HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-00-02INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER r ui i i o
Council Bill No. 14-2000 RECEPTION HO. P1riE,' oa.t
Ordinance No. 1193 6/09J2000 13:26:02 PG: 001-002
PAGE FEE: 10.00 DOC.FEE: 0.00
Series of 2000 RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORAD
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF
1J
(
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26-25 (IV)(B)(2)(b) OF ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF
JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO (ZOA-00-02)
WHEREAS, Section 26-25 (IV)(B)(2)(b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains
regulations pertaining to minimum lot size requirements for Planned Commercial Distrists, and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the
Wheat Ridge Planning Commission
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 26-25 (IV)(B)(2)(b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby
amended as follows:
Section 26-25 Planned Development Districts
(ITWB)(?)(b) Area Each Planned C'onimercial Development District shall fx-crnrHrimE *
one (1) acN-e have no minimum lot area requirement.
Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this
Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is
promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the
preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare The City
Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object
sought to be attained.
Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph. or part of this Zoning Code or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of
competent jurisdiction invalid, suchjudgment shall not affect application to other persons or
circumstances.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after final
publication.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on
this 8th day of May , 2000. ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for
May 99 2000, at 7.00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue,
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
r
RECEPTION ND. P'9.Or,')0Ih
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of
7 to nthis 22ndday of May .2000
SIGNED by the Mayor on t
ATTEST
Wanda Sang, City Clerk
I st Publication. May 12, 2000
2nd Publication. May 26, 2000
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date June 10, 2000
C diarbara~C'CRPrS',RESO-ORD\zaa0002ord.wpd
h ;S2 3 day of May , 2000
~l
TCHEN A OR
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY
GE LD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY
Ordinance No Page 2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: May 22, 2000 Page - 2 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
Item 1. Council Bill 13-2000 - An Ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of laws
concerning the definition of criminal menacing.
Council Bill 13-2000 was introduced on second reading by Mrs. Worth, who also read the title
and summary; Clerk assigned Ordinance No. 1192.
Motion by Mrs. Worth to approve Council Bill 13-2000 (Ordinance 1192); seconded by Mrs.
Shaver; carried 7-0.
Item 2. Council Bill 14-2000 - An Ordinance providing for the approval of amendments to
Section 26-25 (IV)(B)(2)(b) of Zoning Ordinance for the City of Wheat Ridge,
County of Jefferson, State of Colorado.
(Case No. ZOA-00-02)
Council Bill 14-2000 was introduced on second reading by Mr. DiTullio, who read the title and
summary; Clerk assigned Ordinance No. 1193.
Motion by Mr. DiTullio that Council Bill 14-2000 (Ordinance 1193) be approved on second
reading; seconded by Mr. Edwards; carried 7-0.
Item 3. Council Bill 12-2000 - An Ordinance providing for the approval of a rezoning from
Restricted-Commercial and Commercial-One to Commercial-One for property
located at 9709 West 44'' Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson,
State of Colorado.
(Case No. WZ-00-01)
Council Bill 12-2000 was introduced on second reading by Mr. Hanley, who read the title and
summary; Clerk assigned Ordinance No. 1194.
Applicant, Marty Wineland, was sworn in by the Mayor; stated that he and his partners want to
repair antique motorcycles in that building but need the rezoning before they are able to do
that.
Alan White was sworn in by the Mayor and presented the staff report.
Agenda Item:
Meeting Date: May 22, 2000
Ordinance/Motion: Ordinance
Quasi-Judicial: No
SUBJECT: Minimum Size Requirement for Planned Commercial Developments
RECOMMENDATION: Approval on Second Reading
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Currently the zoning code requires all planned
developments to be a minimum of one acre in size. The
proposed ordinance deletes the minimum size requirement
for planned commercial developments. All other planned
developments retain the one acre minimum requirement.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the
ordinance at a public hearing on April 20, 2000.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Minutes
2. Planning Commission Staff Report
3. Council Bill N- dl- o
DATE OF FIRST READING: May 8, 2000
DATE OF SECOND READING: May 22, 2000
ORIGINATED BY: Alan White
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Alan White
SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move that Council Bill No. 114- , amending Zoning Ordinance Section
26-25 (I7V)(B)(2)(b) to delete the minimum lot requirement necessary to obtain
a zoning designation of Planned Commercial District be approved.
