Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101001113502Jeff Hirt From: Jeff Hirt Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:23 PM To: 'orsr20OO @cs.com' Subject: 7331 West 44th Ave Consolidation Plat Attachments: PlatChecklist.jpg; PlatDocument.jpg; ConsPlatSample.jpg; MinorSubLanguage.jpg Bob, Attached are the following (as jpegs): - City required plat language; titled "minor subdivision plat" but the language applies to consolidation plats. - Submittal checklist; "form and content of subdivision plat" is what you want to look at. You can disregard the "additional information" section. - Plat document - illustrates form and content of plat itself - Sample of a recently approved consolidation plat. Your submittal requirements are as follows: Signed, notarized "land use application" Proof of ownership (deed) $300 fee 8 copies of the plat When received, the plat will be referred to necessary outside agencies (public works dept, fire district, etc). This process is normally 15 days, but I will expedite this and make it less than this. I'll put together comments, along with mine, send the comments and redlined plans back to you, then you can make the changes and submit the mylar for recordation. There is an $11 per page fee with the mylar to cover our costs for recording. Land use application is available online, under: www.ci.wheatridge.co.us, "forms ", "community development ", "land use application" Let me know if you have questions in preparing the plat to submit. Jeff Hirt City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Office: 303 - 235 -2845 Fax: 303 - 235 -2857 1 j jd PlatChecklist.jpg PlatDocument. jpConsPlatSample.MinorSubLangua (1 MB) g (1 MB) jpg (1 MB) ge.jpg (3 MB) Bob, Attached are the following (as jpegs): - City required plat language; titled "minor subdivision plat" but the language applies to consolidation plats. - Submittal checklist; "form and content of subdivision plat" is what you want to look at. You can disregard the "additional information" section. - Plat document - illustrates form and content of plat itself - Sample of a recently approved consolidation plat. Your submittal requirements are as follows: Signed, notarized "land use application" Proof of ownership (deed) $300 fee 8 copies of the plat When received, the plat will be referred to necessary outside agencies (public works dept, fire district, etc). This process is normally 15 days, but I will expedite this and make it less than this. I'll put together comments, along with mine, send the comments and redlined plans back to you, then you can make the changes and submit the mylar for recordation. There is an $11 per page fee with the mylar to cover our costs for recording. Land use application is available online, under: www.ci.wheatridge.co.us, "forms ", "community development ", "land use application" Let me know if you have questions in preparing the plat to submit. Jeff Hirt City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Office: 303 - 235 -2845 Fax: 303 - 235 -2857 1 Jeff, In your FAX to me, dated 02- 10 -06, in your 4th point you said I acknowledged that I stated the building dept had the building permit 3 months. Since I do not know if that is true I cannot say, or acknowledge that I said that. My point was very clear, and I stand by my point. My point was that someone chose to have a REASON to delay, and they chose for approximately 3 months to have that reason. What you stated is very untrue. I request that you send to me a written retraction and send copies of that retraction to all. Since / rreell � y,, ` �/� i Jerry Roach 02 -13 -06 a� 0 tk J ft t' i 'd OS:II SOOZ 0£ d " =a -4- LS8ZS£ZE(l� d Rd 8 9NINVb.d 1. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as the is currently angled parking ad jacent to the stre+ L — �2. It would not be detrimental to the public welfare and, as designed, the landscaping that the applicant has included can be perceived as a possible benefit to the neighborhood by increasing some of the landscaping as seen from the public view. Board Member ABBOTT offered the following friendly amendment: Reason No. 3: It is not in the best interest of the city or its citizens that this commercially zoned property remain a vacant, paved and otherwise unimproved pare& DRAFT The amendment was accepted by Board Members HOVT ANI3 and P AGE. Board Member HOVLAND requested an amendment to add two cou&uonns to his motion as follows: 1. Landscaping will be required as shown on the review with planters and trees as approved by the city. 2. Parking spaces in front that lack adequate depth mast be addressed and approved by the city. Board Member PAGE agreed to the amendment to add the two conditions. Board Member ABBOTT offered another friendly amendment as follows: Condition No. 3: Landscaping of the 271 square foot triangle at the corner of 44 and 'Vance, as proposed in the applicant's letter, be required. The amendment was accepted by Board Members HOVLANID and PAGE. - The motion passed 5 0. Whereas, the relief applied for maybe granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impair the intent and purpose the regulations governing the City of Wheat - Ridge. Tow, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case 17(B) ife,-and hereby is, approved Type of Variance: A partial waiver of Section 26 -502 (Landscaping Requirements) specifically related to the ten -foot landscape requires abutting 44` Avenue for property zoned Restricted Commercial. For the following reasons: At least S of these parking spaces as shown do not confo to the city's dimensions for parking spaces. Parallel parking spaces must have a width o f 8 feet and a depth of 22 feet Per the Code of Laws. There are three such parking spaces shown on the east side of the pr sed addition that do not meet the 22 foot depth r cure There are also two parking spaces in front of the proposed addition (south side of addition) which do not have adequate drive aisle width, at 8 feet for angled parking. There is angled parking existing to the east, and essentially the proposed an ed arkin will match what is already on site. The existing parking at this location however is consider conforming. t The creation of 1�� new nonconforming angled parking spaces may not be allowed as shown. Although this is a request for a waiver to the landscaping requirements, the parking layout and area available for landscaping are interrelated. There may be other alternatives for placement of parking spaces to provide the requir number of spaces to be in compliance with requirements for drive aisle and size appe r� r�en�s,a although C it ars to be cult to do�so. �� The existing structure, and the proposed addition will encompass three different properties All are currently under the same ownership. As noted above, the property in question is zoned Restricted Commercial (RC). The properties to the west, however, are zoned Commercial One (C -I). There are implications with the setback requirements if the applicant wishes to construct the addition with the current lot configuration. Currently there is a lot line going through the existing building, and with the new addition under the current lot configuration there will be another lot line going through the building. Sections 26 -217 (RC development standards) and Section 26 -218 (C -1 development standards) both allow a zero setback if the structure is constructed of masonry or nonflammable material and in accordance with the building code. Staff has understood the intent with this development to be to consolidate two or more lots in the future to eliminate at least one of the lot lines going through the building. It has been noted that several of the parking spaces, as shown on the site plan submitted, do not meet the city's \regulations_ The- intent of the landscape waiver, at least in part, is in order to allow for more room to construct � e retired number of parking spaces. P roms the Teg ai buffer on the north property line, for -0 -t ,.,.. #�. a, ,m eliminate the R nark marpc Chown- Pr ovidmQ the 10 foot landscape buffer on 4 Avenu e, re would eliminate the two parking spaces in front of the building. It would be more beneficial to consider the site as a whole, as it will function as one structure with unimpeded vehicular and pedestrian access throughout the exterior of the building and the site. The parcel for which the landscape waiver is being requested and the parking layout is being considered is currently freestanding, and must be considered as such. It would be more beneficial to do this analysis after the lot (or lots) have been consolidated and make a determination then if there is a need for any waivers or variances, or if the applicant can meet all development standards with the addition. For variances that are denied, Sec. 26 -107 of the Code of Laws states that a new application for substantially the same development process may not be refiled for one year after denial. If this request is denied however, the applicant may proceed with either consolidating the lot or lots, or reconfiguring the site to meet (or more closely meet) applicable development standards. This may result in another request for a variance or waiver it is likely that request would not be considered substantially the same request. In other words, it is likely that if this request is denied and another request comes forward it may be reheard before the Board of Adjustment at any meeting in the future. r[ . . The property