HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-17-04City of
/W heat jdge
MUNITY -DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29t1 Ave.
May 12, 2017
Matthew Dunn
9475 W. 47th Ave.
Wheat Ridge CO 80033
Re: Case No. WA -17-04
Dear Mr. Dunn:
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857
Please be advised that your request for a 39.6% variance from the maximum lot coverage for
property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) and located at 9475 West 47th Avenue has been approved.
Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance. Please note that all variance requests
automatically expire within 180 days (November 12, 2017) of the date it was granted unless a
building permit for the variance has been obtained within such period of time.
You are now welcome to apply for a building permit to construct the deck. Please feel free to be
in touch with any further questions.
Sincerely,
Tammy Odean
Administrative Assistant
Enclosure: Approval of Variance
Case Report
Cc: WA -17-04 (case file)
WA1704.doc
www.ci.w h eatridge.co. u s
7500 West 29th Avenue City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 '�Wh6atR1dge
303.235.2846 Fax. 303.235.2857
Approval of Variance
WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 9475 W. 47`h
Avenue referenced as Case No. WA -17-04 / Dunn; and
WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance, relying on criteria listed in Section
26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and on information submitted in the case file; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has properly notified pursuant to Section
26-109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and
WHEREAS, there were no registered objections regarding the application;
NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 39.6% variance from the maximum lot coverage
for property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) resulting in a lot coverage of 55.8%, or 396 square feet
above the allowable lot coverage for this property (Case No. WA -17-04 / Dunn) is granted for the
property located at 9475 W. 47`" Avenue, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment that would not be possible without the
variance.
3. The particular physical condition of the property results in a particular and unique hardship
upon the property owner.
4. The physical condition of the property was not created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
5. The grating of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property.
6. The unusual circumstances necessitating the variance request are present in the
neighborhood, including several other properties in the same townhouse row.
s-1�_i
Date
Community DevelopiMent Director
City of
'9rWheat P**i-dge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Community Development Director DATE:
CASE MANAGER: Zack Wallace Mendez
CASE NO. & NAME: WA -17-04 / Dunn
May 12, 2017
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 39.6% variance from the maximum lot coverage for property
zoned R-3 located at 9475 W. 47' Avenue. The property measures
approximately 2,500 square feet and the R-3 allows up to 40% (1,000 square
feet) of lot coverage. The applicant requests to exceed this maximum lot
coverage by 39.6% or 396 square feet, resulting in a lot coverage of 55.8%.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 9475 W. 47"' Avenue
APPLICANT (S)
OWNER (S):
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE
Matthew Dunn
Matthew Dunn
2,500 square feet (0.057 Acres)
Residential -Three (R-3)
Multi -Family Residential (Townhomes)
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
P -J,
'f
Site
Administrative Review t
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an
administrative decision.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 39.6% variance to the lot coverage maximum for a multi-
family unit in the R-3 zone district. The subject property has an area of approximately 2,500 square
feet and the R-3 zone district allows a lot coverage of 40%, 1,000 square feet for this property. The
applicant's property currently contains an attached townhouse, enclosed rear porch, and carport/garage.
The applicant is requesting to construct a 154 square foot deck on the front (south) side of the property.
The total coverage will be increased to 1,396 square feet. The current structure, without the proposed
deck, is approximately 1,242 square feet, already in excess of the 40% allowed. It is important to note
the existing lot coverage in excess of 40% is by nature of the way the units were constructed in 1970.
Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of
Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict
application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of
the standard.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The subject property and adjacent townhomes were constructed in 1970. The property is zoned
Residential -Three (R-3), and according to the City's original zoning map it appears the property was
likely zoned R-3 at the time of construction. The R-3 zone district provides for high quality, safe, quiet
and stable high-density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are
incompatible with the high-density residential character. Section 26-211 of the Municipal Code states
that individual townhouse lots in the R-3 zone district shall be exempt from the minimum lot size, lot
width, and interior side yard setback requirements, so long as the development parcel as a whole meets
all the development standards of the R-3 multi -family zone district. Staff finds that the development
parcel as a whole does not meet the minimum size requirements of 3,360 square feet per unit. The
development parcel is compliant with the minimum setbacks for multifamily in the R-3 zone district.