C:\MyFiles\WPFiles\CODE\pcdchange-cc2.wpd
2) Upon request of the City, the area marked as reserved for future right-of-way be
dedicated by applicant to the City.
3) The city attorney will approve the language and/or documents required by the
zoning ordinance requirement for unified control.
The motion passed 8-0.
B. Case No. ZOA-00-02: An application filed by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend
Zoning Ordinance Section 26-25 (IV)(B)(2)(b) to delete the minimum lot requirement
necessary to obtain a zoning designation of Planned Commercial District (PCD).
The case was presented by Alan White. He reviewed the staff report which recommended
approval of an ordinance which would eliminate the one-acre minimum lot size.
Commissioner SNOW stated that she would like to see a requirement for site plans. She also
referred to page 1748.2 and suggested there should be a provision to allow a requirement for
larger setbacks. Mr. White stated he would take her recommendation forward to City Council
after discussing the matter with the city attorney.
Commissioner GOKEY expressed concern that such a requirement could make the city more
vulnerable to litigation.
Commissioners THOMPSON and COLLINS felt the city should have some flexibility to place
controls, especially in light of the many infrll situations that exist in the city.
It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON
that the city attorney be consulted regarding the one-subject rule to determine if these
additional requirements can be included in the ordinance and, if allowed, that it come
forward on the planned commercial district. If it is determined that the requirements
should be split up, or if the city attorney recommends that the change in language for
additional power to the city really should be in a separate ordinance then the ordinance
should include similar language in all three districts. If, in the meantime, Commission
members have other specific suggestions, they should contact Alan White.
The motion passed 8-0.
8. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair MACDOUGALL declared the public hearing closed.
9. OLD BUSINESS
Planning Commission Page 4
April 20, 2000
City of Wheat Ridge
Planning and Development Department
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Alan C. White, Planning and Development DirectorGu~
SUBJECT: ZOA-00-02: Planned Commercial Development Code Change
DATE: April 12, 2000
History:
On March 24, 2000, the City Affairs Committee discussed the issue of eliminating the one acre minimum
lot size requirement for Planned Commercial Districts. During this meeting, staff was directed to initiate
a change to the Zoning Ordinance Section 26-25 (IV)(B)(2)(b).
As you know, the planned development process essentially customizes the permitted uses and
development standards for a piece of property. It allows flexibility for the applicant, but provides the City
with the opportunity to restrict uses and create more strict development standards, including design and
architectural standards. This ability is critical for in-fill situations. We see it especially useful in
commercial areas along 38th and 44`h Avenues where ownership is fragmented and assemblage for a large
project would be almost impossible. Planned Commercial Districts allow a mixture of land uses on a
piece of property and gives us the ability to require more screening, more landscaping, or no parking
adjacent to residential uses.
It is difficult to quantify how many additional PCD's might arise with the elimination of a minimum lot
size requirement. It is likely there will be additional requests for rezoning properties for commercial uses
along the major road corridors. Except in a few instances, most of these requests will involve small
properties. Most of the corridors are already zoned one of the various commercial districts and the
Comprehensive Plan calls for some of the commercial strips to shrink while others to remain. Rezoning
applications would likely include requests for existing RC-1 or RC properties to be zoned at a higher
district in order to expand the allowable retail sales uses. In such instances, the PCD option is much better
than straight C-1 or C-2 zoning.
There are no minimum size requirements for any of the commercial zone districts. In other words,
someone can apply to rezone a 5,000 square foot lot to C-1. What can be done on that lot is a function of
setbacks, landscaping requirements, and parking requirements. The feasibility of rezoning to PCD or any
other commercial zone district for that matter, will be dependent upon setback, landscaping and parking
requirements. By default, a minimum size will be determined based upon the size of the proposed use.
