Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2007CITY OF WIIEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA July 26, 2007 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on July 26, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL TAE 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 HEARINGS A. Case No. W?i-07-07: An application filed by Quail Creek Investors for approval of (1) a variance to allow a sign on an elevation not adjacent to the street, (2) variance to increase allowable wall signage to 160 square feet on the eastern elevation, and (3) variance to maximum wall height, resulting in a 10 foot tall wall on property zoned Commercial-One (Gl) and located at 4975 Kipling Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approvai of minutes - June 28, 2007, 8. ADJOURNMENT A,yd`W H~r~'Q CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-07-07/Quail Creek Lrvestors DATE OF MEETING: July 26, 2007 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for a variance to allow signage on an elevation not adjacent [o a pablic street; and a variance to allow ao iocrease to the allowable wall signage for the eastem etevation; and a variance to increase the allowable wal] height for property located at 4975 Kipling Street and zoned Commercial One (C-1). LOCATION OF RE, QUEST: 4975 Kipling Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: Quail Creek Investors Same 33,545 sq. ft. (0.77 acres) Commercial One (GI) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRBSENTATION Location Map Subject Parcel Jurisdictiou All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 4975 Kipling Sueet. 'I'he applicant is requesting three sepazate variances: a variance to allow signage on an elevation not adjacent to a public street; and a variance to allow an increase to the allowable wall signage for the eastem elevation; and a variance to increase the allowable wall height (Exhibit 1, Request). Each request will be analyzed sepazately, and separate motions aze required. A special use pernut to allow a drive tluough and a front (east) yazd setback variance was granted by City Council in February of this yeaz. The property is zoned Commercial One (Gl). II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 33,545 squaze feet in size (approximately 0.77 acres), and is in the process of being redeveloped with a multi-tenant building approximately 6,500 square feet in size. The properry has frontage on two public sueets: Kipling Sueet to the east and West 50`" Avenue to the north. Additionally, a major interior drive which serves the new adjacent commercial development is located to the west of the subject propeRy. A site plan and building elevations plan have been submitted for review (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). Wall signage is allowed on the northern, eastern and western elevation as these elevations aze adjacent to a public street or major interior drive. The allowance for signage on the southern elevation would produce the ability for signage on all elevations. In addition to wall signage, the property is allowed two freestanding signs. The Code allows one freestanding sign per street frontage. This property has frontage on two stteets. The total allowance for signage on the property (wall and freestanding) is 471 square feet. This encompasses the northern, eastern and western elevations, and two freestanding signs. The applicant wishes to install approximately 460 squaze feet of signage on the property. The applicant has indicated that if the additional wall signage is allowed, only one freestanding sign will be installed. The Code does not specify the ability to transfer wall signage from one elevation to another, or from a freestanding wall to wall signage. Essentially, the applicant wishes to re-allocate signage onsite to suit the retailer's advertising needs. A variance was granted in 2006 for the property to the west which allowed an additional freestanding sign. Repuest A: Variance to allow wall sienase on an elevation not adiacent to a aublic street or maior interior drive. The applicant wishes to install signage on the southem elevation; an elevation which does not have frontage on a public street or major interior drive. Section 26-709 of the Code of Laws states that wall signage may be installed on any building eleva6on which is adjacent to a public street or major interior drive. The southem elevation is not adjacent to a public street or major interior drive. The applicant wishes to install wall signage on the southern elevation. The Code allows one squaze foot of signage to be installed for each one lineaz foot of wall that the sign is attached to. The southern elevadon wall is approximately 65 feet long. Reauest B: Variance to.increase allowable wall sienaee on the eastern elevation. The applicant wishes to install 160 square feet of signage on the eastem elevation. The eastern elevafion is 100 feet long. The Code allows a maximum of 100 feet of wall signage on the eastern elevation, based Boazd of Adjustment WA-07-07/Quail Creek upon wall length. The applicant will not be maximizing the allowed sign square footage on the northern elevation, and only one freestanding sign wfll be installed. Reauest C: Variance to increase the allowable hei¢ht of a screen wall. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the height of a screen wall which would be located adjacent to the eastem elevation. The wall would screen mechanical equipment from Kipling Street. The masimum height for a screen wall is six feet. The applicant wishes to install a ten foot tall wall. The wall would be installed between the eastern buIlding elevation and the drive through lane. The applicant received approval of a front yazd setback variance from City Council in February. This variance establishes the front yard setback at 20.6 feet from the eastern properry line. Typically, a 50 foot front yazd setback is required in the Gl zone district. The Code allows a six-foot wall in areas behind the front yard setback line. The wall would be located behind the front setback azea. The wall will be azchitecturally compatible with the building, and will be used to screen mechanical equipment. While the wall exceeds the allowable masimum height, the benefit is derived from the absence of any visual impact of unsighUy mechanical equipment along Kipling Saeet. The wall will contain azchitectural features which make it interesting. These features will help to break up the plane of the wall. IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA Each request must be discussed sepazately, complete with separate motions. Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: Request A: Allowance of Wall Si,eiaee on the Southern Elevation 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 is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. Wall signage is allowed on three building elevations, in addition to two free standing signs. The presence of wall signage on the southern elevation will make the business more visible to northbound traff'ic on Kipling Street. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. If the request were granted, the chazacter of the locality would most likely not be altered. The azea is highly commercial in nature, and the addition of signage on the southem elevation would not seem out of chazacter in this area. A variance was granted for the property to the west to allow additional signage. 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. The applicant has demolished an abandoned bank building and is in the process of constructing a new 6,500 squaze foot retail building. It should be noted that the investment can occur without the benefit of this variance request. Boazd of Adjustment WA-07-07/Quail Creek 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardslup (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out The lot is relatively flat, but does have a unique shape. The shape of the property does not have any bearing on this variance request. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. While it could be azgued that a person who has interest in the property has caused the hazdship, the building configuration contributes to the hazdship. The Zoning Code only allows wall signage on elevations which aze adjacent to public right-of-way or a major interior drive. The building is a multi-tenant shvcture, oriented north and south. The southern most tenant is allowed signage on the eastem elevation, pazallel to Kipling Street. Signage parallel to a major arterial where traffic volumes and speeds aze higher is difficult to see. Signage on the southem eleva6on would be more visible to motorists on Kipling Street. The applicant wishes to have additional signage on the southern elevation, so the business can become more visible to northbound traffic on Kipling Street. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or in,jurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare nor would it impair development of adjacent properties. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the sheets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditioas necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Visibility of signage is pazamount for all commercial businesses. Businesses along major corridors struggle to attract customers without adequate signage. The orientation of the building in combination with the rules and regulations in the Code of Laws make it difficult for the southern most tenants to capture northbound traffic on Kipling Street. This property is somewhat different than surrounding properties, due to the decreased building setback. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Wall signage is not discussed at lengih in [he Architectural and Site Design Manual. Boazd of Adjustment WA-07-07/Quail Creek Request B: Increase to Eastem Wall Si nSquare Foota¢e 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used oaly under the condirions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. Wall signage is allowed on three building elevations, in addition to two free standing signs. Addirionally, the eastern elevation is allowed a maYimum of 100 squaze feet of sign azea without the variance. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. ff the request were granted, the character of the localiry would most likely not be altered. The increase to the size of allowable signage on the eastern elevation will most likely not be noUCeable. The azea is highly commercial in nature, and the additional wa11 signage on the eastern elevation would not seem out of character in this azea. A variance was granted to allow additional signage on the property to the west. 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. The applicants have demolished an abandoned bank building and aze in the process of conshucting a new 6,500 square foot retail building. It should be noted that the variance does not necessitate the investment in the property, and the investment can occur without the benefit of this variance request. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplucal condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardslup (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried ouw The lot is relatively flat, but does have a unique shape. The shape of the property does not have any bearing on this variance request. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. A person who has interest in the property has caused the hazdslup. The applicant simply wishes to have additional signage on the eastern elevation. The eastern elevation is allowed 100 square feet of wall signage; split between 4 tenants. 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 wluch the property is located, by, among other tlvngs, 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 rire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfaze. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the reques[. The request would not increase congestion in the sueets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 7. The unusual circwnstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. It is difficult to ascertain if the surrounding businesses comply with the current Sign Code. It should be noted that as recently as 2001, wall signage was allowed at a 2:1 ratio; double what is allowed now. It could be azgued that the suttounding histodc businesses have taken advantage of a previous Code which allowed more wall signage. It could be further azgued that the increase of wall signage on the eastem elevation would not be a unique situation in the area. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The request would not result a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the property owner. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the appHcable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Wall signage is not discussed at length in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Request C: Variance to Increase Maximum Wall Hei¢ht 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. ff the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The commercial business does not depend on the installation of a taller wall; however the taller wall will make the property more attractive by hiding unsightly mechanical equipment. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. If the request were granted, the character of the locality would most likely not be altered. The taller screen wall will blend azchitecturally with the building, and the height should not be a focal point. It would be a detriment to the area if the wall was not allowed and the mechanical equipment was unscreened. 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. The applicants have demolished an abandoned bank building and aze in the process of constructing a new 6,500 square foot retail building. It should be noted that the variance does not necessitate the invesUnent in the property, and the investment can occur without the benefit of this variance request. 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. Boazd of Adjustment 6 WA-07-07/Qaail Creek The lot is relatively flat, but does have a unique shape. The shape of the property does not have any bearing on this variance request. 5. The alleged difticulty or hardslup has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. A person who has interest in the property has caused the hazdship. The applicant simply wishes to construct a taller wall to screen mechanical equipment. Aesthetically, the taller screen wall is a benefit to the property. 7. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not have an effect ou property values in the neighborhood. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. This would be a unique situation in the area. The applicant is cognizant of the visual effects of mechanical equipment adjacent to the roadway. The current Architectural and Site Desigi Manual does require screening of all mechanical equipment from the public roadway. Many surrounding buildings have roofrop mechanical equipment. The applicant has proposed the mechanical equipment on the ground. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Arclutectural and Site Design Manual. The screen wall would be azchitecturally compatible with the building, and will blend into the eastern elevation. The wall will not detract from the building azchitecture. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND Staff concludes that the variance requests should not have a negative effect on surrounding properties. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of Case No. WA-07-07 (A), (B) and (C). A separate motion is required for each request, and the requests can be approved or denied independent of each other. Boazd of Adjustment WA-07-07/Quail Creek Reauest A: Reauest for Wall Sienaee on an Elevation not Adiacent to a Public Street or Maior Interior Drive Staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the variance request; therefore staff recommends approval of Case No. WA-07-07 (A), a request for approval of a variance to allow wall signage on an elevation not adjacent to a public street or major interior drive for property located at 4975 Kipling Street, for the following reasons: 1. The building is adjacent to a major arterial which carries a lazge volume of uaffic at high speeds. Limi6ng signage to the eastern elevation, which is pazallel to the street, would be detrimental to the business located at the southem end of the building. 2. The variance will not alter the chazacter of the locality. This azea is highly commercial, and wall signage is an integral component of the viability of commercial businesses. With the following condirions: 1. The signage on the southern elevation shall not exceed the amount as allowed by Chapter 26 Article VII of the Code of Laws. 2. Only one monument sign shall be allowed for the property." Reauest B: Request to Increase fhe Allowable Wall Sienaee on the Eastern Elevation Staff concludes that the criteria aze supportive of the variance request; therefore staff recommends approval of Case No. WA-07-07 (B), a request for approval of a variance to allow an increase to allowable wall signage on the eastern elevation for property located at 4975 Kipling Street, for the following reasons: 1. The increase in wall signage on the eastern elevation will be offset by the decrease in wall signage on the northern elevation, and the installation of only one freestanding sign. 2. The applicant will be installing less total signage on the property than what is allowed by the Sign Code. The applicant is proposing to re-allocate signage in azeas on the property where it will be the most desirable and efFective for the tenants. With the following condition: 1. The wall signage on the northern elevation shall be limited to a maximum of 40 squaze feet. 2. Wall signage on the eastern elevauon shall not exceed 160 squaze feet " Repuest C: Repuest to Increase the Allowable Wall Heieht StafF concludes that the criteria aze supportive of the variance request; therefore staff recommends approval of Case No. WA-07-07 (C), a request for approval of a variance to allow an increase to allowable wall height for property located at 4975 Kipling Street, for the following reasons: 1. The wall will hide unattracUve mechanical equipment, which if left unscreened, would detract from the building architecture. 