is approximately 12,080 square feet, or .28 acres. The property measures 80 feet wide with a depth of 151 feat icw f�amz awe- z— 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 February 13, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Dept Attn: Jeff Hirt 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 SUBJECT: YOUR FAX TO ME DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2006 Dear Jeff, After a nice meetin ith good folks, including you, part of the content of your mes age is very disappointing. You did not number your comment, but inorder, your fourth comment is particularly disappointing. That comment, "The property owner acknowledged that contrary to the letter dated Feb 6, 2006, the building dept has not had the building�,��e��rmit for three (3) months." You had to have been referring tDA hite's statement that some city council people called reference holding or sitting on the building permit. Alan did not accuse me of the source of that. If he would have, I would have immediately corrected him. Alan being the good person he is would not do that. The point I made reference three (3) months is on page 2 of of my letter, when I referred to your number 2 issue. I stand by what I stated and that is the bldg dept noticed a mistake on the architect's plans dated 11/1/2005. That mistake indicated a 6' wide handicap access asile when it should be 8' wide. My point was very clear. The bldg dept had approximately 3 months to advise us of that error. They did not, but they waited until the contractor, John Ziska, appeared to obtain the building permit. Such tactics has the appearance of an anti- business delay tactic. As you can see, I cannot acknowledge something which I did not do and you accused me of doing such. Another statement you made which is not true is, "It was stated and in reiteration of staff's position, that the Board of Adjustment did not grant any waiver to any parking requirements." Jeff, you should be the last person to say that. You have access to staff's recommend- ation for Denial. In the middle of page 3 see statement, "The intent of the landscape waiver, at least in part, is in order to allow for more room to construct the required number of parking spaces." That is perfectly clear. You also have access to the minutes to that Board meeting. Also, I sent to you a photocopy of page 5 of those minutes. At the top of that page is the first part of the motion which passed unanimously. It states, "the variance does not alter the character of the neighborhood as there is currently angled parking adjacent to the street." -2- Jeff, those misstatements of fact about the variance ano your alleging that I acknowledged a statement which I did not make are an insult to your and my intelligence and certainly do nothing for your credibility. I put you above that. I request that you, ASAP, send to me a letter retracting those misstatements by you. I strongly suggest that you send to those to whom you sent copies of your FAX to me, copies of your retraction. I will send,to them photocopies which will prove what you said is not true. Your 5th point. You stated Public Works Dept requests a curb between the sidewalk and the angled parking spaces. Alan made that point at our meeting. Public works needs to go to the site and ee the 13 parking spaces which are at the current project, the;is alize the t o additional parking spaces, to the east, with curbs in front, buVthe other 13 parking spaces do not have curbs. That would create a conflict, not eliminate a conflict. We would have a nice new attractive building with attractive landscaping. Then Public Works wishes to have a curb or barrier in front, with with no curb elsewhere. The conflict caused would be a curb /barrier only in front of the new building. Too much danger of driving over or against , or backing over .'.or against the curb especially when when there is no such barrier elsewhere. NO SUCH BARRIER IN FRONT OF MY NEW PROPERTY. I know that I agreed to this at the meeting with reservations thinking reflectors may help, but when I have time to visualize the complete picture, which I expect any dept to do, I cannot accept such. Earlier it was stated that the traffic engineers were involved, now you state it is Public Works . I expect better from either of those. Again, no curbs /barriers in front:: I repeat , as I have many times, SAFETY has never been an issue there. In your FAX you stated peels as a conflict. If that is a concern here, consider the residential area where children are in the area with vehicles backing out of driveways,U in parkin pots where peds would be walking to their autos and vehicles al backing from spaces. Sure sidewalks are for peds, but we would have less density here than those places which I mentioned. Your point #3. You stated, "The property owner and the contractor acknowledged the fact that the multiple conceptual site plan reviews done by staff, and the application for a variance did not constitute submittal or approval of a building permit." That is obvious. I am surprised that the issue is being made. "Multiple ConceptW .4L,It was clear form the beginning�the reason for my request to meet with the Bd of Adjustment was for a partical waiver of landscape to make room for parking spaces. The motion made and the unanimous approval was for that. That should be enough said. The concept should be easy. How mwny multiple attempts does there need to be to attempt to destroy that concept. First I was told that traffic engineers were,concerned with safety of those two additional parking spaces when safety has not been a problem with the 13 spaces. Now I am told Public Works states conflict with peds. Anytime I drive my vehicle I am in potential conflict with peds. such as: 1) backing from driveway, 2) turning at an intersection, 3)driving or backing -3- in a parking lot, 4) when a ped J- walks, and probably more. Twice in the past month you have misstated the facts about the Ed of Adjustment's unanimous approval of the waiver. How multiple do you believe tries to destroy a concept already establishedt should be? Now we are in our 14th month. I pointed out ilour meeting, City Hall is not responsible for alof the delays. I will be looking for your letter retracting those false assertions which you made. I believe the other good folks who were at the meeting and received your FAX. will be glad to see that letter of retraction. That will help validate what I think they believe, your are the .good persorfwho they thought you were. Si cerely Jerry oach Copies to: Wanda Sang, city council - District II Dean Gokey, city council - District II Randy Young, city manager Jerry DiTullio, mayor John Ziska, building contractor Doug Saba, Fire Marshal Alan White, Director Hill Mazowski, Building Inspector i YI IVY ./-. / -. I ,o-,bi � o I �I � I m L 9p . s .CIV9 �-1-I <t' y City of Wheat Ridge of " "EgT Community Development Department Memorandum C ��pq pD� TO: File FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner SUBJECT: 7397 West 44` Avenue Building Permit DATE: February 10, 2006 This memo is to summarize the meeting that took place on Thursday, February 9, 2006 regarding the building permit for the property located at 7397 West 44` Avenue. Attending: Alan White, Community Development Director Bill Mazowski, Building Inspector Doug Saba, Wheat Ridge Fire District Jerry Roach, Property Owner John Ziska, General Contractor The following is a general summary of the points that were covered at this meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to clarify the issues identified in the review process for this permit, and to provide the property owner and contractor options for the direction that can be taken to address these issues. The general consensus among those with the City and the Fire District is that the majority of the issues identified with this permit are related to the existing property line which separates the existing building from the proposed addition. Both the property owner and the contractor agreed that the logical next step is to process a consolidation plat to eliminate this lot line. The City can review the consolidation plat and building permit concurrently, but the building permit will not be issued until the final, correct mylar for the consolidation plat has been received by the City that meets all applicable requirements. It was stated, and in reiteration of staff s position, that the Board of Adjustment did not grant a waiver to any parking requirements. The Board only granted a variance to the landscape buffer requirement along 44 " Avenue per Case No. WA- 05 -17. Refer to the minutes from this hearing stating this decision. The property owner and the contractor acknowledged the fact that the multiple conceptual site plan reviews done by staff, and the application for a variance did not constitute submittal or approval of a building permit. The actual building permit was submitted and received by the building department on January 19, 2006. The property owner acknowledged that contrary to the letter dated February 6, 2006, the building department has not had the building permit for 3 months. The building permit is being processed and reviewed under normal procedures. All review that was done prior to submittal of the building permit was for conceptual plans in order to assist the property owner to be ready to submit the building permit. The Public Works Department has expressed that angled parking would be allowed