Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-16-08Zackary Wallace From: Zackary Wallace Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:18 AM To: 'Phillip Gray' Cc: Phillip Gray Subject: RE: 3330 Ames Variance Extension. Mr. Gray, The Community Development Department is in receipt of your request for a second extension to the variances granted by the Board of Adjustment in July 2016 for two variances at 3330 Ames Street. As I mentioned during our phone conversation on August 3, the Community Development Director was clear that he would not be signing an extension for this project without any application submittals (subdivision and site plan) under review. This is consistent with the message shared with potential buyers of the property during pre -application meetings in March, May, and July 2017. As such, your request for an extension is denied. You may re -apply for the variances necessary for your project, which may once again require a Board of Adjustment public hearing. Per Section 26-115, variances expire within 180 days of approval unless a building permit for the variance is obtained within such period of time. Thank you, Zack Wallace Mendez Planner II 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 P: 303-235-2852 www.ci.wheatridee.co.us City of CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business -confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any network to which your computer is connected. Thank you. From: Phillip Gray [mailto:pgray@gray34.net] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 8:16 PM To: Zackary Wallace <zwaIlace@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: Phillip Gray <pgray@carmenhotel.com> Subject: 3330 Ames Variance Extension. Dear Zach, Building this project on Ames has taken longer than I thought, the original person I was working with, Todd Briney, left after I had spent $40,000 on testing, Architects and Engineers. The problem is he was involved in multiple properties with me and I had to resolve all the other issues. In the meantime, I was finishing a project in Mexico that required me to be in Mexico. I now have time to spend on this project, I just got a bid to finish the plans and am waiting on the Engineers bid. I am respectfully requesting a nine-month extension on the two variances. Sincerely Phillip Gray Gray Properties LLC +1 (303) 619-3486 pgray@carmenhotel.com www.carmenhotel.com THE CARMEN City of Wheat"ENT ge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29`' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 February 14, 2017 Todd Briney Gray Properties 4 Lynn Road Cherry Hills Village CO 80113 Dear Mr. Briney This letter is concerning your request for approval of an extension for variances granted pursuant to Case No. WA -16-08 for property located at the northeast corner of Ames Street and West 33rd Avenue. On July 28, 2016, the Board of Adjustment approved a request for a 10' variance from the 25' setback adjacent to a public street and a 5' variance to the 5' additional side yard setback requirement for a three-story structure in the R-3 zone district. Once a variance is granted, the applicant has six months in which a building permit must be obtained. Pursuant to Section 26-115.C.4., extensions for good cause may be approved by the Community Development Director if a request is made in writing prior to the expiration date of the variance approval. Although your request was received after the variance expired, there were extenuating circumstances and staff will honor your appeal. You have requested an additional extension based on complications with application for building permit. The Community Development Director acknowledges your request for extension and hereby grants an extension for six months. Please be advised that if a building permit is not obtained by August 14, 2017, your variance will expire. Prior to submission for a building permit, a pre -application meeting with the development review team and the processing of a site plan must occur. Sincerely, Xauren Mikulak, AICP Acting Community Development Director www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Gray Properties 4 Lynn Rd. Cherry Hills Village, Co. 80113 970-409-9113 tbriney345@msn.com 2/5/2017 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, Co. 80033 Dear City of Wheat Ridge Community Development, As of July, 28th 2016, the Board of Adjustments APPROVED our requests for two variances pertaining to 3330 Ames lots 10,11 case file WA -16-08. Request A:10 foot (40%) from the 25 - foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street and approval Request B: a 5 -foot (100%) variance to the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story located on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at the Northeast corner of 33rd Ave and Ames. 180 days later on Jan. 28th 2017 this approval expired therefore requesting for an extension of 180 days (6months) until Aug28th 2017. Gray Properties Owners Rep City of Wheat Ridge Planner Signature �`�� Signature Date �?-Y 1,7 Date .City of Wheat , dge ` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29`h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 August 10, 2016 Todd Briney Gray Properties 4070 N. Albion St., Bldg. D Unit 206 Denver, CO 80216 Dear Mr. Briney: RE: Case No. WA -16-08 At its meeting of July 28, 2016, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request for two variances. Request A: a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street and approval of Request B: a 5 -foot (100%) variance to the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story located on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at the Northeast corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street. Request A: FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The lot has two street frontages which require increased setbacks, which have not been adhered to along the same 33`a Avenue corridor. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not unique to the property. 6. The perceived setback is greater than the actual measurement thereby negating the impact on the distance from the street. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Site Plan be in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Request B: FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The 55 -foot separation between the buildings will not cause any impact or reduction on air, light or sunshine to either property. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 4. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 5. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Enclosed is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution, as well as a draft copy of the minutes, stating the Board's decision. All variance approvals automatically expire within 180 days of the date approval unless a building permit for the variance is obtained within such period of time. The expiration date for this variance approval is January 28, 2017. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 235-2846 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tammy Odean Administrative Assistant Enclosures: Draft of Minutes Certificate of Resolution (to follow by separate mailing) cc: WA -16-08 (case file) W A 1608.doc 2 3. 4 5. City of 39r W heat1Jdge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 28, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Alternates Present: Board Members Absent Staff Members Present PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING Thomas Abbott Janet Bell Dan Bradford Paul Hovland Betty Jo Page Larry Richmond Michael Griffeth Sally Banghart David Kuntz Lily Griego Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary A. Case No. WA -16-08: An application filed by Gray Properties for approval of Request A: a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street and approval of Request B: a 5 -foot (100%) variance to the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story located on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at the Northeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Ames Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 The case was presented by Zack Wallace. He entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. He stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the digital presentation. Request A: Mr. Wallace explained the side setback for the southern end of the property is 25 -feet and the applicants have proposed a 15 -foot setback. The applicant did a property analysis along 33'd Ave and concluded the average setback from the property lines is approximately 13 -feet; so the proposed 15 -foot setback is in line with what is present in the neighborhood. Along with the 15 -foot setback there will be an added amenity zone so the building will sit about 20 -feet away from 33`d Avenue. