Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-98-167500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 FAX 303/234-5924 June 26, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. Bunger 6900 West 38' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: WA-98-16 Dear Mr./Mrs. Bunger: Ridge Please be advised that at its meeting of June 25, 1998, the Board of Adjustment APPROVED your request for a two foot fence height variance to the four foot maximum requirement to allow a six foot fence in the front yard of the property located at 6900 West 38' Avenue. Attached is a copy of the Certificate of Resolution stating the Board's decision which became effective the date of the meeting, (June 25, 1998). Should you decide to appeal the decision of the Board, you will need to notify the Jefferson County district court in writing within 30 days of the Board's decision. Please feel free to contact me at 235-2846 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Barbara Delgadillo Planning and Development Secretary /bd cc: WA-98-16 C dBubua\Certifieds\wa9816.wpd CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION I, Ann Lazzeri, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, on the 25th day of June, 1998. CASE NO: WA-98-16 APPLICANT'S NAME: Brad and Marcia Bunger LOCATION: 6900 West 38th Avenue Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT, seconded by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-98-16 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the required fifteen days by law and there were no protests registered against it; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98-16 be, and hereby is, approved. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A request for approval of a two-foot fence height variance to the four-foot maximum fence height requirement to allow a six-foot fence in the font yard. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: Although the property is located approximately 200 feet from the nearest public right-of-way, the northern property line is still considered the front lot line and therefore must abide by the front yard requirements. 2. Because the property is a flag lot and located approximately 200 feet from the nearest public right-of-way, approval of this request should not alter the essential character of the locality as the proposed six-foot privacy fence will resemble that of a six-foot fence located on Marc's Restaurant rear property line. Also, this type of variance is common with other flag lots located within the City. Case No. WA-98-16/Board of Adjustment Resolution Page (2) The physical hardship in this situation would be the topographical difference between adjacent property to the north and said property. Due to the higher setting of the residential structure, the applicant is more apt to hear and view the undesirable situations not normally attributed to a single family neighborhood. The effect of the height differential was clearly illustrated by the photos provided by the applicant. 4. Approval of this request should not be a detriment to the public welfare or injurious to any public improvements in that the six-foot fence would be located along the front lot line of a flag lot which has the same physical attributes as a regular rear lot line. The fence would be located approximately 200 feet from the nearest right-of way and therefore should not hinder the visibility of motorists or pedestrians. An existing code-compliant six-foot chain link fence now occurs owned by the adjacent commercial property and, therefore, there will be no change to the current fence height. VOTE: Yes: Abbott, Echelmeyer, Howard, Hovland, Junker, Mauro and Walker No: None Absent: Thiessen DISPOSITION: A request for approval of a two-foot fence height variance to the four-foot maximum fence height requirement to allow a six-foot fence in the font yard was approved by a vote of 7-0. ADOPTED and made effective this 25th day of June, 1998. A MAURO, Chairman Ann Lazzeri, Secretary of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Board Member HOVLAND commented that while the mountain views would be desirable, there will be homes constructed in the area which will be much taller and that he agreed the criteria do not support approval of the request. The motion failed by a vote of four in favor and 3 opposed, with Board Member THIESSEN absent. Board Members ABBOTT, HOVLAND and WALKER voted no. Chair MAURO advised the applicant that the request had been denied. C. -Case No. WA-98-16:- This:,case, an