on the south side of the building with a condition. There must be a minimum 6" curb eliminating the conflict between vehicles backing out of the parking spaces and pedestrians on the 44` Avenue sidewalk. Both the property owner and the contractor expressed that they would be amenable to this. With this configuration, the handicapped accessible parking space may be located on the south side of the building. Cc: Alan White, Community Development Director Bill Mazowski, Building Inspector Doug Saba, Wheat Ridge Fire District Jerry Roach, Property Owner John Ziska, General Contractor Eric Scholz, Form Studios Architecture 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 February 7, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Dept Attn: Jeff Hirt 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, Cc 80033 SUBJECT: T ELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOU AND MYSELF TH PM OF FEBRUARY 6, 2006 Dear Jeff, Thank you for your phone message that I should call you, and also thanks for your time when I returned your call. This will confirm that conversation. It seems apparent that someone told you,:youu needed to attempt to convince me that the partical landscape waiver did not have anything to do with parking. My repl4 o you was that PARKING WAS THE ONLY REASON I requested that meeting with the Board of Adjustment. That meeting spent part of an evening and a $390.00 fee and I did not spend that just for the pleasure of making changes to landscaping. I repeat it was for parking purposes. You replied the staff report would not indicate that. My reply - I did not write any staff report. You then stated the board's approval did not include parking. My reply to that - if the report of the that meeting (minutes) does not show that the waiver is not because of parking, someone altered /edited the facts. Fortunately, if any editing happened it was not in that regard. Attached is a photocopy of the pertinent parts of pages 5 & 6 (FAX page #'s) which clearly show parking IS the consideration. See #1. I underlined "There is currently angled parking adjacent I used legal size paper to justice to this photocopy. D� Jeff, in my opinion, you are a helpful and fair person. The next time you are requested to alter the facts, tell that person, DO NOT insult your intelligence or ask me to insult someone elses intelligence. Parking was very germane to that meeting and why I was there. I do need to add the following or one could question my credibility. The final plans submitted did not designate two parking spaces in that subjrct area. That is because after I told you I went through the process and got permission to have two (2) angle parking spaces, you replied, just do not stripe that area for the two (2) spaces, but stripe two (2) parking spaces on the adjacent property without any strings attached; however, because of residence on the other side of the fence, install the 6' buffer fence. -2- You went on to say that complies with the traffic engr dept request that those two (2) parking spaces not be striped. I replied, this is retail and customers will drive in that spot identical to the way retail customers drive in and out of the adjacent 13 parking spaces to the west. You replied that you understand and nobody will stand guard. That is why the final plans submitted did not show that area with striped parking spaces. If traffic engr dept is truly stating a safety issue, they are absurd. Sure customers back into the ROW, which is also my property. However, they are not backinin to traffic. As I stated in my February 6, 2006 corresponds ce to you, 13 parking spaces are adjacent to the west. They have been there since 1981, approximately 25 years, with no safety issues - zero, none. Understand why I say ABSURD. A short recap. Oct 2005, when I was told, just do not stripe that area, I felt I could live with that. Now four (4) months later, your message is different - not only you cannot stripe that area, but you were told to tell me that parking there was not part of the issue. The attached will inform you the truth. As I stated earlier you are nice helpful, and fair. Tell any and all not to insult your intelligence and also tell them not to ask you to insult Jerry Roach's intellignece. As I stated earlier, I can live without that area without the parking stripes, but when I am told parking in that area was not the issue when I appeared before the Board of Adjustment, I will resist such. I will continue to resist even if I need the assistance of an attorney. I have no doubt, you would have the same attitude if you were in my position. cerely/) Cam/ Jerry Roach copies to: Wanda Sang, city counsel - District II Dean Gokey, city counsel - District II Randy Young, city manager Jerry DiTullio, mayor John Ziska, building contractor JERRY ROACH GS45 W. 44th Avenue 44 c•� �✓ Wheat Ridge, Co_ 80033 PH; (303) 456 -4843 a 1, FX: (303) 420 -7118 FAX COVER PAGE DATE: o �2- 0 C --o b :TIME: NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER PAGE; L� INTENDED FOR: J C F/•' [y I PROM: CO-%ZIENT n ', 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 February 6, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Dept Attn: Jeff Hirt Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 Dear Jeff, SUBJECT: YOUR CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESSED TO ME AT ADDRESS 7397 W 44th Ave, DATED, FEBRUARY 1, 2006 SURPRISE SURPRISE I received the subject correspondence ONLY because my contractor, John Ziska, FAX'd a copy to me. Jeff, I feel certain that, in general, the folks at City Hall, share the opinion that we need to get the message out that this City really is not anti - business. However, it seems apparent that someone in the building department/either did not get that message, or prefers that Wheat Ridge would continue to have the reputation which builders have expressed, Stay Out of Wheat Ridge. It seems apparent that the building department wants you, who has been fair and helpful, to sign the subject correspondence, which I believe is somewhat embarrassing for you. I say that because there is one of the "comments," in particular, in this subject letter which you and I covered in Great Detail When I get to that comment, I will remind you. The first surprise is the contractor did not FAX this letter - to me, I still would not have it, and the next surprise is tha5 who wished that you sign. this correspondence did not bother to read your 10/19/05 correspondence to me That letter to me states, "The plans were reviewed and all applicable requirements in the zoning and development code appear to have been met with the excep- tion of one issue," You went on to identify that issue as the parking in front (south side of the building) You and I covered that issue in GREAT DETAIL but whoever wanted you to sign the 02/01/2006 correspondence to me wanted a rehash of an issue which which was already settled. Two (2) of the biggest surprises i the content of your letter are: first, your first issue which begins, "Please provide clair- fication of the landscaping materials." Then you go on to state what requires clairfication. Jaff, when I leave with Travis the tree tag which Echters gave to me, which is the tag from the Chanticleer Pear tree which states that is a good street tree, and tell Travis four (4) of those trees will be planted on this property, that is very clear about four (4) of the six (6) trees. Then is very clear about the other two (2) trees as they are already on the property. Those trees are near the east boundry, I believe it is correct to say those are fir trees. The shrubs, -2- ,,✓ iT N Ft,CTT 1, I did not have tags from shrubs, but is was made clear what good advice I received from Echters. Three different shrubs, all five gallon, which are: spirea with pretty pink flowers, shrubby potentilla,LJ and with a few junipers. That is a very clear description. I asked for one point of clairfication which I have not received and that is, since 30% of the landscaping is required to be turf, do any of the 26 required shrubs go there, meaning are shrubs, turf? I believe those colorful ahrubs would be attractive with the turf. Does the City agree? I have not received that answer /clarification. Your #3 issue is a big surprise. YES, the architect did make a mistake. I say mistake as I believe he knows the handicape access — aisle is to be 8' not 6'. Those plans are dated 11/01/05, which means the building department has had them for approximately three (3) months. The big surprise, the person handling this did not feel responsible enough to notify us of the error. That person preferred to wait to include this as a reason to delay the building permit. If that person has such power, that person also has the responsibility, as a service, to notify us of the error in order not to delay the building permit. Doing that kind of good service would be a big step to help the City get rid of the anti - business reputation. Your #2 issue. I am surprised this was mentioned. We will be in compliance with all parking spaces. YOUR #4 ISSUE. SINCE THIS ISSUE WAS COVERED IN SUCH D-E.TA__L WIT YOU, I feel certain you were embarrassed that this issue was included. Since this issue was covered in such detail there is no designated parking on the south side of the building included in the final plans submitted. I do not wish to dwell on this since you and I settled this with�ther adjustments; therefore,continuing with this is like "beating the