also sworn in and asked for approval of the application. Janice Thompson spoke in opposition to the rezoning because it violates the spirit of the Fruitdale Master Plan. She asked that Council not set a precedent and encourage more industrial development in this area': David Murphy and Kathryn Murphy, 12710 W. 42nd Avenue, were sworn in by the Mayor and asked for denial of the rezoning. Motion by Mr. Eafanti that Council Bill 4, a request for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and for approval of a combined outline and final development plan for property located at 12925'West 42nd Avenue, be denied for the following reasons: 1. It is inconsistent-with the goals and objectives of the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan; and 2. The evaluation criteria does not support approval of .this request; seconded by Mr. Edwards; carried 7-0. 1 ' A MASTEK PLAN FOI3 THE FUTUKE OF THE FI~UITDALE VALLEY NEIGHBOKHOOD / 1 / 1(~}i~ii~ ~~ a ~~ ~~~ ~; . ~~~' ~=, ~~i,.i~ Y: ' ~~ ~~ Developed by the .Fruitdale Master Plan Committee October 1984 Revised December 1984 Presented to the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission February 1985 Adopted by the Wheat Ridge City Council May 13, 1985 SECTION IX. ..MASTER PLANS FOR. AREA DEVELOPMENT C. MASTER PLAN ~ DEVELOPMENT-GUIDELINES FOR THE FRUITDAL.E..YALLEY.,NEIGHBORHOOD EXPLANATION• The following is the Master Plan & Development Guidelines for the Fruitdale Valley Neighborhood. As adopted, it adds a new subsection C. to Section IX. Master Plans for Area Development. Exhibit A. is the Master Plan Map which gives greater land use detail for future decision making.. Exhibit B. is not part of the Master Plan, but is a related amendment to the Comprehensive Plan -Future Land Use Map so that the Master Plan Map and Future Land Use Map are generally consistent. C. MASTER PLAN & DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE FRUITDALE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD 1. INTENT• There is a need for development of the Fruitdale Valley Neighborhood west of Kipling Street to proceed in a way which promotes quality development and exhibits sensitivity to the relation'ships' between property uses, zonings and future development. These guidelines shall be used by the Planning Commission and City Council in considering rezoning and site developments which require their review. These guidelines are intended to direct future development toward establishing a better community self-image as the "Valley Village"' and to address some of the current concerns. It is not the purpose of the Guidelines to inhibit development but to promote quality growth which preserves property values and upgrades the community. A hierarchy of uses which encourages containment of commercial uses along West 44th Avenue so they don't encroach or disrupt residential areas is promoted. -1- TABLE OF CONTENTS Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations for the Fruitdale Valley Neighborhood Page A - C * Executive Summary * Background # Immediate Action Recommendations ` * Suggested Master Plan & Development Guidelines * Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map Recommendations Master Plan & Development Guidelines for the Fruitdale Valley Neighborhood Page 1 - 10 1: Intent 1 2. Guidelines 2 - 10 I. Traffic 1 II. Land Use 5 III. Site & Building Design 6 IV. Property Value 7 V. Implementation 8 Exhibits A - Master Plan Map B - Comprehensive Plan Map C - Modified Collector Design for West 44th Avenue D - Bikeway Alternatives FRUITDALE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD 2. GUIDELINES: I. Traffic Problems: a. Public Street System The traffic problem west of Kipling on West 44th Avenue seems particularly heavy and will worsen as the area continues to develop. This section of West 44th Avenue between Tabor and Miller Streets no longer can safely accommodate the load of trucks, funeral traffic, emergency vehicles, mail delivery and school buses it currently receives. Safety and pollution problems will increase if not addressed. In addition, there is an inadequate local street system which forces additional traffic onto West 44th Avenue. The intersections of West 44th Avenue with Ward Road and Youngfield are dangerous. Tabor Street north of West 44th Avenue is inadequately constructed considering the current classification as a Collector Street which serves the industrial area to the north, potential commercial development along the west side, and it is also a main school bus route. Policy Recommendations: (1) Develop street improvements along West 44th Avenue which can handle the heavier load that currently exists and can be expected