application by Brad and Marcia Bunger for a two- foot fence height variance to the four-foot maximum fence height allowing a six-foot fence for R-3 property located at 6900 West 38th Avenue, was presented by Alan White. He informed that, while the property has a 38th Avenue address, the property is located 200 feet south of 38th Avenue directly behind Marc's Restaurant. Mr. White entered the zoning ordinance, case file, packet material and exhibits into the record and informed that the property was within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements had been met and there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He informed that the staff had not received any opposition to the request. Mr. White presented slides of the subject property. He pointed out that there was secondary access to the property; however, the primary access was from 38th Avenue. He informed that regulations state that if there is a flag lot with an easement extending from the north property line to 38th Avenue, the lot line parallel to the street from which access is gained is considered the front, property line and six-foot fences are not allowed along front property lines. He stated the applicants are requesting the variance to provide an adequate barrier between their home and the adjacent commercial establishment (Marc's restaurant), and stated that a six-foot chain link fence already exists along the back lot line of Marc's restaurant. Mr. White reviewed the criteria used to evaluate a variance request. He corrected variance criteria no. 5 to read: "No" instead of "Yes" in response to the question that asks if the conditions of the request are applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. He informed that it was staff s conclusion the criteria support approval of the request because of the incompatible nature of the existing land uses and from the strict definition of a front lot line on a flag lot. At this time, the applicants addressed the Board. Marcia Bunger 6900 West 38th Avenue Board of Adjustment Pale 9 06/25/98 Ms. Bunger was sworn by Chair MAURO. She entered photographs depicting additional views of the fencing situation on the subject property into the record. She stated that even though the restaurant takes very good care of their property, the applicant's front yard overlooks the back of Marc's Restaurant along with the dumpster, refrigerator trucks, etc. She stated that an opaque fence would also help to buffer noise emanating from the business. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the applicant would consider a tapered fence. Ms. Bunger replied that they had considered that option. Brad Bunger 6900 West 38th Avenue Mr. Bunger was sworn by Chair MAURO. He stated that, if the variance were granted, they planned to build a six-foot wooden fence that would be no higher than the existing six-foot chain link behind the restaurant. He asked why the restaurant could erect a six- foot fence. Board Member ECHELMEYER explained that the existing chain link is at the rear of the restaurant property which is according to code. Board Member HOVLAND asked the applicants if they had approached the owners of Marc's Restaurant about possibly replacing the chain link fence with an opaque fence. Ms. Bunger replied that she felt it would not be right for the restaurant to pay for it. Board Member WALKER suggested the possibility of asking the restaurant owner to opaque the chain link fence at the applicant's expense. Ms. Bunger replied that she felt this would put the fence ownership in question. Further discussion followed. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-98-16 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment Page 10 06/25/98 Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 98-16 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A request for approval of a two-foot fence height variance to the four-foot maximum fence height requirement to allow a six-foot fence in the front yard. For the Following Reasons: Although the property is located approximately 200 feet from the nearest public right-of-way, the northern property line is still considered the front lot line and therefore must abide by the front yard requirements. 