dead horse." That is why it amazing this i ssue was S- r,jir- included in your 02/01/06 letter to me. I will howeverrmy commen— -- to you Oct 2005 when we made the other adjustments. That comment: If the traffic engineering Dept has such power as you and I were led to believe, then they have the responsibility to USE that powe at the proper time That proper time is before I and staff arrange to be part of the Board of Adjustment meeting which takes up the Board of Adjustment volunteers time, my time, and a $390.00 cost to me. The result of that meeting with the Board of Adjustment was unanimous approvaYthat I receive the samePaiver as I received in 1981 at the adjacent property. There have been no sa fety _roblems at this location within all of the years from 1981 to the present, yet you and I were told the traffic engr dept said NO because of safe which has not been an issue there. This appears to be more - accurately described as ABUSE of p ower: not the proper USE of power. As I stated I do not wish to continue to "beat a dead horse." I repeat it amazing this issue is included in your 02/01/06 message for two (2) reasons: 1) you and I settled it and 2) parking in that area is not included in the latest plans. -3- Your #5 issue. That issue was known form the beginning and has been addressed without any problems. Your #6 issue, The plans submitted are in compliance. Construction materials are masonry and nonflammable. We have been in compliance with all code issues brought forth. I know that occasionally during construction contractor and inspector may confer reference a detail. We are all human and that is expected. I close by saying antibusiness tactics should be a thing of the past. I expect my contractor, John Ziska to be able to obtain the building permit early during the w_Gek of February 6, 2006. If needless delays happen it would appear it is attorney time. It is accurate to saYAt has been pleasant dealing with the folks involved. Unfortunately, it seems,apparent that someone believes -- in antibusiness delay tactics. S- ipcerely, �2n 64C Berry Roach (303)456 -4843 Copies t4:. Wanda Sang, city counsel - District II Dean Gokey, city counsel - District II Randy Young, city manager Jerry DiTullio, mayor John Ziska, building contractor 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303/ 235 -2846 Fax: 303/235 -2857 The City of Wheat Ridge February 1, 2006 Jerry Roach 7397 West 44 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: Building Permit for 7397 West 44 Avenue Dear Mr. Roach: Your building permit for the above project has been reviewed and I have the following comments: 1. Please provide clarification of the landscaping materials. Per Section 26 -502 (D)(3) of the Code of Laws, one street tree for each 30 feet of lot frontage is required. Also, in addition to the required street trees, one tree and 10 shrubs are required for every 1,000 square feet of required landscaped area. As a result, a total of 6 street trees are required for this project. Please also show that the required number of shrubs requirement is being met for this project. 2. Per Section 26 -502 (E) of the Code of Laws, parking lots adjacent to residentially zoned property must have a 6 foot landscape buffer with a 6 foot view obscuring fence. New parking spaces shown as #s 1 and 2 must have this buffer as well. If there is not adequate space for this buffer, the required parking spaces may be provided elsewhere on the lot to the immediate west of the subject lot. The required number of parking spaces for this addition is 12, with one handicapped accessible space. 3. Per Section 26 -501 (D)(9) at least one handicapped accessible parking space must have an access aisle of at least 8 feet in width. The new handicapped accessible space only has a 6 foot wide aisle as shown. 4. Per Section 26 -501 (D)(7) designated parking areas cannot be designed to have vehicles backing into and out of rights -of -way. The parking area shown on the south side (front) of the building cannot be allowed. 5. All mechanical equipment on top of the building addition must be screened. 6. A zero setback is shown for the western property line. Zero setbacks are allowed where the structure is constructed of masonry or nonflammable material and in accordance with applicable building codes. This addition is subject to this requirement and review from the building department. If you have questions please contact me at 303 - 235 -2845. Sincerely, Jeff Hirt Planner, Community Development Department 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 July 17, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Attn: Alan White, director 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 Dear Alan, SUBJECT: CURB IN FRONT OF 7331 W 44TH AV First my letter to you, dated 06- 19 -06, which requested reversal of someone's maneuver of adding the subject curb to the FINAL PERMIT plans, dated 11- 01 -05. Next my letter to you, dated 06- 22 -06, which stated, I owe the apology. I rather strongly expressed my disappointment to John Ziske, that he stated that the plans showed that the subject curb is to be added. He and I reviewed the FINAL PERMIT plans, dated 11- 01 -05, and we agreed it supported my disappointment. Today, 07- 17 -06, John Zoska brought to me plans which has a message, stamped in red. That message, ON SITE PLANS, MUST BE ON SITE, FOR INSPECTION. Those plans would indicate to me, that someone at the City of Wheat Ridge, requested to either John Ziska or to the architect to alter the plans and add the subject curb. Those plans have a revised date, 02- 15 -06. That was done inspite of my letter to Jeff Hirt, dated 02- 13 -06, which stated hatany curb infront of 7331 W 44th. Nobody contacted me reference the request to alter the plans. Nobody means, no person at the City contacted me, the architect did not contact me, and the builder did not contact me. Also, nobody gave to me a copy of that altered set of plans. I not only stand by my letter to you, dated 06- 19 -06, but I will add,IF I DO NOT RECEIVE THE REQUESTED REVERSAL OF THAT ALTERED SET OF PLANS, IN WRITING, AND SIGNED BY THE PROPER CITY OFFICIAL, BY 5PM THRUSDAY 07- 20 -06, it will be attorney time. That requested statement must say, THE TWO(2) PARKING SPACES TO BE INFRONT OF 7331 W44TH AVE WILL HAVE THE SAME INGRESS /EGRESS ACCESS AS DO THE (13) thirteen parking spaces on the adjacent project to the west, NO CURB. The person responsible for this maneuver, decided not to contact me reference either of my letters to you, dated 06 -19 -06 and 06- 22 -06, respectively. -2- Alan, I am addressing this to you, but I am confident that you are not responsible for that maneuver. You and I worked well together and we had a good relationship. 9 anks mum �ROach Y Copies to: Wanda Sang, city council - District II Dean Gokey, city council - District II Randy Young, city manager Jerry DiTullio, mayor John Ziska, building contractor Bill Mazowski, building inspector Chad Root, building inspector 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat -- Ridge, Cc 80033 Jla2 2'006 S UBJECT: I OWE THE APOLOGY:: Dear Alan, After comparing copies of plans this morning and restraining myself fron the urge to "strangle" builder, Ziska, I should let you know this happened. 'T As I stated in my letter to you, dated June 19, while I was at the site, Ziska was instructing the concrete contractor where he would be adding to the curb, and as I stated in my letter I said, WRONG. Ziska insisted it is in the plans to add to the curb. He added that he was at meetings at which he was told the curb was necessary. I told Ziska if that is true, then there were meetings when, I as property owner, was not present, and that should not happen. I did remind Ziska that he and I were at one meeting at which the curb was discussed, but the following day I wrote correspondence stating NO CURB and he was given a copy. Since Ziska insisted, I photocopied that portion of the plans which I had. Then I met with him at the site this morning. I showed him my copy which shows removal of the curb and said to him if the plans were changed , I was not provided with a copy which shows I &he change. Ziska got his plans, openelt hem and his plans also shows removal of the curb. I told Ziska he misinformed me and caused me to write that letter to you, dated 06- 19 -06, but now I am the one who owes the apology to you folks, because of him. After I got done telling I was not happy about him misinforming me, I made reference to the two (2) parking spaces in front of the building. Ziska insisted there are three (3) parking spaces there and attempted to show me three (3) spaces, stating that the third space is wider than originally planed so it may be a parking space. I told him it is wider to accomodate the ADA requirement of the handicap isle to be 8' wide, not 6' wide, and stated that space must be stripped as a handicap isle, just as the plans so indicate. He looked at the plans and agreed with me. City of Wheat Ridge p�r�t 6 Attn: Alan White, director 7500 W 29th Ave , r Wheat Ridge, Cc 80033 r� S UBJECT: I OWE THE APOLOGY:: Dear Alan, After comparing copies of plans this morning and restraining myself fron the urge to "strangle" builder, Ziska, I should let you know this happened. 