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if numbers in Exhibit 7 were provided by a surveyor or the applicant. Mr. Wallace explained it was provided by the applicant because surveys are not kept by the City. Based on a visual inspection by aerial photography this looks to be accurate to staff, but there is no way to verify the accuracy without a survey. Board Member GRIFFETH asked who deemed the property developable as stated on page 3 of the staff report. Mr. Wallace stated it was the City Attorney. Board Member GRIFFITH asked about the two calls in opposition and if any letters were submitted. Mr. Wallace said there were no formal written objections. Board Member BELL commented about the setbacks being created before the City was incorporated in 1969 and asked if the building to the north came in to existence when under County planning laws. Mr. Wallace agreed. Board Member BRADFORD asked if there has been any analysis done from the Building Division regarding codes; for example - property distance. Mr. Wallace stated that the Building Division has not looked at anything yet. Todd Briney 4070 N. Albion Street, Denver 80216 Mr. Briney explained he works for Gray Properties and he performed the measurements manually for the property lines on 33`a Avenue; finding on average the Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 2 setback were 13 -feet. He stated that it will be difficult to make this development work if there is not a 10 -foot variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback. The fourth unit makes this development profitable. Chair ABBOTT asked about the square footage of each unit, being a total of three stories. Mr. Briney stated 2,289 sq. ft. is the total. He also stated there was a lot line adjustment done to take the two lots and make it one so from an investment standpoint it is better to get 4 units on one lot than a duplex and single family on 2 lots. Board Member PAGE asked how wide the units are. Mr. Wallace said the units are 24 -feet wide. Chair ABBOTT asked about what is meant by the perceived setback. Mr. Wallace explained the 15 -foot setback will look larger because added to it will be the 5 -feet of ROW and amenity zone, making the setback look approximately 20 -feet. The City's property will be the ROW and amenity zone. Ms. Ritchie added that what is called for in the Streetscape Manual will be done. She believes a 5 -foot attached sidewalk will be created and the ADA ramps at the corners will have to be reconstructed. Board Member GRIFFETH asked the applicant if their civil engineer is licensed with the state. Mr. Briney replied yes, they have PE and PLS licenses. Board Member GRIFFETH asked why the variance would not result in any additional accommodation of a person with disabilities. Mr. Wallace stated that there is nothing on the site that will prevent the building from being built without the ADA requirement. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member GRIFFITH, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -16-08 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing and City of Wheat Ridge; and Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request A of Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-16- 08 be, and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10-foot (40%) variance from the 25-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The lot has two street frontages which require increased setbacks, which have not been adhered to along the same 33rd Avenue corridor. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not unique to the property. 6. The perceived setback is greater than the actual measurement thereby negating the impact on the distance from the street. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Site Plan be in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Request B: Mr. Wallace explained the 5 -foot variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for the third story of a multifamily principal structure. Chari ABBOTT asked if the variance affects the entire north side of the building or just the third story. Mr. Wallace stated this variance affect only the third story of the northern portion of the building. Board Member GRIFFETH asked why the code asks for the 5 -foot setback. Mr. Wallace explained it is to act as a bulk plane and is required for multifamily buildings to scale back the massing of structures. Chair ABBOTT asked for bulk plane to be explained. Mr. Wallace explained bulk planes typically extend above a property line then angle 45 degrees into property. This code section acts more like a `step back,' but is similar to a bulk plane. The R-3 code asks that the third story be stepped back 5 -feet for multi -family structures. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 4 Ms. Ritchie added that depending on the development, a step back allows more light into the neighboring property. Board Member BELL commented that the architecture over the last 10 years has changed and feels this building is in line with all the new construction and like the additional 5 -feet on the northern end of the building because it makes the building look symmetrical. Board Member HOVLAND added that the 5 -foot step back would reduce the tunnel affect but in this case the adjacent building is going to be 50 -feet away so it is not a problem. Chair ABBOTT and Board Member GRIFFETH agree with Board Member HOVELAND. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if the variance doesn't pass, will the 3rd floor be designable. Mr. Briney stated it would depend on the units on the southern end, but we would like to maximize the amount of square footage and make it flow with other rectangular buildings in the area. Board Member HOVLAND asked if the 5 -feet that would be stepped back and cut out is living space or covering for the stairwell. Mr. Briney explained it is both and would take out a skylight to the stairwell. The floor plan would have to be adjusted and the laundry room would have to be adjusted or put somewhere else. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member PAGE, the following motion was stated: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request B of Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16-08 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The 55 -foot separation between the buildings will not cause any impact or reduction on air, light or sunshine to either property. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 5 4. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 5. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0 B. Case No. WA -16-09: An application filed by Designs by Sundown for approval of two variances. The first is a request for a variance to the maximum size permitted for an accessory structure in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district. The second is a request for a variance to permit a metal accessory structure for the property located at 3390 Oak Street. The case was presented by Lisa Ritchie. She entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. She stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the digital presentation. Ms. Ritchie explained the area of the property is 25,600, sq. ft., just a little over half an acre with an existing single family home on the property. The intent of this request is to build a retractable pool enclosure. It would be 500 sq. ft. larger than the 1000 sq. ft. permitted in the R-1 zone district. The pool enclosure will be an anodized aluminum frame with a polycarbonate sheeting, kind of like a green house. The back portion will be fixed and then part of it can retract or keep the pool covered during the colder months. The structure will only be 13 -feet in height which is 2 -feet under the allowable height. There were no neighborhood objections. One of the conditions would be to have the owner replace any trees on the property if they should die from becoming damaged or diseased. Board Member PAGE stated she found a typo in the staff report and the model for approval. Number three under For the Following Reasons should not be included in the approval. Board Member GRIFFETH asked who came up with the condition of replacement of trees and if that will transfer to later owners of the property. Ms. Ritchie stated that staff came up with this condition as long as the structure is in place and the property owner agreed with it. Also, it will transfer to the next owners. Chair ABBOTT asked about how staff came up with the tree replacement condition because he has never heard of this being done before. Ms. Ritchie explained she discussed it with the director and the structure won't be visible to the neighbors because of the vegetation and because they are getting a benefit above and beyond what the zoning code will allow so staff determined it was reasonable to make the request. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 6 `144 l CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: Vr City of qrwh6atRioge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment Zack Wallace WA -16-08 /Gray Properties MEETING DATE: July 28, 2016 ACTION REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting approval of two independent variances: (A) Approval of a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street; (B) Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district. LOCATION OF REQUEST: Northeast corner of 33`d Avenue & Ames Street (Approx. 3300 Ames Street) APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Gray Properties Wheatridge, LLC Gray Properties Wheatridge, LLC 17,769 square feet (0.41 acres) Residential -Three (R-3) Vacant Lot ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties Site JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of variances from two development standards in order to construct row houses on vacant land at the northeast corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street, zoned Residential - Three (R-3). The variances have been brought together as a package to the Board of Adjustment, but can be considered and decided upon separately. Request A: Approval of a I 0 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street. Request B: Approval of 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for the third story of a multifamily principal structure in the R-3 zone district. Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variance from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Because this application includes a variance request that exceeds 50% of the development standard, the application is not eligible for administrative approval and is required to be heard at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANALYSIS The variance is being requested so the property owner may construct a three-story, four -unit row house building. The property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3), a zone district that provides for high quality, safe, quiet, and stable medium to high-density residential neighborhoods. The R-3 zone district requires a 25 -foot setback for front and side yards which abut a public street. The side yard for the subject property abuts 33`d Avenue, thus requiring a 25 -foot setback. The applicants are requesting a 10 -foot deviation (40%) variance from this standard to allow a 15 -foot setback adjacent to 33`d Avenue. The R-3 zone district also calls for the following: "Side and rear yard setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet for the first two (2) stories and an additional five (5) feet for each additional story over two (2) stories." The applicant is proposing a 3 -story building, meaning the third story needs to be an additional 5 -feet setback from the property line as compared to the first and second stories. The applicant is requesting a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot setback. (Exhibit 1, Request) The subject property is located at the northeast corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street, one block west of Sheridan Boulevard (Exhibit 2, Aerial). This area is located in the Columbia Heights Resubdivision of Block 5. As was previously stated, the property is zoned R-3. Much of the surrounding area is zoned Residential -One C (R-1 C) and R-3. The neighboring property to the east is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and is home to the Retreat at Highlands Assisted Living Center. (Exhibit 3, Zoning Map). Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 /Gray Properties The subject property has an area of 17,769 square feet and is currently vacant. The subject property was at one time held in common with the property immediately to the north, which consists of 22 - unit apartment building constructed in 1958 and a parking lot. The structure was built prior to the incorporation of the City of Wheat Ridge, and is considered a legally non -conforming structure, as it does not comply with the City's current density limitations. However, a legal determination was made in 2013, which found that when developed, the County did not rely upon the entirety of the property (5 lots) for approval of the apartment building. As such the southern two vacant lots (the subject property) have been deemed developable under the City's current development standards. Apart from the two requested variances, the proposed development will meet all other density limitation and development standards (Exhibit 4, Site Plan). R-3 Development Standards.for Multifamily structures: Required Proposed Lot Area • 12,500 square feet (min) 17,769 square feet Lot Width (corner lot) 100 feet (min) 124.25 feet (Ames St.) 143 feet 33`d Ave. Height 35 feet max —33.5 feet Building Coverage 40% max —26% Front Setback 25 feet (min) 25 feet Side Setback south- 33 Ave. 25 feet min 15 feet Side Setback (north) 15 feet (1"and 2"d story) 20 feet 3'd Story) 15 feet 15 feet Rear Setback 15 feet 23 feet As of the date of distribution of this staff report, July 22, 2016, Staff has received two calls from nearby residents in opposition to the variance requests. Both callers stated they would submit formal letters of objection. If letters arrive between the delivery of this staff report and the Board of Adjustment hearing, they will be entered into the record and provided to the Board members during the hearing. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve an administrative variance, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 6, Criteria Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Request A: Approval of a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adiacent to a public street. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would be able to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to allow single-family, duplex, and multifamily residential development within the established R-3 development standards. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The proposed setback of 15 feet along 33`d Avenue is more consistent with the setbacks of existing structures along 33`d Avenue than 25 feet (Exhibit 7, 33'd Avenue Setbacks). Additionally, there is approximately 5-10 feet between the property line and the existing gutter thus adding to the perceived setback from the street. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, transforming it from a vacant lot into four "for sale" residential units. If the variance were not granted, the property could still be developed, but with fewer or smaller units, reducing the potential investment. Staff finds this criterion has been met 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Being a corner lot, this property required an additional 10 feet of side yard setback where it abuts 33`d Avenue than a typical R-3 zoned lot. This limits the ability of developer to fully utilize the property's area (while respecting most development standards and density limitations) and maximize the number of units available on the lot in a strained housing market, in addition to ensuring the units appeal to the modern homebuyer. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship is being created by the design of the proposed structure. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The proposed structure would maintain the required 25 foot front yard setback requirement from Ames Street. Approximately 10 foot tall detached garages will be 23 feet from the rear property line, while the residential units will be even further from the rear property line. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. Despite the proposed setback reduction along 33`d Avenue, the sight distance triangle is not impacted. The development would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact some evidence finds that new development, such as the development proposed, has a positive impact on property values. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The side yard abutting 33`d Avenue creates the need for a 25 -foot setback on both the front and side yards. Properties along 33`d Avenue have similar requirements. For the properties zoned R- 3 and adjacent to 33`d Avenue, like the subject property, a 25 -foot side yard setback is required. For the property zoned R-1 C and adjacent to 33`d Avenue, a 20 -foot side yard setback is required. In both instances, lots that are narrower than 60 feet the side yard setback requirement are allowed to reduce this requirement by half. Many properties along 33`d Avenue do not meet this side yard setback requirement. The large amount of excess right -0f --way and lack of public improvements on the south side of 33d Avenue make the street appear wider. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. This variance would not result in any additional accommodation of person with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. While this is not a site plan submittal requiring full architectural elevations, the material and color palette elevations and renderings submitted with the variance application appear to be in conformation with The Architectural and Site Design Manual. If approved, and the project moves forward it would require a site plan review, during which time Staff would ensure that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties the proposed building is in full compliance with the ASDM. (Exhibit 8, Renderings & Elevation). Staff finds this criterion has been met. Request B • Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for the third story of multifamily principal structure in the R-3 zone district. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would be able to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to allow single-family, duplex, and multifamily residential development within the established R-3 development standards. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed elimination of the additional 5 feet of setback required for the 3`d story is on the north side of the property, bordering an existing 3 -story apartment building which does not conform to the additional setback (Exhibit 9, Site Photos). Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, transforming it from a vacant lot into four "for sale" residential units. If the variance were not granted, the property could still be developed, but with fewer or smaller units, reducing the potential investment. Staff finds this criterion has been met 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The physical surrounding, shape or topographical conditions do not result in a particular hardship. The additional 3 d story setbacks are required on most duplex or multifamily structures in the zone districts that allow these types of structures, regardless of location. Staff finds this criterion has not been met 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties The hardship is being created by the design of the proposed structure. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The proposed structure would be approximately 55 feet from the apartment building to the north. It would maintain the required 25 foot front yard setback requirement. Approximately 10 foot tall detached garages will be 23 feet from the rear property line, while the residential units will be even further from the rear property line. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The development would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact some evidence finds that new development, such as the development proposed, has a positive impact on property values. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The additional 5 -feet of setback is required only for duplex and multifamily buildings in the R- 2, R -2A, R-3, and R -3A zone districts. This neighborhood is a mix ofR-1C and R-3 zone districts. Few multi -family structures in the immediate area have a 3`d or even 2"d floor. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. This variance would not result in any additional accommodation of person with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties While this is not a site plan submittal requiring full architectural elevations, the material and color palette elevations and renderings submitted with the variance application appear to be in conformation with The Architectural and Site Design Manual. If approved, and the project moves forward it would require a site plan review, during which time Staff would ensure that the proposed building is in full compliance with the ASDM. (Exhibit 8, Renderings & Elevation). Staff finds this criterion has been met. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Request A: Approval ofa 10 fool (40%) variance from the 25 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street. Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The lot has two street frontages which require increased setbacks, which have not been adhered to along the same 33`d Avenue corridor. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not unique to the property. With the following conditions: 1. The Site Plan be in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Request B: Approval ofa 5 -fool (1009,66) variance from the additional 5 -fool side yard setback requirement for the third story ofa multifamily, principal structure in the R-3 zone district. Having found the application not in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends DENIAL ofa 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for the third story ofa multifamily principal structure in the R-3 zone district. Staff has found that there are not unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: I. The property will continue to yield a reasonable return in use if the variance is not granted. 2. There are no physical, shape, or topographical conditions creating a unique hardship. 3. The alleged hardship has been created by a person presently having an interest in the property. 4. Circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are not present in the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties B r MJYB 135 i0�S4i0 Gi Z ee b N C _ N E M� M � l T_ _ .I -. EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP %01 Wheat�ic�e Geographic Information SystemaIl35TH I Legend QSubject Property !. City & County of Denver a Displayed Zone Districts Residential -One C (R -1C) Residential -Three (R-3) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) r O z ` w Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties AO E , ra, .ON, wdi -�* li EZ, �w s SW* Plane C wdnvle Prw;wlon N CoWadoG�. Zon A Delon _.___= = =------ EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN -7 I I - - f - - - - - -FOUND /S REENR I I - I I I I I I I I / I I I STUDIO A and Ames Residential Development architectural site plar EXHIBIT 5: LETTER OF REQUEST 24 June, 2016 Ken Johnstone Community Development Director Planning & Development Services 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mr. Johnstone, We are writing this letter to request our project to be considered for a variance in efforts to minimize the current side setbacks. The conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to our property. We would like to build to within 15 feet of the property line along the secondary street. The average of adjacent setbacks along West 33rd Avenue are approximately 13 feet. We are also requesting a variance to negate the 5 foot side setback requirement of the third floor and roof parapet. The apartment property adjacent to ours has a third story without upper setbacks. We feel these variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. PROJECT LOCATION 3330 Ames Street at the Northeast Corner of Ames Street & W. 33rd Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80202. Legal Description: Lots 10 and 11, together with the west % of the vacated alley adjoining said lots, a subdivision of block five Columbia Heights, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed building is three story row house building with an additional garage structure on a 17,769 square foot vacant parcel of land. The building consists of 4 units with a two car garage per unit. Each unit has pedestrian access from Ames Street. The garages are accessed from the eastern side of the units. The architectural concept is to provide a masonry plinth containing the more public portions of the units, while the second and third stories contain more private areas such as bedrooms, baths and utility rooms. Each unit has a private roof terrace to take advantage of the western mountain views. Generous front porches are being provided at each unit in efforts to activate studio EXHIBIT 5: LETTER OF REQUEST the street/neighborhood. The height and scale of the overall building is similar to the adjacent Mountain View Apartments. Best Regards, LIVstudio EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE 241une, 2016 Ken Johnstone Community Development Director Planning & Development Services 7500 W. 29'h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mr. Johnstone, The responses below shall supplement the letter of request to be considered for a variance to the Development Standards stated in Section 26-211 for minimum yard setback in a Residential -Three District. Review Criteria: Variance A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. Per Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, the reviewing authority (Community Development Director, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which an applicant demonstrates that a majority of the following criteria have been met: 1. The property in question would not 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 applicant feels that without the approval of this variance, this project would no longer be a viable option. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. As evident in our setback exhibit. This variance would promote the continuity of the setback established along 33rd Ave. In addition, the proposed project conforms and promotes multiple standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual, such as creating a consistent edge to the street and sidewalk. The building siting also promotes pedestrian activity along Ames Street, by establishing a clear zoning of public and private, while providing areas of interaction with built in seating and planters on the front porch. In addition to the 15'-0" setback variance, we feel that a variance to eliminate the 5' set back after the second floor is appropriate for this property and does not alter the essential character of the locality. The adjacent property to the north has a similar three story facade building form which is common for medium density multifamily housing. studio EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that would be significantly impacted without the approval of this variance. The applicant feels that without the approval of this variance, this project will no longer be feasible. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Physical surroundings, shape or topography are not an issue regarding this variance. S. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The variance is not due to a hardship that has been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The variance will not create a substantial increase in congestion in the public street, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety in any way. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. As evident in our setback exhibit. Many residential properties along the 33rd Street corridor, for which we are applying a variance to, have building sitings equal to or less than the distance for which we are requesting a variance for. The 15'-0" requested setback would maintain a consistent setback along the 33rd Street corridor. EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.) Due to existing grade of site, allowing the proposed 15'-0" street side setback variance will permit ADA accessibility to the southern unit with minimal impact to existing grades. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.] The design of the project takes into account the standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual in an effort to promote a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Best Regards, LIVstudio I rf_. 31 — S 5 — x165 00 3170- 175 7Q— ,7S — W ao °o o< LL 3 = 0.1 �w � z z O Z° O z Z K W Nd V K I m � W Z rl r (' P - h O h 0 0 0 0 0 h 0 y� �•O^1� nHNf ON � 40 140 L 0 4 Affiam ■ Ilea WACMW OR 1� Lid 0 ,F- L 1 EXHIBIT 9: SITE PHOTOS 1i View of the property from the intersection of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street looking northeast. Ames Street is to the left, 33`d Avenue to the right. View of the property from Ames Street looking east. 33`d Avenue is to the right. The 10 -foot setback reduction is proposed from the 25 -foot required setback from the property line that abuts this street. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -16-08 / Gray Properties Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -16-08 /Cray Properties WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA -16-08 APPLICANT NAME: Gray Properties Wheatridge, LLC LOCATION OF REQUEST: Northeast corner of 33`d Avenue & Ames Street (Approx. 3300 Ames Street) WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -16-08 was not eligible for review by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were/were not protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may/may not be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request A of Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -15-14 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Approval of 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street; FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The lot has two street frontages which require increased setbacks, which have not been adhered to along the same 33`d Avenue corridor. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not unique to the property. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Site Plan be in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request B of Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16-08 be, and hereby is, DENIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Approval of 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The property will continue to yield a reasonable return in use if the variance is not granted. 2. There are no physical, shape, or topographical conditions creating a unique hardship. 