2. Because the property is a flag lot and located approximately 200 feet from the nearest public right-of-way, approval of this request should not alter the essential character of the locality as the proposed six-foot privacy fence will resemble that of a six-foot fence located on Marc's Restaurant rear property line. Also, this type of variance is common with other flag lots located within the City. 3. The physical hardship in this situation would be the topographical difference between adjacent property to the north and said property. Due to the higher setting of the residential structure, the applicant is more apt to hear and view the undesirable situations not normally attributed to a single family neighborhood. The effect of the height differential was clearly illustrated by the photos provided by the applicant. 4. Approval of this request should not be a detriment to the public welfare or injurious to any public improvements in that the six-foot fence would be located along the front lot line of a flag lot which has the same physical attributes as a regular rear lot line. The fence would be located approximately 200 feet from the nearest right-of way and therefore should not hinder the visibility of motorists or pedestrians. An existing code-compliant six-foot chain link fence now occurs owned by the adjacent commercial property and, therefore, there will be no change to the current fence height. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0, with Board Member THIESSEN absent. Chair MAURO advised the applicants that the request had been approved. D. Case No. WA-98-17: The case, an application by Lorraine Brown for approval of a variance to Section 26-30 Q to allow a 2' x 2' home business freestanding sign for a Board of Adjustment Page 11 06/25/98 PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST Case No. zo /q F 9'-/ (o Request: Ale140 /J/r42c/~9 /~~1.U Date: ~ - v-~ S - / 9" (s2 FDA FIF .)C c He /G NT l~ ~I e rf hA/c r D Lei c s 3 t~~ (please print) Speaker Name Address/Phone WctiJa~ t In Favor Opposed { 111 I~ es L CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: June 25, 1998 DATE PREPARED: June 1, 1998 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-98-16/ Bunger CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 2' fence height variance to the 4' maximum fence height requirement to allow a 6' fence in the front yard. LOCATION OF REQUEST: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER: 6900 West 38"' Avenue Brad and Marcia Bunger 6900 West 38"' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Same APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: DATE PUBLISHED: DATE POSTED: 1.49 acres Residential-Three Single-family N: Commercial-One; S:, E:, Residential- Three, and W: Restricted-Commercial One N: Restaurant (commercial), S: and E: Single-family residential and W: Multi- family residential Low Density Residential June 5, 1998 June 11, 1998 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: June 3, 1998 ENTER INTO RECORD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAL (X) ZONING ORDINANCE O SLIDES O SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS O OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 2' fence height variance to the 4' maximum fence height requirement to allow a 6fence in the front yard. This request is in response to the visual and noise nuisance the applicant says they endure from Marc's restaurant, which is located on the adjacent property to the north. Due to the physical layout of the property, the applicant's home is located behind and above the adjacent restaurant and feels the single- family character of the property has been adversly impacted (the applicant's property is approximately 4' higher than the property to the north). The applicant believes the construction of the screening fence will provide an adequate barrier between her home and the adjacent commercial establishment. Pursuant to Section 26-30(I)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, opaque fences above 4' in height, are prohibited within a minimum required front yard. Although the property is located approximately 200' from West 38' Avenue, the northernmost property line is still considered the front lot line. Pursuant to Section 26-5, of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, a property whose front lot line does not abut a public street is known as a "flag lot." The front lot line of a flag lot is that property line most parallel to the street from which access is gained. In this case, the property line which abuts the rear yard of Marc's Restaurant would be the front lot line. To date, staff has not received any oppositions to this request. II SITE PLAN As previously stated, the property in question is located at 6900 West 38' Avenue, just behind Marc's Restaurant. According