'T As I stated in my letter to you, dated June 19, while I was at the site, Ziska was instructing the concrete contractor where he would be adding to the curb, and as I stated in my letter I said, WRONG. Ziska insisted it is in the plans to add to the curb. He added that he was at meetings at which he was told the curb was necessary. I told Ziska if that is true, then there were meetings when, I as property owner, was not present, and that should not happen. I did remind Ziska that he and I were at one meeting at which the curb was discussed, but the following day I wrote correspondence stating NO CURB and he was given a copy. Since Ziska insisted, I photocopied that portion of the plans which I had. Then I met with him at the site this morning. I showed him my copy which shows removal of the curb and said to him if the plans were changed , I was not provided with a copy which shows I &he change. Ziska got his plans, openelt hem and his plans also shows removal of the curb. I told Ziska he misinformed me and caused me to write that letter to you, dated 06- 19 -06, but now I am the one who owes the apology to you folks, because of him. After I got done telling I was not happy about him misinforming me, I made reference to the two (2) parking spaces in front of the building. Ziska insisted there are three (3) parking spaces there and attempted to show me three (3) spaces, stating that the third space is wider than originally planed so it may be a parking space. I told him it is wider to accomodate the ADA requirement of the handicap isle to be 8' wide, not 6' wide, and stated that space must be stripped as a handicap isle, just as the plans so indicate. He looked at the plans and agreed with me. -2- That did not make the morning with Ziska fun. Fortunately the construction looks good. Again, I apologize. ; 'S ncere�y, Jerry Roach Copies to : Wanda Sang, city council - District II Dean Gokey, city council - District II Randy Young, city manager Jerry DiTullio, mayor John Ziska, building contractor Bill Mazowski, building inspector Chad Root, building inspector 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 June 19, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Attn: Alan White, director 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 Dear Alan, Today, 06- 19 -02, I was at the construction site at 7331 W 44th Ave. While I was there, contractor, John Ziska, was giving the concrete contractor instructions on where additional curb is to be constructed at this site . I told Mr Ziska, WRONG! I added, instead of adding additional curb, the existing curb is to be removed, so that we have A C angle as is on the adjacent property, without any curb. Mr Ziska on to say the plans show that additional curb is to be construct- ed. He went on to say he was told by the City of Wheat Ridge that the plans must be changed, in that manner,to have the building permit issued. My letter to Jeff Hirt, dated 02- 13 -06, which was in response to his FAX to me dated, 02- 10 -06. That FAX was reference our meeting on 02- 09 -06. Among the factually incorrec points stated in that FAX is the statement, "staff's position, that the Board of Adjust- ment did not grant any waiver to any parking requirement." My letter, dated 02 -13 -06 included two (2) enclosures which documented that statement to be a misstatement of fact Enclosed is a photocopy of page two (2) of my letter to Jeff Hirt, dated 02- 13 -06. I circled the entire second paragraph which makes it very clear that I will not accept a curb between those two (2) additional parking spaces and the sidewalk. There are thirteen (13) parking spaces on the adjacent property, to the west, four (4) of which are angle spaces. There is no curb between any of those parking spaces and the sidewalk. As I stated before, I went through the process. The Board of Adjustment unanimously granted the waiver for those two (2) angle parking spaces, the same as the parking spaces as are on the adjacent property to the west. I also stated before, if one department has reservations about the actions of another department, those depart- ments must coordinate PRIORand not after the property owner, such as I, have gone through the' process. A shocking maneuver; apparently someone in either the public works department or in the engineering department made the decision to contact the contractor, but not the property owner, to state that in order to have building permit issued, the plans must be changed to add to the present curb, but not eliminate the present curb as -2- is indicated in the enclosed copy of the final plans, dated, 10- 04 -05. That maneuver is not acceptable by me. I expect an immediate reversal of that apparent meneuver. I expect that reversal to be in writing and signed by the proper City of Wheat Ridge official, which documents that those two (2) additional parking spaces in front of 7331 W 44th Ave will have no curb between them and the sidewalk. I expect such signed statement, no later than 12:00 noon on 06- 21 -06. I also expect, in writing and signed by the proper City of Wheat Ridge official, an apology for the delay and expense caused by those plans being changed for the stated reason, to issue the building permit. S}ncerely, Jerr Roach (303) 456 -4843 Copies to: Wanda Sang, city council - District II Dean Gokey, city council - District II Randy Young, city manager Jerry DiTullio, mayor John Ziska building contractor Bill Mazowski, building inspector Chad Root, building inspector ADJ ADJACENT AFF A0O`vT FINISW-D FLOOR AUH AIUMINLH BATH BATHROOM 80 BOARD BLD6 BUILDINro 130 81mom OF 05MT BASEMENT C414i CONCC,4� MASONRY UNIT WL CoOL" coc COWORETE c4w CoONTINU04 CV& CLEAR VERTICAL 6RAIN + DMLE R446 Dm PRAAlt* ELEC ELECTRIC EG EQUAL EQUIV EQUIVALENT EX EXISTINO EXT EXTERIOR FD FLOOR DRAIN Ff FIN151EW FLOOR FIN FINISH FO FACE OF fT FOOT EXISTING WALL TO SE DEMOLISHEP WAC HEAT, VENTILATION, AIR WNPITION INT INTERIOR JST JOIST MIN MINIKN MASY MASONRY KOH WCHANICAL MAX MAXIKH N NORTH 00 ON CZNTER RECT RECTAN&LE 5HLV SIii SIMILAR 5F SQUARE FOOT T55 TO 5E 5ELECTEP THD`v THRE� TO TOP OF TYP TYPICAL UON UNLE55 OTHERA15E NOTED VIF VERIFY IN FIELD sit 1 ►1 L '1 1 1 .CODE. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC`il I • 11*1 0 ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS: WALLS: R-1 1 ROOF/CEILING. R-19 1 � viciNi NN KE rrrs 7397 W 44TH AVE DATE: 11445 LL��J SWITCH wP WATERPROOF - �* D SYYITGH A/ pIMMER SHITCH a- 3 KAY 7 -5TAT THERM05TAT $.AM SMOKE ALARkrol F�.* FIRE EXTIN6U15HER ELECTRIC PANEL • SPRINKLER HEAD -(�- OVERHEAD LIGW7 FIXTURE -�- PENDANT LIGHT 0 RECE55CED LIGHT FIXTURE —0 AAI.L %01�E + WATER SPIGOT 2X2 WAO SUPPLY REGISTER NOW :2X:2 WAC RETURN REGISTER FAN H SPACE HEATER 9JPPLY/RF'NRN VENT EXIT EXIT SIGN TRACK LI&HTIN6 FLUORESCENT TUBE LIGHT -8' EXIS7IN6 AALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO SE DEMOLISHEP NEW AALL CEILING HE16H7 GYPSUM BOARD CEILING (HEIGHT) IPA PANEL CEILING (HEIGHT) ZX 2' CEILING GRID (FfEIGHT} EXPOSEV STRZTURE CEILIN& MEA9URE TO E30 TRU55 (HEIGN7) NORTH ARROW BMEBOARD HEATER 1 ►1 L '1 1 1 .CODE. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC`il I • 11*1 0 ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS: WALLS: R-1 1 ROOF/CEILING. R-19 1 � viciNi NN KE rrrs 7397 W 44TH AVE DATE: 11445 LL��J „".,.. ar r rr Now r rrMr -.. r�r r rr wr �r■wr� rr AREk6UMMARY.., ALI-OMABLE BUILDIN6 AREA (TABLE 5031 IBC) qOOO SP AREA MODIFICATIO* FOR FRONTAa INCREA6E /,0/7 6F a M ” '�l LINE s r JIM ..� a P't MMO s I F 9 r � }` r 4 4 1 VENUE r � , 1 r � 0 e A * # 0 i A • ■ 1w mw IL Tk" 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 The City of Wheat Ridge October 18, 2005 Jerry Roach 6545 W. 44"' Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 RE: 7331 W. 44"' Ave. Dear Mr. Roach: This letter is in response to your letters and requests for information regarding the addition proposed at the above address. I have completed a preliminary review of the plans submitted for the above project dated October 4, 2005 and have the following comments: 1. The plans were reviewed and all applicable requirements in the zoning and development code appear to have been met with the exception of one issue. The Public Works Department has expressed that the angled parking in front of the building, as shown, cannot be allowed. Although it does match the existing parking in front of the building, that parking is considered nonconforming. Per Section 26- 501 (D)(7) vehicles cannot back out directly onto the right -of -way from parking spaces. The parking, as shown, will create new parking spaces which have vehicles backing out onto the 44" Avenue right -of -way. 2. It is also advisable to contact other departments and agencies which may have additional requirements of their own. Such contacts include the Public Works Department, Building Division, Wheat Ridge Fire District, Wheat Ridge Water District and Wheat Ridge Sanitation District. Please let me know if you need this contact information. 