The key is that the City retains the authority to approve or deny the rezoning to PCD.
Recommendation:
Because the PCD zone designation gives the City greater flexibility and development control, I would
recommend that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the attached ordinance
amending Zoning Ordinance Section 26-25 (IV)(B)(2)(b), eliminating the one acre minimum lot size
requirement.
C \Barbma\PCRPTS\zoa0002mport.wpd
F tJHEAT
r
N;m
CO<ORP00
Agenda Item:
Meeting Date:
Ordinance/Motion
Quasi-Judicial:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 8, 2000
Ordinance
No
SUBJECT: Minimum Size Requirement for Planned Commercial Developments
RECOMMENDATION: Approval on First Reading
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Currently the zoning code requires all planned
developments to be a minimum of one acre in size. The
proposed ordinance deletes the minimum size requirement
for planned commercial developments. All other planned
developments retain the one acre minimum requirement.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the
ordinance at a public hearing on April 20, 2000.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report
2. Council Bill
DATE OF FIRST READING: May 8, 2000
DATE OF SECOND READING: May 22, 2000
ORIGINATED BY: Alan White
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Alan White
SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill No. on first reading, ordered
published, public hearing to be set for Monday, May 22, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in
city Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second
reading, take effect 15 days after final publication."
C:\MyFiles\ W PFiles\CODE\pcdchange-ce.wpd
Q ~lHEAT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
COCORA00
Agenda Item:
Meeting Date: May 8, 2000
O rdinance/Motion: Ordinance
Quasi-Judicial: No
SUBJECT: Minimum Size Requirement for Planned Commercial Developments
RECOMMENDATION: Approval on First Reading
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Currently the zoning code requires all planned
developments to be a minimum of one acre in size. The
proposed ordinance deletes the minimum size requirement
for planned commercial developments. All other planned
developments retain the one acre minimum requirement.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the
ordinance at a public hearing on April 20, 2000.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Minutes
2. Planning Commission Staff Report
3. Council Bill
DATE OF FIRST READING: May 8, 2000
DATE OF SECOND READING: May 22, 2000
ORIGINATED BY: Alan White
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Alan White
SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill No. on first reading, ordered
published, public hearing to be set for Monday, May 22, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in
city Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second
reading, take effect 15 days after final publication."
Q\MyFiles\ WPFiles\CODE\pcdchange-ec.wpd
2) Upon request of the City, the area marked as reserved for future right-of-way be
dedicated by applicant to the City.
3) The city attorney will approve the language and/or documents required by the
zoning ordinance requirement for unified control.
The motion passed 8-0.
B. Case No. ZOA-00-02: An application filed by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend
Zoning Ordinance Section 26-25 (IV)(B)(2)(b) to delete the minimum lot requirement
necessary to obtain a zoning designation of Planned Commercial District (PCD).
The case was presented by Alan White. He reviewed the staff report which recommended
approval of an ordinance which would eliminate the one-acre minimum lot size.
Commissioner SNOW stated that she would like to see a requirement for site plans. She also
referred to page 1748.2 and suggested there should be a provision to allow a requirement for
larger setbacks. Mr. White stated he would take her recommendation forward to City Council
after discussing the matter with the city attorney.
Commissioner GOKEY expressed concern that such a requirement could make the city more
vulnerable to litigation.
Commissioners THOMPSON and COLLINS felt the city should have some flexibility to place
controls, especially in light of the many infill situations that exist in the city.
It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON
that the city attorney be consulted regarding the one-subject rule to determine if these
additional requirements can be included in the ordinance and, if allowed, that it come
forward on the planned commercial district. If it is determined that the requirements
should be split up, or if the city attorney recommends that the change in language for
additional power to the city really should be in a separate ordinance then the ordinance
should include similar language in all three districts. If, in the meantime, Commission
members have other specific suggestions, they should contact Alan White.
The motion sassed 8-0.
8. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair MACDOUGALL declared the public hearing closed.