to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, this property is referred to as a "flag lot" (see above definition). The property is a relatively square lot, measuring approximately 200'x 258'. Although there aren't any dramatic topographic features attributed to this site, the northernmost property line does have a 4' elevation differential (higher) between the property to the north (Marc's) and said property. There is an alternative access to West 37' Avenue, located on the southwest portion of the property. The applicant has stated that they use this as a secondary access. III VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? Yes. If denied, the property may continue to be used as a single-family residential dwelling. However, due to the existing non-compatible land use (single-family residential adjacent to commercial establishment), the market value of the property could be deflated without adequate screening. 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No. There are other properties throughout the city which are located near commercial establishments. However, due to the elevation differential of the properties, the single-family residence is located higher than the commercial property, therefore exposing the property to more sights and sounds than the normal lot. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. Because the property is a flag lot and located approximately 200' from the nearest right-of- way, approval of this request should not alter the essential character of the locality as the proposed 6' privacy fence will resemble that of a 6' privacy fence located on Marc's rear property line. Also, this type of variance is common with other flag lots located throughout the city. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? Yes. The physical hardship in this situation would be the topographical differential between the adjacent property to the north and said property. Due to the higher setting of the residential structure, the applicant is more apt in hearing and viewing more of the undesirable situations not normally attributed with a single-family neighborhood. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? Yes. All applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis thereby changing the outcome for each request. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property No. The sole purpose of the request is to allow for more privacy from the adjacent commercial establishment. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? No. Although the applicant has interest in the property, the hardship has been established through an existing incompatible land use. 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? No. Approval of this request should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to any property improvements in that the 6' fence will be located on the front lot line of a flag lot, which has the same physical attributes as aregular rear lot line. The fence will be located approximately 200' from the nearest public right-of-way, therefore this should not hinder the visibility for motorists or pedestrians. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. No. Because the fence will be located adjacent to the rear property of Marc's restaurant, and there is adequate separation between the single-family dwelling and the restaurant, approval of this variance should not impair the adequate supply of light and air nor increase the danger of fire within the neighborhood. Also, because the fence will be setback approximately 200' from the nearest right-of-way, approval of this request should not increase the amount of congestion. 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? No. The proposed request is purely for individual benefit and will not benefit the community or neighborhood. VI. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that the above criteria does support approval of the request. The above request stems from the incompatible nature of the existing land uses and from the strict definition of a front lot line on a flag lot. Although the property is located approximately 200' from the nearest public right-of-way, the northern property line is still considered the front lot line, and therefore must abide by the front yard requirements. VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Option A: "I move that Case No. WA-98-16, a request for approval of a 2' fence height variance to the 4' maximum fence height requirement to allow a 6' fence in the front yard for a property zoned Residential- Three and located at 6900 West 38' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Approval of this request will allow for a 6' privacy fence to be placed along the front lot line, thereby screening the applicant from excessive noise and blight extenuating from the adjacent commercial property. 