3. The alleged hardship has been created by a person presently having an interest in the property. 4. Circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are not present in the neighborhood. City of Wh6atR,Ldgc POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA -16-08 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE: July 28, 2016 (name) residing at L�o -70 K) , A090 �,) 77 U 1) �k (address) as the applicant for Case No. WA -16-08 hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at 3 3 30 A rYlj—z--z S� (location) on this`Tt{ day of J vim( 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: -' C//w�' NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be p aced in the applicant's case file at the Community Development Department. MAP City Wheat R�idge PUBLIC POSTING REQUIREMENTS One sign must be posted per street frontage. In addition, the following requirements must be met: • The sign must be located within the property boundaries. ■ The sign must be securely mounted on a flat surface. ■ The sign must be elevated a minimum of thirty (30) inches from ground. ■ The sign must be visible from the street without obstruction. ■ The sign must be legible and posted for fifteen (15) continuous days prior to and including the day of the hearing [sign must be in place until 5pm on July 28, 2016. It is the applicant's responsibility to certify that these requirements have been met and to submit a completed Posting Certification Form to the Community Development Department. BANDIMERE DAVID F GAGER JO 3250 BENTON STREET LLC ASHLEY CYNTHIA K HIATT RICHARD ANNA M 3125 BRAUN CT 3264 AMES ST 3125 BRAUN CT GOLDEN CO 80401 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 GOLDEN CO 80401 BENANNA HOLDINGS LLC BREEN SHANNA BRUNDRIDGE MATTHEW C 3416 W 40TH AVE 3289 AMES ST 3285 AMES ST DENVER CO 80211 DENVER CO 80212 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 CHAPMAN KELLISUE A BSA LLC % ROBERT R. LUCERO CLARK KIRK P CLARK VALERIE Q 865 CIRCLE DR 322 S UTICA ST 3370 BENTON ST BOULDER CO 80302 DENVER CO 80219 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 CORP OF PRES BISHOP OF L D S COOKINGHAM RICHARD DENVER 2ND AND 9TH WARDS EDDY DARCIE 3380 BENTON ST 50 E NORTH TEMPLE 3305 AMES ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 FIEIERTAG DAVID B FEIERTAG FISCHLER MARK HOWARD FISCHLER FELTON ANNE M ASHLEY ELIZABETH KATHRYN MARION 5101 W 33RD AVE 3270 AMES ST 3287 AMES ST DENVER CO 0 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 FORSYTH KELLY GADBOIS JACLYN A GAGE ALISON 3334 SHERIDAN BLVD 222 HENNEPIN AVE, S #554 3280 AMES ST DENVER CO 0 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 GAGNON RAYMOND A JR GAGNON GRAY PROPERTIES WHEATRIDGE ELIZABETH M LLC HILLER TERRA 3319 AMES ST 4 LYNN RD 3325 AMES ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE CO 80113 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 LOZANO ESPERANZA LOZANO LEREW WENDELL HILDA MACIAS LILIANA 8077 NEWLAND CT 3300 SHERIDAN BLVD 4203 S BAHAMA ST ARVADA CO 80003 DENVER CO 0 AURORA CO 80013 MAMMALSMART PROPERTIES INC MCGUCKIN JOSHUA D MIULLO NATHANIEL J PO BOX 630381 3440 BENTON ST 3335 AMES ST LITTLETON CO 80163 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 OSBORNE STACEY L PEARSON KELLY J PRALL BRIAN J PO BOX 280421 5641 ASPEN LEAF DR 3291 SHERIDAN BLVD LAKEWOOD CO 80228 LITTLETON CO 80125 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 PRESS ESTHER C QUATE RANDAL W QUINTANA TAMMY M 3295 ZENOBIA ST 17701 E BAILS PL 11794 W APPLEWOOD KNOLLS DR DENVER CO 0 AURORA CO 80017 LAKEWOOD CO 80215 ROBB BRYANT ROCHA AARON RODRIGUEZ ELIZABETH 15565 HOLBEIN DR 3261 SHERIDAN BLVD 1430 NELSON ST COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80921 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 LAKEWOOD CO 80215 SCHWINN ROBERT J SCHWINN SHARMAN S SHERIDAN COURT LLC SHERMAN DALLAS MOZART PO BOX 36100 PO BOX 3123 4587 BISCAY ST DENVER CO 80236 BOULDER CO 80307 DENVER CO 80249 SMITH MARK SOLANO AMALIA SPK LIMITED LLC 3292 SHERIDAN BLVD 3355 AMES ST 1 BROADWAY STE A210 DENVER CO 0 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 DENVER CO 80203 VELLECA LISA M WELLERS JEANETTE WEST 20TH AVE LLC 3365 AMES ST 3315 AMES ST 14135 BERRY RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 GOLDEN CO 80401 City of Wheat�idge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 291h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 LETTER NOTICE (As required pursuant to Code Section 26-109.D) July 13, 2016 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you of Case No. WA -16-08, a request for approval of a I0 -Foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street and approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance to the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story located at the Northeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Ames Street, zoned Residential -Three (R-3) This request is scheduled for a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The schedule is as follows: Board of Adjustment July 28, 2016 6� 7:00 u.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you, City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. If you need inclusion assistance, please call Carly Lorentz, Assistant to the City Manager at 303-235-2867 at least one week in advance of a meeting. WA 1608.doc Site Map Site TN M STUDIO NEW 4'-0' T LFOUND#5 REBAR LOT 914 iANDSWE T L 41'-3" CT 13 WEST 33RD AVENUE 33rd and Ames Residential Development architectural site plar STUDIO WEST MO AM" 1MR.0) EXISTING SETBACKS ON BOTH SIDES OF W 33RD AVE (MEASUREMENTS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST HALF FOOT) 16.5' 17.0' 17.5' 17.0' 12.0' 12.0' 14.0' 0.0' + 12.5' 163.079 = 13.16' AVERAGE SETBACK Drawing Scale & North Arrow N W t E S 0 30 60 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 fl. 33rd and Ames Residential Development setback exhibit diagram ROOF LEVEL + SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR +11 f O g 15'-0' OALUM. PANEL FACIA, CHARCOAL OI PRESSURE WOOD LAMINATE CLADDING O3 PART STUCCO SYSTEM. LIGHT 9 IN COLOR 4O BRICK CHARCOAL COLOR OGLASS RAILING 3 rl f7i PAINTED LIGHT GREY $ PANEL INFILL � w OMETAL SEAM SIDING OEXTERIOR SPIRAL STAIRS, PTD R O1 WOOD DECK. STAINED FINISH ROOF LEVEL + SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR +11 f O g 15'-0' OALUM. PANEL FACIA, CHARCOAL OHIGH PRESSURE WOOD LAMINATE CLADDING O3 PART STUCCO SYSTEM. LIGHT IN COLOR 4O BRICK CHARCOAL COLOR OGLASS RAILING © CONCRETE MASONRY BLOCK. PAINTED LIGHT GREY OMETAL PANEL INFILL ® CAP FLASHING (DARK) OMETAL SEAM SIDING OEXTERIOR SPIRAL STAIRS, PTD BLACK O1 WOOD DECK. STAINED FINISH T70 PARAPET � T. O. PARPET T � ' �� RpOF LEVEL + 129 1 SECOND FLOOR P +t� FIRST FLOOR +11 - FINISHED GRADE 5484 0' STUDIO 11 1 I 17M 111 �I U N' w ry z N � 9 east elevation 0 F O E a 4 FINISHED GRADE � APPLYING FOR VARIANCE TO SEC. 2&811 OF WHEAT RIDGE 54855 ZONING CODE. THE FOLLOWING SETBACK REDUCTION SHALL APPLY TO FRONT YARDS AND TO SIDE OR REAR YARDS WHICH ABUT A PUBLIC STREET. IF FIFTY (50) PERCENT OR MORE OF THE MAIN BUILDINGS WITHIN A BlALT_UP AREA IN ANY DISTRICT HAVE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SETBACK EACH NEW MAIN BUILDING MAY AREA HAVE A SETBACK CONSISTENT WITH THE AVERAGE BUILDING west elevation SETBACKS IN THE IMMEDIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING SUCH AVERAGE, A SETBACK LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15) FEET SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE FIFTEEN (15) FEET. 33rd and Ames Residential Development - Exterior Elevations. scale: 3/32" = 1'-0' i a § T.O. MGABLE +T FLooR . FIRST FLOOR + 1 I FINISHED FLOOR �t.V OALUM. PANEL FACIA, CHARCOAL OHIGH PRESSURE WOOD LAMINATE CLADDING O3 PART STUCCO SYSTEM, LIGHT 9 IN COLOR ® BRICK. CHARCOAL COLOR OGLASS RAILING © CONCRETE MASONRY BLOCK PAINTED LIGHT GREY O] METAL PANEL INFILL OCAP FLASHING (DARK) OMETAL SEAM SIDING OEXTERIOR SPIRAL STAIRS, PTD. BLACK OWOOD DECK STAINED FINISH STUDIO FINISHED GRADE Q 5185.5 I I - I I , �- Ii I D D FINISHED GRADE 5185.5 T.O. PARAPET +1 - T.O. PARPET +12ir-B ROOF LEVEL +127-0' A SECOND FLOOR 1, 10 FIRST FLOOR +11 - (0+F,1gHED FLOOR south elevation �I FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE5181 5464r 6 north elevation 33rd and Ames Residential Development - Exterior Elevation scale: 3/32" = V-0' Z 9 2 a 4I I I , �- Ii I D D FINISHED GRADE 5185.5 T.O. PARAPET +1 - T.O. PARPET +12ir-B ROOF LEVEL +127-0' A SECOND FLOOR 1, 10 FIRST FLOOR +11 - (0+F,1gHED FLOOR south elevation �I FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE5181 5464r 6 north elevation 33rd and Ames Residential Development - Exterior Elevation scale: 3/32" = V-0' - - - - - - high pressure wood laminate cladding 3 part stucco, painted finish r - glass railing —fhl�- 7Tdl� -1111 r - brick veneer, dark finish - concrete masonry block, painted finish --------------aluminum infill panel, charcoal color - aluminum panel facia, charcoal color ter_ -- __ �• P - brick planter and porch seating 33rd and Ames Residential Development STUDIOmaterial and color palette elevatior .:_ t� _\� yet' ►'_�� • ., q •� � ,� ,.rte � • � �' I .' � • -.l047wo Jr. OR1 1- �e i♦ 0 W-- r- a IN w� i '' IIl+Ij ' ! y lowr f!k'Y 1q. — _ � f "fes► r `' � �. , Z', 9f V�l I c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I i I I w F I I I i I m,. I I I jam'= (f) a i I I I t4 I 0 H- --L------'-----=---- w<WC ______ J___-___________ um. o...,....0 �,Q------- __________ :fig, fi• I T_.______. i c f�iii3; jt z- -'E'v All, F8 ± c e4 iy I I !� I IE r I I jo d�� 5�sb;jpE It�iFy ;' �'•1"_i�.; t-;� .vm ,yt'8t yk AIL + arY,�naeiivaws�u ty3 .S i+g Dat 1I osz C it o o I c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I i I I w F I I I i I m,. I I I jam'= (f) a i I I I t4 I 0 H- --L------'-----=---- w<WC ______ J___-___________ um. o...,....0 �,Q------- __________ :fig, fi• I T_.______. z- -'E'v r-a`oi I I !� I IE I Ia I V ! osz C it o o I I I I I I - !3 � -reaw J: 3-.:o:ob3o"fZ•s-.i= -- -------------- -.-.___-___-__ I ('.'r• .