9. OLD BUSINESS
Planning Commission Page 4
April 20, 2000
City of Wheat Ridge
Planning and Development Department
Memorandum
TO: Valerie Adams, City Manager
FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director ^
SUBJECT: Planned Development Code Change
DATE: March 24, 2000
oU
OF WHEAT
P
U m
0OC pR Ado
The City Affairs Committee has directed staff to initiate a change to the zoning code to lower the
minimum size parcel required for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development. The current
requirement is that a parcel must be one acre in size to be eligible for rezoning to any planned
development district, including residential,, commercial, or industrial.
You requested that we analyze this proposed change. Attached is a zoning map with the current
PCDs indicated in black. We have not indicated any other type of planned development on the
map.
As you know, the planned development process essentially customizes the permitted uses and
development standards for a piece of property. It allows flexibility for the applicant, but
provides the City the opportunity to restrict uses and create more strict development standards,
including design and architectural standards. This ability is critical in infill situations. We see it
especially useful in commercial areas along 38" and 44`h Avenues where ownership is
fragmented and assemblage for a large project would be next to impossible. PCD allows a mix
of land uses on a piece of property and gives us the ability to require more screening, more
landscaping, or no parking adjacent to residential uses.
It is difficult to quantify how many additional PCDs there might be with a reduction in the
minimum size requirement. It is likely there will be additional requests for rezoning properties
for commercial uses along the major road corridors. Except in a few instances, most of these
requests will involve small properties. Most of the corridors are already zoned one of the
commercial districts and the Comprehensive Plan calls for some of the commercial strips to
shrink and others to remain. Rezonings would likely include requests to rezone existing RC-1 or
RC properties to a higher district to expand the allowable retail sales uses. In such instances, the
PCD option is much better than C-1 or C-2.
Two issues need to be decided: 1) the minimum size requirement and 2) should the minimum
size requirement be extended to other types of planned developments (PRDs, PIDs)? here are
no minimum size requirements for any of the commercial zone districts. In other words,
someone can apply to rezone a 5,000 square foot lot to C-1. What can be done on that lot is a
function of setbacks, landscaping requirements, and parking requirements.
Any minimum size requirement can be expressed as either a portion of an acre or square feet.
Below is a list of acreage and square foot equivalents:
1/2 acre
21,780 s.f.
1/3 acre
14,518.5 s.f.
1/4 acre
10,890 s.f.
115 acre
8,712 s.f.
A parcel below 10,000 square feet seems too small to consider for a rezone to PCD, but it can be
considered for a rezone to RC-1, RC or C-1. Should there be a minimum size for a PCD if there
isn't one for any other commercial district? If variances to the minimum size can be requested, it
doesn't make much sense to have a minimum size requirement.
There are minimum lot size requirements for the residential zone districts which, in turn,
determine a minimum size of a rezoning request based upon the number of lots being requested.
There should be a minimum requirement for a PRD and one acre is appropriate.
All industrial rezonings must be to PID (no additional rezonings to I are permitted). There
probably shouldn't be any industrial uses on lots less than an acre in size. The one acre
minimum requirement for a PID is appropriate.
Recommendations:
Keep the minimum acreage requirement for rezoning to PRD and PID at one acre. Delete the
minimum one acre requirement for rezoning to PCD._ The-feasibility of rezoning to PCD, or any
other commercial zone district for that matter, will be dependent upon setback, landscaping and
parking requirements. By default, a minimum size will be determined based upon the size of the
proposed use. The key is that the City retains the authority to approve or deny the rezoning to
PCD.
C: W yFiles\ W PFf les\CODF\pdchanges.wrd.
fa~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge
PLANNING COMMISSION on April 20, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of
the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested
citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following
petitions shall be heard:
Case No. ZOA-00-02: a request to amend Zoning Ordinance Section 26-25 (IV) (B) (2)
(b) to delete the minimum lot size requirement necessary to obtain a zoning designation
of Planned Commercial District (PCD).