2. Placement of the fence will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. 3. Due to the physical layout of the property (flag lot), placement of the fence would not be unlike a 6' fence being built along the rear lot line of the northern property (Marc's)." Option B: "I move that Case No. WA-98-16, a request for approval of a 2' fence height variance to the 4' maximum fence height requirement to allow.a 6' fence in the front yard for a property zoned Residential- Three and located at 6900 West 38' Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: There are other property owners within the City of Wheat Ridge who have to endure the same incompatibility with adjacent land uses." SITE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED; June 15, 1994 Last Revision. September 19. 1996 - ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) + DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES NE 26 o vo wo »a zo .wo SCALE 1-400 DEPWTMENT OF R.ANJM6 NUJ DEVELOP" 1T - 235-2852 o N I d N H GJ '•Y LLJ m n (D w z 0( 2 o r > 2 0 = d D O w a^ 0 2 U 11'' co z u w n H m ? W~ ~ ti W 0. .0' a w OD ua V i i o f o 0) Z N U (:7 U) O, N W W O a 3 w J o W w ~ rc ¢ O f Q m L I i i W Z U ~ , LL O F O W 0 m w UW w . co > 10 • av o ooNula o ¢ o p m z aIlW.7 3 a W x 0 < m IK Z N o I Q a t J Y 1 I 3 3 00 ld nl l~ + 1, N 3 v S/- ' I t r o 0 ` ~ r nna~ 1 Wa oL \^4 h•\N~ n JJ~^ I~ r i ` v ti 007 v o~ • I vi 4 n M aF WHEgp LAND usE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Of WNEAl ti Pp ti o m Plannin and Development Department ; 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ride, CO 80033 ~a~oRpoo _ Phone(303)235-2846 (Please print or type all information) Applicant l Ee Qv~ Address WOO W i k I tv2i Phone Z-1 ~7 11VI~fl City Owner Address Phone City Location of request (address) Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions liste d below which pertain to your request.) ❑ Change of zone or zone conditions Variance / Waiver ❑ Site development plan approval ❑ Nonconforming use change ❑ Special Use Permit ❑ Flood plain special exception ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interpretation of Code ❑ Temporary Use, Buildings, Signs ❑ Lot line Adjustment ❑ Minor Subdivision (5 lots or less) ❑ Planned Building Group ❑ Subdivision (More than 5 lots) ❑ Street Vacation ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final ❑ Other: Detailed description of the request: t~ R Fill out the following information to the best of your knowledge. Current Zoning: Size of Lot (acres or square footage): ) Current use: Si Proposed use: Assessors Parcel Number: I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit power-of- ttPorney from th wner which approved of this action on his behalf. Signature of Applicanl`~~A Subscribed and sworn tome this ESL day of MAI,~, 19 Ga Notary Public My commission expires-I-aL "kR) Date received, Receipt No. (°-06 Case No. Related Case No. Zoning Quarter Section Map bo~\ ?)1T5 F; wP\ Ca- i(D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on June 25, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: Case No. TUP-98-02: An application by Wheat Ridge 52 Investment for approval to surface an area for use as temporary commercial parking for the tenants of 12060 W. 52"d Avenue. Said property is zoned A-2 and located at 12060 W. 52nd Avenue. 2. Case No. WA-98-15: An application by George Feeney and Laura Leprino for approval to increase lot coverage from 25% to 34% for construction of a single-family dwelling. Said property is zoned R-1 and located at 3869 Union Court. 3. Case No. WA-98-16: An application by Brad and Marcia Bunger for approval of a two foot fence line variance adjacent to Marc's Restaurant to screen the property. Said property is zoned R-3 and located at 6900 W. 38" Avenue. 4. Case No. WA-98-17: An application by Lorraine Brown for approval of variance to Section 26-30(Q), Home Occupation Regulations to allow a 2'x2' home business frontal sign. Said property is zoned R-1 and located at 4430 Tabor Street. 