3. Only the referenced lot, 7331 West 44"' Avenue, will be taken into consideration during this review. This means that the existing conditions on the two western lots (7337 -7397 West 44 Avenue) may remain in their current condition. No additional parking, landscaping or structural changes will be required on these two lots and the existing conditions with this addition. You may however, provide parking spaces on the two above mentioned adjacent lots to meet parking requirements for the addition. Those parking spaces must be conforming under current regulations. The above statements are applicable regardless of whether this lot is freestanding or consolidated with another lot Please note however that if the lots are not consolidated and considered separate at the time of the addition, there may be additional requirements to allow for parking on the adjacent lots. If you wish to provide parking for the addition on 7331 West 44 Avenue to be located on the adjacent lots (7337 -7397 West 40 Avenue) you must do a shared parking agreement if the lots are separate at the time of the building permit. The City cannot allow required parking on a separate lot without a shared parking agreement, even though the lots are under the same ownership. I would not foresee a shared parking agreement in this instance being an intensive process. Jerry Roach 7331 W. 44" Ave. 4. Please be aware that per Sec. 26 -502 of the Code of Laws, the use of non - living material such as bark, rock or ornamental objects shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the required landscaping area. Below are additional relevant comments from a letter sent to you by Travis Crane dated July 21, 2005. All of these requirements still apply: 1. The front yard setback is shown at a distance of 32.75 feet from the southern property line. The Code of Laws states that in the Restricted Commercial zone district, the minimum required front yard setback shall be 50 feet. However, this property is located in a `mixed -use' area, as designated by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. The Manual allows for reduced setbacks in the designated mixed use areas, as decided upon by the Community Development Director. Therefore, the reduced front yard setback of 32.75 feet is acceptable in this location. 2. A zero -foot side yard (west) setback is allowed, provided that the building is constructed with non - flammable materials, in accordance with the applicable building code. 3. Parking stall 13 must have a minimum 8 foot handicap access aisle, per ADA standards. 4. The new curb cut on West 44 Avenue must be a minimum of 20 feet in width, and located at least 25 feet from the eastern property line. 5. The northern property line must have a buffer with a minimum of 6 feet, complete with a six foot high fence. 6. Please be aware that street trees must be a minimum of three inch caliper, additional trees must be at least 2 inch caliper for deciduous trees and 6 feet in height for evergreen trees. All shrubs must be a minimum of 5 gallon buckets. If any rock is proposed, it must be a minimum of 1 -2 inches in size and 3 inches depth over a weed barrier. Based upon a required landscape area of 2,421.4 square feet, 3 trees and 25 shrubs are required. Additionally, 3 street trees are required (a total of 6 trees). 7. Please be aware that a maximum of thirty percent of the groundcover may be comprised of turf. The use of low -water demand turf is encouraged. 8. The southern building elevation should match the existing building. 9. The use of plain C.M.U. is strongly discouraged in the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. If the split face C.M.U. is to remain, it should extend much higher on the fagade. The more visible elevations, such as the southern and eastern, should have a higher quality of materials and should create a strong visual interest. For example, some pilasters of brick and strong accents should be incorporated into the elevations. The eastern elevation should contain a continuation of the materials used on the southern elevation. 10. The canopies to be installed should be of a more permanent material, not of canvas. 11. Any signage or fencing will require a separate building permit. 12. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from view on the new addition. 13. If a trash enclosure is planned, it must be fully enclosed with a solid six-foot enclosure. Also attached are the minutes from a pre - application meeting held on January 27, 2005 for this project. If you have questions about any of these comments feel free to contact me at 303.235.2845. Planning Technician, Community Development Department Jerry Roach 7331 W. 44`" Ave. 2 � �� � 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 October 15, 2005 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Dept Attn: Jeff Hirt 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 MY PPROXIMATELY 9:37a Dear Jeff, A First, I wish to be very clear, I have no issues with you, personally. Any involvement I have had with with you, you were very nice and fair., Also, I had the feeling, during our subject conversation, you were embarrassed with the message which you had for me. You stated the traffic engineering department would not permit the two (2) angle parking spaces in front of the proposed building to be striped because of their stated safety concerns, because of vehicles backing over the right -of -way (ROW) There are thirteen (13) parking spaces in front of the current development four (4) of which are angle parking spaces. Vehicles parking in any of those thirteen (13) spaces, to leave the premises would back over the ROW. During the twenty four (24) plus years the current development has been there, SAFETY of vehicles backing over the ROW has not been a problem. Inspite of the fact that of the fact that I went approval by the Board of landscaping to make room told to tell me that the disapproved this late in to do that even though t SAFETY has not been a problem and inspite through the process and was given unamious Adjustment for the partical waiver for for those two parking spaces, you were traffic engineer department not only the process, but they have the authority ie above stated permission was granted. Included in your message that the traffic engineer dept would not permit the striping of the two parking spaces in front of the proposed building is that I could put the two parking spaces on my adjacent property, BUT in order for those two spaces to count as two of the thirteen spaces, I would need to eliminate the property line between the existing project and the new project. That is when I reminded you that this is a retail project and the retail customers would come and park in that area whether it was striped or not. You agreed, but stated, even though customers park there, that area cannot be striped and cannot be used for two of the thirteen required spaces. -2- embae I can tell why I was of the impression you were 4M - e c arr n P of that message, as I would have been embarrassed, too. I am of the opinion,that did not come from the traffic engineering dept. That came from someone who is using the traffic engineering dept to support this ANTI - BUSINESS maneuver. I object and find that unacceptable. I made it very clear, from the beginning, that I would apply to the Board of Adjustment for the same waiver as I did, and received,in 1981 for the existing project. If the traffic engineering dept has such power, then staff has the responsibility to advise BOTH myself and the traffic engineering dept of my plans when we are in the early stages of planning. It is not acceptable that after the plans were completed and the Board of Adjustment has approved the waiver to make room for those two parking spaces, one of which is in compliance for handicap, that traffic engineering can step in and basically say, 1) property owner you cannot make such plans with staff, and 2) Board of Adjustment you cannot grant such waiver of landscaping to make room for those two parking spaces. You included in your subject message to me the issue of property lines. I own all of this property and IN GENERAL would not have reason to object to eliminating that property lin etween the exist- ing project and the new project or any of the oth r property lines involved. Unfortunately it seems obvious that someone hopes to use the absence of a property line in an anti - business maneuver. I will not tolerate such tactics. I made it very clear, in the beginning, that the adjacent property, owned by me is to remain grandfathered, as it is now. The plans submitted and approved, included the fact that the adjacent property would remain grandfathered. Jeff, I standby my letter to you, dated 09- 30 -05. the satement I requested is acceptable, other that the current project will remain grandfathered if I any or all of the property lines involved with the and the removal of any of those property lines wil affect the new project. No revision of to simply say choose to eliminate current project 1 not adversely In addition to my request for the above official signe Statement by the City of Wheat Ridge, I request an officially si ned _ statement by the City of Wheat Ridge retracting the message•of which you were the verbal carrier the striping of the two (2) angle parking spaces to be infront of the proposed building, will not be included as two (2) of the thirteen (13) required spaces. As I stated earlier, there are thirteen parking spaces in front of the curren1project with four of them angle parking. If anyone parks in any of those thirteen spaces,.to leave they would back over the ROW. Adding two more angle parking space s�o the new project with customers backing over the ROW will cause the same safety problems we have had for the past twenty four plus years, -3- which is NONE. The traffic engineering dept has no basis for stating there is a safety problem issue at either the current development or the proposed new development. In general, my planning with the City has been very pleasant. I would like to believe any anti - business tactics is an embarrass- ment to any of those good folks with which I have been working. Including but not limite o Doug at the fire dept, Alan White, and Meredith, each encourage me to eliminate involved property lines because of benefits to me . I am sure they were unaware there may be those who would use the disappearance of property lines as a means to hassle a long time business person who is also a long time property owner who landscapes and beautifies his property -more than most. I followed procedure to obtain the waiver to have room for the two striped parking spaces in front of the proposed building. The work of the land surveyor that eliminates any property lines WILLINOT be filed until the City puts a stop to those who wish to hassle. THEREFORE: 1. I expect those two requested officially signed statements no later than 12:00 noon on Tuesday, October 18, 2005. 