XJli t,GYc~tG~. VJ-~X~1
Barbara Delgadillo, Se for Secretary
ATTEST:
Wanda Sang, City Cl
To be Published: April 14, 2000
Wheat Ridge Transcript
C:\Barban\PCRPTSPLANGCOM\PUBHRG1000420pub#2.wpd
City Affairs Meeting
April 3, 2000
Attendance: Council members, Jerry DiTullio, Ken Siler, Odarka Figlus; absent, Claudia Worth.
Other attendees: Mayor Cerveny, Valerie D. Adams, City Manager, City Clerk, Wanda Sang and
Alan White, Planning Director.
6:00 p..m. Mr. Loecher.
Start time: 5:45 p.m.
CHANGES TO ZONING CODE REGARDING PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT, CTCD")
Discussion ensued concerning Planned Commercial Development, (PCD). Recommend that the
requirements for PCD one acre minimum be eliminated. (Memo, Planning Director, March 24,
2000)
Councilman Ken Siler inquired about the current code requirements for PCD. The Planning
Director explained the reasons for the requested change. This change does not require a property
owner to do PCD, it just gives property owners options.
This change is being recommended because it gives the property owner options to do a more
quality development that it will work on a piece of property that has some size and geographical
challenges. PCD zoning allows the staff to write the requirements based upon the development
and not be held to restrictions that would make the development hard to do.
Questions were raised concerning the property owners rights to ask for a variance, instead of
changing the PCD size requirements. The Planning Director acknowledged that this is an option,
but the proposed change to PCD zoning would better serve the property owner to ensure that
their development would be built to fit the unique circumstances of the property and land use.
There was some discussion concerning the difference between certain types of zoning # PCP.
Other zoning classifications have certain restrictions, where PCD allows the property oWper to.
work with the property based upon the type of development and uses.
Council member Figlus asked for a consensus to request that staff prepare the changes to PCD
zoning, as recommended in the memo; send the changes to Planning Commission and back to
Council as soon as possible. Vote was 3 in favor, l absent.
6:10 p.m. Council member Siler moved for adjournment, seconded by Council member Figlus,
unanimously approved by voice vote.
0
C) 0 0 0 0 0 6° 0 0 °O 0 0 0 0 0° O °O 0 0 °O O O 0 0 0 0 0° O O O° O O 'D 0° 0° O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0
CD 0 0 0 00 0 0 ° o 0 0° 0
, 0 0 O O 0
N O O O°` N N .°0 O N O 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 ' c0 r °p 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 to 6 0 0, a0 0
O CD Cl O O Q 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 ,0 Ul ° O 0 0 0 0 0 N 'r n a, Q C) co d) T cn Rl N - N_ N N O` _ N V m N_- d) N 0 0 O O 0 0~` 6` 0' m 0 Q co m r r r r r r r O .~0 `°ro 'D NC .D T co r • N