Front porches are allowed to encroach eight feet into a front setback, per Section 26-611 of the
Municipal Code. The applicant's proposed porch will be compliant with this front setback provision
(Exhibit 1, Site Plan). Per Section 26-211, the deck is exempt from the interior side yard setback
requirements. Section 26-611 does not exempt individual townhouse lots from the maximum building
coverage of 40%. It appears the subject property, by nature of its construction, is already in excess of
the 40% allowance. Given the nearly identical layout of the adjacent townhouse lots, it appears any
interior townhouse parcel is in a similar predicament, and already in excess of the 40% allowable
building coverage by nature of their construction (Exhibit 2, Aerial).
As was previously mentioned, the subject property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3), and is located in
an area of mixed zoning. Immediately to the east are more R-3 zoned townhomes. Past the townhomes
to the east, and also to the south, is a large area of Residential -Two (R-2) zoned properties consisting
of single-family homes and duplexes. To the north of the subject property are properties zoned
Industrial -Employment (I -E) and Planned Industrial Development (PID) which appear to be utilized
Administrative Review 2
Case No. WA -17-041 Dunn
generally for light industrial and office -warehouse purposes. Finally, to the west is another I -E zoned
property and a R-3 zoned condominium property. (Exhibit 3, Zoning Map).
During the public notification period Staff received one letter of support (Exhibit 4, Letter of Support),
and one phone message inquiring about the variance. Staff returned the call and gave some specific
details of the variance request over a voice message. A call back was never received.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director 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 5, Criteria Responses). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the
variance criteria.
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 continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The
property would continue to function as a residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance
request.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Smaller decks can be found in the area associated with other townhome units. Staff finds that
the residential character of a front porch wooden deck is not out of line with the essential
character of a residential subdivision.
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, which expands the livable
private space associated with the unit, making it more attractive to potential future property
owners. The investment would not be possible without the variance. As was previously noted,
the townhome lots are exempt from the minimum lot size, but not the maximum lot coverage
percentage. As a result the constructed interior townhouse units already exceed the maximum
40% lot coverage permitted. Without a variance little can be done with the property, without
going vertical, which is much more costly for a homeowner than building a deck.
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
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out.
The property itself results in a unique hardship upon the owner, who wishes to make an
investment in the property. With approximately 850 square feet of living area and
approximately 350 square feet of carport/garage area, the existing structure already exceeds the
maximum 40% (1,000 square feet) lot coverage. Any horizontal improvements to the property
require a lot coverage variance.
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 results from the creation of the lot lines, which the City of Wheat Ridge has no
record of. According to City records the property was platted under the jurisdiction of Jefferson
County as the Davis Brothers Subdivision in 1966 as three 100' wide by 125' long lots. When
the property became divided into 20' wide by 125' wide townhome lots is unknown (Exhibit 6,
Recorded Subdivision vs. Current Conditions). The lot configuration is creating the hardship,
and was in place prior to 2015 when County records indicate the property was purchased by the
current owner.
Staff finds this criterion has 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 request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The addition would not impede the sight distance triangle
and would not increase the danger of fire.
It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood.
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.
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
This is one of 12 townhouse lots across the two townhouse buildings. While some units are on
corners, and thus have larger lots to accommodate the larger required setback, many of the
internal townhouse lots are under the exact same circumstances as the subject property.
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 request is not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons
with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual
This request does not trigger compliance with the Architectural and Site Design Manual.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 39.6% (396 square foot) variance from the maximum lot coverage of 40%, resulting
in a lot coverage of 55.8% for a property zoned R-3 located at 9475 W. 471" Avenue. 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 that would not be possible without the
variance.
3. The particular physical condition of the property results in a particular and unique hardship
upon the property owner.
4. The physical condition of the property was not created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
5. The grating of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property.
6. The unusual circumstances necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood,
including several other properties in the same townhouse row.