2. I expect to begin construction of the proposed building very soon, without any ANTI - BUSINESS hassling tactics by any of those with the City who may wisli.ta.do so. If I do not receive those requested officially signed statements within my stated deadlineand if I receive anymore anti- business hassles from those who may wish to do so, fro he City of Wheat Ridge, it is attorney time. erely, Jerry oach Copies to: Wanda Sang, city counsel Dean Gokey, City counsel Randy Young, city manager Gretchen Cerveny, mayor - District II - District II 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 September 30, 2005 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Dept Attn: Jeff 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, Cc 80033 Dear Jeff, The issue of the property lines on the adjacent property shd'uld not have been an issue.included in the recommendation for Denial.. During my early discussions with the City, I made it very clear that if this new development did not all ow us to grandfather such conditions of the existing development, including ut not limited to the parking, landscaping, and the roof mount HVAC ds is, I would not add.-the new development. I was assured the new development could be done and the condition of the exixting project would remain grandfathered. Later, at the meeting at the fire station and in the presence of Alan White and Travis, Doug the fire department, stated with.a very helpful attitude, I would have cost savings, mainly in fees if the one property line between the new development and the exising project would be eliminated. I pointed out, at that time, cost saving is fine, if the existing project remains grandfathered. Also, the issue of the 6 feet of landscaping along the 70 feet of the North 6 foot fence should not have been included in the recommendation for Denial. Per discussions with Travis, Travis told both the architect and myself that the 6 feet of landscaping is not required because the 6 foot fence is there. r To avoid the chances of more unpleasant surprises, I will not continue the process of eliminating any property lines at my property at the 7300 block of W 44th Ave, UNTIL I receive, in writing, officially from the City of Wheat Ridge, the following assurances: Removing any or all of the property lines will not alter any of the following: or-1. Parking as it exists at 7337, 7393 7397 W 44th Ave and parking plans for the new development at 7331 W 44th Ave, 2. Landscaping as it exists at 7337, 7393, 7397 W 44th Ave and landscaping plans for the new development at 7331 W 44th Ave, O✓tj CdO4( 44 � 3 �lA #-L ✓r ro q �3. Not require screening of the present VAC roof mounts, 4. Will not adversely effect new and existing development at these properties. M n6UPILUVUH'PIUN eUtt VENIAL A reminder, I did volunteer to add some landscaping to the south- west cornor of 7397 W 44th Ave and added that such landscaping would be such that it would not interfere with presnt parking and parking access, present loading and unloading and loading and unloading access, and also not to interfere with handicap and pedestrian access. One Board member added a friendly amendment ... to my request for a partical waiver, to comply with the offer which I just described. My opinion, including those issues in the recommendation for Denial is a return to some reasons why the City of Wheat Ridge, hopefully in the past, had the reputation that developers should avoid the City of Wheat Ridge. That reputation is what many of us have worked very hard to be convincing that the City of Wheat Ridge should no longer have. I request and expect prompt action hat those 2 issues be eliminated so we may, without additional del ivy begin construction. Prompt action is a must because 1) weather soon will be a factor, and 2) more important price of materials will soon increase because of New Orleans. I am told the price increase will probably be.... substantial, incerel , erry Roach P S - Reference the FAX which I just received, case #3 on page64 is in error. As you will note the triangle which'. has available is on the southwest area of the plans of "y he new eve opment. However, in the letter to which you referred, I did volunteer to landscape at the southwest cornor of 7397 W 44th Ave, which the Northeast cornor of Vance and 44th Ave. I decsribed that offer in this letter, also. Thank you for that FAX. I will review more closely to see if I recognize any other errors. 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, CO Sept 26, 2005 City Of Wheat Ridge Planning Department Attn: Chet 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 SUBJECT: 6 FOOT LANDSCAPING BESIDE NORTH FENCE AT 7331 W 44 AVE First, I wish to thank all who participated in the Sept 22 meeting. Chet, based on the information which you had_ you presented my case very well and the board approved the waiver which I requested. Now, the 6 foot landscape in front of the 6 foot fence at the North side of my property. As you know, I was asked, at this meeting, who said and when was it said that both the 6 foot fence and the 6 foot landscaping is not required at the North end of my property. I responded that it is too bad my architect, Eric Scholz, is not here because he reminded me that both of us were told that at a meeting. The morning of Sept 23 I called Mr Scholz. He reminded me that when we met with Travis to review the notes made in red on the blueprints. Mr Scholz also reminded me that this was the same meet in which Travis told me the City is much more tough now, compared to when, by waiver, I was allowed to do the landscaping which is now in front of 7337 W 44th Ave. Travis went on to say because the City is more tough, I would not be granted the waiver. After the above mentioned meeting, I called the fire department to request a meeting with them and stated that I would bring with me a site plan which would allow more room for the fire equipment. The fire chief called me back to say we could meet the folloeing morning and that he invited Chad Root to be present at our meeting. We met that morning. Travis and Alan White also attended that meeting. The fire chief had no objections with my site plan. Since I knew what was acceptable with the fire Dept. I made a more detailed site plan and then called Travis to meet with him. We met and discussed my site plan and agreed that my architect should redo the site plan to reflect my drawing of the site plan. I left with Travis a copy of my drawing. There was a discrepancy with what I left with Travis, The drawing did not include the 6 foot landscaping beside the North fence, but my note which accounted for the total landscape square feet did include that landscaping. -2- After I received the revised site plan, done by the architect, I met with Travis. As was agreed, the site plan done by the architect did not include the 6 feet of landscaping beside the 6 foot fence to the North. Fortunately, the architect did not include the discrepancy which I did. I pointed out to Travis that architect surprised me with the planter at the Northeast cornor of the building. I told Travis that surprise was discussed with the architect and the architect and I agreed that 171 square feet for landscaping is available at the Southwest area of the proposed building and we would gain an additional 50 square feet of landscape area. Travis was pleased with that. The above mentioned meeting between Travis and myself was on Aug 15. After that meeting I wrote a check to the city for�'Y390.00 to be included with my application for the Sept 22 meeting with the Board of Adjustment. Between Aug 15 and Sept 21 when I recaived my notice of Denial, nobody contacted me to advise me that what Travis told both me and the architect was not correct. Enclosed is a photocopy The post mark is Sept 2 any sooner than the day me much time to be able said and 2) when was it of land scaping are not of the envelope used for my notice of Denial. ), which means I could not receive the Denial beforethe Board meeting. That did not give to tell the Board such details as 1) who said that BOTH the 6 foot fence and 6 feet required. To sum this all up, the following is my situation. Because both the architect and I were told, by Travis, that BOTH were not required I have a complete set of building plans to construct a building. Those plans would need to be changed using the services of the structural engineer who was done with his work on this project. It means more fees to the structural engineer to use his services again. The architect may need more fees, depending on how much more he is required to do. Therefore, this means more fees and loss of time. All