N 0 0 0 0 0 V' d) `n
111 n N n
fl Ifl In Jl n
Q (c)
D cs p I I I Z In D 2 m
N W O O ~ r `n Z Z O 0 O t- F O - p LY D IS) cl N Z
W= z C) ~ w N F z w kn ~ a z w a o 0 o w z z 'n (Y F Z O~ 3 3 F w ~ m w Z< N z z z < cl_
< w w
LS) Z Z z °z OZ < Z ° LL m m w¢ a w 3 O C) O 3 w? _ ~sl UJ r¢ oz 0 w p W p fy w E S) U Q y m Z = w< N 3 0z r< < H d¢ O
z« O w w LY < z« 3 N 2 O O a D- O O Z Z f w y y w n O LD LL i W woo OU U IN m<< N>- r 3 3> d Fw- 'n sY O p, O Z E J Q? = tD U- w U m< i=n
< NN r X X 3 3>> F- F- N fY
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ PCD ZONING
Fl
uNINCORP
JEFFCO
PID
A-2
m I 1 PN PO - UI
kl GI Ml wax GI
PC h
PD s PID 42 Pm PIP m GI LI w PIO
P®
M2
A-I
aan nYE
w
1
ai
P®
`
p✓°
PP
PD
Y
~
PID
e
y ~
I
A•I
PC
PIP
som nrF
A-I
z
A-I
UNINCOR
JEFFCO
M2 n
o-1
LAKEW000
A-I
~MI F
A-I
w R•x
l R ~1
7 MI ID Llpp
J ~ 61 FI I amore I
~R~n,R-2 ne
W.52ND AVE
ILI ARVADA
N' W.48TH AVE
i
ao
Iff LAKE RHODA
.J 41 _ G mev J.,_,x nve t- GI '~-J 41 ° G~ % .ry"~ MnfN' YJ: 5
» 1 6 G GI _ ~ GI 4 GI RC GI° W.- ~ R4 y 1 LL> LI
A-I~° _ s Pm lo-l O "wl ga mUU z rac u~ GI r'~_ W.44TH AVE
A-I G R 33 .I GI ~fI~ w I
~~Iix R{ y2 E FBI 5 ~ ~ ~ uuj , R-2 a E3 ~ 0. ° ~ ~ I u ~'r ~
~
rl x Ra l'~ 42-__'~4,~ 3 i 61 ~N~ °,3 MOUNTAINVIEW
W.415T AVE
R -
sr>e IA1 IB HD G, R-1 ry'ry V t w s D Y d W uaNi RI L3 D.y 4 i'
m+0. W ~ x FI sam nre S ~ R-I r ~0 % aY ~P ~ GI QiCm vE &9 w ue O 3 .M1~ ~ ~ ~
o-l N R-i R.C GII
°rimm NI - Rm k 2~ s x n `Y P - 41 RC ui ES
LLLYYY II II _
W.38TH AVE
R-S GI >'im J>~it A. ` >'ml eve ~ LI ~ x r R{ ' - ~ x U » GI I
0 2 Ixl a sc P• ° w ~i1nCn .4-IC
/ x G w ~ alm 1t r!3)M 'n G m 'y FW n
xm n ~ ~ w R-I Pp0 .W, B° x ~ R& nr p l t n ,
~ 41 ~ wmm: ~ t ~ ~ IIU VGS ~ ` ~ ~ w A 1[
PHD Rs r O m LJLJ W,35TH AVE
62, R-IC »
w
>sm nre 6A,,m a . ,~M e» w 4 ° w, Ra l 4 - w ,}M4 a Ms, 1 i w R•1 n 0
&I Nord _2."~~' a
~ ~ ~.3 ^ `AI N, . ~~1 V ~Yl ~~O °ra~ . mx 9~
v ~ G
PRJ W.32ND AVE
I.AKHNOOD =~~si nr - -I ® R-I ~ u~ ~ Ic °
CIT) OF WHEAT 0GE SP;
14.29TH AVE I
ZONING MA Ro• ¢I ^
y
4 xuzr.~m a ~ Ri9 ~~4 ~ G
w~em na ` GI fee ~ ~ ~ N W.26TH AVE
Last Date Modified: February 9, 1999
Case No.: FoA0002 I Quarter Section Map No.: '
App: Last Name: _ ity of Wheat Ridge Related. Cases: None.
App: First Name: Case History: mend Zoning Ord.
Owner: Last Name: o Section delete 26 the e minimum muum lot
m lot ,
Owner: First Name: size requirement
App Address:- Review Body: PC 4-20-00_
City, State Zip:
App: Phone: 303-235.2844 APN:~
Owner Address: I 2nd Review Body: City Council_
City/State/Zip: 2nd Review Date: 51812000. _
Owner Phone: ! Decision-making Body: City Council
Project Address: Approval/Denial Date: prd ue c(
5122/2000
Street Name:
_
City/State, Zip: Reso/Ordinance No.: ~N_ V
Case Disposition: I Conditions of Approval:
'
Project Planner. hite District: l _
File Location: yse~ L.iAScO Date Received: /4/2000
Notes:
Follow-Up: Pre-App Date: t-