- s) 1XMLS SLIP e 35 ` s�SRe 1 tai, � t'i -` � _--� Ls ❑' z•- if1 z � x � 's.t-. £ fit- i � #;, 3 Jill g. 4 . t �' �d ; � jij=� i,I •tc i i �a� a `� t`' se��e s- � ti ' fS�77y spill le I I I I I 15e It o Is I I I I I Tgg� t2� :fig, fi• I Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.] Due to existing grade of site, allowing the proposed 15'-0" street side setback variance will permit ADA accessibility to the southern unit with minimal impact to existing grades. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.] The design of the project takes into account the standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual in an effort to promote a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Best Regards, studio 31 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that would be significantly impacted without the approval of this variance. The applicant feels that without the approval of this variance, this project will no longer be feasible. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Physical surroundings, shape or topography are not an issue regarding this variance. 5. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The variance is not due to a hardship that has been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The variance will not create a substantial increase in congestion in the public street, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety in any way. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. As evident in our setback exhibit. Many residential properties along the 33rd Street corridor, for which we are applying a variance to, have building sitings equal to or less than the distance for which we are requesting a variance for. The 15'-0" requested setback would maintain a consistent setback along the 33rd Street corridor. 21 24 June, 2016 Ken Johnstone Community Development Director Planning & Development Services 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mr. Johnstone, The responses below shall supplement the letter of request to be considered for a variance to the Development Standards stated in Section 26-211 for minimum yard setback in a Residential -Three District. Review Criteria: Variance A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. Per Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, the reviewing authority (Community Development Director, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which an applicant demonstrates that a majority of the following criteria have been met: 1. The property in question would not 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 applicant feels that without the approval of this variance, this project would no longer be a viable option. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. As evident in our setback exhibit. This variance would promote the continuity of the setback established along 33rd Ave. In addition, the proposed project conforms and promotes multiple standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual, such as creating a consistent edge to the street and sidewalk. The building siting also promotes pedestrian activity along Ames Street, by establishing a clear zoning of public and private, while providing areas of interaction with built in seating and planters on the front porch. In addition to the 15'-0" setback variance, we feel that a variance to eliminate the 5' set back after the second floor is appropriate for this property and does not alter the essential character of the locality. The adjacent property to the north has a similar three story fagade building form which is common for medium density multifamily housing. studio the street/neighborhood. The height and scale of the overall building is similar to the adjacent Mountain View Apartments. Best Regards, L I Vstudio 24 June, 2016 Ken Johnstone Community Development Director Planning & Development Services 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mr. Johnstone, We are writing this letter to request our project to be considered for a variance in efforts to minimize the current side setbacks. The conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to our property. We would like to build to within 15 feet of the property line along the secondary street. The average of adjacent setbacks along West 33rd Avenue are approximately 13 feet. We are also requesting a variance to negate the 5 foot side setback requirement of the third floor and roof parapet. The apartment property adjacent to ours has a third story without upper setbacks. We feel these variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. PROJECT LOCATION 3330 Ames Street at the Northeast Corner of Ames Street & W. 33rd Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80202. Legal Description: Lots 10 and 11, together with the west %Z of the vacated alley adjoining said lots, a subdivision of block five Columbia Heights, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed building is three story row house building with an additional garage structure on a 17,769 square foot vacant parcel of land. The building consists of 4 units with a two car garage per unit. Each unit has pedestrian access from Ames Street. The garages are accessed from the eastern side of the units. The architectural concept is to provide a masonry plinth containing the more public portions of the units, while the second and third stories contain more private areas such as bedrooms, baths and utility rooms. Each unit has a private roof terrace to take advantage of the western mountain views. Generous front porches are being provided at each unit in efforts to activate studio IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed by and through its duly authorized officer the day and year first above written. GRANTO Eric Jason Howard STATE OF �'< / ) ss. COUNTY OF Loa The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z 71"" day of 2015, by Eric Jason Howard. No ublic My commission expires: /e /0 .7 11-r- _ '!ease see attached cKnowledgementiJurat ,'ayam Ayazi (Notary PuMic) 2 When recorded return to: Gray Properties Wheatridge, LLC 4 Lynn Road Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 III + I'I' III) I'�'lll�' IlIIIIIII'll SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED This Special Warranty Deed is made and entered into this day of September, 2015, by Eric Jason Howard ("Grantee"), whose legal address is c/o Pinnacle Real Estate Management, P.O. Box 181695, Denver, Colorado 80218, to Gray Properties Wheatridge, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Granted'), whose address is 4 Lynn Road, Cherry Hills Village, Colorado 80113. WITNESSETH, that Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, all the real property located in the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows (the "Property"): LOTS 10 AND 11, TOGETHER WITH THE WEST 1/2 OF THF, VACATED ALLEY ADJOINING SAID LOTS, A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK FIVE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. TOGETI [ER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the Property, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property, with the appurtenances, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns. Grantor, for itself and its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree that it shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the Property in the quiet and peaceable possession of Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof, by, through, or under Grantor; subject, however to (a) taxes and assessments for the year 2015, and subsequent years, (b) those matters set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and (c) all matters of public record. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CALIFORNIA ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT JA notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that idocument. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On ,�A 27 rS before me, u Payam Ayazi (Notary Public) personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person ,(,$),whose nam)/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me thaidir/she/they executed the same in t/her/their authorized capacity(i*, and that by1P'her/their signatures) on the instrument the person(,„ or the entity upon behalf of which -the person{5r acted; executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signa Lure: (Seal) PAY AM AYAZI NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA LOS ANGE'_ES COUNTY COMMISSION # 2081535 ~' MY COMM. EXPIRES OCT. 9, 2018 City of COMMW heat P,id UNITY MVELOPMENT ge Submittal Checklist: Variance Project Name: Project Location: Application Contents: A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. The following items represent a complete variance application: ✓-,tCompleted, notarized land use application form ✓ Application fee 3. Signed submittal checklist (this document) 4. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed . Wntt authorization from property owner(s) if an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s) 6. Wri en request and description of the proposal _ Include a response to the variance review criteria—these are found in Section 26-115 of the municipal code _ Include an explanation as to why alternate designs that may comply with the zoning standards are not feasible /_ Include an explanation of the unique physical hardship that necessitates relief 7.Survey or Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) of the property To -scale site plan indicating existing and proposed building footprints and setbacks _9. Proposed building elevations indicating proposed heights, materials, and color scheme Rev. 5/2014 As applicant for this project, I hereby ensure that all of the above requirements have been included with this submittal. I fully understand that if any one of the items listed on this checklist has been excluded, the documents will NOT be distributed for City review. In addition, I understand that in the event any revisions need to be made after the second (2"d) full review, I will be subject to the applicable resubmittal fee. Signature: Date.