Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/20091A City of W heat iid~e BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA June 25, 2009 Notice is hereby given of a public meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on June 25, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-09-03: An application filed by Taco Bell for approval of a 28 square foot size variance from the maximum allowable 30 square feet for a menu board, resulting in a 58 square foot menu board AND a request for a 2'8" height variance from the maximum allowable 6 foot menu board height resulting in a 8'8" high menu board for property zoned Commercial One (C-1) and located at 4795 Kipling Street. B. Case No. WA-09-04: An application filed by Robert Sherman for approval of up to a 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential- One (R-1) and located at 3305 Moore Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - May 28, 2009 B. Policy for the use of alternate members 8. ADJOURNMENT City of Wh6atPoidgc CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME Board of Adjustment Adam Tietz WA-09-03/Taco Bell DATE: June 25, 2009 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a twenty-eight (28) square foot size variance to the thirty (30) square foot maximum for a menu board AND a request for a two foot, eight inch (2'8") height variance to the maximum six (6) foot for a menu board on property zoned Commercial-One (C-1) located at 4795 Kipling Street. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4795 Kipling Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE COMP PLAN LAND USE: Gene Summers Taco Bell Corp. 28,358 square feet (1.54 acres) Commercial-One (C-1) Restaurant with drive thru Community Commercial Center (CC) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site J 170 OFF EB RAMP-- Al T 170 ON ES RAMP w A rotes r }d 170 FRONTAGE RD - ^T,yW_ 4 - Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell M 1 JURISDICTION: 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 28 square foot size variance to the 30 square foot size limit for a menu board, resulting in a 58 square foot menu board AND a request for a 2'8" height variance to the 6 foot height limit for a menu board, resulting in an 8'8" tall menu board. The request for the increased menu board size variance is a request of 93 percent while the request for the menu board height is a variance request of 46.6 percent. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANLYSIS The applicant, Gene Summers of Near Design and Planning, is acting as a representative for the owner of the Taco Bell restaurant. He requesting the variances for the owner as part of a larger renovation of the property. (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The property is located on the southwest corner of the Interstate 70 off ramp and Kipling St and is zoned C-1. The C-1 district was established to provide for areas with a wide range of commercial land uses which include office, general business, and retail sales and service establishments. This district is supported by the community and region. The majority of the area is also zoned C-1 with corresponding land uses. The area is a heavy commercial area as it is adjacent to Interstate 70 and most businesses in the area are geared toward interstate travelers. A Conoco gas station is located to the east across Kipling St. Directly to south there is a Village Inn restaurant and to the west and southeast are there are the Holiday Inn and Ramada Inn hotels. The commercial area extends to the north side of the interstate with additional restaurants, gas stations, and other highway oriented business. The existing Taco Bell restaurant was constructed in 1995. According to building permits, a Pizza Hut Express was added in 2001. The Pizza Hut was added to offer more variety at a single location. The restaurant is now proposing to through a major exterior and interior remodel in order to rebrand and reimage the Taco Bell name (Exhibit 2, Proposed Elevation). As a result of Taco Bell's nationwide reimaging effort, the Taco Bell restaurants that have multiple restaurant offerings at one location (ie. Pizza Hut Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell 2 items being offered at Taco Bell) are looking to consolidate all menu offerings onto one menu board. The sign code does allow for restaurants with a drive through to have two menu boards. Each menu board is allowed to be up to 30 square feet and up to 6 feet in height. If the menu boards were allowed to combine square footage for multiple signs like free standing signs in order to make one larger sign, a menu board of up to 60 square feet would be allowed. The new prototypical menu board to go along with the rebranding effort for Taco Bell /Pizza Hut is a 58 square foot menu board that incorporates a decorative Taco Bell logo on top of it (Exhibit 3, Proposed Menu Board). Since two menu boards are allowed, the applicant is essentially requesting to allow for one larger board that would be less square footage then if they were proposing to have two signs. In addition to the size, the height of menu board exceeds the 6 foot height limit by 1.2 feet even without the decorative logo. The logo increases the height of the menu board by and additional 1.5 feet. The menu board will be placed on the east side of the property within a new landscaped area to help lessen the impact of the menu board (Exhibit 4, Site Plan). In addition, the menu board will be