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-04 / Dunn
EXHIBIT 1: SITE PLAN
9475 W 47th Ave
SITE PLAN
E t __., W provertyllne
yard line
N
W 47th AVE
STREET SIDEWALK
-------I'E PLANS
MUST BE ON JITE FOR INSPECTION
( ALL��jcc ®re
II I
II I H11�1j�t tQricld Inanoctions
YARD I f
� I I
p � I
p I I
q I i
I
U I 9477
CONCRETE I CONCRETE
II SIDEWALK I SIDEWALK
p 477
II CONCRETE CONC ETE
—I STEPS I STEPS
II
I!
li PROPOSED ADDITION
II
4
II
9475 TOWNHOME I
lq� I
L---- - -- - ----------- --�
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
9477
W heat }� Z idbe
Geographic
Information Systems
Legend
MSubject Property
EXHIBIT 2: AERIAL
4
H
N
W
Stale Plane Co dmale Prol-Clim N
CNorado Central 7me
Dalum NAD83
Administrative Review 7
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
i r
Stale Plane Co dmale Prol-Clim N
CNorado Central 7me
Dalum NAD83
Administrative Review 7
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
EXHIBIT 4: LETTER OF SUPPORT
May 5, 2017
Dear City of Wheat Ridge,
We received a letter in the mail regarding a variance (Case no. WA -17-04) relating to our
neighbor building a deck on his property.
We live next door to the property and we have no issues with the request. In fact, we
are in full support of the project and look forward to its completion. This will be a very
nice addition and improvement to the existing condition of the property. Thank you for
the notification.
Warm regards,
John and Ruth Warner
9473 W. 47th Ave.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Administrative Review 9
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
EXHIBIT 5: CRITERIA RESPONSES
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.
Correct. The structure would be only for leisure by the tenants and occasional friends.
Examples of activities would be barbecues, outdoor gatherings, and maintenance to the
property.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Correct. The deck will be at the same height as the existing concrete stoop/patio which was
original construction. The deck will also sit below the top of the existing fence perimeter
making the appearance very non-invasive. The Deck will be mostly made of wood and
composite decking material with paint colors of the house and or fence.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The estimated cost for the structure is about $2500.00. The curb appeal of the property will be
improved.
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.
The proposed deck would be a much easier way to get into the front yard. The proposed deck
would provide a much improved surface for enjoying the front yard and safety would also be
improved from the somewhat high front patio.
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.
Correct, the concrete patio structure and front yard condition is original.
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.
Correct. The structure is contained within the property perimeter and does not affect any other
properties. Safety will be improved by having more surface area to step down to from the front
door.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Correct. All of the units are built in the same way. Many units have added decks onto the front
of the property for the same reasons mentioned above.
Thank you,
Matthew Dunn
Administrative Review 10
Case No. WA -17-04 / Dunn
EXHIBIT 5: RECORDED SUBDIVISION VS.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
- ----------------
DAVIS BROTHERS SUBDIVISION
S/NA?D Ur rle" d]P>lABI � YWtI¢AGT .� .10Y/T.I�T 4 OF AFGrlDe' K. r S4. e. M YN r. . .
OF AE O.• •w .Eli£e6uY arNlr, QTL04AP0 -
rr 1
rrmn
ai3arw
4
C ERK INO N£G�R'$ (Y7VrYK.gF
r�•e•wrr arrYl wrrAnnr O✓r
omlcmav
,reeve Au •e sr nese Iwcsnvw .
b... nao M1n..rrw rr areorw ntrtr+tn
nrM1 rsarn •re. Ywar r w M rn. arY� wa+N uwew, ra.n e.. a..� w w d
r+4r 4.+4 w+wM1r re•M1wrnreew,.o,rw.r.r
r (4V6 SMreFMP WBD1198kW, r w. b r4r rww CrT
� 6./• weM..Y aM ra uae raw N wa.
r M Iwr
rwr'••VW wIY �ranenwrW -
s>w>F ar mDMAm �LC�
earn �..rfrmmv •.