- Name ate.Name (please print): (O-r[i Phone: Community Development Department - (303) 235-2846 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us i, A 4 submitted BY Al L ity Ol planner. Incomp Wheat IdLyc be accepted—ret LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 29"1 Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846 (Please print or type all information) Applicant _(z P -N fIlS PaTI�5 (XA R%Dl k LL( Phone 303- 7(-5700 Email Address, City, State, Zip 4 L., J i ;Lp ur Q0.`. 111 iii V1 11 A(Z- �Ce), QO i i Owner ��I��I P (,�A�' Phone_303-181-5?17 Email pUlAQr@ 6nA4 31 IQ Address, City, State, Zip t} L,-, ,J ;Zp CA -mm 1 1a1 I I . IA I f al e Contact (�(C(�J Ey Phone ?a0 L33'�f I q Email �- 31{ 1 , t'YISN . (b n') Address, City, State, Zip 14 0 N - A Ill10 o ST 0 (iib N (A "JT a 0 (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) Location of request (address):_ 3330 Ryn e C -r "',4e ATMA Co. Boa is Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): O Change of Zone or Zone Conditions O Special Use Permit O Subdivision — specify type: O Planned Development (ODP, SDP) O Conditional Use Permit 0 Administrative (up to 3 lots) 0 Planned Building Group O Site Plan O Minor (4 or 5 lots) i(0 Temporary Use, Building, Sign 0 Concept Plan O Major (6 or more lots) Variance/Waiver (from Section 26 0 Right of Way Vacation Other: e orng(,t d- pK.,cgj I To 1. Detailed description of request: QEO\,.tk -FtC; ;�Foe -1"bDl 0 i�� QElx�c p Fpom a �' TO (�l T 411IxmTn,FCIF 32p SJ -0%„ tt(L PIAn,t OF S SET U( 4 -- I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney from the owner which approved of this action on his behalf. Notarized Signature of Applicant �jyl,P State of Colorado County of 'QeAyQ ss 7Lt The fore$o'ng instrument (Land Use Processing_ Application) was acknowledged by me this day of ex , 20 1& byi Od � ' n WILLIAM BRIGHT FRARE NOTARY PUBLIC n My commission expires / /20 STATE OF COLORADO Notary Public NOTARY ID 1999403 60 To be filled out by staff: Date received Comp Plan Design. Related Case No. Assessor's Parcel No. •�?5��1�-619 Size (acres or sgft) Rev 1/23/ 2016 Fee $ q20.0 Receipt No. Pre -App Mtg. Date Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Case No. L) A -l(,. o g Quarter Section Map Al E 25' Case Manager L.Mk u Current Use Proposed Use 1,,,p 61\r -rcj 0e- LIA,sF — r'' '�* �44' City Of "6heat i e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Wheat Ridge Community Development Department PRE -APPLICATION MEETING SUMMARY Meeting Date: January 14, 2016 Applicant: Todd Briney, Gray Properties Tbriney345a msn.com Phone: 720-633-4194 Brandon Anderson, LIVstudio brandon@livstudio.net Phone: 720-425-7255 Adam Steinbach, LIVstudio adam(a,livestudio.net Phone: 720-465-6182 Wesley Cordes, Altitude Land Consultants Wesleyna AltitudeLandCo.com Phone: 720-427-5928 DJ Zehnacker, Altitude Land Consultants DJOa AltitudeLandCo.com Phone: 720-413-9691 Attending Staff: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Lisa Ritchie, Planner li Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Dave Brossman, Development Review Engineer Mark Westberg, Projects Supervisor Specific Site Location: Existing Zoning: Existing Comp. Plan: 3330 Ames Street Residential -Three (R-3) Neighborhood Buffer Area Existing Site Conditions: The property is located at the northeast corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street, one block west of Sheridan Boulevard. This area belongs to the Columbia Heights Resubdivsion of Block 5, on the eastern edge of Wheat Ridge. The property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3). Much of the surrounding area is zoned Residential -One C (R -1C) and R-3. The neighboring property to the east is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and is currently home to The Retreat at Highlands, an assisted living facility. 3330 Ames Street is composed of five (5) separate lots (See Figure 1). A multi -family residential building consisting of 22 -units was constructed on two (2) of the lots in 1958. The parking lot for this structure occupies a third lot. This structure was built prior to the incorporation of the City of Wheat Ridge, and is considered a legally non -conforming structure, as it was existing prior to the City's incorporation, and does not comply with the City's current density limitations. However, a legal determination was made in 2013, which found that when developed, the County did not rely upon all five (5) lots for approval of the apartment building. As such, the vacant lots (Lots 10 & 11) are developable under the City's current development standards. Figure 1: Lots 7-11 of Resubdivision of Block 5 COIUMIa Heignis wow AWHCS at"VtY 4`J Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal: The applicant is proposing four (4) side-by-side attached townhome units aligned towards Ames Street. The units are proposed to be 3 -stories tall, each with its own separate entrance, private roof deck, and detached garage. The roof terraces would be protected by the building facade extending past the roof line, creating a parapet that is an extension of the structure design. The detached garages will gain access from a proposed alley on the eastern edge of Lots 10 and 11. The applicants used the City of Wheat Ridge's Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM) to guide their design of the building, and its relationship to the street. The units will take advantage of the 2 western views, while maintaining a similar scale to the existing apartment building at 3330 Ames Street (Mountain View Apartments). 3330 Ames Sheet .M. gyp. n Figure 2: Prclimimin Site flan r-1 1 I ■■■ ■■■ (FT ■e■I ■■■ F-070 E FRD Ej 111 �i' 11■ �' 1.11 ,�I�zl, m %.:ala �I.,JcI lil..:ay I�I IIIB ITT, V MIT11 o Figure 3: Preliminan, Elevations Will a neighborhood meeting need to be held prior to application submittal? No, a neighborhood meeting is not required for a site plan review, townhouse plat and building permit. Planning comments: The following items were discussed based on the applicant's proposal: Zoning & Use The property is currently zoned Residential -Three (R-3). This zone district was established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable medium to high-density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activates of any nature which are incompatible with the medium to high-density residential character. 3 The proposal of four (4) units complies with the City of Wheat Ridge's density restrictions for 12 units per acre in R-3 zone district. The preliminary site plan depicts a fifteen (15) foot setback for both side yards, however the (south) side adjacent to 33`d Street is required to have a twenty-five (25) foot setback. The north side setback is required to maintain a 5 (five) foot setback. The site plan could essentially be shifted to the north by 10 (ten) feet and comply with the R-3 zone district minimum setback requirements. The building appears to meet all other setback requirements, with the exception of building coverage. The R-3 zone district requires that no more than 40% of the lot be occupied by a structure. It appears from the site plan that the proposed building may slightly exceed this 40% maximum. Conformances with the majority of development standards, as well as the intent of the development appear to be in line with the standards of the R-3 zone district. Subdivision The two lots this development will occupy will need to be consolidated and subdivided into a townhome plat, as the units are proposed to be owner -occupied. Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM) As a new multi -family development, site design and architecture will be guided by the City of Wheat Ridge's Architectural and Site Design Manual. This manual is available for viewing and download on the City's website. Setbacks The applicants inquired about a reduction on the setback standards, particularly with the required 25 - feet adjacent to a public street. Depending on the extent of the proposed reduction, the applicants have two options: petition for inclusion in the Traditional Overlay District, or request a variance. The Traditional Overlay District is prescribed by the Architectural and Site Design Manual. This overlay district requires a higher quality of architecture and site design than otherwise required. It also requires a 0-12' build -to, rather than a setback requirement. This would allow the building to be anywhere from 0-12' away from the property line along 33`d Avenue and Ames Street. Currently, the Traditional Overlay District is in place along the west side of Sheridan Boulevard between 33`d Avenue and 35`h Avenue, encompassing the adjacent properties to the east of the subject site. A petition to be included into the Traditional Overlay District may be submitted which will be reviewed by the Community Development Director who has the authority to review and decide upon the petition. The applicant must submit a formal letter to the Community Development Director, requesting inclusion in the Traditional Overlay District, and also justifying why their site and development fits into the Traditional Overlay District. However, if the applicant wishes to have a setback between the 12 -feet maximum for the Traditional Overlay District, and 25 -feet minimum for the standard R-3 zone district, a variance request would be necessary. The variance process requires a land use application, and submittal of various materials demonstrating the need for a variance from the development standards. If this route is chosen, please contact the Community Development Department and a planner will provide specific information to you regarding the variance process. The variance can be applied for in conjunction with the site plan review. Landscaping Section 26-502 of the Municipal Code establishes landscaping requirements. Multi -family residential uses require landscaping to cover at least 30% of the total lot area. The minimum required front yard 4 (25 -feet from the front property line) shall be fully landscaped, except for those areas providing pedestrian or