Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWS-99-01ORIGINAL CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Case No. W.S.-99-01\Turgeon In re The Application of James Turgeon, et al. for a nine-lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property and located at 11661 West 44th Avenue and 11680 West 46th Avenue, and associated site plan for property located at 11680 West 46th Avenue. FINDINGS AND DECISION THIS MATTER comes on for decision before the City Council in the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, upon the Application of James Turgeon, et al., for a nine- lot preliminary and final subdivision with site plan. The City Council having conducted a public hearing on the Application enters the following Findings and Decision: FINDINGS 1. James Turgeon, et al., (hereinafter "Applicants") have applied for approval of a nine-lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat on property and located at 11661 West 44th Avenue and 11680 West 46th Avenue in Wheat Ridge, Colorado (hereinafter "Subject Property"). A site plan for development is required for the portion of the Subject Property addressed as 11680 West 46th Avenue, as a condition of the original R-3 residential zoning approval for the property. There are five properties included in the Application; two under one ownership. 2. The procedural history of the Subject Property, as is significant for these Findings and Decision, begins in 1980, when Case No. WZ-80-28 was filed by Lynn Fightmaster for a change of zone for the entire five-acre Subject Property from Agricultural One (A-1) to Residential Three (R-3). The record contains evidence that at that time the Subject Property was owned by various members of the Fightmaster family, all of whom had signed and filed with the City powers of attorney authorizing Lynn Fightmaster to apply for and obtain rezoning of the entirety of the Subject Property on their behalf. GED\53027\340269.01 3. In testimony before the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on November 6, 1980, Lynn Fightmaster stated that the plans were to build on the site as one unit. 4. There was considerable discussion before the Planning Commission concerning the need for a north-south roadway through or along the Subject Property to connect the property at build-out with the two east-west roads bordering the property on the north and south: West 46th Avenue and West 44th Avenue, respectively. 5. The Planning Commission voted on November 6, 1980 to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Subject Property, with two conditions: (a) that no development occur until Simms Street is opened the length of the property; and (b) that the entire parcel be developed as one unit. 6. The Application was next referred to the City Council. Prior to the Council taking action, Lynn Fightmaster wrote a letter dated January 20, 1981, which states in its entirety: We have received from the Planning Commission a vote of confidence of 7 to 1 in favor of our rezoning from agriculture to multi-family. There were conditions concerning the rezoning. One of the conditions was that Simms would be opened up from 44th to 46th Avenue. I would like the City to consider Swadley Street as an alternative to Simms Street. Since we are only asking for a rezoning and do not have any plans at this time we would like to at least have the option of using either Swadley or Simms whenever plans are drawn. Either street goes from 44th to 46th Avenue and only Swadley has a through outlet to the service road on 1-70. Simms Street dead-ends at 46th Avenue. 7. As required by the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws an Ordinance No. 443, Series of 1981, was introduced on first reading on February 9, 1981, providing for the rezoning of the Subject Property from A-1 to R-3. At Section 2, the Ordinance specified two conditions to be applied to the rezoning: GED\53027\340269.01 2 (a) Simms Street between West 44th Avenue and West 46th Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed to prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction. (b) Prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction, the Subject Property legally described in Section 1 above shall be platted in order to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points on to public or private road ways, and which illustrates building envelopes. The City Council held the required public hearing for second reading final consideration of the Ordinance on March 9, 1981, and adopted the Ordinance, retaining only the second condition recited above. 8. The Council finds that the deletion of the condition concerning construction of Simms Street does not preclude a present-day requirement that a through north-south connection may now be required between West 44th Avenue and West 46th Avenue, particularly in light of the retained condition which requires unified design illustrating access points on to public or private roadways. 9. No development took place on the Subject Property subsequent to the 1981 rezoning until approximately 1996. By this time, the northern one half (2%2 acres) of the Subject Property had been conveyed to James Turgeon et al., the Applicants in this case. Mr. Turgeon applied for and received building permits for, and did construct, two fourplex residential buildings on a portion of the north one- half of the Subject Property. Three single family homes were in existence on the south one-half of the Subject Property at the time of its rezoning in 1981. Those homes remain in essentially the same configuration at the time of this Application. 10. The Subject Property was rezoned from A-1 to R-3 (multi-family residential) on March 9, 1981 with the following condition, which condition continues to apply to the Subject Property at this time: Prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction, the Subject Property shall be platted in order to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points on to public or private road ways, and which illustrates building envelopes. 11. In late 1997, the Applicant requested a six-lot subdivision of the northern one-half of the Subject Property. The Application received Planning Commission approval. The City Council directed that the Application improperly GED\53027\340269.01 3 omitted the south one half of the Subject Property. The Applicant was instructed to bring the entirety of the Subject Property into the Application in recognition of the 1981 condition requiring a unified project. 12. The Applicant filed this Application for a nine-lot subdivision in early 1999, showing the northern one-half of the property divided into six lots, and the south one-half of the property divided into three lots. The southerly three lots shown on the proposed plat simply recognized existing patterns of land ownership and the existing three single-family residences on the south one-half of the Subject Property, essentially in the same locations as they existed at the time of the 1981 rezoning. The Application proposed no development of or change in the use or configuration of the south one-half of the Subject Property. 13. The Application was heard by the Planning Commission at a properly noticed public hearing on June 17, 1999. The Planning Commission gave a recommendation of approval, with a series of conditions. 14. The Application was heard by the city Council on January 24, 2000 at a properly noticed public hearing. At that time, the Council took testimony from the Applicant, via its attorney, Richard Rodriquez, of the Denver law firm of Holme, Roberts and Owen. Council received into evidence the planning and subdivision regulations, comprehensive plan, case file and a list of twenty-three attachments, many of which concern ongoing planning efforts to design proper traffic flow in the northwest Fruitdale area, within which the Subject Property is located. The attachments as introduced are: (1) Approved Drainage Plan (2) Proposed Site Plan (3) Proposed Building Elevation (4) Letter from Herb Fightmaster (5) Letter from Doug Williams dated September 17, 1999 (6) Plat Approved by Planning commission on June 17, 1999 (7) Planning Commission Minutes of June 17, 1999 (8) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 17, 1999 (9) Letter from Diane Mattox dated June 171 1999 GED\53027\340269.01 4 (10) Memorandum from Steve Nguyen, Public works Department, dated February 19, 1999 (1 1) Traffic Analysis dated March 24, 1997 (12) City Council Minutes from meeting of January 13, 1997 (13) Neighborhood Circulation Map (14) Memorandum from Steve Nguyen, Public works Department, dated December 4, 1996 (15) Memorandum from Meredith Reckert dated November 19, 1996 (16) Letter from Diane Mattox dated December 5, 1996 (17) Plat Reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 5, 1996 (18) Plat Approved by the Planning Commission on December 5, 1996 (19) Planning Commission Minutes of December 5, 1996 (20) Planning Commission Resolution dated December 5, 1996 (2 1) Condition to Rezone Approval dated February 9, 1981 (22) City Council Minutes of March 9, 1981 (23) Planning Commission Resolution dated November 6, 1980 15. The Applicant introduced four exhibits principally concerning the administrative approval of the building permits for the two structures which were erected in 1996. 16. At the January 24, 2000 public hearing, Council received testimony from the Applicant, planning staff, and the public. In particular, members of the public testified to their concern with the traffic effects of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood (Diane Christianson, Diane Maddox, George Georgenson, Kim Stewart and Tex Junker). On behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Herb Fightmaster testified that the proposal in 1981 was to construct 105 units on the northern one half of the Subject Property. Mr. Fightmaster denied that there was ever any intent to develop the south one-half of the Subject Property. GED\53027\340269.01 5 17. At the close of the public hearing on February 14, 2000, the Council moved to deny the Application for a nine-lot subdivision and its associated site plan and directed the City Attorney to prepare written findings memorializing those decisions. This Findings and Decision constitutes those written findings. 18. With respect to the testimony and evidence introduced, the Council specifically finds as follows: (a) The rezoning of the entirety of the five acre Subject Property in 1981 was specifically predicated upon a representation by the Applicants, through their duly authorized representative, Lynn Fightmaster, that the entirety of the five-acre Subject Property would be developed as a single project. The Council does not find the testimony of Herb Fightmaster in January 2000, to the effect that the south one-half of the property was not intended to be developed, as credible, in light of the legislative history of the 1981 rezoning, as well as the obvious intention of the Fightmaster applicants in 1981 to obtain R-3 multi-family zoning for the entirety of the Subject Property, including the south one- half of the Subject Property. (b) The entirety of the Subject Property was represented in 1981 as a unified project. The Council further finds that this representation was a basis for the rezoning of the entirety of the Subject Property to R-3 at that time. (c) The condition placed upon the rezoning in 1981 by Ordinance No. 443, adopted March 9, 1981, that no building permits be issued for the Subject Property until a plat is submitted with "unified design," has not been satisfied in the present Application, which proposes multi-family residential development on the north one-half of Subject Property, and which wholly fails to address, in any way, the nature and degree of multi-family residential development on the south one- half of the property. The Council further finds that this failure is directly contrary to the representations of the Applicants for rezoning in 1981, upon which representations the City Council relied in granting rezoning with the specific condition that the property be developed as a unified project. (d) The condition imposed by Ordinance No. 443 that the plat illustrate "external and internal circulation and access points on GED\53027\340269.01 6 to public or private roadways," is not satisfied by the present Application, in that the Application fails to address, in any way, the manner in which that traffic from development of the south one-half of the Subject Property will be routed. (e) The Council finds that the issuance of building permits by the City in 1996, and the subsequent construction of two fourplex multi-family units on a portion of the north half of the Subject Property pursuant to those building permits, does not abrogate the requirements of the condition placed upon the property by Ordinance 443, Series 1981. The Council further finds that the planning department staff did not have in 1996, and does not have at this time, authority to administratively waive or modify any of the conditions imposed upon the Subject Property by Ordinance 443, Series 1981. (f) The Council finds that the legislative record contains no evidence that the owners of the south one-half of the Subject Property have, at any time, disagreed with the requirement that there be a roadway connection through or along the Subject Property between West 44th Avenue and West 46th Avenue. (g) The Council finds that traffic circulation within, to and from the entirety of the Subject Property was a legitimate issue of concern to the Council when the property was rezoned in 1981, and remains a legitimate issue of concern to the Council at the present time. DECISION 1. The Council hereby denies Case No. WS-99-01, an Application for a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11611 West 44th Avenue and 11680 West 46th Avenue for the following reasons: a. The condition imposed by Ordinance 443 (March 9, 1981) requiring unified design illustrating external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes' has not been met; b. The Application contains appropriate detail only with respect to the northern '/2 of the Subject Property and is wholly lacking in such detail for the south %2; GED\53027\340269.01 7 C. No unified plan for traffic circulation to, from and within the entirety of the Subject Property is presented. 2. The Council hereby denies the Application for a site plan in conjunction with Case No. WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 West 46th Avenue for the following reasons: a. The condition imposed by Ordinance 443 (March 9, 1981) requiring 'unified design illustrating external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes' has not been met. b. The Application contains appropriate detail only with respect to the northern %2 of the Subject Property and is wholly lacking in such detail for the south '/2; C. No unified plan for traffic circulation to, from or within the entirety of the Subject Property is presented." APPROVED BY THE Wheat Ridge City Council by a vote of 5 for and 3 against, this 28th day of February, 2000. By ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerl GED\53027\340269.01 8 AGENDA ITEM RECAP X PUBLIC HEARINGS _ PROC./CEREMONIES _ BIDS/MOTIONS INFORMATION ONLY AGENDA ITEM TITLE: WS-99-01: Turgeon, et.al. _ ORDINANCES FOR IST READING _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING RESOLUTIONS SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Application for a nine-lot preliminary and final subdivision with a site plan. This hearing was continued from January 24, 2000. ATTACHMENTS : 1) Alan C. White Memo 2) Legislative History BUDGETED ITEM: Yes Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount $ Requested Expend.$ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation No Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: Option A: "I move to approve Case No. WS-99-01, an application for a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 W. 40 Avenue and 11680 W. 46`h Avenue for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between West 46`h Avenue and West 44th Avenue is not desirable. With the following condition: QUASI-JUDICIAL X - Yes No CITY MGR. MATTERS CITY ATTY. MATTERS PUBLIC COMMENT _ ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS 1. A caliper inch equivalent be provided on the property for the trees removed along the common property line between Lots 1 and 4." Option B: "I move to deny Case No. WS-99-01, an application for a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 W. 44`h Avenue and 11680 W. 46 h Avenue for the following reasons: I . The condition imposed by Ordinance 443 (March 9, 1981) requiring `unified design illustrating external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes' has not been met; 2. The applications contains appropriate detail only with respect to the northern %2 of the subject property and is wholly lacking in such detail for the south 1/2; 3. No unified plan for traffic circulation to, from and within the entirety of the subject property is presented. I further move to direct the City Attorney to prepare written findings and decision memorializing this action for consideration by Council on February 28, 2000." Option C: "I move to refer to the Planning Commission for further study, Case No. WS-99-01, an application for a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 W. 44`h Avenue and 11688 W. 46' Avenue. The applicant shall submit for review by Planning Commission, an application which satisfies the conditions imposed by Ordinance 443 (March 9, 1981) with respect to unified design, external and internal circulation, and building envelopes." Site Plan: Option A: "I move to approve the application for a site plan in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46`h Avenue for the following reasons: It us consistent with the original condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 Zone District have been met. With the following condition: 1. A caliper inch equivalent be provided on the property for the trees removed along the common property line between Lots 1 and 4." Option B: "I move to deny the application for a site plan in conjunction with Case No. WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46' Avenue for the following reasons: 1. The condition imposed by Ordinance 443 (March 9, 1981) requiring `unified design illustrating external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes' has not been met; 2. The applications contains appropriate detail only with respect to the northern '/2 of the subject property and is wholly lacking in such detail for the south %2; 3. No unified plan for traffic circulation to, from and within the entirety of the subject property is presented. Option C: "I move to refer to the Planning Commission for further study, the application for a site plan in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46t' Avenue." C. Bubwa\CMTS\ws9901 wverlwpd OF WHEAT City of Wheat Ridge Pm Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council Members FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director _nw SUBJECT: Legislative History -Case No. WS-99-O1/Turgeon DATE: February 2, 2000 The public hearing on this case was continued on January 17, 2000 to February 14, 2000 for the purpose of researching the legislative history of the original rezoning of this property. Attached is information contained in the microfiche record of the rezoning case file. C:\MyFiles\WPFiles\MEMOS\99-01Tu .con.wpd i ,may.„.1,.,. t commun, RECEIPT NO 4 j1~_DATE NE li development [ p p CASE NO..-.9S.~Z.O.___ PLANNING COMMISSION p ROJECT DESCRIPTION OF NEWEST, The 1PPLICANT Iynn FiDh CDlde Pr __ADDRESS 74.55jaffe P- H E III ILe'-I°~-_y_i'.i OWNER sdme ADORE]] Sdme _ --PHONE - LOCATION OF REO EST, between GAChA45[h-he CWPen Si;,n;s d SWa01P I p _ Frui[da ;P E%I]TIN6 usE p9rt r.l-TCdrr and ~esi~enTiel"_~;~alr"-~ AREA --n--r-- n I-uniF -FJ--'G-'1Ekl]TING ZONE_ PRbPOSFO U]C__._.___________.___ _ __MOPO]£0 zbN[ L[OAL DlbGRIPTION $cr dC[Achmrn[ marked addendum "A" ~ PERSONS IN INTEREST 4L gPFM[ A COYNY:G, Wlq IICLD IN INmnT [ THE O[SCNINaO NGAL PIIOPIRTT, o O-A N, MONTWAMf,LfaaE,ornaNU,[m. NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE INTEREST nWn°~ 1~~ CERTIFICATION 1 r[IRI'Y'NAT THK INFONMATION ANC. ISNNIrt NTRfWITH NYGNITTEO ARE TtRe AND CONNECT TO THE .911 01 Mt NFOWLEDRE AGO THAT IM THING TNIf APPLICATNIN, I AM ACTING 01" THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONTENT OI THOIC IER,M, LISTED ANOV[, WITHOUT WIgNf CON't-T 'M[ NEWS}f0 ACTION CANNOT l1WFYLL' iE ACCDYrLISKED. APPLICANTS OrvfN 1NAM OWNERS NYfT fYOWT POWER-OI-ATTOPNf' /,o,OM}~,T~HK OWNU WHICH AFPROVfS OI THIS ACTION OM GENALI NAME OF AIq ICANTt~L~ry'r MAILI AD s9 49ss C)P/I///N C C SIGNATURE OP APPLICANT A.%-i PHONE 71 Z' ~O L~ SU99CRISED AND S SEAL \?s ` MT COMMISSION EXPIRES `~J~~ r,` Nl CErvFn Nr fj WORN TO ME TwS OtY OF Ci, 19 YlNl r /T,OTNY PUBLIC Addendum "A" Ok"%, r-Whl Legal as follows! 1. Beginning at the N.W. corner of the E. 112 of Lots 13 end 14; thence East along the North line of Lot 14 a Gist. of 155.32': thence on an ang'.e to the right of 90 degrees 16' 59" a dirt. of 359.29'; thence on an angle tc. the right of 90 degrees 12' 20" a dist. of 55.60'; thence on an angle to the 'left of 90 degrees 90' 40" a dirt. of 50.00'; thence on an angle to the right of 90 degrees 09' 40" a dist. of 100.00' to intersection with the West line of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence on an angle to the right of 89nd tares C 0i120t and along said West line a dist. of 407.96' to point 2.69 acres. Irrigatior, Easement: The following describes the centerline of a 7' easement. Beginning at a point on the West line of the E. 112 of Lots 13 and 14. said point being 404.46 South of the N.W. corner of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence East on an angle to the .yyof 89 degrees 50' 20 a dist. of 96.50'; e to ft of ' 40 oneaneanglentonthe right ofe90 deg.9reesery9' 40"4a dista ofs59.10'5o~pointhofce terminus. 2. Beginning at the N.E. corner of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence South along the East line of Lots 13 and 14 a dist. of 33G.79'; thence South along the East line of Lots 13 and 14 a dist. of 336.79'; thence West on an angle to the riyht of 90 degrees 12' 20" and along the South line of Lot 14 a dicta^ce of 100.00'; thence on an angle to the left of 90 de reds 12' 24" a list. of 30.00'; thence on an angle to the right of 90 degrees 12' 24" a dist. of 75.78': thence on an angle to the right of 89 degrees 47' 40" a list. of 357.29' to intersection with the North line of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence East on an angle to the right of 89 degrees 43' 01" and along said North line a dist. of 175.78'.to point of beginning. 3. The East 100.00' of the North 1/2 of Lot 13. Except the East 25' thereof reserved for street. 4. Beginning at the S.W. corner of the E. 112 of Lots 13 and 14; thence North along the West line of the E. 112 of Lots 1J and 14 a distance of 247.96; thence East on an angle to the right of 90 degrees 09' 40" a distance of 100.00'; thence on an angle to the left at 90 degrees 09' 40" a distance of 50.00; thence on an angle to the right 90 decrees 09' an" a distance of 131.38; thence on an angle to the right of 89 degrees 47' 36" a distance of 299.93' to intersection with the South line of the East 112 of Lots 13 and 14: thence West on :•n angle to the right of 90 degrees 41' 41" and along said South line a distance of 231.63' to paint of beginning. Except the South 7' thereof for irrigation ditch. 5. The East 100.00' of the South 112 of Lot 13. Except the South 7' thereof for irrigation ditch. Ali being in the E. 112 of Lots 13 and 14, Lee's Subdivision. Except public highways, ditches, roads and reservoir filing. Jefferson County. State 0 f Colorado. IN I'( JIuI,CI It r, It LaAItD INC PRt)(:I.DI IR'.5 7.ONINU ASP PLANNLD DI VI LII ?I L:. I' APPI. I CAI IONS Applicant shall submit to the Planning arfice: A. 1. Complete nud notarized application form. 2. Proof of awnershlp of land (ropy of decd) :md/or powe, of attorney from owner. 3. legal Merl pt ion or property to be rezoned (exact descri pr Vn of area to be rcznned, described in hearings and distances, tied to i Section corner). 4. $150 fee for rezoning; $250 for Planned Commercial Development. Planned Resi- dential Development and Industrial. 5. Certificate of Survey for area to he rezoned at scalelofnI" Commercial Ucvc lopmcn[, 6. All applicants for Maned Residential Development, Paned or Industrial Development Plans must submit the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners (includirg across streets) with the rcquircd appli- cation. State law requires adjacent property owners to he notified of all hearings. No case number shall he assigned and no hearing dates shall be set until the appli- cant has submitted to the Planning office all of the above information. B. Before a. hearing date will be set and a case number assigned by the Zoning Administrator, plans, maps and other information required by the Planning office must be submitted and in final form. refer the case, including will r ree and other public C. In addition, before a hearing date will he set, staff Departments all required pertinent information, to other City Dep: agencies for review and comments. These agencies shall have a maximum of 10 working days to review the case and to submit comments. If there are any complications or adverse eontrents from any of these agencies, public hearing dates will not be set until questions raised in the responses have been resolved. D. The Planning Staff shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, notification of public hearing before the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission and the Wheat Ridge City Council at least fifteen calendar drys prior to the established public hearing dates. E. In addition, the Planning office shall prepare and post a sign on the parcel of property to be rezoned in A conspicuous place easily discernible to ncighb^rs and passersby not less than fifteen calendar days prior to the established public hearing dates. The maintenance of the posted sign shall be the responsibility of the applicant and if proper posting is not maintained, the public hearing shall be continued until proper posting can be verified. F. In the event that the Planning Commission recommends y rp oval of the rezoning, this rezoning recommendation shall be presented to the City Council in the form of in ordinance. Said ordinance shall have two readings. The first reading of the ordinance shall be without public discussion and shall provide for public hearing on second reading. G. In the event that Planning Commission recommends donial of the request for rezoning, this recrmmendation shall be considered to be final unless an appeal is filed by the applicant. A negative decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council upon the written request of the applicant within ten calendar days of the decision by filing such appeal with City Counelermay for inclusi ptand placement on the Agenda of the. City Council, or City it upon a Council Agenda for hearing and decision. H. Council rules provide fot time limits in presentations by both applicants and opponents in Zoning cases. This is necessary in order to expedite hearings for the convenience of both applicants and the public. 1. For additional and more detailed information, consult the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Appendix A. DISCLAIMER I, the undersigned, have read and understand the pbo ve procedures. I also recognize that City Council is the onl- authority which can approve my rezoning request. I understand that Planning Commission and staff are advisory to the City Council. and that no recommendation or advice offered by the Planning Commission or staff is binding on City Council. Unto Sig . Lure of Appl t - nt Note: Copy to he retained In case file. 5-2-79 i. ly ss.rr / se/ I O e~0, 7.50./7 0, 3?J6.✓c I i ~ Q b moo. 'E- t ~ o I ti i 6s / ~d d~ e ~B✓O Ac. J -33.coT~ a° 7J7e• a /3e j0• a. ❑ a ~I 'aS~M1 q O. jlD~ .Oc ! ~ o I h Ion ~y er/ 4 ANy wcx~ • Ir. 71~t Tco Be Sau/. "pip 36 f0 f!J M A Lvfa GYe'sf h 4ti~ n /oo..c cs•J qw 3SR 2 yang/< 1_J I a 7-A ff j1 ~ /0000' ~ q, /3 am ` ilia E hm e ~ti~ ~i/. v3• i . - AA - • Erg-< \ / \n l.WI~O I]. (ill!]/1 AI)1~ XJ)IS IIn1 I.' X~`. •1 ~IA11 SlPlfl / 1. September 2, 1980 r Mr. I= Lam - Planning Department - I City of Wheat Ridge - P.D. Box 610 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Re: Rezoning Case R W2 8028 _ 44th 6 Simms Dear Mr. Lam: Th.s proposal for a maximum of 100 multifamily units will produce approximately 30 students. of these, 17 will be elementary, 7 junior high and 6 senior high school students. . The elementary students will attend Kullerstrand Elementary which has a capacity for 243 students in the permanent building and 108 in temporary classrooms. This school is using 4 temporary classrooms to increase its capacity to house the children. improvementsis 399 Enr of 6- ment 3590 fore then fall of61981. The2DisPrlctc isdspendi g sboutr$194,000e for1980 to the roof and grounds at this school. The junior high students will attend Everitt Junior High which has a capacity for 802 students in the permanent building and 49 in temporary classrooms. It is using is 853 andn8141fort astof 6-6-80 cwass900.s increase its for Septembers students. the fall of 1981. The senior high students will attend Wheat Ridge Senior High School which has a capacity for 1434 students in the permanent building and 49 in temporary class- rooms. It is using 2 temporary classrooms to increase its capacity to house the students. Enrollment as of 6-6-80 was 1659. Projected enrollment for September 1980 is 1674 and 1615 for the fall of 1981. The School District is spending about $650,000 for improvements to grounds, tennis courts, roof and new girls' locker rooms at this school. We have no plans for construction of any new schools in this area in the near future. This area has been experiencing declining enrollment for the pas: several yarea and it appears that this trend will continue for the near future. This is a of the School District where additional students can be housed without overcrowding the schools. sincerely yours, Robert P. Eckhardt cc: Mr. Riley, Mr. Mac Donnell P.O. BOX 638 TELEPHONE: 303/23 7 694 4 The City of 7500WES~,2aLH/~VENUE • WHEAT HIDGE. COLORADO 80033 [,~xJt1Ca` ~t ~t 1Y~CC /17 -YGRV -Wheat I~ r i SEP 8 PLANNING DIVISION 4;,r August 29, 1980 The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a raquest for rezoning at the property described be ow. Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated ~5 1980 If no response is by . re ce ve n our o Ice y this date, we will assume that you have no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. Thank you. i i Case No: WZ-80-28 Location: Between W 44th & 1P 46th F. simma; & Swadley Requested Action: rezone from A-1 to R-3 Purpose: multiunit Approximate Area: 5.01 acres 1. Are service.lines available to the development: Yes No If "no" please explain below. 2. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? Yes No if "no" please explain below. 3. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? Yes _1_ No if "no" please explain below. qq t elf t:~~" C"E/NNT~SS/EXPLANATIONS~~:~7)~,+}t'r ft/nc' ~~.J ~Jvl~/, r!Ali - ~,IOWIG°l/Wt !A `t-eT 5 144('A J~Lty ft V e- V X, Please reply to: Thomas P. Lam Department of Comununity UeveloPinent Current Planning Division Water District Jefferscn County Health Dept Sanitation District Jefferson County Schools Fire District Jefferson County Commissioners Public Service Co Wheat Ridge Post Office Mountain BEll Wheat Ridge Police Dept State Land Use Commission Wheat Ridge Park & Recreation State Geological Survey Wheat Ridge Public Works Colorado Division of Highways Regional Transportation District "The Carization Cit), 1/=1/70 P.O. BOX 618 TELEPHONE: 303!237 67 14 Thr City Of 7500 WEST 20T I I AVENUE • 1':HE AT B I DGE, COLO HADO !1033 cat ,z . GRidge PLANNING DIVISION I x L m August 29, 1980 O m 1-1he rtment of Community Development has received r] .a reque r~ ezoning l at thr property described below. our response to the of owing questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by 15 1980 If no response is receive in our o lee by t +s date, we WIT assume that you have no objections nr concerns regarding this proposal. Thank you. Case No: wz-80-28 Location: Between W 44th s W 46th 6 Simms 6 Swadley Requested Action: rezone from A-1 to R-3 Purpose: multiunit Approximate Area: 5.01 acres 1. Are service lines available to the development: Yes No If "no" please explain below. N 2. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? Yes No if 3. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules ane regulations? Yes i No if "no" please explain below. COMMENTS/EXPLANATIONS: D `C. S ~9 Please reply to: Thomas P. Lam b' Department of Community Development Current Planning Division Water District Jefferson County Health Dept Sanitation District Jefferson County Schools Fire District Jefferson County Commissioners Public Service Co Wheat Ridge Post Office Mountain DELI Wheat Ridge Police Dept State Land Use Commission Wheat Ridge Park & Recreation State Geological Survey Wheat Ridge Public Work: Colorado Division of Highways Regional Transportation Listrict "The Carnation City" '/ziho ~P.O. BOX 630 TE UPHOW , 30312.31 SOW Thr City of 760019-ST 29TH AVENUI: • WHEAT RIDGE, CO EORAEN)&0033 heat 6iQidge PLANNING DIVISION August 29, 1980 The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for rezonin at the property described be ow. Your response to the fallowing questions and any comments on this proposal woul? be appreciated by roremher 15, 1980 i,, no response is received in our office y this ate, we will assume that you have no objections or concerns regarding this prnposel. Thank you. Case No: WZ-80-28' Location: Between W 44th 6 W 46th 6 Simms s Swadley Requested Action: rezone from A-1 to R-3 Purpose: multiunit Approximate Area: 5.01 acres 1. Are service lines available to the development: Yes No if "no" please explain below. 2. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? Yes No if "no" please explain below. 3. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? Yes Na if "no" please explain below. COMMENTS/EXPLANATIONS: ~st".~ /iJPr ✓ i/e /i/i~~ ~F CC /PJro / Please reply to: Thomas P. Lam Department of Community Dev oe p.. ent Current Planning Division Water District Sanitation District Fire District Public Service Co Mountain DEll State Land Use Commission State Geological Survey Colorado Division of Highways Jefferson County Health Dept Jefferson County Schools Jefferson County Commissioners Wheat Ridge Post Office Wheat Ridge Police Dept Wheat Ridge Park R Recreation Wheat Ridge Public Works Regional Transportation District ^Tlrc CarruttiE)n Cih" A/aJho P.C Box 638 TELEPHONE: 3031231,6944 The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE • `WHEAT RIDGE.DDLDnnDD N0037 ~Wteat "Ridge PLANNING DIVISION August 29, 1g80 The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for rezoning _ at the property described below. Your response to the fo owing questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciates race In uu~ ce by t is date, we will assume that you have no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. Thank you. 1. Are service lines available lto the development: below. Yes _ / No 2. Do you. pave adequate capacities to p rviceetheadevelopment? No if Yes V 3. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulationpeease explain below. Yes V No 5 11 46th S Simms 6 Swadley from A-1 to R-3 Approximate Area: 5.01 acres Case No: Wz-80-28 Location: Between W 44th Requested Action: rezone Purpose: multiunit COMMENTS/EXPLANAT10N5: ADO, T/ONAL -50 ✓~CL i+LtA'/ .<1 rv r~ G., N.E Y x T E /V ! I Cp) NS LAJr' V 4 I~ 13 E AIR e OR J O SEleyr_ 7r r2r>r-E rz ; Y i.Iti OF 1';HrAT RIDGE Please reply to: Thomas P. T,aim apartment of Community Deve opment Current Planning Division U ~.~District Jefferson Count&tdVXt% OPi,I[N} + Dry Water Jefferson County SchoolchOOIs Sanitation District Jefferson County Commissioners ce Co Wheat Ridge Post Office Fire public District Mountain Sell Wheat Wheat Ridge Police Recreation state Land Use Commission Ridge Park 8 Recreation State Geological Survey Wheat Ridge Public Works Colorado Division of Highways Regional Transpor:atior. District "The Cartiatim City" jr/~J/7f P.O. BOX 638 TELEPHONE: 303i237.6944 The City of 7500 WEST 79TH AVENUE + WHEAT RIDGE. COLORADO 80033 GWheat `Ridge PLANNING DIVISION August 29, 1980 The Wheat Ridge Departmel,• of Community Development has received a request for rezoning at the property described be of w. Your response to the fo lowing questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by or rtr 15, 1980 If no response is received in ourT1ce by s ate, we wi assume that you have no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. lhank you. Case No: Ws-80--8 Location:Petween W 44th b W-46th 6 Simms 6 Swadley Requested Action: rezone from A-1 to R-3 Purpose: multiullit Approximate Area: 5.01 acres 1. Are service line available to the development: Yes No If "no" please explair, below. 2. Do you have adequate capacitles to service the development? Yes Na If "no" please xpiain below. 3. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? Yes - No if "no" please explain below. COMMEN S/EXPLANATIONS: Please reply to: Thomas P. Lam epartm.nt o Community Development Current Planning Division y} r District Jefferson County Health Dept ca a Distn p tract ✓ „Cpfferson County Schools ~V• d e District ✓ vdefferson County Commissioners Public Service Cog,' kotheat Ridge Post Office Mountain BEI1 ✓ Wheat Ridge Police Dept State Land Use Comnission✓ yMheat Ridge Park b Recreation State Geolegical Survey vNheat Ridge Public Works Colorado Division of highways yRBgional Transportation District "Thc Carnation Cihy" Alma/70 P I) N(IY G9: I I L I P- r~ H !V l 76/ u'141 (.,IV nl _J'.'Y ;I L"I~1 .ICI IJ.Ii 11;tI. ~i :-~11 ~)4 d'~ irlGp •1 heat GR idge October 29, 1980 Mr. Steve Srhwochow State Geological Survey Department 1313 Sherman Street Room 715 - Denver, CO. 80203 Dear Sir, As per our telephon^ conversation of September 19, 1980, re: potential sand and gravel extraction on a 5.01 acre site located at between West 44th to West 46th Avenues and Simms to Swadley Streets (map and aerial photo enclosed). I would like to confirm your answer in saying that since the subject property is surrounded by development, sand and gravel extraction requirement could be waived. The owners of this property are asking for a rezoning from Agricultural One (A-1) to Residential Three (R-3). The case will be heard by the City's Planning Commission on November 6, 1980. I. I do not hear from you, I will assume you concur with the aLove state- ment. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Yours sincerely, Thomas P. Lam, Planner F.nc 1: TPL/bf "A, ('crrlnli,11 ('ilr'. Planning Commis si .m November 6, 19SU Page S item 6C: Case No WZ-80_21 Application by Lynn Fi gh tmnstcr for a change nC zono from Agricultuu, to Residential 'Ibree oil property located between 44th and 4601 Avenues and Simms and Swadley Streets, came up for hearing at this time. TOM Lol read the rep'rt of the Planning Staff. Ile asked that the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Case file 6 Packet Materials, Slides and Exhibits be entered into the record. Chairman SCOMA accepted this material for the record. The sewer and water problems ,:ere discussed at this time. Mr. LAM stated that at this time consideration should only be giv n to the changing of the zone; that when the owners come in with a development plan, that is the time to consider fire and water availability because at this time there is no plan considered. Chairman SCOMA asked if the owner was present. Mr. LYNN FIGIMDIASTP.R, 4455 Simms Street was present and sworn in. He presented the Secretary with Power of Attorney for Herbert Fightmaster as the other owners were present. He stated the application is in conformance with the r^mpr,hensive Plan; that there are apartments to the west; should increase rev•,ue to the City; and this property would be a buffer zone between commercial and residential. Chairman SCO}IA asked how many units the applicants proposed for the property. Mr. FIGHTMASTER stated therewere no plans at the present time for development of / the property because mortgage rates and construction prices are too high. Ccm- missioner Pj:F..STON stated that a number o'c family members own differ:nt parcels as indicated on the plot plan and asked if this zoning was granted would the land be subdivided. Mr.. FIGHDIASTER stated that the plans were to builtl on the site as one unit. Mr. GIDLEY stated that the only way it could be developed would be by replatting, a Planned Residential Development, or one very large structure. Mr. FIGHMASTER stated that he would probably replat. Discussion ensued as to the consideration of putting Simms street through to 44th Avenue. Fir. FIGITHASTER stated that Simms Street has been dedicated for a short distance on this property. Commissioner SNOW asked if any consideration had been given to the possibility of Residential.-Three on the south portion of the property and Residential-Two on the north portion of the property. Mr. GIDLEY stated that Staff responded to the application. Chairman SCOMA asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. Mr. TEX JUNKLR, 4615 Swadley, was present and sworn in. He stated he was opposed to the application because of the traffic impact it would have on the surrounding, neigh- borhood; nei.ghbors do not want nigh density, the only apartment is on Tabor Street, the rest of the proper.-:, Feing low density; and that it would not help the tax structure. He stated he would favor Residential Two but not Residential Thee property. _5_ 11-6-811 Planning Commission November 6, 19R0 Page 6 Mr. KENNIJH GROEN, 4675 Swadley, was present and sworn in. He stated he was opposed to the change in zoning because of the traffic impact to the area which is already bad, the car„ and trucks using the service rood along 1-70 of which many turn off onto Swadley; that there are many small children in the area; and he did not want his land value decreased. Mr. PAUL GULMAN, 11673 West 44th Avenue, was present and sworn It.. lie stated he had been a member of the Mass Transit Committee for two years but tLat the development of this property with the high density would be detrimental because there is no real access to the property, traffic noise, pollution from tue truck stop, and the I-70 interchange. LYNN FIGHTMASTER stated that Swadley would not be the only entrance to the prop- erty, that Simms Street eculd be put through, that he is asking only for a change of zone, and that it is in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. Ile then reviewed with the Commission a plan which was developed in 1972 showing the property being developed as R-2. Commissioner STEWART stated that the Commission is considering a change of zone at this time. Mr. FIGHTMASnR feels this is the best use of the property and the Commission must make a decision on that question. Ik: stated that the traffic flow in in the area is not a matter before the Commission at this time and when the ;roperty does come in for development that is the time to consider such ' l things as streets, traffic, etc. He stated that R-3 is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner SNOW asked if it would be possible to vote separately on the parcels facing 44th Avenue and the parcels facing 46th Avenue. Commissioner PRESTON stated that the applicant had requested the entire parcel be rezoned to Resi- dential Three. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW that a separate vote be taken on the property facing West 46th Avenue being Lots 1 and 2, and that a separate vote to taken on the remainder of the property being Lots 3, 4 and S. This motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner JENKS, seconded by Commissioner LONGO, that the Application by Lynn Fightmaster for a change of zone from Agricultural One to Residential Three on property located between 44th and 46th Avenues and Simms and Swadley Streets, be forwarded to City Council with Planning Commission's recom- mendation for approval for the following reasons: (1) does comply with the Compre- hensive Plan; (2) the property is surrounded, in part, by Residential Three zoning and commercial zoning; and (3) it may have a statilizing effect on future com- mercial development on the north side of West 44th Avenue. Vote: Yes: Jenks, Hawn, Preston, Scoma No: Longo, Martin, Stewart, Snow -6- 11-6-SO Planning Commission November 6, 1980 Page 7 Commissioner SCOFLI stutcd that the motion dies for l:u:k of a majority. Chairman SCOMA declared a recess - 10:00 P.H. The Commission reconvened with all members present - 10:1o P,61. It was moved by Commissioner JENKS, seconded by Commissioner PRESTON, that the Application by Lynn Fightmaster for a change of rcne from Agricultural One to Residential Three on property located between 44th and 46th Avenues and Simms and Swadley Streets, be forwarded to City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation for approval for the following reasors: (1) does comply with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) the property is surrounded, in part, by Residential- 7hree and Commercial zoning; (3) it may have a stabilizing effect on future com- mercial development on the north side of West 44th Avenue; and with the following conditions: (A) that the application be approved with the stipulation that no development take place until Simms Street is opened the length of the property; and (B) that the entire parcel be developed as one parcel. Commissioner SNOW asked Commissioner JENKS if he would consider cn amendment to include the following: (1) the site be developed as one parcel; (2) that the density be less than 21 units per acre. Sh.; stated she felt the Residential- Three %-as justified on the south portion of the property and would like to see somewnat lower density on the north portion which could be done in one of two ways, it could be done with a PRD or it could be done with conditions that the density be less than on the northern portion or make it Residential-Three A on the north portion and Residential-Three or Residential-Two A on the south portion of the property, and that she did not think by putting Simms street through was going to solvethe -entire problem. Commissioner JENKS stated -that consideration at this time is for a change of zone on the property; that when a plan comes in on the development of the property that is the time the Commission can ask for conditions. He stated he did not want to accept the amendment. Commissioner PRES.-ON asked Commissioner JENKS if he would amend the motion to include the stipulation that the entire parcel be developed as a single site. Commissioner JENKS did accept this amendment. Vote on original motion: Yes: ;Jenks, Preston, Martin, Longo, Stewart, Hawn, Scoma No: Snow Commissioner SNOW asked Mr. STROHBERG to find out if, in the future, when parcels are put together in this manner if a vote can be taken on them separately. Mr. STROMBERG stated that the only type of zoning that rcqu?.ros that unified ownership be shown is in planned developments, therefore for straight zoning it not necessary to show unified ownership, and that the Planning Commission could come back with other approaches if they so desired. 7- - 11-6-8u Planning Commission November G, 1930 Page A Commsisioner SNOW stated that she voted Three zoning for the northern portion of in the neighborhood since the Comprehens traffic; (3) additional developments in + the park-n-ride site. "No" because she felt that Residential the property was too dense; (2) changes ive Plan has been adopted and increased the north -.Arvada; and (4) addition of CERTUICAI'ION 017 IJ:S(ILII'I 10.4 CITY Op NIIIAl' RIDGE I'Lh\\ING Co?vIIS::ION He LWCen 44th slid 46th Avenues Case Number: wZ-80-28 Location: and Simms and SwadleY Strceta Applicant's Name: Lynn Fighlmas[c[ Request: Change of none from Agricultural One to Residential Three Owner's Name: Lynn Fightmaster Area: 5.01 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 it was move[ by Commissioner JENKS , seconded by Commissioner PRESTON that Case No. WZ-8048, Application by Lynn Fightmaster for a change of zone from Agricultural One to Residential Three on property located between 44th and 46th Avenues and Simmer and Swadley Streets, be forwarded to City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation for arproval for the following reasons: 1. Does comply with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. -The property is surrounded in part by R-3 zoning and commercial zoning; 3. It may have a stabilizing effect on future commercial development on the north side of. Nest 44th Avenue; and with the following conditions: , (A) That the application be approved with the stipulation that no development take place until Simms Street is opened the length of the property; (B) That the entire parcel be developed as one unit. Vote: Yes: Jenks, Preston, Stewart, Hawn, Martin, I,,ongo, Scow No: Snow .I, ELSIE HURLEY , Secretary to the Lity of Shcat Ridgc• Planning Commission, do hereby and hercwi=h certify thaL the forcfoing resolution was duly approved by 7-1 vote of the members present at their Regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Fiunicipal Building, Nhcat Ridge, Colorado, on the 6 day of Jeot N , Lt80. rvnu DONNIE SCO}IA, Chairman of the F:LSI Ii III II:Lt•er"o the Wheat Ridge Planning (:ommi scion blicat Ridge Planning Cu~mmttssi ou III- If Igi 11111 k - Jefferson .Mill--f Colorado ,.r.n L Fignts:astur y of the ('u lora o F: .h., n~ :tv u Jefferson ,Stat"4 k0 'C lured and ltrd, nu,i I., ll,e... lnr... nt.dur,...... •.•.m.; .Lrtr',ml,; l w 11,...:ud Lynn L. Fighbmaster n;:r nun„.I-I:n, ,d our G'ur and Lneful :etlvrt m-)fi,r '15 ";.,I n, ,ale , 41ral Lea,,fu to apply for, pay the cots of, and obtain re7bni ng of thn roar property described as: Beginning at the HH corner or the. Ei of l on 13 arnd 14; the thence E a1Rng the R line of Lot 14 a distance of ibmv ; t e right of 90 16' 59" a distance of 36n.294 thence on an angle to tthe 0right' andi~ta;lat 12' 20" a distance of 55.60'; thence on an angle to the left cf 90 of 50.00'; thence on an angle to the right of 900 09' 40" a distance of 1M .00' to intersection with tho W line of the E 4 of Lots 13 and 14; thence on an angle to the right of 890 50' 20" and along said 4 line a distance of 407.96' to point of beginning for a total of 2.69 atres. Irrigation Easement: The following describns the centerline of a 7' easement. Beginning at a point on the W line of the F. 112 of Lets 13 and 14, said point being 404.46' S of the MW corner of the E ; of Lots 13 and 14; thence E on an angle to the '.eft of 890 50' 20" a distance of 96.50'; thence on An angle tc the left of 900 09' 40" a distance of 50.0; thence on an angle to the right of 900 09' 40" a distance of 59.10' to point of terminus. The E 100.00' of the 5 k of Lot 13. Except the S F' thereof for irrigation ditch. All being in the E 112 of Lots 13 and 14, Lee's 50division. Except public highways. ditches roads and reservoir filing, Jefferson. County, State of Colorado; from the presen.t•. zoning of Agricultural to R-3 under the zoning regulations of the City of Wheat I Ridge. Colorado. Het eby giving and granting unto said attorney full power null nuihority to do ain't pe. m it I~ an and every act and thing whatsoever roquisice and nceersnrY to I,%' door ill louk tile premises, as fully to ail intent. and purposes as vie m:gh: or could do :(persnnoay it present, including, but not limited to, the execution of Uaeds cunce•:ing ie'.,I estate, faith full ij I II power of revocation hereby ratifying and confirming all that said nlGrrr.rp sh:Jl la+s hdir to or III reuse to he done by virtue hereof. I J 4114N'!rll69flfN+;!<o$/y1{JUh7'6AI'1JfElriFYH>/Nrdlrtlrl6lvhdlA~fd'/;:/i. ' •'IVI!>4r{/.hrd✓d/Altfr6td'/ill:N.d/fdrf•.G;Jitf!:41~,{drirfft'UJAiJo'i,l't(,./.fH•t/r4//r.l~f+ti6+1. IN w I'FN9SSWlIERECF. vie have licit anto net ourhands and ae;:LS thi s. 16th 1~~I1 dayof August .19 80 I' SEAL) Herbert fl. Fr eri4ster ~~qISEALI ~ - lendene Fi gh tr,;5ster _ _.-I SEAf.I f as I<Nuu At.t. ME, lit Cursl•:Purer:NhsMa f!crbert IL Fl nhtrtes!.nr and f, tm i gh tin.+ ;ter. . .'~'lOwreA .Tlne~ I He li'.W,Mr W.l4VYIb.\en~ nw.w- n,lutls e•-u -Qt'/Z+ ;i Kr4oWALLMrr4BrTH6sePRESEM: That ertcrt ti. F1tY.trnster II of the County of 1 ~I Jefferscn , State of Col erndo reposing special trust and confidence in i is Olende.e it.:Yfttr.aster i of the County of Jefferson , State of Cclerndo have made, con- atituted and appointed, and by them presents do make, constitute wid appoint the said 0lerzitne li, f1Fl:traster true and lawful attorney for Pe and in ry name, place and stead, for sole use and benefit to ntply far, ray the ecst., cf, and attain trzcr:1rnr cf the reel Property deserited ae:Eei-irr-lr. at t:.e !..A. Ccr. of the L. 112'cf Las 13 and 14; thence Last ¢alore the North line of Lot 14 a dictarce cf 1;5,32'; thence rn an angle to t1e ndlht or yC°16'Se" a distaree of 359.291; tlwrtcc on an arCle. to the riltht of 9C^12'2C" a distance of 55.60'; thence on cut ani•le to the left c 90°09140" a distance of 50.00'; thence on an ani•le to Me rii_tt of 90009140" a distwice of 100.00' to the intersection vith the West line of tl.e 1, 1%2 of lots 13 and 14; thence on an angle to the r1i-1:t of a9o50'20" and slent said Aest line a distance of 407,9F'to rolt:t of teglrr.inr. AIX: The last 100.00 ` of tle _eouth 1/2 of Lot 13. e Hereby giving and granting unto ay mid attorney foil power and authority to do and i~ perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the prem. I late, as fully to all intents and purpoem m I might or could do If personally present, with full power of substitution and revocation hereby ratifying and confirming all that ry said attorney ur her substitutes eball ltwfutly do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. iN FITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set try hand and seal thla First i day of ibvember 1980 . I. (SEAL! State of Colorado (SEAL( County of Jefferson This uas aclmowladged tefore me Ly Pertr ~ F.~. Fifhttrr~ester this first day of NevemYer, 1980. 147-r2 a-cF eo.t it Notary futlic My Cctnnisslon ezplreo July 29, 1983 i N.. JI fox, xur Vm.'II- I,-0 M111 . l F~wtsALL>1F:~ISr9'neSF:l'n"EMS:1.)'at Zelnla 0. Fightniaster u(thr ('nn my of Jefferson State of Colorado ,I,•p,..,,u. Vl ial t I ust:I nd rvol drum in Lynn L. Fightmaster St;rte of Colorado ha, n,ad„oon- .ftbe County of Jefferson stit,rted and :,ppointed, and by tiles" presents doe. w:rA r. t'umI iUrto :unl uppni nr I br said Lynn C. Fightmaster m my naun•,plarrand.r,•mi,for my ,md true and I:n,ful utlor ney for me the costs of, and obtain rezoning of the rc.dl soI, Ua and benefit to apply for, pay and i14 a of diLots 13 staw a of d 14, proert described the We Beginning fathe h . 112 uofe Lots 13 the ence North along 247.96; thence East on an angle to the right of 90 degrees 09' 40" a distance of 100.00'; thence on an angle to the left at 90 degrees 00' 40" a distance of 50.00; thence on an angle to the right 90 degrees 09 40" a distance of 131.38; thence on an angle to the right of 89 degrees 47 36" a distance of 299.93' to intersection 13 and 1; We~t with the South line of the East a1112 of L nd alongtsatd South4lineeacdistancsnofn231~63'tto ' the right of 90 degrees 41' 41" point of beginning. All being is the E. 112 of Lots 13 and 14, Lee's Subdivision., Except public highways. ditches, roaes and reservoir filing, Jefferson County. State of Colorado; from the present zoning of Agricultural to R-3 under the zoning) regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge. Colorado. jj II , I 'i I li III I! Hereby Riving and granting unto said attorney full power and au[huritc to do and perform about and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be.done in end the might or. could do if personally it premises, as fully to all intent and purposes as I ~I present, including, but not limited to. the execution of Deeds conveying real estate, with hell I'I I power of revocation hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney shall lawfully o cr it cause to be done by virtue hereof. - II ' II l ,4K IdJvuEfbtFxfdddd~ffNrfAAAAN*l0N Ohi1,YtdAYi17N/Jl1tVV sf0H0AY I I 1' ' I 'TY/•✓ddd•kfblAlfdrMd.JANANIdkhbfdJ9fffPrAkhlJ'idfNf!'dldVUik6•%rUG><'/J✓'hfhf%fl' II r 11 lNN'1TNF.SSvVHFF.EOF. I Pave hereunto set my hand and seal this 16th 1 1980 .!day of yrNUrust Itj 12, - d7 -I SEALI ~z D.--FigTi>;mast r I i ! is f I I ~!':1'I'f•: e it. I II Le l It A lot r„.uu)„f Arapahoe "I'hr lore'Routg mslnuern~a:u u, An„wlydg,•,I b••b~r•nu' I lu s 16tn el:IY"f August w 30.1) .elnla D. Fi of tmas ter \Ic e,nnmi„n•n repo r` March 19 .IP$].N'it ne•s.ymy b:uul und•Ifirinl .val. Jo Fn- G. Hart i.,-IJ-501. CRS 1479. Khen power of aItorne) no( !,freeIed by disability. When it principuI designates nnothe•r his attorney in foot u: regent by it poorer of attorney in writing and the writing eonlnins the words ''This power of nt h,r ne•c shall not be nffeeted by disability of the principal'', ur''This pawn of att,u•ne•y shall bc.,nue• tffect:re open the disability of the prince pal••, or snail at wor& showing the intent of the prinripal that the authoritc ronfrrred shall be eserrisrble nulwithsianding his disability, the nut horny of the attocnoy in NO or tigevtt is exercisalde• by him as provided ill till, power ,n hehnlf of the principal hnlw it It standing litter disnhility or mrapm-hy of the principal lit low tit bare uurertninty its to whether the principal is dead al, tilive. Any acts done by the uttol tie} uI fact al, agent pursuant to the power during tiny la•riud of disability or illcmilpotem... or uncer taint' as to whether lhe• principal is dead or alive lueve the-rata' efferl and inure to the hen'-fit of and bind the principal or his heirs, da•risea•s, and personal representative a, it' the prinripal were olive, vontlreh•nl, and not disabled. If it eonsel• valor thereafter is nppamtell fur the print ilmi4 the ultor ney in fart or agent. during the can. linutince of the appointment. shall recount ill tile ronser rate rather than Oe prinripal. The conservator hits the -ante power the priocipul would )lore hold if ho wero not disabled or incompetent, he rr vo;;r, suspend, or terminate all or +uty putt of the power of attar ney or agency. mil W i O a w O G F E I _ _ I CI C I V v _ (y i ' C i O 1 I I ~I Y! F I li i a l v, r C ; ~ I I L 4 II ~ _ _ CITY OF !HEAT RIDGE - Mf IORANDUM sr~ To Tom Palmer, City Administrator - From Glen Cidley, Chi" Subject Question for City Attorney note January 7, 198. Don APProv~d In acecrdance with your policy regarding use of the City Attorney, I would like your ar.,roval eration. to If submit you hathe ve any attached questions, aplease call". his review and consid GG/emh attach CIT`: OF 'VHEAT RIDGE - MF`RORANDUM To John Haye,, City Attorney From Giro Gidicy, chief of Planning Subject 1:ightmnstcr Rezoni Otte January 7. 1981 Ca,e No. WZ-811-28 _ Data Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission minutes and resolution cmtcerning a proposed rezoning from A-1 to R-3 at apnroximately 11551 West 44th Avenue. Staff is concerned that the conditions attached to the rezoning request, specifically the Simms Street extension and development of the parcel as no unit are platting steps and therefore cannot be attached to a rezoning case. Before this proposed rezoning is brought before the City Council, we need to determine whether these conditions are legal as a condition of zoning. We also need to determine how to write the ordinance. The Planning Commission was attempting to guarantee access to West 44th Avenue and reduce dependence oa West 46th Avenue since the request is for multi-family residential and the uses on West '.venue are single family residential. I am not quite sure what the Condit f-development as a single unit is to achieve other than continuity of 0,.o.onment by one developer. This is a Planned Development concept and doesn't normally apply to straight zoning requests. - It may be possible to approve the rezoning subject to platting of the property which dedicates Simms Street prior to issuance of any building permits. The problem with this is that the property under consideration for rezoning is in three separate lots, and therefore ownership is different now, and will probably be sold to seoarate.owners in the future. Thus, how do %e require platting of the entire property (all three lots) when only one lot owner is requesting a building permit? Also, how can we require that the entire prop- erty, even though in three separate ownerships, be developed as a single unit unless we require a Planned Development? John, in light of Council's recent opinions on conditional zoning (if this is conditional - 1 an concerned that it may be contrart zoning), and in light of i recent Colorado court decisions, what would you st-dgest as a legally lefensiblo i approach for City Council to take while at the sane time meeting the objective ` of keening high density residential traffic off of West 46th Avenue and nutting - , it on West 44th Avenue? GG,temh attach CIT OF WHEAT RIDGE - MEMORANDUM T. .lain Ilnye~, i:i ty Attoroc% From Glen Gidley, Chief of Planning ' SuhlNet 'Date lanu n r PIS1 nnditipn nl 'oninr ❑rJinanrr Y 21_ Approval Date Plcasr review the attached prpposrd ordinance fcr rezoning , r..1perty at IIr51 W. 44th Avenue from Agricultural One to Residential Threv. I have also attachel a COPY of the Planning Commission minutes for review. As you will note, Planning Commission specified Simms Street, how- eve , further research indicates that s,adley Street may he tF^ better street to extend since Swadirv goes north to 1-70 frontage road and Simms does not. Also, I believe the requirement of platting this street meets the intent of the. other condition to require development as one parcel. Please let me %now if you have any questions or concerns. I would like to put this on the February 9th Council meeting for first reading. cc: C tt.H.5tromne rg, Director Community Deve lopnent Rodger Young, Director Prtilac Works attach 1:.: A .'t' 1.. . • - Marc!, 7, I781 'r ?Lurch :3, 1941 If_-190 -24/Fi0"m:nter t Jan Gidley Approval of a change of =one from A-1 to R-3 Approximately 11551 Beet 44th Avenue Lynn Figl.fmastur 4455 Simm, St. Herbert 6 flvndvnv Fightmaster, 11641 Nest 44th Ave of n •.....~'%I Lynn 6 Nancy Pightmaster, A,bkv% t L, t): .4455 Simms St e...v....,...}.....00 .iM;i':a.it«•.. I.Ml.i Sit,•: ;it.Ii/A awl....................... h,t'r 16ul'IVid: February 12, 1981 VOIV ITUM: February :0, 19011 Loo Lrg:l' Coticat .:,et: February 27, 1981 Ay.' .-y CI:oeHisr: XAttarboil Sot RequilM C; h•,1 r•tr s•.vm.'rnr_r At.tm'!,c.1 X 6'rnr ?ti'.•.'r)... urYrt♦Yrf♦Y.. YYH H++..Y,YY :'..+Y.?I:Y. nYr s Y YY Art l.. 1 YY M .•rYYY rt•...Y+rY.♦ lot,- into rr(uld X Curie"rr5(•usivr moo X. Use Sife 5 IIIJOt ".IriK afe y Zoning CYdirnarv X S!ANd SohJiMO" RrNata OW, X Lxhihit.A Other yr Y.Y!Y.rx.YY.x:.YYVr.w+!.xY+. fYIY r~x.+.YYYYYY.:.Yt+YYY.1Y,. v+r Yr r+.t•..YV..+<r .aaYY Chaagis in rueniuy ('+•r•nsirnr Stou Raw A. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission heard this case on November 6, 1980, and recommended approval with several conditions. The conditions were as follows: 1. That the application be approved with a stipulation that no development take place until Simms Street is opened the full length of the property; 2. That the entire parcel be developed as one parcel; iSee attached minutes and resolution from the November 6 Planning Commission meeting) B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Planning Commission did recommend approval of this request, however, they also recom- mended the two previously stated conditions. The applicant has submitted a letter dated January 20, 1961 wherein they request that Swadley Street be considered as an alternative to Simms Sttaet for extension between 44th and 46th. This letter is incorporated into your packet. After reviewing the area in question. Staff concludes that either Swadley Street or Simms Street could be extended and provide the type of direct access to 44th Avenue that is being requested by PI'tnning Commission. The basic reason that Planning Commission made these two conditions is that they want to control the access of multifamily type of traffic generation relative to 46th Avenue. The intent was to Provide direct access to 44th Avenue via a public street, thuq taking the pressure oft' of 16th Avenue for that multifamily developmen'. 'The best method for achieving both a street and the intent of the condition of developing the parcel as one unit would be to require the entire area tinder consideration for rezoning to he platted. Through the replatting requirements, we could requirr appropriate street dedications in appropriate places and also control lot configuration and access. TO CITY COUNCIL March 3, 1981 W2-80-23/Fightmr ster Page 2 There has been a rrcent Colorado Supreme Court decioion which supports the concept of requiring platting as a condition to a rezoning, therefore, we are on good legal grounds in requiring platting as a condition of zoning if Council so desires. STAFF CONCi.USIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff concludes that this change o1 zone Is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. We also feel that residential zoning this area may have a stabilizing effect from future encroachment of commercial development for this area of West 44th Avenue. We also conclude that Planning Commission's recommendation for a street to be platted between 46th and 44th %venue is appropriate and we would recommend app-oval of the rezoning with a condition that a street, be it either Simms Street or Swadley Street, be fully platted between 46th Avenue and 44th Avenue in order to achieve direct accoss to 44th Avenue for the multifamily development. - SUGGESTED MOTIONS Option A. I move that Council Bill 57 be approved for the follcwing reasons: 1, the proposed change of zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan; 2. the proposed use would be compatible with area land use and zoning; and 3. Planning Commission has recommended approval. - _0tip on B. I move that Coucil Bill 57 be approved with the following changes to Section 2. Conditions: 1. Substitute Swadley Street for Simms Street under A. (use same reasons for approval as Option A) Option C. I move that Council Bill 57 be approved with the stipulation that all conditions be removed-rr-om Council Bill 57 . (use same reasons for approval as Option A) Jan. 20, 1981 To: City of Wheat Ridge Subject: Zoning change Dear Sirs: We have received from the planni.ig commission a vote of confidence of 7 to I in favor of oc, rezoning fron. agriculture to multifamily. .here were conditions concerning the rezoning. One of the conditions wa; that Sims would be upened up from 44th to 46th Avenue. I wcuid ite the City to ee,sieor Swadley Street as an alternative to Sinns St eet. ince we ':r oniy asking for a rezoning and do not have any ila.is at chis time t.r would like to at least have the option of using eitle Swodloy or Simms whenever plans are drawn. Either street goes from 44tH M 4f!': AvenL^ and only Swadley has a through outlet to the service road cc I-'n Simms Street dead-ends at 46th Avenue. Thanking you for ;-our cooperation. Sincerely, J ;"Z Lynn L. Fight..master 4455 Sinrs Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 CITY ' ; RIDE C....,.,,.. CITY OF aHEAT RIDGE - ME..gvRANDU{:0 To r:Ien (Adlr,-, C1,1. I pl Intl l nlf From Ken Ienwlrk, I.III:llet- r l ny Idoh. Subject Street F.xten,o,nI - !;Immu 8 pate VIVeml or 18, 1780 wa rll ev Approved not* r/~ /-S' u Extension of either or both :Simms St. :Intl Swadlev St, between W. 44th Intl W. 46th would provide extra access to the South service rand of 1-70 and the homes already existing north of W. 46th Ave. It would open or, more ground for development a:oni; their routes. A portion of Simms St. north of W. /5th Ave, to the existing street has been vacated and would have to he rc dedicated. Drainage cons I,erat Inns would have to be closely scrutinized and provided for on the W. 44th Avenue design. An irrigation ditch already existing north of W. 46th is at a rather high elevation and would have to he relocated in some way to ensure a smooth road grade. Traffic at both W. 44th an' It the 1-70 service road could become a problem and would have to be monitored. Costs should he borne by the developer not only adjacent. to his property but also north of his land, especially with regard to connecting the ex- isting Simms St. north of W. 46th Ave. and the relocation of the Srrigntlon ditch. Also, curb, gutter, and sidewalk as well as all street improvements must be provided by the owner. KF:vab Will Al I:1 V(:I 1'I AIJ'J I'l(: DIt'I:;ION SIAI I NI MIZI Vale 06 Ife, tip.!): '.