>Y.w+..w .r..n•. r nw,s aeeDrvaw _ m-.er
�....._ er• b retia a Dw. eaMD r •qx m.r n a.a
ArMAiYl£EF1�'yrFnnl
-
Wwrwr4rti.wwWarr rw e•wMYM1�Ww/W lav wra•�
FLM�'tKM'9�CE�/f�
�rY w rrw
n M'!S BNOINfAe 6WM/SON w Wr r►I, /q wain N /M Na m�41
Dwrwlbdiaa.--Y err. r si_
AMrOYALS J"
�� owa M»vW fr�vr /ec d.'ib d_,IYNC_e•f
__ _ i•r-_ _�eeff� ua6i___
ry bwrYW n y.w r xraw. w w+a••w r e. rrnw. M r Wur ar.r�
e rads b.ra ow. r.w+<w, pbwn wMrr d-. rvew._., aW
aYr M1 w Mwq arrwr. n. MM1 vera awa+wa �wdrww. r.r d rrwa 4..wr.
wreWr vel wwMbwG4 aver. �Inenwr rw rara wrd�rrr•r•rYr Mrw
H4Yt2lS9.Ml
wr.
•n�aari'arwnen '
aoi
Davis Brothers Subdivision recorded in 1966. Development parcel is outlined in red, subject property in blue.
2
2
027
002
1 3
MINOR oza o22 020 018 o1s o03
A 023 021 019 017 015
N
B. A 9-A MANSFIELD GA o26
o m o 014 7-C CONDOMINIUMS �g a
2 ® CO 9 m m 09 am o n UNITS UNITS
w 0, 45 009 004
025 W 41 111
r 4139 007 008 4951 011
0.1
r 53
W. 47th Ave.
4 012 010
013 011 OD _ ® 1 2 3 10 11 ® 12
12 l0 12 12 !n
1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
001 002 003 007 008 009
°PENDENCE SQUARE CONDOS
BLDG, 6
717 019 021 023 -025
1018 020 022 024
C 135 a
Most current Jefferson County Assessor Map. Development parcel is outlined in red, subject property in blue.
Administrative Review
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
EXHIBIT 6: SITE PHOTOS
Administrative Review 12
Case No. WA -17-04 /Dunn
City of
Wheatl),, ge
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. WA -17-04
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 11, 2017
r� (name) n
residing at1 7 J� VV, y �'�'�t'�Z 1/U �U�; J�I-�i i C)
(address)
as the applicant for Case No.
Public Notice at
WA -17-04
hereby certify that I have posted the sign for
9475 W. 47h Avenue
(location)
on this L --yl N day of and do hereby certify that said sign has been
posted and remained in place for ten (10) days prior to and including the deadline for written
comments regarding this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below.
r
Signature:C G 2
NOTE: This form must be submitted to the Community Development ent for this case
and will be placed in the applicant's case file.
MAP
CitVY of
Wheat -Midge
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 ten (10) continuous days prior to and
including the deadline for written comments [sign must be in place until 5pm on
May 11, 2017]
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.
May 5, 2017
Dear City of Wheat Ridge,
We received a letter in the mail regarding a variance (Case no. WA -17-04) relating to our
neighbor building a deck on his property.
We live next door to the property and we have no issues with the request. In fact, we
are in full support of the project and look forward to its completion. This will be a very
nice addition and improvement to the existing condition of the property. Thank you for
the notification.
Warm regards,
iJ
John and Ruth Warner
9473 W. 47th Ave.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
_I City of
�
/ W heat k uc-
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
LETTER NOTICE
May 2, 2017
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA -17-04, a request for approval of a 39.6%
variance from the maximum lot coverage on property located at 9475 West 47th
Avenue and zoned Residential -Three (R-3). The attached aerial photo identifies
the location of the variance request.
The applicant for this case is requesting a variance eligible for administrative
review per section 26-115.0 of the Municipal Code to be granted by the Zoning
Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a
decision, all adiacent property owners are required to be notified of the request.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846 or
if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in
writing by 5:00 p.m. on May 12, 2017.
Thank you.
WA 1704.doc
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
City of
Wheat]��jdge
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
May 2, 2017
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you of Case No. WA -17-04, a request for approval of a 39.6%
variance from the maximum lot coverage on property located at 9475 West 47`h
Avenue and zoned Residential -Three (R-3). The attached aerial photo identifies
the location of the variance request.
The applicant for this case is requesting a variance eligible for administrative
review per section 26-115.0 of the Municipal Code to be granted by the Zoning
Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a
decision, all adiacent property owners are required to be notified of the request.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846 or
if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in
writing by 5:00 p.m. on May 12, 2017.
Thank you.