vehicular access. One tree and 10 shrubs are required for every 1,000 square feet of required landscape area, in addition to the requirement for one tree every 30 feet of street frontage (or portion thereof). Utility Providers The City of Wheat Ridge is not a full-service city. The utility and service providers for this property include: • Wheat Ridge Fire District, phone: 303-403-5900 • Wheat Ridge Water District, phone: 303-424-2844 • Wheat Ridge Sanitation District, phone: 303-424-7252 All land use applications will be sent out on referral to these agencies for comment once a formal land use application is submitted; however, staff encourages potential applicants to contact service districts ahead of time. This may help to understand any design or infrastructure requirements and potential costs associated with the proposed project. Building Division comments: The building division was not present and has no comments at this time. Public Works comments: The following items were discussed based on the applicant's proposal: Drainage Multi -family construction requires full flood and storm water attenuation. Access & Circulation The rear alley, as proposed in the preliminary site plan, will require an access easement from the property owner to the east. If it is possible to shift the site plan to the west, the applicant would be able to utilize only their half of the vacated easement in the rear of the property, and would not require obtaining an easement from the adjacent property owner. Streetscape The current sidewalks along the property are sub -standard to the current City requirements. They will need to be upgraded to at least a 5 -foot wide monolithic sidewalk. A 2 -foot utility zone will also be required behind the back of the sidewalk. . There is adequate right-of-way on both Ames Street and 33`d Avenue to build the sidewalk and utility zone without moving the existing curb/gutter. The ramps at the corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street will need to be brought into compliance with current ADA standards. More details regarding the streetscape and ADA requirements will be attached. Right-of-way Dedication No right-of-way dedication will need to take place on Ames Street or 33`d Avenue. Review Process This request will require a site plan and consolidation/subdivision plat... Subdivision The first step in the subdivision process is the pre -application meeting. After the pre - application meeting is complete, a formal application may be submitted. Applications must be submitted by appointment with a planner. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. Depending on the number of lots that will be established by the subdivision, and any possible right-of-way dedication, the subdivision process may be administrative (3 or fewer lots or parcels), minor (4 or 5 lots or parcels), or major (more than 5 lots or parcels). An administrative subdivision is reviewed and decided upon by the Community Development Director. A minor subdivision requires one public hearing in front of Planning Commission, who will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the subdivision. A major subdivision requires two public hearings, one in front of Planning Commission, and one in front of City Council. Planning Commission will make a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial. This recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Regardless of the magnitude of the subdivision, upon submittal of a complete application, the case manager will review the application, send it out on referral to outside service agencies (Xcel Energy, water district, fire district, etc.) and other City agencies (Public Works, Economic Development, etc.) for review. The referral period is 15 days, during which time the referral agencies and departments may submit comments on the application. These comments, as well as those from the case manager, will be forwarded to the applicant. Modifications to the subdivision plat may be required as a result of these comments. The applicant must address comments and resubmit relevant documents. This process may need to occur several times. Once all comments have been addressed to the case manager's satisfaction, the application will be forwarded to the appropriate deciding body for final decision. The plat must be approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. Site Plan Review The first step in the Site Plan Review process is the pre -application meeting. After the pre - application meeting, a formal application may be submitted. Application must be submitted by appointment with a planner, and will not be accepted if they are incomplete. Upon submittal, a case manager will be assigned to handle the application, and will be the applicant's point of contact at the City for the duration of the site plan review process. The case manager will review the application, and once all submittal requirements are met, the application will be sent out on referral to outside service agencies (Xcel Energy, water district, fire district, etc.) and other City agencies (Public Works, Economic Development, etc.) for review. The referral period is 15 days, during which time the referral agencies and departments may submit comments on the application. These comments, as well as those from the case manager, will be forwarded to the applicant. Modifications to the site plan may be requires as a result of these comments. When all comments are addressed to the satisfaction of the case manager, the application will be forwarded to the Community Development director for final decision. The Site Plan review process is administrative, which means there are no public hearings before City Council or Planning Division. IN Please note: Approval of the Site Plan application does not mean that a building permit has been issued. Once site plan approval is attained, the applicant may submit a building permit application with the Building Division. Attachments: Public Works Comments (Requirements, Topo, ADA Ramps and Sidewalks, Street cross sections) Note: Please be aware that the above comments are for general information purposes only. Staff cannot predict the outcome of any land use development application. A favorable response from staff does not obligate any decision-making body (Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Planning Commission and/or City Council) to a desired outcome. Staff will provide the best advice available given existing regulations, current policy, political climate and information submitted. Phone Numbers Meredith Reckert — Senior Planner 303-235-2848 Lauren Mikulak — Senior Planner 303-235-2845 Lisa Ritchie — Planner 11 303-235-2852 Zack Wallace — Planning Technician 303-235-2849 Dave Brossman — Development Review Engineer 303-235-2864 Mark Westberg — Projects Supervisor 303-235-2863 7 once rueoia�+s Ul 0� l� 18 18 opeJOIOO to SIMS 'umeger Io l4unoo o S il�I� z a tl c Ueld luewdolenao aIIS P JIMHi hails Sawy 0£££ a jI{� a `� 1�Ml� ('M'O,u A6) 133a1S S3WV LU R Q I $ li 5 1 J 8818. opejoioo;o ems-uosiamar;o f4unoo ueld )uawdolanap 911S 199i;S sewy 0£££ A38is s3W 0 0111 NEI i� LM - NEI on, SA Nollii EM :01 M: III NEI NMI oI o -E-EN =Emm -E-MIM .l IH 11111 _ 1,; 1111 X111111 X111 ��111 �n 11 _• n f X11111 �IIJ11 =Emm -E-MIM .l IH 11111 _ 1,; 1111 X111111 X111 C O L tf O C A n Z) F- c a) EG or ) C) 0 c a, n� cc v r� 0 H Ln \moi J oc E kn 'M ON N 31 December, 2015 Zack Wallace Planning & Development Services 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Project Narrative — Housing Development PROJECT LOCATION A portion of 3330 Ames Street being at the Northeast Corner of Ames Street & W. 33rd Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80202. Legal Description: Lots 10 and 11, together with the west %: of the vacated alley adjoining said lots, a subdivision of block five Columbia Heights, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. ti W 35th Ave W 351h Ave W 351h Ave W 35th Avc W 3511) Ave Proposed Housing Project rd Ave W 33rd Ave W 33Fd Ave N l I W 34th Ave so 7 W 33m Ave 12 W 33rd Ave � t3 t! Sr L KW a :A Project Location Map W 34th W 33rd PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed building is 11,455 square foot (+/-) three story row house building with an additional 2,070 square foot (+/-) garage structure on a 17,769 square foot vacant parcel of k° studio land. The building consists of 4 units with a two car garage per unit. Each unit has pedestrian access from Ames Street. The garages are accessed from the eastern side of the units. A 25 foot setback is being provided from the western property line (Ames St.). Setbacks of 15 feet are provided from each of the other property lines. Each of the units will have enclosed back yards, between the garage and dwelling unit. The architectural concept is to provide a masonry plinth containing the more public portions of the units, while the second and third stories contain more private areas such as bedrooms, baths and utility rooms. Each unit has a private roof terrace to take advantage of the western mountain views. The roof terraces are accessed from a private outdoor staircase in efforts to keep the height of the building to a minimum. The primary entrances are separated and set back under a covered area to provide protection to those entering the units. Generous front porches are being provided at each unit in efforts to activate the street/neighborhood. The height and scale of the overall building is similar to the adjacent Mountain View Apartments. LANDSCAPING Foundation plantings will be provided in context with the architecture. The landscape scheme will utilize a 6" concrete edging strip for greater durability and decreased maintenance in lieu of steel plastic edging. The edging will be used to separate the plantings from the areas of turfgrass. The tree lawn area is to include street trees on both frontages and turfgrass. We look forward to working with the City staff during the review process. Best Regards, brandon anderson, aia, feed ap LIVstudio 12535 walnut street denver co 80205 1 720 425 7255 2 1 P a g e