in the future. Control turns on and off this major road. (2) Curb cuts which add directly to traffic on major roads should. be minimized. Integrated parking lots with cross-easement access; access through side streets and combining curb cuts will all help minimize traffic problems. Developments which don't include these recommendations should be discouraged. C3) Encourage linking of streets to eliminate dead end streets and cul-de-sacs .where commercial or multi-residential developments are proposed. (4) The public street system in the area south of West 44th Aveeue and west of Vivian Street should be resesigned to promote better local traffic flow while protecting residential neighborhoods. The design should take into consideration the results of the West 44th Avenue street study in progress. -2- FRUITDALE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD (5) Expand West 44th Avenue to a 4 lane street between Miller and .Tabor Streets. This should be done within a 60-70 foot right-of-way. (See Exhibit C.) (6) Develop a plan for alignment of Youngfield with Ward Road. (7) Develop Tabor Street north of West 44th Avenue to I-70 to a full collector street standard. Also consider a traffic signal at its intersection with West 44th Avenue. Problem: b. Internal Traffic & Parking (private streets, parking, drives) Multi-residential and commercial/office development often causes additional parking and circulation problems. Policy Recommendation: (1) Promote internal vehicular circulation systems which allow smooth traffic flow. Provide adequate parking within a project that feeds safely onto the public street system. Encourage integration of parking lots and street access. Problem: c. Lack of Safe: Bike & Pedestria For children attending Wheat Ridge High and Everitt Junior High there is no shhool bussing available. This forces children to walk, ride bicycles, drive or be driven daily to school. These various modes compete for the same space therefore a conflict between these modes of travel is,created since no safe walking or bicycling routes are currently provided. Policy Recommendation: (1) Develop a bicycle lane along the south side of West 44th Avenue which can drop south to the bike path on the greenbelt along Clear Creek. There are several routes proposed (see Exhibit D) which involve utilizing easements, adding bridges, underpasses and/or traffic lights to provide complete safe routes to the local schools. -3- FRUITDALE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD II. Land Uses Problem: a. There has been a problem with undesirable or incom- patible uses in the past and the same danger exists in the future. Policy Recommendation: (1) Incompatible and undesirable .uses should be ex- cluded. This includes activities such as industrial or commercial uses which involve handling and transporting of dangerous materials, outside storage or storage of bulk materials. This would also include activities like "adult entertainment." (2) Low intensity or residential uses need to be protected from incompatible uses. This can be done through buffering techniques. (Example: Low density residential can be next to moderate density residential, can be next to office/neighborhood commercial.) Physical buffering techniques are discussed in III. "Site & Building Design." Problem: b. Some uses cause nuisances to .adjacent areas such as noise, odor, visual or other pollution. Policy Recommendation: (1) Require high quality buffering through land- scaping, setbacks, fences, etc., as well as site design which protects adjacent properties. III. Site & Building Design Problem: a. There is concern that .new buildings will be high or unattractively designed, posing unsightly views to adjacent neighbors, or blocking views alto- gether. Policy Recommendation: (1) Promote high quality design of the building in terms of materials as well as sensitivity to adjacent uses regarding height, scale, orientation, etc. -~- FRUITDALE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD Problem: ' b. There is also concern about site design which causes problems with drainage, glare, shadows, etc. Policy Recommendation: (1) Promote high quality site design which buffers neighbors from negative impacts. This includes high quality landscaping, setbacks, site layout and lot coverage, good lighting, quality design of parking areas as well as driveways and appropriate drainage. IV. Property Value Problem: a. We are concerned 'about deterioration of our residential areas by encroachment of commercial use. This particularly applies to expansion of commercial development along West 44th Avenue. Policv Recommendation: Z1) Contain and cluster general commercial