of this to plan for a smaller building to accommodate 6 feet of landscape along a 70 foot fence. That landscaping would be sandwiched between a 6 foot tall fence and parked vechiles, where few would see the landscaping. This makes no sense, especially when now we are told we were adivsed incorrectly.X Should be able , <- tNoaT to proceed with my current building plans and without the 6 foot � lan , As you know, I am not against landscaping. I have ono that I provide more landscaping and beauty than most. You can appreciate why the architect requested to see, in writing what was discussed at our Sept 22 meeting. He and I were told one thing and now we are told NO. n � " / Jerry Roach 6545 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co Sept 22, 2005 City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 SUBJECT: SOME STATEMENTS ON PLANNING DIVISION REPORT ARE A MISSTATEMENT OF FACT #1 - Page 2, the #4 of your stated REQUEST. No requesx was made for #4 because the fence is a 6 foot view obscuringfence from the other side. The other side is where the view is to be obscured. I am surprised this was made an issue in this Report, as during one of my visits with Planning, and with the architect present, it was agreed that this fence is conforming. #2 - Top paragraph of page #3. I am surprised this is an issue in this Report. When I, in person, brought the architect's revised drawing, I made an issue that the architect surprised me with the planter protruding from the northeast cornor of this proposed building and stated the landscaping belongs in the area southwest of the proposed building where the architect stated 171 sq ft is available to landscape. That is when.staff could clearly see those three (3) parallel parking spaces which the architect indicated as 20 feet long. However no comment by staff about the 20 foot long parking spaces are not conforming. The comment made - we can make an issue of the correct place for the planter when we meet with the Board of Adjustment. Now I am surprised. It seems, with the load staff has, that comment was overlooked. Conclusion - To solve this problem perceived by staff, remove the architect's propos d planter at the northeast cornor, which has 121 sq ft, but add 71 sq ft of landscaping in the available southwest area; then,llllllwe'have plenty of space for three (3) parallel parking spaces which are 22 feet in length, each. #3 - Page 3, paragraph 2 Non conforming is not correct. It conforms with waiver granted in year 1981. I am surprised that it was stated that this was nonconforming when an issue was made of this waiver. #4 - Page 3, paragraph 6 Staff ?s comment about landscape buffer is not correct. See facts stated in #1 - fence is a conforming fence. yM #5 - Page 4, staff's answer to staff question #4 Applicant has created "own hardship." This is a retail business and view of front needs to be more open. We are still providing the required amount of landscaping. When, I the applicant, provide the flowers, at this site, as I do with my other properties, there will be more than the required landscaping. I am surprised an issue was made of this. At various meetings, I brought photos of other properties of mine, which show I landscape not only more than is required, but I landscape more than most. #6 - page 4, staff's answer to staff's #6 question. "Not result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood." With all of the efforts many of us in the City of Wheat .Ridge have made to promote good development and a better appearance to Wheat Ridge, I find the above statement by staff, a big surprise. Also, I am somewhat offended by that statement, especially since I provided. staff with various photos which showed staff the beauty I add to my properties. Many property owners do not do that. I volunteered to add some landscaping at the southwest cornor of 7397 W 44th Ave, which is identified as the northeast cornor of Vance and 44th Ave. I told staff I would be willing to remove some paving�o add landscaping. I also volunteered to,_• with a degital camera, take photos of the cornor of Vance and 44th Ave to help point ou+hat I would do there, Staff said they would do that for me. This offer of mine is missing for the staff report. That offer included, put thos(/ hotos on a disk for easy viewing. I do expect corrections to be made to the wrong information on the subject staff report. The good folks who volunteer their time to serve on the Board of Adjustment.need the correct information reference this site before they can make a decision reference my request for a partial waiver of land scape requirements to he front only. I say front only, as when corrections are m e, ado this report, it will be evident that all else is in compliance.' This subject request for partial waiver is the same request for waiver I.made and received in the year of 1981. The results of that waiver is in front of 7337 W 44th Ave, the adjacent property. As one can see, I have add more beauty to that landscaping. During one of my sessions with Planning, I stated I would make the same waiver request, as I did in 1981. The response I received from Planning was I would not received the waiver because they are more tough now. I was so surpeised with that anti - business comment, I contacted a city council person. That individual was not happy with the response I received. I request and wish for the same waiver which received in 1981. cerely,� Jerry oach 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 The City of Wheat Ridge 21 July 2005 Jerry Roach 6545 W. 40 Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 RE: Building Permit Review /7331 W. 44"' Ave. Dear Mr. Roach: I have completed my initial review of the building permit application for the property located at 7331 W. 44 Ave., and I have the following comments: 1. The front yard setback is shown at a distance of 32.75 feet from the southern property line. The Code of Laws states that in the Restricted Commercial zone district, the minimum required front yard setback shall be 50 feet. However, this property is located in a `mixed -use' area, as designated by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. The Manual allows for reduced setbacks in the designated mixed use areas, as decided upon by the Community Development Director. Therefore, the reduced front yard setback of 32.75 feet is acceptable in this location. 2. A zero -foot side yard (west) setback is allowed, provided that the building is constructed with non - flammable materials, in accordance with the applicable building code. 3. Parking stalls 8 -11 must be a minimum of 19 feet in length. 4. Parking stall 11 must have a minimum 8 foot handicap access aisle, per ADA standards. 5. Parking stalls 12 and 13 must be a minimum of 22 feet in length. 6. The new curb cut on West 44` Avenue must be a minimum of 20 feet in width, and located at least 25 feet from the eastern property line. 7. The northern property line contains a landscape buffer of 1.25 feet. This buffer must be a minimum of 6 feet, complete with a six foot high fence. 8. Please add a landscape data table which describes the type, size, and quantity of the landscape species and groundcover. Please be aware that street trees must be a minimum of three inch caliper, additional trees must be at least 2 inch caliper for deciduous trees and 6 feet in height for evergreen trees. All shrubs must be a minimum of 5 gallon buckets. If any rock is proposed, it must be a minimum of 1 -2 inches in size and 3 inches depth over a weed barrier. I have included an example of a landscape data table for your reference. 9. Based upon a required landscape area of 2,421.4 square feet, 3 trees and 25 shrubs are required. Additionally, 3 street trees are required. 10. Please be aware that a maximum of thirty percent of the groundcover may be comprised of turf. The use of low -water demand turf is encouraged. 11. Please label all landscape species and groundcover on page A1.0. 12. A large portion of landscaping adjacent to W. 44 Avenue is located within the right -of- way. This landscaping may not count towards onsite landscaping. This includes the Jerry Roach 7331 W. 44" Ave. required street trees. 13. The ten foot landscape buffer adjacent to W. 44 Avenue must be located entirely onsite. 14. The southern building elevation should match the existing building. 15. The use of plain C.M.U. is strongly discouraged in the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. If the split face C.M.U. is to remain, it should_extend much higher on the fagade. The more visible elevations, such as the southern and eastern, should have a higher quality of materials and should create a strong visual interest. For example, some pilasters of brick and strong accents should be incorporated into the elevations. The eastern elevation should contain a continuation of the materials used on the southern elevation. 16. The canopies to be installed should be of a more permanent material, not of canvas. 17. Any signage or fencing will require a separate building permit. 18. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from view. 19. If a trash enclosure is planned, it must be fully enclosed with a solid six -foot enclosure. Please make the required corrections prior to the next submittal. If you have questions regarding these comments, please feel free to give me a call. I can be reached at 303.235.2849. Sincerely, Travis R. Crane Planner Jerry Roach 7331 W. 44 Ave.