located that is screened from view from nearly all directions. The sign is screened to the north by a large "entry sign" that is being installed by the City of Wheat Ridge (Exhibits 5 and 6, Site Photos). There is additional mature landscaping that will help to screen the menu board from view on the northeast corner and along eastern portion of the property. It will also be difficult to see the board from the south as it will be screened by a large Holiday Inn sign that is on the southeast corner of the property and additionally by cars parked in the restaurant parking lot. Based on the applicant research, there appears to be multiple drive thru menu boards throughout the city that exceed both the height and size limitations (Exhibits 7-9, Menu Board Photos). According to the city's records, it does not appear that any of these menu boards received variances. However, the most recent sign code change was adopted in 2007. Building permits show that these menu boards were in existence prior to that time. It is possible that at the time these menu boards were installed that larger menu boards were allowed. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following criteria to evaluate variance requests and shall determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the applications compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 10). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Request A: A 28 square foot variance to the 30 square foot maximum size limit for a menu board. Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell 3 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return. The property currently has a restaurant with a drive-thru and both may remain and be used in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicant could still construct a menu board on the property but it would have to meet the size regulations set in the sign code. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. The area in which the variance is being requested is in an intense commercial corridor. Being adjacent to Interstate 70 much of the commercial uses are targeted toward interstate traffic with large signs and other identifiers. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The request for the variance is in conjunction with a major renovation to the interior and exterior of the existing building. The menu board itself may not constitute a substantial investment in the property but it along with the other renovations are a very sizeable investment in the property which will be in compliance with the ASDM, the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) and other documents supported by the city that encourage reinvestment and building improvements throughout the city. Staff finds this criterion has been met 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The surrounding physical conditions have not resulted in a hardship that necessitates the request for the variance to the size of the sign. From site visits and the applicant's site plan, there appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping. These conditions do not create unique hardships on the property and the request appears to be more of an inconvenience. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell 4 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship described above relates to the size of the proposed menu board. The menu board is the new prototype for renovated Taco Bell restaurants. The current property owners were informed of the sign regulations in the pre-application meeting and were told a variance would need to be granted to permit the menu board. People who currently have interest in the property did create this hardship. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Staff believes the request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent property. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it increase the danger of fire. The request will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The sign would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede in the sight distance triangle. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Since the property is located adjacent to the interstate, the majority of businesses in the area do have large signs. This is the only restaurant on the south side of the interstate with a drive-thru and the circumstances necessitating the request are only present on this property. However, drive-thru restaurants in the area and others throughout the City of Wheat Ridge do have larger menu boards then what the current sign code allows. Therefore the size of this menu board would not be unique to the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. A menu board's size is not required accommodate persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not specifically address drive thru menu boards or the size of signs. The ASDM does address the location and style of signs that are required. The entire site is undergoing a major renovation which will be in compliance with the ASDM. The menu board is being re-constructed as a part of the renovations that do comply with the ASDM. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Request B: A 2'8" foot variance to the 6 foot height limit for a menu board. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return. The property currently has a restaurant with a drive-thru and both may remain and be used in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicant could still construct a menu board on the property but it would have to meet both the height regulations set in the sign code. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. The area in which the variance is being requested is in an intense commercial corridor. Being adjacent to Interstate 70 much of the commercial uses are targeted toward interstate traffic with large signs and other identifiers. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell 6 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The request for the variance is in conjunction with a major renovation to the interior and exterior of the existing building. The menu board itself may not constitute a substantial investment in the property but it along with the other renovations are a very sizeable investment in the property which will be in compliance with the ASDM, the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) and other documents supported by the city that encourage reinvestment and building improvements throughout the city. Staff finds this criterion has been met 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The surrounding physical conditions have not resulted in a hardship that necessitates the request for the variance to the height of the sign. From site visits and the applicant's site plan, there appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping. These conditions do not create unique hardships on the property and the request appears to be more of an inconvenience. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship described above relates to the height of the proposed menu board. The menu board is the new prototype for renovated Taco Bell restaurants. The current property owners were informed of the sign regulations in the pre- application meeting and were told a variance would need to be granted to permit the menu board. People who currently have interest in the property did create this hardship. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell 7 substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Staff believes the request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent property. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it increase the danger of fire. The request will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The sign would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede in the sight distance triangle. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Since the property is located adjacent to the interstate, the majority of businesses in the area do have large signs. This is the only restaurant on the south side of the interstate with a drive-thru and the circumstances necessitating the request are only present on this property. However, drive-thru restaurants in the area and others throughout the City of Wheat Ridge do have taller menu boards then what the current sign code allows. Therefore the height of this menu board would not be unique to the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. A menu board's height is not required accommodate persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not specifically address drive thru menu boards or the height of signs. The ASDM does address the location and style of signs that are required. The entire site is undergoing a major renovation which will be in compliance with the ASDM. The menu board is being re-constructed as a part of the renovations that do comply with the ASDM. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell 8 IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Request A Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends approval of the variance request for a twenty- eight (28) square foot size variance to the 30 square foot size limit for a menu board, resulting in a 58 square foot menu board. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The request will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 3. The variance would result in the addition having a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. 4. The request results from part of a major investment in the property which helps to accomplish goals in the ASDM and NRS With the following conditions: 1. No additional side or top panels will be added to the menu board. All special promotions and temporary menu items must be displayed within the menu board. Request B Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends approval of the variance request for a two foot, eight inch (2'8") height variance to the maximum six (6) foot for a menu board. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The request will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 3. The variance would result in the addition having a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. 