activity along West 44th Avenue to major intersections and areas where these uses currently exist. Allow those neighbor- hood commercial uses elsewhere along West 44th Avenue. Promote adjacent uses which are of graduated intensity, such as discussed in Section II, "Land Uses," where possible. Problem• ~b. There is concern about lack of code enforcement and its effect on property values. Policy Recommendation: C1) Implement code enforcement which requires maintenance of landscaping, parking areas, drives, curb cuts, etc. V. Imolementation: In order to ac recommendations implementation Commission and for rezoning, approval. dress the concerns, issues, stated above., the strategies shall be used City Council in reviewing subdivision or special and policy following by Planning applications qse permit -5- 3 r Q- PROPOSED `BIKEWAY ALTERNATIVES ~ ~ R-G PrnROS d~ilse FOR SCHOOL ORIENTATED TRIPS n/EwGA TE ~-~ K«C- SUB D~ I510 ~ '' ~ i /?RD ~• m3 / /~/ c-i ~ WZ-72-O/ U Q • ~ ; ~ lNHEA T R/D GE KIVIING VENTU ES 5119• REILY : •I A-/. ~ ~ A-~ sue /AYL A RY 'SIB .---- NE'Yl/GATE .i%~d~ c-/ ~ ~~~` vEVh aES .. _ ~ A-/ SD901Y.S.GA ~"''--=----- ~ PRD 1... ~~ -~ WZ-72-~~~ / ~ Brtdge Bridge 'A' PCDu,Z_T7-I2 C A-/ R- C G;RIEiE INDER R-3A. V/STA .. _ R~2 S •A / m-+• r- -•--1 _ ~i~i. .... ; I . ~ R-/B 2 ~ ~ ; - A / ... . .. i ~A-/ ~ ~ .~ _.. Alternative `A' ~o~ Alternative 'B' ~/////. ' ' Alternative C ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ Alternative 'D' ^ ~ ~ ^ ~~ Traffic Light SAL iL;EY ,, 1 R- C . i .. . E w3:9x-I9 SUP-83-4 BGEV/NS ~ ---- • C- / sue - • _r®~or EXHIBIT D ~, v D p m ~ z~ ~ Z r ~n ~z a~ z ~" oQ c_ v~ mm ~o D~ r~ ~_ m'~ c ~~ rm ~_~ ~ ® m m '?~ z ~ m m v O r ~ 2 ai O O m ~ o ~ ~ n O A ~ r" m n D r h I x O m z ~_ m v m z D r r 0 v m z -i m v m Z a r m -~ r D Z ~~~~--yy ..+1.t r 0 ~ s vm ~ n ~ v N r ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ m -< m ~ ~ ~ ~ < v m rJ ~ z o z ~.m ~ ~ a z ~ z r ~ r ...~ D m r c v r m r D z 0 c m ~,~~ ,j. `J z~ _~~ <® Wm~ m rv ~ -v MODIFIED COLLECTOR W. 44th Avenue - (Tabor to Miller) South korth CURB a OAJTTER CURB 8 OU1'TER BKEPATH~ TRAVEL LAN ~SDEIVALK TRAVEL LANES TRAVEL LANES : 4 at 11 feet each cuRe a carrtsR: a~ rase each SDEWALK : 8 feet BKEPATH : 10 feel EXHIBIT C FRUITDALE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD a. The Master Plan Map for Land Use and Street Systems for the Valley Area shall serve as a guide for future rezonings, subdivisions, and special use permits. All future rezonings and special use permits shall conform in use and character to those land use categories illustrated for any particular area. Additionally, street systems shall be required to be developed in accordance with the location and classification illustrated. b. All future rezoning and special use permit applications for properties which lie within the boundaries of this Master Plan area which are designated as high density residential, neighborhood commercial, office, and general commercial shall be required to submit a site plan for review and approval as part of the application process. Such site plan shall provide adequate details illustrating: (1) proposed site usage (2) overall character of the development (3) site layout including character and layout of buildings (4) parking, street access and street improvements (5) landscaping (6) methods to integrate the proposed development with adjacent properties including methods to mitigate potential negative impacts on residential properties (7) drainage Such site plan, upon approval, to zoning or special use permi used for site development and enforcement action, if needed. shall become a condition t approval, and shall be use and for future code -6- Febmazy 13, 1995 City Council Members City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: Rezoning case W2-94-13 Johnston Subdivision Deaz City Council Member, As the applicant for the above referred case, I would like to go on record with the fallowing information. We started our process with the mandatory "neighbor meeting" with about twenty-five adjacent property owners in the required vicinity being contacted to attend. Only three single family owners and no businesses showed up the night of the meeting (Ray Storms, Richard Beckfeld and The Murphy's). During our meeting, there were some questions raised regazding our proposal, but that is what the meeting is for and these were to be expected. We answered them and seemingly left that night with everyone agreeing this was basically more of the same nature of business which already resides in this azea. There are PASCO Labs who have OfficesiManufacturing/Warehousing west of the Murphy's property. The Murphy's even said they like