5. Case No. WA-98-18: An application by Tom Radigan for approval of a 15' variance to the required 30' front yard setback enabling the approved dwelling units to face east versus south. Said property is zoned R-I and located at 10845 - 10865 W. 32"d Avenue. w Barbara Delgadillo, Recording Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Ci k To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: June 5, 1998 C:\Bwbara\BOA\PUB HRGS\980625.wpd The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713 (303) 234-5900 City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 June 3, 1998 Dear Property Owner: Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 Wheat Ridge This is to inform you that Case No. WA-98-16 which is a request for approval of a two foot fence line variance adjacent to Marc's Restaurant for additional screening of the property located at 6900 W. 38" Avenue will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on June 25 at 7:30 p.m. All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C:\Bubna\B0A\PUBHRGS\wa9816.wpd RECYCLED PAPER d 77 d d .U G d N N d i U d F d a ~ Q /l` U U a R d Q.' O Z d ~ dl C a y K C ~ a U u ~ d N R - d a a d N ~ O ~ N O w a w p~ O y c ~ ` m m 'o a o E U 6 O -F, # R -a c w m ~o m <o co co <o ~o co N'E 'E:5 R U -pp m M m OJ m W m at m M m W m of m CO m Q v m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 d ` v Q U _ n T M R O M O M O M O M 3 O M O - M O M N O M N d O ° m>m o N ° a d A ° ~ ym d >m >°w d o O moo R M w. a a m w m m ~ m o > R 0 C ~m N O a O = L O O N m L n O O . L O u O N _N N O u Q 65 y 05 - >.M Q N Gd dma M d V ~M d O ~ dWd 9M'O >M>d "O R>Md ~ ~ C Md N "O -2Md R 'O i . > zi C7 0 0 2i " > R N> T 3 w N OOK O ~K ENO: NN K 2 m>d' UOJ d' ROB W N~ ~R OOH V d d m R NFL R L O R UAL 0 R L ' O R ~ m 0 N R n o w m R W 0 N R 2 m R m I d ~ 3 ~ 3 fO 3 3 3 , ~ ~ 3 V N Q N ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Z d v W Q M M M C d' V V V N CD ~ m M M M M M M ` M M ` 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o W O E m m m m m m m m m V Z Q W W CD N O~Q o. ~ c W d 7 O N A N J w w~ G G .E d~ t~ C N U U U_ Y N X C L' u cC c .C T T., N u U t E 'n .0. w C C a.. ~'7 Cl C T r ~ a N O W m V R1 p p ~p - A a o 3 e m s c. 0.H'. v o _y` v y o •k c N i6 y o C F a o> m .n p u m .-7 w Oa iy T Z U C a C ❑ n' O. 6' O'O J 'CJ.0 > O v ~ ai ~ a••i J m m z w c. ~ N u E h c a .c ~ 3 H T. ca T 7 '7 A C U w ~ O N'O G C~ sry+ 3 U C d C R U y w~ i [,w, - a c-. `a ^O ai O d _ W ~ ~ ..u^. ~ aEi C h0 N ei 7 3 -7 U C Ou w t1➢. q p U i U y Q p - 7 aU. td p u 7 0 3 w - v auai 'm o y cci ' 0 al y F Y 3,- o z u u E e T^ 5 .a' m j U u u W P4 F o ^ r; fYA o ti x r. C4 a o h itl h W t~ o a o N w- y u o o c > a« t° a c ❑ n o^ z 3 m x s a.c N u 'm o m •e u u W 6n p O U vi C Y U T. Q v^ u A U 7. a) ~ m -0 -O W u m O. u 6 H o p' C u > ~1 Z 0 3 7 E 0 3 F r. a`i ° 3 o w ii o y O o o m ~N. o pa. 6 m; e• o, E a~i si Z °c C> r z w U U O O a~ ZO H 6- N a N v N H /1 N u O ti 3 H W "i. a, c., ~ a .u. C .a T 1~1 0 W O W G- y p o E w' F ^ G. = u o 7 b u a W E °c~ ~v_ ° aE m ww w ° v ~°~a " C vb.a y Y CA p Q EA U O u 7 O x fnu O Y'~ Y O yO E N y ai V.L v w :i orz Ovj E u ...aC o OF ~0 J,.°_~ d yv. O ~ ° .a' yy U 3 am ° F;; o d~ h A H O F ~ c~ WoWEo yav E c°~ N> as °o o ~~ss W o C`° a>> Y p - [C'"' O 3 Z m T 6 u ca Ro, ° o ¢ rn o - 'ti o G1. = i u. 'v rx w _ ~ cza o J . ~ C) a ~ o ~ Ez, m ~ a c vi' c v ° w H w .v 6 u o 0 7 o a en'g - o- Q ei F o rx6a.E u z N V c¢Z m e u) v m-'R E oHZ aca fu aTi w oa N W a:14 zb z ac U vI W 7. y J> w O N S > O = z 0 t a H w 6'a.. E o „T, ^o y w- F o° O a a W 5 F a Z w H x aYi o °i°cT.z'~ 3.~ J N OG° ~~atx a ^nc~ci~ W=u1T O ~ q a u F o° o u u N E c ~v S 3 C W c g a u c C wwN caw Em's O 5 °Z F 0 o V) a O F,;°', C4 0 A ~7 F o~pEn p C~ ~~C4 o~9x> zCL, z co En E4 S' z T H s .-t S m W w OF P] i° ecy u F . O .:.u e F q C VHI Y 0 0 u o~ ~ •7 70 u U oa mBo ° U6?amH SAC°hLn a~ E IL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INVOICE NAME (~~~~C\C~ J~ CXX DATE: CASE NO. y y~U CCU©~J~~J FEE TYPE FEE CHARGE ACCOUNT NUMBER Application Submittal See Fee Schedule. 01-550-01-551 Publications/Notices See Fee Schedule 01-550-02-551 24" x 36" Blue Line $ 3.25 01-550-04-551 24" x 36" Mylar Copy $ 6.00 01-550-04-551 Single Zoning Map $ 2.00 01-550-04-551 Set of Zoning Maps $20.00 01-550-04-551 11" x 17" Color Map $ 2.00 01-550-04-551 Comp. Plan Maps $ 2.00 ea. 01-550-04-551 Comp. Plan Book w/Map $25.00 01-550-04-551 Fruitdale Valley Master Plan $ 2.50 01-550-04-551 Subdivision Regulations $ 4.50 01-550-04-551 . Zoning Ordinance $15.00 (does not include annual updates) 01-550-04-551 Copies $.15/page 01-550-04-551 Copy of Meeting Tapes $25.00/tape 01-550-04-551 Miscellaneous: 01-550-04-551 TOTAL COST: 0 oa cApi nningWormAinvoice