~,yvnc~r r., 17uo Onto I'tcpatcd: m,t,? r Y, 17hu Ca,e Case No, f• Nam;: i9_-10-2XIlTun I'i rhl,M,I Action Requrstrd: hcconv from aru irnl l urnI imc Io kum denr ial Th rv, Addies s u6 I:cquv5& I.rtwcon r. 411h to L. INK and Siren, to Swadlvy Name P6 A;y'ti,anMl: Addiesslesi: i.rnn ril!hl®ar:uer -117 Si mm. Sl rert Ilcnccrt 1', 6lrndene I iyhtn. r-t•r III. 11 F. -1 lth tag Ivan I; Nancy I M rcn h.I. ..I;; M mm~ Street Nam: 05 ur':Isl• dddsf>s(rsl: II'•I,I IIt It sk-nun 1••Ia bi(:ht n:ntrr App'Inz.ima C' Atrn: :;.Ill a.res FleArul ZcaliiV: Agricultural ono ptezeutgand up single family residential in aq.icn:tural aettin,, Astounding 200): 1(: Agricultural rune; Avrlcnlturdl (Jar , Rve trictvd Commercial Iti• R ~i.l qt i'h1 11hr•r L 4r 'ivYlt~lra+ unr; X: Py;J.mid i:I! I'pv,, S(:4houndi nl1 Lr.nd lL'c`+'_: urFnen, .C. lh slJc tt~w _ ,Iirl rul Mlra Isl en Ia.;.N: L„.,r..gtt ial CompAche"sive Ptml pet the Ahev Ilirh Ilen.ity Residential Advease Zmpacts upon Maighbo Urcd r.t U nMolurcr,t: 7na(sic Count th appF Atel: • ♦ • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • F • • • • f r ♦ ♦ • • • • • ♦ • l • • • • Oats Pubt aped: October 13, 17130 Oate. Posted: October 20, 19130 Vote Legat Notices Stilt: October 27, 1980 Agency CheckZ at: ® Attached ❑ Not Rcqu.i-tcd t • • t • • • • • r r • t s • t ♦ • . t • • • ! t 1 • • ♦ • t t • r • • t • • • r Fntca into Reveal M Comp%cher15lvc Plan ® Case Site E Packet .^•atc^.i.a7.a El Zoning o.tdiamtcc [D SLin; s ❑ SuGdivi,.tion Rc'gu.ia(Zons © Lxhibtts ❑ ovirt • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r • . • r • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • . SQ'i Findings and Conctusicns 1. Reqoirements for posting; publishing, and notification have been met. H. The property is located within the City and therefore the City has jurisdicti n to hear the case. III. FINDINGS A. The applicant requests a zone change from Agricultural One to Residential Three on property located between test 44th Avenue to West 46th Avenue and Simms to Swadley. Vic property has three :csidenti:al structure) in an agricultural setting. B. The subject property is m:,inl) -.urroundcd by residential use with apartments to the west, single family. residential to. the north and cast, with a commercial strip to the south. The proposed R-3 zoning would he compatible wit), uses and zoning to the west and south, thourh potertlM ly incompatible with low density residential uses to the north and cast. C. The Comprehensive Plan L^.: 1 Ilse Map indicates high density residential for this area. The zoning request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. I1. A rezoning should over- Then one or more of the following has occurred: 1. When a mistake has peen found in the original coning. This is not the case here. 2. When the rezoning brimps the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. This is exactly the case here. 3. When there are changing conditions in the area. This area is mainly resi- dential in nature with commercial development to the south and west,. There has been a tendency fnr commercial development to spread along the routh side of West 44th Avenue. A residential rnQi I, wnvid stun teid n--- Case No. WZ-80-28/!.ynn fightmaster October 27, 1980 Page 2 R'. RE(:Ofltl:'411A'l IONS Staff reenmmends nppraral of the rezoning request for the following reasons: A. lhv rrzoniog is in cunforma"ce with W Land Use Plan in the tbmprehenslve Plan. 0. Ter residential rezoning may have a stabilizing effect from future encronch,va, of co,mwreial dvvelapmcnt on the north side of Nest 41th Ave. em w C1V L1 VL1 U,' VIL . 11.10 LVL u1c urNL- V - - - - of February 23, 1981, with the following addition on page 2, 19th line, following the word "stories." (concerning the R3-E Ordinance) " Mr. Lewis stated he was reluctantly voting for this ordinance because this will give the city a little more flexibility in enforcing the code"; seconded by Mr. Davis. Mrs. Turner requested that the tapes be researched to also add her reasons for voting no on the amendment to the R-3E Ordinance and that the addresses as well as the names of those speaking be included. Motion carried 8-0. PROCLAMATION BY THE MAYOR "Grange Week" April 19-25, 1981, was deferred to April 13, 1981. Those to receive the proclamation were ill and unable to be present at this meeting. OATH OF OFFICE was administered Arborist Board; Grace Shaddeau Control Commission; Charles D. Board; Janice Thompson and John Commission; Allen Kirby and Rob by the Mayor to Sandra Eid, and William Donaldson, Animal Petty, Jr., Building Code Advisory McDermott, Parks and Recreation ert Reischman, Personnel Commission; and Ray Winger, Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING htem l: Council Bill 57 - An Ordinance providing for the-approval of rezoning from Agricultural One (A-1) to Residential Three (R-3) with conditions for land located at approximately 11551 West 44th Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado (;Case No':V 8Q-28} ` ('Lynn Fightmaster ) Council Bill 57 was introduced on second reading; title read by the Clerk. Mr. Stromberg gave the staff report. Herbert Fightmaster, 11641 W. 44th Avenue, owner of the property, presented the applicant's case. Janice Thompson, 12290 W. 42nd Avenue, spoke in opposition, stating that she would prefer to see a lower density on the northern portion of the property and also that she had spoken with Tex Junker and Ken Groen, who had spoken at Planning Commission, but would be unable to attend this meeting, and that they are also in opposition. However, she said she was pleased that it would be Residential. Motion by Mr. Merkl that Ordinance 443 (Council Bill 57) be approved with the following changes to Section 2. conditions: eliminate A., and B. be the only condition on this ordinance and that also under B. the duplicated words "which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways" be deleted; seconded by Mr. Bowman; carried 8-0. Failed Amendment by Mrs. Turner that there be a condition that would have the approximate 1/2 acre that borders 46th Avenue have the density be lessened to approximately 16 units per acre; seconded by Mrs. Cavarra; failed 2-6, with Councilmembers Merkl, Bowman, Davis, Lewis, Aiello, and Ore voting No. Mr. Merkl stating that he was opposed to restriction of units in R-3 plan; Mr. Aiello stating that he could not see but what new construction in the area would serve to enhance it, and that the R-2 zoning serves as somewhat of a buffer to the adjacent low density housing on 46th Avenue. Item 2. Application by Henry Zarlengo for approval of a Dumping Permit on property located at approximately 4151 Kipling Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorada. (Case No. DP-81-1) Motion by Mr. Lewis to continue the item until the March 23 meeting at the applicant's request; seconded by Mr. Bowman, carried 7-1, with Mr. Davis voting No. INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER MERKL ORDINANCE NO. 443 SERIES OF 1981 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ONE (A-1) TO RESIDENTIAL THREE (R-3) WITH CONDITIONS FOR LAND LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 11551 WEST 44TH AVENUE, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Upon application of Lynn Fightmaster et al for approval of rezoning in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Case No. WZ-80-28 and based upon recommendation for approval from the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission 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 Agricultural One (A-1) District and to include in the Residential Three (R-3) District the following described land: 1. _ Beginning at the N.W. Cor. of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence East along the North line of Lot 14 a distance of 155.32'; thence on an angle to the right of 90016'59" a distance of 359.29'; thence on an angle to the right of 90012120" a dist. of 55.60'; thence on an angle to the left of 90009140" a distance of 50.00'; thence on an angle to the right of 90009'40" a distance of 100.00' to intersection with the West line of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence on an angle to the right of 89050'20." and along said West line a distance of 407.96' to point of beginning. Irrigation Easement: The following describes the centerline of a 7' easement. Beginning at a point on the West line of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13and 14, said point being 404.46' South of the N.W. Cor. of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence East on an angle to the left of 89050'20" a distance of 96.501; thence on an angle to the left of 90009'40" a distance of 50.001; thence on an angle to the right of 90009'40" a distance of 59.10' to point of terminus. Beginning at the N.E. Cor, of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence South along the East line of Lots 13 and 14 a dist, of 330.79'; thence West on an angle to the right of 90012120" and along the South line of Lot 14 a distance of 100.001; thence on an angle to the left of 90012124" a distance of 30.00'; thence on an angle to the right of 90012'24" a distance of 75.781; thence on an angle to the right of 89047'40" a distance of 359.29' to intersection with the North line of the E 1/2. of Lots 13 and 14; thence East on an angle to the right of 89043'01" and along said North line a distance of 175.78' to point of -beginning. 3. The East 100..00' of the North 1/2 of Lot 13. Except the East 25' thereof reserved for street. i 4. Beginning at the S.W. Cor. of the E. 1/2 of. Lots 13 and 14; thence North along the West line of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14 a distance of,247.961; thence Easton an angle to the right of 90009'40" a distance of 100.001; thence on an angle to the left of 90009'40" a dist, of 50.00'; thence on an angle to the right 90009140" a dist. of 131.38'; thence on an angle to the right of 89047'36" a dist. of 299.93' to intersection with the South line of the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence West on an angle to the right of 90041'41" and along said South line adist. of 231.63' to point of beginning. Except the South 7' thereof for irrigation ditch. ORDINANCE NO. 443 ~I Page -2- The East 100.00' of the South 1/2 of Lot 13. Except the South 7' thereof for irrigation ditch. All being in the E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14, Lee's Subdivision, Except Public Highways, ditches, roads and reservoir filing, Jefferson County, State of Colorado. Section 2. Conditions. The following condition shall apply to this rezoning: A. Prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction, the subject property legally described in Section 1 above shall be platted in order to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes. Section 3. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 4. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance or its applicatin to other persons or circumstances. Section S. This ordinance shall take effect 1 day- after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 9th day of February , 1981; 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 March 9, 1981, at 7:30 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 8 to 0 , this 9th day of March 1981. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 11th day of March 1981. FRANK STITES, MAYOR ATT Carol amp , 1st Publication: Feb. 2, 1981)Wh tRid ea ge 2nd Publication: Mar. 19, 1981) Sentinel Effective Date: Mar. 20, 1981 APPRO ED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY w n 1 A 0 --J - _C) -_r_In 3 m~ i rn 0 o rn BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION - 235-2855 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE Date : 11/18/96 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 Property Owner : Property Address : 11690 46TH AV Contractor License No. -N 18327 Company : Customcraft Homes, Inc. UWNhtV ;UN I RACTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT I hereby certify that the setback distances proposed by this permit application are accurate, and do not violate applicable ordinances, rules or regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge or covenants, easements or restrictions of record; that all measurements shown, and allegations made are accurate; that I have read and agree to abide by all conditions printed on this application, and that I assume full responsibility for compliance with the Wheat Ridge Building Code (U.B.C.) and all other applicable Wheat Ridge ordinances, for work under this permit. (OWNER)(CONTRACTOR) SIGNED DATE Description : 4 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING Phone : 279-8049 Phone: 279 8041 Construction Value : $215,000.00 Permit Fee : $1,470.00 Plan Review Fee : $0.00 Use Tax : $2,580.00 Total: $4,050.00 BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY EMIGs'Ccmmentsg Approval : SM 9/6/96 Zoning : R-3 I`°jLdLn , mmentt Approval H.u ilFciwnrti lCcmmelntsd Approval : Occupancy : Walls SIC: w Sq. Ft): 3208 'SIDE YARD SETBACK BUST BE 15' ON THE EST AMD 45' ON THE EAST SIDE Roof : Stories : Residential Units : 4 Electrical License No : Plumbing License No : Mechanical License No: Company: Company: Company: Expiration Date : Expiration Date : Expiration Date 4pproval: Approval: Approval: Plagj RequIred =1 xPt nQ R attire"f~ (1) This permit was issued in accordance with the provisions set forth in yopur application and is sub em to the laws of the State of Colorado and to the Zoning (2) Regulations and Building Code of Wheat Ridge, Colorado or any other applicable ordinances of e city. This permit shall expire if (A) the work authorized is not commenced within scary (60) days from issue date or (B) the building authorized is suspended or abandoned for a period of 120 days. (3) If this permit expires, a new permit may be acquired for a fee of one-half the amount normally required, provided no changes have been or will be made in the original plans and specifications and any suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one (1) year. If changes are made or if suspension or abandonment exceeds one (1) year, full fees shall be paitl for a new permit (4) No work of any manner shall be tlone that will change the natural flow of water causing a drainage problem. (5) Contractor shall notlfy the Builtling Inspei:tor hventy-four (24) hours in advance for all inspecUOns antl shall receive written approval on inspection card before proceetliing with successive phases of the 11'ob. (6) The issuance of a permit or the approval of tlrawings and specifications shall not be construed to be a permit (or, nor an approval of, any violation of the provisions of the building codes or any other ortlinance, law, rul ar lotion. Chief Build' Inspector Fo Mayor ~ THIS P MIT VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR AND MAYOR CALL: 234 933 24 HOURS PRIOR TO INSPECTION 3 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION - 235-2855 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE` - 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 Building Permit Number: 4225 Property Owner: Property Address: Contractor License No. : Company 11600 46TH AV 18327 Customcraft Homes, Inc. Phone : 279-8049 Phone: 5261355 OWNER/CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT I hereby certify that the setback distances proposed by this permit application are accurate, and do not violate applicable ordinances, rules or regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge or covenants, easements or restrictions of record; that all measurements shown, and allegations made are accurate; that I have read and agree to abide by all conditions printed on this application, and that I assume full responsibility for compliance with the Wheat Ridge Building Code (U.B.C.) and all other applicable Wheat Ridge ordinances, for work under this permit. (OWNER)(CONTRACTOR) Description : 4 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING Construction Value Permit Fee Plan Review Fee Use Tax Total Date : 11/18/96 $215,000.00 $1,470.00 $0.00 $2,580.00 $4,050.00 BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Zoning Comments' Approvaly 8M 8/29196 Zoning : R-3 Building Comments Approval : Public Works Commentsa Approval: Occupancy : Walls SIC: Sq. Ft.: 3208 15' SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT ON EAST SIDE OF PROPERTY Roof : Stories : Residential Units : 4 Electrical License No: Plumbing License No: Mechanical License No: 18358 Company : Company : Company : T I Construction, Inc. Expiration Date : 7/6/96 Expiration Date : Expiration Date : Approval : JE Approval: Approval: „Plans Regwred.,,,:_,J iij Plans Re yued; Plam aWred :-tl (1) This permit was issued in accordance with the provisions set forth in yopur application and is subject to the laws of the State of Colorado and to the Zoning Regulations and Building Code of Wheat Ridge, Colorado or any other applicable ordinances of the City. (2) This permit shall expire if (A) the work authorized is not commenced within sixty (60) days from issue date or (B) the building authorized is suspended or abandoned for a period of 120 days. (3) If this permit expires, a new permit may be acquired for a fee of one-half the amount normally required, provided no changes have been or will be made in the original plans and specifications and any suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one (1) year. If changes are made or if suspension or abandonment exceeds one (1) year, full fees shall be paid for a new permit. . (4) No work of any manner shall be done that will change the natural flow of water causing a drainage problem. (5) Contractor shall notify the Building Inspector twenty-four (24) hours in advance for all inspections and shall receive written approval on inspection card before proceecung with succ ssive phases of the job. (6) The issuance of a p it or the approval of drawings and specifications shall not be construed to be a permit for, nor an approval of, any violation of the provisions of the building s or any other o man law, rule or regulation. I r Inspector PERMIT VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR AND MAYOR CALL: 234-5933 24 HOURS PRIOR TO INSPECTION wH,gr MEMORANDUM To: Bob Middaugh, City Administrator Jerry Dahl, City Attorney z c o OC OR AO From: Glen Gidley, Planning & Development Director./ Re: Multiple Family Development at 11600 & 11690 W. 46th Ave. Date: December 16, 1996 Building permits were recently issued to Custom Craft Homes to build one 4-plex on each of two separately owned parcels known as 11600 and 11690 W. 46th Ave. These lots were part of a 5-lot area rezoned in 1981. At the time of rezoning, the entire property was owned by the Fightmaster family. These two lots were subsequently sold to two different owners, making the total rezone area held under three ownership interests. At the time of original rezoning, there was a condition placed upon the rezoning as follows: "Prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction, the subject property legally described in Section 1 above shall be platted in order to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes." When presented with request for a building permit on the first lot, 11690, 1 discussed this situation with both of you, I believe at different times, and I believed that we had concluded that this requirement was no longer practical for several reasons: First, the entire property was no longer under single control, therefor platting of the entire property was not achievable. Secondly, after discussions with Public Works and having considered years of Council decisions regarding Simms St., requiring an extension of Simms St. was neither practical or desirable. Third, because additional buildings were being proposed on each lot, a subdivision of each of the two lots is required and is currently being processed, therefore, although the entire property (including the Fightmaster's 3 lots) is not included, that portion of the property currently proposed for development is being platted, therefore the intent is being met. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision at a public hearing held on December 5, and recommended approval of a modified. plat. (See attached) The subdivision plat goes to Council January 13, 1997 for final public hearing. I made the decision to issue the two building permits after the above considerations, and after I had discussed the proposal with both of you, thinking that we were in agreement that permits should be issued for one building per lot. 9 _--°7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE The City of P.O. BOX 638 WHEAT A!DGE. CO 80034-0638 (303) 234-5900 August 22. 1996 heat City Admin. Fax 4 231-5921 Police Dept. Fax = 235-2949 GRidge Jim Turgeon 1846 W. 4th Avenue Golden, CO 80401 Dear Jim: This letter is in regard to the development of property within the City of Wheat Ridge located at 11700 West 46th Avenue. Tile property in question was rezoned from Agricultural-One to Residential-Three pursuant to Case No. WZ-80-28. A condition of this rezoning approval was that prior to any new development, the entire property (five separate parcels) be "platted to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes". It is staffs assumption that this condition was required as it was indicated that the property would be developed into a single high-density multi-family complex utilizing all five parcels under one ownership. Another reason for the subdivision was an attempt by the City to construct an unobstructed north/south street (Simms Street) between W. 32nd Avenue and I-70. The Planning and Development Department has concluded that conditions under which the rezoning was approved have changed and that development will not occur under one ownership and that the maximum density on the property may not be fully utilized. We have further concluded that construction of this north/south corridor is not only politically unfeasible but cost prohibitive. It is my understanding that you have purchased the northeastern parcel and intend on constructing a series of four and five-plexes on it. Based on a lot size of 1.32 acres, this property, if developed to it's maximum, could support up to 27 dwelling units. Because of the changed conditions since the rezoning approval, the Planning and Development Department would be willing to issue a building permit for the first four-plex with the understanding that no additional structures would be built until a subdivision occurs. You had provided me a very preliminary subdivision layout which I have reviewed and have the following comments: TA parcel of land to the west has been included in the subdivision. If you do not have ownership by the time the application has been filed, the owner of record must have a signature block on the plat document and consent to the application. 2. A 50' wide local street is being shown in a cul-de-sac design. This will require public hearings in front of both Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Staff would strongly encourage access for all units be from Simms Court. 4. If property transfers occur between the northern lots and the southern lots fronting on W. 44th Avenue, the southern lots should be included in the subdivision. 5. There does not appear to be the need for any right-of -way dedications for West 46th Avenue except for a 15' corner radius at the intersection with Simms Court. 6. A drainage report for the northern portion of the property will be required. 7. The developer will be responsible for the design and construction of public improvements along both Simms Court and West 46th Avenue. 8. There may be additional unforeseen items which cannot be addressed at this time. If you have questions concerning any of the above, do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2848 Sincerely, Meredith Reckert 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80215 October 23. 1996 James Turgeon 1846 W. 4th Avenue Golden, Colorado 80401 Dear Jim: The City of ~OF WHEgT~ Wheat GRidge C, OZ o R APO ' This letter is in regard to your submittal for a six-lot subdivision for property located at 11600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue. I have reviewed the submittal and have determined that the following items must be added to the plat face or addressed otherwise: The title of the document is incorrect. It should read as follows: " Subdivision" "A Resubdivision of a Portion of Lot 14, Lee's Subdivision" "A Part of the Northeast 2. A case history box with the following case numbers: WZ-80OWS-96-2 3. Zoning on and adjacent to the site 4. Designation of adjacent subdivisions 5. Addresses and phone numbers for owners and surveyors 6. Signature block for Mt. States should be changed to U.S.West Communications 7. Signature block for City Engineer should be changed to Director of Planning and Development 8. Any ditches on the property must be shown with appropriate easements 9. Lot sizes in square footage 10. Area of total site 11. Centerlines of rights-of-way for West 46th Avenue, Swadley Street and Simms Street 12. Utility easements on all lots measuring 10' along rights-of-way, 8', along rear property lines and 5' along side property lines 13. Designation that the property is within the 500-year floodplain as recognized by FEMA 14. Street name (should be called Simms Court) (303) 234.5900 • ADMINISTRATION FAX: 234-5924 POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX: 235-2949 15. All typographical errors are comments received from outside agencies and other City departments. All of their ttached ttache addressed. For the file, I also need a utility location plan and a plan s need to be howing contours at 2' intervals. 'his case is scheduled for p revised plat no later than November fission on December 5, 1996. will need 15 copies o [f you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert cc: WS-96-2 02/10/00 10:06 1U303 966 0200 tixU 1jhr4vhx Lvjcci Ifelme Roberts & ®wen up Morn eys at Law 1700 Linruln Street suite 4110 Demer, CI 81213 'I'e! (313)869-7111 F= (303)866•0200 FNI FACSIMILE COVER SHEET FROM FACSIN13LE NUMBER: (303)866-6266 Date: February 10, 2906 Tin-Le: To: Gorsuch rurgis LLP Attendou: Gerald Dahl, Esq_ F acsiumile No_: 303-376-5001 Verification No.: 303-376-5000 Client No.: 42393-90010 From: Rich Rodriguez, Esq. ATTY 3079 Message: Attached is additional documentation i discovered r bearding the Ttageon application. Please include this as part of the Council's packet for Monday night. Number of pages following this cover sheet: 3 If you aced a confirmation or any of The pages sent again, please call our offices at t14 llowing number: Copy Center, (303)866-0362. If you do not call. within 15 minutes, we mumtou have received the pages satisfactorily. TELECOPTER: canon 1-770 SENT BY: 1 SECRETARY: Karen Olsten, EXT.: 346; FLOOR: 42 +f CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this facsimile transmittal sheet and documcnL(s) that follow are for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this facsimile is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this facsimile to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this facsimile transmission, or its contents, ill any way. If the recipient has received this facsimile transmission fn error, please callus immediately and return the facsimile transmission to us via the United States Postal Service. Thank' you. Offices in: Denver Salt Lake City Boulder Colorado Springs London NOTICE TO BIDDERS INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER MERKL .]f Wheat Ridge is acce0)itig pica •hanon of Water a ie,,Cr Lines In COUNCIL 'BILL N 57 ORDINANCE NO, 1:ral! room of the Wheat Ridge '1046363 W651-35th Avenue. SERIES OF 1981 e,: Coloraed 8003:1. Bid shalr,m - ,oar, material' and egWprienf. TITDEC; AN ORDINANCE 'PROVIDING' COR Tfle APPROVAL OF REIOr,;U )e -accepted. until' 70;00 A,M FROM AGRICULTURAL ONE (A-1)-TO RF.SIOENTIAL THN6'F"!N-3i February 25, 7961, in th'"- - - : WITH CONDITIONS ' FOR LAND LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 11553 Purchasing ,198: lint a Or Or WEST-ddTH AVENUE, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY (IF JePFEASON; STATE OF COLORADO. C. P.O :Bux 636. Wheat Ridge. A: Welk through will be ton- BE 12 OROArNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WH94T RIDGE, location, Wednesday. Feb. 18. COLORADO, THAT.. iIA Interested vend b ors may o - li'o'n and specifications from the - Section 1. Upon application. of Lynn Fightima6fet et at for - Ageru.237-6944. ext. 2' i. - approga of rezoning .1n Wheat Aidge,.Colorado, Case No, Wz-80-28 of Wheat Ridge reserves the and based upon recommendation for approval from the wheat Ridgc ,t any or all bids, to waive fntor- planning Commicsfon'and Pursuant' l o findings made based on 10 mBkC the award CeL'med In testimony and evidence presented at public hearing before the rests of the city, Wheat Ridgc City Council, wheat Ridge maps are hereby amended to /s/ Edward J Fallon '..lode from the Age Ecul rural One (A-1) Die triCt and to include . Purcttiling Agent the Residential Three (R-3) District the following, described in iempl, G4Y CIerM n ` . ' . obruafy 12,198.1. I 1 Beginninq at the N.W: Cor, of the E. 1/2 of rats 13 and Sentinel + "14, thence' East' along the North line of We 14.a - distance of 155 32'N. Thence on an angle DO the right of 90016'59`-a distanceof"359.29'1 thence On an angle co S the right of 90012 20` a dint. of. 55.60': thence on _ ;an-angle' to-the left.of 90009.'60'. a,distance of'59 00 1T)CE TO BIDDER ` thence on an angle. to the -right ef-..90009.40`-"a distance ;f Wheal Ridge, is accepting of 100.00' to intesection 0ith the west line. of the E. tic. Table Frames until 10'00 ~ 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14; thence on an angle to the right, February 24, 19BI In the Of.- . of 89050.20• and along said West line a distance of 'urchasing Agent, 7500 Vies, 407.96' to point of beginning, Irrigation Basement II P.O. Box 636. Whea, R;dge,.f The following describes the ceoterline of a 71 ' _ 11 easement, Beginning at a point on che.weat line of the I vendors may obtain in .,rma- E. 1/2 of Lots 13 and 14, said point being. 404-46' . ' r I iflcan ons from the? - . ^ as~n South of the N.W. Car- of the E. 1/2 of Ldts' 13 and 14 - . . _ Ion 237-594d ex; 211 I thence Bast on an angle to the left. of 89050'290 a • , . if Wheat Ridge reserves the ` - distance of 96.50';: thence on an angle m.. the. left of 90009'40' ' a distance of 50.00 ; thence on, an angle to any or all bids TO. Waive the Ih_) the . right of 90009140w a distance of 59.10'. to point of d to make the award deemed I terminus, :rests of The City. - I - . /s% Edward J: Fallon 1 '2: Beginning at the N.E- Car. of the E. 1/2 of Io is 13 and - Pufcttasing Ageni.~ 14; thence South along the East line.of Lots 13 and 14 ampt. City Clerk of ]3D _'re'; thence Vest on an angle to the bruary lL 1981.' -1 . right of 90012.20 and along -rhe. soutn line of tat IA a ienlinel f -discance of 100,00•.; Thence on an angle to toe left of.'..'' 9007.2'26 .a d Ltance 0[.30.00'; thence an. an angle' to L „ e rLghtof 90012'24 ' a distance of 75.78'-1 thence on - { an angle to the right of 89047.40` a distal,, of". I . 359,29•.co intersection -ith the North line of. the c J TILE TO BIDDERS . - 1/2 Of Lots 13 and 14; thence East on an angle to' the v . sacteDting bids , right of 69063'01' and alonq said North 'lane a distance 7 • I ce Ven Ven¢Ie,clz .S-3ntt) Thursday, of 1 5.%8 -'en Pain"L . of Beginninq• ' - ' % at 2:0 - P Gh., .r :he Oh i urchasing Agent 7500 Wes; . 3 The 2,in; 100,00' of the North 1/2 of Lot 13.: Etcept i-th F ' . , P.O. Box 6.X :VJ•,C t Ridge,. ~ e ."L 15 thereor re0erved for, street.' a - Beginning at the S.W. Car*. of the E. 1'/2-of Lots 13 and ' .morn nay at:w,M orrna= 14_ there! "Orri'z1any the west Lne of the E. 1/2 of cat+or., from:- le i'urchasirgj - . Lats 13 and A4 a distance of 247..96*.-; chenee Bast an an uio'237-C s e{•,:;"'- ; .anal to =n! 'right of 50009'40" &,distance of 100.00 o Wh_'aa Roge .rese-. e5 to91 tnr..ee nn an angle -o mite. ICEL of..90009.46_ a~ dist. of - a'n•;.dr all yids: "o ivawe }h;Gr. t so Do. •rhen,e'on co- angle fo..Cnd.r igSt 90409,'60'-s u ~ mske he award deemee.ia -r st. of 1 J38 C chence nn an angle co'rsi right of 04 69 7. • a d4' tq -4,-2.99-93 ' 20;}n arse[;:ion yx th, the ="S S o ' s EdwarJJ alio'r in line , u t of ch E. 1/2 'oI Lot s '13' and14, thenee''weat Fu: e5 p.5Ng A;en;I ant an an Ie to the right of 90441'41' and-aldng 'aa+ . $rou-:^ :ta-• n dr..ct. ...-.ht• to WSn: hM1n-;: h jJl 1'. i„ s :'°;0➢"a.m Doc areR SZt i96 Invent ou T' 1 ,....H~wAPG J..t{LLER,. 19.190] - or 9 flrst-c t pubdoner Ffrsr PUb11ea1ic Massn PtmrneY tort n8 x11 Sifeet.: Lrist Pobh tic Marc 3798 Marsh _ ER nER~ _ provercY • Colorado h?'ct td~ : - =atAid9ej98T tXTNi~a~6 - .?"Party., Pla MafPR 5 GE OF IAn are stated at Msrchl9 1901 ,°.x : ~.,1es of 198L.. - em O 4_la OF.I%E LO 1Dl%G _ to the a as are _c Ser itln0l' - • , r LNG sr-TICKS a_11 P%O REGISTRATION 1110 per. _ alt DS NRCT went s REE tNE RELnTING 10 COG LICENSES PN _ - de - FOR DRPi NCE NEPEPLIN R10G d BI the, of aN mtORaDO+ Yipel- ISEibENT ON ed.DY TIRE' of %E I'll' vlO1 ~at ATIO%S. MFAT RIDGE, - _ . - - - ' - caring leedem In melt °O Jga15 WIII be reyalleY Water„ YETI FOR E CSIT. OF h- tn9• tceDin9• a~ons' at the . 63DD.' CIII cpiatdiL Of 1% plyela me is of LheOlatrlet at BE. Tf EO'SY THE'-, violating- or 14-1 ner!of matt ottita do, until 2: _ „ penatt . Any PeT'tm+Wcns of eSee . abjeci co a fine n°t tO its eetlma2' 30 a RId9e ColBO~ 981 ter tut- q olaxiRns and of tile p f snail ce.~ i ' ° p° nc oAny n ictioa ttere° of to 6 bepreelar-SoQ'. idaY•-. APrll and eaviPment~- or giess e9 one; and Yoon reading by a rote Inatortals e¢ens{ons' for, a ei+s°a,,, . and final The bietrl ,or. waterline tN1UMS. guilty of M E9 _ an t a on Of NOO at vin exceed f300, D 0.v0 Ord7EiIED' POS1.1 an sec°++d ° R TARMIGAN.CO Ich: life °f. f d Miller SlreeL ° t+eREPO- of Narcn 198,- day of hiarell 199 ve. an dsals will be Pa tnls, 9th Ln the CAyor, on this 39-th Franc Stites ml, _e ell-Prof SIrAED?Y, L Les Y°r.. Ta➢ per ten al 9era1 WorK indud . , Teo pudhe Iron Pipe e5ui 11 '•puCrlle trait anPlea dfan75 tTfFST= Do optalntd a\M of t and Fire H~ltleatlor+5 CJIyI F- xa"1pf erE nonce ca^ yunicig Ace u tC 'Fittings t - or Ord; Clerk.. Ridge) the Plans and Spa Tne !ate fi e.. 19x3.; . [copies i he Bird av who* L by from -Ina DKC9 °yVT10at .Fen-:26.. the Otf ce Of y'29tn ,,,aimed, a3D0 03V. St.. 1st vubNcatian= . r i9, 1981 quild+ • 7SOO - tec DIStfItL' 2nd PNbl Ridge Sennrl 20. 1981 - 2. Caay~ Tajo. 424-9661- ~t Wltti Ns bid a Wheat _ %e,. halanbaemi'~Piabie Bidders- Efffflc Oaie Ceouncit at11 Ne..571 The Dlat kidder 50f t f, ER NERLL earL3f 3c .he ouni o1 Flve Per den (501-10 ar cOlDlcltrm'B M amount r t of his bid , made able, l%TROOUffD p{siflit' ORffiNPN[4 N0. aaa 1.01 on tlanellY tD the Velley t6aiPI DeOn-. Series of 1981 aGRIaiLTORat O%1EU i1 r.,J 3 STATE Per Dbanl that na WIII esslul bidder. 20N1NGa IG TED PT ~~FI~Of 3r8n5ae IVICOS OF row IAN OF •IEFFEI~• eDe the ousts Valley Water. _ are ~Ritr DePba1L Quid h {p waivef. AN CE p~~E CR~1 VITA vKar RIDGE. ighrls reseNor 11 Tf5 iii- ORDt CiTr OF in1EAT OE• r5}eel any or all bids and TD Rtst ,V ARDRIE- rCOLOOOD. plfetrOYS OF TiiE 11551 HEST THE CS CDGNCIL CITY OF ai~T A1oG£. _ llitlas dlerein- oardof TNA i WA?E,Rp 1$TRICT COLOppDp- - . - - ,9 tots nsadng- ThemD CW5 YHEVALLEY C. parid m, 5le rl ORDAINED By _ - - - - - - e R Adam Secretary cond5ri°n shall only don, the $ ub3ect.., 1981 - - Conditions. The fallewl°q its For N DDUTAAL~elncir SYlaiton or March 12, cotton 2- 59 - of any wilding petit t1 7 be ce Dlsal and ♦nich llus eQ° don: X26.1981 is l d ri°e~hiicn tusvetasouti^'a1 and hick Lrates publication; Mar A- prior to emdi°ys•.. - Publlcad _ Drope~ ficd dea1T+ or private saiig " ~ achieve a uni - blic ding b1 a"vote of ~..-SO_~' pear^ ai RId9 Sam' Mw s ~ S t9 1 tea MMF and lira pOT1~ptIBUC N£ R FO~HI ad acA9 s Volope ~f~ en sav:ar'd %flat buildi 'AEO OF 9g 5- l~ day of Marsn- 1901: D Ir lice Igrln9hero •AIj b18 heard by the G1h i 9L A>EDRM1f%N 11 rtainln9' . or an Frank Stit s ''DEC? iltc. Hee otEdBeWat$ . Sleek 57, i ran t s. rr ,GNY 0, of JOt- : 51atEV by an MsY by Jne11 . - n9 0l Lots 7 CoantY of Ina ;onl - - Dee eY~ng SuDdlvislon. g for 9 ate,, OoloradO.T Nevdand _'an, Ed08"Y Unltp,rle111m9• ATTEST- obtained from Dd en" , s ca l f ty C. eat Drdinanee can ' be 'civet S80162 O J-urban- R of of he City L1e K Wheat R1d9d, tceel , owner Nehe duffed tar B.DOW~t 25th N ,981 (C pies 5 Feb. 11. Officer Aano• 58A + Meeting at City Nali, II asted 1st Rustication- Aar. 19. 1981 Lne uses 29th a d b1+eaHon= lnei Bu5ldi+y. all 19.19a1 •NneYe tnrer W caS~f LRidge 20lgai. 9enue• wneBPPea and be Beard- a 'e"OnsmaY Is1.JulieP Boatman I., anea + f City Clerk 1 Effective Date March 19,1981 to the iNtheat Ridge Sanbnel ' Published. uu lu; u0 LaduJ 000 uzuu ruse LL1VrLa LY1 Vud 7/eL'IG 1 -1T - •Tp 1 ~ a .t a L&OO 00 of t'i No_tf •/d c.f TifC 1] - Ez ep 'yn rvi• O ' i' . ~ ; he eo Tt . Cvrri for c t`e _ 'r~. Zir. l - a C5 23 ar . -1 /2 of 1 S w ' . . lo,_ o _t _ eginnin; 4 U.- m d ' - r S herTC for h Tony n,! ast .l ine o Chc..E 1y2 'OF -1 or JT,Ii{J oS uor' - f ~',v„ ;i[Atg *7~.and 19 'a dls'Y.wcce' QL :1 .90' 1 He'nce' Eas L'oii7-`an .a.ioT5af0T .7 c! si gq of 90+•L'Z'90• a cus_an4e of ID0:00 anti: 'to righ C • L'17-CBG6- 1 , - ih'CC on •an 'an3 L- the lr.•CC `J U'•U 9'<0- n dust.'. of i ga' .se•ves re. ` thence. Oil an -3ngL• ri r1gSt 90°09.60'- a _ - -50 ar ; . , - iisT. pI til nct nn-an-'amg to th•• -igtt of _ m_t.f :ne awurd:caemPe.ia - Bg04 ;'3~• dint. 'int 299 A1' t.n intr r.nc: :nn .1tt, the- . [tl. „r,b U': :.:•d v:. th^ FC- 1%] of oi:. end aCnC! L•_Gt /s- EdwurJ . %alia0 ; or. an a%qle' tp thr ri9nr. of 90°4141' and ..long as • 1. .r pUChd51nc A gEDC' . i a-South llnti.a.; that. of 1J1-6J' to'point- Of o+lglnni - [ ' p{.. G!y Glerk . tncreof Ior-'irrlga' •.-n dlte.+_ . _ uary,a2. Y961 5: - '.ln r,,tir-.;w.UC' b chi S6,4?, Yi? of Lot ll. 62crpt :nunef,-': thereof Eor lrrtq.cion ditcn.. All' neing ~ In th-c-.E '%1 0! LOts. 1). and .16; L--'S Subdivision, ~ I '-Ezcto` Public xighways,'ditch••s, roads and reserv. i.. ' - ' fil ui3:.-JC£-'r_'rsvn County,' SLa i?nl Cel ncann. ' tction 2 C ul+tlYnv_. 'Cn^ Col lo~l +icond Stlon ;Sall apply to - 'tnl clan ping A 5'iri>5 Sero t between G. 66th Ave. and W. dfith Aver " 1 - ' ' sha11 be dedicated and constructed prior to City nfwh ~re 260 ! isYuonce of any building permits for new :t JS00 West :90h , " construction. - - ur inv+cctl.to oP'-nk re ,uie Pcti[+on' nhnll he 0_ prior f0 issuance of any building permits £or new construction, the subject property legally :~uunrr of Ianuacaping - described in Section'.1 above shall be platted in to property Incased order to achieve unified design which -rty.ia tutaib described illustrates external and internal circulation and . - access, points anto.publie or private roadways, and - which illustrates external and internal It Nu fihea:C nor: q uurccr _ circulation and access points onto public or.-y-.;, r - - ,ac p. nz the '6th,. N.., Cicy of~ which private roadways, and illyaera - - ' Jn,"more particumrly' - envelopes. ' c North' lint of. the . _ _ Y. YC Peer Vestof the :North- 'Section 3. Safer Clause. The City Council hereby finds••:~ - - west, 12S:7S fccr, ' determtnes, and: de=hat this ord Lnanee is ;promulgated under - ' . rth'120.75 fete. ih.ncc -wo the-general pbl ice' power of tee City of WheaE 'Ridge, that . St is - promulgated forthe eealth, safety, and welfare of the public, - - and tnat this ordinance is necessary car the preservation of`.',', - ' ~ - health and~safety and for the protection'of public convenience - , :ncs for a change ,X -0-C and welfare. The City Council further determines that the - kJ lec¢ccd ac 3470 Wadsworth ordinance Dears a rational relation to the proper legislative 06 0ectmbrr 18, 1980): said object sougbt to be attained. ` - V 'Section a_ Severability any clause, sentence, .paragraph:, or 7~' NE 1/a of a df. ohs part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person ibcd an follows: /a 80 r or eikeubstances shall for any reason be adjudged by 'a court of t , -ih Ti n•:'nf rho, competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, . South, parSll 1' impair or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance !istancc of 125 feet- applieatin to other persons or circumstances. thence south. inc Eli property". Section S. This ordinance shall take effect 1. day, after final - :g she sold Soots publ ieaeion. 8 the Nt 114 rhenc ' INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of nf- escept the - , eo ~p~_ on this 9th day of Februa+•y 1981; ordered.',:.; 1 in, inetrumonc rccerded .:pubY shed in fullin a-nevspaper o general circulation 'in the ' 9S. feet of ch 1 City. of.Wheat Ridge and Public nearing and consideration -enL ads.;ef-the anrsh-.. passage. set far.- parch 9. 1991,: at; 7.30 o'elook'"- Quaricr of - p.m:, in the 'Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat ,on County Colorado HSdge,.,COlOrddO.: r - - - . READ, 'ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final-reading rs"for; -¢pprevaL of ¢ by 'a vote of to this day of - 1981_ s' '1 Devdlopcmnt and approvxl - SIGNED by tee- Mayor on this day of 1981. a osiaatclr 4250 awlr"Y - - - n Fearuiq 5 19Bt):., _ ' 1, 73.b., R69W 'af son. Colorado, bang - - BRAN! k 2, Owens park. _ ATTEST::. - . BeRinn nS at 'the-' - Lsien; thence Carol. BampF Cit'.Feb. Clerk- k i to the Soutl1c;M1 1st Publication 12 1981 Wheat Ridge Sent nl' the south line Af• satd rv r vy, e Zra y ss Ld-Black $lock'2 and {r., - i ..1 - k.~t'~1:. ~ ~ Imo' - ~a r" j _ ~a , ~ ~ , _ ' ~ - - - ;u. r ! s e t _ _ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ C ~ P'Y L-~ ~ P ~~r. yb ~ . 'aa . - a E ;E ~ ~ ' ~ ~ _ , a ~ 1 ~ n x '.ry ~ t. f $ . ~ i ~w.....v.w 3' ~ 1 S i ! ~ f ~ ~ . ~ 3 { ~ B i h`. yy^ ' ` ~t j~ u ,F ~ , t--a ~ Erin ~ ~ II ~ i i 4~ Vii. i a~ I ~ ~ . , ~ a, ~ . i - ` w ~ ~ ~ r ~ t ,ice `s[ ~ ~ 4 w f I Y i ~ t~l ,e . + y- :4c. T f w. i ..,u. • s _ 4 i _ r.,f j ~ = ~.W~d w R M ( - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 i , r I , _ ~t ,s Y- r . y~. ~i ._..w.,o 4, ~ . a~ f 2 a~ j r'° ~ ~ ~ ! d~~ ?~a,~ ! . ~ ~ ~ e ~ C I ~ ]{'w~{ ~n { P f ~m,~ ! 6,,~ h k r° ~ i `F, ~ ~ , , ~ J , I.`'Pt s ' ' aJm L:: sawx A C ~ ~ - 1 yy t '1_ av.r-~ .e T( nd ~ t `yam a r,_. a K ~ £ey j i li- . " ._~..-wes..~w~-.-...-emu.. n...,...~ i C .r ~ 4m~.=. u ~ wm- E ....yi .t f s ~ M6, ! t 4.-~'p ~ o - ~ 7k' ~{~yp , kf i? ~ fir,., . s•r"~a1 ~ ~ ' ~ _ t.a , ; ,.,x, t:.. T 1 x i 1 j ~ ~ - ~ IY R P ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ` `'c ~ ~ ~ t:J., a z~ _ _ ~ r s .F ~ _ ~ d} s ;ii ~ - n ~ ~ z , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ << u ~ t„~ ~o. d % ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 1 x ~a.~~_.___.. a ~ , . fi J ._.m..-.._ . _,w.,,....._. z ;5 ~ r s [ E~' I 'd I t . s s~ A ~ ~~r a ~ Y ' i SS 8 q } f 3M ~ s t~ ' f 4~~.µ~ m a.~~.~~M 7, r rS ! ~ ,wL a. w'd ".u:"'e"~~' i ,d~~ i ~ m ! ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ) i 1 , E ~ r a U ~ - ~ ~ - ,r ~ ` s" r , r ~ ~ , , ; T kw ~4 r- n, 8 ~ ~ ;.,fig R k ~ ~ Y V f { 7 ~ -m y=. t ` "'F l ~ , ~ l ~ _ ~ r } ~ ;~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ F R - _m._.t.. ..__a~..r.F..--~- - - n.~ pa 't' $ F. ~ . ~ I w '..,,j ~i s ~ w a S vet M1 ~ - ~ ~ r i ~ R ` ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ a ~ m.. ~ ~y. 1`'° a p ~ I F {y,.p'. ti'.i t dr E a kr+ f... 'j a _i ti' E Mel e _ i_~ ~a~~~_ ~ ; ~ f~ a~.m', ~ 1 i f.. i._ ~ ~ ate ~ ~ a p Imo, V ~ > ~ ~ '4 k~ ti ~ 9 ) ~ 'v $ 3~ 4 3 1 r 1 ~ aim. u [ ~K:n=.. s 8 1 a ~:w L,.. . < ~ ~ _ ~ Y P~~ , ~s ~ 1 ~ ; , _ ~ , ~ s ~ a _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ . ~ ~ 4 ~ n_~ ~ a ~ , ~ ~ ~  ~ # ~ ~ is ~ _ ~ ; a m mu. ~ e~a~ wow. 1 ~ ~ ~ . fs .y n h b. , kyJ G j 7 m s ~ f i I y i ~ ~ 4 ~ ! 4, ~ ~ 2J~ M. _ F°'aaFT II • QUASIJUDICIAL . X Yes No SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a nine-lot preliminary and final subdivision with a site plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff Report 2) List of Attachments BUDGETED ITEM: Yes No 11M Subdivision Plat: Option A: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 W. 44 Avenue and 11680 W. 46 Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met, 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between West 46` Avenue and West 44` Avenue is not desirable. ff • # -" V - e - pi 111)) frees reuiorel, along me common I f• roperty line between Lots I and 4." Option B: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at H 661 W. 44 Avenue and 11680 W. 46 Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: I . 2. 3," Option A: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 property located at 11680 W. 46 Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It us consistent with the original condition. 1. All minimum requirements of the R-3 Zone District have been met. With the following condition: 1. A caliper inch equivalent be provided on the property for the trees removed along the common property line between Lots I and 4." Option B: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-Cj for property located at 11680 W. 46 Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: M M I. 2. 11 C:\Barbara\CCRPI'S\ws9901 covert. wpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: January 24, 2000 DATE PREPARED: January 14, 2000 CASE NO. & NAME: WS-99-01/Turgeon- Fightmaster ACTION REQUESTED: LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 0 OTHER CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert Approval of a nine lot preliminary and final subdivision with a site plan. 11661 W. 44`n Avenue and 11680 W. 46" Avenue Jim Turgeon, et.al 2110 Rockcress Way Golden, CO 80401 See report 5.01 acres Residential-Three Single-family residential and vacant N: R-2; S: PCD; E: A-1; W: A-1, R-3 N: Low density; S: Commercial; E: Low density, vacant; W: vacant, low density, high density Single-family detached - not to exceed 5 du's/acre January 7, 2000 January 10, 2000 January 4, 2000 (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS Q SLIDES (X) EXHIBITS 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. ~:j L REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval of a nine (9) lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat on property located at 11661 West 44`h Avenue and 11680 West 46`h Avenue. A site plan for development is required for 11680 West 46th Avenue as a condition of the original zoning approval. There are five properties included in this application; two are under one ownership. Existing on this property are two four-plexes built in 1996 on the north 2.5 acres and three single-family homes on the south 2.5 acres. The property is zoned Residential-Three. Two motions will be required: one for the subdivision, and one for the site plan. An associated right-of-way case (WV-99-03) will be heard separately. II. CASE HISTORY This property and request have an extensive case history. It is summarized in the staff report for the Planning Commission as Attachment 8 beginning on Page 2 of that report. Important attachments in this history are Attachments 12, 19, 21, 22 and 23. III. AGENCY REFERRALS All responding agencies can provide service to the property. Public Works Department has reviewed and approved a drainage report and street construction plans for the north half of the property. The Traffic Engineer has commented relative to subdivision design and circulation in the area. The Parks and Recreation Commission has requested a cash payment in lieu of land dedication ($75 per new unit) or the transfer of water rights to the City, if available. IV. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The applicants have submitted a nine-lot subdivision showing the three southern lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3) in their existing configuration accessing West 44`h Avenue (existing access points). Because no development is being proposed for the southern half of the subdivision, a note has been added requiring site plan approval by Planning Commission and City Council prior to any future construction (Note #8). Access for Lots 1 and 2 is via an ingress/egress easement reserved by this plat with the City's standard language as a note. The north half of the plat under review has been somewhat modified from what was reviewed at the Planning Commission public hearing. The modification was made to increase the detention pond size to accommodate storm water detention on the property. This resulted in the common lot lines between Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 shifting roughly 10' to the south. With this change, all lots on the north half of the plat document will have four units each (Lots 5 and 8 had three units; Lots 4 and 9 had five units). The total number of dwelling units remains at 24. WS-99-O1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 2 City Council The drainage report for Lots 4 through 7 has been approved. Since no changes are proposed for Lots 1, 2 and 3, no drainage report is required for the southern portion at this time. No connection is shown between Simms Court and West 44`h Avenue to the south or to the west to Tabor Street. Simms Court is proposed to be a public street. All requirements of the R-3 zone district standards and the Subdivision Regulations have been met. V. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ISSUES In conjunction with the application submitted in 1996, a traffic report was submitted analyzing proposed development on the north and its affect on traffic circulation in the neighborhood. The report concluded that the "traffic impacts associated with the construction of the 46`h/Swadley town home development will be minor and can be readily accommodated by the existing roadway system and traffic controls." The City's Traffic Engineer concurs with the findings of the 1996 traffic report and indicates that the information used is still current and valid. To better evaluate the circulation needs of the neighborhood, staff initiated the Northwest Fruitdale Traffic Circulation study. Please refer to the attached packet material marked as Addendum `A'. Two study sessions were held by Planning Commission to discuss traffic circulation needs in the neighborhood. The consensus from Planning Commission was that the cul-de-sac proposed for the Turgeon subdivision request not be extended south to connect with West 44`h Avenue. This is consistent with the current application. VI. SITE PLAN The applicant is providing a site plan for the northern 2.5 acres (Attachment 12) which shows, in addition to the existing four-plexes on Lots 6 and 7, four-plexes on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. The number of units proposed is consistent with the revised density regulations for the R-3 zone district. As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of a building permit for new development, redevelopment or dwelling units added, site plan approval should be received from Planning Commission and City Council for the southern half of the subdivision (Lots 1, 2 and 3). VII. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Subdivision Plat: Planing Commission reviewed this case at a public hearing held on June 17, 1999. A recommendation of approval was made for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between West 46`h Avenue and West 44`h Avenue is not desirable. WS -99-0 1 /Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 3 City Council with the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the City Forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the six-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. A letter of no objection from the ditch company be provided. 4. This case be published as a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat. Site Plan: A recommendation of approval was given for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met. with the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the City Forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the six-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. A letter of no objection from the ditch company be provided. 4. This case be published as a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat. 5. No development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without a site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the following changes to the subdivision plat and site plan have been made: 1: The developer has agreed to construction of a 6' fence along the eastern property line. 2. The developer has submitted a letter of no objection from the ditch company. 3. The case was published as a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat. 4. A note has been added requiring site plan approval for Lots 1, 2 and 3 as Note #8 on the subdivision plat. Because these issues have been addressed by the applicant, they are not included as suggested conditions if the requests are approved. The only remaining issue is the removal of trees. The City Forester has indicated that the trees are located on the common property line between Lots 3 and 4 are in very poor condition and recommends they be removed and replaced on the property with an equivalent caliper inch. This is suggested as a condition in the motions to approve the subdivision plat and site plan. C:\Ba,b=\CCRPTS\ws9901.wpd WS-99-O1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 4 City Council LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Approved Drainage Plan 2. Proposed Site Plan. 3. Proposed Building Elevation. 4. Letter from Herb Fightmaster. 5. Letter from Doug Williams dated September 17, 1999. 6. Plat Approved by Planning Commission on June 17, 1999. 7. Planning Commission Minutes of June 17, 1999. 8. Planning Commission Staff Report of June 17, 1999. 9. Letter from Diane Mattox dated June 17, 1999. 10. Memo from Steve Nguyen, Public Works Department, dated February 19, 1999. 11. Traffic Analysis dated March 24, 1997. 12. City Council Minutes from meeting of January 13, 1997. 13. Neighborhood Circulation Map. 14. Memo from Steve Nguyen, Public Works Department, dated December 4, 1996. 15. Memo from Meredith Reckert dated November 19, 1996. 16. Letter from Diane Mattox dated December 5, 1996. 17. Plat Reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 5, 1996. 18. Plat Approved by the Planning Commission on December 5, 1996. 19. Planning Commission Minutes of December 5, 1996. 20. Planning Commission Resolution dated December 5, 1996. 21. Condition of Rezone Approval dated February 9, 1981. 22. City Council Minutes of March 9, 1981. 23. Planning Commission Resolution dated November 6, 1980. `10' UTILITY EASEMENT C7 I A ~ ~ I D O Z m tO RETENTION POND r 100 1R vCL=12.215 OF. EEV.=5402.9 5-vR vO1=3,312 CF.. EI.:V.=5401.0 A m (P O X (NAnVE GRASS SEEDED OR SOD) 1 m to (s ' N 0100 (H st)=O.Oc fs D / X F71 Z O ('Alm 0100(Dev) 11.0cfs / (n ~l Z 05 (Hist.)-O.Ocfs ❑ IX a ~ D_ p O5 (Dee)=a.6cfs z X 41 t y z I G N Z m - - - ~ 2 CL 8' GRAVEL ROAD p A O O ~oti ~ ~ p o , U I I I~-v o o ~ °o z E on o I I ^ w J A y r p r m s v °o N ~o n D P I tt : N R(lYP) FLOOD 0 t00 tiR $40 Sao. J ( I O ' 4' CONC. 100 ft EL.=02.9 / PLASH PAp B' SA $AA 8'Shu 2 Z ' ~ SIMMS COURT D 4 P Tv of WHEAT RI DGE - 50' RIGHT -OF-WAY - f'1 ADWALL W/. INLET (SINGLE GRATE) - 04% mi 5,44- SOP 100-YR PONDING ( l v I DEPTH=0.5' \ Apn 8 _ _ _•yno^ m B ? 74 N W l v r l r (n m x u, N X O ~ O n y ? ro I I N LO ~ N n c rV ° A 1 ,m.I n oo ° I ~ ~ ' w I . X .I X I 0100 (Hist.)=3. 3cfs , 0100 (Dev.)=L4 cfs 05 (Hist)=0.70 s 05 (Oev.J=O.6ci s RILOPOSET.) S/7~ 46TH 1+ ~rli,y I\ 1 ~1 l f 124 e C j 'lydwtl PnYq IY OUNPnfkp I A ib Gwp Perpy 8 UM0 umc 1 UmB rUnft xsn act Tm. E%ISTIH] 9V n➢ ING TO nEA W N -15 Lot 9 13,w 16 g b UMD U11EC I UMB I UMA ,w.w Site Details Fightmaster SubdMsion Lob 4, 5, 6, 7, 889 Fifteen Foot set-back from all property lines. Ten Foot set-back from Mwe-sac 20' Ddvewey Easement Detention Pond 68' X 85.7T 18' Guast Parking In filont of each two car garage La 5 bou P 'A'PIGHTDFWAY 125V ]]I.Ir G ~ IC GUetl PwlYq 1C GwYPe,YYq ',b GVetl PS1.Yp - b wsel e.e rw. UnNA Un9B Un9C UnXD s• B E%IGIIHO e11RdNJ TO REM m (j 139.W 9 Lots n fG MPN - UnKA ]Unft8 umc 1 j unn o a,. q L J ' Iv G.l e.agP. T ' irvuMP.uq ,r•_ P.ay I ' ze.oz 20' Driveway Easement ,aFw 29.58 ! ,r lvrP.mHE.mE l IrarP.+tsi i77 ~r'4 I r l Iz: d IAeA urea I ur4C I uNlo ar ~ ar Dbensan rGna Lao Lag 1a.w p Site Statistics Total Foundation 31.308 S.F. 2&8% Total Driveways 14,708 S.F . 13.5% Total Landscape 48.497 S.F. 44.6% Simms Court 14,309 S.F. 13.1% Total Site 108,822 S.F. 100% Foundation 5,218 S.F. 34.5% Driveways, 1,954 S.F. 12.9% Landscape 7,965 S.F. 52.6% Total Loth 15,137 S.F. 100% Foundation 5,218 S.F. 34.3% Driveways 1,954 S.F. 12.8% Landscape 8,047 S.F. 52.9% Total Lot 7 15,219 S.F. 100% Foundation 5.218 S.F. 35.9% Driveways 2.800 S.F. 19.3% Landscape 6,503 S.F. 44.8% Total Lot 5 14,521 S.F. 100% Foundation 5,218 S.F. 35.9% Driveways 2,800 S.F. 19.3% Landscape 6,505 S.F. 44.8% Total Lot 8 14,523 S.F. 100% Foundation 5.218 S.F. 29.8% Driveways 2,800 S.F. 15.9% Landscape 9,525 S.F. 54.3% Total Lot 9 17,543 S.F. 100% Foundation 5,218 S.F. 29.7% Driveways 2.800 S.F. 15.9% Landscape 9.552 S.F. 54.4% Total Lot 4 17,570 S.F. 100% ATTACHMENT 2 20' Driveway Easement NM 20.M ]4 , 1b O.iPNq : If O.r P.Yy :1/dstl P.lYq F_, i 6 I i -t i F I f P2D!'ose-~ ~tci ~Di~vG E~vA~7;~nf-- 09/23/99 N Gl r.g-r"AS TSrL *k - Lei t' g-ti LET~C~/2 ,a r N r r _ E3 r q AIM , y t x u~_yy.F ~ ry4 ✓ e4 N i ATTACH ENT 4 LiL(jtA 5 LE77-ETA septamber 17, 1999 city council city of Wheatridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 RE: Turgeon Subdivision/vacation Applications Dear Council Members: I will be unable to attend the City council's public hearing regarding the above applications. However, I am familiar with the subdivision that will be presented to the Council and would like to express my support of the applications. I have owned the property directly south and east of the Turgeon property for approximately 18 years. The property is directly east'of the Fightmaster property. My grandfather was born on this property and it has been in my family far 120 years. I use the property for a raping arena and other agricultural purposes and have no intention of further developing the property. 1 believe the Turgeon subdivision as proposed will have no negative effects on the area. I would oppose any proposal that considers the construction of a road or streat on or near the western boundary of my property or a connection of 46th and 44th Avenues. I feel any ouch proposal is unneces- sary, is likely to increase traffic in the area, and is not in the beat interests of the residents of this community. I would ask that the Council vote in favor of the Turgeon applications as presented. Doug illiam6 11581 W. 44th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 P Z ATTACHMENT 5 f~L~1r ,4 PP20vED gy PGAA1N1A,1G Gor~tit~sSios✓' 6--1:7- -99 n Ea O - - x 00 A °38 ]w 3 i C3 N «oo_ iii Vlb _ j p oo€ z Wp ; £s€ _ 0. 5 r S S 3 Ltg 5 ? aP °y ° Ana o €j ~ ' ho o$° o w F o m° d o U)°N Noe W a'"~ ~ a Q° ~ d omd ~5-• S NOU R F$ vr_ 4K g€. 3 N zE Moo ~Wd €ed U.- 8°t :3 r N « 6 l I ' t Y$ i i m~ „ ° I I S Ge $ ~ I ^ „ tl I " ~ i ° l $ oe ~s ke 5 s E6 0 sr Y 7 `"o_ ye zc $ 8c 8£iaN N €d e 0jz °i"~m ~ a i 6 woK e ! 4 E z £ d2 y a7 'S " g ~ z ° ¢ u N W'3i3~ E~S3z' o§ 3i YS ~ .S mm f g'"= 8a3a ° ' 3 _ ' ceweC4 o ~xaWpFWs i Ge R-Z n, i L ~o Ee S~ca'o ~ C ~z_ s•3°;di €a~£S$ ~z € S Yod BNL oa gL3~ c: °a i~g f.~&s~3 } ko~„= g ~ s€1 }o~go~ ~ ~ w=d E~ £ . Z 8y" z £ .3 °3 o`LF zo do°« 43RD-°~ °Na . ~ ego j ¢ L ` gam' 3 c7s-" ~x 38:M ° £zG zS€ ~ 803` g a V ° ° s 9 ° UM,- nge w g • ~ h,~~1 7 ° Ida AFC : m c€ z¢ w « ° w } P°~ yz c J _ y ez$_ Ss 8~~ 98- ~ E~ G 8 Z°w~ 3C z - e die z - e ~ xo Q r. a~a € ao ms "I u b 8 ❑ E-1 Jg El g Y"go g R da~_ ~5e 6;A ®R Y I I ~tr wt' a ar= ai o ;K ? ^I L « ° « W I ~ s I sss I wttfrw ~`l .°eBRe ~mp ee 3k88ok k. ~ I "n ;PL4Nn1tN61 LDMM I S 310AJ M/NGCV_gS -/:7 -9g 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WS-99-01: An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et al, for approval of a 9-lot subdivision and site plan review with a variance for the purpose of constructing 16 townhome type units on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. Said property is zoned R-3 and located at 11680 West 46th Avenue and 11661 West 44th Avenue. -The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She informed the Commission that, upon discussion with the city attorney, staff concluded there is no need for a variance in this case and therefore the variance portion of the report should be stricken from the public record. She also submitted copies of a letter, dated June 17, 1999, from residents of 4515 Robb Street (Robert S. Mattox, Lorene M. Mattox, Diana J. Mattox-Jorgensen and George Jorgensen). After Commission members took time to read the letter, Ms. Reckert reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and accepted by Chair BRINKMAN. Ms. Reckert advised the Commission that there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She explained that platting and site plan for the entire 5 acres is required pursuant to a 1980 zoning condition placed on the property and that, based on analysis of the proposed development on the north and of circulation in the area, a street extension between Simms Court and West 44th Avenue does not make sense. Since all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met, staff recommended approval of the subdivision as proposed. Bob Goebel reviewed traffic circulation in the neighborhood associated with the subdivision. In response to a question from Commissioner GOKEY, Mr. Goebel stated that development of the southern piece of the property could result in back-to-back cul-de-sacs. In response to a question from Commissioner COLLINS, Mr. Goebel replied that a drainage study had been done, and that the dimensions of the detention pond appeared to be 75' long, 40-50' wide and 4' deep. Commissioner COLLINS expressed concern about all the asphalt in the area asked where water will be drained to. Mr. Goebel informed Commissioner COLLINS that the drainage plan was designed by an independent professional engineer and meets Urban Drainage and Flood Control District criteria as well as city drainage requirements. He also stated that the city performed drainage work on the adjacent Mattox property last year. Commissioner SNOW referred to the letter submitted by the Mattox family which implied concern with drainage on the subject property. Mr. Goebel stated that the Mattox family expressed appreciation for the city's drainage work on their property and he did not know they had any concerns until he read the June 17 letter. He suggested that members of the Mattox family who were present could address this issue later in the meeting if they so desired. Planning Commission June 17, 1999 Page 2 ATTACHMENT In reply to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Ms. Reckert replied that the city had 1 received no response from the ditch company. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the study took into consideration possible development of agricultural land to east and how it would impact traffic circulation. She expressed concern that the subject property is located in the middle of other vacant land. Steve Nguyen replied that the traffic study only addressed the proposed development and does not discuss any other parcels. If other sites develop, traffic will be analyzed in a separate study. Considering the size and type of land use proposed, he didn't foresee a major trip -generation which would overload 46th and Swadley or 46th and Tabor. Chair BRINKMAN asked if Mr. Goebel felt there was a need for Simms to be completed on the basis of the additional units and traffic. Mr. Goebel replied that he did not feel there was such a need at this time. Commissioner THOMPSON referred to letter of November 19, 1996 from Meredith Reckert to Bob Goebel which stated the Planning Staff expects to see additional commercial and residential development in this area which will only exacerbate existing traffic problems. She asked, based on development which has occurred since 1996, if Mr. Goebel felt the study is still valid. Goebel replied that he believed the study is still valid and a signal light is still not warranted at the intersection of Tabor Street and W. 4411 Avenue. Ms. Reckert presented an overhead of the site plan. She explained that her analysis of the site plan showed 45% building coverage, 18.5% hard surfaces and 36.7% in landscape coverage. A desirable aspect of the plan calls for shared driveways which reduces the number of curb cuts onto Simms Court. In conclusion, Ms. Reckert stated that staff recommends approval of the site plan as presented. The platting and the site plan for the entire five acres is required pursuant to the original 1980 zoning condition placed on the property and that the analysis of the proposed development and information, street circulation, etc. makes sense and that staff does not support the extension of the cul-de-sac bulb or right-of-way to the southern property line. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision as proposed. Mr. Goebel replied to a previous question from Commissioner COLLINS, and explained that there is a 15-inch pipe that goes south to 44th Avenue and connects into existing storm sewer. Rich Rodriguez 1700 Lincoln Street, #4100, Denver Mr. Rodriguez was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. He stated that he was with the law firm of Holme, Roberts and Owen and was appearing on behalf of the applicant. He noted that when this property was rezoned in 1980 it was intended to have a single high-density use of 105 units. The proposed use is well below the density proposed in 1980 and is consistent with revised zoning regulations adopted in 1997. The applicant has made every effort to comply Planning Commission Page 3 June 17, 1999 with all conditions required by the city. He stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission request for cash in lieu of land dedication or transfer of water rights will be fully complied with. Regarding subdivision design, staff indicated that access for lots 1 and 2 on the southern portion do have standard city language for ingress/egress easement and the lot size is fully consistent with city regulations. The applicant hired a traffic consultant to do a traffic study. While the study did not consider possible development of adjacent property, it did consider project generated traffic and adopted standards and methodology approved by a traffic engineering transportation research board. Regarding Commissioner COLLINS' concerns regarding drainage, a drainage plan was submitted in accordance with city requirements and approved as meeting all required standards. In regard to Simms being completed, the applicant -agrees that Simms Court is not a good idea mainly because of the drainage issue. If it were extended, the improvements for the property would have to be redesigned. He pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Fightmaster have indicated they have no desire to develop the southern portion of the property. James Turgeon 706 Elm Circle, Golden Mr. Turgeon, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. Commissioner SNOW asked if he planned to dedicate water rights or pay cash in lieu of land dedication. Mr. Turgeon replied that it would probably be cash. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Turgeon explained the proposed units would be very similar to the existing units. In response to Commissioner SNOW's concerns about handicapped parking, Ms. Reckert replied that handicapped spaces are usually not required in these types of designs. Mr. Turgeon replied that the single story units are designed to be handicapped accessible. Commissioner THOMPSON asked about the existing large trees on the property and asked if they could be saved. Mr. Turgeon replied that the trees could not be saved, however they would be replaced. Ms. Reckert explained that the city forester will assess the existing trees and the builders would be required to replace any trees removed with the equivalent caliper inch of new trees. Mr. Turgeon stated that he plans to complete the 6-foot privacy fence along the entire property. Commissioner MACDOUGALL asked if a safety barrier was planned around the detention pond. Mr. Goebel stated that safety barriers for a possible 100-year flood are not part of the city requirements. Commissioner COLLINS asked if there is an easement for the storm sewer easement across the southern portion of property. Mr. Turgeon replied that there is an easement which stops at his property. Herbert Fightmaster 11641 West 44th Avenue Mr. Fightmaster was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. Commissioner COLLINS asked if Mr. Planning Commission June 17, 1999 Fightmaster was aware of the utility easement on the east side of his property. Mr. Fightmaster replied that there was a utility easement along the east side of the property line to 44th Avenue. (Chair BRINKMAN declared a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m.) In response to a request from Commissioner DOYLE, Mr. Turgeon reviewed the proposed placement of trees in the proposed project. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that -Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine-lot subdivision for property located at 11681 West 44th Avenue and 11680 West 46th Avenue, be recommended to the City Council for approval for the following reasons: It is consistent with the original zoning condition. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between West 46th Avenue and West 44th Avenue is not desirable. With the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the city forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the 6-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. Commissioner SNOW offered an amendment to the motion as follows: Condition No. 3 be added which would require a letter from the ditch company; and condition no. 4 be added which would require this case to be published as a preliminary and final plat for the City Council hearing. This amendment was acceptable to Commissioners THOMPSON and GOKEY. Commissioner SNOW stated that, even though she would vote in favor of the motion, she wanted to voice her concern that had the city not given permits for the first two buildings, Simms on the eastern side of the property could have gone through to provide the best traffic circulation. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No. WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 West 46th Avenue, be recommended to the City Council for approval for the following reasons: ' Planning Commission Page 5 June 17, 1999 I. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the city forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the 6-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. That a letter from the ditch company be required. -4. That this case be published as a preliminary and final plat for the city council hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner SNOW to reconsider the motion for approval of the subdivision on case No. WS 99-01 to add a condition. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner MACDOUGALL to add condition no. 5 which would require that no development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the motion for approval of the site plan for Case No. WS 99-01 be reconsidered to add a condition. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the site plan be recommended to the City Council for approval for all the prior reasons and with all prior conditions with the addition of condition no. 5 which would require that no development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. The motion passed by a vote of 7-6. B. Case No. WV-99-03: An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et al, for approval of a right- of-way vacation for an unused portion of the street right-of-way adjacent to 4455 Simms Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and accepted by Chair BRINKMAN. Ms. Reckert advised the Commission that there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She stated that staff would recommend that an easement be Planning Commission Page 6 June 17, 1999 pLA A-1A11A16-- c aM A4 s, / CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 1999 DATE PREPARED: June 8, 1999 CASE NO. & NAME: WS-99-01/Turgeon-Fightmaster CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a nine lot subdivision with a site plan and a variance LOCATION OF REQUEST: 11681 W. 44' Avenue and 11680 W. 46' Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: Jim Turgeon, et all See report 5.01 acres Residential-Three Single Family residential and vacant N: R-2, S: PCD, E: A-1, W: A-1, R-3 SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: (X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Q OTHER N: Low density; S: Commercial; E: Low density, vacant; W: vacant, low density, high density Single Family Detached - not to exceed 5 du's/acre May 28,1999 June 3, 1999 May 26,1999 (7) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS Q SLIDES (X) EXHIBITS 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. ATTACHMENT 8 I. REQUEST The applicants request approval of a nine(9) lot subdivision on property located at 11681 W. 44" Avenue and 11680 W. 46'' Avenue. A site plan for development with a variance is requested for 11680 W. 46°i Avenue. Although only two addresses are referenced in this report, there are five properties included in this application. The publication was done by boundary legal description of the proposed subdivision and associated required land use approval. Existing on this property are two four-plexes built in 1996 on the north 2.5 acres and three single family homes on the south 2.5 acres. The property is zoned Residential-Three. Three separate motions will be required. An associated case (WV-99-03) will be heard separately. There are a variety of property owners involved. All of them have signed applications which have not been included in this packet but are in the case file: Lot 1 : Herb and Glendene Fightmaster 11641 W. 44" Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lot 2: Lynn and Nancy Fightmaster 4455 Simms Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lot 3: Zelma Fightmaster 11661 W. 44'" Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lots 4 - 9: Jim Turgeon Dan Turgeon 18216 W. 4' Avenue 2110 Rockquess Way Golden, CO 80401 Golden, CO 80401 II. CASE HISTORY The property was rezoned from Agricultural-One to Residential -Three pursuant to Case No. WZ-80-28. This case rezoned all 5 acres (five parcels) under single ownership. At the time of the rezoning, which was speculative, it was assumed that the property would be developed into a single high-density multi- family complex with about 105 units. Because of the speculative nature of the application, a condition was placed on the approval; that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property "be platted to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadway, and which illustrates building envelope." An additional reason for the subdivision requirement was an attempt by the City to construct an unobstructed north/south street (Simms Street) between W. 32' Avenue and I-70. The concept of extending Simms Street is no longer valid or feasible. A small piece of right-of-way for Simms Street (25' x 165.96') exists adjacent to the property shown as Lot 2 and is subject to a vacation request (WV-99-03). Planning Commission Page 2 WS-99-O1/Turgeon In 1996, the northern 2.5 acres was sold to the applicants (Jim and Dan Turgeon). The Planning and Development Department concluded that the conditions under which the 1980 rezoning was approved changed because development would not occur under one ownership and that the maximum allowed density on the property would not be utilized. Based on this logic, permits were issued for the construction of two four-plex structures on these northern two lots. The applicants then applied for a six lot subdivision for the north half of the property pursuant to Case No. WS-96-2 to subdivide in order to create four additional building sites (see attached under Exhibit `A'). Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing on December 5, 1996 (minutes attached as Exhibit `B'). A recommendation of approval was made for the following reasons: 1. Staff recommends approval. 2. The property is in Wheat Ridge and is properly zoned. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations were met. With the following conditions: 1. Minor legal description problems be corrected prior to review by City Council. 2. The right-of-way for Simms Street be extended south to the southern property line in the event that at any time in the future the property to the south is developed, then this right- of-way is needed to improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood. 3. Lighting on the premises must meet City Code. This case was scheduled for public hearing in front of City Council on January 13, 1997. At the council meeting, it was ruled that there was no jurisdiction because of violation of the condition on the original zoning (minutes attached as Exhibit `C'). The applicant subsequently withdrew his application and resubmitted with the existing application showing platting of the entire 5 acres. III. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Adjacent land use and zoning surrounding the property includes low density residential (single family and duplexes) on the north and Planned Commercial Development (RV park and retail along 446 Avenue) to the south. Abutting the property to the west is a duplex and vacant property zoned A-1 and R-1 and multi-family development zoned R-3. To the east is Agricultural-One zoned and used property. IV. AGENCY REFERRALS All responding agencies can provide service to the property. Public Works Department has reviewed and commented on the drainage report and street construction plans for the north half of the property. A dumping and landfill permit will be required. The Traffic Engineer has commented relative to subdivision design and circulation in the area. They support the subdivision design as proposed. See Exhibit `D'. Planning Commission Page 3 WS-99-O 1/Turgeon Valley Water can serve. Arvada Fire Protection District will require installation of a fire hydrant. Public Service Company has requested specific easement language which has been added to the plat as note #4. The Parks and Recreation Commission has requested a cash payment in lieu of land dedication ($75 per new unit) or the transfer of water rights to the City, if available. V. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The applicants have submitted a nine-lot subdivision showing the three southern lots (lots 1,2 and 3) in their existing configuration accessing W. 44' Avenue (existing access points). Because no development scenario is being proposed for the southern half of the subdivision, a note has been added requiring site plan approval by Planning Commission and City Council prior to construction (Note #8). An existing piece of right-of-way for Simms Street is being requested for vacation per Case No. WV-99-03. Access for Lots I and 2 is via an ingress/egress easement reserved by this document with the City's standard language included as a note. The design for the north half of the subdivision, shows the four new lots accessing off a cul-de-sac bulb centered on the property with three lots either side of the street. The proposed street, Simms Court, is off-set from both Simms Street and Swadley Street 165' from centerline to centerline. The cul-de-sac is 225' long from the centerline of West 46th Avenue. The lots vary in size from 13,325 square feet to 18,742 square feet. Based on the City's standards for density (1 d.u.per 3630 square feet of land area), lots 5 and 8 will accommodate three units each. Lots 4 and 9 will accommodate five units apiece. Lots 4 and 5 and lots 8 and 9 share access drives. Cross access easements have been provided with the City's standard easement language. A detention pond designed to handle drainage on the north half of the subdivision is centered between Lots 4 and 9. Since no changes are proposed for Lots 1, 2 and 3, no drainage report is required for the southern portion at this time. See drainage plan included as Exhibit `E'. There is no connection shown between Simms Court and W. 44' Avenue to the south. See discussion in Section VI. of this report All requirements of the R-3 zone district standards and the Subdivision Regulations have been met. VI. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ISSUES Much concern has been expressed in the past regarding traffic and the street system in the area (Exhibit `F'). The primary access to this neighborhood is by way of the Tabor Street/West 460' Avenue intersection. Swadley Street, via W. 46th Avenue, is the only link in the area to the south frontage between Tabor and Robb Street. Both Simms Street and Routt Street extend south from the southern Planning Commission Page 4 WS-99-01/Turgeon frontage road but both dead-end. There is 25' of right-of-way in place for Simms Street from where the street dead-ends south to the intersection with West 46' Avenue. There is also a short 25' wide right-of- way in place adjacent to Lot 2 of this subdivision proposal which is subject to a right-of-way vacation request. The subdivision has been submitted with no connection between 46`s Avenue and 44`h Avenue. The owners of the southern three lots are indicating that they want to leave access "as is" from 44'" Avenue and are not supportive of a public street along their eastern boundary. When Case No. WS-96-2 was reviewed by Planning Commission, a condition of approval was for reservation of future public right-of-way south of the cul-de-sac bulb for Simms Court so that a future connection to 44' Avenue could be made (Exhibit `G'). This right-of-way reservation could have been used if Simms Court were to curve and intersect with Simms Street (adjacent to Lots 1 and 2). Alternatively, if Simms Court were extended straight south to 44' Avenue (through existing buildings shown on Lot 3), then the existing right-of-way for Simms Street adjacent could be vacated at that time. This scenario would occur if and when Lots 1,2 and 3 develop more intensely than the current usage. Extension of Simms Court via Simms Street would not occur until development of the A-1 property to the east. If Planning Commission feels that this connection (Simms Court to Simms Street) is appropriate, then a 25' dedication along the eastern boundary of Lot 1 should be required and the vacation of the existing right-of-way adjacent to Lot 2 should be denied. If it is desirous to extend Simms Court to the southern property line to facilitate a future extension to 44' Avenue, the cul-de-sac bulb "eyebrows" should be designated as separate tracts. The cul-de-sac would be constructed as shown with the first building permit issued for Lots 4,5, 8 or 9. Upon development of the property to the south and east, the street would be extended south to the southern property line, and the "eyebrows" could then be vacated.. In either of these street extension scenarios, the existing detention pond for the north half of the site located between Lots 4 and 9 would have to be moved elsewhere on the site as it would be displaced by the street extension. The applicants in this case do not want the extension of the cul-de-sac to the south. In support of this application and in response to testimony given at the original Planning Commission meeting, a traffic report was submitted analyzing proposed. development on the north and its affect on traffic circulation in the neighborhood.. The report concluded that the "traffic impacts associated with the construction of the 46 s/Swadley townhome development will be minor and can be readily accommodated by the existing roadway system and traffic controls." See Exhibit `H'. The City's Traffic Engineer concurs with the findings of the report and even though it was prepared in 1997, indicates that the information used is still current and valid. Staff had also requested analysis by the Public Works Department regarding issues brought up at previous public hearings regarding circulation in the neighborhood and proposed infrastructure improvements. See original referral and response as Exhibit `I'. Based on the submitted traffic study and analysis of it and the existing conditions in the area, Staff concludes that a future connection south from Simms Court should not be required and gives a recommendation of approval for the subdivision design as submitted. Planning Commission Page 5 WS-99-O1/Turgeon VII. SITE PLAN No changes are proposed for the southern three lots on the property. As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of a building permit for new development, redevelopment or dwelling units added, site plan approval must be received from Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is providing a site plan for the northern 2.5 acres which shows in addition to the existing four-plexes on lots 6 and 7, threeplexes on lots 5 and 8 , and five-plexes on lots 4 and 9. The number of units proposed is consistent with the revised density regulations for the R-3 zone district. The proposed units are of a townhouse design with attached two-car garages for each unit with enough driveway parking space to accommodate another two vehicles. The owners have indicated that they intend on keeping the units as rentals with rent fees starting at $900 per month. The existing units have access to W. 46 h Avenue. The units on lots 4, 5, 8 and 9 will have access to Simms Court which will be a dedicated public street. The buildings will be 25' in height to the highest point of the ridge line on the roof and will be sided with partial brick facades on the portions of the buildings facing public streets. All minimum setbacks have been met. See Exhibit `T: Overall site data breakdown for the property includes 45% coverage by buildings, 18.5% in hard surfaces and 36.7% landscaped coverage. Staff would note that the figures shown on the site plan include the Simms Court right-of-way. The percentages increased when we recalculated without the street right-of-way. Access to the southern four lots is shared between lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 with a total of seven units each sharing a common drive. One unit on each of lots 5 and 8 has its own curb cut. Section 26-30 (N) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws allows up to four dwelling units on the same access easement, therefore, a variance must be processed for the two shared accesses. If the variance is denied, access to Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9 will have to be redesigned. VIII. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? The property could still be used for multi-family development however, if each dwelling unit were to have a separate drive or even a driveway for each building, there would be substantially more paved area with a corresponding reduction in landscaped coverage. Planning Commission Page 6 WS-99-O1/Turgeon 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No, there are no unique circumstances. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The character of the area would be altered if the variance is not granted because of the extreme reduction in the amount of landscaping replaced with paved surface. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in-a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? No, there are no physical elements of the site which result in hardship. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? Yes, but each application is evaluate on it's merits. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property No, it is aesthetically based. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? No. 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? No, there are alternate designs for access which could be used but it would result in side-by- side curb cuts. Good design practice dictates that the fewer curb cuts on a dedicated public street, the fewer conflicting turning movements resulting in less accidents. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. There would be no reduction in the amount of light and air or increase the danger of fire as a Planning Commission Page 7 WS-99-O1/Turgeon result of the variance being granted. Adequate aisle widths for the access drives has been provided consistent with the Arvada Fire District's regulations. Granting of the variance would enhance public safety with the reduction of the number of adjacent curb cuts. Property values would not be affected and aesthetics of the project would be enhanced with less impervious area and more landscaped coverage. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to.the neighborhood or the community as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The granting of the variance would not result in an accommodation of a person with disabilities. Staff concludes that there are no unique circumstances or physical hardship affecting the property. However, because of public safety and aesthetic reasons, a recommendation of approval is given for the variance request. IX. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that platting and site plan for the entire 5 acres is required pursuant to a 1980 zoning condition placed on the property. Staff concludes that based on analysis of the proposed development on the north and of circulation in the area, a street extension between Simms Court and West 44th Avenue does not make sense. Since all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met, a recommendation of Approval is given for the subdivision as proposed. If Planning Commission feels that a street extension is appropriate, then a right-of-way dedication should occur between the cul-de-sac bulb and southern property line prior to City Council review and the right-of-way vacation adjacent to Lot 2 should be denied and a 25' wide dedication should occur on Lot 1. A recommendation of Approval is given for the site plan with variance to allow more than four units on a private drive. X. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS SUBDIVISION PLAT Option A: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot subdivision for property located at 11681 W. 44" Avenue and 11680 W. 46th Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons,. Planning Commission Page 8 WS-99-O1/Turgeon It is consistent with the original zoning condition. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between W. 46`h Avenue and W. 40 Avenue is not desirable." Option B: "I move that Case No WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot subdivision for property located at 11681 W. 44th Avenue and 11680 W. 46th Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3." VARIANCE Option A: I move that the request for approval of a variance to Section 26-30(N) to allow more than four residential dwelling units on a single access easement on property located at 11680 W. 46th Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It would facilitate vehicular traffic safety. 2. It would enhance aesthetics of the development with increased landscaping and decreased impervious surface." Option B: " I move that the request for approval of a variance to Section 26-30(N) to allow more than four residential dwelling units on a single access easement on property located at 11680 W. 46`h Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons 1. 2. 3" SITE PLAN Option A: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met" Option B: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. 2" Planning Commission Page 9 WS-99-O1/Turgeon luiA-rr'ox LeTltl-/4- June 17, 1999 City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Attn: Planning Commission RE: Case No. WS-99-01 11680 West 46th Avenue To Whom It May Concern: As adjacent property owners, we wish to express some of our concerns regarding the building of 16 additional units on this property which already has two ex- isting four-plexes (8 units). The existing units have blocked our view of the mountains because of their height, and greatly disrupted our wildlife. We wish to emphasize these ex- isting units have created more noise, traffic and trash. What will 16 more do?? Because of the current higher density of this subdivision, there is now more pedestrian trespassing across our hay/pasture land; the current renters are frequently caught harassing our animals and littering our hay field with the throwing of rocks or whatever else is in their hands; and our pleas for a 6-foot fence to be provided across the back part of our property have gone wanting. Another concern is the drainage problem associated with more units. On our behalf, we have already had numerous problems getting drainage straightened out because of false information and lack of communication with not only the developer, but with the City. More concrete and asphalt will only make a bad situation worse. As our neighborhood consists now of single family dwellings and duplexes, we feel this subdivision should be in keeping with the density of the area, and with the exception of the two existing four-plexes, we feel the remaining lots should be built as duplexes. It is our hope consideration to the good of our neighborhood will be given when making your decision. Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Mattox Lorene M. Mattox Diana J. Mattox-Jorgensen George Jorgensen 4515 Robb Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 ATTAGPI MENT 9 S. n/G-u yE/l/ MC-MO - 2 9 - ~ 9 I Approved Date TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner FROM: Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer 5tJ DATE: February 19, 1999 SUBJECT: Case No. MS-98-1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Traffic Issues and Impact Analysis for 46° Avenue and Simms/Tabor Street This memo serves as a response to your request to revisit the possibility of a Simms St. connection with 44`h Avenue. First of all, the previous traffic impact study submitted for this location is still considered valid since it is still within a two-year time frame and the traffic conditions have not changed significantly. Again, I concur with the findings in the study. All of the traffic projections and methodology for analysis are done in accordance with the adopted national standards. The study shows that the development traffic will not adversely affect the immediate intersections. In addition, the level- of-service of these intersections is still at a good level even for the maximum condition which is the 2015 background traffic plus site traffic. Concerning the traffic issues in your memo to Bob Goebel, Director of Public Works dated November 19,1996, I am re-submitting the comments contained in the memo I sent to you dated December 4, 1996. Basically, the Public Works Department has the same position as previously regarding these traffic issues. Please see me if you wish to discuss this in detail. cc: Bob Goebel, Director of Public Works Dave Kotecki, Senior Project Engineer Greg Knudson, Development Review Engineer ATTACHMENT 10 March 24. 1997 T2Ar-F1c Mr. Jim Turgeon Customcraft Homes, Inc. 2110 Rockcress Way Golden, CO 80401 rw „ t. Cot p!c".~7 i~"^ Re: Dear Mr. Turgeon: 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 FAY (303) 333-1107 46th/Swadley Townhomes (LSC #970250) As requested, we have completed a traffic impact analysis of the proposed 46th/Swadley Town- home development located south of 46th Avenue and about 350 feet west of Tabor Street in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The proposed site would consist of 26 residential Twnhomes. The remainder of this report presents our findings concerning the traffic impacts of the proposed development. Existing Rs a~ dways and Traffic Figure 1. enclosed, illustrates the site's location together with existing lane geometry and traffic conL rols. As indicated, the project site is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of 46th Avenue and Swadley Street. West 46th Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that extends from Tabor Street for about 700 feet where is ends. This roadway primarily serves residential homes and has a speed limit of 25 mph. The intersection of 46th Street with Tabor Street is controlled by an east facing Stop sign. Swadley Street which connects to 46th Avenue is a two-lane local street LhnL extends from 46th Avenue to Kipling Street. .Near the site, it has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Its intersection with 46th Avenue is controlled by a north facing Slop sign. Tabor Street. located west of the site, is a Lwo-lane, minor collector street that extends northward from 44th Avenue for about one-third of a mile to West 48th Avenue. The posted speed limit on this roadway near the site is 30 mph. Its intersection with 44th Avenue is controlled by north/ south facing Stop signs while its intersection with 48th Avenue is controlled by a south facing Stop sign. West 44th Avenue, located south of the site, is a four-lane, east/west, minor arterial that extends entirely through the City of Wheat Ridge. It has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and its inter- sections with Kipling Street and the Ward Road/I-70 Ramps are signalized. ATTACHMENT 11 ,41\1,4 U/ S 1 S 3- z q - 9 7 Mr. Jim Turgeon Page 2 March 24, 1997 Figure 1 also illustrates the results of weekday morning and evening peak-hour turning move- ment. traffic counts at the intersections of 44th Avenue/Tabor Street, Tabor SLreet/46Lh Avenue. and 46th Avenue/Swadley Street. These data are based on counts conducted on March 13. 1997 by Counter Measures, Inc. (complete data printouts are enclosed). Peak-Hours were found to occur between 7:30 and 8:30 AM and from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. Estimated Traffic Generation Based on applicable formulae cited in the current edition of " TTr n Generatiori . published by the institute of Transportation Engineers, the following traffic generation estimates have been calculated for Lhe 46th/Swadley Townhome development at buildout. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 1. Table 1 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION 46th/Swadley Townhome Development Total Vehicle-Trios (1) Morning Evening Peak-Hour Peak-Hour Assumed Trip Average Land Use Generation Units Weekday Traffic In Qla In Q111 Residential Townhomes 26 d.u. (2) 208 3 15 14 7 Notes: (1) Based on Formulae cited in 'Trio Generation', Institute of Transportation Engineers, 5th Edition, Category 230. (2) Dwelling Units. As indicated in Table 1 the 46th/Swadley Townhome development would generate about 208 vehicle-trips during an average weekday (104 entering and 104 exiting vehicle-trips in a 24-hour period). During the morning peak-hour, a total of 18 vehicle-trips would enter and exit the site, while in the evening 21 would enter and exit. One of the most important factors to be considered when evaluating the traffic impacts of this development is the directional distribution of site-generated traffic onto the surrounding roadway System. A number of factors influence this distribution, including the relative location of the site Mr. Jim Turgeon Page 3 March 24. 1997 ,ath respect to the area it will serve, existing traffic patterns in the vicinity. and the site's specific access plan. Figure 2 reflects our distribution projections for the 46Lh/Swadley development, together with the amount of average weekday traffic to be contributed by the project to the surrounding roadways. Figure 3 illustrates the assignment of project-generated peak-hour traffic for the proposed development to the nearby intersections of 44th Avenue/Tabor Street, Tabor SLreeL/46Lh Avenue, and 46Lh Avenue/Swadley Street. These estimates have been derived by application of the Figure 3 distribution assumptions to the generation estimates of Table 1. Total Projected Traffic Total projected future traffic is the sum of site-generated traffic and background traffic, which includes all other traffic on the street system. Future Year 2015 background traffic was derived by applying a one percent annual growth rate to the present traffic volumes on 44th Avenue and Tabor Street. These expected morning and evening background peak-hour volumes for 2015 are illustrated in Figure 4. The combined project-generated traffic (Figure 3) and existing (Figure 1) traffic volumes for the morning and evening peak-hours are shown in Figure 5. Similarly, the combined project-generated traffic and 2015 background (Figure 4) traffic volumes for the commuter peak-hours are shown in Figure 6. These projections represent total traffic activity for both near and long-term planning purposes. Estimated Traffic Imams During the commuter peak-hours. the primary traffic impacts for the proposed development will be at the nearby intersections of 44th Avenue/Tabor Street. Tabor SLreeL/46th Avenue, and 46Lh Avenue/Swadley Street. In order to assess these impacts, related capacity analyses have been performed which compare existing traffic operating conditions with those reflecting the addition of project-generated traffic or projected future traffic. The methodology used is that presented in the nationally accepted Highrn uC~znaci< i M mm published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The concept of Level of Service (LOS) is used as a basis for computing combinations of roadway operating conditions. By definition, six different Levels of Service are used (A. B. C. D. E. and F) with "A" being a relatively free-flow condition and "E" representing the "capacity' of a given intersection or traffic movement. The following tabulation summarizes the results of our LOS analyses for the proposed 461.h/Swadley Town- home project (actual computer analysis printouts are enclosed): Mr. Jim Turgeon Page 4 March 24, 1997 Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISONS 46th/Swadiey Townhome Development AM Peak - Hour Intersection Level PM Peak Intersection - Hour Level Intersections Delay (seconds) S of ervice Delay (seconds) of Service 44th Avenue/ Existing 1.1 A 1.5 A (1) Tabor St. Existing + Site Traffic 1.2 A 1.6 A (1) 2015 Background 1.6 A 2.8 A (2) 2015 Background + Site Traffic 1.7 A 2.9 A (2) Tabor StJ Existing 0.7 A 0.4 A 46th Ave. Existing + Site Traffic 0.9 A 0.5 A 2015 Background 0.7 A 0.4 A 2015 Background + Site Traffic 0.9 A 0.5 A 46th AveJ Existing 2.4 A 2.1 A Swadley St. Existing + Site Traffic 1.9 A 1.5 A 2015 Background 2.3 A 1.9 A 2015 Background + Site Traffic 1.8 A 1.5 A (1) LOS "E'' for southbound left-turns. (2) LOS "F" for southbound left-tums. As indicated, projected operating conditions at the intersection of 44th Avenue/Tabor Street will remain at. a high level of service with an increase of only about one second.(1.5 to 2.9 seconds) in overall average delay during the evening peak-hour. Although the southbound left-turns at this intersection may incur significant delays during the evening peak-hour. it is doubtful that the intersection would meet satisfactory signal warrants by 2015 and should only be signalized when one or more warrants are met. The two intersections of Tabor Street/461.h Avenue and 46th Avenue/Swadley Street would both operate at. Level of Service "A" during the morning and evening peak-hours with the addition of buildout traffic and will continue to operate at that LOS by 2015. Summary and Con I ion Based on the analyses presented herein, the following summarizes our findings relative to the traffic impacts of the proposed 46th/Swadley Townhome project. Mr. Jim Turgeon Page 5 March 24, 1997 1. At buildout, the proposed project is expected to generate 208 vehicle-trips (104 in and 104 out) during an average weekday. Of these, 3 would enter and 15 would exit during the morning commuter peak-hour. During the evening peak period. 14 and 7 would enter and exit the site. 2. The directional distribution of site-generated traffic is expected to be oriented primarily to the east and north on 44th and Tabor Street with about 35 percent and to the west on 44th Avenue with 20 percent. 3. Traffic impacts associated with the construction of the 46th/Swadlev Townhome development will be minor and can be readily accommodated by the existing roadway system and traffic controls. We trust that this information will assist with further planning for the 46th/Swadley Townhome development project. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted. LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. By: 1' ~ Philip . Sc tt III, P.E. PNS/MM/wd Enclosures: Figures 1 - 6 Computer Analyses Traffic Counts C:\PRLU ECTh\ 070250\SWADLEY.REP CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: January 13, 1997 Page -4- Item 3. Application by James R. Turgeon for Park Orchard Development for approval of a 6-lot subdivision and a site plan on R-3 zoned land at 11600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue. (Case No. WS-96-2) Case No. WS-96-2 was introduced by Mrs. Dalbec; title read by the Clerk. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec that there is not jurisdiction to hear this item because the 1981 condition that prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction, the subject property legally described in Section 1 above, which is the Turgeon property and the property. immediately adjacent to it and south, shall be platted in order to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways and which illustrates building envelopes and this has not happened. She would like to refer the item to such time and back to the Planning Commission as the condition is complied with; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 8-0. Mrs. Dalbec feels the condition was L originally put on because of high traffic volume and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Solano's concern is high density. Mr. Siler commented that if high density is our concern, we should change the Rules and discuss this at a study session. Mr. DiTullio stated the rules are being changed as evidenced by two moratorium ordinances. Item 4. Council Bill 56 - An Ordinance concerning the regulation of vehicles and traffic in the City of Wheat Ridge. Council Bill 56 was introduced on second reading by Mrs. Dalbec, who also read the title; Ordinance No. 1063 was assigned. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec for approval of Council Bill 56 (Ordinance 1063); seconded by Mr. Eafanti; carried 8-0. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Item 5. Council Bill 1 - An Ordinance adopting a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing and issuance of demolition permits for historical structures within the City. Council Bill 1 was introduced on first reading by Mrs. Worth; title read by the Clerk. Motion by Mrs. Worth that Council Bill 1 be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, January 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second reading, take effect January 30, 1997; seconded by Mrs. Fields; carried 8-0. ATTACHMENT 12 iVElGWI3otiNaoA c~r~cu~~noN n~~ 5 l M,~A 5 F VTU RZ 0- aJ IQ-To-le .RE'11NEf'~NT O•v+JaITT m'~~ t-,I D ,4_ 1 Y _ _I A- - % - - A-1 . n < , AV - IJZ ~-O' OQ SIC _ L 1 L/1 w PGD _ ° ss i PARC / - _ ! PROSPL+LT - = G / y~ i/-' x' U SJB A-1 l ML's-12 I ~'J•,.. ~ x OFFICIAL 2UIRING STE FLAN AF-ROVAL NE, 2 ZON i NG MAP `~`J/ AREA REQUR'NG SITE Fr FLOOD PLAIN ~ vHEAT RIDGE oOC OXI FLOOD LP T!O 9A =LOCA710 TION . goo f,apoROXIMF TOCW ERIC' 50,NDR'! a° OLORADO ZONE DIS-R'C- 5OUNDRY . DT 50UNJRY xAL i'.tpp - PARCEf_'LO- 50UNDRY =5 OhN-ERS+.iF) <A' ADO° =D- -Ame 5, '99~ iDES'Gt:A-ES ODJNERSHIP) Llf`L_ _CS' Re':'s:m' DeceT.~e- 22. Q9z --=R F_-TURE d URE D=.:O °-5 -UL- R--- ADDR-E 5. A/G-v Y&iV "6~ - / z -,V - , ,A A roved Date TO: Meredith Reckert, Planner II - FROM: Steve Nguyen,. Traffic Engineer ~54 L J - DATE: December 4, 1996 L : - uiI - ~~ll\'3 ~trvt l:: L•LO :.:.V: t - - y SUBJECT: Vicinity of West 46th Avenue and Tabor Street This is a response to your memo to Bob Goebel, dated November 19,1996 referencing the above matter. Currently Tabor Street from 44th Avenue to I-70 is not in the five-year capital improvement program. The Public Works Department has no plan to widen this street in the near future, however I would like to offer some comments: • The Public Works Department feels that if and when Tabor Street is reconstructed, it will be built with a 3-lane section; two through lanes with a left turn lane. The three-lane section will be narrowed down to a 2 lane section when it reaches the Tabor Bridge at I-70. There is no plan to widen this bridge. • In reference to intersection improvements at 46th Avenue and Tabor, a left turn lane is anticipated on Tabor when the widening takes place,. • At the intersection of 44th and Tabor, a signal should only be constructed when it is warranted. It is currently unwarranted. Left and right turn lanes are anticipated on Tabor at this intersection. A left turn lane on 44th Avenue can be planned for if the demand volume indicates that there is a need for it. • The Public Works Department is working on the signage issues that you mention in your memo. The Public Works Department is installing a dead end sign for southbound Swadley at 46th Avenue. I am working with CDOT to come up with guidance signs so that truck traffic traveling on the I-70 South Frontage Road between Swadley and Miller can be minimized or eliminated. • In reference to the connection of 46th a~rrSuns ,r even [hough there is established right-of- way, Public works Department sees no advantage in the connection in terms of traffic circulation. This would create a neighborhood traffic problem on Simms Street. Having a connection to 44th Avenue might generate safety and operational problems. 44th Avenue does not have any left turn lanes to side streets which creates the potential for rear end accidents . ATTACHMENT 14 December 4, 1996 Memorandum Vicinity of W. 46th Ave and Tabor Street Page 2 Side street traffic delay at 44th Avenue would be much greater than at 46th and Taborsinqe-~e volume at 44th Avenue is much greater. The traffic volume at Tabor and 46th is 2100 and 550 vehicles per day respectively. These volumes are low compared to 44th Avenue where its volume is about 9800 vehicles per day. The current volume at 46th and Tabor does not indicate that the intersection is being congested. This may create more delays at Tabor and 44th , however, it is much more desirable from an operational and safety standpoint to concentrate the movements to an intersection which one day may be controlled by a signal. It will also eliminates "cut thru" traffic attempting to bypass 44th and Tabor. The remaining undeveloped area in the immediate surrounding area will probably not generate significant traffic volume to overload the intersection of 46th and Tabor even with full build-out. As the area north of I-70 develops, we may see a signal warrant develop at 44th and Tabor. Currently, 44th Avenue traverses across the city connecting Golden and Denver. With this characteristic, side street connections and other access points to 44th Avenue should be voided as much as possible to minimize the impact on 44th Avenue. I hope the above comments provide you some insight for planning purposes. Please see me if you need additional information or to discuss the issue in greater detail. CC: Greg Knudsen M. ~GG/GE~T MEMO - i/- - 9k 7500 ".'EST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80215-6713 ~d~o1 _34-5400 G-Wheat CBy Admm. Fax t 234-5924 Pohce Depi. Fax t 235-2949 - GRi d ge November 19, 1996 TO: b Goebel, Director of Public Works FROM: tyeredith Reckert, Planner RE: Vicinity of West 46th Avenue and Tabor Street The Department of Planning and Development is in the position of processing a land use case for property located at 1.1600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue (Case No. MS-96-2). The applicant is requesting approval of a six-lot major subdivision with the intention of building a series of four- plexes. This property was zoned to R-3 in 1980 and is currently vacant. Many concerns have been expressed from area residents regarding traffic problems in this vicinity including, but not limited, to the following: I. When will Tabor Street between West 44th Avenue and I-70 be widened? 2. What future improvements will occur to the intersection of West 44th Avenue and Tabor Street? 3. What future improvements will occur to the intersection of West 46th Avenue and Tabor Street? 4. What can be done to eliminate commercial traffic in the area ( IE, vehicles using the south frontage road through the residential neighborhood to get to Tabor and Miller)? 5: Both West 46th Avenue west of Swadley Street and Simms Street south of the southern frontage road dead-end at the property referenced above. Can anything be done to improve signage to eliminate cars driving down to the dead-end and to the roadblocks themselves which apparently are unmaintained? 6. Will Simms Street be extended south to connect with West 46th Avenue? There appears to be right-of-way in place although it is not full width. The Planning Staff expects to see additional commercial and residential development in this area which will only exacerbate existing traffic problems. This particular case (WS-96-2) is scheduledd for public hearing in front of Planning Commission on December 5, 1996. I anticipate a lot of discussion regarding traffic concerns. Would it be possible for an analyses to be to done and entered as an exhibit as part of the staff report or distributed the night of the hearing? I would appreciate your help in this matter. A TACHMENT S VL~ 4, 1 G9v_ c~ ~(o Cwt 7 -,YL~ w 911, a_ f a W i- O z p wa 0¢ N ~ >3p p U m Q1w V 1 N ¢ W W j rn N O p W J N w w Z w 00-' ZUI- O WO c oWz r^1 moo Q¢o W U W C - p W Z = p0 OO¢ N >aa O W W 2 Q 3 W O w I ¢ Z O axe O ¢ a a a ;~;76A? REV/EWEA RY PLANNi•.JG- ~2- s-9o 1 a g i ~4r ~n •a z4 7' e tie i e e 6~ ~ ~ ~ . 3 a b b 3 c 5d. a t = d .1 .9a ~Ai7 _ y .a li o n T t n~ 3:~ Fa T aYap~ =s ? do~3"s 9 $ be °b'4d=4 S a 3. n 9iva~:b~ A !3 :3 ~ igY3k9;a g ebb ' ~ '~Yfb~b H d3 i~e ~1.F F4'FF a ~n .ia • - dS SA'lYlS: l J I q ',LS .L37QVkS is R Q E` m P 3I 1 t i i~ his Ip.p I4 I ,~k ax ~ n e ~ P .e3 ~ Fn a . i I i a i 16 a ?bII 1 3j) 3 5 I'a - ;y'ax eb 81 r3~$e is S@4sv 3' ~ l I~ ~s7s3 ' <B 3 ; Y i~ aga si5 ~i 5~ a 3i 3 ) b n 6 ff I3 l y939 ~',Fi 3d n2 a ~ 5 I~e3 ~ Tb a pas ie F i r------- TT -r------li-------~ I i t - I I I I i I I I I 1 I -A l as a+~ ~~J Fy I ~ a~ ~ 02 h PI oz I _ I- ea4 1 I J` I I v I I I 3 ~ I I t3a a' i I e3c i1 I i.e.m_ y^\---~ -I Lumoo -SNWIS 1) II I !8: I I I I I I m° I il e x f'~ a'E I e~ i II ai 111 I I i -ac ~I I I 7=i 3~1 I I I I F l ~~I la 3- i~3qq iva] =4j d' IY T I ATTACHMENT 17 .9-PPtZOVE0 Ay P[aNN~~✓G- GoN/NI~SSiax/ /2- S - 17 (o W z W. 46TH AVE. (5o-pow.) 140.50 0=90' 18'44- R=15.00' L=23.64' LOT 6 15,359 S0. FT X10' UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT I N A I N nR /4 REBAR h N N89'59'57"E 331.01 R 140.50 1/2- RP _ _ _ - - _ G=89'41'16 25' 25' R=15.00' L=23.48' LOT 1 I rn "1 15.358 SO. F' m N n o_ O Ol A I p 10' UTILITY r . V EASEMENT (TYR.) 3 I 3 cs I I Y rr~^ v T m ia0.52 1 o rn _ _ _ 589'59 a1 w _ _ - 77&-sE BECOME ~I n I 10' UTILITY AND T S DRAINAGE EASEMENT „ N [/1 N I ~ O Z m Z I m d' LOT 2 "W . FT . 14,515 SD I n 'O m Q~ _ 30 0 0 A6 =62. 19' 04' I m N R=45.0 0 I 5 1 L=64.65' I m / 125-12- - W - - - _ / ~ r c WAY LOT 5 J 14,511 S0. FT. / Y 5.00' UTILITY EASEMENT I c (TYP.) I a C=82 57'36* R=45.00' L=65.16' ' 125.35- - - !89'59 25 E 7emP02A4y Gvc- \ DE- SAC. C3VL8 6d63' 17' 26-1 R=45.00' L=49.71' LOT 4 17,437 -SO. FT. 10' UTILITY AND - -~ORAINAGE EASEMENT - - 165.57 10.00' UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ----L----------- 7oa FPC 4 165.57 5W59'09"W 331.13 ATTACHMENT ~ JZICrri -O - jFXrZds#oV 7-9 ,4U714 I G~3' S6' 00' BO V n/ DAK 14 F 0 R=45.00' rr L I I w I L=50.21' rv~QiG E.1 l'E/J LOT 3 Tb 1U 9 q rw r4 VE - 17,426 SO. FT. 1 i A n/~//nI Cr- G O M N! / ,S S/ 6 N Mr .c1 r,~-~S !Z - s - 9 b Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 5, 1996 Paue 2 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. WS-96-2: An application by James R. Turgeon for Park Orchard Development for approval of a six (6). lot subdivision on R-3 zoned land at 11600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue. Ms. Reckert presented Staffs report on Case No. WS-96-2. She stated that the applicant was James R. Turgeon, 18216 West 4th Avenue, Golden, Colorado. The property contains 2.5 acres of land which is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting approval of a six (6) lot subdivision on this Residential-Three zoned property for the purpose of building twenty-six (26) townhome units. Ms. Reckert presented overhead map displays and slides of the subject property. She outlined the zoning, streets and land use from the overhead maps and then presented an overview of the slides which showed various angles of the subject land and usage surrounding it. Ms. Reckert entered into the record the zoning ordinance subdivision regulations. case file, packet materials, and exhibits. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all proper posting and notification has occurred, therefore, the Planning Commission does have jurisdiction over this case. Ms. Reckert reviewed the Staff Report. General discussion regarding traffic, land dedication, number of units, and street changes took place. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Jim Turgeon who resides at 18216 West 4th Avenue, Golden. Colorado. Mr. Turgeon presented an oral interpretation of his proposal for this property and discussed commercial vs residential land use for this area. Commissioners presented Mr. Turgeon and Staff with additional questions regarding traffic issues, right-of-ways, truck (semi, delivery) traffic, access, and networking streets to alleviate traffic in the future. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Herb Fightmaster who resides at 11641 West 44th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Fightmaster stated that his family were the original owners of the property. being developed and still own adjacent property. He supports the development. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Thomas Shockley who resides at 11605 West 46th Avenue. Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Shockley stated he did not support the development for a variety of reasons which included the water supply, signs, truck traffic, access, vehicle speed, and his perception of illegal excavation/construction. He presented the 1985 Fruit Valley Lake Plan and elaborated on the approvals which were considered at that time. Questions were presented to Mr. Shockley and Staff which included density, traffic, street connections, water and related utility costs, support of the neighborhood in closing 46th Avenue, and open space. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Jerry Brown who resides at 4430 Tabor Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Brown stated he was against the development and relayed his concerns about ATTACHMENT 19 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 5, 1996 Page 3 apartment dwellers uncaring attitude, traffic issues, traffic light, semi-truck access. fencing and overall open space area. Questions to Mr. Brown from the Commissioners included clarification of who the applicant plans on renting to, fencing and density. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Kim Stuart who resides in a duplex with her mother at 11700 and 11706 West 46 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Ms. Stuart expressed opposition to the development stating her reasons as being traffic issues, no more off street parking, open space being ruined, fencing, and preferences of single ownership. Staff clarified that fencing would be the responsibility of the property owner; that the land boundaries were checked and should be okay; and that lighting would be controlled by City Code. Parking issues were also addressed. Director Gidlev stated that there was a two-car garage and a two-car driveway for the units which exceed the minimum requirement for this type of development by 50%. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in Lynn Fightmaster who resides at 4455 Simms. Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Fightmaster stated he was for the development and stated that he would like to see a cul-de-sac installed as opposed to a through street. General discussion was held regarding the easement placement. Director Gidley clarified the street and easement placement. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in Ms. Diane Maddox who resides at 4515 Robb Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Ms. Maddox stated her concerns as drainage problems she has incurred and inquired if it would be improved and she requested that the corrections be made in writing. Her second concern regarded her live stock and requested that a six-foot fence be installed to protect her property and children who may be drawn to the area. Director Gidley stated that a subdivision fence could be required on all sides and other specifications deemed necessary. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in Dan Turgeon who resides at 2110 Rock Crest Way, Golden. Colorado. Mr. Turgeon stated he was for the project and that the development would clean up the area. He felt that one of the property owners was opposed to the development because he would lose excessive parking space. No questions were posed. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in Tex Junker who resides at 4615 Swatley, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Junker stated he was concerned mostly with traffic. He stated that a fence would make his neighborhood happy. Limited discussion was held regarding street installation. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in George Jergenson who resides at 4515 Robb Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. He stated that his wife had asked a question about the drainage problem and he did not recall an answer. Ms. Reckert addressed him and stated that Public Works is looking into the drainage situation on Robb Street. The plan is showing that the drainage will be carried to the south to an inlet which in turn empties into a storm sewerat West 44th Avnue. Mr. Jergenson stated he believes the development being proposed will add to their problem. Ms. Reckert stated she was not sure when Public Works had this project scheduled. There were no questions asked Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December.5. 1996 Pace 4 T by the Commission. Commissioner CERVENY motioned, Commissioner LANGDON seconded, to approve Case No. WS-96-2, a request for approval of a six-lot subdivision on Residential-Three zoned property located at 11600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue, be APPROVED for the followins reasons: 1. Staff recommends approval. 2. The property is in the City of Wheat Ridge and properly zoned. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. Minor legal description problems be corrected prior to review by City Council. 2. That the right-of-way for Simms Street be extended south to the southern property line in the event that any time in the future the property to the south is developed, then this right- of-way is needed to improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood. 3. Lighting on the premises must meet City code. There was no additional discussion. Motion was APPROVED 5-1 with Commissioner GRIFFITH voting no. 2. Case No. PBG-96-1: An application by Karl Koch for approval of a four (4) structure planned building group and a replat on Residential-Three zoned land at 4420 Jay Street. Director Gidley presented overheads and slides as it relates to this case. This property is owned by the same person but assessor's records reflect the property as divided into three parcels. A site plan was provided for review. The size of this property is approximately 3/4 acre. Director Gidley reviewed the various types of zoning and buildings in the immediate area. He entered into the record Zone Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, packet materials, and all exhibits. All notification requirements have been met, the property is within the City, and the City does have jurisdiction in this case. Director Gidley stated that all the Residential-Three district and subdivision regulations have been met, all agencies have stated an ability to serve. and therefore Staff has recommended approval of the plat and site plan. A drainage plan is currently being reviewed by the Public Works Department, therefore, this plan is not available at this time. Director Gidley suggested that the drainage plan be required by the Commission to be fully reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before this matter is scheduled for City Council. Commissioner THOMPSON raised concern regarding enough trees and shrubs, and, trees being planted that would interfere with the power poles to the rear of the proposed building. Planner ~JLgN/✓~NG COMN(I ssio^l /LESaIt cf "o_j !Z-s -9p CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO: WS-96-2 LOCATION: 11600 R 11690 W. 46 Avenue APPLICANT(S) NAME: James R. Turgeon OWNER(S) NAME: Same REQUEST: Approval of a six (6) lot subdivision on Residential-Three zoned land. APPROXIMATE AREA: 2.5 acres WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the.facts presented and conclusions reached, the following motions were made as stated regarding Case No.WS-96-2, an application by James R. Turgeon for approval of six (6) lot subdivision. Commissioner CERVENY motioned, Commissioner LANGDON seconded, that Case No. WS-96-2, a request of a six (6) lot subdivision, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Staff recommends approval. 2. The property is in the City of Wheat Ridge 1 All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions I. Minor legal description problems be corrected prior to review by City Council. 2. That the right-of-way for Simms Street be extended south to the southern property line in the event that any time in the future the property to the south is developed, then this right-of-way is needed to improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood. 3. Lighting on the premises must meet City Code. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner GRIFFITH voting against. 1. Marilvn Gunn, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a vote of the members present at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the ~Municipal Building, Wheat Ridyo~ 0 o ado, on the _ day~f , 1996. / George Langdon, C34airperson MarilydGunn, Secretary; WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLAN G COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 20, GO/c/D/T1~/✓ oN 7-E O~/G-tic/A~ 2E~oN/NG- ~p/Zo✓A~ dRDtxuwE ew. ae peg. -3- S. [M Soa niP iner.oft orL{rrlgei=o !d i[Ch12•Atlr belnp IA the L. 1/2 of Lots 13 and le• Lae•s Subdivlslon, .A 0 filing, jelis rson County, iditches. of Colorado reservoir h Section 2. Condlglons_ The following condition shall apply to t6ia riien.n' A. prier to issuance o' any buildl^q per.its for new eonbtruction, the subject property legally in described in Section 1 above enalbeplatted ,order to schteve • unified dealgn which Illustrates external and iinternal and Deeess ppooints onto pvtitle nt rn which I I..tr.t.s building envelopes. ecc/o'e., Safet Claus. The City C,odnc it w.bv. finds, Ridge, that it is alit. ens ul opower ola in* City Of Wheat l r police thn p for the nealtn. s tetY• and welfare of the Wu Li<. pcnwulgaced !e .Ad that in is "dinance to necessary for the pnservatlon of health and safety and for the plutthered of pub etc to tveneenea and welfare. The City i ardlnaaco sets a rational relation to the proper legislative abject Sought to De attained. Section a. Severablllt . if any clause, sentence, paragraph, or pa[~ ["$f eTi lc or tnance or the application thereof to any perwn doapetent a jtancts &hall for any urisdiction invalid, such reason judgment ~hallYhotr albct, O dircu.atene sordinance or its iPpRLr or the pplleatln invalidate W other epersonsm r He ..J92 J. Tnls'ordinance shall take -feet 1 day after final h p.. 'cation. lMT.ODUCLD. GLAD, AND ADOPTED On lint reading soli) d:rW ' to 0 en this 9th day of fable tganera clr95 Ord Sn the pub shed in full -rn a xwsP-Fe f City Of Wheat Ridge and Public Nearing and comederatio eOn final Weac 39th 'venuef Wheat Passage set [or Mnmh 9 1981. pa., I. cAe CouneTl-Eria.Dern, Aldq., Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AHO ORDERED PUBLISHED en second snd final reading by a vote of E tw U this stn day of March . 19 q. , SIGNED by the n.yor aA ttKis ~r of T }ATd Tt T TL . MAYOM ATTEE ,r aro amp 1st PYBlICab. 2. 1981 )YhNt R7dge Sentl nil 2nd Public. eon. Mr. 19. 1981) Effective Date, Mar. 20, 19L1 APPA E AS 9 ~lT CITY ATTORNEY m' n K o, -m xg+ o Ei C, C, *ATTACHMENT 21 cir-~ cau~ci~ Mii✓vr~s 3- YIHEA ry dir, ti~ ~~90 CITY COUNCTS. MINUTES U 1' T CITY OF w;,EAT RIDGE, COLORADO J March 9, 1981 OCOHAO~ The City Council Meeting was convened by the Mayor at 700 p.m. Councllmembers presents Pat Alallo, Bill Bowman, Mary Jo Cavarra, Rent Davis, Ken Lewis, Larry Merkl, Kay Ore, and Louise Turner. Also presents City Clerk, Carol Hampfl City Administrator, Tom Palmerl City Attorney, John Hayes; Department Heades Richard Bradt, Hugh Brown, Chief Pinson, Charles Stromberg, and Rodger Young) staffs and intwrosted citizens. Motion by Mr. Lewis for the approval of the Minutes of the meeting Or-Foruary 23, 1981, with the following addition on page 2, 19th line, follo~,ing the word -stories., (concerning the R3-E Ordinance) a Mr. Lewis stated he was reluctantly voting for this Ordinance bemuse this will give the city a little more flexibility in eaf„rcing the code-s seconded by Mr. Davis. Mrs. Turner requested that the tapes be researched to also add her reasons for voting no on the amendment to the 4-3E Ordlni.nco and that the addresses As sell as the names of those speaking be included. Motion carried 8-0. a' PROCLAMATION BY THE MAYOR -Grange Week' Apria 19-2S, 1981, was deferred to April l3v 1. Those to receive the proclamation were 111 and unable to be present at this meeting. OATH OF OFFICE was administered by the Mayor to Sandra Eid, r rho ist eoar31 Grace Shaddeau and William Donald n, Animal Control Cote isslonj Ma-M D. Potty, J- c., Bugg Code Advisory Board) Janice TA~om soon an John McDermott, Perks and Recreation CommissTons A ell nKirb and Robert Personnel Commission; and Ray Winger, Planning CommLssion. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. Council Bill 57 - An Ordinance providing for the approval of rezoning from Agricultural One (A-1) to Residential Three (R-3) with conditions for land located at approximately 11551 West 44th Avenue, City of Wheat ty of Jefferson, State of Colorado. (Case No. MS-BO-28 (Lynn Flghtmaster) Council Bill 57 was Introduced on second reading, title read by the Clark. Mr. 8tronberg gave the staff report. ~Herbs Fri Istma~ster, 11641 W. 44th Avenue, owner of the property, presented the applicant's case. Janice Thompson, 12290 W. 42nd Avenue, spoke in opposition, Stating that she would prefer to see a lower density on the northern portion of the property and also that she had spoken with Ter JunKer and Ron Groan, who had spoken at Planning Commission, but would be unable to attend this meeting, and that they or, .160 in opposition. However, she said she was pleased that it would be Residential. Motion by Mr. Merkl that Ordinance 443 (Council Bill 57) be approverTwi<h the following changes to Section 2. conditions, eliminate A., and B. be the only condition on this ordinance and that also under S. the duplicated words 'which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways- be deleteds seconded by Mr. Bowmens carried 8-0. Failed Amendment by Mrs. Turner that there be a condition that would have the approximate 1/2 acre that borders 46th Avenue have the density be lessened to approximately 16 units per acrel seconded by Mrs. Cavarral failed 2-6, with Councilmombers Merkl, Bowman, Davis, Lewin, Aiello, and Ore voting No. Mr. Merkl stating that he was opposed to restriction of unite in R-3 plans Mr. Aiello stating that he could not see but what now construction In the area Would serve to enhance it, and that the R-2 soning serves as somewhat of a buffer to the adjacent low density housing On 46th Avenue. _ ORDINANCE/ Oil FIRST READING ' Its 4. Cars'' it Bill 57 - An. Ordinance preyidmen, for the approval of •AT%ing from Agricultural One (A-1) XPesidential Three (R-3) with conditions for land located at approximately 11SS1 West 44th Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jeffert An, _ State of Colorado. (Lynn rightmaster) (Casa No. Wz-80-28) f~+ Council 8,11 57 was introduced on first reading by Mr. Merkis title read by the Clerk. Motion by Mr. Merkl that Council Bill No. 57 be approved on first read inq oiaored published, public hearlnq be not for Monday, March 9, 1981, at 7130 P.M. In City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and If approved on second reading, take effect 1 day after final poolleationit..eecOnded_bv.. Mr. Bowman, carried 8-0. ATTACHMENT 22 CERTIPICAfION OF W:SOLtffION CITY OF NNh:Rr RiUcr: PLANNING COIPIISSION ,P~saLunOA/ Between 44th and 46th Avenues Case Number: WZ-80-28 Location! and Simms and Swadlcy Streets Applicant's Name: Lynn Fightmaster Request: Change of zone from Agricultural One to Residential Three , Owner's Name: Lynn Fightnaster Area: 5.01 Acres r 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 heroto and incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof; and it was solved by Commissioner JERKS seconded by Commissioner PRESTON that Case No. WZ-80- , Application by Lynn Fightmaster for a change o cone root Agricultural flue to Residential three on property located between 44th and 46th Avenues and giros and Swadley Streets, be forwarded to City Council with Planning Comafaeion's recommendation for approval for the following reasons: 1. Does comply with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. •.w: property is surrounded in part by R-3 zoning and commercial zoning; 3. It may have a stabilizing effect on future commercial development on the north side of West 44th Avows; and with the following conditions: (A) That the application be approved with the stipulation that no development' take place until Slows Street in opened the length of the property; (B) That the entire parcel be developed as one unit. Vets! Test Jenks, Preston, Stewart, Hawn, Martin. Wage, Scoma• - . No: saw .I, ETSIE HURLEY Secretary to the City of thlcat Ridge Planning Commission, do Rurally nd herewith certify that the f0"A0in9 resolution was duly approved by o-1 vote of the members present at their Regular mating held in the Council Chambers of the Ronitipal Building, Cheat Ridge. Colorado, on the 6 day of November 3930, RONNIE SCD?IA, Chalrmin of the RLSIR IURih.ET, Scortar to the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission Wheat Itidgc Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 23 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: ,CJiity Council FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Traffic Circulation Study DATE: January 18, 2000 Please consider this memorandum an addendum to the staff reports for both Case Nos. WV-99- 03 and WS-99-01. Attached are the following items in chronological order: 1. Minutes from the November 18, 1999, Planning Commission study session 2. Packet given to Planning Commission for the study session held on November 18, 1999 3. Minutes from the November 4, 1999, Planning Commission study session 4. Sign up sheet from the November 4, 1999 Planning Commission study session 5. Packet given to Planning Commission for the study session on November 4, 1999 6. Minutes from the October 7, 1999, Planning Commission meeting where staff was directed to schedule a study session to discuss Northwest Fruitdale street circulation 7. Minutes from the September 27, 1999, City Council meeting where the public hearings for Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03 were continued and a directive was given to reach consensus on a circulation plan. 8. Minutes from the September 20, 1999, City Council study session 9. Staff's memo to City Council for the study session held on September 20, 1999. The memo details the results of a neighborhood meeting held on August 25, 1999. ADDENDUM A IOGAXIAI 16- G a/tjMf ss j0A1 A4 t a/u rL S //-/8-99 PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-99-12: Application by Roger Loecher for approval of a zone change from Residential-Two to Restricted Commercial-One for the purpose of building a 4,200 square foot credit union and office building on property located at 3502 Wadsworth Boulevard. Because the drainage report has not yet been approved, staff requested continuance of this case. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that Case No. WZ-99-12 be continued to December 2, 1999 to allow the drainage report to be completed. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner COLLINS absent. B. Case No. ZOA 99-06: Application by the City of Wheat Ridge amending Section 26 (c) of Appendix A of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws/Zoning Ordinance establishing the point in the development process when the right to develop is vested as mandated by new state legislation. Alan White stated that staff is withdrawing this case based upon City Council's decision that, since the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality, vesting property rights is a matter of local interest and cannot be mandated by the State. City Council has chosen not to change existing legislation at this time. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BRINKMAN declared the public hearing portion of the meeting to be closed. 9.. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Commission placed ballots for selection of Chair and Vice Chair according to By- Laws with the following results: Don MacDougall was elected as Planning Commission Chair. Anne Brinkman was elected as Planning Commission Vice Chair. At this point in the meeting, Commissioner BRINKMAN handed the gavel to Chair MACDOUGALL. 10. OLD BUSINESS C. Northwest Fruitdale Circulation Plan: Chair MACDOUGALL opened discussion between the Commission, the public and staff regarding the need for, and the possible design of a circulation master plan for the area generally bounded by West 44th Avenue Planning Commission Page 2 November 18, 1999 ATTACHMENT 1 on the south, I-70 on the north, Tabor Street on the west and Robb Street on the east. Alan White summarized comments from the November 4th meeting and presented three alternative designs which incorporate suggestions and comments received at that meeting. Commissioner THOMPSON stated her opposition to alternative C which would allow a through street between 44th and 46th. She expressed concern that if the vacant property on the east side of Tabor Street develops, commercial traffic could be dumped into a residential neighborhood. She preferred a cul-de-sac to service the Turgeon and Fightmaster properties. Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that Option C does not seem to be very useful unless Simms Street is built to. connect with 46' Avenue. She expressed concern that anv plan may not meet the needs of the entire neighborhood and not just the presently undeveloped properties. Commissioner THOMPSON commented that perhaps no plan is better than a plan which would negatively impact the existing neighborhood. Chair MACDOUGALL invited comments from the public. Herb Fightmaster 11641 West 44th Mr. Fightmaster stated that he never said he would dedicate right-of-way for Swadley along his western property boundary. He only said that he had a preference of Swadley over Simms and any right of way acquisition on his property would have to take place through condemnation. He made it clear that he is definitely not dedicating any land. He objected to the fact that the first application with a cul-de-sac off 46th was approved and is now the subject of controversy. Commissioner SNOW reminded Mr. Fightmaster that the city can require dedication as a result of the application. Mr. Fightmaster asked if a traffic study had been done. Meredith Reckert replied that a traffic study and report was submitted as a part of the Turgeon application. George Jorgenson 4515 Robb Street Mr. Jorgenson agreed with Commissioner THOMPSON that there is no need for a plan at this time. He felt the only pressing need in the neighborhood is that Tabor be improved and commented that there is no real traffic problem in the neighborhood. He felt the development should service itself with a cul-de-sac. He was not in favor of a through street. Planning Commission Page 3 November 18, 1999 Kim Stewart 11700 West 46th Avenue Ms. Stewart stated that there is a traffic problem in the neighborhood and that she was opposed to vacation of street right-of-way for Simms adjacent to Mr. Fightmaster until there is a firm commitment to replace it with another access point onto 44th Avenue. She favored widening the present lanes on Tabor rather than adding a third lane. She was opposed to a through street from 44th to 46th and was in favor of the plan providing access to west 44th by cul-de-sac. She asked the Commission to approve a plan that will not impact West 46th and the future of other neighbors. Chair MACDOUGALL asked if there were others present who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Mr. White commented that this is not an attempt to reconsider the application which is before City Council, but rather an attempt to do some neighborhood planning to see what impact additional development will have on the present road system. He stated that a traffic impact study was performed as part of the application and reviewed by the traffic engineer in which there was concurrence that there would be an insignificant impact to the existing road system. Commissioner SNOW commented that City Council directed staff to meet with the neighborhood to work out traffic issues before Council's final consideration. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern that if traffic from the proposed development empties onto 46th Avenue that there is no guarantee that this neighborhood will not bear the impact of traffic generated by development on other vacant parcels of land in the area. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner THOMPSON seconded that option A (cul-de-sac from 44th Avenue in Swadley alignment) be adopted as access to the parcels under consideration. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if consideration could be given to withdrawing the motion because there is not enough information at this time and as properties are developed, better consideration could be given to the traffic situation. In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON, Mr. White stated that the traffic analysis determined that 46th Avenue could handle the traffic from the developments (i.e., Turkeon and Fightmaster properties). Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she would like assurance that the cul-de-sac bulb would never open up to service other development. Planning Commission Page 4 November 18, 1999 .Alan White suggested a conceptual plan that would provide for any future development along 44th Avenue to have access to 44th. Commissioner GOKEY stated he would not support the motion because a traffic study had been done and the plan was approved based on that information. He did not support any of the three alternatives. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated she would vote against the motion because she favored the idea of approving a conceptual, rather than specific, plan. The motion failed by a vote of 2 to 4 with Commissioners BRINKMAN, GOKEY, DOYLE and THOMPSON voting no and Commissioner COLLINS absent. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner THOMPSON seconded that any development, other than single family, on property abutting 44th Avenue have its access solely to 44th Avenue so that it does not impact lower density neighborhoods; and that the subject properties be considered as one parcel fronting on 44th as required at its original rezoning. The motion failed by a vote of 3 to 3 with Commissioners GOKEY, BRINKMAN, and DOYLE voting no and Commissioner COLLINS absent. Commissioner DOYLE suggested that, after hearing public discussion, Tabor be widened and a traffic light be placed at 44th. Commissioner BRINKMAN moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that a recommendation be made to City Council that a traffic light be placed at 44th and Tabor at the earliest possible convenience after the warrants so justify; and that the Planning Commission and Public Works Department consider the widening of Tabor. Commissioner SNOW stated that, although she would support the motion, she did not feel that this presented a solution for pending development but would be helpful in alleviating current traffic problems. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner COLLINS absent. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN that if a cul-de-sac is built on the Turgeon property, it will never open to the south to tie into West 44th Avenue resulting in a through street. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 1, with Commissioner GOKEY voting no and Commissioner COLLINS absent. Planning Commission Page 5 November 18, 1999 Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that the police department make efforts to enforce the weight and speed limits and that a weight limit sign be placed on Tabor. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner COLLINS absent. (Chair MACDOUGALL declared a recess at 9:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:30 P.M.) 11. NEW BUSINESS D. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 5-Year Plan - Discussion of the City's 5-year CDBG Plan. As a participating jurisdiction in the CDBG program, the City is required to have a consolidated plan prepared listing the City's goals for the program for the next five (5) years. Alan White presented this item and asked for discussion and suggestions from the Planning Commission regarding allocation of the CDBG funds. The funds have to be directed to low and moderate income areas of the city. The following allocations were suggested: • Enhance senior transportation services. • Waive fees to the new recreation center to places such as senior centers, nursing homes, and subsidized day care centers. • Helping Hands food bank. • Credit counseling programs for low and moderate income citizens. • Water taps for properties with wells as only source of water. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON that funds be allocated for disabled persons who live in rental properties to renovate those properties for handicapped accessibility. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner COLLINS absent. Staff will research suggestions made by the Planning Commission. 12. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 13. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee and department reports Planning Commission Page 6 November 18, 1999 PGAAI vVI J C- G or ~.z ssio~✓ I'W(n-AcerT E WHEgT City of Wheat Ridge ~m Planning and Development Department COL OR POO Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Circulation Plan DATE: November 10, 1999 Attached are the comment sheets from the study session held on November 4th along with the elements of a circulation plan proposed that night. Additional information requested from the study session: 1. No additional right-of-way exists either on the west side of the Fightmaster property or the north side of the property west of Turgeon. 2. The additional cost to deal with the irrigation ditch at Simms/46th Avenue is $5,000.00. This is not a significant cost and should not inhibit consideration of alternatives in this area. Also attached are copies of maps showing three alternative street alignments: 1) a cul-de-sac accessing off of 44th Avenue; 2) an alternative cul-de-sac alignment accessing off of 44th Avenue; and 3) a through connection between 44" and 46th Avenues. Staff comments about each of the options follow: Options A and B: Pro's 1. Design discourages cut-through traffic. 2. No multi-family traffic directed to 46th Avenue. 3. Provides multiple lot access. Con's 1. Creates additional access on 44th Avenue - no acceleration/deceleration or left turn lanes are currently provided. 2. Doesn't use existing right-of-way. 3. No continuity to street system. 4. Length requires variance (Option B). ATTACHMENT 2 C_~ Option C Pro's 1 Provides an additional ingress/egress point for the neighborhood. 2. Design discourages cut-through traffic. 3. Provides some measure of continuity of the existing street system. 4. Provides multiple lot access. Con's 1. Creates additional access on 44`h Avenue - no acceleration/deceleration or left turn lanes are currently provided. 2. Provides an opportunity for cut-through traffic. 3. Doesn't use existing right-of-way. 4. Directs some percentage of multi-family traffic to 46`" Avenue. Attached is a memo summarizing my conversation with Jerry Dahl concerning right-of-way dedications. C_3_I NORTHWEST FRUITDALE CIRCULATION PLAN ASSUMPTIONS 1. No plan will be perfect. 2. Use existing streets and rights-of-way. 3. 50' standard width for local street (right-of-way). 4. Vacant land will develop as residential (comp plan). 5. Property should develop independently. 6. Local street greater than 1,000 VPD. C-3 NORTHWEST FRUITDALE CIRCULATION PLAN QUESTIONS 1. What, if any, traffic problems (delays, congestion, cut-through) exist in the neighborhood? - Tabor traffic volumes - 441 and 46`h Avenue intersections with Tabor - congestion - Light at 4411/Tabor needed - Frontage Road/Swadley/46th act as frontage roads - Signal east of Tabor (Miller?) To Kipling - Signal at Robb - park entrance - Speeds on Tabor and 44th Avenue - Oversize vehicles on Tabor (weight restrictions) and 44th Avenue 2. What, if any, circulation problems (getting to and from your house) exist in the neighborhood? Speed limits and stop signs not respected - Emergency (fire and medical) access 3. What are future problems? - Access to 44' 1. 4611/Tabor - More traffic on 46" (should be avoided) - Simms not an alternative - Increase in Frontage Road/Swadley/46th traffic - Area "boxed in" by Tabor/Kipling/I-70/44th Avenue - few alternatives Tabor narrow - no turn lanes - Tabor bridge 2-lanes 4. What elements of a street plan would solve the problems identified and provide access to potential development parcels? Widen Tabor (within right-of-way) - right-of-way acquired? - Frontage Road traffic calming - state highway (not allowed) - North/south connection to 44th? Cul-de-sac? - East/west connection? - Simms to 46'? Or 44`h? (2,-q NORTHWEST FRUITDALE CIRCULATION PLAN ELEMENTS 1. Signal at 44t"/Tabor. 2. Signal east of Tabor to Kipling, possibly at Miller. 3. Pedestrian activated signal at 44t" and Robb. 4. Enforce weight and speed limits. 5. Widen Tabor within existing right-of-way. 6. Provide north-south connection to 44t". Examine possibility of cul-de-sac. C:\Bwbua\PCRPTS\I 1-4nw&ntdalemtgnotes.wpd V OF WHEgT City of Wheat Ridge Po Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director SUBJECT: Right-of-way dedications DATE: November 10, 1999 I spoke with Jerry Dahl concerning several questions Nancy Snow had regarding right-of-way dedications. Generally, the City has authority to require dedications as a requirement of approving a subdivision. The City is empowered to require reasonable right-of-way dedications as part of a subdivision request for reasons of access and public safety. There are limitations on this authority for exactions and it is important that these limitations be acknowledged. These limitations are: 1. The required right-of-way dedication must be located on land owned by the applicant; i.e. we cannot make a requirement that an applicant dedicate right-of- way offsite, on land not under the applicant's ownership, nor on land not creating the development impacts. 2. The dedication requirement must be reasonably related to the request and be roughly proportional to the impacts generated by the request. If a proposed development is adjacent to a public street, that street should be used for access unless, as shown by a traffic study, the adjacent street will be overburdened by the traffic generated by the development, or if the number of units requires an additional access under City or Fire District regulations. "Overburdened" in this case would mean an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F) at a nearby intersection, or traffic volumes in excess of the capacity of the street. Alignments of streets do not have to follow property lines. Following property lines generally means that each property would be required to dedicate equal amounts of right-of-way, but there is nothing in state statute that requires this. The City does not have to reimburse an applicant or otherwise pay for right-of-way if more than half of a right-of-way dedication is required on his property. The City would be responsible for acquiring right-of-way if a street was planned or required that was not a direct result of the traffic or access impacts of a development. 0,-4 200 0 200 Feet 200 0 200 Feet 200 0 200 Feet Ca v.^ : P6AAlAl/lU f gsl 6 Al m 1AI4"'I 7. STUDY SESSION Chair BRINKMAN adjourned the meeting to study session. A. Northwest Fruitdale Circulation Plan: Open discussion between the Commission, the public and staff regarding the need for, and the possible design of a circulation master plan for the area generally bounded by West 44th Avenue on the south, I-70 on the North, Tabor Street on the west and Robb Street on the east. Alan White introduced Council Member Teri Dalbec. He presented the matter and invited questions and discussion about circulation and transportation issues. He cautioned those present against talking about specifics of any development proposals. Questions and comments follow: What Traffic Problems Currently Exist in the Neighborhood? • High volume of traffic on Tabor coming off the I-70 Service Road. • Need for traffic light at 44th and Tabor. It is nearly impossible to turn left onto 44th from Tabor. • Need traffic light at 44th and Robb. This would aid pedestrians crossing 44th to go to Prospect Park. It is difficult to turn left onto 44th from Robb. (Bob Goebel advised that a light at Robb would not meet the federal warrant criteria. It may be possible to have a pedestrian activated light if warrants are met, however.) • 46th and Swadley presents a problem when turning onto Tabor Street. • Need traffic light between cross streets somewhere between Kipling and Tabor to slow traffic on 44th. • Vehicles, including oversized trucks, speed down the hill on Tabor. Speed and vehicle weight limits should be enforced. Some of the speeding vehicles are employees of the car dealership. • Enforce weight restrictions for trucks traveling on 44th Avenue. What Traffic Circulation Problems Currently Exist in the Neighborhood? • Concern about emergency vehicle access. 0 Motorists ignore speed limit and stop signs, especially on Swadley, 46`h, and Tabor. • Future development will worsen traffic on 46th Avenue. If Development Occurs What Additional Problems are Foreseen for the Area and What Existing Problems Will be Made Worse? • Development would cause access from Tabor to 44th and 46th to be more difficult. • Development would increase traffic on 46th. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 4, 1999 ATTACHMENT 3 What Elements of the Street Plan Would Solve Existing or Future Problems and Provide Access to Future Development Parcels? • Make Simms a through street to connect to 46'h and 44`h Avenues. • Widen Tabor between 44th and 46th and install speed bumps. • One of the north/south streets should be made a through street. • Herb Fightmaster offered to give right-of-way for Swadley to go to 44th, but does not want an extension to go through where his driveway presently exists (Simms Street alignment). • Developer could dedicate some right-of-way. • Cul-de-sac in development so there would only be access to 44th Avenue (instead of a cul-de-sac extending south from 46" Avenue). It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner MacDOUGALL that staff review comments made this evening and com Planning Commission on November 18th with suggestions for the propo The motion carried by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner GOKEY absent Chair BRINKMAN closed the study session portion of the meeting and reco regular Planning Commission meeting at 9:20 p.m. 8. COMMISSION REPORTS e back to sed road. nvened the Chair BRINKMAN referred to the deadline of January 30 for individuals to list corrections to the COMPLAN and asked for clarification on this process. Mr. White stated that he was compiling a list of all corrections that staff has received. This list will be presented to City Council. Those that are not accepted by City Council will be addressed through the formal amendment process. Chair BRINKMAN stated that she will attend the next City Council meeting to urge an appointment to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission. 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner MacDOUGALL to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. The motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner GOKEY absent. ~ ~2kvl~rti ANNE BRINKMAN, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 4, 1999 S/Gn/- c.CP Ss~~ET //-y- 99 ReA-NiviNG- CG'M•~i ss.o.✓ PUBLIC FORUM ROSTER November 4, 1999 THIS IS THE TIME FOR ANYONE TO SPEAK ON ANY SUBJECT NOT APPEARING UNDER THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF THE AGENDA. Please print name, address and phone number. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ,c~,~ma' Illo 11 Wy4 -?b6 431-01 3o--S ~ZaZ G S Svc 3 3 Zr-s 303 x{31 ~ti'7~ n fr AC' u<r Y yS 5 fl4~ Sr Ll C6 -1321 G,cLf72 i-~CC,-~'SC~i✓ ~/7.~5/C.~~fl~/i /fir .`~'7 c7 =~~~C~o7~. k[32n ~R~cm 4&3g- POhfs S7 H2o-( 173 !7 114 /Z /j Gr .l 1.-J' ( a_ 61 tai M11 l Gl/~o a-) 46:q- f,)- `-J, 3d3 - q,)6 ~/l ~ CrJ 6 Y-z G t ATTACHMENT 4 9 ,A n/nN/ AJ (5Co1-4 M/ SS/oW PAW /Ge-f N- 9 9 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: eredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Circulation Plan 7~/I✓ OF WHEAT U ~ PLO k OR DATE: October 28, 1999 There has been a lot of discussion regarding Staff's attempts to craft a master plan for traffic circulation in the northwest Fruitdale area, generally bounded by West 44`h Avenue on the south, I-70 on the north, Tabor Street on the west and Robb Street on the east. For the Planning Commission study session, we have decided to use a different strategy - instead of proposing different potential street circulation options, we have decided to start with a clean slate so that there are no accusations of Staff trying to "stack the deck". As such, you are receiving minimal materials - a zoning map and an aerial photo showing existing street right-of- way and existing lot lines. We will have the original six options available at the meeting for discussion purposes along with pros and cons for each. However, we want to stress the point that there are dozens of street scenarios which could be looked at. At a minimum, the discussion should include the following: 1. Are there really circulation problems in the area? 2. What specifically are these problems? 3. Who is being affected by these problems? 4. From the neighborhood perspective, is there a true need for better east/west connections? 5. From the neighborhood perspective, is there a true need for better north/south connections? 6. Can a consensus be reached as to what circulation plan is most preferred by the neighborhood? 7. Will the preferred plan truly serve the needs of the neighborhood, rather than interests of a few individuals? As in any planning process, there are a few assumptions which must be made: 1. No circulation master plan will be perfect - there will always be some negative affects on somebody's land. 2. Existing public streets should be used. 3. Existing public rights-of-way should be used. ATTACHMENT 5 4. The existing standard for local streets should be used (50' of right-of-way width). 5. Any scenario should represent residential development. 6. Any scenario should assume that vacant land will eventually be developed. 7. Where possible, any scenario should allow property to develop independently. In addition to the two maps, attached is a copy of the original attendance sheet from the neighborhood meeting on August 25, 1999. City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Meredith SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Meeting Attendance DATE: September 14, 1999 Attendance the night of the August 25, 1999, meeting included the following: Bob Goebel - city staff Alan White - city staff Steve Nguyen - city staff Chris Cramer - city staff Meredith Reckert - city staff Joan Rimbert - 4665 Swadley Street Ann Keller - 4625 Swadley Street Erma Wray - 4605 Routt Street Pauline Buster - 4614 Routt Street Paulett Fuller - 4615 Routt Street Bene Suazo - 4604 Routt Street J.R. Blumenthal - 4651 Tabor Street Claudia Worth - 4650 Oak Street Lori Brown - 4430 Tabor Street Thea Silz - 11801 W. 44`h Avenue Heinz Silz - 11801 W. 44`h Avenue Jim Waddell - 4765 Simms Street Sally Waddell - 4765 Simms Street George Jorgensen - 4515 Robb Street Diane Mattox - 4515 Robb Street Rita Bader - 4675 Swadley Street Dale Bader - 4675 Swadley Street Dan Turgeon - 2110 Rockcress Jim Turgeon - 706 Elm Circle Joy Moitzfield - 706 Elm Circle Michael Bushell - no address given Phil Larson - 5367 Bristol St. Arthur Bushell - 4683 Swadley Street Corrine Deorio - 7990 Melrose Drive wzne-ne w2-09_3 FID - - 'LnK ~10rrt G9Y~a..' >ve. w, TA80h~aAamc:q / \ 's 5L 'al I~ a~ • ~IQ YET ~ A~ 9 5aTM wz-,~°, = A-1 CAVISH62 MI~R wz a m~ V(slom ISION °_V < NS-9-i5 AMT. T~R-I r LwM T Q- g1 J wAv 8 ^SHUMWAY WESTLAiGE ° B - - _ RC-4 RE-SUB f P5 suP_w-`a m PoO$pEyr - - C- I= PARK P n E -HE ..ii wz-e4-1 j 11 a wz-es-12 )FFICIAL AREA REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL E 2 (70N , G MAP -ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY -PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY UNDRY _ v HEAT RIDGE (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) ,OLOKADO - CITY LIMIT LINE SCALE 1'=400 - WATER FEATURE AP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES ist Revision: April 19, 1999 OFP 4ZG MV XVRaMW-735-1844 W% W %iH AV^c -sue gl = A' ~ w. 4 u44HAE L I A- 1 f' ® AREA REOL' :i 100-YEAR F (APPROMW ZONE D15TR - PARCELAX VF51GNA17E WATER FEA . DENOTES Mt 2852 106A,Vi I A16- C 01-7 M S S O Al/ M //V t 7- s Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern with landscaping and parking issues for residential uses within commercial areas since the commercial districts' regulations are more lenient. In addition, parking may need to be addressed if residency included children. She has concern with the environment that may be created, as well as safety issues with delivery trucks. Commissioner SNOW expressed her concern with density and suggested that staff first define primary and secondary uses in terms of percentage of building. Chair BRINKMAN suggested that we clarify the definition of `2nd floor' and noted that if the 2"d floor contains four or more units, the Fair Housing Act requires that those units be made handicapped accessible. 9. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner THOMPSON discussed the need for standardizing parking standards and eliminating the compact car spaces. Ms Reckert informed that staff could review our existing standards. Commissioner SNOW asked when a joint meeting with the Board of Adjustment would be held. Ms. Reckert noted that staff would check with the Board. Commissioner SNOW suggested that the Planning Commission meet with the Northwest Fruitdale neighborhood to discuss the circulation plan at the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 4. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner SNOW t have a study session with developers, neighbors, and staff involved with the Northwest Fruitdale Circulation Plan at the regular Planning Commission meeting of November for the following reasons: 1. Under state statutes and the City Code, it is the Planning Commission's duty to prepare master plans, including plans for streets and circulation. 2. The circulation problem in the area involves more than just the one property under consideration for subdivision. 3. It is inappropriate for the property owner to make decisions about right-of-way which may affect other property over which he has no control. 4. It is appropriate for a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the circulation in the area before City Council hears the subdivision project. 0 4 The motion unanimously carried with Commissioner COLLINS and Vice Chair GOKEY ATTACHMENT absent. Mr. White will prepare and forward a memo to the City Council informing them of the Commission's action. Planning Commission Page 6 October 7 1999 e--IY / G0uA-1G1(- 9 - z=7 -5'9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Municipal Building September 27. 1999 The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Cerveny at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Teri Dalbec, Jerry DiTullio, Lloyd Donnelly, Don Eafanti, Ralph Mancinelli, Janelle Shaver, Ken Siler, and Claudia Worth. Also present: City Clerk, Wanda Sang; City Treasurer, Ron Patera; Acting City Manager, Bob Goebel; for City Attorney, Gerald Dah, Maureen Juran; Director of Parks & Recreation, Gary Wardle; Director of Planning, Alan White; staff; and interested citizens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 13, 1999 Motion by Mr. Eafanti for the approval of the Minutes of September 13, 1999; seconded by Mr Mancinelli; carried 7-0. Motion by Mr. Eafantii for the approval of the Minutes for the Special Meeting of September 23, 1999; seconded by Mr. Mancinelli; carried 8-0. - PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES Mayor read the Proclamation for Wheat Ridge United Methodist Church 1874 - 1999. She also read Proclamation for National Walk Our Children To School Day. CITIZENS' RIGHTS TO SPEAK Odarka Figlus, 9775 West 36" Avenue, reminded Council and the citizens of Wheat Ridge that October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Motion by Mr. DiTullio that $100.00 be allocated from the Council travel budget to pay for a pink ribbon to be displayed at City Hall to promote Breast Cancer Awareness and Prevention in October; seconded by Mrs. Dalbec; carried 8-0. Motion by Mr. Slier to postpone Agenda Item 3, Council Bill 17, to December 13, 1999 in order to obtain further information on that subject; seconded by Mr. Donnelly; carried 8-0. Motion by Mr. Siler to make Agenda Item 10, a new Agenda Item 3, since it should be placed under public hearings and was inadvertently put in the wrong space. on the Agenda; seconded by Mr. Mancinelli. ATTACHMENT 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: September 27, 1999 Page - 2 - Motion by Mrs. Dalbec to amend Mr. Siler's motion to postpone Item 10.to December 13, 1999 or sooner, as soon as we have a resolution to the street plan in that area; seconded by Mr. Siler, carried 8-0. Motion as amended carried 8-0. Mr. Siler moved to add a new Agenda Item 10 that the City extend invitations to selected City Manager candidates for face to face interviews in October; seconded by Mr. Donnelly; carried 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. Public Input on 2000 Budget. There was no one present to speak. Item 2. Council Bill 29 - An Ordinance regarding required vaccinations for dogs and cats Council Bill 29 was introduced on second reading by Mr. DiTullio, who also read the title and summary; Clerk assigned Ordinance No. 1174. Motion by Mr. DiTullio for approval of Council Bill 29 (Ordinance 1174) and I further move that the letter* from the Wheat Ridge Animal Control be included in the Minutes; seconded by Mr. Eafanti; carried 7-1 with Mr. Mancinelli voting no.-*Letter is attached to these Minutes. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Item 4. Council Bill 20- An Ordinance approving demolition of a municipally owned building located at 9120 W. 44`h Ave. Council Bill 20 was introduced on first reading by Mr. DiTullio, who also read the title and summary. Motion by Mr. DiTullio that Council Bill 20 be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, October 11, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second reading, take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mr. Eafanti. Motion by Mrs. Worth to amend that under the second WHEREAS, it read "Whereas the City council wishes to dispose of a City-owned building for the purpose of providing a view for the Skateboard Park to be moved behind the 7-11. That under Section 1. Last sentence, be added "for the sole purpose of providing a view of the Skateboard Park"; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 7-1 with Mr. Donnelly voting no. C/T"/ ddli~/c/c MiNU~s 9 -70-99 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO UI 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Municipal Building September 20, 1999 The City Council Study Session was called to o Q R P 9- order by Mayor Cerveny at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Don Eafanti, Claudia Worth, Ken Siler, Lloyd Donnelly, Janelle Shaver, Teri Dalbec, Jerry DiTullio and Ralph Mancinelli. Also present: City Clerk, Wanda Sang; City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; Acting City Manager, Robert Goebel; Chief of Police, Jack Hurst; staff; and interested citizens. Item 1. Traffic study (vicinity of 44th & Simms). Mr. Goebel opened the discussion regarding the potential for development of vacant land. Meredith Reckert's Memorandum dated September 13, 1999 with Exhibits was reviewed in detail. Consensus 5-3 to review Option 1 & 2. Consensus 5-4 (Mayor voted yes) to review Option 5 & 6. George Jorgensen, 4515 Robb St., does not want any development and he believes every option has a negative effect on his property. Diane Mattox, 4515 Robb St., does not want any development to happen. Consensus 8-0 to continue for another 30 minutes on this agenda item. Kim Stewart, 11700 W. 46th Ave., agrees with the above speakers and asked Council to consider the property owners. Lynn Fightmaster, 4455 Simms, stated that Option 4 would directly affect him and that there would be additional heavy traffic at the RV Park. Consensus 6-2 to bring Mrs. Worth's proposal (new option which includes a right of way/easement for cul-de-sac from Tabor to the center'of their property) to City Council on Monday, September 27, ,999, meeting. .Item 2. Compensation for elected officials. Consensus 5-3 to take a five minute break. Consensus 8-0 that Janelle Shaver be the NLC delegate on December 4, 1999 in Los Angeles. Mr. Dahl opened the discussion on agenda Item 2. WHEq ATTACHMENT 8 STUDY SESSION MINUTES: September 20, 1999 PAGE -2- Consensus 6-2 for next term Council members to earn $500.00 per month Mrs. Dalbec asked for an amendment to the Consensus that there be a 3.5o increase allowance for Market Adjustment for each of the remaining years of the 4 year term based on the current year base not on the original $500.00. Amendment failed 1-7. Mr. Siler asked for an amendment to state that any Elected Official may decline any or all compensation in writing after an election. Amendment carried 7-1. Consensus 1-7 that the option not to accept monetary payment for serving as a Councilmember can only be exercised for the elected official's full term. Consensus 8-0 that the Clerk and Treasurer (effective November 2, ' 1999) receive $33,000 per year for two years; then the 3zd year compensation increases to $37,000 for two years. . Item 3. City Attorney brief on face to face interview process for City Manager. Item 4. City Attorney structure of City manager visits for interview. Consensus 7-1 to combine Item 3 and Item 4. Consensus 8-0 to meet on Thursday, September 23`d and Tuesday, September 28th if needed. Consensus 6-2 to schedule October 18th for City Manager meeting. Consensus 8-0 to approve the City Manager Interview schedule. Mrs. Dalbec asked that the November election issues be put on the scroll and internet. Mrs. Shaver asked for a copy of the subcommittee's vision statement. Consensus 8 in favor to adjourn meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 10 Y, Wanda Sang,' City~rk PA C KFT To e a e o c~ ~cr Got 9 - Zr) - 9 9 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Wtvieredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Traffic Circulation Study DATE: September 13, 1999 On August 25, 1999, a public meeting was held at the Quality inn at 12200 W. 44 ' Avenue to receive input from the local community regarding circulation in the neighborhood bordered generally by West 44ffi Avenue on the south, I-70 on the north, Tabor Street on the west and Robb Street on the east. Presently, this neighborhood suffers from poor circulation of traffic. We anticipate that development of available lands will occur in the future. The purpose of this meeting was to solicit input from the neighborhood on what they would like to see in the future and to allow them to be a part of the further development of their neighborhood. Letters of meeting notification were sent to 134 addresses. Attached as Exhibit `A' is a list of the attendees. Six design options imposed over existing aerial photos were presented to the attendees. The options showed existing lot lines, existing streets and rights-of-way and potential connections between the existing streets. Some options showed east/west connections or north/south connections and some had both. All of the options allowed existing vacant land to develop. Pros and cons generated by staff were also presented for each design option. Individual comments made regarding the different options were given to the staff representatives which have been included as Exhibit `B' of this report. After the attendees had a chance to review the design options, a consensus was sought regarding the preferred options. The majority of the neighbors supported option 3 with a lesser number supporting option 4. See the attached design scenarios for options 3 and 4, including pros and cons generated by staff. There was also support for a "do nothing" scenario. Staff believes this is unrealistic as we need to recognize the ability of individual property owners to develop. Staff would also point out that in both design options 3 and 4, the street connections will probably happen incrementally; that is, as individual properties develop. Prior to the meeting, a written response was submitted and has been included as Exhibit `C'. One phone call was received from Betty Day, owner of 4700 - 4710 Robb Street, who could not attend the meeting. She indicated that she didn't think her property would be impacted. ATTACHMENT 9 The Planning and Development and Public Works staff support option #3 over option #4 for the following reasons: -It received the most support from the neighborhood. -It lends itself well to incremental development. -It promotes east-west connectivity to existing accesses to 44`~ Avenue, rather than north/south connectivity. -It de-emphasizes cut-through traffic -It will allow the neighborhood to access 44 ° Avenue more safely at Tabor Street which will eventually become a signalized intersection. City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Meredith SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Meeting Attendance DATE: September 14, 1999 Attendance the night of the August 25, 1999, meeting included the following: Bob Goebel - city staff Alan White - city staff Steve Nguyen - city staff Chris Cramer - city staff Meredith Reckert - city staff Joan Rimbert - 4665 Swadley Street Ann Keller - 4625 Swadley Street Erma Wray - 4605 Routt Street Pauline Bustor - 4614 Routt Street Paulett Fuller - 4615 Routt Street Bene Suazo - 4604 Routt Street J.R. Blumenthal - 4651 Tabor Street Claudia Worth - 4650 Oak Street Lori Brown - 4430 Tabor Street Thea Silz - 11801 W. 44`s Avenue Heinz Silz - 11801 W. 44 s Avenue Jim Waddell - 4765 Simms Street Sally Waddell - 4765 Simms Street George Jorgensen - 4515 Robb Street Diane Mattox - 4515 Robb Street Rita Bader - 4675 Swadley Street Dale Bader - 4675 Swadley Street Dan Turgeon - 2110 Rockcress Jim Turgeon - 706 Elm Circle Joy Moitzfield - 706 Elm Circle Michael Bushell - no address given Phil Larson - 5367 Bristol St. Arthur Bushell - 4683 Swadley Street Corrine Deorio - 7990 Melrose Drive EXHIBIT A City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Traffic Circulation DATE: September 8, 1999 The following were comments generated from the meeting held on August 25, 1999. Options 1 and 2: Residents on Routt do not support a connection between Routt and Robb - Worried about increased traffic in neighborhood Increased truck traffic through neighborhood - Signage on Swadley has forced trucks onto Robb Don't like the Simms Street connection No pedestrian light at Robb and 44`h (for kids going to park) High speeds on Robb and Tabor Difficult to enter 44`h Avenue from Robb and Tabor Support for "semi-rural" Some like the east/west connection Problems with emergency access People on Simms would like additional ways out of the neighborhood (both east/west and north/south) but do not want "straight shot" through from West 44'h Avenue . School bus stops at Simms and frontage road - bad sight distance because of curve Commercial owner on Tabor supports widening with signalized light installed Options 3 and 4: Do not support any connection to Robb (through 4515 Robb) Simms resident (4765 Simms) likes 3 because of the way it distributes traffic Simms resident (4765 Simms) likes 4 because of the connection to 44`h because it jogs and prevents speeding - visual barrier of thru-street - Options to enter/exit neighborhood. Overall, likes 4 better than 3 4625 Swadley would like both north/south and east/west connection for emergency services 4675 Swadley prefers 3 Wants both north/south and east/west connection since it will spread out traffic in the neighborhood No straight-thru Simms because of increased speeds EXHIBIT B On either east/west or north/south connections, they should not be straight because of increased speeds Options 5 and 6: Fire access - Need through access from Tabor to Robb via 46`h Avenue - fire response is from station on W. 52ne Avenue Need signal at 44 h and Tabor Speeding on frontage road to Swadley - need speed bump - replace arrow at curve Cul-de-sacs create dead-ends - through street would disperse traffic Some owners oppose 46`h Avenue connection - move it south North/south connection to 44`h is bad because there is no turn lane Commercial development would be preferable to residential, especially multi-family Need north/south and east/west connections - neither 5 nor 6 are good Don't displace anybody to build roads 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 FAX 303/235-2857 August 16, 1999 The City of `NHEA Wheat Ridge U m OL RN Dear Property owner or area resident The City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Traffic Divisions need your help. Over the years, city etafF has he--d a yariet, of rnnremc expressed regarding. traffic problems and poor circulation in the 44' Avenue/Tabor Street vicinity. Recognizing these concerns, staff is in the process of studying the area to identify existing problems and to come up with solutions to these problems. The study area is bounded generally by West 44' Avenue on the south, I-70 on the north, Tabor Street on the west and Robb Street on the east. If you live or own property in the northwest Fruitdale Valley area, please try to attend this meeting. The meeting will be held at the Quality Inn at 12100 W. 44'h Avenue on Wednesday, August 25, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This will not be a public hearing. We will not be discussing pending land use or zoning cases. We will be discussing existing traffic and circulation conditions and problems and potential solutions to these problems. For more information, please contact me at 303-235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert Senior Planner MR// ,2,1 ZI 'r, ~14 ell aA4U~ ffWJ-;t EXHIBIT C OPTION #3 PROS: ❑ East/west connection ❑ No new connection to 44th Ave. ❑ Access to Robb allows another outlet for the neighborhood ❑ Traffic directed to existing intersections on 44th Ave. ❑ Traffic dispersed between Swadley and Simms ❑ Curve in east/west connection slows traffic down ❑ Parcels can develop independently ❑ Increased traffic on Tabor creates potential for signalization ❑ No double-fronted lots OPTION #3 CONS: ❑ No north/south connection ❑ A great deal of pavement ❑ Increased congestion at 44t`'/Tabor intersection ❑ Increased congestion at 46th/Tabor intersection ❑ Increased traffic on Robb ❑ One triple-fronted lot .n OPTION #4 PROS: ❑ Access to 44th Ave. allows another outlet for the neighborhood ❑ Relieves congestion at 46th/Tabor ❑ Relieves congestion at 44tt'/Tabor ❑ Jog in Simms Street slows down traffic ❑ North/south connection ❑ Traffic dispersed between Swadley and Simms ❑ No double-fronted lots OPTION #4 CONS: ❑ Will create a traffic conflicts on 44th Ave. (no turn-lane on 44th Ave.) ❑ Simms Street is too close to existing houses ❑ Potential cut-through traffic through neighborhood ❑ No east/west connection ❑ One triple-fronted lot ❑ Increased traffic volume in neighborhood ❑ Increased traffic on Robb ❑ Parcels can't develop independently SD9,] - - + + B tea,, 1E x .E RD D L, n z r MINES VA 6Tx MONTE EFOR ' ITT 11 T F 11 THAN U ID I 'HER , ANAGO e '2 e" . °r "PRIG, mxc w ° A to REWl _ : srAa F ET 1. 3. 5 OR Ess 11 P.D 4 n x R \ i xm .1 9, E m p 5' x(tr~ilAUF4[m r5T _ _t>5 ~I 1 6q i r x. A5 - , 6.6 x[6~- g / SUN. DROSS K1E11J , 6.33 VCp VFi) - o I - A, sF4[m OEtFmiDN BONS EASEMENT > _ I -a s€E xaFS A' THr ag , . 1,.Sm sow rx.u SDn J k I I LE - A t., H LET IT A 1 R AT" A. , N ~ ~ E I TRAIN IT I II • x x L . , , " f C J 1 A." A R E C S 1 L S ES H11.1111 . LL IT GO, DART .1 1.1 1 A-, 11.1114 IF OT 1 P R - I J S g , c . g EASExEM PE111THII OHE NANNIxl 0 1- FAA I, DO TURNER i.'_ _ Ri ON THIIIN . LxE ]R O L 11 MA 11DIIHOM 1, 1,11 FIAT / _ 509 µCSi ST AVENUE Z MEN 8 6 - AT .O - Ar - c) r Rnr R4 1 R0 INEFFIG Itl DIANE P OLL SUDAN, ANGLE 1 cx.e0 RS .a 11 , LS➢ o z 6z 1zs' r Y ~ A ts liar oa' :~D'orE m + ~ D . s '1D' um x . _ A C NO rA tT .500 }].6] r5U6' 3t.36 x AS a )SW V.E BNATURD glANTE ODCALL u v0 A A GTE I IT LINE e E Lx x.,A r6W iTO IS ' xW, M) 1 1.1 - ~ A RED '164 D r)'E. SADS - 11. ",A "I IN 1, 11 A, i LIDED, z5b Lt] GO gyp 08 T .,:,A D,FHN EAS A ED Lr] 0C c RcA [ z1 50 R B xvF + - - J/ _ 5-6Yxx'r6W _ DIN S. L5 11211 "All I ~ I- -I FIGHTME A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST A GoanON OF THE NORTHEAST C`LE_CLIe` t M. THEIR' I "REEPARAIDED O I'S HINSEN I'D INSTRIM l OF TIE REAL PRONNEztcr°015`,0. ".c4rs crs FeoED AS HOLLOS AN, 4'. GILGIT, c"ED' STRA" ElIl I" IN FLAT U'P ;HE Rcoxos a IN, FEIEHAD, ADEEr+n IN x] L OF wx41 RIDGE, xEN6.i .1 EAST OxpoW[ L 3 THE LM 651 n EAS x RHAI'llRTA, ALONG LINE I s"u4 D THRI TG DMI- 11 D r°NE Taxi A°a r REi NA TO C'O' FOU"A" "FAIR OF NAL "EGGS HERE, FIANNANI LAII FARE To "zoMirrHEE`WO1 VNIST 5 'A 'G AND xGEASIS "aRINED.6xu1r~it'ti'Erxfl I IT IT"" 11 ATHILIf o¢wleiD AN REDE=nox pw sT O III All LDUmv RLLOAD541 0 NIE S.OVA9A]'E. ♦ SDT Tt' STRIPE 'ED EE' TO HE AOF DESCRIED 11 AICILITHEI IIIIIIUM OF T~'ESIIIIIAIFDN 1. LONG TE' THE OF "I" DRONES A DISTANCE T51 OF IT' IF E FAILED A[ E LE ° D TO THE SOURNHEST OF A TO A. POINT ON THE WEST ED E D 0 11. MEN SOLUTE" LKOE SUTO INTANCE F OF L ]x],.OT. FEE .EEO TOTHE SOUTH SLUGGISH OR ARRANGEMENTS NOTE Al THE SUMMER THEREFORE HASCI IRE ARGE DOLE.... AND END ART D. 1. PURDTFARTIAD .1 HISTALL11 -IN I- TO, G, HE PARENT AFTER RARE DEGGANNE THE SELL INELLOTH OF SUP 11 1" THE OFFER AND SENTALL MOMENT TO THIS' DILL. ITHATILL PEI"' TIE I "D P THE ORTH E AND ASSIGNS LMMS LIMITED RIGHTS AND ARMED TO. 'NO HALF AMOUNT OuLN 'HUGE ADDS INDICATED AN 011 ALLC15/ FRALL MEEOw OuERS. ~x0 PGDT SUCH GRANT OF &FALLS!vRED S ILL rROU<5".ULUM1or :o "DATE LIODE`onusEu TT c PEn Em p / 0 STREETS SRI l >2cDOrDrv-r~roLZrzr- Z[-vrE¢ ATT' IF .11. THIT" 1111, I "I INA NODE [D w DA FLOOR, CO ..FIT AT W I'D,) Vt EttU U03) A] 0 to ITII 42. Srtir TIM IMRIPa rttr EUE ED AOGE DO GR1)1 m AZ. 106, 0." I6, 4]A. .OF, or ....EPSON . FEE C.. i TV THE FORGOAND INSTRUMENT MAPS riUrvW IMF L. rrymuASTER AID HANL1 ISO UE? OERTAS TRADE . x- vTT"CD-111. TARrIFF uFTAR, RxSLL VICINITY MAP iee\ .AGE I I D- «DYs s j ]JS IONAID HE LANE U , .11o, s.]- FFNINTAINGIF" ED DE15 II 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE F.O. BOX 638 The City of WHEAT RIDGE. CO 8003-6533 x,303) 23-5900 cWheat City Admin. Fax 234-593 Police Deot. Pax = 235-2949 GRidge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARING DATE: 2 '71 / jr i If I" j a 7 ~ i n a m e residing at Y' (rD (a d d r e s as the applicant for Case No. hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at 6 / z1 r~ C~ 7 Z: /7 (1 o c a t i o n) -7 00 (.9 on this _ day of Ampo T -a 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 e public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Department of Planning and Development. 1 <pc>postingi,-- rev. 05-19-5 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 FAX 303/235-2857 December 23, 1999 Dear Property Owner: The City of Wheat Ridge This is to inform you that Case No. WS-99-01 a request for approval of a nine lot subdivision and site plan review for the purpose of constructing 16 town home type units for property located at 11680 W. 46" Avenue and 11661 W. 44" Avenue and Case No. Wv-99-03 a request for approval of a right-of-way vacation for an unused portion of street right-of-way adjacent to 4455 Simms Street will be heard by the Wheat Ridge City Council in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on January 24, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. All owners and/or their legal representative of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing. 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 person whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C:\Bubua\CCRPTS\PUBNOTIC\ws9901-wv9903 pub84.wpd Ms. Joyce Monfort or Kim Ms. Lynn Fightmaster Ms. Glendene Fightmaster Stewart 4455 Simms St. 11641 W. 44th Avenue 11700 W. 46th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mr. Brian Klepacki 6470 W. 74th Avenue Arvada, CO 80003 Mr. Douglas Williams 13394 Braun Road Golden, CO 80401 Mr. Jerrold or Lorraine Brown 4430 Tabor Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Ms. Nancy Fightmaster 4455 Simms Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mr. Robert Mattox 3390 W. 55th Avenue Denver, CO 80221 Ms. Helen Gurlick 4601 Robb Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mr. Thomas Shockley 11605 W. 46th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Richard Rodriquez 1700 Lincoln Street., #4100 Denver, CO, Mr. Arthur Gabriel 7753 Arlington Drive Boulder, CO 80303 Dan Turgeon 11641 W. 44th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge CITY COUNCIL on January 24, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak on the following subject or submit written comments. The following shall be heard: 1. Case No. WS-99-01: An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et.al, for approval of a nine lot subdivision and site plan review for the purpose of constructing 16 town home type units on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. Said property is zoned R-3 and located at 11680 West 46'h Avenue and 11661 West 44`h Avenue and legally described as follows: Being a portion of Lot 14, lee's Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of the east half of Lot 14, marked by a pin with an illegible cap; thence east along the north line of said Lot 14 a distance of 155.37 feet to a point from whence the northeast corner of said Lot 14, marked by a'/2 inch galvanized pipe, is a distance of 175.64 feet; thence on an angle to the right of 90 degrees 18 minutes 05 seconds, a distance of 328.94 feet; thence on an angle to the right of 89 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds, a distance of 155.49 feet to the intersection with the west line of the east half of Lot 14; thence on an angle to the right of 90 degrees 20 minutes 11 seconds and along said west line, a distance of 328.98 feet to the point of beginning. 2. Community Development Block Grant: The City of Wheat Ridge City Council will consider the applications received for the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The City Council will approve a list of projects for funding in 2000. 3. Case No. WPA-99-01: An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the City which establishes the development goals and policies, and the future land use map. ~XF0.~Y4RCO`~~~C~c~ao40I ~\L Barbara Delgadillo, ording Secretary ATTEST:! Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: January 7, 2000 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Telephone 303/ 235-2868 Ridge FAX 303/235-2857 January 21, 1999 Ms. Dianne Mattox 4515 Robb Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Re: Fightmaster Subdivision (Revision of Lot 14 of Lee's Subdivision), West 46`h Avenue & Simms Court - City Response To Citizen Drainage Concerns Dear Ms. Mattox, Thank you for the list of concerns you submitted to me on January 18, 2000 as a result of your review of the latest final drainage report for the above referenced project. For the purpose of clarification, the City's responses to these concerns have been itemized in conjunction with the order of your comments made in that specific section of the final drainage report: Page 1 - Section 1.2 - Site Description Paragraph 2 1. Citizen Concern: questions the report statement, "There are irrigation ditches on adjacent properties to the north, west and east." 2. Citizen Concern: questions the report statement,"natural drainage is cut off by the off-site irrigation ditches", by stating, "False statement. Explain please." City Response: The project's civil engineer-of-record, Mr. John Griffith, P.E. who prepared the final drainage report, is to be contacted in order to verify the accuracy of these statements. The irrigation ditch which crosses Simms Street right-of-way prevents or "cuts off' the natural drainage from proceeding to the north end of Simms Street to the catch basin. The report does not state that the ditch "intercepts" the runoff. Paragraph 3 1. Citizen Concern: questions the report statement," There is also an inlet that discharges into an irrigation ditch on the north end of Simms Street at I-70, approximately 660 feet north of the site", by stating, "This is a carrier ditch and not an irrigation ditch." Ms. Dianne Mattox 4515 Robb Street Page 2 City Response: The engineer-of-record is to be contacted to correct the specific type of ditch referenced. In either case, the ditch conveys storm water. Pages 1 & 2 - Section 1.4 - Previous Studies and Reports 1. Citizen Concern: questions the report statement, "There are no previous drainage studies or reports addressing flood hazards or drainage conditions relevant to this site," by stating, "why do we get flooded - Mr. Goble has seen the conditions V hand." City Response: the context of the statement is consistent with the discussion typically required for this section in a final drainage report. It is confirming the existence, or non-existence of a final drainage report or reports which provide a source of reference. Also, the City constructed a storm sewer system to convey storm water off of 4515 Robb Street which primarily originates from the developed subdivision to the south. Page 2 - Section 2.2 - Sub-basin and Site Drainage 1. Citizen Concern: questions the report statement, "Runoff from the north %2 of the site (Lots 4 through 9) flows overland to the northeast corner at 46th Avenue and Simms Street (extended)," by stating, "Need exact definition." City Response: The engineer-of-record is to be contacted to remove "extended" from this statement. The context of this statement is to provide as concise a location as possible regarding the direction of flow. In addition this statement is to be revised to reflect the revised grading configuration of the latest design. 2. Citizen Concern: questions the report statement, "There is no evidence that runoff from the site has historically caused problems on any adjacent properties despite the fact that there is no outlet at the end of 46'h Avenue," by stating, "Then why did the City install a dry well on our property to help with the flood waters from the west." City Response: The placement of the dry well by the City was to try and accommodate those historic flows that are the product of a broad area of land, and is not site specific to the subdivision in question. In addition, the context of the statement is consistent with the discussion typically required for this section in a final drainage report. Ms. Dianne Mattox 4515 Robb Street Page 3 he information provided clarifies your concerns. If you have any questions, please do not to contact n(e at 303-235-2863. City Engineer .A. cc: Robert Goebel, Public Works Director Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner John Griffith, P.E., Project Civil Engineer Jim Turgeon, Developer - Custom Craft Homes File (3) fightmasted.ltr 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Telephone 303/ 235-2868 Ridge FAX 303/235-2857 December 21, 1999 Mr. John Griffith, P.E. 11285 Brownstone Drive Parker, Colorado 80134 Re: Fightmaster Subdivision (Revision of Lot 14, Lee's Subdivision), West 46th Avenue & Simms Court - Second Review Comments of Final Drainage Study & Plan Dear Mr. Griffith, I have completed the second review of the above referenced documents for the Fightmaster Subdivision received on December 17, 1999, and have the following comments: Drainage Study (Discussion & Appendix) 1. Reviewed with no comments at this time. Drainage Plan(s) Sheet 1 of 2 1. Please note all surface types of the site including the proposed retention pond. 2. Please verify the type and extent of material to be placed within the retention pond basin which will meet the percolation rates calculated in the drainage report. 3. Please provide a concise detail of the proposed inlet/pipe/ headwall drainage structure. 4. Please note type and limits of erosion protection from pipe outlet in retention pond. 5. Please include City's standard inlet detail as provided. 6. Please confirm high point at Simms Court, W. 46th Avenue intersection. 7. Please confirm that the site's proposed perimeter swale flows Can be appropriately conveyed to the retention pond. 8. Please provide additional flow arrow designations as needed. Mr. John Griffith, P.E. Page 2 9. The required erosion control measures and notes can be included on the drainage plan and noted. Sheet 2 of 2 1. Please note the proposed retention pond surface/material types as needed on cross section D. 2. Please clarify correct maximum ponding depth between cross section E of 0.96' and sheet 1 noting a depth of 0.50'. Please provide 2 signed and stamped sets of the drainage/erosion control plan set with the third submittal. Street Construction Drawings 1. Revised standard, engineered plan and profile street construction drawings have not been received for review as of this date for the required public improvements that will need to be constructed to complete the Simms Court public improvements. Subdivision Plat 1. Document in the process of being reviewed. Any questions related to these plat corrections can be addressed to Mr. John McGuire, P.L.S. at 303-235-2858. Subdivision Improvement Agreement Upon City Council approval of the Final Plat, a Subdivision Improvement Agreement will need to be executed by the project owner/developer. For the developer/owner's information and review, a sample copy of this agreement is provided. Application for Minor Dumping/Landfill Permit Prior to the commencement of any onsite grading, an Application for Dumping/Landfill Permit, along with fees due will need to be submitted for review and approval. For your information and submittal in the second review package, a copy of this permit is provided. Mr. John Griffith, P.E. Page 3 Traffic Engineering A copy of the Simms Court construction plans have been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, Mr. Steve Nguyen, P.E., 303-235-2862 with the following no comments noted: 1. The previous traffic study submitted for this location is still considered valid since it is still within a two-year time frame, and traffic conditions have not changed significantly Public Improvements Cost Estimate & Guarantee Prior to any construction commencing for the required public improvements within the Street right-of-way, an itemized engineer's cost estimate will need to be submitted for review and approval. Upon acceptance of this estimate, a letter of credit reflecting total costs of the approved cost estimate plus 25%, will need to be submitted by the owner/developer for review and approval. Right-of-Way Construction Permit(s)/Licensing Prior to any construction of the public improvements, the necessary right-of-way construction permit(s) and respective licensing will need to be submitted for processing by the City. Please return all red-lined prints with the third submittal. If you have any questions, please contact me at 303-235-2868. Sincerely, Greg Knudson, M.P.A. Development Review Engineer cc: Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer John McGuire, City Surveyor Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner File (3) fightmaster2.1tr PWREVIEW.LTR wux-~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Municipal Building December 20. 