4. The request results from part of a major investment in the property which helps to accomplish goals in the ASDM and NRS With the following conditions: 1. No additional side or top panels will be added to the menu board. All special promotions and temporary menu items must be displayed within the menu board. Case No. WA-09-03/Taco Bell 9 NEAR DESIGN & PLANNING. INC. Narrative of proposed work The Taco Bell/Pizza Hut Express (TPX) Re-imaging is a proposed exterior building modification and minor site improvement project, which also incorporates interior decor improvements. The existing TPX currently sits on a parcel located at 4795 Kipling St. just South of I-70 in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. A vacant parcel / I-70 ROW abuts the subject property on the Northern side. A Village Inn Restaurant sits across W. 48th Ave to the South, a Holiday Inn Express sits to the West and a Conoco Gas Station sits across Kipling. The proposed exterior re-imaging of the TPX consists of a complete exterior paint upgrade, new tower elements in replace of the existing towers, a soffit band connecting the front tower to the side tower and new building signage with minimal GSF increase and no usable square feet increase. The site component replacements and adds are limited to the renlarrament of the existing d iyP-thm rlPargnrt- hal nrfler nedestal and menl]hoard t . , . r with new components as shown within this submittal as well as the addition of a decorative landscape wall and new landscaping in the area of the menuboard also shown within this submittal. This proposed development in no way will add negative affects to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding community or City. There are also no foreseen negative impacts this proposed re-imaging would pose. The intent is to continue to provide a sustainable restaurant service maintaining the notion of a neighborhood component to the City of Wheat Ridge. M~ w H W 10701 MELODY DRIVE, SUITE 305 0 NORTHGLENN, CO 80234-4122 • (303) 451-1 113 0 FAX (303) 451-1141 N E"~ w 91.362" 72.0" - 1' ELECTRICAL CONINAT (uD POWER TD MENU BOARD) NOTE• V LOW VOLTAGE VIKING IS REQUIRED, 2-1' ELECTRICAL COMMITS NUST RUN B3 H3RIZ[(rAL TIES a I2' CENTERS FOUNDATION DETAIL SCALE: NTS 3OLM x 7&M ALKKRRED rmTM } Dra M VERTO:AL REBARS ( SPACED ERUALLY [N 20' CIRCLE F9"-1 F~ BASE PLATE DETAIL t SCALE: 1"=V-0" 11.599" 7.375" SIGN SPECIFICATIONS Materials • Cabinet: Extruded aluminum • Face: .150 S/G Polycarbanate Access • Open doors & remove panels Area • Squared: 81.72 Sq.Ft Weight (Est) • 950 lbs. Crated Wind Load • 50 PSF, 150 MPH wind speed - exposure C. M W ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS Lamps • (4) F025f741 36" 4100K, (10) F0321741 48" 41 OOK (2) F040l741 60" 41 OOK Ballast • (7) Electronic ballasts @ .56 amps each • (1) Electronic ballast @.17 amps • (2) Electronic ballasts ®1.15 amps Line Lead • 4.09 Amps 0 120 VAC •(1)15 Amp cicuit, 60 Hz UL 48 & NEC Compliant COLOR SPECIFICATIONS Interior. Mill Finish Exterior: CabineCTiger Drylac 49/66230-33 Bronze 75" thick Doors & Mullions: Black Graphic & Color Specifications: Tiger Drylac 49/66230-33 Bronze DISCLAIMER: Renderings are for graphic purposes only and not intended for actual construction dimensions. For windlosd requirements, actual dimensions Everbrde and mounting detail. please refer to engineering specifications & install drawings. 235729 % . i~....♦ c..~a,...,. r....,.. An An C / lni4. N - I`.......f: ,.1.J 11 l1........ ,.I.. C7nnn - r1L. Al A Cnn ocnn - r..,,. 01~ Ain 1'J4 A _ ....1., .:1 .h 1 1 17 107 SGALL: 112 I -U JC.ALt: I /Z =I -U 1-1 NEW HL RAMP Aji;: CHGSS~'v A., SERVICE ROAD NEW EDES' ACCES `!STiNI a'iE7 _A'. E 5i1r'1,. Irv u~ NORT SITE PLAN LANDSCAPE WALL oaf ~ ` i OCB/CANOPY - MENU BOARD 54 06 SF ` BOLLARD CONC CURB 7-2 TO MENU BOARD 8 8 TO ARCHITECTURAL ARCH FEATURE DRIVE THRU OF THE FUTURE LANDSCAPE PLAN NE W LANDSCAPfNG 1 I Fr ,~aJ ~ fA ' ~ N: N•.Ij~ r i i 1 T S ; .1 a• L' iT, dt s 4 r V oil F I = W 1 t~ I ~ d 'S N s n, y/, 3 ♦ 4:R t %Igo V 'It- 'y~• u t O 1 f J ~ ~ r n N 0 y rr ; ~ Q N ♦h icy' ~•f' _ w FU n 0 H n ~ 1 ~ M h~ ~ Y J M uu 1 ..r b 3 ^1 ;P rt ( I1 ~ F -.4 bA cd O H O r- w O d' X 3 o ~ an a~ aA ~ MCI ICI NEAR DESIGN & PLANNING INC. Variance Criteria for Review The request of this variance deals with the prototype Taco Bell / Pizza Hut menuboard being requested for installation as part of a building / site re-imaging initiative for the Taco Bell / Pizza Hut located at 4795 Kipling. The prototype menuboard being requested is a total 54 square feet (less than the total of the two allowed 30 sq. ft. menuboards) and stands 7'-2" in height which includes the supporting pedestal height of 15-1/2". This proposed menuboard is similar in size, shape and height to the existing menuboard currently serving the store. A. The event the prototype Taco Bell / Pizza Hut menuboard was not allowed to be utilized there is a real concern the return in use and income from the Drive-Thru service would yield less than projected, even current, numbers. This is due to the fact the allowed 30 sq ft menuboard would not provide adequate space for the restaurant to be able to list it's full menu of items to its customers, hence limiting the possible sales volume at the store. Taco Bell / Pizza Hut does upwards of 50% of all business through its Drive-Thru and it is essential they are able to provide a full listing of menu items to their cliental. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality due to the fact the existing menuboard that is being replaced is nearly the same size as the menuboard being proposed. C. Taco Bell / Pizza Hut re-imaging initiative for this project is a substantial investment in the property and building not to mention the community. The scope for this building / site is referred to internally as a Next2Ten, which means this building is to have extensive re-imaging whereas to keep this location at a high functioning, aesthetically appealing neighborhood commodity for a minimum of ten years at which time Corporate Taco Bell will reevaluate the store and it's needs. The size and height of the menuboard is intimately associated with this investment. D. Due to the location of the menuboard being in a landscaped area if the menuboard was not allowed its standard height of 7'-2" the pedestal supporting the menuboard would need to be shortened. This could then cause issues during the winter months when snow can reach such heights where the blocking of the menu items and deterioration to the menuboard is MMH h+l H w a strong possibility. E. The hardship simply comes from the fact that Taco Bell / Pizza Hut menuboards are a set standard across the country in effort to provide each restaurant, whether corporately owned or franchised, the same selling and promoting benefits. Drive-Thru restaurants such as these are constantly promoting the next best menu item and as such these panels are then mass- produced to send to all stores thought the country so they may insert into their menuboards. In the event there are "custom" menuboards, as would be the case if this store was limited to 30 sq.ft., then this particular store would either not be involved in the new promotion or would be delayed in their advertising of such products due to the waiting for the custom panels that would be required. This is not a hardship created by this particular store rather the Corporation who sets the standards for all Taco Bell stores. F. The granting of this variance for the requested height and square footage of the menuboard would in no way be detrimental to the public welfare. The C menuboard being proposed is extremely similar in overall size, shape and height to the existing menuboard. G. There are instances in the city of Wheat Ridge currently that are similar and ~ not unique to this property. The Burger King and Carl's Jr to the North of H this property have menuboards larger than 30 sq. ft. MTI H. The request for the menuboard variance would allow for a person with disabilities the option of either entering the store for a full list of menu items w or enjoy the convenience of the drive-thru sporting a full listing of menu items on the proposed menuboard. 1. Overall the proposed re-imaging scope of the Taco Bell / Pizza Hut store is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing the information and material within this Variance Criteria for Review. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. Sine re , Gene Summers Near Design & Planning, Inc. F wNegr CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT O R pD0 TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-09-04/Sherman DATE: June 25, 2009 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a variance of up to 10 feet from the required 15 foot side yard setback for an addition to the principal structure resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback on property located at 3302 Moore Street and zoned Residential One (R-1). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3305 Moore Street APPLICANT (S): Robert Sherman OWNER (S): Robert Sherman APPROXIMATE AREA: 12,590 square feet (.28 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential One (R-1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKE T MATERIALS O DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE O SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Location Map Adm Cast 1 JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this request. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance of up to 10 feet from the required 15 foot side yard setback for an addition to the principal structure resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The purpose of the variance is to allow for the construction of an approximately 70 square foot addition (7'2" X 9'8") (Exhibit 2, Site Plan and Improvement Location Certificate). Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANALYSIS Robert Sherman is requesting this variance as the property owner. The subject property is 115.5 feet wide by 109 feet deep and 12,590 square feet in total area. There is an existing approximately 2,500 square foot single family residence on the property (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The applicant wishes to construct an approximately 70 square foot addition to serve the single family residence. The applicant has also expressed that the addition will be done in a manner to match the existing house relative to roof and wall materials. The property is zoned Residential One (R-1), which carries with it a set of development standards that include the following for the principal structure: • Front Setback: 30' • Side Setback: 15' • Rear Setback: 15' It is important to note that the existing structure on the south side sits slightly less than the required 15' side setback at 14.8' so it already encroaches into the required setback. Staff did not find any evidence of variances granted in the immediate vicinity. All surrounding properties are single family residential and are zoned Residential One (R-1). The applicant has collected three signatures from adjacent property owners indicating their support of the application, including the property owner most impacted by the proposed variance (Exhibit 4, Letters of Support). Property owners the immediate south and west, as well as directly across the street have signed letters in support of the application. It is also noteworthy that there is existing mature vegetation that obscures the view of the addition from the street and from adjacent property. Administrative Variance 2 Case No. WA-09-041Sherman VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to authorize a variance, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property may still yield a reasonable return in use. The property would still function as a single family residence without the need for the variance. Alternative placement options are available for additions to the house. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The addition would be small enough and not visible from the street and with minimal visibility from adjacent property. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. The applicant has expressed that the intent of the variance request is to serve the master bedroom of the house, and this area cannot be added to without a variance. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. There are not any particular or unique hardships on the property that would restrict the applicant's ability to construct an addition on other sides of the house. The applicant is requesting this variance because the proposed addition is adjacent to a master bedroom it is intended to serve, which incidentally is on the side yard with no available space to build on to without a variance. Staff does not consider this a particular and unique hardship. It should be noted however that 15 foot setbacks on both side and rear lot lines does present a significantly smaller buildable area of the property than most other zone districts. Staff finds that this criterion has not peen met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The applicant has created their own hardship by requesting the variance. There are alternative locations available for additions to the house within the setback requirements. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other Administrative Variance 3 Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent property. The adequate supply of air and light would be slightly compromised with the property to the south as a result of this request. This property owner however has expressed approval of the proposed addition. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it increase the danger of fire. The request will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the subject property. All surrounding properties are zoned Residential One (R-1) and have the same setback requirements, which presents a significantly smaller buildable area relative to other zone districts. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. Single family dwellings are not subject to accessibility requirements. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable as the variance request involves a detached garage for a single family dwelling. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. 4. The conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the subject property. Administrative Variance 4 Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman EXHIBIT 1: LETTER OF REQUEST Cily of Wheat Ridge Board EWAdiustrnent To wham it may Concern: We are making this roqucst For a Variance from tti4 guid4lures on the ptxljj,-,rty located at ;305 Moore St, Pursuant to that request the following exigent iircuinstanecs cxist: a. This is wi old tknihouse. My wife. is required to dress in a fashion that is wmmensurate with the twenty first century. The closet spacc in this particular house was built with the farm hand mentality; namely one Sunday outfit, In order for her to perform at her highest level she must constantly rotate her wardrobe from closet to closet With the sea-son, Granting this variance would allow her to locate most of her clothing in orte location. b. 'l'he gumming of the variance would not alter the csscrttial character of he locality; it would be barely visible Irom the front of the property. C. If the variancc were granted, the space in question would he used to its fullest extent. The proposed loc=ation is the only placa this addition twill %vork, d. The surrounding topography ]ends itself to a simple auditlurt. A ere cite addition to be adduct to the west side of ;he house it do-csn't work from a f uictional point of view. e. The alleged hardship is that the pmperty is zoned R-1. MY wife or myselfdid not cause this zoning, f The granting of this variance would increase the value of the subject property and conscx{uerrtlw the entire neighborhood. 81 The unusuall c=ircumstances necessitating the variance request are present in the neighttiarhood by it's zoning of R-l . h, Granting this variance would result in an accommodation of a person Eiith disabilities. Present'y the rotation of wardrobe requires the use of the stairway, which a disable! person could not use. i. It is my belief that granting this ,-ariance is in compliance with the Arc=hitectural and Site D"ivn Manual. We hope that this letter clears up any, questions. Re-spcetfuliy, I YY Rolx:rt V Shcrman Elizabeth J. Sherman Case No. WA-09-04/Sherfnan EXHIBIT 2: SITE PLAN 1'.ar' F~~ l~7Cr ~ 4~'~ M1l C'117.:4GC ( ' I A N D `J U R V E V I N q:r hu~:r~s!1 • . 5 •n,,..•.:~,. R_•u . ]•.nr ir.n 4 Ann aO W!'•3 M1tu~ WcL.i: tyr, srra '4 F11414"Y HFA.- I ^..r-•-10N t_GA(1.iC4Tr L•u}_ wlK:a rrlo•. CL'L+n I 11~ i P11ICh :1. I. A kl.Cr_. s 11 1'.1 L5, I I •q 7 Location of Proposed Addition 1 I fri0r ll' i 1 I ~I) I 31.3 ~r IJI ul ( w ul i~1 U M R I Cdt. t,, 1~ 13 f I i W V_ I I l ! a 1 Pi •1 M I C .1 L,". Y 4 1 I J~1• 1 I Ur-r fhlw f•,!.}.y vr.ny k••rl Aiuntr, t,,.- "n 0•1tNat I hertt)y CWI•ty that WS h>€LIVV~•n Ynl r~allxl CMl,:aNO wra prr- Irv I t i . r-: I^il:•:1.•+~•ti+rl lxrswv cUy'. a,-u L-1al I Y"nLvC ~i- • f I vuv ~ r. -C, lu U. d-?K k IL ':tl 0 ~iril _ulvrs• 11W .IDC.' ILr Llr; ww V15r'.vCnt •.