PASCO Labs as a neighbor at the Planning Commission meeting. The Prospect Recreation District which is the next development east of the Murphy's, has an office building and maintenance shop as described in their enclosed letter. Across the north is the All Pets Boazding Kennels which have an office and kennel or storage area for animals, basically dogs and cats. The Mutphy's are entirely surrounded on their property by projects similar in nature to Southwest Mechanical. As I proceeded with our project to the next step being the Platming Commission hearing, it was recommended by the planning staff that they did not want this project on the east end like we were proposing. They wanted it on the west end of my property. I discussed this with Mrs. Tutty and she didn't want to be any closer to the busy major arterial street (Youngfield) then she had to be. I told her and the planning staff that I would prefer her to stay at the east end so I could fmd a better project on the west or do something with my adjacent property owner (Mrs. Mangone) for another project. This would be better than having Mangone property, Southwest Mechanical's little project and a vacant lot on the comer of W. 42nd and Xenon. It would also limit my future options. We felt it made more sense to request to only have all office use or this one owner occupied business on this end closest to the people east, provide a fence, a 30 foot buffer, lots of nice landscaping, put the dock door, the parking, the front door and the driveway inward on the west side. Then, any future development could occur on the west end of the PCD site. At the Planning Commission Meeting, we were puzzled to hear the staff report about neighborhood concerns, because there was no one there in opposition to this project, other than one family. We were even more surprised when the Murphy's spoke in opposition to this development since it was similar in nature to other projects they live all around and are on record as saying they liked. But, we were SHOCKED when the planning duector said there was a letter of protest and we would be required to get a 75% majority vote tc approve our project. Being unprepared to deal with a one party accusation protest and city staff innuendo made about the "Neighborhood" being against this project, it was now becoming obvious that we needed to come forward with the real facts regarding the feelings of the adjacent neighbors and businesses. I have personally met with all the adjacent property owners including Ray Storms and Richard Beckfeld who attended the neighborhood meeting. I also went so far as to meet other neighbors who Live in this general area. I contacted or met with the business owners to review exactly what we want to do. At each meeting I had the very same boards or plans showing the Site Plan and the Building Elevations we are using Itere tonight. I presented to them the same information we are giving you as public record and what we found was unanimous support for approval for this rezoning. I was very clear to explain in detail what we are proposing on this site for our use. I also answered any questions they had. As I met with these partiesp T wrote down their comments about this development. Since many of them probably won't attend this public hearing, I have inciuded their input for your review. Before I start, I respectfully request that if someone who I quote does attend the hearing_and you have the opportunity to ask them duectly, I hope you will Otherwise the following aze the person or business and their response to our meeting. Myself and John Tutty (Representative for Southwest Mechanical) met with Ray Storms, Richard Beckfeld and Howard Ferguson. They were all pleased to see this project and signed the enclosed Petition in Favor of this rezoning. Mr. Howard Ferguson (nei~ktbor), "Alt us who live in this area know something is eventually going to be built on this propertv. This looks like a good project." Mr. Ray Storms (adjacent single family property owner), "I hope you get to build your project so we can get the street paved.... the reason we don't come to the hearings is because we are not opposed to this building." Mr. Richard Beckfeld (adjacent neighbor, 4250 Xenon Street), "I live right across the street from this property. We would like to see this project built, so something we don't want -ike apartment buildings or something else doesn't go in on this site. We don't always agree with the city. The neighbors know there are other things that could go in we wouldn't want. I don't see anything wrong with this because we already have these type businesses there." I met and reviewed this projecc with Mr. Robert Rock, Director of