1999 The Regular City Council was called to order by Mayor Cerveny at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Harry Hanley, Jerry DiTullio, Vance Edwards, Odarka Figlus, Ralph Mancinelli, Janelle Shaver, and Claudia Worth. Ken Siler was absent due to illness. Also present: Deputy City Clerk, Christa Jones; City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; Director of Parks & Recreation, Gary Wardle; Director of Planning, Alan White; Chief of Police/Acting City Manager, Jack Hurst; Director of Public Works, Bob Goebel; staff; and interested citizens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 13, 1999 Motion by Mr. DiTullio for approval of the Minutes of December 13, 1999 with corrections on Pages 5 and 6; seconded by Ms. Figlus; carried 7-0. CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK Anne Brinkman, 7420 West 34`n Avenue, asked if Council plans to keep the barn on the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center site and feels there should be a long range plan for the barn. (Mrs. Worth explained that Council had taken a motion to keep the building) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. Council Bill 17 - an Ordinance vacating an unused portion of public right-of-way for a portion of Simms Street (adjacent to 4455 Simms Street) within the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. (Case No. WV-99-03) (Case No. WS-99-01) (Jim Turgeon, et. al.) (To be continued to January 24, 2000) Item 1 was introduced by Mr. DiTutlio, who also read the title. Motion by Mr. DiTullio that the second reading of Council Bill 17 be continued to Monday, January 24, 2000, and further move that the public hearing for Case No. WS-99-01 and Case No. WV-99-03 be continued to January 24, 2000, so that the drainage report can be finalized; seconded by Mr. Edwards; carried 7-0. aflxn�• i r2AFT QUASI-JUDICIAL _X Yes No X PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY ADM. MATTERS ELEC, OFFICIALS MATTERS PROC./CEREMONIES CITY ATTY. MATTERS ORDINANCES FOR I ST READING BIDS/MOTIONS LIQUOR HEARINGS X ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING INFORMATION ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: C.B. 17, An ordinance vacating an unused portion of public right-of-way for a portion of Simms St. (adjacent to 4455 Simms St.) within the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado (Case No. WV-99-03) and public hearing Case No. IWS-99-01 q i'I I N I I � I I I � I �I I I � I! I � I II] 11111�11 ATTACHMENTS: 1) X.Reckert memo dated 12 BUDGETED ITEM: Yes No am#_ "I move that second reading of Council Bill 17 be continued to Monday, January 24, 2000, and further move that the public hearing for Case No. WS-99-01 be continued to January 24, 2000, so that the drainage report can be finalized." C: OarbaraVCCRPTSVws9901-wv9903cont inue, wpd City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03 DATE: December 14, 1999 Staff is recommending a continuance of Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03 (Turgeon, et.al.) Because the drainage report has still not been finalized. Staff recommends continuance of both cases until January 24, 2000. S8e Details Fgntmaster SutdNislon Lola 4, 5, 8, 7, 8 A9 FMeen Foot sell from all property floes. Thirty Foot set-rack Born cuwa-sam 20' Driveway Easement Detention Pond 42X 91' 18' Guest Parking In from of each two car garage Site Statistics Total Foundations 32,010 S.F. 29.4% Total Driveways 17,480 S.F. 16.1% Total Landscape 45,023 S.F. 41.4% Simms Court 14,309 SF, 13.1% Total She 108,822 S.F. 100 Foundation 5,218 S.F. 34.5% Driveways 1,954 S.F. 12.9% Landscape 7,985 S.F. 52.8% Total Lot 8 15,137 S.F. 100% Foundation 5,218 S.F. 34.3% Driveways 1,954 S.F. 12.8% Landscape 8,047 S.F. 52.9% Total Lot 7 15,219 S.F. 100% Foundation 4,230 S.F. 31.7% Driveways 2,384 S.F. 17.9% Landscape 8,738 S.F. 50.4% N Total Lot 5 13,352 S.F. 100% Foundation 4,230 S.F. 31.7% Driveways 2,384 S.F. 17.9% Landscape 8,711 S.F. 50.4% Total Lot 8 13,325 S.F. 100% Foundation 8,557 S.F. 35.0% Driveways 4,402 S.F. 23.5% Landscape 7,783 S.F. 41.5% Total Lot 9 18,742 S.F. 100% Foundation 8,557 S.F. 35.0% Driveways 4,402 S.F. 23.5% Landscape 7,779 S.F. 41.5% Total Lot 4 18,738 S.F. 100% WEST 48TH AVENUE W R*M-0F-WAY IZl OS FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FIGHTMASTER SUBDIVISION (A Revision of LOT 14, LEE'S SUBDIVISION) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO j Prepared for: Mr. James Turgeon Custom Craft Homes, Inc. f f RECD {1 9 1 ~ 12 Prepared by: J. S. Griffith, P.E. 11285 Brownstone Drive i Parker, Colorado 80134 December 16, 1999 1 Ref: 96106 ctz o • Ja 4 1 ~ j - ~'3'~ S ,b rcra D ~o FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FIGHTMASTER SUBDIVISION (Revision of LOT 14, LEE'S SUBDIVISION) TABLE OF CONTENTS LO INTRODUCTION page 1.1 Location 1 1.2 Site Description 1 1.3 Proposed Project 1 1.4 Previous Studies and Reports. 1 2.0 111STORIC DRAINAGE SYSTEM 2.1 Major Basins 2 2.2 Sub-basin and Site Drainage 2 3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3.1 Criteria _ 3 3.2 Runoff 3 3.3 Retention 4 3.4 Streets 4 3.5 Storm Sewers 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Impacts of Improvements 5 4.2 Compliance 5 APPENDIX Drawing - Drainage Plan 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Location The project is a 5.0-acre site located between West 44th Avenue and West 46th Avenue on the west side of Simms Street extended. It is in the northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th Principle Meridian, within the City of Wheat Ridge in Jefferson County, Colorado. See the Vicinity Map on the Drainage Plan. Surrounding property consists of single family residential homes on the north, west and south, and an equestrian ranch several acres in size on the east. 1.2 Site Description The site is rectangular, approximately 665 feet by 330 feet, encompassing 5.0 acres more or less. The topography slopes uniformly and gently at 0.7% from west to east. Having been used at one time for a nursery, there are large deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs on the site as well as grass, weeds and a large pile of dead wood. The site is currently has 3 existing residential structures on the south and two fourplex units facing 46th Avenue on the north. There are irrigation ditches on adjacent properties to the north, west and east. The site currently drains to the northeast corner and into the 46th Avenue right-of--way where natural drainage is cut off by the off-site irrigation ditches. Although the Clear Creek alluvium underlies the site, there are no regulated floodplains on the site or nearby. The nearest storm drainage system is a minor storm sewer within 44th Avenue. There is also an inlet that discharges into an irrigation ditch on the north end of Simms Street at I-70, approximately 660 feet north of the site. Runoff in 46th Avenue presently has no outlet at Simms Street (extended), and simply infiltrates or evaporates. Despite having no outlet, there is no evidence of ponding at the end of 46th Avenue and no record of chronic flooding problems at this location. 1.3 Proposed Project The proposed project is a multi-family development consisting of 6 multi-family units on six lots on the northern 2.5 acres of the site. The southern 2.5 acres will remain unchanged. Two fourplex units have already been constructed on two lots facing 46th Avenue. Part of a future street or cul-de-sac (Simms Court) has been constructed through the center of the property between the two units from 46th Avenue south approximately 110 feet. The proposed site plan is illustrated on the Drainage Plan at the back of this report. 1.4 Previous Studies and Reports 1 J1 -1 There are no previous drainage studies or reports addressing flood hazards or drainage n conditions relevant to this site. J! 2.0 HISTORIC DRAINAGE SYSTEM _ l 2.1 Major Basins The site is located on a high point between the main Clear Creek basin on the south and a tributary sub-basin to Clear Creek on the north. The Clear Creek basin rises in the mountains ! west of Denver. The tributary basin originates just west of Ward Road at the I-70 interchange in Arvada. The main channel of Clear Creek is 2,000 feet south of the site, and the main channel of the Slough north of I-70 is about 1/4 mile from the site. As shown on the Vicinity Map on the Drainage Plan, the topography of the sub-basins surrounding the site is relatively flat, sloping gently to the east, from Tabor Street to Carr Street. 2.2 Sub-basin and Site Drainage Runoff from the north 1/2 of the site (Lots 4 through 9) flows overland to the northeast corner at 46th Avenue and Simms Street (extended). No off-site runoff currently flows across the site because the west property line is elevated above the adjacent lots to the west. Off-site areas west to Tabor Street discharge north to 46th Avenue or south toward 44th Avenue. Flows in 46th Avenue at Simms Street (extended) originate from the site and the front parts of the single- family homes on the south side of 46th Avenue west of the site. Tabor Street (one block west) cuts off drainage from areas further west. Flows in 46th Avenue flow into the site at Simms Court and pond at the end of the street. This location is labeled design point 2 (DP2) on the Drawing. Design boint 1 (DP1) is at the end of 4e Avenue and receives runoff from the front part of the fourplex units on Lot 7. Design point 1 is the historic point of discharge from the northern '/2 of the subdivision. The total tributary area to DPI is 3.3 acres. This includes 2.5 acres of the project site and 0.8 acres which is comprised of 1/2 of 46th Avenue to Tabor Street and the front half of the single family homes on the south side of the street. The historic peak discharges at DPI are 0.7 cfs and 3.3 cfs for the 5-year and 100-year design storms, respectively. The historic time of concentration at DPI was controlled by the overland time of the undeveloped site. There is no evidence that runoff from the site has historically caused problems on any adjacent properties despite the fact that there is no outlet at the end of 46th Avenue. The southern % of the site (Lots 1 through 3) drains to the southeast corner of the property and into 44a' Avenue. No construction is proposed on these lots, consequently the existing drainage pattern will not be changed. z 3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3.1 Criteria In general, the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. 1, was used as a reference for ! design parameters and analytical guidelines. Rainfall was derived from the City of Wheat Ridge Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves (copy in Appendix). Frequency intervals are 5- 1 year and 100-year for the minor and major design storms, respectively. The Rational Method was used to determine runoff rates and volumes. C values were determined based on a weighted average of rooftop, driveway, street and landscaped areas for the proposed condition, using Table 3-1 from the Criteria Manual. C values for the off-site area along 46th Avenue are based on Single Family Residential land use. The required retention volume was also calculated using the Rational procedure. 3.2 Runoff Rational Method calculations which determine peak flow rates for the 5-year and 100-year events are contained in the Appendix. Peak discharges and flow patterns are shown on the drainage plan. In general, the north '/2 of the site will be graded to drain to the center (Simms Court) which in i turn will be graded to drain to the back (south). This point is labeled DP2 (Design Point 2) on the Drawing. The units facing 46th Avenue will drain from the front to 46th Avenue. Runoff from the site and the off-site area-west of Simms Court on 46th Avenue will be carried in the curb and gutter to an inlet at the end of the cul-de-sac where it will collect in a retention pond graded between lots 4 and 9. All runoff discharged into the retention pond will infiltrate into the ground. Only the front part of the 4 units on the northeast corner of the site will continue to drain toward the end of 46th Avenue. A cross-pan constructed across the end of 46th Avenue will conduct runoff from the end of 46th Avenue to the vacant Simms Street right-of-way on the north. Peak discharges at design points 1 and 2 are summarized in the following Table. Historic (cfs) Developed (cfs) 1 Design Point 4 05 O,oo Q5 O,oo 1 0.7 3.3 0.6 1.4 2 0.0 0.0 4.6 11.0 2(retained) 0.62 0.62 3 J 3.3 Retention At the above listed retained discharge rate for design point 2, the retention volume required for the site is 12,215 cubic feet for the 100-year event. This volume will be provided at the south end of the site between lots 4 and 9. A 68-foot wide drainage easement is provided for this retention pond. The alluvial material underlying the site has an average percolation rate of 1" in 7 minutes which indicates that three feet of water in the will infiltrate within four hours. The infiltration rate from the pond is estimated based on percolation testing performed by J Complete Engineering Services, Inc., on July 18, 1997. A copy of the report on Percolation Testing is contained in the Appendix. Volume and depth calculations for the retention pond are also listed in the Appendix. Runoff at the end of 46th Avenue will be less than historic after construction of this project and will have less impact on the Simms Street right-of-way and adjacent properties on the north side of 46th Avenue than currently. , 3.4 Streets Type 1 (mountable) curb and gutter and a local street section will be constructed along the remaining portion of Simms Court between the units. The minimum grade will be 0.5% along Simms Court. At the minimum grade of 0.5%, the Type 1 curb and gutter section has a capacity of 6.5 cfs at 4 inches depth, and over 20 cfs at 6 inches depth. The Simms Court street section will carry all runoff from within the site, except for the front part of the units facing 46th Avenue at the northeast comer, and off-site runoff from 46th Avenue to the retention pond. Runoff will be collected in the gutter section with approximately 2/3 of the flow on the west side and 1/3 on the east. The maximum design discharge to be carried by the Type 1 curb and gutter is 12.8 efs in a 100-year event. The capacity of the curb and gutter section is more than sufficient to conduct the 100-year discharge to the retention pond. To illustrate this, Figure 6-1 from the USDCM is reproduced in the Appendix. A standard City of Wheat Ridge grated inlet with a short section of 18" pipe will be installed at the end of the Simms Court street section to conduct runoff to the retention pond. 3.5 Storm Sewers No storm sewers will be constructed in 46th Avenue or from the retention pond on the south end of the site. 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Impacts of Improvements Runoff from the proposed project will be increased because of the increase in impervious surfaces which comes with development. However, the proposed drainage plan will contain the increase in runoff onsite, and reduce the flows being captured and infiltrated at the end of 46th Avenue. The plan will have no drainage impacts to any surrounding properties or to the three existing lots on the south'/2 of the site. 4.2 Compliance with Applicable Criteria The drainage plan for this project meets all applicable City of Wheat Ridge and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District criteria. Detention pond and stone drainage facilities (curb and gutter, inlet) have adequate capacity to safely convey storm runoff through and away from the site. s i~ I APPENDIX I n 1- i I~ PCEMM IT~IIIlCT~Mff Computation Sheet subject _)4_i~r111~_`?SQN Pape L-of------ l~J Made by--- zlza Date--~ lZt Iq6O---------------- Checked Date---- lai`~(ot~IL s~tE = 2,52 R~~res '~z 4(0~' /~ven~Ye. -'(ate' fv S~~un+s fee 'f~rawY,n:~ ~ . 'l2 466 = 30' 330 ' ?o' X. 330' = 33,oco = 0.5 ac~ . l0eka Tr~b, l~rea ~o 9,9.1 = 2,5 f 0,b mac. = ZIA6.. Gor 46~'-' Are > C5 = A5, CYoo= 0.(0 (TAble a-) ,()SDG.A)(51'~Ie- FawtIt Compo$14e, G ~br D.P. (.00 -F 4r2) 3.3 3 3 - G~oo = 3 (,U) 4- ' (40) ILO 7 ~'-UO Ott0~~0 ~7YNYV1 ~LL ~ Z~'~ O, Z % ~ rvY Y r ( 3-1 , QS'Dua) .l.fUo 1.3i 3 [;3 5) - '.3 PAM MT~MdUdMffff Computation Sheet Sublet _149114_}~ ~__Ll_~lE.~o~~ 7zi? rJCFF Pao. z-- C Made by_Z!'-L------------- Da to __g(2~1q Lo Cheeked by_-___-__-__- LAS~t~1 CUI -OG-SAC- Wtlt INP6P-E ~VNOFG F~oM 4b~4' Arwt cot" sou+in ciefers-(orv poNcz, . Tr;b, .4yea4v QF l « (educed io: 140'x4-ico 14,aoo~ - 0.d2 A, ~ornr~os~fe, G 4~r P I Skveet- : l5o x 21.5= 3,nS' C5 = 3=5 88)4 q7Z. '1 g?1 3z?A_ X569 IgDOU 14000 2*70 (,$5)r ('p1~ = 46 74000 -Z 14000 4Zw -7~- co =7 Cio~C/a l% ~(ey/=,4[=> -7 rn n 4i r (Fiq, 3-I~ Ue 'v TLL -~160'~0.7°/O `V- l.D 114t"t" je aL = S 3-4 cke5 ^,u;ta i, L IL PP I 'Pdvelueei4 FOW$ (25 = a c{S i~GhUrc~e horF1 5,~~ o~ 461 aT.Sim" I E~ Pamm Bff'hdUAT)T Computation Sheet i Subject _~b1_~d~~_L.~_6®I1/1S (pt - Pape of L~ Made bY-1---------------- Date-AU-1-6 Checked Date r~T p• P.Z. ('(tots PoNp C. En}0 Dt= Cup.- PGA-~ ~ >3 & ~ ~ N -Tco > '(90' CZ 0,17% 6MIVN, TGe, °`P (V= ►,51 l0, Mk4 ~ (To ems! ®T cu'l-~ ) ~L `t8o lo) - 13.3 r,,~ ~7 cto= fr. " C for o kr~ aye = o,~ ~5 ~rl ©iQ~ (!oU-,fir} ('f~ 3. ` uspc~ I z`4 t 9. 4- ' a r i i + 4z) 3e7 ~ a 3o'AV+- 18x34').xZ- 9zz. 36'~.24`t Z7'/24'*?o'xo?t'~ ~ Z7'+IZ'Y,X' l(A',- 4a t2, cev ~ e = ~ per s Q~ ue~ I~ao tn~S°~ Q i` 1l3Eo0»,G&O ~g7 t3o3L~gt~ j3 (.a1~_ ~ Eno g 'to - ov ~1 75 O -too -tool \1 P-tOeec leak, QEsclare,CA ate= FIGHTMASTER SUBDIVISION By JSG C Value Calculation 12/16/1999 Design Point 2 Lot Area Street Roof Driveways Landscape Sum 4 17286 5218 2800 9268 17286 9 17290 5218 2800 9272 17290 8 14777 5218 .2600 6959 14777 5 14803 5218 2600 6985 14803 7(ex) 7609.5 2609 488.5 4512 7609.5 6(ex) 15137 5218 1954 7965 15137 Simms Ct. 14310 8960 5350 86902.5 Totals: 101212.5 8960 28699 13242.5 50311 97602.5 C Value 57yr: 0.88 0.85 0.87 0.01 0.44 C Value 100-yr: 0.93 0.89 0.9 0.2 0.56 J. i FIGHTMASTER SUBDIVISION RETENTION POND CALCULATIONS Retention Pond: Elevation Area Volume (CF) 5400 50'x 62'= 3100 3454 5401 56'x 68'= 3808 7652 5402 62'x 74'= 4588 12666 5403 68'x 80'= 5440 Volume Required: Assume Average Percolation Rate of 7 Minutes per Inch Bottom of Pond Area = 3100 SF Average Perc Rate = 3100 sf x 1'/12" / 420 Sec. Per inch = 0.62 cfs 100-YR CA= 1.67 T(min) I in/hr Q cfs Qout cfs Vol. Required (CF) 13.3 6.55 11.0 0.62 7779 20 5.45 9.1 0.62 9499 30 4.35 7.3 0.62 10957 40 3.62 6.1 0.62 11705 50 3.1 5.2 0.62 12054 60 2.72 4.5 0.62 12215 70 2.4 4.0 0.62 12051 5-YR CA= 1.31 T(min) I in/hr QP (cis) Qout cfs Vol. Required (CF) 50 1.65 2.2 0.62 3296 60 1.5 2.0 0.62 3312 70 1.37 1.8 0.62 3227 By: JSG 12/16/1999 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 9 8 7 s 6 S w a m 5 w S v z 4 r rn z au t- z 3 2 1 O I I 0 10 20 30 .40 TIME IN MINUTES FIGURE 5-1 EXAMPLE 5.2 TIME - INTENSITY - FREQUENCY T. 3 S. R.66 W. 111 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE d FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT RAINFi 50 6I CURVES DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF TABLE 3-1 (42) RECOMMENDED-RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS AND PERCENT IMPERVIOUS LAND USE OR PERCENT FREQUENCY OQ-' SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS IMPERVIOUS 2 5 10 100 Business: 1 Commercial Areas 95 .87 .87 .88 .89 Neighborhood Areas 70 .60 .65 .70 .80 Residential: Single-Family * .40 .45 .50 .60 Multi-Unit (detached) 50 .45 .50 .60 .70 i Multi-Unit (attached) 70 .60 .65 .70 .80 1/2 Acre Lot or Larger * .30 .35 .40 .60 Apartments 70 .65 .70 .70 .80 Industrial: Light Areas 80 .71 .72 .76 .82 Heavy Acres 90 .80 .80 .85 .90 Parks, Cemetaries: 7 .10 .18 .25 .45 Playgrounds: 1 13 .15 .20 .30 .50 Schools: 50 .45 .50 .60 .70 Railroad Yard Areas 20 .20 .25 .35 .45 Undeveloped Areas: Historic Flow Analysis- 2 (See "Lawns") Greenbelts, Agricultural f Offsite Flow Analysis 45 .43 .47 55 65 1 (when land use not defined) . . Streets: Paved 100 .87 .88 .90 .93 Gravel (Packed) 40 .40 .45 .50 .60 1 Drive and Walks: i 96 .87 .87 88 89 Roofs: 90 .80 .85 .90 .90 1 Lawns, Sandy Soil 0 .00 .01 .05 .20 Lawns, Clayey Soil 0 .05 .15 .25 .50 NOTE: These Rational Formula coefficients may not be valid for large basins. *See Figure 2-1 for percent impervious. 11-1-90 URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 7000 4000 5000 4000 2000 1000 900 600 '700 600 600 400 Q 300 200 100 9o so 70 so 50 40 30 20 STREETS ~~,ri ~lo~ along ~,rnrx5 (~~Tt-=0.sa/o '1MX* co ty~ agent r oV.TIN. e. oa.(~1 a'[>5 n n wN.w,(aa Coarnc.t.T i, uyv„ .10 rOxYM. 1M.eI(IaTC TO Y1r[111I.1 NTTN pI CY.M(( u auT`aOC.L or cro» ssar( .04 .anKYaa. w w a [,salsa n.t .07 i..a ~aq aou.rio. n.l 06 EX4y►LE pa( o.aw F n ugal _ W .OS unY~ • . o.oa too a.) TO o.fe V 30 'F .03 o .02 .7 X _ INSTRUCTION5 CC .07 W NNOT T mac....[ .,1 nfx i' .06 004 O[.TM 1>1, rx((( r.e LIY(f YVaT U .O3 Z . inune* .r Tywp,( u.[ rN aQ .007 ONK[T[ IOIV TIN ` , D o' V .006 x.rN sx.year 1- r y LL. .005 .a awo.. Na weNN.ro O qv[.i 004 . W (L a ro .a TTaYw.a r-i O .003 > ronro, or cwunx _t¢) N ,..1•a Yrorw I--.~ o[TUwro+ > rN Ten......... v a.rm( .[er,N r.t. ea[ ...oars. ro .002 of Ta.Yiwa a, a amnN . sow ovrx ro ea raver,[ w.ur...a ri rxaN uarweerro. ' f re Nuu or....... a , .001 r Nnr+ o rN aIOK ,.Tro [ , ue obrx Y fw[, e~ . e~ . 0, 2.0 1.0 .60 70 SO Z .4 - T 30 .20 _2 O CL I- U) .10 W I .04 W W .07 0 06 CC O .05 co C' .04 U .03 Q I- CL .02 W O a-.01 FIGURE 6-1. NOMOGRAPH FOR FLOW IN TRIANGULAR GUTTERS. r 11-15-68 Do'Wr Reqp l L'N11(11 of QOWInTNn[( I c a c n ~ IN t t k I N G PROJECT NO. 96-3956 DATE: 07/02/96 2796050 P_04 TECHNICIAN OF tiVIX NO. 3 TOTAL DEPTH 3.0 FT DEPTH TO WATER 2.15 FT READING CHANGE IN ELAPSED PERCOLATION TIME (ft ) DEPTH (ft) TIME (min) RATE (min/in) 04:46 1.36 N/A 0 N/A 04:59 1.18 .18 13 6 0 05:08 1.09 .09 9 . 8 3 05:16 1.01 .08 8 . 8 3 05:27 0.95 .06 11 . 7 9 05:47 0.85 .10 20 . 17 05:48 1.60 REFILL 06:00 1.36 .24 12 4.2 06:19 1.19 .17 2,9 9 3 06:33 1.09 .10 14 . 12 06:54 0.97 .12 21 15 07:05 0.91 .08 9 9.4 07:12 0.89 .03 7 19 07:16 0.86 .02 4 17 07:17 1.58 REFILL 07.37 1.39 .19 20 8.8 07:57 1.22 .17 20 9 8 08:17 1.10 .12 20 . 14 08:34 1.02 .08 17 18 08:57 0.92 .10 23 19 REFILL indicates hole refilled with water * Indicates percolation value used to calculate average. a P AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE 7.0 COMPLETEIENGINEERING 2796550 P-01 eAl + Post-It' Fax Note 7671 Uses 7 4~9os~ To F.om /1~H,f'EAV Ca./Dept.(,,-4-n,,,, 1-5 Pno~re • Phone s 7 6 y/ Fax a Fax 5 COMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. PROJECT No: 3956 July 18, 1996 Mr. Jim Turgeon Customcraft Homes 2110 Rockcress Way Golden, CO 80401 SUBJECT: Percolation Testing Lot 14, Lee's Subdivision, Jefferson County, Colorado Mr. Turgeon, Percolation tests were performed in three holes in the approximate area of the proposed retention pond. Test hole locations are shown in figure 1. Tests were conducted in compliance with Jefferson County Health Department specifications. Test results are shown in table 1. Percolation rates varied within the three test holes between 0.4, 1.5 and 19 minutes per inch. The average percolation rate measured was 7.0 minutes per inch. Test hole No. l drained very quickly due to large alluvial cobbles, that made the ground very permeable. The same conditions were found in the two other test holes, but intermittent layers of sand caused the percolation rate to be slower. Please contact us if you have any questions. Complete Engineering Services Reviewed by: Ulrike Filthuth Edward D. Ford, P.E. 912 TWELFTH STREET • GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 • (303) 279.6418 • FAX: 279-6350 OOMPLETEl ENGINEERING 2796350 P.02 TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN LOT 14, LEE'S SUBDIVISION JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO • P-3 ■ PR-2 • P-2 ■ PR-1 P-1 1 1 I 1 1 LOT 14, LEE'S SUBDIVISION 1 I I 1 1 1 I ■ PR-3 I ~ - 1 1 I I 1 1 I 69 30 Q 60 SCALE: 1" = 60' XPLANATION STH-1 Peltco TIOH TEST HOLE X PR-3 PROFILE HOLE est holes were loeated using toping and map neasurement. Locatlons should be considered wcurate only to the degree Implied by the Isthod used r PROJECT NO. 95-0000 COMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES FIGURE 1 >_s _ MPLETEIENGINEERING 2796550 P_Bo CO • Table 1 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 96-3956 DATE: 07/02/96 TECHNICIAN OF TEST HOLE NO. 1 TOTAL DEPTH 2.5 FT DEPTH TO WATER 2.1 FT r~- READING CHANGE IN ELAPSED PERCOLATION TIME ( ft) DEPTH (ft) TIME (min) RATE (min/in) 04:42 1.83 N/A 0 N/A =~E 04:44 1.43 .40 2 0.4 04:52 1.85 REFILL 04:54 1.45 .40 2 0.4 04:54 4 1.85 REFILL 04:56 0 1.45 .40 2 05:00 1.83 REFILL 05:02 0,4 1.45 .38 2 PROJECT NO. 96-3956 DATE: 07/02/96 TECHNICIAN OF TEST HOLE NO. 2 TOTAL DEPTH 3.0 FT DEPTH TO WATER 2.15 FT READING CHANGE IN ELAPSED PERCOLATION TIME (ft) DEPTH (ft) TIME (min) RATE (min/in) 04:44 1.66 N/A 0 N/A 04:50 1.00 .66 6 0.8 04:56 1.71 REFILL 05:04 1.00 .71 8 0 9 05:07 1.82 REFILL 05.16 1.11 .71 9 1.1 05:18 1.00 .11 2 1.5 05:19 1.75 REFILL - 05:27 1.21 .54 8 1 2 1 2 05:31 1.00 .21 4 . 05:32 1.87 REFILL - 05:45 1.00 .87 13 1 2 05:46 1.85 REFILL 06:00 1.00 .85 14 1 4 06:04 1.64 REFILL 06.15 1.00 .64 11 1.4 06,:18 1.84 REFILL 06:32 1.00 .84 14 1.4 06:34 1.85 REFILL 06:49 1.00 .85 15 1.5 06:53 1.88 REFILL 07:09 1.00 .88 16 1.5 07:18 1.84 REFILL 5 1 07:33 1.00 .84 15 . AGENDA ITEM RECAP QUASI-JUDICIAL X Yes No X PUBLIC HEARINGS PROC./CEREMONIES BIDS/MOTIONS _ INFORMATION ONLY AGENDA ITEM TITLE: SUMMARY/RECOMME _ CITY ADM. MATTERS _ ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING LIQUOR HEARINGS _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING PUBLIC COMMENT RESOLUTIONS WS-99-01: Turgeon, et.al. VDATION: Approval of a nine-lot preliminary and final subdivision with a site plan. ATTACHMENTS : 1) Plat Map 2) Site Plan 3) Letter of request 4) PC Report dated 6/17/99 5) PC Minutes of 6/17/99 BUDGETED ITEM: Yes Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount Requested Expend.$ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation No Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: Subdivision Plat: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 W. 44" Avenue and 11680 W. 46th Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that the existing street system is adequate to handle traffic generated by the project." Site Plan: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46th Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met." with the following condition: A caliper inch equivalent be provided on the property for the trees removed along the common property line between Lots 1 and 4." C ABubara\CCRPTS\ws9901 coverlwpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: December 13, 1999 DATE PREPARED: November 30, 1999 CASE NO. & NAME: WS-99-01/Turgeon- Fightmaster CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: ENTER INTO RECORD: Approval of a nine lot preliminary and final subdivision with a site plan. 11661 W. 44" Avenue and 11680 W. 46" Avenue Jim Turgeon, et.al 2110 Rockcress Way Golden, CO 80401 See report 5.01 acres Residential-Three Single-family residential and vacant N: R-2; S: PCD; E: A-1; W: A-1, R-3 N: Low density; S: Commercial; E: Low density, vacant; W: vacant, low density, high density Single-family detached - not to exceed 5 du's/acre November 26, 1999 November 29, 1999 November 22, 1999 (X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE O SLIDES (X) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS Q OTHER 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. I. REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval of a nine (9) lot preliminary and final subdivision plat on property located at 11661 West 44' Avenue and 11680 West 46' Avenue. A site plan for development is requested for 11680 West 46" Avenue. Although only two addresses are referenced in this report, there are five properties included in this application. The application was done by boundary legal description of the proposed subdivision and associated required land use approval. Existing on this property are two four-plexes built in 1996 on the north 2.5 acres and three single-family homes on the south 2.5 acres. The property is zoned Residential-three. Two motions will be required. An associated case (WV-99-03) will be heard separately. There are a variety of property owners involved. All of them have signed applications which have not been included in this packet but are in the case file: Lot 1: Herb and Glendene Fightmaster 11641 West 44' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lot 2: Lynn and Nancy Fightmaster 4455 Simms Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lot 3: Zelma Fightmaster 11661 West 44`h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lots 4 - Lots 9: Jim Turgeon Dan Turgeon 18216 W. 4`h Avenue 2110 Rockquess Way Golden, CO 80401 Golden, CO 80401 II. CASE HISTORY The property was rezoned from Agricultural-One to Residential-Three pursuant to Case No. WZ-80-28. This case rezoned all five acres (five parcels) under single ownership. At the time of the rezoning, which was speculative, it was assumed that the property would be developed into a single high-density multi-family complex with about 105 units. Because of the speculative nature of the application, a condition was placed on the approval that, "prior to the issuance of building permit, the property be platted to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadway, and which illustrates building envelope." An additional reason for the subdivision requirement was an attempt by the City to construct an unobstructed north/south street (Simms Street) between West 32' Avenue and I-70. The concept of extending Simms Street is no longer valid or feasible. A small piece of right-of-way for Simms Street (25'x 165.96') exists adjacent to the property shown as Lot 2 and is subject to a vacation request (WV-99-03). WS-99-0 1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 2 City Council There has been speculation that at the time of original rezoning approval, that there was a specific condition for a street connection between West 44`h and West 46"' Avenue. Review of the old case file reveals that on November 6, 1980, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with the following two conditions: A. That the application be approved with the stipulation that no development take place until Simms Street is opened the length of the property. B. That the entire parcel be developed as one unit. At the March 9, 1981, public hearing in front of the City Council, Condition A was removed and Condition B was expanded to read as follows (on the ordinance): "Prior to issuance of any building permit for new construction, the subject property legally described in Section 1 above shall be platted in order to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes." Attached under Attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively, are copies of the Planning Commission resolution, City Council minutes, and Ordinance 443. In 1996, the northern 2.5 acres was sold to the applicants (Jim and Dan Turgeon). The Planning and Development Department concluded that the conditions under which the 1980 rezoning was approved changed because development would not occur under one ownership and that the maximum allowed density on the property would not be utilized. Based on this logic, permits were issued for the construction of two (2) four-plex structures on these northern two lots. The applicants then applied for a six lot subdivision for the north half of the property pursuant to Case No. WS-96-02 to subdivide in order to create four additional building sites (see attached under Attachment 4). Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing on December 5, 1996, (minutes attached as Attachment 5). A recommendation of approval was made for the following reasons: 1. Staff recommends approval. 2. The property is in Wheat ridge and is properly zoned. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations were met. with the following conditions: 1. Minor legal description problems be corrected prior to review by City Council. 2. The right-of-way for Simms Street be extended south to the southern property line in the event that at any time in the future the property to the south is developed, then this right- of-way is needed to improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood. 3. Lighting on the premises must meet City Code. WS-99-0 1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 3 City Council This case was scheduled for public hearing in front of City Council on January 13, 1997. At the Council meeting, it was ruled that there was no jurisdiction because of violation of the condition on the original zoning referenced above (minutes attached as Attachment 6). The applicant subsequently withdrew his application and resubmitted with the existing application showing platting of the entire five acres. III. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Adjacent land use and zoning surrounding the property includes low density residential (single-family and duplexes) on the north and Planned Commercial Development (RV park and retail along 44th Avenue) to the south. Abutting the property to the west is a duplex and vacant property zoned A-1 and R-1 and multi-family development zoned R-3. To the east is A-1 zoning and used property. IV. AGENCY REFERRALS All responding agencies can provide service to the property. Public Works Department has reviewed and commented on the drainage report and street construction plans for the north half of the property. A dumping and landfill permit will be required. The Traffic Engineer has commented relative to subdivision design and circulation in the area; they support the subdivision design as proposed (Attachment 7). Valley Water can serve. Arvada Fire Protection District will require installation of a fire hydrant. Public Service Company has requested specific easement language which has been added to the plat as Note #4. The Parks and Recreation Commission has requested a cash payment in lieu of land dedication ($75 per new unit) or the transfer of water rights to the City, if available. V. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The applicants have submitted a nine-lot subdivision showing the three southern lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3) in their existing configuration accessing West 44' Avenue (existing access points). Because no development scenario is being proposed for the southern half of the subdivision, a note has been added requiring site plan approval by Planning Commission and City Council prior to construction (Note #8). An existing piece of right-of-way for Simms Street is being requested for vacation per Case No. W-99- 03. Access for Lots 1 and 2 is via an ingress/egress easement reserved by this document with the City's standard language as a note. The design of the north half of the subdivision shows the four new lots accessing off a cul-de-sac bulb centered on the property with three lots either side of the street. The proposed street, Simms Court, is off-set from both Simms Street and Swadley Street 165' from centerline. The cul-de-sac is 225' long from the centerline of West 46th Avenue. WS-99-0 1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 4 City Council The lots vary in size from 13,325 square feet to 18,742 square feet. Based on the City's standards for density (1 dwelling unit per 3,630 square feet of land area), Lots 5 and 8 will accommodate three units each. Lots 4 and 9 will accommodate five units each. Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 share driveways. Cross access easements have been provided with the City's standard easement language. A detention pond designed to handle drainage on the north half of the subdivision is centered between Lots 4 and 9. Since no changes are proposed for Lots 1, 2 and 3, no drainage report is required for the southern portion at this time. See drainage plan included as Attachment 8. There is no connection shown between Simms Court and West 44`h Avenue to the south or to the west to Tabor Street. See discussion in Section VI of this report. All requirements of the R-3 zone district standards and the Subdivision Regulations have been met. VI. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ISSUES Much concern has been expressed in the past regarding traffic and the street system in the area (Attachment 9). The primary access to this neighborhood is by way of the Tabor Street/West 46`h Avenue intersection. Swadley Street, via West 46`h Avenue, is the only link in the area to the south frontage road between Tabor and Robb Street. Both Simms Street and Routt Street extend south from the southern frontage road but both dead-end. There is 25' of right-of-way in place for Simms Street from where the street dead-ends south to the intersection with West 46`h Avenue. There is also a short 25' wide right-of-way in place adjacent to Lot 2 of this subdivision proposal which is subject to a right- of-way vacation request. The subdivision has been submitted with no connection between 46th Avenue and 44`h Avenue. The owners of the southern three lots are indicating that they want to leave access "as is" from 44`h Avenue and are not supportive of a public street along their eastern boundary. When Case No. WS-96-02 was reviewed by the Planning Commission, a condition of approval was for reservation of future public right-of-way south of the cul-de-sac bulb for Simms Court so that a future connection to 44' Avenue could be made (Attachment 10). The current design does not show any extension to the south. In support of the proposed design and in response to testimony given at the original Planning Commission meeting, a traffic report was submitted analyzing proposed development on the north and its affect on traffic circulation in the neighborhood. The report concluded that the "traffic impacts associated with the construction of the 46'/Swadley town home development will be minor and can be readily accommodated by the existing roadway system and traffic controls." See Attachment 11. The city's Traffic Engineer concurs with the findings of the report and even though it was prepared in 1997, indicates that the information used is still current and valid. Staff had also requested analysis by the Public Works Department regarding issues brought up at previous public hearings regarding circulation in the neighborhood and proposed infrastructure improvements. See original referral and response as Attachment 12. WS-99-0 1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 5 City Council A public meeting was held on August 25, 1999, to solicit input from the neighbors regarding circulation in the area bounded by West 44`h Avenue on the south, I-70 on the north, Robb Street on the east, and Tabor Street on the west. Twenty-four property owners participated in the meeting where traffic circulation options were presented. Of the six design options presented, the neighbors chose option 3 and to a lesser extent, option 4 (Attachments 13 and 14). A study session with City Council was held on September 20, 1999. Rather than supporting either of the options preferred by the neighborhood, the City Council created a new option showing another east/west street accessing Tabor Street between West 44`x' and West 46`h Avenue (Attachment 15). Planning and Public Works staff considered the option of creating a north/south connection and had concern with cut- through traffic and creating another intersection on 44`h Avenue without a turn lane. VI. SITE PLAN No changes are proposed for the southern three lots on the property. As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of a building permit for new development, redevelopment or dwelling units added, site plan approval must be received from Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is providing a site plan for the northern 2.5 acres which shows in addition to the existing four-plexes on Lots 6 and 7, three-plexes on Lots 5 and 8, and five-plexes on Lots 4 and 9. The number of units proposed is consistent with the revised density regulations for the R-3 zone district. The proposed units are of a townhouse design with attached two-car garages for each unit with enough driveway parking space to accommodate another two vehicles. The owners have indicated that they intent on keeping the units as rentals with rent fees starting at $900 per month. The existing units have access to West 46`h Avenue. The units on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9 will have access to Simms Court which will be a dedicated public street. The buildings will be 25' in height to the highest point of the ridge line on the roof and will be sided with partial brick facades on the portions of the buildings facing public streets. All minimum setbacks have been met (Attachment 16). Overall site data breakdown for the property includes 45% coverage by buildings, 18.5% in hard surfaces and 36.7% landscaped coverage. Staff would note that the figures shown on the site plan include the Simms Court right-of-way. The percentages increased when we recalculated without the street right-of-way. Access to the southern four lots is shared between Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 with a total of seven units each sharing a common drive. One unit on each of Lots 5 and 8 has its own curb cut. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Planing Commission reviewed this case at a public hearing held on June 17, 1999. In regard to the subdivision, a recommendation of approval was made for the reasons: WS-99-0 1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 6 City Council 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between West 46`h Avenue and West 44`h Avenue is not desirable. with the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the City Forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the six-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. A letter of no objection from the ditch company be provided. 4. This case be published as a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat. In regard to the Site Plan, a recommendation of approval was given for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met. with the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the City Forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the six-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. A letter of no objection from the ditch company be provided. 4. This case be published as a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat. 5. No development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without a site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. The conditions on the recommendation of approval have been addressed as follows: 1. The City Forester has indicated that the trees are located on the common property line between Lots 3 and 4 and are in very, very poor condition. He recommends the trees be removed and that an equivalent caliper inch be replaced on the property. 2. The developer has agreed to construction of a 6' fence. 3. The developer is in the process of getting a letter of no objection from the ditch company. 4. The case was published as a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat. 5. A note has already been added requiring site plan approval for Lots 1, 2 and 3 as Note #8 on the subdivision plat. IX. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that platting and site plan for the entire five acres is required pursuant to a 1980 zoning WS-99-0 1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 7 City Council condition placed on the property. Staff concludes that based on analysis of the proposed development on the north, and of circulation in the area, the existing street system can handle traffic generated by this project. Since all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met, a recommendation of approval is given for the subdivision as proposed. A recommendation of approval is given for the site plan for Lots 4 through 9 with the condition that a caliper inch equivalent be provided for the trees removed from the common property lines between Lots 1 and 4. X. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Option A: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 West 44`h Avenue and 11680 West 46`h Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that the existing street system is adequate to handle traffic generated by the project." Option B: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 West 44`h Avenue and 11680 West 46th Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. 2." SITE PLAN Option A: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No. WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 West 46`h Avenue be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met. with the following condition: A caliper inch equivalent be provided on the property for the trees removed along the common property line between Lots 1 and 4." Option B: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No. WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 West 46`h Avenue be DENIED for the following reasons: WS-99-O1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 8 City Council 1. 2." C:\Bub=\CCRPCS4s9901.wpd WS-99-0 1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Page 9 City Council City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03 DATE: December 6, 1999 Staff is recommending a continuance of Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03 (Turgeon, et al) because the drainage report has not been finalized. Staff recommends continuance of both cases until December 20, 1999. Suggested Motion: "I move that the public hearings for Case No. WS-99-01 and Council Bill No. 17 (relating to Case No. WV-99-03) be continued until December 20, 1999, so that the drainage report can be finalized." I BEFORE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 2 STATE OF COLORADO 3 4 THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR 5 CERVENY AT 7:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1999. 6 7 PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in interest, the 8 above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the WHEAT 9 RIDGE CITY COUNCIL, State of Colorado, on September 27, 1999 10 at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, 11 Colorado. This record was transcribed by Linda J. Cox. 12 13 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: 14 TERI DALBEC 15 JERRY DITULLIO 16 LLOYD DONNELLY 17 DON EAFANTI 18 RALPH MANCINELLI 19 JANELLE SHAVER 20 KEN SILER 21 CLAUDIA WORTH 22 23 24 ALSO PRESENT: 25 26 CITY CLERK, WANDA SANG 27 CITY TREASURER, RON PATERA 28 ACTING CITY MANAGER, BOB GOEBEL 29 FOR CITY ATTORNEY, GERALD DAHL, MAUREEN JURAN 30 DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION, GARY WARDLE 31 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, ALAN WHITE 32 33 STAFF 34 INTERESTED CITIZENS 1 MAYOR CERVENY: Mr. Siler, I think you're next on 2 2 here. 3 MR. SILER: Thank you Madame Mayor. I've got some 4 corrections I'd like to make ask Council to make to the 5 agenda. The first item is to drop Agenda Item 3, which is an 6 ordinance vacating an unused portion of right-of-way on Simms y 7 Street, north of 44th Avenue. The reason for my 8 recommendation for this is because it was advertised in the 9 newspapers I thought it was necessary to leave this item on 10 the agenda. But last Monday night we had a rather lengthy 11 discussion on this and other items in that particular area 12 which includes potentially some future road networks in the 13 future. One of which would be a potential road network from 14 44th, north on Simms Street, creating a new road in there. 15 And if we're going have if they can determine whether or 16 not we need a new road in there it doesn't seem logical to me 17 to take and make a vacation on this so I would ask Council 18 motion to move this agenda item to December 13th at City 19 Council session or sooner if staff has that item cleared up 20 with us. 21 MAYOR CERVENY: Is there a second? 22 MR. DONNELLY: Second. 23 MAYOR CERVENY: Okay, Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Mancinelli second 24 it. Any discussion? 3 1 SPEAKER 1: I just have a question. Did people come 2 to sign up to speak on this No. 3? 3 MR. SILER: Yes. 4 SPEAKER 1: They did? Okay. 5 SPEAKER 2: [Unintelligible] is then postponed. 6 MAYOR CERVENY: Any other discussion? Okay, so the 7 motion in front of you is to move Item No. 3 to December 13th 8 or sooner if staff has if the Council makes some decisions 9 on the roads, right? Cast your votes please. 10 CLERK: The motion carries 8-0. 11 MR. SILER: Thank you. Second item is a foul-up 12 that I made in scheduling Item No. 10. Where it is, it is a 13 public hearing and it needs to be up under second 14 ordinances on second reading in public hearing; therefore I 15 make a motion to move Agenda Item No. 10 and make it a new 16 Item No. 3. 17 MR. MANCINELLI: Second. 18 MAYOR CERVENY: Okay. Mr. DiTullio? 19 MR. DITULLIO: Madame Chair, question of staff, 20 since we've postponed Item No. 3 which was the roads, should 21 Agenda Item No. 10 also be postponed until both come 22 together, Bob? 23 SPEAKER: Yeah, the applicant is here 4 1 MR. DITULLIO: Well I don't see how we can hear this 2 if we don't know where the roads are gonna go for that 3 project for the surrounding area. 4 MAYOR CERVENY: Mr. White? 5 MR. WHITE: Well the subdivision does show the 6 vacation of that piece of right-of-way that you've just taken 7 off the agenda. The two items could be considered 8 independently, although you'd make no decision or need to 9 make some modifications to the plat map that shows that 10 vacation; so you could hear it. 11 MRS. DALBEC: Madame Mayor? 12 MAYOR CERVENY: Mrs. Dalbec. 13 MRS. DALBEC: I'm going to move that we postpone 14 this to the December 14th meeting or sooner if we have a 15 resolution of the street plan in this area by that date with 16 the neighborhood. 17 MAYOR CERVENY: The motion right now there's a 18 motion on the floor right now to move Item No. 10 up to 19 public hearings; so if you need to vote on that and then you 20 can vote on whether to do that. Mr. Siler? 21 MR. SILER: Ah 22 MRS. DALBEC: I'll make that amendment, I'm sorry. 23 MAYOR CERVENY: Just a minute here, they're having a 24 parliamentary discussion. 25 MR. SILER: The amendment is fine. 5 1 MAYOR CERVENY: We'd have to vote on that as a 2 separate motion. The amendment is a separate motion. 3 MRS. DALBEC: I'll make an amendment. 4 MAYOR CERVENY: Okay. So your motion, Mrs. Dalbec, 5 is to postpone 6 MRS. DALBEC: Agenda Item No. 10 until the 7 December was it the 14th meeting? 8 MR. DITULLIO: The 13th 9 MRS. DALBEC: The 13th meeting, I'm sorry, or sooner 10 if there's a street plan in place for that area. And I guess 11 I can comment on my amendment or can I? 12 MAYOR CERVENY: Well we need a second. 13 MR. SILER: Second. 14 MAYOR CERVENY: Mr. Siler seconded it. Mrs. Dalbec. 15 MRS. DALBEC: Well in looking at the suggestion of 16 motions, Agenda Item No. 10 it says that it announces the 17 traffic circulation in the area is part of the subdivision 18 plat, but we don't have, in meeting the other night, in a 19 subsequent look at this we don't have that. 20 MAYOR CERVENY: So the just a minute here. 21 MR. DITULLIO: Madame Chair, we have to vote on the 22 amendment to postpone. 23 MAYOR CERVENY: I Know. Okay, the amendment is to 24 amend the motion so it becomes a postponed postponed to 25 December 13th. That passes. 6 1 CLERK: Motion carries 8-0. 2 MAYOR CERVENY: Okay. Now the main motion as 3 amended, did we strike to move it to under public hearings? 4 So the main motion is to move it to public hearings 5 SPEAKER: Just make the motion to move it as amended 6 which automatically postpones it. 7 MAYOR CERVENY: Okay. The motion you're voting on 8 now is to move Item 10 to public hearing and to postpone it 9 to the December 13th meeting or sooner if staff has the 10 information. 11 MRS. DALBEC: I have a clarification to I thought 12 we were moving to postpone Agenda Item No. 10, not to move it 13 to public hearing and postpone. That was how the Mayor 14 restated the motion. 15 MAYOR CERVENY: Oh, 16 you're right, I understand. 17 to December postpone Item 18 19 MRS. DALBEC: or 20 MR. SILER: Second. 21 CLERK: Motion carr okay. It's that I just So the motion now is to postpone No. 10, postpone to December 13th sooner. Les 8-0. 22 MR. SILER: Thank you Madame Mayor. 23 MAYOR CERVENY: All right. 24 MR. SILER: And one addition. I'd like to add a new 25 Agenda Item No. 10 as an invitation that the City extends I invitations to selected candidates for the city manager's job 2 for face-to-face interviews on October 2nd. 3 MAYOR CERVENY: Cast your votes please. 4 CLERK: Motion carries 8-0. 5 MAYOR CERVENY: All right. Anything else to do with 6 the agenda, Mr. Siler? 7 MR. SILER: Thank you, Madame Mayor. 8 MAYOR CERVENY: Okay. For those of you who are 9 sitting out here and took your time to come, Item No. 3, 10 which is the ordinance vacating an unused portion of public 11 right-of-way for the position of Simms Street has been 12 postponed to December 13th. And Item 10, which was approval 13 of a 9-lot preliminary and final subdivision with a site plan 14 for property located at 11661 West 44th Avenue and 11680 West 15 46th Avenue has been postponed. Those are both postponed and 16 will be reheard on December 13th. 17 MS. WORTH: Madame Mayor? 18 MAYOR CERVENY: Ms. Worth. 19 MS. WORTH: I know they have been postponed but can 20 I just make a suggestion to the applicant and to the 21 neighbors? I would hope between now and December 13th that 22 you'd meet with the neighbors and the neighbors would meet 23 with the developers and owners of the property and see if you 24 could work out some kind of a street grid in this area that 25 would be conducive to both parties. I would suggest you do 7 8 1 that without any city staff or any council members there. 2 Maybe the developer or owners of the property would like to 3 initiate it and invite neighbors and see if you guys can work 4 this out so it doesn't have to be any more controversial than 5 it already is. 6 MAYOR CERVENY: It looks like you wanted to say 7 something. I'll let you say something. 8 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Please Madame Mayor. My name is 9 Richard Rodriguez. I'm an attorney with the law firm of 10 Holme Roberts & Owen 1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100, Denver, it Colorado. I represent the property owners on both Item 3 12 and Item 10. I'm a little disappointed that I wasn't 13 provided the opportunity to make some comments before the 14 council voted, but I understand that's the way things go 15 sometimes. A couple of things I'd like to talk about briefly 16 17 MAYOR CERVENY: You can't really speak to these 18 items. Council can't hear them because it'll be a quasi- 19 judicial hearing when it came 20 MR. RODRIGUEZ: I understand. 21 MAYOR CERVENY: Unless you wanted to ask them I 22 don't know what questions you can ask; probably not much of 23 any-- 24 MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's actually procedural questions. 25 1 was just going to ask as a matter of formality whether or 9 1 not the Council would move to reconsider the date of December 2 13th, to push it to an earlier date. That's the first thing. 3 And the second question pertains to the motion that was 4 raised and ruled upon by the Council. I was a little bit 5 confused as to exactly what were the reasons for Mr. Siler 6 making the motion. Is it that there are some pending 7 regulations that are in effect or I'm just not clear. So 8 I guess the motion is to set it to an earlier date than 9 December 13th and to clarify why the matter is being 10 continued. 11 MAYOR CERVENY: Mr. Siler, do you want to answer 12 this? 13 MR. SILER: First off, the motion was to December 14 13th or sooner if information is available for Council for us 15 for the next meeting for these t o be reschedule d. It could 16 be sooner than December 13th but it's the road networks that 17 have to be brought to Council to be worked out. 18 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Who is presenting this information? 19 I guess I'm 20 MR. SILER: You'd have to talk to city staff on 21 that. Mr. White. And the reason is that how can we vacate a 22 piece of property if there's a proposed road that may go 23 through there and then to turn around and buy it back. It 24 doesn't seem like good business sense. 10 1 MR. RODRIGUEZ: I understand your concern. Just let 2 the record reflect that my understanding is that there wasn't 3 a proposed road in the area and certainly the applicant was 4 never informed of it. 5 MAYOR CERVENY: That's one of the reasons we should 6 postpone it. 7 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 8 MAYOR CERVENY: All right. So we will go on to 9 Agenda Item No. 1. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Madame Mayor, I just wanted 11 to add something a recollection from the study session 12 so that no one gets the impression that staff has been 13 negligent, that I believe the applicant was at the 14 neighborhood meeting; is that not correct? So they knew 15 about all the proposals. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 2 CERTIFICATE 3 4 I certify that I transcribed this record from the 5 recording of the City Council Meeting, City of Wheat Ridge, 6 Colorado, of September 27, 1999. 7 8 I further certify that pages 1 through 10, inclusive, 9 constitute an accurate transcript of the tape-recorded 10 meeting, based upon the audio facilities of the tapes and my 11 ability to understand them. 12 13 Dated at Aurora, Colorado, this 15th day of 14 November 1999. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Linda J. Cox 21 Post Office Box 460923 22 Aurora, Colorado 80046-0923 23 (303) 690-5764 24 25 AGENDA ITEM RECAP AGENDA ITEM k , X PUBLIC HEARINGS _ PROC./CEREMONIES _ BIDS/MOTIONS _ INFORMATION ONLY AGENDA ITEM TITLE: SUMMARY/RECOMME ATTACHMENTS : 1) Plat Map 2) Site Plan 3) Letter of 4) PC Report 5) PC Minutes September 27, 1999 QUASI-JUDICIAL X Yes No _ CITY ADM. MATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ CITY ATTY. MATTERS -ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING - LIQUOR HEARINGS _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ PUBLIC COMMENT _ RESOLUTIONS WS-99-01: Turgeon, et.al. NDATION: Approval of a nine-lot preliminary and final subdivision with a site plan. request dated 6/17/99 of 6/17/99 SUGGESTED MOTION: BUDGETED ITEM: Yes Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount Requested Expend.$ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation No Yes No Subdivision Plat: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 W. 44u Avenue and 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that the existing street system is adequate to handle traffic generated by the project." Site Plan: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met." CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: September 27, 1999 CASE NO. & NAME: WS-99-01/Turgeon -Fightmaster DATE PREPARED: Sept. 20, 1999 CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a nine lot preliminary and final subdivision with a site plan LOCATION OF REQUEST: 11661 W. 44`n Avenue and 11680 W. 46 1h Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: Jim Turgeon, et al See report 5.01 acres Residential-Three Single Family residential and vacant N: R-2, S: PCD, E: A-1, W: A-1, R-3 SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS O OTHER N: Low density; S: Commercial; E: Low density, vacant; W: vacant, low density, high density Single Family Detached - not to exceed 5 du's/acre May 28,1999 June 3, 1999 May 26, 1999 (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS Q SLIDES (X) 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. I. REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval of a nine(9) lot preliminary and final subdivision plat on property located at 11661 W. 44" Avenue and 11680 W_ 46"' Avenue. A site plan for development is requested for 11680 W. 46' Avenue. Although only two addresses are referenced in this report, there are five properties included in this application. The publication was done by boundary legal description of the proposed subdivision and associated required land use approval. Existing on this property are two four-plexes built in 1996 on the north 2.5 acres and three single- family homes on the south 2.5 acres. The property is zoned Residential-Three. Two motions will be required. An associated case {WV-99-03) will be heard separately. There are a variety of property owners involved. All of them have signed applications which have not been included in this packet but are in the case file: Lot 1 : Herb and Glendene Fightmaster 11641 W. 44d` Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lot 2: Lynn and Nancy Fightmaster 4455 Simms Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lot 3: Zelma Fightmaster 11661 W. 44`h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lots 4: Jim Turgeon Dan Turgeon thru 9 18216 W. 4" Avenue 2110 Rockquess Way Golden, CO 80401 Golden, CO 80401 II. CASE HISTORY The property was rezoned from Agricultural-One to Residential-Three pursuant to Case No. WZ-80- 28. This case rezoned all 5 acres (five parcels) under single ownership. At the time of the rezoning, which was speculative, it was assumed that the property would be developed into a single high- density multi-family complex with about 105 units. Because of the speculative nature of the application, a condition was placed on the approval: that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property "be platted to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadway, and which illustrates building envelope." An additional reason for the subdivision requirement was an attempt by the City to construct an unobstructed north/south street (Simms Street) between W. 32nd Avenue and I-70. The concept of extending Simms Street is no longer valid or feasible. A small piece of right-of-way for Simms Street (25'x 165.96) exists adjacent to the property shown as Lot 2 and is subject to a vacation request (WV-99- 03). City Council Page 2 WS-99-01/Turgeon There has been speculation that at the time of original rezoning approval that there was a specific condition for a street connection between W. 44' and W. 46" Avenue. Review of the old case file reveals that on November 6, 1980, Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with the following two conditions: (A) That the application be approved with the stipulation that no development take place until Simms Street is opened the length of the property; and, (B) That the entire parcel be developed as one unit. At the March 9, 1981;-public hearing in front of City Council condition A was removed and condition B was expanded to read as follows (on the ordinance): "Prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction, the subject property legally described in Section 1 above shall be platted in order to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways, and which illustrates building envelopes." Attached under Attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively, are copies of the Planning Commission resolution, City Council minutes, and Ordinance 443. In 1996, the northern 2.5 acres was sold to the applicants (Jim and Dan Turgeon). The Planning and Development Department concluded that the conditions under which the 1980 rezoning was approved changed because development would not occur under one ownership and that the maximum allowed density on the property would not be utilized. Based on this logic, permits were issued for the construction of two four-plex structures on these northern two lots. The applicants then applied for a six lot subdivision for the north half of the property pursuant to Case No. WS-96-2 to subdivide in order to create four additional building sites (see attached under Attachment 4). Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing on December 5, 1996 (minutes attached as Attachment 5). A recommendation of approval was made for the following reasons: 1. Staff recommends approval. 2. The property is in Wheat Ridge and is properly zoned. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations were met. With the following conditions: 1. Minor legal description problems be corrected prior to review by City Council. 2. The right-of-way for Simms Street be extended south to the southern property line in the event that at any time in the future the property to the south is developed, then this right-of-way is needed to improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood. 3. Lighting on the premises must meet City Code. City Council Page 3 WS-99-01/Turgeon This case was scheduled for public hearing in front of City Council on January 13, 1997. At the council meeting, it was ruled that there was no jurisdiction because of violation of the condition on the original zoning referenced above (minutes attached as Attachment 6). The applicant subsequently withdrew his application and resubmitted with the existing application showing platting of the entire 5 acres. III. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Adjacent land use and zoning surrounding the property includes low density residential (single-family and duplexes) on the north and Planned Commercial Development (RV park and retail along 44th Avenue) to the south. Abutting the property to the west is a duplex and vacant property zoned A-1 and R-1 and multi-family development zoned R-3. To the east is Agricultural-One zoned and used property. IV. AGENCY REFERRALS All responding agencies can provide service to the property. Public Works Department has reviewed and commented on the drainage report and street construction plans for the north half of the property. A dumping and landfill permit will be required. The Traffic Engineer has commented relative to subdivision design and circulation in the area; they support the subdivision design as proposed (Attachment 7). Valley Water can serve. Arvada Fire Protection District will require installation of a fire hydrant. Public Service Company has requested specific easement language which has been added to the plat as note #4. The Parks and Recreation Commission has requested a cash payment in lieu of land dedication ($75 per new unit) or the transfer of water rights to the City, if available. V The applicants have submitted a nine-lot subdivision showing the three southern lots (lots 1, 2 and 3) in their existing configuration accessing W. 44'h Avenue (existing access points). Because no development scenario is being proposed for the southern half of the subdivision, a note has been added requiring site plan approval by Planning Commission and City Council prior to construction (Note #8). An existing piece of right-of-way for Simms Street is being requested for vacation per Case No. WV-99-03. Access for Lots I and 2 is via an ingress/egress easement reserved by this document with the City's standard language included as a note. The design for the north half of the subdivision, shows the four new lots accessing off a cul-de-sac bulb centered on the property with three lots either side of the street. The proposed street, Simms City Council Page 4 WS-99-O1/Turgeon Court, is off-set from both Simms Street and Swadley Street 165' from centerline to centerline. The cul-de-sac is 225' long from the centerline of West 46th Avenue. The lots vary in size from 13,325 square feet to 18,742 square feet. Based on the City's standards for - - density (1 d.u.per 3630 square feet of land area), lots 5 and 8 will accommodate three units each . Lots 4 and 9 will accommodate five units apiece. Lots 4 and 5 and lots 8 and 9 share driveways. Cross access easements have been provided with the City's standard easement language. A detention pond designed to handle drainage on the north half of the subdivision is centered between Lots 4 and 9. Since no changes are proposed for Lots 1, 2 and 3, no drainage report is required for the southern portion at this time. See drainage plan included as Attachment 8. There is no connection shown between Simms Court and W. 44`h Avenue to the south or to the west to Tabor Street. See discussion in Section VI. of this report All requirements of the R-3 zone district standards and the Subdivision Regulations have been met. VI. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ISSUES Much concern has been expressed in the past regarding traffic and the street system in the area (Attachment 9). The primary access to this neighborhood is by way of the Tabor Street/West 46' Avenue intersection. Swadley Street, via W. 46" Avenue, is the only link in the area to the south frontage road between Tabor and Robb Street. Both Simms Street and Routt Street extend south from the southern frontage road but both dead-end. There is 25' of right-of-way in place for Simms Street from where the street dead-ends south to the intersection with West 46" Avenue. There is also a short 25' wide right-of-way in place adjacent to Lot 2 of this subdivision proposal which is subject to a right-of-way vacation request. The subdivision has been submitted with no connection between 46' Avenue and 44`h Avenue. The owners of the southern three lots are indicating that they want to leave access "as is" from 44" Avenue and are not supportive of a public street along their eastern boundary. When Case No. WS-96-2 was reviewed by Planning Commission, a condition of approval was for reservation of future public right-of-way south of the cul-de-sac bulb for Simms Court so that a future connection to 44th Avenue could be made (Attachment 10). The current design does not show any extension to the south. In support of the proposed design_and in response to testimony given at the original Planning Commission meeting, a traffic report was submitted analyzing proposed development on the north and its affect on traffic circulation in the neighborhood. The report concluded that the "traffic impacts associated with the construction of the 46 /Swadley townhome development will be minor and can be readily accommodated by the existing roadway system and traffic controls." See Attachment 11. The City's Traffic Engineer concurs with the findings of the report and even though it was prepared in 1997, indicates that the information used is still current and valid. City Council - - Pages WS-99-O1/Turgeon Staff had also requested analysis by the Public Works Department regarding issues brought up at previous public hearings regarding circulation in the neighborhood and proposed infrastructure improvements. See original referral and response as Attachment 12. A public meeting was held on August 25, 1999, to solicit input from the neighbors regarding circulation in the area bounded by W. 44th Avenue on the south, I-70 on the north, Robb Street on the east and Tabor Street on the west. Twenty-four property owners participated in the meeting where traffic circulation options were presented. Of the six design options presented, the neighbors chose option 3 and to a lesser extent, option 4. Attached as Attachments 13 and 14. A study session with City Council was held on September 20, 1999. Rather than supporting either of the options preferred by the neighborhood, the City Council created a new option showing another east/west street accessing Tabor Street between W. 44' and W. 46' Avenues (Attachment 15). - Planning and Public Works staff considered the option of creating a north/south connection and had concern with cut-through traffic and creating another intersection on 44' Avenue without a turn lane. VII. SITE PLAN No changes are proposed for the southern three lots on the property. As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of a building permit for new development, redevelopment or dwelling units added, site plan approval must be received from Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is providing a site plan for the northern 2.5 acres which shows in addition to the existing four-plexes on lots 6 and 7, threeplexes on lots 5 and 8, and five-plexes on lots 4 and 9. The number of units proposed is consistent with the revised density regulations for the R-3 zone district. The proposed units are of a townhouse design with attached two-car garages for each unit with enough driveway parking space to accommodate another two vehicles. The owners have indicated that they intend on keeping the units as rentals with rent fees starting at $900 per month. The existing units have access to W. 46' Avenue. The units on lots 4, 5, 8 and 9 will have access to Simms Court which will be a dedicated public street. The buildings will be 25' in height to the highest point of the ridge line on the roof and will be sided with partial brick facades on the portions of the buildings facing public streets. All minimum setbacks have been met (Attachment 16). Overall site data breakdown for the property includes 45% coverage by buildings, 18.5% in hard surfaces and 36.7% landscaped coverage. Staff would note that the figures shown on the site plan include the Simms Court right-of-way. The percentages increased when we recalculated without the street right-of-way. Access to the southern four lots is shared between lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 with a total of seven units each sharing a common drive. One unit on each of lots 5 and 8 has its own curb cut. City Council Page 6 WS-99-O1/Turgeon VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Planning Commission reviewed this case at a public hearing held on June 17, 1999. In regard to the subdivision, a recommendation of approval was made for the following reasons: It is consistent with the original zoning condition. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between W. 46' Avenue and W. 44' Avenue is not desirable. with the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the city forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the 6-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. A letter of no objection from the ditch company be provided. 4. This case be published as a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat. In regard to the site plan, a recommendation of approval was given for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met. with the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest comer of the property be evaluated by the city forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the 6-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. That a letter from the ditch company be required. 4. That this case be published as a preliminary and final plat for the city council hearing. 5. No development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without a site plan approval by Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. The conditions on the recommendation of approval have been addressed as follows: 1. The City Forester has indicated that the trees are located on the common property line between Lots 3 and 4 and are in very, very poor condition. He recommends the trees be removed and that an equivalent caliper inch be replaced on the property. 2. The developer has agreed to construction of a 6' fence. 3. The developer is in the process of getting a letter of no objection from the ditch company. City Council Page 7 WS-99-01/Turgeon 4. The case was published as a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat. 5. A note has already been added requiring site plan approval for Lots 1, 2, and 3 as #8 on the subdivision plat: IX. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that platting and site plan for the entire 5 acres is required pursuant to a 1980 zoning condition placed on the property. Staff concludes that based on analysis of the proposed development on the north and of circulation in the area, the existing street system can handle traffic generated by this project. Since all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met, a recommendation of Approval- is given for-the subdivision as proposed. A recommendation of Approval is given for the site plan for Lots 4 through 9 with the condition that a caliper inch equivalent be provided for the trees removed from the common property line between Lots 1 and 4. X. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS SUBDIVISION PLAT Option A: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 W. 44' Avenue and 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that the existing street system is adequate to handle traffic generated by the project." Option B: "I move that Case No WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat for property located at 11661 W. 44' Avenue and 11680 W. 46`h Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3." SITE PLAN Option A: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met." City Council Page 8 WS-99-O1/Turgeon with the following condition: 1. A caliper inch equivalent be provided on the property for the trees removed along the common property line between Lots 1 and 4." Option B: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 461h Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. 2." E:aecken\ws9901ccreport.wpd City Council Page 9 WS-99-O1/Turgeon ult b - Y 'g =o ~ .o 3 a to ; 3 e W° Vas na 8 $ ~ S 3 R € 008 3 €3 [sV i S ~ ~N - e~BR S -o is a £i° ~ 8 e . n ng NpC 6 u ~=yF ~ Y ~ W -'o M , xux ,n Z. o €8 § n ax Q x o .4 c 0.0 E S 0 0 s Y..B I I t z 7 1 I ~ ~ I i ~„S I~ ~ ncs rl ~ kl 1 ~ R~ i<.,..m s I L 1 I _ a I I i a a~= I G~ ~.o + 12 , ~g h~ ma :so $ R- z° k } Y [yg~ o ~ x EY 3 Y d{F E ~ bg ` c ~@r 3 • ~ Las 8~ 3 V73 ~ s isR V°„ Fie i Y R R e~8R Y ak = r :jne 3+~ Y Eg ~ €~a €SR 4I G _f ys p3 41.6 16 6S [YF ~°R }i kiS ~3 Ee .A ~k8 ° p a y ~ K R~ 4f~3[CO~ ~ . z - . Sne s 4ezxm + a ~ vi, mros .ac' g o : 3~x • .e nR Y .R J. Y ' gj ° ~ w,.,sn .uw o II L _ 1~ I - - s - ~ L ~ siF ~ - <a w[ iac.e[m s is um s I .Po.<s .nvwirs xo+w o z.'N0 i I'm ~ I o ~N R .y. 3 F Y k 7 i z la el." kl" „I I \ 'a I b ° ~ o s ^ grgg k~~ngv~ E _ I s~Y i ~9 R;E~ . l a oL tl RF~" € xaa3 ~gx p Y3= ~ 3 X f :0 Lo E 2 o °g a- g's " xG`I faf @g g 3 €%aE BSI ~ k'.F_Y~9ST k3 x ~ Yx° ~y Yt ~R ~ n~ o tl S ~ V 3 E6 ue8 EeY . C4,7 :a8= 6 nECE 3 6 2~ i'3L €YS p` °-=s8 =3 O 1 an... .8 Yka Sy$ 3Y:, 4 :g §0 i I i ~rYYr' I >i 01 ' S r~rr ^I N, g~ - ~8 z ;I =I gg kl a Y.::B `~:gg. nl ~kkRa .:keak II ~88RS I Yf of Ra ! , a ~:Se'S ~k88^88 ~ . j 1 u9 rT I a 8 8 EpISM1w BVitpNG lp pEI1u,N ro4r 13' Ua10 I Unn a Unn A Ircw r...y'4• R 130W. 20' DriveW2Y Easement Ira.e n..ry. n Ir c,,.wv..:y u"E I UMD I lj nc I UMB n. 99 LPI e LP15 U" A WEST 46TH AVENUE SP rpNf pt WpV mu v3 o: 11 I( F1J51111G p~pD~N~TO pEtu~N f I I - j a V b LPI I L- J 11993' h 15 LP19 --_I _ Unn A U., a 1 LM c - «7 I` IT. n J D I n1Er 1e 20'Driveway Easement. a g ~ ru.+p.. - 4 Drlenl r gn F UndB unnL N U-10 uM 22~ - 22 2I 94' I ' J - - W9 5 IM H' N T I I Site Statistics o .X Total Roots 42.372 S.F. . 39% Total Driveways 17.480 S.F. Total Landscape 34,661 S.F. 16% I m a II 32% Simms Court 14.309 S.F. 13% I E Total Slle 108.822 S.F. too-,. to I U Root 6468 S.F. 42 i< Driveways 1.954 .954 S,F. .f 73?6 I ' I Landscape 6.715 S.F. 4506 ^ " I I Total Lot 6 15.137 S.F. 100% I Roof 6468 S.F. 42% Driveways 1.954 S.F. 13g4 t u, Landscape 6.797 S.F. 4511. :I Total Lot 7 15119 S.F. 100?. R ' c Roof 5.288 S F. 4011, Driveways. 2.384 S.F. 18"e Landscape 5.6805.F. 4216 I 1 Total Lot 5 13.752 S.F. 1001; Z II a Roof 5.288 S.F. 4 Opn Driveways 2.384 S.F. 18% j t Landscape 5.653 S.F. 42±; n Total Lol 8 13.725 S.F. too- ! Roof 9.430 S.F. 50°6 Driveways 4402 S F. 24°6 Landscape 4.910 S F. 26". o I I a Total Lot 9 18.742 S.F. 190?; Roof 9.430 S F. 50?: - ' Driveways 4.402 S F. 24,; I Landscape 4.906 S F. 26 Total Lot 4 18.738 S F. too,, li i I Site Details._.._ Fightmasler Subdivision i I r Lots 4. S. 6.7.ea9 .1 Fifteen Foot set-back from all I .I Property lines. I ~ I Thirty Foot set-back from 'a - id n III I 20' Driveway Easement cul-de-sac. I y Detention Pond 42' X 91' ~1 1 18' Guest Parking in front II 'I of each two par garage j A RECEIVED , 3ux 1 D 19w i a I ~ II I I N ~om ll Ii 01 u € I) "ho'o1 June 17, 1999 City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Attn: Planning Commission RE: Case No. WS-99-01 11680 West 46th Avenue To Whom It May Concern: As adjacent property owners, we wish to express some of our concerns regarding the building of 16 additional units on this property which already has two ex- isting four-plexes (8 units). The existing units have blocked our view of the mountains because of their height, and greatly disrupted our wildlife. We wish to emphasize these ex- isting units have created more noise, traffic and trash. What will 16 more do?? Because of the current higher density of this subdivision, there is now more pedestrian trespassing across our hay/pasture land; the current renters are frequently caught harassing our animals and littering our hay field with the throwing of rocks or whatever else is in their hands; and our pleas for a 6-foot fence to be provided across the back part of our property have gone wanting. Another concern is the drainage problem associated with more units. On our behalf, we have already had numerous problems getting drainage straightened out because of false information and lack of communication with not only the developer, but with the City. More concrete and asphalt will only make a bad situation worse. As our neighborhood consists now of single family dwellings and duplexes, we feel this subdivision should be in keeping with the density of the area, and with the exception of the two existing four-plexes, we feel the remaining lots should be built as duplexes. Tt is our hope consideration to the good of our neighborhood will be given when making your decision. Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Mattox Lorene M. Mattox Diana J. Mattox-Jorgensen George Jorgensen 4515 Robb Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: June 17,1999 DATE PREPARED: June 8,1999 CASE NO. & NAME: WS-99-01/Turgeon-Fightmaster CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a nine lot subdivision with a site plan and a variance LOCATION OF REQUEST: 11681 W. 441 Avenue and 11680 W. 46" Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Tim Turgeon, et al NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: See report 5.01 acres Residential-Three PRESENT LAND USE: ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Single Family residential and vacant N: R-2, S: PCD, E: A-1, W: A-1, R-3 N: Low density; S: Commercial; E: Low density, vacant; W: vacant, low density, high density Single Family Detached - not to exceed 5 du's/acre May 28,1999 June 3, 1999 May 26,1999 (IQ CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE 0 SLIDES (X) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS 0 OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 14-1 I. REQUEST The applicants request approval ofa nine(9) lot subdivision on property located at 11681 W. 44" Avenue and 11680 W. 46' Avenue. A site plan for development with a variance is requested for 11680 W. 46" Avenue. Although only two addresses are referenced in this report, there are five properties included in this application. The publication was done by boundary legal description of the proposed subdivision and associated required land use approval. Existing on this property are two four-plexes built in 1996 on the north 2.5 acres and three single family homes on the south 2.5 acres. The property is zoned Residential-Three. Three separate motions will be required. An associated case (WV-99-03) will be heard separately. There are a variety of property owners involved. All of them have signed applications which have not been included in this packet but are in the case file: Lot I : Herb and Glendene Fightmaster 11641 W. 44`" Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lot 2: Lynn and Nancy Fightmaster 4455 Simms Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lot 3: Zelma Fightmaster 11661 W. 44' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Lots 4 - 9: Jim Turgeon Dan Turgeon 18216 W. 4' Avenue 2110 Rockquess Way Golden, CO 80401 Golden, CO 80401 II. CASE HISTORY The property was rezoned from Agricultural-One to Residential -Three pursuant to Case No. WZ-80-28. This case rezoned all 5 acres (five parcels) under single ownership. At the time of the rezoning, which was speculative, it was assumed that the property would be developed into a single high-density multi- family complex with about 105 units. Because of the speculative nature of the application, a condition was placed on the approval; that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property "be platted to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadway, and which illustrates building envelope." An additional reason for the subdivision requirement was an attempt by the City to construct an unobstructed north/south street (Simms Street) between W. 32nd Avenue and I-70. The concept of extending Simms Street is no longer valid or feasible. A small piece of right-of-way for Simms Street (25'x 165.96') exists adjacent to the property shown as Lot 2 and is subject to a vacation request (WV-99-03). Planning Commission Page 2 WS-99-O1/Purgeon I-or(, In 1996, the northern 2.5 acres was sold to the applicants (Jim and Dan Turgeon). The Planning and Development Department concluded that the conditions under which the 1980 rezoning was approved changed because development would not occur under one ownership and that the maximum allowed density on the property would not be utilized. Based on this logic, permits were issued for the construction of two four-plex structures on these northern two lots. The applicants then applied for a six lot subdivision for the north half of the property pursuant to Case No. WS-96-2 to subdivide in order to create four additional building sites (see attached under Exhibit `A'). Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing on December 5, 1996 (minutes attached as Exhibit `B'). A recommendation of approval was made for the following reasons: 1. Staff recommends approval. 2. The property is in Wheat Ridge and is properly zoned. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations were met. With the following conditions: 1. Minor legal description problems be corrected prior to review by City Council. 2. The right-of-way for Simms Street be extended south to the southern property line in the event that at any time in the future the property to the south is developed, then this right- of-way is needed to improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood. 3. Lighting on the premises must meet City Code. This case was scheduled for public hearing in front of City Council on January 13, 1997. At the council meeting, it was ruled that there was no jurisdiction because of violation of the condition on the original zoning (minutes attached as Exhibit `C'). The applicant subsequently withdrew his application and resubmitted with the existing application showing platting of the entire 5 acres. III. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Adjacent land use and zoning surrounding the property includes low density residential (single family and duplexes) on the north and Planned Commercial Development (RV park and retail along 44m Avenue) to the south. Abutting the property to the west is a duplex and vacant property zoned A-1 and R-1 and multi-family development zoned R-3. To the east is Agricultural-One zoned and used property. IV. AGENCY REFERRALS All responding agencies can provide service to the property Public Works Department has reviewed and commented on the drainage report and street construction plans for the north half of the property. A dumping and landfill permit will be required. The Traffic Engineer has commented relative to subdivision design and circulation in the area. They support the subdivision design as proposed. See Exhibit `D'. Planning Commission Page 3 WS-99-01/rurgeon A -..3 Valley Water can serve. Arvada Fire Protection District will require installation of a fire hydrant. Public Service Company has requested specific easement language which has been added to the plat as note #4. The Parks and Recreation Commission has requested a cash payment in lieu of land dedication ($75 per new unit) or the transfer of water rights to the City, if available. V. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The applicants have submitted a nine-lot subdivision showing the three southern lots (lots 1,2 and 3) in their existing configuration accessing W. 44' Avenue (existing access points). Because no development scenario is being proposed for the southern half of the subdivision, a note has been added requiring site plan approval by Planning Commission and City Council prior to construction (Note #8). An existing piece of right-of-way for Simms Street is being requested for vacation per Case No. WV-99-03. Access for Lots 1 and 2 is via an ingress/egress easement reserved by this document with the City's standard language included as a note. The design for the north half of the subdivision, shows the four new lots accessing off a cul-de-sac bulb centered on the property with three lots either side of the street. The proposed street, Simms Court, is off-set from both Simms Street and Swadley Street 165' from centerline to centerline. The cul-de-sac is 225' long from the centerline of West 46' Avenue. The lots vary in size from 13,325 square feet to 18,742 square feet. Based on the City's standards for density (1 d.u.per 3630 square feet of land area), lots 5 and 8 will accommodate three units each. Lots 4 and 9 will accommodate five units apiece. Lots 4 and 5 and lots 8 and 9 share access drives. Cross access easements have been provided with the City's standard easement language. A detention pond designed to handle drainage on the north half of the subdivision is centered between Lots 4 and 9. Since no changes are proposed for Lots 1, 2 and 3, no drainage report is required for the southern portion at this time. See drainage plan included as Exhibit `E'. There is no connection shown between Simms Court and W. 44's Avenue to the south. See discussion in Section VI. of this report All requirements of the R-3 zone district standards and the Subdivision Regulations have been met. VI. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ISSUES Much concern has been expressed in the past regarding traffic and the street system in the area (Exhibit `F'). The primary access to this neighborhood is by way of the Tabor Street/West 46t1 Avenue intersection. Swadley Street, via W. 46' Avenue, is the only link in the area to the south frontage between Tabor and Robb Street. Both Simms Street and Routt Street extend south from the southern Planning Commission Page 4 WS-99-OllTurgeon 14- q frontage road but both dead-end. There is 25' of right-of-way in place for Simms Street from where the street dead-ends south to the intersection with West 46'" Avenue. There is also a short 25' wide right-of- way in place adjacent to Lot 2 of this subdivision proposal which is subject to a right-of-wa% vacation request. The subdivision has been submitted with no connection between 46'" Avenue and 44' Avenue. The owners of the southern three lots are indicating that they want to leave access "as is" from 44' Avenue and are not supportive of a public street along their eastem boundary. When Case No. WS-96-2 was reviewed by Planning Commission, a condition of approval was for reservation of future public right-of-way south of the cul-de-sac bulb for Simms Court so that a future connection to 44' Avenue could be made (Exhibit `G'). This right-of-way reservation could have been used if Simms Court were to curve and intersect with Simms Street (adjacent to Lots I and 2). Alternatively, if Simms Court were extended straight south to 44' Avenue (through existing buildings shown on Lot 3), then the existing right-of-way for Simms Street adjacent could be vacated at that time. This scenario would occur if and when Lots 1,2 and 3 develop more intensely than the current usage. Extension of Simms Court via Simms Street would not occur until development of the A-I property to the east. If Planning Commission feels that this connection (Simms Court to Simms Street) is appropriate, then a 25' dedication along the eastern boundary of Lot 1 should be required and the vacation of the existing right-of-way adjacent to Lot 2 should be denied. If it is desirous to extend Simms Court to the southern property line to facilitate a future extension to 44th Avenue, the cul-de-sac bulb "eyebrows" should be designated as separate tracts. The cul-de-sac would be constructed as shown with the first building permit issued for Lots 4,5, 8 or 9. Upon development of the property to the south and east, the street would be extended south to the southern property line, and the "eyebrows" could then be vacated.. In either of these street extension scenarios, the existing detention pond for the north half of the site located between Lots 4 and 9 would have to be moved elsewhere on the site as it would be displaced by the street extension. The applicants in this case do not want the extension of the cul-de-sac to the south. In support of this application and in response to testimony given at the, original Planning Commission meeting, a traffic report was submitted analyzing proposed. development on the north and its affect on traffic circulation in the neighborhood.. The report concluded that the "traffic impacts associated with the construction of the 46w/Swadley townhome development will be minor and can be readily accommodated by the existing roadway system and traffic controls." See Exhibit `H'. The City's Traffic Engineer concurs with the findings of the report and even though it was prepared in 1997, indicates that the information used is still current and valid. Staff had also requested analysis by the Public Works Department regarding issues brought up at previous public hearings regarding circulation in the neighborhood and proposed infrastructure improvements. See original referral and response as Exhibit `I'. Based on the submitted traffic study and analysis of it and the existing conditions in the area, Staff concludes that a future connection south from Simms Court should not be required and gives a recommendation of approval for the subdivision design as submitted. Planning Commission Page 5 WS-99-01/Turgeon VII. SITE PLAN No changes are proposed for the southern three lots on the property. As a condition of approval. prior to issuance of a building permit for new development, redevel6pment or dwelling units added, site plan approval must be received from Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is providing a site plan for the northern 2.5 acres which shows in addition to the existing four-plexes on lots 6 and 7, threeplexes on lots 5 and 8 , and five-plexes on lots 4 and 9. The number of units proposed is consistent with the revised density regulations for the R-3 zone district. The proposed units are of a townhouse design with attached two-car garages for each unit with enough driveway parking space to accommodate another two vehicles. The owners have indicated that they intend on keeping the units as rentals with rent fees starting at $900 per month. The existing units have access to W. 461h Avenue. The units on lots 4, 5, 8 and 9 will have access to Simms Court which will be a dedicated public street. The buildings will be 25' in height to the highest point of the ridge line on the roof and will be sided with partial brick facades on the portions of the buildings facing public streets. All minimum setbacks have been met. See Exhibit `T: Overall site data breakdown for the property includes 45% coverage by buildings, 18.5% in hard surfaces and 36.7% landscaped coverage. Staff would note that the figures shown on the site plan include the Simms Court right-of-way. The percentages increased when wexecalculated without the street right-of-way. Access to the southern four lots is shared between lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 with a total of seven units each sharing a common drive. One unit on each of lots 5 and 8 has its own curb cut. Section 26-30 (N) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws allows up to four dwelling units on the same access easement, therefore, a variance must be processed for the two shared accesses. If the variance is denied, access to Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9 will have to be redesigned. VIII. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? The property could still be used for multi-family development however, if each dwelling unit were to have a separate drive or even a driveway for each building, there would be substantially more paved area with a corresponding reduction in landscaped coverage. Planning Commission Page 6 WS-99-01/rurgeon P-(.0 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No. there are no unique circumstances. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The character of the area would be altered if the variance is not granted because of the extreme reduction in the amount of landscaping replaced with paved surface. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in-a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? No, there are no physical elements of the site which result in hardship. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? Yes, but each application is evaluate on it's merits. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property No, it is aesthetically based. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? No. 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? No, there are alternate designs for access which could be used but it would result in side-by- side curb cuts. Good design practice dictates that the fewer curb cuts on a dedicated public street, the fewer conflicting turning movements resulting in less accidents. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. There would be no reduction in the amount of light and air or increase the danger of fire as a Planning Commission WS-99-01/Turgeon Page 7 P-1 result of the variance being granted. Adequate aisle widths for the access drives has been provided consistent with the Arvada Fire District's regulations. Granting of the variance would enhance public safety with the reduction of the number of adjacent curb cuts. Propem values would not be affected and aesthetics of the project would be enhanced with less impervious area and more landscaped coverage. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to.the neighborhood or the community as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The granting of the variance would not result in an accommodation of a person with disabilities. Staff concludes that there are no unique circumstances or physical hardship affecting the property. However, because of public safety and aesthetic reasons, a recommendation of approval is given for the variance request. IX. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that platting and site plan for the entire 5 acres is required pursuant to a 1980 zoning condition placed on the property. Staff concludes that based on analysis of the proposed development on the north and of circulation in the area, a street extension between Simms Court and West 44' Avenue does not make sense. Since all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met, a recommendation of Approval is given for the subdivision as proposed. If Planning Commission feels that a street extension is appropriate, then a right-of-way dedication should occur between the cul-de-sac bulb and southern property line prior to City Council review and the right-of-way vacation adjacent to Lot 2 should be denied and a 25' wide dedication should occur on Lot 1. A recommendation of Approval is given for the site plan with variance to allow more than four units on a private drive. X. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS SUBDIVISION PLAT Option A: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot subdivision for property located at 11681 W. 40 Avenue and 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: Planning Commission Page 8 WS-99-01/Turgeon I--0 I . It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between W. 46' Avenue and W. 44" Avenue is not desirable." Option B: "I move that Case No WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine lot subdivision for property located at 11681 W. 44" Avenue and 11680 W. 46"' Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3." VARIANCE Option A: I move that the request for approval of a variance to Section 26-30(N) to allow more than four residential dwelling units on a single access easement on property located at 11680 W. 46i' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It would facilitate vehicular traffic safety. 2. It would enhance aesthetics of the development with increased landscaping and decreased impervious surface." Option B: " I move that the request for approval of a variance to Section 26-30(N) to allow more than four residential dwelling units on a single access easement on property located at 11680 W. 46'" Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons 1. 2. 3." SITE PLAN Option A: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met." Option B: "I move that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 W. 46' Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. 2." Planning Commission Page 9 WS-99-O1/Turgeon 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WS-99-01: An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et al, for approval of a 9-lot subdivision and site plan review with a variance for the purpose of constructing 16 townhome type units on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. Said property is zoned R-3 and located at 11680 West 46th Avenue and 11661 West 44th Avenue. -The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She informed the Commission that, upon discussion with the city attorney, staff concluded there is no need for a variance in this case and therefore the variance portion of the report should be stricken from the public record. She also submitted copies of a letter, dated June 17, 1999, from residents of 4515 Robb Street (Robert S. Mattox, Lorene M. Mattox, Diana J. Mattox-Jorgensen and George Jorgensen). After Commission members took time to read the letter, Ms. Reckert reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and accepted by Chair BRINKMAN. Ms. Reckert advised the Commission that there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She explained that platting and site plan for the entire 5 acres is required pursuant to a 1980 zoning condition placed on the property and that, based on analysis of the proposed development on the north and of circulation in the area, a street extension between Simms Court and West 44th Avenue does not make sense. Since all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met, staff . recommended approval of the subdivision as proposed. Bob Goebel reviewed traffic circulation in the neighborhood associated with the subdivision. In response to a question from Commissioner GOKEY, Mr. Goebel stated that development of the southern piece of the property could result in back-to-back cul-de-sacs. In response to a question from Commissioner COLLINS, Mr. Goebel replied that a drainage study had been done, and that the dimensions of the detention pond appeared to be 75' long, 40-50' wide and 4' deep. Commissioner COLLINS expressed concern about all the asphalt in the area asked where water will be drained to. Mr. Goebel informed Commissioner COLLINS that the drainage plan was designed by an independent professional engineer and meets Urban Drainage and Flood Control District criteria as well as city drainage requirements. He also stated that the city performed drainage work on the adjacent Mattox property last year. Commissioner SNOW referred to the letter submitted by the Mattox family which implied concern with drainage on the subject property. Mr. Goebel stated that the Mattox family expressed appreciation for the city's drainage work on their property and he did not know they had any concerns until he read the June 17 letter. He suggested that members of the Mattox family who were present could address this issue later in the meeting if they so desired. Planning Commission Page 2 June 17. 1999 In reply to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Ms. Reckert replied that the city had received no response from the ditch company. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the study took into consideration possible development of agricultural land to east and how it would impact traffic circulation. She expressed concern that the subject property is located in the middle of other vacant land. Steve Nguyen replied that the traffic study only addressed the proposed development and does not discuss any other parcels. If other sites develop, traffic will be analyzed in a separate study. Considering the size and type of land use proposed, he didn't foresee a major trip -generation which would overload 46th and Swadley or 46th and Tabor. Chair BRINKMAN asked if Mr. Goebel felt there was a need for Simms to be completed on the basis of the additional units and traffic. Mr. Goebel replied that he did not feel there was such a need at this time. Commissioner THOMPSON referred to letter of November 19, 1996 from Meredith Reckert to Bob Goebel which stated the Planning Staff expects to see additional commercial and residential development in this area which will only exacerbate existing traffic problems. She asked, based on development which has occurred since 1996, if Mr. Goebel felt the study is still valid. Goebel replied that he believed the study is still valid and a signal light is still not warranted at the intersection of Tabor Street and W. 44' Avenue. Ms. Reckert presented an overhead of the site plan. She explained that her analysis of the site plan showed 45% building coverage, 18.5% hard surfaces and 36.7% in landscape coverage. A desirable aspect of the plan calls for shared driveways which reduces the number of curb cuts onto Simms Court. In conclusion, Ms. Reckert stated that staff recommends approval of the site plan as presented. The platting and the site plan for the entire five acres is required pursuant to the original 1980 zoning condition placed on the property and that the analysis of the proposed development and information, street circulation, etc. makes sense and that staff does not support the extension of the cul-de-sac bulb or right-of-way to the southern property line. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision as proposed. Mr. Goebel replied to a previous question from Commissioner COLLINS, and explained that there is a 15-inch pipe that goes south to 44th Avenue and connects into existing storm sewer. Rich Rodriguez 1700 Lincoln Street, #4100, Denver Mr. Rodriguez was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. He stated that he was with the law firm of Holme, Roberts and Owen and was appearing on behalf of the applicant. He noted that when this property was rezoned in 1980 it was intended to have a single high-density use of 105 units. The proposed use is well below the density proposed in 1980 and is consistent with revised zoning regulations adopted in 1997. The applicant has made every effort to comply i Planning Commission Page 3 June 17, 1999 with all conditions required by the city. He stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission request for cash in lieu of land dedication or transfer of water rights will be fully complied with. Regarding subdivision design, staff indicated that access for lots 1 and 2 on the southern portion do have standard city language for ingress/egress easement and the lot size is fully consistent with city regulations. The applicant hired a traffic consultant to do a traffic study. While the study did not consider possible development of adjacent property, it did consider project generated traffic and adopted standards and methodology approved by a traffic engineering transportation research board. Regarding Commissioner COLLINS' concerns regarding drainage, a drainage plan was submitted in accordance with city requirements and approved as meeting all required standards. In regard to Simms being completed, the applicant -agrees that Simms Court is not a good idea mainly because of the drainage issue. If it were extended, the improvements for the property would have to be redesigned. He pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Fightmaster have indicated they have no desire to develop the southern portion of the property. James Turgeon 706 Elm Circle, Golden Mr. Turgeon, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. Commissioner SNOW asked if he planned to dedicate water rights or pay cash in lieu of land dedication. Mr. Turgeon replied that it would probably be cash. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Turgeon explained the proposed units would be very similar to the existing units. In response to Commissioner SNOW's concerns about handicapped parking, Ms. Reckert replied that handicapped spaces are usually not required in these types of designs. Mr. Turgeon replied that the single story units are designed to be handicapped accessible. Commissioner THOMPSON asked about the existing large trees on the property and asked if they could be saved. Mr. Turgeon replied that the trees could not be saved, however they would be replaced. Ms. Reckert explained that the city forester will assess the existing trees and the builders would be required to replace any trees removed with the equivalent caliper inch of new trees. Mr. Turgeon stated that he plans to complete the 6-foot privacy fence along the entire property. Commissioner MACDOUGALL asked if a safety barrier was planned around the detention pond. Mr. Goebel stated that safety barriers for a possible 100-year flood are not part of the city requirements. Commissioner COLLINS asked if there is an easement for the storm sewer easement across the southern portion of property. Mr. Turgeon replied that there is an easement which stops at his property. Herbert Fightmaster 11641 West 44th Avenue Mr. Fightmaster was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. Commissioner COLLINS asked if Mr. Planning Commission Page 4 June 17, 1999 Fightmaster was aware of the-utility easement on the east side of his property. Mr. Fightmaster ! replied that there was a utility easement along the east side of the property line to 44th Avenue. (Chair BRINKMAN declared a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m.) In response to a request from Commissioner DOYLE, Mr. Turgeon reviewed the proposed placement of trees in the proposed project. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that -Case No. WS-99-01, a request forapproval of a nine-lot subdivision for property located at 11681 West 44th Avenue and 11680 West 46th Avenue, be recommended to the City Council for approval for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between West 46th Avenue and West 44th Avenue is not desirable. With the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest comer of the property be evaluated by the city forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the 6-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. Commissioner SNOW offered an amendment to the motion as follows: Condition No. 3 be added which would require a letter from the ditch company; and condition no. 4 be added which would require this case to be published as a preliminary and final plat for the City Council hearing. This amendment was acceptable to Commissioners THOMPSON and GOKEY. Commissioner SNOW stated that, even though she would vote in favor of the motion, she wanted to voice her concern that had the city not given permits for the first two buildings, Simms on the eastern side of the property could have gone through to provide the best traffic circulation. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No. WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 West 46th Avenue, be recommended to the City Council for approval for the following reasons: Planning Commission Page 5 June 17, 1999 I . It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the city forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the 6-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. That a letter from the ditch company be required. -4. That this case be published as a preliminary and final plat for the city council hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner SNOW to reconsider the motion for approval of the subdivision on case No. WS 99-01 to add a condition. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner MACDOUGALL to add condition no. 5 which would require that no development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the motion for approval of the site plan for Case No. WS 99-01 be reconsidered to add a condition. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the site plan be recommended to the City Council for approval for all the prior reasons and with all prior conditions with the addition of condition no. 5 which would require that no development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. B. Case No. WV-99-03- An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et al, for approval of a right- of-way vacation for an unused portion of the street right-of-way adjacent to 4455 Simms Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and accepted by Chair BRINKMAN. Ms. Reckert advised the Commission that there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She stated that staff would recommend that an easement be Planning Commission Page 6 June 17, 1999 CERTIricATION or IC ;SOivrloA ` CITY OF HIWAT RIDGE PLANNING CmilsSION Case Number: NZ-SO-)S Case N mbe aetwern 44th end 46th Avenues Locatlo : d u r Nwe: Lynn Fi htmaater S n an Sires and Swadley Streets Requests Change of tone from A4ricultural One to Residential Three , Owner's Nam: Lynn Pightnaster Areas 5.01 Acres NHEREAS, 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 it was moved by Commissioner JEW seconded by Commissioner PRESTON that We No. Ire-so- . App iwtiom y Lyon Fightmaster far a elunge o row roe aodr Slumm and Swdley Street, beh forwarded to City Couneilewith Flaming oaamies on~ss recommendation for approval for the following reason, 1. Does comply with the Comprehensive Floe; 2. •aua property is surrounded in part by i-3 arming and commercial zoning; 5. It r7 have a stabilizing effect an future commercial dwalopwnt on the north side of West 44th Avenue; and with the following conditions: e (A) That the application be approved with the stipulation that no development take place until Siami Street in opened the length of the property; (a) That the entire parcel be developed as one unit. Vote, Ten Jenks, Prasten. Stewart. Name. Martin, tengd, Scomi . me, snow r aoLSIE H:iRLEf .r._. Secretary to the city of heat Ridge Planning Com[asion, wtth certify that the forenoing resolution was duly .pproved 17 veto of the members present at their Reuler in 6 the day Count of 1 Chambers of the Nunicipal Building, Wheat Iti gc-.Colorado, mee ion thed Revenber )900. 47 a0NN1E SC(DN, Chai rrnn of the F.LSIIE In1Iti.1:Y, Srerrtar to tlir Reheat R[dgo Planning Comi scion- Wheat Ridge Planning C misSimi ATTACH-KENT 1 / YIHEAI CITY COUNCr,_ MINUTES CITY OP w:tAT RIDGE, coLokADO }n~ March 9. 1981 pl Np%%%O The City Council Muting was eonventd by the Mayor at 7,30 p.m. Councilmembers presont, Pat Aiello, Bill Bowman, Mary Jo Covert, Rent Davis, Ken Lewis, Larry Merki, Ray On, and Louise Turner. Also Present, City Clerk, Carol Hampfl City Administrator, Tom falser) City Attorney, John Ilayess Department Meads, Richard Bredt, Negh Brown, Chief Pinson, Charles Stromberg, and Rodger Young, staffs and Interested Cltisens. Notion by Mr. Lew/s for the approval of the Minutes of the meeting eZ-February 23, 1981, with the follouing addition on page 2, 19th lineo fgllo-.ing the word 'stories.'- (Concerning the R3-E Ordinance) e Mr. Lewis stated he was reluctantly voting for this ordinance bemuse this will give the city a little sore flexibility in aAlurcing the code') seconded by Mr. Davis. Mrs. Turner requsted that the tapes be researched to also add her reasons for voting no on the amendment to the 1-36 Ordinance and that the addresses as well as the boxes of those speaking be included. Notion carried 9-0. PIIOCNATION BY THE MAYOR •Crangt Weak' Apria 19-2S, 1901, was • eto pr , 1. Thom* to receive the proclamation were 12d unable to be present at th1• setting. W1TMrOPatOkHCE was administered by the Mayor to Sandra Sid, r r s Grace Shadduu and William Donaldson. Ani1al Control Commiselons ar et D. Petty. Jr., Bu ng Code Advisory Boards Jsnlee Them fob a .ohn McDermott. Parks and Recreation CoriasTent -Allen Kirby and Roeert RO fCMan, Ptrsonnel Comeissical and gay wince[, Planning Commission, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 4~F Item 1. Council bill 57 - An Ordinance providing for the approval of reaching from Agricultural One (A-1) to Residential Three (1-3) with conditions for land located at • roximately 11S51 Nest 44th Avenue, City of wheat A morre ty of Jefferson, State of Colorado. (Case Ito. Mi (Lynn faghtMattar) Council rill 77 was introduced on second bad ingl title ad by tM Clerk. Mr. Strorberg gave the staff report. Herbert ribhtnas ter, 11641 We 44th Avenue, Owner of the property, presence the applicant's case. Janice Thom bson, 12290 W. 42nd Avenue, spoke in opposition, atntlnq that and Would prefer to see a lower density on the northoen portion of the property and also that she had spoken With Tex Junket end Ron Croon, who had spoken at Planning Commission, but Would be unable to attend this meeting, and that they or. Ise In opposition. However, she said she was pleased that it would be Residential. Motion by Mr. Merkl that Ordinance 443 (Council mill 57) be appeove-cr -rl,th the following changen to Section f. Cendltlonst eliminate A., and a. be the only condition on this ordinance and that also under Be the duplicated Words ewhich Illustrates external and internal circulation and access points Onto public or privati roadways' be deleted, seconded by Mr. Sammons. carried 8-0. failed Amendment by Mrs. Turner that there be a condition that Would how the approximate 1/2 acre that borders 46th Avenue have the density be lessened to approximately 16 units per acreI seconded by Mrs. C•varr•s failed 2-6, with Councilmesbers Marti, Bowmen, Davis, Ltris, Aiello, and Ore voting No. Mr. serkl stating that he was opposed to te•trletlon of units in A-3 plans Mr. Aiello stating that he could not see but What now construction In the area would serve to enhance It, and that the R-2 soning serves as somewhat of • ouffer to the adjacent low density housing as 46th Avenue.. _ OROIMANCKS ON rIRST READING to 4 C'M ll 8111 57 - An. Ordinance proyldnot, for the approval of , i& r Ing from Agricultural One (A-1) tT P.esidentlal Tres (R-3) with conditions for land located at approximately 1lSSl Nest 44th Avense. City of Wheat Ridge, County of J•fhrtae. state of Colorado. (Lynn rightmester) (Casa No. Wf-80-281 Council 3.11 57 was introduced on tint rending by Mt. Merkls title read by the Clerk. Notion by Mr. Marti that Council Bill He. 57 be approved on first reading; ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday. March 9, 1981, at 7130 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Hun iclpal Bu llGing. and If approved on second reading, take effect 1 day after tineI publlastlone seconded by Mr. Bowman) Carded 8-0. lK-ie- pbiManCL W. 4e1 Page -2-.00* of f, me South iP therul t for South irrigation edittAt ch12 All t" In the E. 1/I of Wt. 11 and it, Le9•0 subdlvlel0n. R.rept Public xl.thways, ditches, roads Ana res•rmic tiling, Jefferson County. State Of C010984e. Section 2 Cenditians. The following condition hall apply to tills re•a~tpt A. Prier be issuance u• any buildi-9 vomits for mu construction, the subject property legally "scribed in Section 1 abort shall bw platted In et"t to aehievi + Mind dml9n ON U - Illustrates esternat and internal clreula clan and occma points Onto public ac mi"m road:ays. end which Illustrates Wilding envelopes. art/an 1 mist Clause. The city council he•eby fisds, bun nu, aea eve s"s t at Cola ordinance IS presul9ated under ton general police power Of the City Of 'beat Ridge, that it is pconul9ated for the health. safety, and welf.re at the pabile, and that this ..Mlnsnce is necessary ter Me Preservation of Walth aM Safety and ter the PPOtettien at public <nvNlenr• and sellers. The City Council turthms ""dunes that the ordinance Wars • rau0nal "fatten W the P[Oper I"Sal"'Ve object sought W he attained. etla, hi Sesera0111! . It any elsuSe, "manta, paragraph, or part e a er tnanw or the appall"tin' Marra[ to any yomot. er eitc...tNees shall tar anl• mason he adjudged by a court Of eocvotent jurisdiction Invslld such jud9s•nt hall hot affect, bpalr ai invalidate as c•nalnder of this ordinance or its appllsetin to ether person, or circumstances. Re .clan S. this "dlnshm O"ll take ..feet t day after final & Te.tton. t IwT. DDOCSD, RRaD. AND aDD1T9D en first read/n9 qq a vote at be 0 rn this 9th day of ybrua, .9B It Ordered "'TTi6sd In ta1l-r s ..spa['•r a genera eireufaflan in the Clty O[ wheat Ridge and Public nearing am Consideration on final passage set ter March f 1' 91, at 7.30 o'clock pa., in the Count hesWrn, wmst 19th Yenuer wheat "Uu stage. Colored'. RCAD, abo"g, aaD DBOE•ED PUBLISHED on second sna final reading by a to a t. 0 this gin day Of March , 1981. --1371- SIGNED by the Coyer Co twis _T•y If ti w ! / r/•r ~L ~ T Tt . MAySH ci-rol ATfE isnn pK tt / let su0l lenient leis. 2. 1981jwheat Ridge Stett"I 2sd Publlrulont "or. 19. 19811) Htt.ctim Date. Mar. 20. 1911 APP c 115 TD PO *I CITY ATTORNIT 7 71 71 KK O1 ~m 4d >:m %n O U ATTACHMENT 3 a- ~iT 4i i a g•-. a L g I i5i t `i e e:3s a : I -•Y i i~:ip ' a t' i i'1 '~3 8a e Ss'E~~9. i s! sca~a F A: `i?a• a~ a 8I i a -.e r ~3 ~ a-D ( i ~_a 3!37 ?i Yai r e in 3: 'fEi g s e F s . 3 na e S a : : i D~. ! iZ9 a - ? a 8 2 i i a f e• ae Paz -1 Ila, 3"1 d ° a f F a e F6 Da.~ I.} Oil ~M} ]a a ne~'ayi 3 i- I 3 Ls I9tlk??: 3i iel ((3~e - I lib] 3!@ :.FeF;s:Fp 9 a7~ i ,i~9 ~ I~ ~ A ~ ~E !!a3 t'a c FS a~: Y.j~-.~~~'. ~ ~f sa' a yyI r 6 - qq.I 19 DI~ f iy y } ~ "aq ? ~ 3 ~ e 9 ''a~ a a ~ ag3 Dn Sii a ~D .ia a I F Z b .e3 52 Fa Z •=38 F~ s ~_isa FZ ~S NjC 7~ .LS ENNIS w me, ~N u I v Q '.LS .c3•IQm I I I 7-T oe. it , I i~ Fy I~q~ r.x C~ E ~ ` ' n4 I o .G S~ a ~ I ~ f I I I .•j a I i I I~ - I- I I a=^ I I s I I tae !~I : ei - I 3} ~I fig? I I 81 al . I; ~ I a~ ~J - I'A 1 I I I I I I i -°--11 - I~ ; +;3 4;3 ~ Ibail: IY a . ATTACH MEN 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 5. 1996 Page 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. WS-96-2: An application by James R. Turgeon for Park Orchard Development for approval of a six (6).lot subdivision on R-3 zoned land at 11600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue. Ms. Reckert presented Staff's report on Case No. WS-96-2. She stated that the applicant was James R. Turgeon, 18216 West 4th Avenue, Golden, Colorado. The property contains 2.5 acres of land which is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting approval of a six (6) lot subdivision on this Residential-Three zoned property for the purpose of building twenty-six (26) townhome units. Ms. Reckert presented overhead map displays and slides of the subject property. She outlined the zoning, streets and land use from the overhead maps and then presented an overview of the slides which showed various angles of the subject land and usage surrounding it. Ms. Reckert entered into the record the zoning ordinance subdivision re._ulations, case file, packet materials, and exhibits. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all proper posting and notification has occurred, therefore, the Planning Commission does have jurisdiction over this case. Ms. Reckert reviewed the Staff Report. General discussion regarding traffic, land dedication, number of units, and street changes took place. ` Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Jim Turgeon who resides at 18216 West 4th Avenue. Golden. Colorado. Mr. Turgeon presented an oral interpretation of his proposal for this property and discussed commercial vs residential land use for this area. Commissioners presented Mr. Turgeon and Staff with additional questions regarding traffic issues, right-of-ways, truck (semi. delivery) traffic, access, and networking streets to alleviate traffic in the future. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Herb Fightmaster who resides at 11641 West 44th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Fightmaster stated that his family were the original owners of the property. being developed and still own adjacent property. He supports the development. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Thomas Shockley who resides at 11605 West 46th Avenue. Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Shockley stated he did not support the development for a variety of reasons which included the water supply, signs, truck traffic, access, vehicle speed, and his perception of illegal excavation/construction. He presented the 1985 Fruit Valley Lake Plan and elaborated on the approvals which were considered at that time. Questions were presented to Mr. Shockley and Staff which included density, traffic, street connections, water and related utility costs, support of the neighborhood in closing 46th Avenue, and open space. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Jerry Brown who resides at 4430 Tabor Street. Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Brown stated he was against the development and relayed his concerns about ATTACHMENT 5 Plannine Commission Meeting Minutes December 5, 1996 PJ_e 3 apartment dwellers uncarinz attitude, traffic issues. traffic light. semi-truck access, fencing and o%erall open space area. Questions to Mr. Brown from the Commissioners included clarification of who the applicant plans on renting= to, fencing and density. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in Kim Stuart who resides in a duplex with her mother at 11700 and 11706 West 46 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Ms. Stuart expressed opposition to the development stating her reasons as being traffic issues, no more off street parking, open space being ruined, fencing, and preferences of single ownership. Staff clarified that fencing would be the responsibility of the property owner; that the land boundaries were checked and should be okay; and that lighting would be controlled by City Code. Parking issues were also addressed. Director Gidley stated that there was a two-car garaee and a two-car driveway for the units which exceed the minimum requirement for this type of development by 50%. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in Lynn Fightmaster who resides at 4455 Simms. Wheat Ridge. Colorado. Mr. Fightmaster stated he was for the development and stated that he would like to see a cul-de-sac installed as opposed to a through street. General discussion was held regardir.-_ the easement placement. Director Gidley clarified the street and easement placement. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in Ms. Diane Maddox who resides at 4515 Robb Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Ms. Maddox stated her concerns as drainage problems she has incurred and inquired if it would be improved and she requested that the corrections be made in writing. Her second concern regarded her live stock and requested that a six-foot fence be installed to protect her property and children who may be drawn to the area. Director Gidley stated that a subdivision fence could be required on all sides and other specifications deemed necessary. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in Dan Turgeon who resides at 2110 Rock Crest Wa}', Golden. Colorado. Mr. Turgeon stated he was for the project and that the development would clean up the area. He felt that one of the property owners was opposed to the development because he would lose excessive parking space. No questions were posed. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in Tex Junker who resides at 4615 Swatley. Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Mr. Junker stated he was concerned mostly with traffic. He stated that a fence would make his neighborhood happy. Limited discussion was held regarding street installation. Commissioner WILLIAMS swore in George Jergenson who resides at 4515 Robb Street, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. He stated that his wife had asked a question about.the drainage problem and he did not recall an answer. Ms. Reckert addressed him and stated that Public Works is looking into the drainage situation on Robb Street. The plan is showing that the drainage will be carried to the south to an inlet which in turn empties into a storm sewerat West 44th Avnue. Mr. Jergenson stated he believes the development being proposed will add to their problem. Ms. Reckert stated she was not sure when Public Works had this project scheduled., There were no questions asked Planning Commission Meetin.- Minutes December 5. 1996 Poke 4 by the Commission. Commissioner CERVENY motioned, Commissioner LANGDON seconded. to approve Case No. WS-96-2, a request for approval of a six-lot subdivision on Residential-Three zoned property located at 11600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Staff recommends approval 2. The property is in the City of Wheat Ridge and properly zoned. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. Minor legal description problems be corrected prior to review by City Council. 2. That the right-of-way for Simms Street be extended south to the southern property line in the event that any time in the future the property to the south is developed. then this right- of-way is needed to improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood. 3. Lighting on the premises must meet City code. There was no additional discussion. Motion was APPROVED 5-1 with Commissioner GRIFFITH voting no. 2. Case No. PBG-96-1: An application by Karl Koch for approval of a four (4) structure planned building group and a replat on Residential-Three zoned land at 4420 Jay Street. Director Gidley presented overheads and slides as it relates to this case. This property is owned by the same person but assessor's records reflect the property as divided into three parcels. A site plan was provided for review. The size of this property is approximately 3/4 acre. Director Gidley reviewed the various types of zoning and buildings in the immediate area. He entered into the record Zone Ordinance. Subdivision Regulations, packet materials, and all exhibits. All notification requirements have been met, the property is within the City, and the City does have jurisdiction in this case. Director Gidley stated that all the Residential-Three district and subdivision regulations have been met, all agencies have stated an ability to serve. and therefore Staff has recommended approval of the plat and site plan. A drainage plan is currently being reviewed by the Public Works Department, therefore, this plan is not available at this time. Director Gidley suggested that the drainage plan be required by the Commission to be fully reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before this matter is scheduled for City Council. Commissioner THOMPSON raised concern regarding enough trees and shrubs, and, trees being planter; that would interfere with the power poles to the rear of the proposed building. Planner CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO: WS-96-2 LOCATION: 11600&- 11690 R'. 46 Avenue APPLICANT(S) NAME: James R. Turgeon OWNER(S) NAME: Same REQUEST: Approval of a six (6) lot subdivision on Residential-Three zoned land. APPROXIMATE AREA: 2.5 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 (tearing by the Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the.facts presented and conclusions reached, the following motions were made as stated regarding Case No. WS-96-2, an application by James R. Tur_eon for approval of a six (6) lot subdivision. ` Commissioner CERVENY motioned, Commissioner LANGDON seconded, that Case No. WS-96-2, a request of a six (6) lot subdivision, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Staff recommends approval. 2. The property is in the City of Wheat Ridge 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. Minor legal description problems be corrected prior to review by City Council. 2. That the right-of-way for Simms Street be extended south to the southern property line in the event that any time in the future the property to the south is developed, then this rivht-of-wav is needed to improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood. 3. Lighting on the premises must meet City Code Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner GRIFFITH voting against. I. Marilyn Gunn, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a vote of the members present at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, Wheat Riidg_ o a7ado, on the day'& , 1996. Z---T - WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANJYI<G COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: Januarl 13, 1997 Page -4- Item 3. Application by James R. Turgeon for Park Orchard Development for approval of a 6-lot subdivision and a site plan on R-3 zoned land at 11600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue. (Case No. WS-96-2) Case No. WS-96-2 was introduced by Mrs. Dalbec; title read by the Clerk. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec that there is not jurisdiction to hear this item because the 1981 condition that prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction, the subject property legally described in Section 1 above, which is the Turgeon property and the property immediately adjacent to it and south, shall be platted in order to achieve a unified design which illustrates external and internal circulation and access points onto public or private roadways and which illustrates building envelopes and this has not happened. She would like to refer the item to such time and back to the Planning Commission as the condition is complied with; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 8-0. Mrs. Dalbec feels the condition was originally put on because of high traffic volume and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Solano's concern is high density. Mr. Siler commented that if high density is our concern, we should change the Rules and discuss this at a study session. Mr. DiTullio stated the rules are being changed as evidenced by two moratorium ordinances. Item 4. Council Bill 56 - An Ordinance concerning the regulation of vehicles and traffic in the City of Wheat Ridge. Council Bill 56 was introduced on second reading by Mrs. Dalbec, who also read the title; Ordinance No. 1063 was assigned. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec for approval of Council Bill 56 (Ordinance 1063); seconded by Mr. Eafanti; carried 8-0. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Item 5. Council Bill 1 - An Ordinance adopting a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing and issuance of demolition permits for historical structures within the City. Council Bill 1 was introduced on first reading by Mrs. Worth; title read by the Clerk Motion by Mrs. Worth that Council Bill 1 be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, January 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second reading, take effect January 30, 1997; seconded by Mrs. Fields; carried 8-0. ATTACHMENT 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner FROM: Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer 5!J DATE: February 19, 1999 SUBJECT: Case No. MS-98-1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Traffic Issues and Impact Analysis for 46' Avenue and Simms/Tabor Street This memo serves as a response to your request to revisit the possibility of a Simms St. connection with 44'hAvenue. First of all, the previous traffic impact study submitted for this location is still considered valid since it is still within a two-year time frame and the traffic conditions have not changed significantly. Again, I concur with the findings in the study. All of the traffic projections and methodology for analysis are done in accordance with the adopted national standards. The study shows that the development. traffic will not adversely affect the immediate intersections. In addition, the level- of-service of these intersections is still at a good level even for the maximum condition which is the 2015 background traffic plus site traffic. Concerning the traffic issues in your memo to Bob Goebel, Director of Public Works dated November 19,1996, I am re-submitting the comments contained in the memo I sent to you dated December 4, 1996. Basically, the Public Works Department has the same position as previously regarding these traffic issues. Please see me if you wish to discuss this in detail. cc: Bob Goebel, Director of Public Works Dave Kotecki, Senior Project Engineer Greg Knudson, Development Review Engineer ATTACHMENT 7 LEE'S SUB MOOD FENCE TAJ,UM.3 F.F..W].3 1ARSWRE FENCE 1 ~I LIT 4 S FT. R 8 X R ~ k X smc o R h R lu ❑ E !I ~a .3 0 o I~ I~ T.O.F.-5403.6 F.F..S .6 IFROA 19,09 S I II ATTACHMENT 8 tAM D SS s P~ C PGD _ -9 ~ To-~~e KLN}nn STA LREnR@'D.T x t~I D rJ k-0 I 5 _ S ^ I " - wKTn AVe / \ FGD a.aRC G~ I = ZORING 5;75 C'-'AN AP-Rovki, OLOOD 'LAIN 'A LOCA T ION) -RIG' 50.NDR- .OT 5OUNDRY - L N-Z s'URE MUi ADDR7--55ES ~,~T~-CJs t o rte! TD 4 A~v Tom.--- <1, AV A-1 a FBF L- - .I 2 R-) AF ~ •gpyeK ~ ~Al ~ i/ ~ ~ / ` I /f. . K l . R JGE j/ <O / - i . NE 2 ~ IR!NG 5•-= P AREA REO; ✓ ZON 1 NG MftF , _ e b OLORf DO ZONE D'5-R•c' 9OuNDR- v t SG!L° I'"Oo - ?ARG5L-'_07 BOUNDRY <AQ A70='_? Lnc -5. '99~ ,Dc?•G,:A 2S OWNER51-11') -es- Re.bo Decn 22. Q9~ W`-OR .TUPe ATTACHMENT 9 cl) L' ZI u Z W. 46TH AVE. oo• R.ow.) r N N N 140.50 A-90' 18'4r REBAR N89'59'57E 331.01 R 140.50 11 wn D-89'at•i6" R=15.00 25' 25' R=15.00 L=23.64' I I L-23.46' - LOT 6 I am LOT 1 15.359 S0. FT. I. /y ^ij n I 15.356 S0. F! m ^ 0 -10' UTILITY AND T O a 10' UTI ITY DRAINAGE EASEMEN I I L r r ` r EASEMENT V (TYP.) 3 I o -74D32 - r - ^ r ` 1402 N89'59 41-r ~ 89'S941w Y - - I - ~ L5.00 UTILITY i 7Wet96 BECOME EASEMENT T P I c n 10' UTILITY AND -s 712^( ( Y V N - DRAINAGE EASEM ENT I f I v LOT 5 LOT 2 14,511 S0. FT. 14,515 S0. FT. I "1 m C-8? 57' 36" R-45.00' L=65.16' ' 125.35----` 59 N-8 2 T-eNPORA4ty Gvc- \ )e- SAL GULFS 6.69 17.26 R=45.00' L-49.71' LOT 4 17,437 B0. FT. 10' UTILITY AND --DRAINAGE EASEMENT - - 165.57 I I 3=87 19'04" R =45.00' I ' L-64.65' ~ 125.12 I - w _ /L1&„-jr-oc -WAY ExrF,~s ~ o ti R x5 ' ~ W I - .00 L-50.21' FVT1J2E E I ~ .9 ' LOT 3 b ov L I L4 17,426 S0. FT. I - 10.00' UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT -L 5 9043 F%. 165.57 ATTACHMENT 10 N V Z C w m 0 N N' a CD DU71rl Fog re.JSIad Irw AA, I ' 1GH. SCUTT ; CLEARI'. INC. .ANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS March 24. 1997 Mr. Jim Turgeon Customcraft Homes. Inc. 21 i0 Rockcress Way Golden, CO 80401 01 t_Jl ~lrr -^-1V~ L;=~ tONI.'G o Re: Dear Mr. Turgeon: 1889 York Street Denier. CO 50206 (303) 333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 46th/Swadley Townhomes (LSC #970250) As requested. we have completed a traffic impact analysis of the proposed 46th/Swadley Town- home development located south of 46th Avenue and about 350 feet west of Tabor Street in Wheat Ridge. Colorado. The proposed site would consist of 26 residential townltomes. The remainder of this report presents our findings concerning the traffic impacts of the proposed development. Existing Roadways and Traffic Figure 1. enclosed, illustrates the site's location together with existing lane geometry and traffic controls. As indicated, the project site is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of 46th Avenue and Swadley Street. West 46th Avenue is a two-lane local roadwav that extends from Tabor Street for about 700 feet where is ends. This roadway primarily serves residential homes and has a speed limit of 25 mph. The intersection of 46th Street with Tabor Street is controlled by an east facing Stop sign. Swadley Street which connects to 46th Avenue is a two-lane local street that extends from 46th Avenue to Kipling Street. Near the site, it has a posted speed limit of 25 niph. Its intersection with 46th Avenue is controlled by a north facing Stop sign. Tabor Street, located west of the site, is a two-lane, minor collector street that extends northward from 44th Avenue for about one-third of a mile to West 48th Avenue. The posted speed limit on this roadway near the site is 30 mph. Its intersection with 44th Avenue is controlled by north/ suuth facing Stop signs while its intersection with 48th Avenue is controlled by a south facing Stop sign. Nest 44th Avenue, located south of the site, is a four-lane. east/west, minor arterial that extends entirely through the City of Wheat Ridge. It has a posted speed limit of 35 niph and its inter- sections with Kipling Street and the Ward Road/1-70 Ramps are signalized. ATTACHMENT 11 Mr. Jim Turgeon Page 2 March 24. 1997 Figure 1 also illustrates the results of weekday morning and evening peak-hour turnina move- ment traffic counts at the intersections of 44th Avenue/Tabor Street. Tabor Street/ 46th Avenue. and 46th Avenue/Swadley Street. These data are based on counts conducted on March 13. 1997 by Counter Measures. Inc. (complete data printouts are enclosed). Peak-Hours were found to occur between 7:30 and 8:30 AM and from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. Estimated Traffic Generation Based on applicable formulae cited in the current edition of "Trio Generation". published by the institute of Transportation Engineers, the following traffic generation estimates have been calculated for the 46th/Swadley Townhome development at buildout. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 1. Table 1 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION 46th/Swadley Townhome Development Residential Townhomes Notes: (1) Based on Formulae cited in 5th Edition, Category 230. (2) Dwelling Units. Assumed Trip Generation nit; 26 d.u. (2) 208 'Tro Generation', Institute of Transportation Engineers, 15 in Qi1I 14 As indicated in Table 1, the 46th/Swadley Townhome development would generate about 208 vehicle-trips during an average weekday (104 entering and 104 exiting vehicle-trips in a 24-hour period). During the moming peak-hour, a total of 18 vehicle-trips would enter and exit the site, while in the evening 21 would enter and exit. Estimated Traffic flf;rr !ALQ~:alllIlE01 One of the most important factors to be considered when evaluating the traffic impacts of this development is the directional distribution of site-generated traffic onto the surrounding roadway system. A number of factors influence this distribution, including the relative location of the site Average Weekday Traffic Morning Evening Peak-Hour Peak-Hour In Q111 Mr. Jim Turgeon Page 3 March 24, 1997 with respect to the area it will serve, existing traffic patterns in the vicinity. and the site's specific access plan. Figure 2 reflects our distribution projections for the 46th/Swadley development. together with the amount of average weekday trafffc.to be contributed by the project to the surrounding roadways. Figure 3 illustrates the assignment of project-generated peak-hour traffic for the proposed development to the nearby intersections of 44th Avenue/Tabor Street. Tabor Sti•eet/46th Avenue, and 461.11 Avenue/Swadley Street. These estimates have been derived by application of the Figure 3 distribution assumptions to the generation estimates of Table 1. Total Projected Traffic Total projected future traffic is the sum of site-generated traffic and background traffic, which includes all other traffic on the street system. Future Year 2015 background u•affic was derived by applying a one percent annual growth rate to the present traffic volumes on 44th Avenue and Tabor Street. These expected morning and evening background peak-hour volumes for 2015 are illustrated in Figure 4. The combined project-generated traffic (Figure 3) and existing (Figure 1) traffic volumes for the morning and evening peak-hours are shown in Figure 5. Similarly. the combined project-generated traffic and 2015 background (Figure 4) traffic volumes for the commuter peak-hours are shown in Figure 6. These projections represent total traffic activity for both near and long-term planning purposes. Estimated Traffic Impacts During the commuter peak-hours. the primary traffic impacts for the proposed development will be at the nearby intersections of 44th Avenue/Tabor Street. Tabor Street/46t1i Avenue, and 46th Avenue/Swadley Street. In order to assess these impacts, related capacity analyses have been performed which compare existing traffic operating conditions with those reflecting the addition of project-generated traffic or projected future traffic. The methodology used is that presented in the nationally accepted H hwau npa i M nun published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The concept of Level of Service (LOS) is used as a basis for computing combinations of roadway operating conditions. By definition, six different Levels of Service are used (A. B. C. D. E. and F) with "A" being a relatively free-flow condition and "E" representing the "capacity" of a given intersection or traffic movement. The following tabulation summarizes the results of our LOS analyses for the proposed 46th/Swadley Town home project (actual computer analysis printouts are enclosed): Mr. Jim Turgeon Page 4 o Nlarch 24, 1997 Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISONS 46th/Swadley Townhome Development AM Peak - Hour PM Peak - Hour Intersection Level Intersection Level Intersections Delay (seconds) of Service Delay (seconds) of r/i 44th Avenue/ Existing 1.1 A 1.5 A (1) Tabor St. Existing + Site Traffic 1.2 A 1.6 A (1) 2015 Background 1.6 A 2.8 A (2) 2015 Background + Site Traffic 1.7 A 2.9 A (2) Tabor SU Existing 0.7 A 0.4 A 46th Ave. Existing + Site Traffic 0.9 A 0.5 A 2015 Background 0.7 A 0.4 A 2015 Background + Site Traffic 0.9 A 0.5 A 46th AveJ Existing 2.4 A 2.1 A Swadley St. Existing + Site Traffic 1.9 A 1.5 A 2015 Background 2.3 A 1.9 A 2015 Background + Site Traffic 1.8 A 1.5 A (1.) LOS "E" for southbound left-tums. (2) LOS 'F" for southbound left-tums. As indicated, projected operating conditions at the intersection of 44th Avenue/Tabor Street will remain at a high level of service with an increase of only about one second .(1.5 to 2.9 seconds) in overall average delay during the evening peak-hour. Although the soutlilmund left-turns at Lhis intersection may incur significant delays during the evening peak-hour, it is doubtful that the intersection would meet satisfactory signal warrants by 2015 and should only be signalized when one or more warrants are met. The two intersections of Tabor SLreeL/46th Avenue and 46th Avenue/Swadley Street would both operate at. Level of Service "A" during the morning and evening peak-hours with the addition of buildout traffic and will continue Lo operate aL that LOS by 2015. Summary and on I jcinn Based on the analyses presented herein, the following summarizes our findings relative to the traffic impacts of the proposed 46th/Swadley Townhome project. Mr. Jim Turgeon Page 5 March 24. 1997 1. At buildout, the proposed project is expected to generate 208 vehicle-trips (104 in and 104 out) during an average weekday. Of these, 3 would enter and 15 would exit during the morning commuter peak-hour. During the evening peak period. 14 and 7 would enter and exit the site. 2. The directional distribution of site-generated traffic is expected to be oriented primarily to the east and north on 44th and Tabor Street with about 35 percent and to the west on 44th Avenue with 20 percent. 3. Traffic impacts associated with the construction of the 46th/Swadlev Townhome development will be minor and can be readily accommodated by the existing roadway system and traffic controls. We trust that this information will assist with further planning for the 46th/Swadley Townhome development project. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted. LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY. INC. By: / Philip Oki. Sc tt III, P.E. PNS/MM/wd Enclosures: Figures i - 6 Computer Analyses Traffic Counts C:\PROJEC75\ 970250\SWADLEY.REP 01 7500 V:EcT 29Th1. AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE CC 80215.6713 ,3o-z, _34-5000 W heat GW ;1cmm. Fix : 234-5924 Pooce Depi. Fax r. 225-2949 1 `i d e November 19, 1996 TO: )ebb Goebel, Director of Public Works FROM: eredith Reckert, Planner RE: Vicinity of West 46th Avenue and Tabor Street The Department of Planning and Development is in the position of processing a land use case for property located at 11600 and 11690 West 46th Avenue (Case No. MS-96-2). The applicant is requesting approval of a six-lot major subdivision with the intention of building a series of four- plexes. This property was zoned to R-3 in 1980 and is currently vacant. Many concerns have been expressed from area residents regarding traffic problems in this vicinity including, but not limited, to the following: 1. When will Tabor Street between West 44th Avenue and I-70 be widened? 2. What future improvements will occur to the intersection of West 44th Avenue and Tabor Street? 3. What future improvements will occur to the intersection of West 46th Avenue and Tabor Street? 4. What can be done to eliminate commercial traffic in the area ( IE, vehicles using the south frontage road through the residential neighborhood to get to Tabor and Miller)? 5: Both West 46th Avenue west of Swadley Street and Simms Street south of the southern frontage road dead-end at the property referenced above. Can anything be done to improve signage to eliminate cars driving down to the dead-end and to the roadblocks themselves which apparently are unmaintained? 6. Will Simms Street be extended south to connect with West 46th Avenue? There appears to be right-of-way in place although it is not full width. The Planning Staff expects to see additional commercial and residential development in this area which will only exacerbate existing traffic problems. This particular case (WS-96-2) is scheduledd for pubic hearing in front of Planning Commission on December 5, 1996. I anticipate a lot of discussion regarding traffic concerns. Would it be possible for an analyses to be to done and entered as an exhibit as part of the staff report or distributed the night of the hearing? I would appreciate your help in this matter. ATTACHMENT 12 MEMORANDUM Approved Date TO: Meredith Reckert, Planner II FROM: Steve Nguyen,. Traffic Engineer ' 1~-Z) DATE: December 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Vicinity of West 46th Avenue and Tabor Street This is a response to your memo to Bob Goebel, dated November 19,1996 referencing the above matter. Currently Tabor Street from 44th Avenue to I-70 is not in the five-year capital improvement program. The Public Works Department has no plan to widen this street in the near future, however I would like to offer some comments: • The Public Works Department feels that if and when Tabor Street is reconstructed, it will be built with a 3-lane section; two through lanes with a left turn lane. The three-lane section will be narrowed down to a 2 lane section when it reaches the Tabor Bridge at I-70. There is no plan to widen this bridge. • In reference to intersection improvements at 46th Avenue and Tabor, a left turn lane is anticipated on Tabor when the widening takes place,. • At the intersection of 44th and Tabor, a signal should only be constructed when it is warranted. It is currently unwarranted. Left and right ;um lanes are anticipated on Tabor at this intersection. A left turn lane on 44th Avenue can be planned for if the demand, volume indicates that there is a need for it. • The Public Works Department is working on the signage issues that you mention in your memo. The Public Works Department is installing a dead end sign for southbound Swadley at 46th Avenue. I am working with CDOT to come up with guidance signs so that truck traffic traveling on the I-70 South Frontage Road between Swadley and Miller can be minimized or eliminated. n-L m3 In reference to the connection of 46th tea' S, .w.....~ even though there is established right-of- way, Public works Department sees no advantage in the connection in terms of traffic circulation. This would create a neighborhood traffic problem on Simms Street. Having a connection to 44th Avenue might generate safety and operational problems. 44th Avenue does not have any left turn lanes to side streets which creates the potential for rear end accidents . December 4, 1996 Memorandum Vicinity of W. 46th Ave and Tabor Street Page 2 Side street traffic delay at 44th Avenue would be much greater than at 46th andTa'borsincz#he volume at 44th Avenue is much greater. The traffic volume at Tabor and 46th is 2100 and 550 vehicles per day respectively. These volumes are low compared to 44th Avenue wheI re its volume is about 9800 vehicles per day. The current volume at 46th and Tabor does not indicate that the intersection is being congested. This may create more delays at Tabor and 44th , however, it is much more desirable from an operational and safety standpoint to concentrate the movements to an intersection which one day may be controlled by a signal. It will also eliminates "cut thru" traffic attempting to bypass 44th and Tabor. The remaining undeveloped area in the immediate surrounding area will probably not generate significant traffic volume to overload the intersection of 46th and Tabor even with full build-out. As the area north of I-70 develops, we may see a signal warrant develop at 44th and Tabor. Currently, 44th Avenue traverses across the city connecting Golden and Denver. With this characteristic, side street connections and other access points to 44th Avenue should be voided as much as possible to minimize the impact on 44th Avenue. I hope the above comments provide you some insight for planning purposes. Please see me if you need additional information or to discuss the issue in greater detail. CC: Greg Knudsen 11801 441( x 11691 s i I 11681 1671 11661 11641 11581 11571 x 11501 11401 4433 TABOR 5T s co ro o ix .P i ~ O i D 116 m 116 rn 0 RR p A 0 O .7 O 0 g30 o ~ 1420 A 00 00 141 142 SWAXEY 5T 46128 4638 4648 46168 4678 47 i i 4615 4635 4655 4675 4679 475: 51MM5 5T 4596 1 4600 1 46041 46241 46441 466 : s k k s 4585 4615 4625 4645 466: ROUTT 51 4584 1 4604 I 46241 46441 466 45011450545091 4515 601 4611 c Z G W t k x 625 4645 464: ATTACHMENT 13 L,1801 110 Y f 11691 11681 1671 460 # v 00 O A SWADLEY 5T 4628 46,38 0 o , I rn D 11685f m 1160 rn 0 11581 11571 51MM5 5T 47 4615 4635 4655 4675 4679 475: 4 596 14600 I 46041 46241 4644 1466 t # + # Y 4585 4615 4625 4645 466: 12OUTT 51 4584 4604 4624 4644 466 i + ; f f 141 142 140 4501450 ]4509 451 601 4611 4433 TA50R 5T o o 1 # 11420 2~ A A 11501 ~ 11401 r 525 4645 464: ATTACHMENT 14 G:\Drawings\fruit-me.dwg 11801 4410 » ■ 11691 11681 11671 11661 ■ v O O rn O O y D 11685' m 1160 0 4615 4635 4655 4675 4679 51MM5 5T 4596 46001 46041 46241 464, 11581 11571 4433 TABOR n I~ IV I-~ 11420 a j a 1501 O ■ » ■ ■ 4585 4615 4625 4645 12OUTT 5T 4584 4604 4624 4644 ■ ■ ■ 1 ? O) 11401 1141 1 1142 140 114 r 4501450 4509 4515 601 14611 N I~j G ATTACHM N 1 4625 46~ ROBE 5T 5WADLEY 5T 4628 4638 4648 4668 ~ e .ATTACHMENT 16 + ~ w 89' 13'31 "'t^~ 2647.43' _1__ _ - - - - - ---f ~ _s[~_ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~f~ ~ NORTH 1 /4 CORNER SECI`ION 2Q / ~rvair-, f 1 Cis m 3 ~6 ~ Y t a ~ 6 3 1 f 4" BRASS GAP IN RANGE f ~ ~ R-2 ZpN~NG POINT BOX LS 13212 ~ ROV~~'S SUB. N4RTNE~ST CORNER SEC710N ZQ \ PART 2 _ _ ~ _ _ - - _ POINT4 BO RASS 321 ~N RANGE - WEST 46TH AVENU __~__.~_~__~---50' RIGHT-OF-WA S 89'11'S7"W 33 L A AVFNt 1F ` 124,77 _ C,, LOT 6 15,137 SQ.FT. ~ ~ i PART OF ~.OT 14 LEE'S SUBQIVlSiON ~ ~ j ~ A-1 ZDNiNG o oo, ~ ~ j c~ EXISTING BUILDING ~ C° i ~ °N'_ ~ ! TO REMAIN rn rn j rn ~ ~ ~ _ N 89'11'17"E ~ f- F s - - - 139 . ~ 2' - ~ cv ~ c.~ ~ w ~ I ~ ~c~~~ ~ w o to ~n SOT 5 ~ Q ~ ~,~~2 sa.~. o .,~i ~ ' _ - - sue` 12x.99' _ . sr ~I~H-~MAST~R SU~DIVISI ~ A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST ONE-HALVES OF LOTS 13 ~~,fJD 14, LEES SUB ORTION OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER Or SECTION 20, 7~,!".'NSH~P 3 SGUTH, RANGE 69 IVES Cin' OF WHEA? R!DGE, JEFFERSON CCJ'.~', COLORADG S j o ~ CROSS ~~C~sS 8' ~-+~~1TY J~~ _ , ~ - EASEMF` T Ems' ~ MINT ~ ~ SEA ~~QTE 4 ~z Q ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ R, GLENDENE H FIGH?MASTER, ZELMA FIGHTMASTER, LYNN L. ~-`+~:~RS: ~ o ~T 4 ~ ~ r~ ° ~ 18, e 3~ SQ. Fes, l a ~ i N oz ii O ~ Z I i N N ~ ~ , r (.'g ~ c~ t r . a~ - _ _ 21' 12' _ _ i - r--, i I ~ . ! _..._.m,.~..u,.,._.,..~..~,.,_., l i ~ a ,~,e, m , _ _ ~ _ ~ _ °"'°V ~ 1l P I C~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ t.,' Cam' C"' ,s~'t C~3 sk R, i 'Yw~r 'aa+' e T e 9 i 4 1 'y.d' 'keya~ 4 ?k.M 6 ~ ~1 ~ 1~~ c r.__-.._._.~ ~ ! T ~ C k ? - - . i~itlr{ ~v 9 ~ Lr C SCr' _t 1 50" - s i 50 0 25 5Q 75 j I ~ i ~ H W O PART OF SOT 13 w BEE'S SUBDIVISION ~ t_(~T 3 R-3 ZONING w 69>£~97 ~Q.FT. o ~ ~ ~ ~ F= cv ~ a v3 7' IRRIGA730N ~:~,`~~F,~F!VT RECEPTION NCJ. r~10(~123 r - - - S-t3a'~6 ~~~;E 220.37' 13.~r9' ~ N 14'37"E 3 ,r r,i!:'H~?-C7F-WAY DEDiCATI / ~ ~ S 89'56'56°>~ ` O ~ EA.SEP~~NT, RECEPTIO .a i- r`~~ 8~10I317 & 85101 PROSPECT PARK 2~~~~aH THOSE AREAS INaICATED AS "CROSS ACCESS/INGR~SS~-EGRESS ~~~V~~Q~,~ ~~~~.~~,~~~~~v l.!~~;~ THIS PLAT. SUCH GRAR~. OF` EASEMENT .~NALL BE LIMITED TO ~~1~R5, AND GUESTS OF THE V'N"HERS, AND SHAr_L ~URTNER~iC~E ~~'ANT FCD LOt~IiNG At=P~,!`i' THRf"lilC;N CAIn ~QCFAAG~~ITC Tr"~ TNr"sC~ Cn~T~Cj~nir cn~n cnccGac.iTC i ! !~?~~R t:~' z-~~°;~~`RY t"~"RTI~Y TNGT CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC TANGENT CHORD C 1 48' 1 1 '23" 15,OU' 3 2,62' 6,71 ' 12.25' S C 2 48' 1 1 `23" 15.00' 12.62' 6.7 t' 12.25' S C 3 89'45'43" 15,00' 23.J~` 14.94' 21.17' N C 4 90' 3 4' 17" 15.00' 23.62' 15.06' 21.26' N LI~1E BEARING C}ISTANCE E}ET~=_NT14N PQND DAT L 1 N 89` 1 Q' 15"E 9.03' L~N~. BEARING ~ 2 N 00'.34' 16"W 3 OO.r;-4' L7 N.QO'34' 16"W. T L 3 OQ'34' 16"W 109.09' l.8 N.89' 1 i ' 17"E. L 4 S 8E~'O1'25"W 18.62' L9 '~J.89'~ 1'17"E, L 5 S 00'29'30"E 23.68' L1G N.00"34'16"W. ~ 6 5 00'22'18"E 24.86' A f .5 1/4 C.A;-' IN F~AfvI~E S 89'22 16"W 266- CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 20 i POINT BOX LS 13212 ~ 2667.55 ~ lol~ 1U `cls RECORDER'S CERTIFICATION: RE C F~ " THIS DOCW:+ENT ACCEPTED FOR FILfkG IN ~r 3 1/4 ° BRASS CAP IN RANGE 4 ` CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON CO THE DAY OF 199_., AT POINT SflX LS 13212 CASE H T WZ-80-28 WS-96-2 Tht tQ ~ >C ~Q~tt .x`. rl y-;/ -7~ 7 ,P-- 5,, ~ of v i S io n, em `rk e ~5 ti~m ~ s W ,I/ I Y1 a ~ "53uy 21 - PIn of e cf --4/ F7 9 ple ~lrr~vc 1~~7~ 9ev~sed lc y /~j ~q, RECEIVED 1 S EP 2 31999 SGT . ~ le City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: VM1'eredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Traffic Circulation Study DATE: September 13, 1999 On August 25, 1999, a public meeting was held at the Quality Inn at 12200 W. 44th Avenue to receive input from the local community regarding circulation in the neighborhood bordered generally by West 44"' Avenue on the south, I-70 on the north, Tabor Street on the west and Robb Street on the east. Presently, this neighborhood suffers from poor circulation of traffic. We anticipate that development of available lands will occur in the future. The purpose of this meeting was to solicit input from the neighborhood on what they would like to see in the future and to allow them to be a part of the further development of their neighborhood. Letters of meeting notification were sent to 134 addresses. Attached as Exhibit `A' is a list of the attendees. Six design options imposed over existing aerial photos were presented to the attendees. The options showed existing lot lines, existing streets and rights-of-way and potential connections between the existing streets. Some options showed east/west connections or north/south connections and some had both. All of the options allowed existing vacant land to develop. Pros and cons generated by staff were also presented for each design option. Individual comments made regarding the different options were given to the staff representatives which have been included as Exhibit `B' of this report. After the attendees had a chance to review the design options, a consensus was sought regarding the preferred options. The majority of the neighbors supported option 3 with a lesser number supporting option 4. See the attached design scenarios for options 3 and 4, including pros and cons generated by staff. There was also support for a "do nothing" scenario. Staff believes this is unrealistic as we need to recognize the ability of individual property owners to develop. Staff would also point out that in both design options 3 and 4, the street connections will probably happen incrementally; that is, as individual properties develop. Prior to the meeting, a written response was submitted and has been included as Exhibit `C'. One phone call was received from Betty Day, owner of 4700 - 4710 Robb Street, who could not attend the meeting. She indicated that she didn't think her property would be impacted. The Planning and Development and Public Works staff support option #3 over option #4 for the following reasons: -It received the most support from the neighborhood. - -It lends itself well to incremental development. -It promotes east-west connectivity to existing accesses to 44 h Avenue, rather than north/south connectivity. -It de-emphasizes cut-through traffic -It will allow the neighborhood to access 44ffi Avenue more safely at Tabor Street which will eventually become a signalized intersection. City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Meredith SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Meeting Attendance DATE: September 14, 1999 Attendance the night of the August 25, 1999, meeting included the following: Bob Goebel - city staff Alan White - city staff Steve Nguyen - city staff Chris Cramer - city staff Meredith Reckert - city staff Joan Rimbert - 4665 Swadley Street Ann Keller - 4625 Swadley Street Enna Wray - 4605 Routt Street Pauline Bustor - 4614 Routt Street Paulett Fuller - 4615 Routt Street Bene Suazo - 4604 Routt Street J.R. Blumenthal - 4651 Tabor Street Claudia Worth - 4650 Oak Street Lori Brown - 4430 Tabor Street Thea Silz - 11801 W. 44`h Avenue Heinz Silz - 11801 W. 44 h Avenue Jim Waddell - 4765 Simms Street Sally Waddell - 4765 Simms Street George Jorgensen - 4515 Robb Street Diane Mattox - 4515 Robb Street Rita Bader - 4675 Swadley Street Dale Bader - 4675 Swadley Street Dan Turgeon - 2110 Rockcress Jim Turgeon - 706 Elm Circle Joy Moitzfield - 706 Elm Circle Michael Bushell - no address given Phil Larson - 5367 Bristol St. Arthur Bushell - 4683 Swadley Street Corrine Deorio - 7990 Melrose Drive EXHIBIT A City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Northwest Fruitdale Traffic Circulation DATE: September 8, 1999 The following were comments generated from the meeting held on August 25, 1999. Options 1 and 2: Residents on Routt do not support a connection between Routt and Robb - Worried about increased traffic in neighborhood Increased truck traffic through neighborhood - Signage on Swadley has forced trucks onto Robb Don't like the Simms Street connection No pedestrian light at Robb and 44`h (for kids going to park) High speeds on Robb and Tabor Difficult to enter 44th Avenue from Robb and Tabor Support for "semi-rural" Some like the east/west connection Problems with emergency access People on Simms would like additional ways out of the neighborhood (both east/west and north/south) but do not want "straight shot" through from West 44`h Avenue School bus stops at Simms and frontage road - bad sight distance because of curve Commercial owner on Tabor supports widening with signalized light installed Options 3 and 4: Do not support any connection to Robb (through 4515 Robb) Simms resident (4765 Simms) likes 3 because of the way it distributes traffic Simms resident (4765 Simms) likes 4 because of the connection to 44`h because it jogs and prevents speeding - visual barrier of thru-street - Options to enter/exit neighborhood. Overall, likes 4 better than 3 4625 Swadley would like both north/south and cast/west connection for emergency services 4675 Swadley prefers 3 Wants both north/south and east/west connection since it will spread out traffic in the neighborhood No straight-thru Simms because of increased speeds EXHIBIT B On either east/west or north/south connections, they should not be straight because of increased speeds Options 5 and 6: Fire access - Need through access from Tabor to Robb via 46`h Avenue - fire response is from station on W. 52ne Avenue Need signal at 44`h and Tabor Speeding on frontage road to Swadley - need speed bump - replace arrow at curve Cul-de-sacs create dead-ends - through street would disperse traffic Some owners oppose 46 h Avenue connection - move it south North/south connection to 44`h is bad because there is no turn lane Commercial development would be preferable to residential, especially multi-family Need north/south and east/west connections - neither 5 nor 6 are good Don't displace anybody to build roads 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Ridge FAX 303/235-2857 August 16, 1999 Dear Property owner or area resident The City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Traffic Divisions need your help. Over the years, city etafF hac hParA a variRrv of rnrir?rnc pynre4ced regarding traffc problems ?nd poor circulation in the 44' Avenue/Tabor Street vicinity. Recognizing these concerns, staff is in the process of studying the area to identify existing problems and to come up with solutions to these problems. The study area is bounded generally by West -44' Avenue on the south, I-70 on the north, Tabor Street on the west and Robb Street on the east. If you live or own property in the northwest Fruitdale Valley area, please try to attend this meeting. The meeting will be held at the Quality Inn at 12100 W. 44" Avenue on Wednesday, August 25, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This will not be a public hearing. We will not be discussing pending land use or zoning cases. We will be discussing existing traffic and circulation conditions and problems and potential solutions to these problems. For more information, please contact me at 303-235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert Senior Planner MR/A ~k%y~ sir ~+CEr'/ Gl~.cti . Gv~r il?t 1Yom' ~/l~v r 04- ! / Qt a,v, Q GriZ~ / CBLi GLi4~uL~ ii~7~ EXHIBIT C 200 0 200 Feet 200 n ?nn Feet OPTION #3 PROS: ❑ East/west connection ❑ No new connection to 44t'' Ave. ❑ Access to Robb allows another outlet for the neighborhood ❑ - Traffic directed to existing intersections on 44t'' Ave. ❑ Traffic dispersed between Swadley and Simms ❑ Curve in east/west connection slows traffic down ❑ Parcels can develop independently ❑ Increased traffic on Tabor creates potential for signalization ❑ No double-fronted lots OPTION #3 CONS: ❑ No north/south connection ❑ A great deal of pavement ❑ Increased congestion at 44"'/Tabor intersection ❑ Increased congestion at 46"'/Tabor intersection ❑ Increased traffic on Robb ❑ One triple-fronted lot 200 0 900 Feet OPTION #4 PROS: ❑ Access to 44t'' Ave. allows another outlet for the neighborhood ❑ Relieves congestion at 46th/Tabor ❑ Relieves congestion at 44t''/Tabor ❑ Jog in Simms Street slows down traffic ❑ North/south connection ❑ Traffic dispersed between Swadley and Simms ❑ No double-fronted lots OPTION #4 CONS: ❑ Will create a traffic conflicts on 44th Ave. (no turn-lane on 44th Ave.) ❑ Simms Street is too close to existing houses ❑ Potential cut-through traffic through neighborhood ❑ No east/west connection ❑ One triple-fronted lot ❑ Increased traffic volume in neighborhood ❑ Increased traffic on Robb ❑ Parcels can't develop independently The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80215 Wheat GRidge September 7, 1999 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you that Case No. WS-99-01 a request for approval of a nine lot subdivision and site plan review for the purpose of constructing 16 townhome type units for property located at 11680 W. 46`b Avenue and 11661 W. 44`h Avenue and Case No. Y VV-99-03 a request for approval of a right-of-way vacation for an unused portion of street right-of-way adjacent to 4455 Simms Street will be heard by the Wheat Ridge City Council in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on September 27, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. All owners and/or their legal representative of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing. 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 person whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C:\Bubua\CCRPTS\PUBNOTIC\ws9901-w 9903pub#2.wpd (303) 234-5900 • t. 1NISTRATION FAX: 234-5924 POLICE DER 'MENT FAX: 235-2949 a d N d C N O fl D ` v d a ~ R a G a i D v y K d' D maw O N S N w - N " N p E, E 00 0 a d ~ o L p ~ E m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N U- 0 * 1 °m a M M° m no m no m 0 mOn ° OM m° m m p no M O N pJ 0 y m 0 M 0 01 N M N M N m N M N m 3 0 M 3> ¢ m° 3> 3> 3> 3> 3> 3> 3> > u O ~ O R N 00 m M d M m E>ro m ° Ew° vC0 m~O mw° EOw°m Ym°m 0 ~ O « m ry m N° O O -K° m 'u t U> ¢ O o m v N -=O E NO m¢O o.a ~p O y yp U m0 N U O L m L U m ~ C J O N `I N O (O U L E U E LZ U O V i L_ O , j m N p 0 a d O_ I E N N V N p ~ U r (%J a N o~m d IL mm c m v C c U mm mm `o H TEm m 0 ? L- _ y r o m a Q c D o D 'p i a c3K ~o L~a c o~ m :4 aoK c 65M K 3 ¢ Q D N oK O . u iK J O N t M O O m Z-% L ~ l6 y N y N r Z ¢ ~ ~ ~ C~ N L N R L ~ ~ L r O r m N a T` L ~ L L ~p ~ > N E O d ~ r m ' ° NU a K cU ci~LLW z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LO W N u U° O Q 00 Q uMi uMi W O O M M M M M M M M M V a rn rn rn rn m rn m rn m H waw o ~Q N 0 a O W Una ~I 0 a° a ro w 0 z 0 ^K U p F. a v v y .a v 0. Cv F z 0 a w d c m d 'u c a c N m ° ~ c a ~ Z c m a ~ m m v d a C 7 d U ~ a O w N 3 yl ~ U Y ~ ~ N w- ~ ' N O o y m 0 a N ' U L U N m o E 9 3 N " m # ~ rn aa X U~ u i N o N p~ N Qm°$ U 3> u O . N O ~ a £ W a C 16 X = N O ry N G1 ` O y a ,o a v ~ c ~°;o N N Q Vs o a U N w N w m 1 N 50 .2 O Z R cU O Z5 x z N W c N u ~ a m 0 co ~>V a m Q W W o Z N 0 Q a oW ~ Una ~I d m Q T O 0. W C U U ~i w O N z P~. a° m 0 FL U N a C0 F z m FO d A a b 0 .a N m v a O 7 z s City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Alan White, Director of Planning and Development FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03 DATE: August 10, 1999 Last night at the City Council meeting Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03 were continued until September 27, 1999, so that staff can meet with the neighbors to discuss traffic circulation in the area (Northwest Fruitdale Circulation Study). It is my understanding that an adjacent property owner, Kim Stewart residing at 11700 W. 46`h Avenue, came to the meeting to speak in opposition to the project. She claimed that she had not received notice of the Planning Commission meeting which brought up the question of Planning Commission jurisdiction. I have reviewed the file for both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing notices. The notices dated May 26, 1999 and July 24, 1999, respectively, were sent to a Joyce Monfort of 10700 W. 46`h Avenue. The attached property ownership record shows Joyce Monfort as the primary owner and Clyda Kim Stewart as co-owner. Based on this information, proper procedure for public notice was followed and there is no problem with jurisdiction. MetroScan / Jefferson Schedule :042727 Bldg :1 of 1 AssdLand :$4,070 Parcel :39 201 04 002 S :20 T :035 R :69W Q :NE AssdStrc :$12,820 Owner :Monfort Joyce E AssdTotl :$16,890 CoOwner :Stewart Clyda Kim ActlLand :$41,800 Site :11700 W 46Th Ave Wheat Ridge 80033 ActlStrc :$131,600 Mail :11700 W 46Th Ave Wheat Ridge Cc 800 33 ActlTotl :$173,400 Xfered - :05/24/1991 Doc # :45584 PrYrLnd :$4,070 Price $86,500 Deed :Warranty PrYrStr :$12,820 Loan Amt Loan -PrYrTotl :$16,890 VestType IntRt PrActlLnd :$131,600 Lender PrActlStr :$41,800 Land Use :1112 Res,Improved Land PrActlTot l : Sub/Plat :Lees % Imprvd :76 Blk&Lot :LOT 14 % Owned Neighbad :0057 1998 Ta x :$1,509.04 Tax Dist :3109 OwnerPhn Pierson :15 G Census Tract :104.03 Block :3 Bedrms :5 Total SF 2,409 Year B1t : 1968 LotAcre :.32 Bathrms 2.00 BsmtS F Style LotSgFt :13,982 TotalRm Porch :Enclosed Units : 2 Parking :Attached Cooling Porch SF 400 Fireplce ParkgSF :484 Heating Deck SF Pool Jacuzzi The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. ~~~q'6 / CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: August 9, 1999 Page - 2 - 7:00 p.m. PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES Mayor Cerveny recognized the Wheat Ridge Carnation Festival Parade Marshals, Ron and Eugene Kiefel; Count, John Bandimere, Jr. and Countess, Moe Keller. CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK Bill Kemper, 7363 West 26' Place, is concerned about the proposed improvements to the highway to Guinella Pass; this will be devastating to the wildlife and the environment. He asked that the City pass a Resolution and send it Park County and Clear Creek County speaking against the proposed 4 options currently being considered; suggested the Sierra Club option. He also questioned the improvements to West 26`h Avenue. Motion by Mr. Eafanti to add an Agenda Item 11.1, request for funds for the Carnation Festival; seconded by Mr. Donnelly; carried 6-0. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec to an Agenda Item 11.2, regarding a request that she has received from the teens regarding the possibility of Council meeting with them before the meeting on the 16th at an earlier time, 6 or 6:30 and it may involve expenditure of money for food; seconded by Mr. Donnelly; carried 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1; ='Council Bill 17 - ArIi Ordinance vacating an unused portion of public right-of-way for a portion of Simms Street (adjacent to 4455 Simms Street) within the City of Wheat Ridge, County of J State lorado. (Case No;FWV-99-03) ase:Nd. WS199- Postpone to September 27, Motion by Mrs. Dalbec that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat with a site plan for property located at 11661 West 44`h Avenue and 11680 West 46`h Avenue, be continued until September 27, 1999; seconded by Mrs. Shaver; carried 6-0. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec that Council Bill 17 be continued until September 27, 1999; seconded by Mrs.-Shaver; carried 6-0. AGENDA ITEM RECAP AGENDA ITEM (Meeting Date) QUASI-JUDICIAL _ Yes No X PUBLIC HEARINGS _ PROC./CEREMONIES _ BIDS/MOTIONS INFORMATION ONLY _ CITY MGR. MATTERS _ CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ PUBLIC COMMENT ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR IST READING X ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03/Jim Turgeon, et al SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has requested a continuance of both cases. Staff recommends a continued public hearing date of September 27, 1999. ATTACHMENTS: BUDGETED 1) Letter from applicant ITEM: Yes No 2) 3) Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount $ Requested Exepnd.$ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat with a site plan for property located at 11661 W. 44`h Avenue and 11680 W. 46th Avenue, be continued until September 27, 1999." "I move that Council Bill No. 17, a request for approval of aright-of-way vacation for property located adjacent to 4455 Simms Street, be continued until September 27, 1999." ***The subdivision request is quasi-judicial and the vacation request is not. City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum ~LORPDY TO: ,City Council FROM: "Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case Nos. WS-99-01 and WV-99-03 DATE: August 3, 1999 Pursuant to the attached letter, the applicants for Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a combined preliminary and final subdivision plat with a site plan for 11661 W. 44`h Avenue and 11680 W. 44 h Avenue, and Case No. WV-99-03, a request for approval of a right-of-way vacation adjacent to 4455 Simms Street, have requested a continuance. Staff recommends the case be continued to the City Council meeting of September 27, 1999. Holme Roberts & Owen uP L,NPO Yla Facsimile and Regular Mail August 2, 1999 Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner City of Wheatridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 RfdtantA Rodriguez Re: Case Nos. WS-99-OI and WV-99-03 (303)866-0269 Turgeon, et al. Subdivision and Right-of--Way Vacation @ap.mm Dear Meredith: gnarn "at Lao Thank you again for meeting this morning with Jim, Dan and myself to discuss the above-referenced land use applications, which are presently scheduled for the r700 Lincoln sbr~ 4100 City Council's consideration next Monday, August 9, 1999. Based upon our suit, my clients respectfully request that the City Council continue earlier discussions Doe, Co&U& 80203-4541 , the above matters until the public hearing scheduled for September 27, 1999. Td (303)867.7000 Faz (303)866-0200 Please call if you have any questions or concerns. e W_lac.com De r Sincerely, salt Lake City Hould~ Colorado spr6,gx London Richard F. Rodriguez RFR: cc: Jim and Dan Turgeon anssI1 The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80215 Wheat 9Ridge July 21, 1999 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you that Case No. WS-99-01 a request for approval of a nine lot subdivision and site plan review for the purpose of constructing 16 townhome type units for property located at 11680 W. 46" Avenue and 11661 W. 44" Avenue and Case No. WV-99-03 a request for approval of a right-of-way vacation for an unused portion of street right-of-way adjacent to 4455 Simms Street will be heard by the Wheat Ridge City Council in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on August 9, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. All owners and/or their legal representative of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the Planning Commission. As an area resident or interested parry, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. "If you are an adjacent property owner, you have the right to file a legal protest against the application which would require a 3/4th majority vote of City Council to approve the request." It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C:\Bubua\CCRPTS\PUBN0TIC\ws9901-wv9903pub.wpd (303) 234-5900 • ADMINISTRATION FAX: 234-5924 POLICE DEPART`-ENT FAX: 235-2949 a y m K c m c ry dm Q a 1 c a a 7 c a ~ a . N U d ~ N d O ~ O G N Co y N N W O a Eo v w U t O N E C m o 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 yi r a = d O M O M O M On O M O M an O M O M _ X_ U~ a a N m 0 y 0 0 O> O M O N 0 0 y m 0 m 0 ~ m 0 Nm m 0 m ti N d Q m° U ~ 3> NM 3> NT 3> m 3> m 3> NA 3> N 3> 3> Np j 3> a ro m v m ~ O ~ O 3 o U C a a M M « N~M+I d N M ~ M O M `ry M O M >.~M O N M . . (.L G ~ N O r O N W O O E N ° > M U C O .O W O m N W y M y Y o m F O .2 C Q H N N a D L> N> O O O 0 C E W E .v 0> a` O O a` d d N os0 E NO M .<W mviO rnmO NLO s m U AEU LL~O Y«O N -O 0 N E Nl0 ) 2 O)U U N a1 IL d i N al m G V U ~ N U a t0 d E N V a c = N m m a Q o 'o o nm c c in a a p m ao `~a rnm 3 c o o o a F a ~ ~ c ~ E~a o K r ~ Q Q z m U ~ K >.~nit m m QMO o °vm mN Z'om r F'om a ~o N w FO - w ~ ~ E N N b y ~ N E c O a z a i m o - U U LL• I i W T ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b aJ r] LU ~ N u N P 0 O N N 0 W Q N ~O N l0 N N N t0 N 10 N ~ N ~ N ~ O y _ W O Q N W of V W O W V N V N V O V W V p V d V V m m m w rn h ~j E w m m m ¢¢w z w Q Z ro o F N 0 3: a . O W ~ Lo ~J a d d d a 'u ` c d N 0 U a ~ c a -y v - w o z c 0 n ~ m ` v rc v > Z a C 7 a ~ a U N ~ a d Q N 0 y O O w= ~ N 0 E 0 r o o ~ o a 0 E .0 N i' "O = v mn U1 N O M 0'O x m m U m m Q m° ~ 3 i U _ 0 N 0 O c O c N > 47 y y ~ a V ~ a 0 n 0 iJ a 0 > U y 0 H O N a M N ~ w E d N d C O U W z i ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ LO W N d o 0 W a Q' O ° m H>V n m W Q W Z ~c o N 3: Q Q a H O = y v ro Q v 0 W ou > 9 J N ~i w O U z C v N E 0 O O. ro b 0 U U Ki U a 0 z z ~ N F b d b 0 .a a 0 7 z H 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WS-99-O1: An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et al, for approval o1 a 9-lot subdivision and site plan review with a variance for the purpose of constructing 16 townhome type units on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. Said property is zoned R-3 and located at 11680 West 46th Avenue and 11661 West 44th Avenue. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She informed the Commission that, upon discussion with the city attorney, staff concluded there is no need for a variance in this case and therefore the variance portion of the report should be stricken from the public record. She also submitted copies of a letter, dated June 17, 1999, from residents of 4515 Robb Street (Robert S. Mattox, Lorene M. Mattox, Diana J. Mattox-Jorgensen and George Jorgensen). After Commission members took time to read the letter, Ms. Reckert reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and accepted by Chair BRINKMAN. Ms. Reckert advised the Commission that there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She explained that platting and site plan for the entire 5 acres is required pursuant to a 1980 zoning condition placed on the property and that, based on analysis of the proposed development on the north and of circulation in the area, a street extension between Simms Court and West 44th Avenue does not make sense. Since all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met, staff recommended approval of the subdivision as proposed. Bob Goebel reviewed traffic circulation in the neighborhood associated with the subdivision. In response to a question from Commissioner GOKEY, Mr. Goebel stated that development of the southern piece of the property could result in back-to-back cul-de-sacs. In response to a question from Commissioner COLLINS, Mr. Goebel replied that a drainage study had been done, and that the dimensions of the detention pond appeared to be 75' long, 40-50' wide and 4' deep. Commissioner COLLINS expressed concern about all the asphalt in the area asked where water will be drained to. Mr. Goebel informed Commissioner COLLINS that the drainage plan was designed by an independent professional engineer and meets Urban Drainage and Flood Control District criteria as well as city drainage requirements. He also stated that the city performed drainage work on the adjacent Mattox property last year. Commissioner SNOW referred to the letter submitted by the Mattox family which implied concern with drainage on the subject property. Mr. Goebel stated that the Mattox family expressed appreciation for the city's drainage work on their property and he did not know they had any concerns until he read the June 17 letter. He suggested that members of the Mattox family who were present could address this issue later in the meeting if they so desired. Planning Commission Page 2 June 17. 1999 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 17, 1999 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair BRINKMAN at 7:30 p.m. on June 17, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman Jerry Collins Dick Doyle Dean Gokey Don MacDougall Nancy Snow Janice Thompson Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Bob Goebel, Public Works Director Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer Chris Cramer, Planning Intern Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Meredith Reckert introduced Chris Cramer who will be working as an intern in Planning and Development for the summer. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of June 17, 1999. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVAL OF ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner THOMPSON seconded to amend the agenda to add an item under Old Business which would set the next meeting for the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair BRINKMAN requested an amendment to the minutes of June 3, 1999 as follows: Page 3, fourth paragraph under Case No. WCA-99-03 should read as follows: "Chair BRINKMAN expressed concern about any land being rezoned to C-1..." Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner COLLINS seconded to approve the minutes as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Planning Commission June 17, 1999 In reply to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Ms. Reckert replied that the city had received no response from the ditch company. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the study took into consideration possible development of agricultural land to east and how it would impact traffic circulation. She expressed concern that the subject property is located in the middle of other vacant land. Steve Nguyen replied that the traffic study only addressed the proposed development and does not discuss any other parcels. If other sites develop, traffic will be analyzed in a separate study. Considering the size and type of land use proposed, he didn't foresee a major trip generation which would overload 46th and Swadley or 46th and Tabor. Chair BRINKMAN asked if Mr. Goebel felt there was a need for Simms to be completed on the basis of the additional units and traffic. Mr. Goebel replied that he did not feel there was such a need at this time. Commissioner THOMPSON referred to letter of November 19, 1996 from Meredith Reckert to Bob Goebel which stated the Planning Staff expects to see additional commercial and residential development in this area which will only exacerbate existing traffic problems. She asked, based on development which has occurred since 1996, if Mr. Goebel felt the study is still valid. Goebel replied that he believed the study is still valid and a signal light is still not warranted at the intersection of Tabor Street and W. 44' Avenue. Ms. Reckert presented an overhead of the site plan. She explained that her analysis of the site plan showed 45% building coverage, 18.5% hard surfaces and 36.7% in landscape coverage. A desirable aspect of the plan calls for shared driveways which reduces the number of curb cuts onto Simms Court. In conclusion, Ms. Reckert stated that staff recommends approval of the site plan as presented. The platting and the site plan for the entire five acres is required pursuant to the original 1980 zoning condition placed on the property and that the analysis of the proposed development and information, street circulation, etc. makes sense and that staff does not support the extension of the cul-de-sac bulb or right-of-way to the southern property line. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision as proposed. Mr. Goebel replied to a previous question from Commissioner COLLINS, and explained that there is a 15-inch pipe that goes south to 44th Avenue and connects into existing storm sewer. Rich Rodriguez 1700 Lincoln Street, #4100, Denver Mr. Rodriguez was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. He stated that he was with the law firm of Holme, Roberts and Owen and was appearing on behalf of the applicant. He noted that when this property was rezoned in 1980 it was intended to have a single high-density use of 105 units. The proposed use is well below the density proposed in 1980 and is consistent with revised zoning regulations adopted in 1997. The applicant has made every effort to comply Planning Commission June 17, 1999 with all conditions required by the city. He stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission request for cash in lieu of land dedication or transfer of water rights will be fully complied with. Regarding subdivision design, staff indicated that access for lots 1 and 2 on the southern portion do have standard city language for ingress/egress easement and the lot size is fully consistent with city regulations. The applicant hired a traffic consultant to do a traffic study. While the study did not consider possible development of adjacent property, it did consider project generated traffic and adopted standards and methodology approved by a traffic engineering transportation research board. Regarding Commissioner COLLINS' concerns regarding drainage, a drainage plan was submitted in accordance with city requirements and approved as meeting all required standards. In regard to Simms being completed, the applicant agrees that Simms Court is not a good idea mainly because of the drainage issue. If it were extended, the improvements for the property would have to be redesigned. He pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Fightmaster have indicated they have no desire to develop the southern portion of the property. James Turgeon 706 Elm Circle, Golden Mr. Turgeon, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. Commissioner. SNOW asked if he planned to dedicate water rights or pay cash in lieu of land dedication. Mr. Turgeon replied that it would probably be cash. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Turgeon explained the proposed units would be very similar to the existing units. In response to Commissioner SNOW's concerns about handicapped parking, Ms. Reckert replied that handicapped spaces are usually not required in these types of designs. Mr. Turgeon replied that the single story units are designed to be handicapped accessible. Commissioner THOMPSON asked about the existing large trees on the property and asked if they could be saved. Mr. Turgeon replied that the trees could not be saved, however they would be replaced. Ms. Reckert explained that the city forester will assess the existing trees and the builders would be required to replace any trees removed with the equivalent caliper inch of new trees. Mr. Turgeon stated that he plans to complete the 6-foot privacy fence along the entire property. Commissioner MACDOUGALL asked if a safety barrier was planned around the detention pond. Mr. Goebel stated that safety barriers for a possible 100-year flood are not part of the city requirements. Commissioner COLLINS asked if there is an easement for the storm sewer easement across the southern portion of property. Mr. Turgeon replied that there is an easement which stops at his property. Herbert Fightmaster 11641 West 44th Avenue Mr. Fightmaster was sworn in by Chair BRINKMAN. Commissioner COLLINS asked if Mr. Planning Commission Page 4 June 17, 1999 Fightmaster was aware of the utility easement on the east side of his property. Mr. Fightmaster replied that there was a utility easement along the east side of the property line to 44th Avenue. (Chair BRINKMAN declared a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m.) In response to a request from Commissioner DOYLE, Mr. Turgeon reviewed the proposed placement of trees in the proposed project. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that Case No. WS-99-01, a request for approval of a nine-lot subdivision for property located at 11681 West 44th Avenue and 11680 West 46th Avenue, be recommended to the City Council for approval for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 3. The Public Works Department's analysis of traffic circulation in the area and the traffic report submitted indicate that a connection between West 46th Avenue and West 44th Avenue is not desirable. With the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the city forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the 6-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. Commissioner SNOW offered an amendment to the motion as follows: Condition No. 3 be added which would require a letter from the ditch company; and condition no. 4 be added which would require this case to be published as a preliminary and final plat for the City Council hearing. This amendment was acceptable to Commissioners THOMPSON and GOKEY. Commissioner SNOW stated that, even though she would. vote in favor of the motion, she wanted to voice her concern that had the city not given permits for the first two buildings, Simms on the eastern side of the property could have gone through to provide the best traffic circulation. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that the request for site plan approval in conjunction with Case No. WS-99-01 for property located at 11680 West 46th Avenue, be recommended to the City Council for approval for the following reasons: Planning Commission Page 5 June 17, 1999 I . It is consistent with the original zoning condition. 2. All minimum requirements of the R-3 zone district regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. That the mature trees at the southwest corner of the property be evaluated by the city forester to consider if the trees can be saved and, if not, that equivalent caliper inches of those trees removed be placed throughout the development. 2. That the 6-foot privacy fence be continued on the eastern portion of the property. 3. That a letter from the ditch company be required. 4. That this case be published as a preliminary and final plat for the city council hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner SNOW to reconsider the motion for approval of the subdivision on case No. WS 99-01 to add a condition. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner MACDOUGALL to add condition no. 5 which would require that no development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the motion for approval of the site plan for Case No. WS 99-01 be reconsidered to add a condition. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the site plan be recommended to the City Council for approval for all the prior reasons and with all prior conditions with the addition of condition no. 5 which would require that no development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. B. Case No. WV-99-03: An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et al, for approval of a right- of-way vacation for an unused portion of the street right-of-way adjacent to 4455 Simms Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and accepted by Chair BRINKMAN. Ms. Reckert advised the Commission that there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She stated that staff would recommend that an easement be Planning Commission Page 6 June 17, 1999 LASS ~ CvS-q~-C / ,4 cA77-J B5 Sim _FUP-6-c-,qN) C-_4 al) for /af S Li da'✓is;oPL - //~~o LrJ. y~fk /4 de. Adl~ SIGN-IN Name Address IA; FffJO2 / oppo5eo 1. ooP, ?Ler__ 17ooL~rdS+~lloc~ 2./er~ l^,~~~rnasTe~ llegf wy 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. _ _ _ _ _ _ S 89' 13_ ' _31'"~V _ 2647.43' _ _ NORTH 1 /4 COR~lER SECTION 20 l~~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ NORTHEAST CORNER SECTION 2Q 3 1 f 4" E3RASS CAP !N RANGE POINT BOX LS 13212 ~ S 3 1 /4" BRASS GAP IN RAP~GE ~ R-2 ZONING PO(NT B4X LS 13212 ~ ROWE'S SUB. PART 2 .wo. s t yYIY. b o. ~ b dWb 4 ° ~ 1 t~ ~ 4 • ~ 1 t Y 1 ~ i ! d i ! ~ ~1 / ~ ~ F 4® I 1 d''-~ 1 1 1 9 1 ~1s t l 1 1 C ' 1 P! 1 i 't 1 1 1 1 1 1 /'1 ! F { 1 1'i ! l 73 l [ d '1~., i 1 iv. 1 f 1 1 L.._ 1 mss, F[ t! 1 1 [ 1 ! 1 I t~ lr °ww. '+w. ! 1 !~9[ 1 WEST 46TH AVENUE 50' RIGHT-C3F--WAY S 89'11'17"W 331. 124.77 LOT 6 1 15,137 SQ. Ft. > PART OF LOT 14 ~ a - bs7 LEE'S SUBDIVfSION ~ Sri; - A-1 ZONI~JG co a~~ ~ EXISTING BUI~QING ,,7 N ~ TO REMAIN rn ~ ~ ~ ~ - Q - s~ ~ o0 139.62' _ cn ~ c~ e ~ ~ I~ - CJ lrJ I. W~7 ~2 LoT 5 " ¢ ~ O ' 7 3,352 SQ.~T. C ~ u~ ~a ~ a~ ~ ~ ci' ~ , O M _y 4' Z f-- N 89'11'17"E d . _ ~ - 120.9' - _ o Q m _ a ~ CROSS ACCESS 8~ ~~$~~N T'~ z EASEMEtdT EASEMENT ~ N" SEE NQTE 4 ~ u~ i ~ ' w w~ ~i~ ~ c, ~ L.OT 4 ~ M 18,738 SQ.FT. o 00 ? a' I o N i ~T ~ N 89`11'17"E 164,94 - - i__~ _  ~~~✓1~#~ 4' P i\V1 (~P1 E t 1JP t a 4~ `✓1 9 a a ~Ewa'~~..~..°~ tYi~,..~~ { ° x ra . wr w.. w. a m .+a en, t r u+T r4, ~ a a e ~ 1"~ ra M'"§ 1 ~~4, 1 i'ce' d'S P. 1_ M1 1""i. f111 11 / { 9 C" /"4 T1 Jk ~ q.,r 'a✓ ~ ~ ¢ ! T a e' 'v6rr .aese a ..,y. g ~ 1 S ~ t f 1~ K R 4.i ~.+~t F-° [ , C `'a '"d ....w. , ~ . w~,. ~r~, r ` ~ ra a r~* t j r"' a 4+4'" ~ i C'4 ®~a t ! f + f ~ S iL~ Asa§r tl ~ ~ M ~ c i~Y. a 1 d N4 4 i_F°°1+a F°bi c i t 1. J*~. $ .F'! ds F P°4. l"O' /11°~ / t 1 ! i. $ / 1 $ ""..af ~ ~ ~ ~k Q) N. ii _ r-' ' i- 4 I~ t i~ ~ EXISTING BU{LDlNGS TQ REMAIN L1 scA~E 5a' 4 r R~ ~p 0 25 50 75 ~_r-- h ~ h- Q Z ~ ~ ~ PART OF LET 13 ~ ' - _ - LEE'S SUBDIVISION •j ! ~ ~ OT 3 R-3 ZONING w 69,897 SQ.FT. a L_ `F N CD ~ ~ O 9--~~ . ~ { ' 7' IRRIGATION BASEMENT RECEPTION N0. 7$10lJ 123 i ~ - ----5 89'S6~56~E 220.37`--- sa t ~ , 13.39' N $9' 14'37"E r RfGHT-OF-WAY DEDICA ` ~ S 89'56'56"E 2646.98 ~ _ ~_______~_~_o ~r~. +i • I, Q EASEMENT, RECEPTI 85141317 & 851 Q PROSPECT PAR PCD ZONWG f CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC TANGEt~7 CHORD C 1 4$'11'23" 15.00' 12.62' 6.71' 12.25' L- r~~ C 2 48'11'23" 15.00' 12.62' 6..71' 12.25' u~ - C 3 89'45'43" 15.00' 23.50' 14...94' 21.17' C 4 90' 14' 17" 15,00' 23.62' 15,4fi' 21.26' SINE BEARING DISTANCE DETENT40N POND DA L 1 N 89' 10' 15"E 9.03' LItvE BEARING .f i! L 2 N 00`34' 16"W 10Q.44' L7 N.00'34' 16"W. L 3 N ~Q'34'16"W 109.09' L$ N.$9'11'17"E. L 4 S 86'1'25"W 1$.62' ~.9 N.89'11'17"E. L 5 S 00'29'30"E 23.68' L1 ~ N.00"34' 16"W. L 6 S 00'22' 18"E 24.$6'  EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 20 V001, N" 'low"' 3 1/4p BRASS CAP IN RANGE STOt s j POINT BOX LS 13212 RECEPTION NUMBED S 89#22116"W 26 266755' CERTIFICATION- RECORDER'S iM4 i. lM~ M~ c #ns` .93 P'te' ~ P e /rte` /®i PA & f i f k ~ v CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 20 3 1/4" BRASS CAP IN RANGE POINT BOX LS 13212 t CASE H IS- WZ-80-28 WS--96-2 i Dear Alan and Meredith: ~ boy( Is there a prohibition in the zoning ordinance or building code against adjacent lots sharing a driveway? (Or a requirement that each have its own driveway?) I disagree most strongly that the Turgeon development needs a variance per 26-30 (N). 26-30(N) has been misinterpreted. The first time it was ever interpreted this way was on the Smethills development. I mentioned at the time that I thought this was an incorrect interpretation but, since it came up at the City Council and not at Planning Commission, I didn't push it. Now I would like to ask you reread that section again and/or send what I have written to Jerry Dahl. 26-30(N) clearly states that a building permit cannot be issued for "any STRUCTURE not adjacent to a full-width public street..." It then goes on to say an alternative: "or, in a situation where such requirement cannot be met, on easement(s) or private roadway(s)..." But this sentence and everything that follows it is totally irrelevant, because the requirement has been met. The STRUCTURE is adjacent to a street. The city's recent interpretation is that if any UNIT is not on a street, or if the driveway appurtenant to that lot doesn't touch the street, then easements or roadways are required. I am quite sure of the meaning of this section of the code, both because of the wording and because it was all added because of a problem with my house, which is not on a public street but a private easement. (We bought lots at a time when this area was still Jefferson county. The county allowed 3 buildings to be on a private road, but tha.z rule was passed by a resolution rather than an amendment to its zoning ordinance, so it did not become part of the Wheat Ridge zoning ordinance when the county's code was adopted by Wheat Ridge after incorporation. When our house was almost finished, the city wanted to deny a C.O. on the grounds that the subdivision regulations required every lot to actually be on a public street. The city council then added the allowance for private easements, but only when a lot was not already on a street. There was no discussion or intent then, or at any time since then, for a standard for all easements, only easements that took the place of the requirement to be adjacent to a street.) The issue came up again later, when townhomes became a common design and the there was discussion about what the city should require when a structure was divided up and individual units were sold. The subdivision regulations were amended to add an exception to the subdivision regulations which reads as follows: "Any division of a lot or parcel of land which has located on it a main structure and wherein that structure and associated land is to be divided into separate ownership, and so long as...access to a public street is guaranteed... by direct access or through recorded ingress/egress of at least 12 feet in width..." There was no discussion then that only four units could use that easement. And this section is also clearly different from 26-30 (N) in width and paving requirement and applies in different circumstances. 