>i Irrra •y n t C• of r•C w • V w • r• s. I lurfh+.r rn.•r. 1• G'1'uM i:••M r Y? 9rLr mfr vAlht : rY 007. -Lad 1"rpnl: yCg try rrR'Cti9r1`5 I ` , G, , U rt h I 1 Q Y 1III. +~t r•arrt~ ]n t'Yr rLin.'w crk>oa 1:w•'.v c.•r INA n0ac. C}CCY-'l lrlry n }pda5 •7' 1•x 'I:r rr rl Q.CYt I AA grrwn, 1f•ttf tr [Y CIO w. m vt rnJ t nT.):i L":, ' ' , 1 u ' ~nY u~"...tr f. ry a•arr!!M. OaCd IA Yr rd"' W S'r] ma'Il-rrr. M m .-Tv"vr1 C 1 Ca -f waw.Jr r-snnJ-.~'?' fi_r di ii v uuv u Oily 1.441 LN Yrr: r1rrPJi, 'C..CYUI AM'1T Ay MOrtco +rc~:sc►77 :V I.Y!k-Lf' u1, r.v rM r 51 t ' n,. , 1 cxrL-w- ' Y>.! 10 irfJ NpAI Y:l~l: '.r i': [Y Ytd' 1rfT rl ! ~..v 4t uHrr_ 41 kaN1. A'_!'r A 1`r MR['i A/ Y 4 :}.~~K / wVIKr N i11 ,Y i ti1G.': 'JW~Y.'~YyT.yff 17'Nk't F'1' f~rky ~ ~Y'o"1:+1 WA An" ~lhlS'^✓N ~'tN rL II iM1 min IL/+}rN}rl:r 1'UI I'-a thp.n CICJia Irr> (1'pJlll't' ( -1r L- ICL_.174t: W1.n1r \r `''+__`Y'~' r\ .,,t'-`• Y r) - - ry J y!u ►xLl -O&TO 4?.nlrr rt 3 -05 N:nrt f' :c - - i ~ E••r+W ~..1 L.'J.raLLrM-1 Ay..•[y Ri : t-!..r~.A. Rri 4'jw'/u0wu '4 d. . aN1 T >I.71 or RG$~t'i ,h ~.i9a~t'Tf I. . • . KT & Z1r00 ' Administrative Variance Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman Administrative Variance Case No. WA-09-041Sherman EXHIBIT 4: LETTERS OF SUPPORT City of Mica Ridge To whom it may Concern: I live at 3285 Moore Street, the property that is directly south of the Sherman property, at 3305 Moore Street. The proposed structure. would he built ten feet out from the present building, five feet from flee property line. I do not have any prohlems with a structure built within five feet of my property, line. The project has my complete. approval. Regards, 1 ie Ziernke City of Wheat Ridge To whom it may Concern: We live at 3300 Moore Street, the property that is directly across Moore Street from the Sherman property, at 3305 Moore Street. The proposed structure would be built ten feet out from the present building, five feet from the property line. We do not have any problems with a structure built in such a fashion. The project has my complete approval. Regards, r Pat and Vi,ki Sea ~ r 5-- 12- - 0 9 -cl Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman City of Wheat Ridge To whom it may Concern: a We live at 3300 Moore Court, the property that is directly west of the Sherman property, at 3305 Moore Street. The proposed structure would be built ten feet out from the present building, five feet from the property line. We do not have any problems with a structure built in such a fashion. The project has my complete approval. Regards, Kevin and Janene Poziombkc r \ Q~rlnan2 . Administrative Variance NOTE: Dimensions Approximate -for illustrative purposes only. 9 Case No. WA-09-04/Sherman 114' City of W heat ~idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting May 28, 2009 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair BUCKNAM at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29'1' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Alan Bucknam Larry Linker Betty Jo Page Alternate Present: Bob Howard Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff Hirt, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. TUP-09-01: An application filed by Stephen Buss for Conti Automotive Repair for approval of a one-year temporary permit to allow a temporary storage container on property located at 9544 West 44`x' Avenue and zoned Commercial One. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff concluded that the findings of fact Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 2009 were supportive of the request and recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, as outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member FISHER, Mr. Hirt explained that a one-year TUP may not be extended. Steve Buss 9544 W. 44th Avenue Mr. Buss, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BU He stated that there was an old trailer and woos the property when he purchased it last fall. In removed these two structures and replaced the painted the same color as the building. He did city code. He plans to continue improvements equipment, parts and other tools. He also plans fence work. The container gives him extra roo a place to keep construction materials and tools one-year temporary permit would give him ade projects. in poor repair on order to improve the property, he m with a new storage container not realize that he was violating to the property by removing some to do some concrete work and in to shuffle equipment around and as needed. He estimated that a complete his Board Member BELL asked Mr. Buss if he would consider removing the bright yellow advertising signs on the container. Mr. Buss stated that he owns the container and that it would not be a problem to remove the signs. In response to a question from Board Member FISHER, Mr. Buss stated that the container is not left open all day and is accessed only when necessary. In response to a question from Board Member LINKER, Mr. Buss stated that he plans to remove the container at the end of a year. He is also giving consideration to building an addition at some time in the future. Board Member LINKER complimented Mr. Buss on the improvements he is making to the property. Board Member BLAIR asked if any concerns had been expressed by neighbors. Mr. Hirt stated that his office has not received any negative comment about the TUP. Mr. Buss stated that one neighbor inquired about the nature of his application. When he explained, the