WA 1704.doc
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
Site Plan
Site
NI
SCHULTZ ANTHONY
9477 W 47TH AVE
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033
MOUNTAINVIEW GROUP THE LLC
855 PARKWAY AVE
EWING NJ 08618
WARNER JOHNIE M WARNER RUTH M PRESGRAVE BRUCE W PRESGRAVE JOYCE E
9473 W 47TH AVE PO BOX 468
WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GOLDEN CO 80402
MR. MATT DUNN
9475 West 47th Ave
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
RE: DECK ADDITION
14'-10"
111-811
5'-10" --I
CENTER FOOTING
1'-3" SQ x 8" THICK;
ONE LOC'N
- DBL 2x8 Flush Edae BeaPn,
CD
N
LL
2
00
X
N
lL
TYP - 4x4 wood—
post on one -inch
stand off post base
TYP - Simpson LU26
face mount hanger with
(6) 10d x 1.5" common
nails (0.148" x 1.5")
NOTE: TOP OF DECK SURFACE
TO BE 30 INCHES MAX OFF
EXTERIOR GRADE —
Re -use existing
4x4 wood post
Athem, LLC
tructural Engineering
5171 Eldorado Springs Drive, Suite M
Boulder, CO 80303
303-848-8497
3'-2„
38" x 12"
5 steps
5 backsplash
railings
O
LO
CJ i 'I E AN
178w x 59" MUST BE :ON IT
FOR VSPECTION
ub'cct to Fi ld Ins cctions
PT 2x8 Ledger with 1/2" dia
masonry sleeve anchors @
16" staggered T&B with 4"
embedment
April 3, 2017
9473
9475 W 47th Ave
SITE PLAN E w =,i Pyarrddline ine
ine
N
W 47th AVE
STREET SIDEWALK
F�__________-� L PLANS
p
II I MUST BE ON 4ITE FOR INSPECTION
(I I ALL.IPmiccts are
it I
II ( Suh* ct to h4 icld I gsaggtim
(I YARD
II (
II ( (
p I
II I I
II I CONCRETE9477
I CONCRETE
II SIDEWALK I SIDEWALK
II i
p
q 77
II CONCRETE CONCRETE
II ( STEPS ( STEPS
II
N
q� PROPOSED ADDITION
II
11
IL
I I
I 9475TOWNHOME I
I I
L ----------------------I
9477
NOTE: Land use applications must be
1 submitted BY APPOINTMENT with a
C.ily OI planner. Incomplete applications will not
Ie -t— D ; A r, be accepted—refer to submittal checklists.
LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
Community Development Department
7500 West 29th Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846
(Please print or type all information)
Applicant I v J&k-ft JAS
Address, City, State, Zip
Owner ScAiwie
Phone Email
Address, City, State, Zip
Contact Y-AJ66 Q _
Phone Email
Address, City, State, Zip
(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): la7$
W Ll 74"' Q SspO33
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 O Administrative (up to 3 lots)
O Planned Building Group
O Site Plan O Minor (4 or 5 lots)
O /emporary Use, Building, Sign
O Concept Plan O Major (6 or more lots)
/Variance/Waiver (from Section 26-
) O Right of Way Vacation O Other:
Detailed description of request:
C)(- c,ACI+�ov► +c, -�fTAfi U 4� k at -e, 1H ' w X I 1 ` (A ko `
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 onh' behalf.
Notarized Signature of Applicant
State of Colorado
County of Jt�f'S®►'� } ss
The foregoing instrument (Land Use Processing Application) was acknowledged by me this o9 day of r 201-
by t-kt%AhVL.,%
Q JAYMESUE MCRIMMON
My COmmISS10n expires / /20 1 ! NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
Not liC NOTARY ID # 20154009457
019
To be filled out by staff:
Date received q- 2Sr- I%
Comp Plan Design.
Related Case No.
Assessor's Parcel No. 9-o2:22 .a 16-y'l
Size (acres or sgft)
Rev 1/22/ 2016
Fee S 200- OD
Receipt No. CD136lySSs"'
Pre -App Mtg. Date
Current Zoning Q- 3
Proposed Zoning
Case No. _(,J A- 12Q4
Quarter Section Map
Case Manager t .) al\4 ce it j A '
Current Use
Proposed Use