26-30(N) applies when the structure is not adjacent to the street; the subdivision section applies when the structure meets the requirements, but now parts of that structure may be sold. Unless I can't find it, there is no requirement anywhere in the zoning ordinance for all easements, only in the circumstances when a lot is not adjacent to a street. Easements such as these are not even required until and unless the developer wants to sell individual units. Why are those easements on the plat? Because Turgeon contemplates that he may sell them or did the city require them? The city's new interpretation would require a variance for any apartment building with more than four units, unless each had its own driveway to the street. Somehow, with the Smethills case, driveways and the easements required when a structure is not on a street became confused. Pick Ficco's long string of townhomes on 38th, for example. There's one driveway out, just like this proposed plat. Should he have had a variance? What about Newgate, bunches of buildings on two driveways? What about cross easements in commercial areas? The Smethills PRD (as it left the Planning Commission) shouldn't have been required to have a variance. The apartment building lot was adjacent to both 32nd and Saulsbury. One duplex was right on Teller and one right on Saulsbury. Only the middle duplex was not "adjacent to a full-width dedicated street" per section 26-30(N). In short, if there is a zoning ordinance or building code requirement that each lot must have its own driveway to the street, then that section of the ordinance or code should be cited in the request for variance. If there is no such ordinance or code, and that is the city's position, then 26-3(N) or the subdivision regulations should be amended to say so. I am not challenging the common sense idea that the city should require an easement or cross easement when a lot doesn't have its own access to the street, just that I don't see that our ordinance says that. 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 June 17, 1999, 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: j Case No. WS-99-01: An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et.al., for approval of a nine lot subdivision and site plan review with a variance for the purpose of constructing 16 town home type units on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. Said property is zoned R-3 and located at 11680 West 46" Avenue and 11661 West 441i Avenue and legally described as follows: Being a portion of Lot 14, Lee's Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of the east half of Lot 14, marked by a pin with an illegible cap; thence east along the north line of said Lot 14 a distance of 155.37 feet to a point from whence the northeast comer of said Lot 14, marked by a inch galvanized pipe, is a distance of 175.64 feet; thence on an angle to the right of 90 degrees 18 minutes 05 seconds, a distance of 328.94 feet; thence on an angle to the right of 89 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds, a distance of 155.49 feet to the intersection with the west line of the east half of Lot 14; thence on an angle to the right of 90 degrees 20 minutes 11 seconds and along said west line, a distance of 328.98 feet to the point of beginning. 2. Case No. WW-99-03: An application submitted by Jim Turgeon, et.al., for approval of a right- of-way vacation for an unused portion of street right-of-way adjacent to 4455 Simms Street and legally described as follows: The East 25 feet of the North 165 feet of Lot 13, Lee Subdivision as described in the deeds filed in Book 899 at Pages 598 and 599 of the official records of the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: May 28, 1999 C:\Ba bara\PCRPTSTLANGCOM\PUBHRG1990617.wpd Barbara Delgadillo, Recbrding Secretary 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE May 24, 1999 Dear Property Owner: WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80215 The City of WHEAT~O I"Wheat ,m GRidge C,N O R AOO This is to inform you that Case No. WS-99-01 a request for approval of a nine lot subdivision and site plan review with a variance for the purpose of constructing 16 townhome type units for property located at 11680 W. 46`h Avenue and Case No. WV-99-03 a request for approval of a right-of-way vacation for an unused portion of street right-of-way adjacent to 4455 Simms Street will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on June 17, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. All owners and/or their legal representative of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing before the Planning Commission. As an area resident or interested parry, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. "If you are an adjacent property owner, you have the right to file a legal protest against the application which would require a 314th majority vote of City Council to approve the request." It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C:\Barbara\PCRPTS\PLANGC0M\PUBHRG\ws9901 cert.wpd (303) 234-5900 • ADMINISTRATION FAX: 234.5924 POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX: 235-2949 05 al~-Q\ 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridee. Colorado 80215 Wheat Ride FAX 303/235-2857 May 13, 1999 Jim Turgeon Customcraft Homes 2110 Rockcress Way Golden, Colorado 80401 Dear Jim: This letter is in response to your submittal for subdivision and site plan. Responses from outside agencies were forwarded to you via my letter of February 11, 1999. All of their concerns must be addressed. I have reviewed the plat document and have concluded that the following must be added : Cross access easements shown where required for shared access between lots (between Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9) with our standard cross access language as a note. 2. The following note: "No development or redevelopment shall occur on Lots 1, 2 and 3 without site plan approval by Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing process." 3. Zoning on-site (R-3) 4. Signature blocks for lien holders releasing areas dedicated for public use (if there are any) 5. Preliminary plat information on a separate sheet 6. The reference case number in the case history box should be changed from WS- 98-01 to WS-99-01 Our Public Works Department has prepared the legal description for the 25'of right-of-way for Simms Street to be vacated by separate ordinance. This vacation will be considered at the public hearings for plat approval. The owner of Lot 2 should have his address changed for emergency services purposes from Simms Street to W. 44" Avenue. This can be done sometime in the future. You indicated that the site plan included in the drainage report will adequately represent your development proposal. I agree that it should be sufficient, however, the following information needs to be added: I. Site data table for each lot and the overall. north half of the subdivision including total area, building coverage, landscaped coverage and hard surfaced coverage. These coverages need to be shown in square footage and percent of the total. 2. Widen access drives between Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 to 20'. Individual driveways should be 18' long to provide adequate parking for each unit. 3. The approved site plan will eventually have to be put into a format to be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder's Office as an official development plan. This can be done either now or after the public hearing process is completed. It may be smart to wait in case changes are required. Included in your original submittal are floor plans and building elevations. Are these consistent with your proposed design? Can I distribute them to Planning Commission for the hearing? This case is tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing on June 17, 1999. I will need 15 copies of the revised plat no later than June 8. The revised site plan can be submitted in a size that we can copy (11" x 17") or if 24" x 36" in size, 15 copies of that will be needed for packet distribution as well. If you have further questions, feel free to contact me at 303-235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner cc: Steve Lister WS-99-01 SUBDIVISION MEMO ARID CONTACT RECORD CONTACT NUMBER: 2 DATE RECEIVED: 555, 1999 DATE REVIEWED: 556, 1999 SUBDIVISION NAME: Fightmaster Subdivision ENGINEER: NAME: Lane Engineering ADDRESS: 9500 W. 29t" Ave Lakewood CO 80215 PHONE: (303) 233-4042 FAX: (303) 233-0796 CITY REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN MCGUIRE REMARKS: l: Please identify point of beginning 2: Need distances for north lines of lots 2, 7 and 8 3: Is 25 foot easement for lot 2 "hereby dedicated"? 4: Include "hereby dedicated" for dedication for 44th Ave. 5: Is = vacation to be done later? 6: . -0-0, 7: 8: 9: 10: PLEASE RETURN ALL REDLINES WITH NEXT SUBMITTAL. ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE: Steve Lister REMARKS: As I stated in my comments a vear ago, I believe a Title Commitment should be referenced on the plat for clarification of ownership. I believe this would help protect the interests of all parties involved. Attached are comments from that March 6th 1998 review. ASr UJ7/Dr' a F Ow ~ The above comments are as of the date reviewed and may not reflect all comments from other departments or review agencies. You may respond to these comments by phone or fax. Please contact us prior to submitting new prints so that we may inform you if there are any additions or corrections that need to be made. _k y{ ~ I p..~..A gg f$ R ^'"V ~l Q ~ m i 4 ~ ~ C ~ z ~ } 4 i'1 x e, ! ~ P ~ hl ~ ;',~t, ~ i ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 '8 i i ~ °d° a ~ 5 r~._ ._N_~,. ~ . , ~ ~ rt m `9 " i ,ti. R ~s ~ ~ 4 f ~ ~ t ~ y,, 4 4., ns~ ~ ~ r~ 3 a ~ 1 a.~.~..,.., _ _ r j f i ` E ` ` ~ i ~ ` { ~ ~ ~ < I w_._, _ ~ ~ ~a _ e,~.~ _ .e_~.~_.._~ _~~.9~ ~ , fi~.no , 1 3 ~ I 4Y A v ~ 4 ~ P ~ _ c ~ t f ~.,F{ m w. ~r ~ w~ ~ ~ ~ _~w.~.,. ~~a, y d y ~a5 W MV ~ ~4~ j 3: "a j 5, ~1 ~ ~q` o ~ Y.~ '6 m. ;n ~ ° ~ ~"3 d ....ti k f t 1~ ~ ~ ~ fi. ~ a I ___a ~'.d ~ e 4ww i ~ ~ ! r'~*. g =h ~ ~ ~ P ~:w ~ ~ ~ I 'a ~a qd F~ ~ a ; d k 'i ~ •..rYt...,.n ,..,Ea..rru.....~„... ti~r...w~+a~.'.~~Aw ra.~ .~a~ '~wa'e"3r"".ruuswur d":.,~ f~ +a'!...+ t 4 n 1 t t; e ~ E ~ } ~4 ~ N0. k r ~ ~ ~ ~ ;f " i d~. 1 ~ r ~ ~ ! e s rt.' ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ r. 1 F ` 9 '1 I .1 m............>~ e,~ f f P # ' { rF ~ t a.~.-- _t ..^ti. t s4My, . b '"5"eCi( x,~,, t f_ ..o t,awF:- ~ qx - f ~ 'k~ p~, 55 ax. t "4 H ' 1 4d t 1 R ~ h . M.,.a.~~ w.~...~ + ~ i ~ k f i I j ~ t ~ } a. r ~N.~ s`i a k 3 } 6, t e ~ f ' I i ~ p t $ ~ ~ -r' i r _-iE, ~t k as i ! ~ d : 4~ ins,. fi..~ [r' r . ~ ~ e. - ti ~ E x y ~ a S ' P 1 ~ ~r ~ r ~ i , 4 C r.... f _ ! I _ t a k. ~ t k -t 1 o .wnrev..~n:.v~.a.._.n. ~a R,_,, ' ,,_yr ~ ~ ~ ? ` ~ s ~ t ~ ~ r ~ ' f,..~...._ T. r " f / ~ ~ ~e r ~ ,w. ~ W . , ~ ; f~. P 4 .n ! a y r ~ - t ~ e n~ - ffi ~f . e t i ! . 9 i - j.; 1 ~ 9 ~ a j & „ 3 a.. ' a ~ _ a, - I, m. F , # . ~v ~ ~ ~ q  a E a r 6 a ~ ~J r ~ k z cmv _ mr. ~ ~ ama'e°Th~. ~ wua..us d-.ww.uw. ,e.~. ro P mymww+r,++nwwwrnw +«+evr'a'.nwWm~ e _ 4 ( ~ - tt yA, ~ - r rrv- a-..._ aVa. ..,n%,,+a... ak.~ ......,.+~y. ~ I x. e~ i F~ a 4vT A. t!!`> S T~c~,. .e d~ F _ mow.. ~ t 3 PUB i T - , t s n x f 6 4 ~ j - t~ by i } 4L f I- ,r 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Telephone 303/ 235-2868 Ridge FAX 303/235-2857 February 16, 1999 Mr. John Griffith, P.E. 11285 Brownstone Drive Parker, Colorado 80134 Re: Fightmaster Subdivision (Revision of Lot 14, Lee's Subdivision), West 46th Avenue & Simms Court - First Review Comments of Final Drainage Study, Simms Court Street Construction Plans Dear Mr. Griffith, I have completed the first review of the above referenced documents for the Fightmaster Subdivision received on February 2, 1999, and have the following comments: Drainage Study (Discussion) Page 1 1. Please provide P.E. seal and signature on two sets of the final approved drainage report. Drainage Plan(s) 1. Please provide (when appropriate) P.E. stamp and signature on two sets of plans. 2. Please note retention pond as discussed in report. 3. Please provide concise cross sectional details for south, west and east property lines as redlined or reference to appropriate sheet number. 4. Please provide a concise cross sectional detail of retention pond, detailing acceptable function of 100-year storm elevations of 5403.4 with building foundations that appear to be significantly within this boundary. 5. Please provide concise detail of outlet structure (inlet, pipe) from Simms Court to retention pond, or reference to the appropriate sheet number. Mr. John Griffith, P.E. Page 2 6. Please note size of Wheat Ridge inlet and reference to appropriate detail. 7. Please note the depth and limits of ponding at the proposed inlet in Simms Court. 8. Please note the existing grade of W. 46th Avenue. 9. Please clarify why design point 2 information is provided at retention pond. Grading & Erosion Control Plan 1. The required erosion control measures can be placed on the drainage plan as long as the resulting plan is concise and readable. All details will need to be referenced accordingly. 2. Please include red-lined note shown on the drainage plan regarding erosion control requirements. Street Construction Drawings 1. Please revise drawings/details to retention pond design as noted in the report instead of detention. Traffic Engineering A copy of the Simms Court construction plans have been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, Mr. Steve Nguyen, P.E., 303-235-2862 with the following no comments noted: 1. The previous traffic study submitted for this location is still considered valid since it is still within a two-year time frame, and traffic conditions have not changed significantly Subdivision Plat 1. The required final plat document needs to be submitted for review and approval by the City's Surveyor Mr. John McGuire, P.L.S. at 303-235-2858. Subdivision Improvement Agreement Upon City Council approval of the Final Plat, a Subdivision Improvement Agreement will need to be executed by the project owner/developer. For the developer/owner's information and review, a sample copy of this agreement is provided. Mr. John Griffith, P.E. Page 3 Application for Minor Dumping/Landfill Permit Prior to the commencement of any onsite grading, an Application for Dumping/Landfill Permit, along with fees due will need to be submitted for review and approval. For your information and submittal in the second review package, a copy of this permit is provided. Public Improvements Cost Estimate & Guarantee Prior to any construction commencing for the required public improvements within the Simms Court right-of-way, an itemized engineer's cost estimate will need to be submitted for review and approval. Upon acceptance of this estimate, a letter of credit reflecting total costs of the approved cost estimate plus 25%, will need to be submitted by the owner/developer for review and approval. Right-of-Way Construction Permit(s)/Licensing Prior to any construction of the public improvements, the necessary right-of-way construction permit(s) and respective licensing will need to be submitted for processing by the City. Please return all red-lined prints with the second submittal. If you have any questions, please contact me at 303-235-2868. Sincerely, Greg Knudson, M.P.A. Development Review Engineer cc: Dave Kotecki, Sr. Project Engineer Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer John McGuire, City Surveyor Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner File 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 FAX 303/235-2857 February 16, 1999 Jim Turgeon 18216 West 4`h Avenue Golden, CO 80401 Dear Jim: The City of Wheat Ridge The following are a list of referral responses for your submittal of subdivision and site plan. All of the concerns or requests for additional information must be provided prior to scheduling for public hearing. Valley Water District: 1. Additional water main lines and taps will be needed 2. Service lines and water taps will be needed 3. Easements may need easements for service Jefferson County Planning: No concerns Arvada Fire Protection District: 1. 20' unobstructed, all-weather service required prior to above ground construction 2. Will need temporary turn-around provisions 3. Water line and fire hydrant installation at end of cul-de-sac required before above ground construction Public Service Company: Requested specific language be added to plat face - see March 11, 1998 letter Police Department: Can serve Parks and Recreation Commission will require a $75 contribution in lieu of parkland dedication Public Works: 1. Has concerns regarding deeds and ownership of the property 2. Drainage report is in the process of being reviewed 3. Needs engineered construction plans for the public improvements, dumping permit and financial guarantee - see memo dated March 9, 1998 4. Has specific plat comments - see March 18, 1998, letter and contact sheet dated March 12, 1998 5. Has requested that existing right-of-way along eastern property line of Lot 2 be vacated.. Please submit legal description with exhibit prepared by surveyor for concurrent processing. 6. The traffic engineer is reviewing original comments relative to traffic report submitted in April of 1997 and traffic circulation issues in the neighborhood. Planning and Development Department: 1. Is reviewing original comments regarding plat document - see letters dated March 13, 1998, and March 25, 1998 2. Will need a site plan showing proposed development to accompany the plat. Will the Fightmaster portion still remain "as is"? If you have questions concerning any of the above, do not hesitate to contact me at 303-235- 2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert Senior Planner cc: Greg Knudson File ws9801ref MEMORANDUM Approved Date TO: Meredith Reckert, Planning } FROM: Crary Wardle, Director of Parks & Recreation A J l,(/ RE: 11600 West 46th Avenue DATE: November 26, 1996 At the October 16, 1996 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting the property located at 11600 West 46th Avenue was discussed. The Commission made and carried a motion the City request $75.00 per unit in lieu of park land dedication. MEMORANDUM " 11 Approved Date TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner FROM: Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer S DATE: April 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis for Proposed Town Homes at 46th Avenue and Swadley I have reviewed the traffic impact study for the above referenced location and concur with its findings. All of the traffic projections and methodology for analysis are done in accordance with the adopted national standards. The study shows that the development traffic will not adversely affect the immediate intersections. In addition, the level-of-service of these intersections are still at a good level even for the maximum condition which is the 2015 background traffic plus site traffic. cc: Bob Goebel, Director of Public Works Dave Kotecki, Senior Project Engineer Greg Knudson, Development Review Engineer 7500 West 29th Avenue The Cay of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 February 24, 1998 Ridge The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat the property described below. Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by March 13, 1998. No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: WS-98-1/Turgeon-Fightmaster LOCATION: 1 1681 W. 44th Avenue; 11600 W. 46th Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat on Residential-Three zoned property. PURPOSE: Subdivision of property and construction of 16 townhome type unit on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. APPROXIMATE AREA: 5 acres. I. Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? YES 5--: N0= 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 you agency has identified which would or should affect approval of this request? Please reply to: Meredith Reckert Department of Planning & Development DIST RIBUTION: X Water District (Valley) X Sanitation District (Fruitdale) X Fire District (Arvada) X Adjacent City X X Public Service Co. X X US West Communications !3 State Lane Use Commission X State Geological Survey X Colorado Dept. Of Transportation X Colorado Div. Of Wildlife X Jeffco Health Department Jeffco Schools Jeffco Commissioners TCI of Colorado WHEAT RIDGE Post Office WHEAT RIDGE Police Department WHEAT RIDGE Public Works Dept. WHEAT RIDGE Park & Rec Commission WHEAT RIDGE Forestry Division WHEAT RIDGE Building Division 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 Ridge February 24, 1998 The Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development has received a request for approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat the property described below. Your response to the following questions and any comments on this proposal would be appreciated by March 13, 1998. No response from you by this date will constitute no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. CASE NO: WS-98-I/Turgeon-Fightmaster LOCATION: 11681 W. 44th Avenue; 11600 W. 46th Avenue REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a nine lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat on Residential-Three zoned property. PURPOSE: Subdivision of property and construction of 16 townhome type unit on Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. APPROXIMATE AREA: 5 acres. 1. Are public facilities or services provided by your agency adequate to serve this development? - YES NO X If"NO", please explain below.. Addl. water mains and fire hydrants will be needed to serve property and meet AFPD requirements 2. Are service lines available to the development? YES NO X . If "NO", please explain below. Addl. water service lines and taps per each building structure will be needed. 3. Do you have adequate capacities to service the development? YES X NO If "NO", please explain below. 4. Can and will your agency service this proposed development subject to your rules and regulations? YES X NO_ If "NO", please explain below. 5. Are there any concerns or problems you agency has identified which would or should affect approval of this request? Owner would need to provide easements as necessary to serve the property Please reply to: Meredith Reckert Department of Planning & Development DISTRIBUTION: X Water District (Valley) X Sanitation District (Fruitdale) X Fire District (Arvada) Adjacent City X Public Service Co. X US West Communications State Lane Use Commission State Geological Survey Colorado Dept. Of Transportation Colorado Div. Of Wildlife Jeffco Health Department Jeffco Schools X Jeffco Commissioners X TCI of Colorado X WHEAT RIDGE Post Office X WHEAT RIDGE Police Department X WHEAT RIDGE Public Works Dept. X WHEAT RIDGE Park & Rec Commission X WHEAT RIDGE Forestry Division X WHEAT RIDGE Building Division VALLEY WATER DISTRICT P.O. BOX 9 12101 WEST 52ND AVENUE pt H9 WHE AT RIDGE, COLORADO 80O34 TELEPHONE 424-9661 FAX 424-0828 A 19 March 2, 1998 Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Meredith: In reference to Case No. WZ-98-1, Turgeon/Fightmaster, Valley Water District has reviewed and offers the following comments: 1. Additional water main lines and fire hydrants would be needed to serve the property and to meet A.F.P.D. requirements at owner's expense. 2. Additional water service lines and water taps would be required per each building structure at owner's expense. 3. Owner of property would need to provide easements as necessary to Valley Water District to serve property. If you have any additional questions, please call me at 424-9661. Sincerely, Robert Arnold District Manager Board of County Commissioners Michelle Lawrence District No. 1 Patricia B. Holloway District No. 2 John P. Stone District No, 3 Y OF WHEAT RIDGE J _nrP nn n7 March 3, 1998 IL.T MR 0 419 98 _ ,emu U PLANN!';" & DEVELOPMENT Ms. Meredith Reckert City of Wheat Ridge Department of Planning & Development 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 RE: WS-98-1/Turgeon-Fightmaster Dear Ms. Reckert: Please be advised that Jefferson County's Planning and Zoning Department has reviewed the referral materials for the proposed Fightmaster Subdivision. The subject property is located approximately one- half mile east from the closest unincorporated portion of the county. Public facilities and/or services to serve the referenced property will not be provided by Jefferson County. As such, the county does not have concem with the proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this land use request. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at (303) 271-8711. Sincerely, Robert Narracci, Planner RJN/rjn cc: file 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, Colorado 80419 (303) 271-6511 Arvada Fire Protection District FIRE MARSHALS' OFFICE P. O. Box 3-D ARVADA, COLORADO 80001 Telephone (303) 425-0850 - FAX (303) 422-4569 March 3, 1998 Ms. Meredith Reckert Department of Community Development City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: Turgeon-Fightmaster 11681 W. 44th Ave, 11600 W. 46th 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. All weather fire dept access roadways, minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed width, capable of supporting the imposed loads of 46,000 lbs will need to be provided prior to above grade construction. UFC 91 10.203, 10.204(a). 3. The proposed access will be provided with a cul-de-sac as a turnaround. A temporary or permanent turnaround will need to be provided prior to above grade construction. UFC 91 10.203(c). 4. The water line and fire hydrant proposed at the end of the cul-de-sac will need to be installed, operational and capable of providing the minimum required fire flows prior to above grade construction. UFC 91 10.401, 10.403. 5. Street signs temporary or permanent need to be installed prior to above grade construction. UFC 91 10.301(b). Page Two Sincerely, Arvada Fire Protection District Ae-ve S e' leder Deputy Fire Marshal MEMORANDUM A roved Date Wom TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner FROM: Greg Knudson, Development Review Engineer DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: WS-98-1, Quit Claim Deeds for Fightmaster/Turgeon Subdivision Application Attached is the memorandum dated March 6, 1998 from John McGuire which details review comments that need to be addressed regarding the attached quit claim deeds submitted to this department on March 4, 1998. Also, please be advised that the first submittal of the platting document for this property was received on March 3, 1998, and is currently being reviewed.. Subsequent comments will be copied to you in writing. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Dave Kotecki, Sr. Project Engineer John McGuire, City Surveyor File MEMORANDUM A roved Date DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO: Greg Knudson FROM: John McGuire DATE: March 6, 1998 SUBJECT: Fightmaster Subdivision application In reviewing the deeds that were submitted with the application I noticed that the legal descriptions for three of the listed owners that were attached to the quit claim deeds reference the wrong section. They are shown as being in section 10 and should be in section 20. We should notify the applicants of this error as soon as possible. Also, the County records show that there are 7 separate parcels and one is being shown as owned by Port Orchard..., and was filed in 1996. They are not listed as owners nor was there any documentation showing that they had deeded anything away. I have included a copy of this area from the Assessors map showing the current situation. We would like to see deeds for parcels 13-b,13-c,13-d,13-1 and 13-k in order to verify ownership. There should also be some reference to a title commitment shown on the plat. We are continuing to review the actual platting document, but I feel these issues need to be discussed and resolved before we can go much further with the review process. MEMORANDUM Approved Date DEPARTNEWr OF KM11C WORKS TO: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner FROM: Greg Knudson, Development Review Engineer DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: 11681 W.44th Avenue;11600 W.46th Avenue - 9 Lot Combined Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat/Turgeon-Fightmaster WS-98-1 The Public Works Department has reviewed the Planning Department referral dated February 24, 1998 for the above referenced site, and has the following comments: 1. We will need a final drainage report to reflect the proposed drainage/grading improvements for Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9. This report will be an amendment to the final drainage report prepared for Lots 6 and 7. Based upon the project description information provided that lots 1,2 and 3 to'the south (Fightmaster) are to remain unchanged, the requested report will not need to analyze this area in detail. The report will need to acknowledge this area and confirm that there will be no adverse impact created to this, or other surrounding properties. 2. We will need engineered construction plans for the completion of public improvements on Simms Court. Construction plans were previously submitted for these improvements. If this design is to remain the same, these plans can be resubmitted for review and approval. 3. We will need a completed Dumping/Landfill Permit. In conjunction with the requirements of this permit, an erosion control plan will need to be submitted for review and approval. 4. An acceptable form of guarantee (letter of credit, escrow or cashiers check) will need to be submitted for the value of (as determined by the cost estimate prepared by the project's consultant engineer) those public improvements required to be constructed per item 2 above. S. The proposed subdivision plat has been forwarded to John McGuire for .review. Subsequent comments will be forwarded in writing to Lane Engineering for revision. 6. The quit claim deeds submitted to this department on March 4, 1998 for this property have been reviewed by John McGuire, with comments detailed in the memorandum dated March 6, 1998,(See attached). cc: Alan White, Planning & Development Director Dave Kotecki, Sr. Project Engineer Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer John McGuire, City.Surveyor File IM~ ~ «P -tad: F~ MR, CONTACT NUMBER: 1 DATE: 3312, 1998 SUBDIVISION NAME: FIGHTMASTER ENGINEER: NAME: Steve Lister PHONE: (303) 233-4042 FAX: 3( 03) CITY REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN MCGUIRE REMARKS: 1: Closure is well within tolerance (Please address typos in Bearings in written legal) 2: Wrong section number in legal 3: The deeds urovided were in the wrong section and do not match assessors information 4: Show adlioners to north and west (Moore-Rowe/ Davisher) 5: Provide language for access easement to Lot 2 6: East Pin shown on 44th Ave is a recovered 1" in in a City ran e box 7: The area along 44th shown as easement should be dedicated as R 0 W 8: Because of discrepancies in deeds we recommend a reference to title commitment shown on the Plat 9: The Prorated distance to the 16th corner and the location of the pin referenced on the Plat are substantially different If the pin is going to be accepted as the 16th corner it should be upgraded 10: We require that total that total right of waVwidths and center line for all way widths and center line for all streets be shown. ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE: REMARKS: How contact made: person phone letter fax REPRESENTATIVE: City: Engineer: Callback 1 Date: Remark: Callback 2 Date: Remark: Callback 3 Date: Remark: The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE - - G WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80215-6713 (303) 234-5900 W h e at City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax q 235-2949 Rid ge March 18, 1998 Mr. Steve Lister, L.S. Lane Engineering Service, Inc. 9500 West 14`h Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Re: Fightmaster Subdivision, West 46`" Avenue & Simms Court - First Review Comments of Subdivision Plat Dear Mr. Lister, The first review of the above referenced document for the Fightmaster Subdivision received on February 24, 1998 has been reviewed with the following comments noted: 1. Closure is within tolerance (please address typos in bearing in the legal description). 2. The wrong section number is shown in the legal description. 3. The deeds provided are in the wrong section, and do not match the assessors information.. 4. Please show adjoiners to the north and west (Moore-Rowe/Davisher). 5. Please provide language for access easement to Lot 2. 6. The east pin shown on West 44'h Avenue is a recovered 1" pin in a City range box. 7. The area shown along the West 44`h Avenue frontage as an easement should be dedicated as right-of-way. 8. Because of discrepancies in deeds, we recommend a reference to title commitment shown on the plat. 9. The prorated distance to the 16`h corner and the location of the pin referenced on the plat are substantially different. If the pin is going to be accepted as the 16`h comer, it should be upgraded. 60 RFCYGLEU PAVER Mr. Steve Lister, L.S. Lane Eng. Page 2 10. The City will require total right-of-way widths and center line for all streets to be shown. Please address any questions you may have regarding this list of comments to Mr. John McGuire, L. S. at 235-2868. RED-LINED COMMENTS WITH THE SECOND SUBMITTAL. Sin e ly, 41- Gre Knddson, M.P.A. Development Review Engineer cc: Dave Kotecki, Sr. Project Engineer John McGuire, City Surveyor Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner File PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO- ANEW CENWRY ENEROIEE COMPANY March 11, 1998 City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W 291" AVE Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: FIGHTMASTER SUBDIVISION Siting and Land Rights 550 15th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202-4256 Telephone 303.571.7799 Facsimile 303.571.7877 Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) has reviewed the development plans for FIGHTMASTER SUBDIVISION. To ensure that adequate utility easements are available within this development, PSCo requests that the following dedication language, or plat note, be placed on the preliminary and final plats for the subdivision: Eight-foot (8) wide utility easements are hereby granted on private property adjacent to all public streets in the subdivision or platted area. These easements are dedicated for the installation, maintenance, and replacement of electric, gas, television cable, and telecommunications facilities. Utilities- shall also be permitted within any access easements and private streets in the subdivision. permanent structures and water meters shall not be permitted within said utility easements. PSCo also requests that these utility easements be depicted graphically on the preliminary and final plats. While these easements should accommodate the majority of utilities to be installed in the subdivision, some additional easements may be required as planning and building progresses. As a safety precaution, PSCo would like to remind the developer to call the Utility Notification Center, at 1-800-922-1987, to have all utilities located prior to construction. If PSCo has existing gas or electric distribution facilities in this area, the developer should contact PSCo's Engineering Department at (303) 425-3867, regarding the use or relocation of these facilities. If you have any questions about this referral response, please contact me at 571-7735. Thank You, Patty ~GacniPe/tM/ Right-of-Way Processor NMD: Multi-family 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 Ridge FAX 303/234-5924 March 25. 1998 Jim Turgeon Customcraft Homes, Inc. 2110 Rockcress Way Golden, Colorado 80401 Dear Jim: The City's Department of Public Works has brought to my attention an item which needs resolution in regards to your application for subdivision approval. There is an existing piece of right-of-way on the eastern boundary of Lot 2 which must be vacated. Since there is no provision in our Subdivision Regulations to do this by plat, it must be done by ordinance. The right-of-way vacation can be processed simultaneously with the subdivision application, but I will need an exhibit prepared with a legal description of the parcel to be vacated. This exhibit should be prepared by your surveyor with his signature and seal. If your surveyor has questions regarding this document, he should contact John McGuire, City Surveyor, at 235-2858. One other item I overlooked when writing my March 13, 1998, letter was the width. of the access easement across Lot 1 for Lot 2. Pursuant to Section 26-30(I) Of the Wheat Ridge code of Laws, residential private drives are allowed but must be within easements no less than 25' in width. Therefore, the access easement on Lot I must be increased in size from 17' to 25'. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert Senior Planner cc: Case No. WS-98-1 Herb Fightmaster Lynn Fightmaster Lane Engineering 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 Ridge FAX 303/234-5924 March 13, 1998 Jim Turgeon Customeraft Homes, Inc. 2110 Rockcress Way Golden, Colorado 80401 Dear Jim: This letter is in regard to your request for approval of a combined preliminary and final plat for property located at 11681 W. 44th Avenue and 11680 W. 46th Avenue. I have reviewed your submittal and have concluded that the following needs to be added to the plat face or addressed otherwise. 1. Case history with the following case numbers : WZ-80-28, WS-96-2, WS- 98-1 2. Zoning on the property 3. Adjacent zoning 4. Adjoining plats 5. Signature blocks for lien holders releasing areas dedicated for public use 6. Signature block for the ditch company and appropriate easements 7. Detention easements with appropriate reservation language 8. Please correct the spelling of Zelma Fightmaster's name in the signature block 9. Street centerlines 10. Property addresses 11. Preliminary plat information on a separate sheet Attached are copies of referrals received from other City departments and outside agencies. Of particular concern are the comments from the City's Public Works Department relative to drainage and property deeds. An additional item which needs to be addressed is the requirement by the City Council for a site plan for review. This site plan will eventually be recorded with the Jefferson County clerk and Recorder's Office as an official development plan within the City. This site plan should contain the following minimum information for all lots: 1. Existing and proposed streets with proposed public improvements including curb cuts and driveways 2. Building envelopes, parking areas and driveways and areas to be landscaped 3. Site data table including total property, building coverage, landscaped coverage and hard surfaced coverage. These coverages need to be shown in square footage and percent of the total. It may be smart to look at the north and south halves separately and create a site data table for each. At the time of this writing, I have not yet scheduled this case public hearing in front of Planning Commission. Please resubmit changes and missing documents so that we can proceed with our review. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2848. Sincerely, Meredith Reckert Senior Planner City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Jim Turgeon FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No. WZ-98-1 DATE: February 11, 1999 Referral responses: Valley Water District: 1. Additional water main lines and taps will be needed 2. Service lines and water taps will be needed 3. Easements may need easements for service Jefferson County Planning: No concerns Arvada Fire Protection District: 20' unobstructed, all-weather service required prior to above ground construction Will need temporary turn-around provisions] Water line and fire hydrant installation at end of cul-de-sac required before above ground construction Public Service Company: Requested specific language be added to plat face - see March 11, 1998 letter Police Department: Can serve Parks and Recreation Commission will require a $75 contribution in lieu of parkland dedication Public Works: 1. Has concerns regarding deeds and ownership of the property 2. Drainage report is in the process of being reviewed 3. Needs engineered construction plans for the public improvements, dumping permit and financial guarantee - see memo dated March 9, 1998 4. Has specific plat comments - see March 18, 1998, letter and contact sheet dated March 12, 1998 5. Has requested that existing right-of-way along eastern property line of Lot 2. Please submit legal description with exhibit prepared by surveyor for concurrent processing. 6. The traffic engineer is reviewing original comments relative to traffic report submitted in April of 1997 and traffic circulation issues in the neighborhood. Planning and Development Department: 1. Is reviewing original comments regarding plat document - see letters dated March 13, 1998, and March 25; 1998 2. Will need a site plan showing proposed development to accompany the plat. Will the Fightmaster portion still remain "as is"? TO: Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer FROM: Meredith Reckert. Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. MS-98-1/Turgeon-Fightmaster DATE: February 10, 1999 As a follow-up to our conversation of this afternoon, attached are copies of the original traffic study and request for traffic issues analysis with your responses. Please let me know if you need anything else. cc: File Greg Knudson City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Greg Knudson, John McGuire, Steve Nguyen / FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No. WS-98-1 DATE: February 3, 1999 Please find attached two copies the drainage plan and report for property located at 11600 West 46`h Avenue and 11681 West 46th Avenue. Please forgive me for my tardiness in distributing. The drainage reports are submitted pursuant to Case No. WS-98-1 which has substantial history behind. The request was originally submitted as Case No. WS-96-2 as an application for approval of a six lot subdivision of property located on 2.5 acres of land at 11600 W. 46`h Avenue. The R-3 zoning was already in place and permits had been issued for two fourplexes on the north side of the property which were completed last year. The subdivision and street dedication were required to allow for four additional buildings. The case was approved by Planning Commission but was continued indefinitely by City Council so the applicant could comply with a zoning condition placed on the property in 1980. The applicant submitted a new application (Case No. WS-98-1) for approval of a platting of the entire five acres (both the 46`h Avenue property and the 44`h Avenue property) pursuant to City Council direction. With 1998 submittal, the owners of the north portion (Jim and Dan Turgeon) are requesting four additional building lots, but the property on the south (Fightmaster) is platted to reflect the three existing residences with no additional building proposed. Other documents in file which were submitted previously are a traffic impact statement and drainage report for the north half. k. r' r t~ { 0 t r~'^` GENERAL NOTES: 1. Alf work within the public right-of-way or easement shat! conform to the City of Wheat Ridge Engineering Regulations and Design Standards, and applicable sections of the Colorado Department of Transportation "Standard Specificatior~s for. Road and Bridge Construction", latest edition (Brown Book). 2. An approved Right-of-Way Construction Permit and a Munjcipal Contractor's _T~' License are required prior to any work commencing with the public right-~f way. 3. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to no#ify the Owner/Developer of any problem in conforming to the approved construction plans for any element of the tliiY 'L - ` ~ ~ ~ . +r.~w.w. . ~1~"hit ~t ' ~ 4 5581 ~r t ~ ~ , ~ , ~~i ~ 1 ~ l . Mt r • Ci ~ ~ ! F ~ ~ proposed improvements prior to its construction. S ~ ~ ~ r , 3 V +r a • a.°° ~ t~ ~ f y.o.,rw ws' t ♦ ~ tr ~ ! ~ . a e • ♦ f ; + , ¢ ~ \e , p _ . . „ e i e er r ere a es { _ P 4. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to resolve constru~~~an problems j ~ f t i~ t KJ ~ ~ • e ~ _ p ~ t t~ j' l~ j ~ ~ r \ ~.3f~(L.IYtIHft ~ • .~+'~V i~ .-.tS 1 \ rt'/ lt,. . ~ [w,.. arising from changed conditions or errors in the construction plans encotmtered by the Contractor during the progress of any portion of the work. If, in the =ap~nion of the L 4 Gity's inspector, the modifications proposed by the Developer to the approved plans 1 L involves significant changes to the character of the work or to future co=ntiguous public or private improvements, the Developer shall submit revised plans ,~P the City of Wheat Ridge for approval prior to any further construction related to ti portion of the L work. Any improvements constructed not conforming to approved Mans, or the i~~ approved revised plans, shall be removed and the improvements shall be reconstructed. cam., 7 5. Blue Stakes -The contractor shall contact Blue Stakes for location on the underground gas, electric and telephone utilities at least 48 hou~r~ prior to the -'a--r r.. commencement of any work. Phone 534-6700. i 6. All street signs shall be removed and reset after placement of concreta. Y f 7. Contractor sha{I notify the proper utility and shall adjust the rims of a!I valve covers, cleanouts and manholes prior to the final paving lift. ~ ~ i 8. The Contractor shall provide all temporary lights, signs, barricades, flagmen and i any other devices necessary to control traffic and protect the pudic safety in accordance with the current Manual an Uniform Traffic Control Devices during construction. s 4'• 9. The Contractor shall provide and maintain ingress and egress tc► ~arivate property ' adjaccent to the work throughout the period of construction. Prior t~ beginning any work, the Contractor shalt obtain written agreement from property Owne~Is) impacted by ! this project. - 10. Prior to the final lift of surface pavement, all underground utilit mains shall be installed and service connections stubbed out beyond the back of cup b/sidewalk lines ~L 'e. when allowed by the utility. Service from public utilities and from sanitary sewers shall Y~ Y be made available for each lot in such a manner that it will not be nett=~sary to disturb the street pavement, curb and gutter and sidewalk when connections are made. 11. The Contractor shall no#ify the City inspector at least 24 hours pr~~~~ to the desired i , L f inspection. S 1 ~ + s i~ 1 12. No portion of the street may be final paved until all street lightir.;~ improvements, Y designed to serve the street and or development have been completed. 1 13. Survey Monuments must be set within 60 days of completion of the ~1~ oject. .3 f t ~f. j~ i.. ,r f  11 11285 BROWNSTONE DR. P (3 RE PARKER, COLORADO 80134 (303) 841-4393 0 REF: 96106 S,.I~.,ccr+4~- 'Qc,~~~: z~s' 49 - -.....f~.~..~...._-.. - U} Z ~,r ' i, ossMH o 8' CLAY ~'tPE ~ V RIM 5408.68 (,.1,,,) INV' INS 5397.~i ~ INY OUT N 5396.96 ~ f.- 'C~ Z O . s U~ ~ zW ti W J m Q oU o a. SAS ° F}- Q w t t- W ~ ~ - ®e _ "1~'1 'ten -,r, ~ i - g ~ ASPHALT ~ s rn a ~ O+OQ..% NEV U ~ ` t _4 D N PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ' " ~ ~ R~M4VE AND RESE 1 ~o NEW CURB AN ' ~ , S 4 WOOD FENCE I I o , I ~ ~ 4 1 ~ -a FAC L.S/844 ~iS A TREES y~ d BARBWIRE FENCE - ; 30 0 30 60 1 ~ f d SCALE: 1" = 30.00' t , a J ~r  r `r w _ , l } ISC DEBRi~ ~ t ~~r ~ l ~ r w ~ ~ t ~ ~v' 3 rn o ~ N STA. 2 59.43 STD. C.O.W. (GRATED INLET WITH ~T~ 1 o / M O J 12' X 18" HDPE OUTLET PIPE CONC. HEADWALL PER CDOT ~ PGL EL. = 5402.44 s z ° J X ~ M STD. M-601-12 SEE DETAIL SHEET 5 ~ rM Q ~ ~ ~.1.. 541 .00 ~ ' ~e ~ ~Q 5418.00 ,~~0 Q`~~. 5418.40 J~' ~ ~ J 3 o~'~o°~~ 5413.00 G~G h . X`~~~,`~~G~J~ G ~ -1`'`' a°`~~`)Q~ 54~ 3,0o G P`~Q ~~p~ 5413.00 J~'~ G Gtr 5G ~ ~'P Py~q ~ Q~ o" Q`` 5Q '<P~ CROWN OF STREET G 3~,Q~4~ p`~ 1~ QG~ ~ J ~ a a U 5408.00 5 G`' Qti ~ s4 e.o o"~ Q,~ ~,J~h~ ~,D~~ Crown of Street x~3~ ~o,~~ 5'~ t~v~~,• / PGL Type 1 Curb and Gutter .~P~ `1~ O ~ ~ G GQ~~ ' Existing Ground G' g ~ ~ I 5403.00 5403.00 - - _ - - - - ~ s r~ 23. -0. 5398.00 ~ ~ N N N ~ ~t ~Q" J ~ 192.43 L.F. @ So = -0.5% ~ F~~ 5398.00 ~ ~ S S y'9L ~ FL 4o~~2s~~~~tc CULL DE SAC TYSo ~,p 5G AROUND Fl EL. = 12 L.F FJ 5400.04 in d~ ~t ~t ~Q G~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q I O+OO.OQ 0+30.00 0+60.00 0+90.00 1+20.00 o+oo.oa o+30.00 o+so.oo o+sa.oo i+zo.oo j+~c~.ao ~+so.oo Z+~a.oo 2+40 0o z+~~ o0 is a, E. 46TH AVENUE PROFILE 3' SIMMS CQURT PROF1~~ jF1~  r- .J x ~ O Z CID Qr 0(C) rn N ~p W p W ' d ~ ~~++pp qm a b a v © ~ ~~.v ~ ...,....r..... _ ~ is . w-p . .«.,.~w-w.-~,.~...,~.,...~,,,,.,...~..... ~ , . ,;d , i U3 . • . ~ # J a , ~ b ~ ~ • . ti ~ • , ~ . . ~ ; 'w ~ i { ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ , y ' ~ t ~ ~~t. # ~ ~ , ~ J' j ~ i . ~ M f~ ~ • LOT LINE ~ t ~ i► i 's b..,...,M.-.-.»...u.,.,~.,.~.,,,,.,. s ~ w i11~ _ _ EXISTING GROUND is ` p ~ ! i, t .i ~ S ~ a ' • 5405 r ~ , L ' ~ ,N .4 . + t , ti i FOUN~ATI0 WALL (TYP ~1 ~ ~ ~ 540(} , , ~ a t p ' , ~ ' . t ,,4 # r, x PROPOSED GROUND ! ' 0 +1 i •I O ! ~ } 18.5' 18.5' I ~ , + o ~ •r X3.0' # d~ ~ . A. ' ~ ~ t 1 r ~ t 1 J i 3 7 i SECTION A - DETENTION POND i 1 i _.._r-~_-4 _ _ r ~A ~ r a ~S _t ~ { r ~ t ~ ~ a ~'rdr' -i l`~ ~ x ~ ' . . ......w...,... «..rwr....+r. w..r.rww..+~.+ 1 i ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ { 1; ~ ~•1 . ~ € ~ i~ , ~ .~R~., ~ . ~ . . p * fi • ''w • d~.. . ~ ,a ~ f `~"i ~ '•a .~.,..,w r i v R !k 5 , • • • i-A~~ ,~w~ ~ . ~ , {1 i. . 'Mb r ? F ~ ~ ~ o~ t . a i t ' • i ~ ' A , ~ i•• u i C~ U) ~ ~ e s~♦ b 'i' ~ j • 1 t z •#i 'a .,....~..,.,r..,..M.. r' ' c o~ ~ cv % 3 ~ 4.~ f.' ~ ~ r ~ t • ~ # 7 ~ • I 54~Q to v~ c.~ ~'"'r ~ . ' 1 ~ + i . s a ► ~ ~ • i3"1 ~ « i , s > y • a. i 'A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ,A ~ , , ~ ~ ` ' ' ' . ; a J i < ~w i• ~ 4 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ • J ~ } • , ,~~,..,,~.~.,,,,,,..,..~..~s . . i i i ~ ► ' Lam. ! ~ rn t 1 1 ~~~.._w~.r..~~~,r~ a~~ n~ a , ~ ...«.wa ~ ~ . 1. I j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ } } ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ i, ' ~ ` ~ ? 1 . ~ E t ! ; y .w., s .....~.1. _ ` f n r Un I ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ 1 ! k a-7ir _ ,k.wrr.~.w FE ~ ! j ~ f ns r 1 rw...± k t }i i { t { ~ ~ ~ I ~ 1 F Y' S: r~~. p{~p{ j P ~ ~ t d t' j}~j ~rrnYn. t t ~rr.►- { I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ , ~ n_ . ~ _ ~ ~ i i ! , i i ~ ~ wr.r. yqj~.. i } i ~ r t i .,,,r. , e . . « ~ ~ ~ ! i ~ ' ~ [A[' j~ 3' 1 .......fgpg.. 1 ~ ~ i o j 1 ~ i = , ~ ~ ° ~ t.. i ~ s ~ { r ~ r t ~ t f ~ t ~ } ~ r ~ . ~ ~ I ~ ~ t .w ! i i! i ~ I 3 f i { t ~ Y { i ~ i ~ I { ~ ~ ~ , f w~_ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ 1 ' w ~ .I .f ~ ~ t . ~ SC~.~, 1 $ Z j 1 + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ _ , ~ ' i ~ i . ~ . ~ . G ` i 4 i . . r L { . . 4 ~ ~ 1 ~ y - s . ~ ~ ~ . , .W ~ ~ ~ i API u ~ 3; j i ~ ~ I ~ i I , j i ~ ~ # ~ ~ . I ~ - t 1 i , . t . _ ! ~ k t ~ ~ ; s I i ~ . 1 f . i 7 1 t- 1 { ~ S ~ + j~ s + 6! j w t~ • ! I ! , f s 1 ~ I k ~ 1 •1111 ♦ # 1 ~ i r_ Li < r 1 ohm • { g f N 0(..0 1 i C) 0 Ic-ECTION _ f. t C 1 - _ f w i F MONOLITHICALLY PLACED TICAL CURB, GUTTER, ~ 51DEWALK SECTION { TO BE PAID A5 TO BE PAID A5 G~N~I2AL N VERTICAL CURB CONCRETE 51DEWALK (5Y) F E GUTTER (LF) I. CONC42ETE SHALL BE C ~~2'-6" 5'-0" TYPICALLY 2. ALL 5U6GRADE SHALL (NOTED ON PLANS WHEN DIFFERENn 95~ OF MAXIMUM DEN51 t fR 1 FL AA5HT0 T-99. f (4" OR 6") 3. CONTRACTION JOINTS 5 61 -I I/2" vn~~r I/8" 12ADIU5 ~ 10' INTE2VAL5 FOR CUR ~'~T i i/y a o AT 5' INTERVALS FOR 51 f% T DEPTN SHALL 8E MINIM 0p THICKNE55. i ~ , p 6„~ ~--2'-O'=-h6"{-~-{ (VAIZlA6LE)- ►~i 4. EXPAN510N JOWTS SHA ~6' (tRAN51TION) INTERVALS NOT TO EXC 5. ALL CURB, GUTTER E 51 SHALL BE FORMED. k f 6 CUT DETAILS i e 6" V~RTIC r NOTE: DRIVEWAYS AI2E TO 6E PLACED V JOINT MONOLITHIC WITH CURE E GUTTER. E b. ASPHALT SHALL 6E SAI OF 2~#" FROM FACE OF PATCHED BACK. fi t t i to ~ I . GU7TEI2 E 51DEWALIC (TYI~~ i) 5~('71n~1 7. CURING COMPOUND SHA ANAL j i ~pFU G rvanF } 3 1 A r f i  _ ~ pAY ITEM: DRIVEWAY (5Y) CUI26, GUTTER E 51DEW ID~WALK (TYp~ I> t5Y) k" iy.i, Y CU126 RAMP E CR055PAN D~TA1~.5 L. PAY AREAS M PAY AREAS x-1:20 MAX T y/j R ~W z~(• ,/6. ® ~ ` ~ r~ J • ~ ` 8' I 6~ TYPE II T t ~ ~ ~ CONCRETE CUR6RAMP . SECTION B-6 JDEWALK ~ CURB, GUTT~12 ~ 51DEWALK (EA) t 16.4 15Y-FILLED TYPE I CURB C2AMP CURB, GUTTER E 51DEWA (EA) ~c I/4' MAX. wW Y `r ~t iNCRETE PCR ~ o NOTE. IF ADJACENT TO CR055PAN E BILLET, CURB E GUTTER SHALL 6E POURED MONOL.ITNIC WITH ~{LEFT. r; ,F . COLORED CONCRE (DAVIS TILE RED) V ' RED) ~ ` j PCR l CR055PAN E FILLET 4'-0" 4'-0~ ~I (5Y) oy ~ ~ z.. 1 C ~ 3' TR 4' SITI0 g' I~ i~ 3' IRAN- C ~SITION~ ~ O~~ I p ~ ~ ( IO~~ i CURB EGUTTER -10"(LF) TOO C i_ 8 ; ~ PLA LIP 12=15' UNLE55 O'fHERW15E a. DIRECTED 6Y ENGINEER x TYPE A/ J i 4 ¢ CONCRETE CURB RAMP WITH COL012~D CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER E 51D~WALK i U f <t ►`r 0(0 I C] c:l t37 y t h S moll W ~ Z i to ___j`..,,,........, f a • l V i Y t 4 ; r Y ~ ~ ~ v ~ ,a , t _ r R _ Y. * 4 ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i , r~ f ~ i A ~ ~ ~ ~ J' 1 v i a► ~ . i r M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r. ' ~ ` 9'-2 I/2' TRIPLE WLE? S 8" 6'- I I /2' DOUBLE INLET 8' _ T (GRATE = 5'-ll") C 3'-O" 51NGLE INLET (GRATE = 2-I I I/2 ) t 3" M W 6ACK OF C RB i FLOW LINE ~ ~ B 1 J i 1 IRECTION ;o r- i-~ e ~ - J OF FLOW - ~ Q f rnr.ir.wwr of r GUTTER LI ~ 6' VERTICAL j s l~ ` , CURB E GUTTER a C PLAN  N INVERtED 60# RAIL CITY OF WHEAT I21DGE STANDARD AT DOUBLE AND TRIPLE CURB INLET FRAME, GRATE E INLETS, BETWEEN F2AME5 CURB 80X. TYPE "V' GRATE, A5 5L"'LIED BY NEENAH AND - - - - DIETER FOUNDARIES. w t GROUT FLOW LINE NON-RIGID K~IPE . « . • D :p p .x ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ D D r / / i / D - ti~ ~ ~j ~//~i~ L-- SLOPED TRENCH PER /~j ~j/ ///i~/ / OSHA STANDARDS J / ice/ W D ~ ~ ~ ~1 s. /~/j COMPACTED APPROVED NATIV NATIVE ~ Q ~j/ ~j/ MATERIAL ~ / ~j / r s IN51DE BEDDING MATERIAL DIAMETER (CLA55 I BACKFILI. SHALL BE . AN APPROVED A.B.C.) ~ / ~ IN51DE DIAMETER OF PIPE + 3 ► _ ' ~ GENERAL NOTES r BEDDING, STRUCTURE BACKFILLS, EXCAVATION, AND COMPACTION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE PIPE. • • METHOD FOR MEASUREMENT OF COMPACTION 5F1ALL BE AA5HT0 T-99A. MINIMUM COMPACTION SHAL{. BE 95X. j BRACING, SHORING, 5HEE71NG, ETC. SHALL 6E IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE 51AiE AND 05HA REQUIREMENTS. 5HORING SHALL BE CONS r • 51DERER A5 INCIDENTAL TO SEVJER CONSTRUCTION AND !S 10 6E IN- s LO CLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICE OF THE PIPE. ~C O O c0 O C3) S'- 0 SECTION OF SEWER PIPE IN TRENCH W 0 W 9 r A~,. t V. i ~ 4 1 R s +wn., ~~I~ ,xrw~+d' -y 1~.wM . ,wwr~r acct aan.o. a.~+w wrar .rwnr *rw. rrr.~ «....w +.rw. ..r+~r 4`++w v 1 t ~ r 1l A _M Vl A ~ ~ l ~L ! WL 3R lsw. ~__h ~ i a a e ~ ~ ~ w t ~ t ~ ±y w~'~ ~ }'~S 2,q~: "ms's,, 4'~~~ - t~ . S _ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ F N o i t. .M..._,.,.„ _ _ rya~~ ~ +,aa,. r..MIF. rr ar.aa awr ~ ~yM •..s a,,,r .r+a R 1^ • wr~"#aw . arwaas r .L'"- t • yr 1 i .r,,,,y ...w, . wim...~ ...,.,,r .+.r# s' i ~s Court) b i c ~ r9~; i # ~ Proposed Ground (Typ.)' K \ ~.........-^r a""" . _ .~W... _ _ _ _ . . , . Curb & Gutter (Typ.) ' r ' , 5 t ' mow., ` ...tea .....a+ ~ w""° 5404. - ~ _ 4 `"'wry • r  9 a t f r.~~ wrrr~ w.+ ,wr++.~ ' 1 ma . _ 'y .w. ~ ~ ~ t air~r °rasr .,.-M- r-'^ ~ ~ a D ~"'""'++~+r,M w.,, ~ ~ r K w.W"".'"'.....r..M *w`""*".,w~, r.W...~..""'rw""".,~~ i A ♦ • °r ~ ~ ~ C3 . , tLt C r=' ~ ~ ip+~i ~ /~jj~ ~ 4 ~ ~e i ~ 3 ~.e rw r+ k,.... as"'"> .nwW~ 9 .r+w".w....+~s ,.wr-~„ .,r+. ...~..r w...,.. . ".ir""°°. r~ w.rr rrM' s q ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ..r... p AY.~ . MWIIrs Oe/uilr 4/MiyMW w1YlY1M~~ +yy~ ' ~ MOlgllllbl~ ~ . mrt'+'~ art.' "M~F ryr'wgiRr .~www.~ wewew Mwro wvnur wrwiw ewwr *wrwMS y 4 r w~' l+s~ $ ~ ss1l~sV* I .use e.+s+~ ..r «rw ,....,.r ..r..+... ww+~ ..r« w«...... 1 ' ew t i ~,,,a., w ~,.,,,,,.~.,.r.- V~'. 1 ....o. wr .W..r .n..... «r.r .....w sw+.nn 4r+. wa .wi., w.~• ww.r re++~ «.4~ w+m► Aaxsr ~ eu~• w+~erd ue..+. ~...r ~ ~ ~S u ..~Md'hF ~ a F • wMr ♦IMMA~ w+YMI► ~yyyyr aOM~ a~l~(M ~ w~WYwYY Ilww~~ YlMylul~ 4w~WYY~ YYn1~IMlr IIMIMMI~ •.w~+Yri ~/nYn ~wMM`M ~tlYlll/~ wIYYr~ ~MrYiM lMY~F wi~r.-rte '..".Y.~""° +.r.w~r • M 3 1 i ® ,1 ~ ~a li,,,, f i 1 t ~ ~  wsw » fir. sn~' w.,w~1. ..,,r,...b +w1~r rr+...:r a~-~..i. ,r..r s,.w +~-,•.n..~ ...~.~w ...r wa.~ y ,rr►yw r~.n+nn nww~+ Nn+rMrir ~Fa~° 1~°°°"". saawr. w'"°"" 'rws a"rtw+"' ..yN+~• "~,~..rsr...°"""'r,y.r..w p o rn ' .r...w»rvx~•-esp.:,w.....,..,...,.«~.,+-..o......~.nw..wr.+..a....+^' ww+~s°..°'~.""^"....... Station 3+30 146th Avenue) { w o W NMI! wal-mm- S 89'13'31'W 264263' NORTHEAST CORNER SECTION 20 " 1. T 3 1/e BRASS CAP IN RANGE a POINT PO% IS 13212 NORTH 4- II CORNER SECTION 20 A CAP N RANGE iT POIVT LS I Z BOX 3 R-2 ZONING ROWS s SUB. -l PART 2 N WEST 46TH AVENUE 59 RICHT-0F-WAY PART OF LOT lA LEE' 5ZSGNBDCVISON N SCALE - 50 O ]5 50 25 n 15,131050F b m1. j 1 Ex 'STING BUILDING - TO REMAIN - N 89'TI'1]"E - 139.62 LOT 5 14.521 SO.R. S' STUDY EASEMENT SEE NOTE 41 u?I p T -N 69'11'1 )'E-- -124.45 4 64 O CROSS ACCESS m EASEMENT w w LOT d Qi ^ 125]0 52 R. O g - N 89'111 YE 164.94' - 21112 11, F~T n I it L1 I L ' IIIII;~ w III ~ PART OF LOT 13 LEE'S SUBDIVISION R-3 ZONING 125.02 1/2 LD. LOT EI - - r104 FIFE 1521950 FT ( 1 E%ISTING BUILDING -O6TAIL TO REMAIN S NO $fP LE 0. 1 01E 5S 89~ N m 13995- - LOT 8 11.523 SOFT. IF OTT u,m.. Us 5. _.UTI IDEA }EMENi' f (.TMP'-CAC ~ I 15 DETENTION POND EASEMENT I _T DEDICATED BY THIS PUT 11 d SEE NOTE ] 1 LOT 9 IJ b m 17,543 SO." LB US j N 8911'1 TE 16496' - 116.]fi LOT 2 19,099 so IT EXISTING BUILDINGS - 10 REMAIN IF TRACT A TIT ? L4 -1 SEE NOTE 10 682 54 FT. - t , LOT 3 69,215 SOFT. 71 IRRIGATION EASEMENT RECEPTION N0, 78100123- II'~LT1_~ _s 8940 Ol _ 00LDo LOT 1 16 041 SO' ' m I ~ w'I ,I C BOOK 8.- PAGES 598 H 599 VA A EO BY ORDINANCE _ rE, e PECn,vou No. L'NPLAE EO NING TRACT B SEE NOTE 6 25 ACCESS EASEMENT TO LOT 2 /2 63 205 _ 5R S 89'59'30' 885 WITNESS CORNER 1MAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE _ RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION 62' -1 IS PT FT 0 -IS n 5895656"E_ WEST FAT AVENUE 5.89'5930E _AF ~O eF, 26 6.98''[\ 66 FIGHT-OF_W - 132-58' 1'PIN EASEMENT RECEPTION NUMBERS 8510131) h 85101316 Im PROSPECT PARK PUCE AGE ZONING CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC TANGENT CHORD CHORD REAPING C 1 4611'23' ' 15.00 ' 12.62' ' 6.71' 1225' s 2311 15`W ' " ' ' C 2 48'1 P23 15.00 12.52 6,71 12.25 S 24'40 0] E C 3 89'45'43' : 15.00 2350' 1 4SIV 21.17- N 44'1825"E C 4 9141)' 15.00 23.82' 5 1$.06' 2136' N 45"41351V to LINE BEARING DISTANCE DETENTION PONT) DATA L 1 N 89.101 WE 903 LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 2 N 00.3416)N 110.22' U N00'34'I6"I. 101.43 L 3 N 093l1 6"I 10909' LB NEW II 17'E. 3400 L 4 S 86.0125"/ 18.62 ED N89'11 171E, 34.00 L 5 5 092930'E 23.68 L10 N0034 VPV 101.1,5 L 6 5 00-22'IB'E 24.86 111 5 B6'01.25`x 5.00' L12 5 093133"E 28.08 EAST If4 CORNER SECTION 20 13 S 89'60 00-E Af 23 50' 3 1/4 BRASS CAP IN RANGE _ . 266].55' S09'22'I6"I POINT 80Y LS 13212 . OMIE$5: J-TILT" ..T^T"^^I IT A.T IO. LN. 1'1') 2'P _H a ARYL' L✓IV 1 TITE-1 WITLESS n PAID AND - np. -r 0 _ THE IS TO .IT, e MC(11C I _ 'Y ( IF IF A',,, F AnFST. C1Y W ER, APPRI'_NLS PL BLOC SEP [ 11V1fT7__ . 0 C.,LO11i.'1 BY Cm or wHr RICO F R: L" E E F THE OWNER HIS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS GRANTS LIMITED RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGE OF ACCESS TO. SI AND FREE MOVEMENT THROUGH THOSE AREAS INDICATED "CROSS ACCESS/INGRESS -EGRESS EASEMENTS, AS ILLUSTRATED UPON THIS PUT. SUCH CH GRANT OF EASEMENT SHALL DE LIMOTO THE OWNERS, TENANTS, CUSTOMERS. AND EASEMENTS GUESTS OF iMf OWNERS AND SHALL FURTHERMORE GRANT ACCESS Tq AND FREE MOVEMENOVEMENT THROUGH H SAID SAID TO !HOSE ENTERING SAID EASEMENTS T SIMILARLY RECORDED EASEMENTS FROM ADJACENT ENi PROPERTIES AND/OR FROM ABUTTING eVRLIC STREETS, OWNERS: -rZIRTUi XSTE7- TDASTEi!- 8- 11641 w 64TH AVENUE TBIT W. 44TH AVFNVF 11661 w TH A✓FNUE WHEAT RIDGE. CO WHEAT RIDGE, CO WHEAT RIDGE, CO 60033 80033 80033 (303) 431-0116 (303) 431-0118 (303) 424-5069 6455 SIMMS 4455 SIMMS WHEAT RIDGE. CO WHEAT RIDGE , [0 (303) 424-5069 (}0S) a6)-9344 NOTARY: COUNTY OF JEFFERSON . STATE OF COLORADO Is THE FORGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _ DAY OF 1999 BY HERBERT H. FIGHTMASTER. BLENDERS H. FIGHTMASTER, ZELMA FIGHTMASTER, LYNN E. FIGHTMASTER AND NANCY FIGHTMASTER AS OWNERS. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES VICINITY MAP ~ c2N P N ~I C H QA 5 1 I SUE CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 20 3 1/4' 8 ASS CAP IN RANGE IT BOY Li 13212 CASE H J OI\ PREPARED By LANE ENGINEERING SERVICE , INC 9500 WEST 14TH AVENUE. NEEING CO 802 0215 TEL: (}0}) 233-40¢2 FAA: (303) 233-0196 D y M WS -96-2 WS-9P- WZ-BO-28 I FIGHTMASTER SUBDIVISION A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST ONE-HALVES OF LOTS 13 AND 14., LEFS S!J°OIII7I;'I`1 A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TO NCFUL' 3 ;.V1u vcy r F " CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. JEFFERSON COLPIT- NOTARY PUBLIC S.UE I. 600 S IIVa 8- CZ 11 vn,E P r - - 0 EC ON DT 'A F 4'Lp O FLL .IFI UR EYne 5 F L E STEVEN 0 L F D. RE` C4 F r '.1121 , C!IR [111, A, ~TC'IJ FD _ NOTICE c.OFD IG II T1 L DEFECT 14 ITT, 5 ( x 1+ IN I'D P FMI - ','IF ACT _TT I III VOTE THAT' ITT I NOTES: I 5/8 WC ] v v P - 11-l' I Powr Ho'xl HL-- 2 GITY or w E T ANNE SKEET r rr °.I ' US C 3. THE BASS OR THE PEA° 1F 5 BASED ON E 5..V PFO T - SECTION 20 FEAR' ICAO1 .'911 L EIGHT FOOT g8f AND UTILITY En9 L l IT PROP111 AWl N TO ALT R)BLC THESE EASEMENTS ARE DFDi49Ep L ' - - OF ELECTRIC GAS, TELL PPS PLE SHALL ALSO BE F EJ H - $NPOIV 50N. PE M ff L S IC J WTHN $Ap UTILITY EP... EIIT $ THE LO!`A 01 O WEST 46TH AE 'lTPE I 0015 STEP! WITH 'FoG' $E1 tl 1 [ T LINN WAS THE ORIGINAL SuPVE o rIR THIS oRTION c WEST ACT' AT"IVE 1 THE, SOUTHE ST CORNER OF T 14E ATLT 1 ,r 6. TRACT B IS A NON-BUIIDe6LE TR f~ TI FIT-; t RECONCILE THE POSSESSION AID DEEP THE S70PMWATEB DLENTION/RE E '011 810 ll r: T. I MAINTAINED 62' THE OW.FRS, FE 5, SL .F. SL"' CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE IS NOT F WHEATRIOGE EHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO IIEV ti _ WORK. THE COST OF WHICH , SAID GANEF PEITS OPON BILLING NO BUILDING 01 "'1 CIVPr AT' P° DETENTION RETEJION AREAS AND 10 C'ANPrT CHARAOIE ISTOS OF THE OEIE T Pr F TPI F - APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEFP. 6. NO DEVELOPMENT OR RECEVELOP"I"' ATPIAN AIFI1Y AL By P,APP FT. 10. TRACT A IS A TRACT FOR IF' ErgntlO a THE USE NO MAMTFRNAIICE ARR[Ex['ll JErTERSON Cou", FCO°p5. RECORDERS DOCUMENT ACCEPTED RF RPATSEASED DEC 10, 1999 THIS CEPTED FOR FILING If! T111 REVISEE D DEC 02, 1999 CLERK AND RECORDER AC AND RE<OROCR 0 IE IC 5 REVISED JUNE 09, 1999 THE DAY CF REVISED MAY 03. 11999 REVISED FEB. 23. . 1998 6 REVISED' SEP IL 1997 T PREPARED: AUG 1997 - ~ PROJECT: E79-1 All RECORDER L WE. HERBERT H FIGHTMASTER, BLEEDERS H. FIGHTMASTER, ZELMA FIGHTMASTER, LYNN L FIGHTMASTER, NANCY FIGHTMASTER JAMES R. TURGEON AND DANIEL R. TURGEON, BEING THE OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY OF 5,01 ACRES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 13 AND 14, LEE'S SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER IN PLAT BOOK 2 T PAGE 23, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: WEST 16TH AVENUE LL-28-1!0 VK31d'R C-9REQ ; i 11 - 1 11 1 ~1 )IP1N5 SIT= PLAN APPROVAL UCT BOUNORY ° T_BOUNDRY 5 OWNERSHIP) LINE ITU.~~- LLTIPLE ADORFSSES ID ''ON NIG MAP 2 L !HEAT MIDGE SCALE I"400 ;OLORADO \P ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 st Revision: April 19, 1999 f P1 W7M AND WaCR4W - 235-2552 (r, j AREA REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL =i 100-YEA;2 FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) - ZONE 015TRICT 5OUNDRY - PAR=-L/LOT DOUNDRY VENGNATE5 OWNER6HIP) WATER FSSITUPS • OF-NOTE-5 ML'LTIPLS ADOR_55E5 W 44th Avenge & Tabor Street 200 0 200 400 Feet 4V k Y ~ t ~ z $ R € ~ I assess ~ s_gga ~ § ~ I p kd_YYe W 9 I l-i ii~~~ j S S WM'Y1T l!9R S S D~b'1 j °SySLu~ u V e K I HJ IC N]M LtSCIM I~ a IY s k~ I!;V k I .5 X $ £ R ~ ~ ~ ° ' • I~ I Sg$8~~ Y:-Y ~ V Yyy°~ ga i~ i. 4 ~ 8~ ° i N ~ ❑ i ] ~ ` Tb-irJ I- vez - Fx W~.xvl bsn sa.cwmc Harr ! Is t~'~? 4 S V~ d I$ I I I ~ r-~;a 1 W Tq]_a.--.".: 8 j ys LJs m . L ~.S-,e w_- N I \ W~~'ur - ,r L I c I°c es^ ~3 £ X13 Y' t~ as i7s ~ 74* V 3 'v y~ 8 I RA ~ ~ I# k~{C £~C R : g R t~~ 3 ' PL zp ;z E~Cv yg c~QY ¢ Ego °s s ~^CgR^ yak Ag^~I 5 yafdo Rd i; dR £ F o £Mg a $g R kaN 24 . A $ ~sS 8 a $§55 rid I q3 3,~A+'a R gy° -Y52 N u~3 Iflix dALz 4 s F ER` LA §ed°g^- y=~+ as 512 83A g° at. -F&I 9 G CE~ "F ^ dl I a SrYb 6lR] 3 age E R° a s o 90 5NK 3 T-- d p _ I Tzcf) .AC ° pG Y NnfT 5 ym ~ °z]^ iu0(n g o Q Q n R, y xsa~ ` .14 7 ~0 4d § h OZ ~ ^ Q y y ~ ~ A 43 ~ ~ E ~N ] j o R' ` E ~ T R ! R N xz ~~d t ~ I 88C88o~ $°'y.~. I e l ax«°°<a j j ~ e888 S ao'n ~q t ^ I^ MM ? le e.__3 ea i x $e F IN 9 tic I I ~Am 4- x9~ $c~ am og3 S n e " a /'~IS~ I ~ nY s n. ~ C 8v` g ' z 3.i°~ ` 0 n o0 I € zw•F[ L-. yew r o F] a' worn.? ~sY I x dm O m R. ' L I ~ L(~ ~ °^2n„ 'a AI i me x"mz,_. R . I A ^ R^ f ~ R . M i~ 0 3R f Q ° A ~ a 8n age e 8 ' o2~ F~°o ~s 37 u H eP fs sk a3 a~ z ~5 s ~R 9 s ~ no ~~P Q Hi l l € s l a °SC ~ a .'..C!' " 8 a ozR x " a - m=n SIX R tog _ HY ~ p s°GaF Co c N c oC S oil a..,- M j Ely 9 g: . i a ^i ~ fc,R 3 u "a, e i I I I , I-~ ~ ! I I n.at. s*a f I "m a I -o2 1- -iir-~- TU2G-Eon!/ e Mll T IM AN :V;: fit IM F~~F S~~ i~9 vm S IR -1- M 12 al z9 R ^ o. mo °n3 M 9q°= ~o . mo^ _ ao az -a" MS5 O W NS! h! pow 1 10 4d i x W2 -U - M- x U 1 'Br P ig C,,) pmt 9 ` zisP N O z e " 'bS ~"'P na °gn n~C 3d oR -__o~ ~nm 7 8 ~l - ,0966 109.66 - 1 - 109 66 _ - Fn - T .T ~ 1 ' ~ I = I I I D l I ~ q r r ~ ul U r a„g I ~ l r ~ ~ ' 1 g , ' c ° A . E" I J I Co ] ~ UI° = ~ ~ ~ I I Psi a x I u~ G ~I£o ~ eU~ I I " I I r I 1 5209 9152' SIMMS COUR 84,65 I SO-1' W 19939 W186 1'E (50'W.O.w.) 52.32 - 9a 23- go I ~ ~ 1 ma m i I 7- q I s I t 1 7P e ' 1 7 v o o k ° " NI 3 to Ny I y ° $o ~ I 0 N I Z E I I ~o i t I I I I I I i I ,09 6J 109.63 . 10963 SO19'02'W 329.90 I SWAD I~ ~M w o a J IF 25 25 SIMM: LINE NEi 4. SECTION 20 BASIS OF BEARINGS 6 A-1 AJIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FLOOD PLAIN SATE LOCATION) ERIC- BOuNDRY .OT 3OUNDRY ES OhNERS++iP) r' INE EATLRE MU T:PLE ADDRESSES NE 2'OFFIGIAL ZONING MAP HEAT RIDGE SCALE 'OLORADO ~-A° ADOPTED Jwx '5 99< _05* RedSib- 7e<e,bc 22. '99~ AREA REQ IR'NG 51-E PLP E 2 .:CC-"EkR F_OCD PLA^: CAPPROXIMATE ~OCA.T!ON) ZONE D67R C- 5OVNDR' - PARCEL.'-07 5OUaDRY (DE5;G):A-E5 OWNERSHIP) ~.=TER FE=TYRE D°•.-O" ES vUL';P-- P--- AD:)RP 6 P,.hv':'G A~r 235-2852 z I " nn^ R i i. asaa,s i .o :°oes. f9 i '.'Y I # 3 93 aq l e n l.p~ yZq s1, x"s$ as ~ -a LYS .43`0 F z F^ oy e N 1:6i Hx 2 5i 'tj ITIT FE a a~s s II ,x - sYBe :.!P i;'yz$ S x ~ F 4 A2 9 v ~9 S - S4 i P 1 R - 43 N C a P E~4 g7 I of I I n sun I ' I I I I I I I ' I I 1 I S,Tin "➢8 na o= °afi` ~~Tl m3 s'.oD pmt Af ' 0 1 ~ ^ gmafrl n'm o~ ~voN z :°CD ~O ,.I « G A 41 3 WS-99-01: TurgeonrFightmaster 0 W 100 150 Feet WS-99-01: Turgeon/Fightmaster 0 50 100 150 Feet t w ~ SZ A