neighbor indicated that he had no objection to the temporary permit. In response to a comment by Board Member FISHER, Mr. Hirt explained that hardship does not need to be demonstrated for temporary permits. There were no other individuals present to address the Board. Board of Adjustment Minutes -2- May 28, 2009 Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member PAGE, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. TUP-09-01 is an appeal to the Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment application Case No. TUP-09-01 be, and hereby is APPROVED. For the following reasons: 'Z~~~~~J_ 1. Approval of the tempora essential character of the 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Approval of the tempora to other properties in the The temporary storage a or traffic hazards. Approval of the tempora business owner in need o term options. y storage container would not alter the locality. y storage container would not be injurious neighborhood. intainer will not result in traffic congestion y storage container will accommodate a storage and allow time to consider long- was notice from a nearby residential neighbor approving this container regulations for commercial properties. The lack of Staff notes in its comments that consideration is being given to revisions to the city's accessory building and temporary storage flexibility to allow additional storage on commercial properties has been problematic for many businesses and property owners. It is anticipated that within the next year these regulations will be evaluated and there is the possibility that more flexibility may be provided in the code. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3 - May 28, 2009 With the following conditions: 1. The temporary storage container shall be allowed for one year. The one-year time period shall begin with approval from the Board of Adjustment on May 28, 2009. 2. The applicant will remove or otherwise obscure all advertising signage from the container that is visible from a public way. 5 6 7. The motion carried 8-0. . CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BUCKNAM closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS Board Member ABBOTT asked about the status of the trailer located on the Beth Eden property. Ms. Reckert will look into the situation. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - It was moved by Board 11 Member FISHER to app presented. The motion p ier BELL and seconded by Board the minutes of April 23, 2009 as l unanimously. uggested that a procedure be established for •e was a consensus to add an addendum to the an addendum to be considered at the next 8. at 7:38 p.m. Alan Bucknam Chair Ann Lazzeri Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes -4- May 28, 2009 B. Board Member PAC seating alternates. bylaws. Staff will d meeting. = City of W heat j ge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Meredith Reckert DATE: June 18, 2009 SUBJECT: Policy for the use of alternate members In 2006, the Board of Adjustment by-laws were amended to allow for the appointment and use of alternate members. Justification for this amendment was due to the Board's use of a super- majority approval voting ratio. The voting ratio provides that with a full Board attendance of 8 members, 3 "no" votes will deny a request. When attendance drops below 8 members, 2 "no" votes will deny a request. On a night where 7 Board members are in attendance 6 members must vote "yes" to approve a request. Simply, the fewer Board members in attendance the harder it is to have a request approved. In light of this, Staff recommended the creation of a 4 person pool of alternate Board members who can serve when there is an absence. A full 8 member Board will ensure that each applicant is given the same opportunity for a fair and balanced hearing. The BOA currently has one alternate member. The following is an excerpt from the Bylaws addressing alternates: "Every attempt will be made to have a full eight members present for scheduled public hearings. There shall be a pool of at-large alternates appointed by City Council from which attendance will be randomly requested to provide a full Board for all public hearings. " The use of alternates could be handled as follows: Prior to the BOA meeting, the Community Development administrative assistant contacts the individual Board members to confirm attendance at the meeting. During the "call for quorum", if a member indicates that he or she will be absent, an alternate could be contacted for their presence and participation at the meeting. Given that we only have one alternate in place, this still may not guarantee eight members at every public hearing. An option would be that the alternate(s) attend the meeting in the chance that a full board of eight is unexpectedly able to not attend or is late. Once the chairperson determines that a full Board is not present, the alternate would be seated on the dias. The negative side of this is that an alternate attends the meeting but may not get seated at the dias. Not all alternates may be willing to do this. In any event, if an alternate is seated and a public hearing begins, the alternate should participate for the entire public hearing. If the regular member arrives late, he or she would have to wait until the particular case hearing is completed until replacing the alternate at the dias. Suggested motion: "I move to approved staff's recommendations for policy for use of BOA alternate members".