the Lee and Baugh, they aze adjacent property ownets. I met him at his house to discuss what we are proposing and showed him the boazds. He said, "I wish you good luck on getting this approved. This looks like a good project for this area. We would have no objections to this." He signed the Petition in support of this rezoning. I met and reviewed this project, showing the boards to Mr. Charles Lakel, Director of Operations, PASCO Laboratories. He said, "We are looking forward to your starting your project and let me know if there is anything else I can do for you." He signed and dated the Petition in support of this rezoning. I have met and discussed on numerous occasions this development with Junie Suttie, adjacent property owner on the north who owns the All Pets Kennel. She has signed the Petition in support of this rezoning and said, "I am 100 percent behind this development. It looks like a good one that we can live next door to and it will help make all of our property values go up in this area." I have cruet with Mr. Don Klima, Manager of the Prospect Recreation District acrd presented our boards. He got copies and submitted our plans to the Board of Directors and they sent a letter to the city. I have attached a copy of the letter from one of the Board Members, Mrs. Peggy Honnicutt. As stated from the letter, "So long as all of the above statements are in force, our District has no problem with this rezoning. In fact, we would recommend approval by the Wheat Ridge City Council since it could enhance the neighborhood." t I have contacted Ms. Esther Kettering of COORS Real Estate Division and sent them our plans as they ' requested and asked for a response. Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Lyle E. Bush, Director who reviewed and states,'°At this time, COOR5 Brewing Company has no objection to approval of the proposed rezoning and development of the site as proposed." I have met and reviewed this project, showhtg the boazds to Richazd Hoverman and Steve Tanner, Owners of Autumn Gold Landscape Company at 4315 Xenon Street. They are business owners in this azea. Mr. Tanner stated, "We need more businesses in this area. We are a business in this area and we support other businesses, especially something like what you are doing." They both signed the Petition in support of this rezoning. I have had several phone conversations with Mr. Ralph Mangone, the west end adjacent property owner. He expressed to me his approval for this development and said he would be coming to the Ciry Council Meeting to make his feelings heard. I have now provided letters of support, a Petition for Approval from the other 85% of adjacent neighborhood property owners and business owners and comments from meetings held with these people. The cleaz indubitable facts are that the majority of adjacent neighbors and property owners aze in Favor of this development being approved and built. There is a very positive picture being painted about our project with many well wishers. With this information, I would like to request your support for a well thought out, clean, caring, conscientious, well landscaped, low traffic, low profile commercial established business awned by Wheat Ridge residenu. They aze trying very hazd to please everyone involved with this project. They want [o operate in a goad azea and be a good neighbor. Please do what the majority of people want and approve a good quality development, both the neighborhood and City of Wheat Ridge can be proud of. I appreciate ycur time to submit this data and if you have any questions about my letter, any of its contents or of me, I will be attending the City Council Meeting. I will be more than happy to address any items you deem important. Sincerely s. Georg .Johnston A 'ant xc Paula Tutty, Owner Southwest Mechanical Paul Pennock, ArchitecUEngineer Glen Gidley, Planning Director PETITION 5 am familiar with the proposed rezoning of the Johnston Subdivision Property commonly known as the Northwest corner of W. 42nd Avenue and Xenon Street in the- City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado. I have seen the Southwest Mechanical Company, Inc. project proposed for this site to rezone from Restricted Commercial (RC) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) to allow this and I am in support of this rezoning. Name Address Date 1 prKE~-TO , ,~,r~ 9~ u`' 2 Ntf~rh ~, - v 1~.-I _ Y 3 NEf 3eR- /2 z i X~ o~? iz-,y-9S' 4 u mtz. t,L ~y~ n~//JJ (l{c®7o/L o¢ o ELXT1 5 fi .pwueR~ A~ zO ~ 3 %,~ ~+t~ J~lp ~ 9-- _//~ i~ yuc~s`~~/' 1~~~ / ~jw e: w l/bu05t,9l+E' Go. y, ~ji S ~4 NOi'.J ~i $ ~' k / - i 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1fi 17 18 19 20 21 22 23