2. The wall will be azchitecturally compatible with the building. Boazd of Adjustment WA-07-07/Quail Creek June 12, 2007 Travis Crane Planner 7500 W. 29~' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303-235-2848 (Fax)303-235-2857° RE: 4975 Kipling Street-Variance Dear Travis, The following is a statement of our request for screen wall and signage variances one and two: 1. We request a height increase from 6'-0" to 10-0"' for the screen wall along Kipling Street. The request is based on the following: • A 10'-0" screen wall will better accomplish the desired affect of screening the electrical gear and other gas and mechanical units located on the East side of the buiiding. • The higher screen wall will be more architecturally compatible with the building architecture. 2. in order to accommodate prospective tenant requirements, we are also asking for an increase in Wall Signage square footage. We request to increase the allowable square footage on the east side from 100 to 160 square foot. We request the allowance of 40 square foot of Wall Signage on the South side of the _ building. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions or need more information, 303-260-7277. Thank you. Sincerely, Architecture Interiar Design Planning Andy Olree - Principal Constructian Design Edge, P.C. Management Des7gn Edge, P.C. 482 South B!oadway Denver CO &0204 Tel: 303 260 7277 f-ox: 303 260 7282 -"wi.de-arch.com Denver, CC; Colorado Springs, C:J EXHIBIT 1 06,12,07 LOT 1, BLUE GRASS TERRACE A PARCEL IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO . CASE HISTORY 91P-O)-01 -%-6 W~MS-O1-02 OYMER/OEVEI.OPER CIViL ENGINEER/SURVEYOR ARCHITECT WAq. GGffX INYESTORS, LLC TST INC OF MN'~FR OFAGN EOCE 1E00r L~AE b~ +~+0/DwAY 5160 i WEBEC S1REEi, 91I1E tOp 9222 IXIEENM00~ MLLACE. CO MI111 L0/1E 1REECO &]114 DaWR• ~wm (aw) m-.ooa (aos) 792-ou7 (wa) zso-nn EXHIBIT 2 m~ l~~w~l!(`[ :lIP1tlTTLL 4) xo. 1 Descr lion . b VMIANCE 9J6WTTAL TCC . o ~afe 1IX'i -0&-0 - - - - - - - L4T 1, BLUE GRASS TERRACE a pppCEL IN THE SOUTHEAST V4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANtiE 69 WEST OF THE 6tfi PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF WHEAT RIDC3E, JEFFER30N COUNTY, COLORADO ~ ELEYAtION UIEST 1/16' • I'•0' PROP09ED ADDITIONAL SIWAGE AT THiS ELEYATION ~ ffl FR - El -ReGC PROP09ED 10'-0' 9CI.EETt W4LL W/ OI'dJXMENTAL METAL, PAINTFp, TYPICAL OF 4 I 3 ELEYAtION EAST VI6' • 1'-D' CASE HISTIXtY 16, O 16, 32' 9i-0~-01 SCOIB l/l 6"=1'-O" f88f ELEYAtION U-92- NOR?N . 1'.0' PAGE 2 of 2 (Dj~ EYAT ION H 1/I6' • 1'-0' suew.,cn +uxE a aoor (VAFtIu+cc aerrr.i 2) p~~~ 0 b 0'MlER/DEVEIOPQt qVIL ENqNEER/SURVEYOR MCNIIECT MP V K EDGE CNm( Td5. LLO 15~ uIC OF OENMA ~ g 8WAY WIL N60 S QIEBEC SRIfEL 100 Y'!TI IEWY NNE 001NA. CO lO1~] amrw~N~E8co 9UlE ewn ~~,00 ~ eo~2* l~ nooo pwl mo-nn pWP09ED ADDITIONAL 31UNA[sE AT THIS ELEvATION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting June 28, 2007 (A 6:00 p.m. diimer study session was held prior to the regular meeting in the lobby conference room.) 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustinent was called to order by Chair BLAIR at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291b Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell ' Bob Blair Alan Bucknam Lamy t,mxer Betty Jo Page Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Adam Tietz, Planner I Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished'to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-07-06: An application filed by William Andrews far approval of a 9-foot side yard setback variance from the 10-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 1-foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 2836 Chase Street. The case was presented by Adam Tietz. 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. The applicant requested approval of the variance in order to replace an existing unstable garage. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 1- June 28, 2007 William Dempsey Andrews 2836 Chase Street Mr. Andrews, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He stated that he purchased the subject property five years ago and has made substantial improvements to the property because he and his wife plan to stay in Wheat Ridge. The existing garage is not safe enough to use for parking a car and he would like to replace it with a two-car garage. A survey disclosed that the fence between his property and the adjacent property to the south where the garage would be located is one foot onto his property. The garage would be detached but the roof line would be tied into the roof line of the covered deck. Proper drainage would be installed between the two roof lines. It would be necessary to remove two sumac trees in order to build the garage, however the large maple tree would stay. Board Member ABBOTT complimented Mr. Andrews on the iinprovements he has made to his property which fit in with the goals of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. He asked the applicant if the garage would have a door to allow access from the deck. Mr. Andrews replied that there would be a door from the deck as well as one in the back of the garage. Board Member LINKER asked if Mr. Andrews had surveyed his neighbors about his plans. Mr. Andrews replied that his neighbor to the sauth has expressed his support. Board Meinber HOWARD asked if there were flooding problems on Mr. Andrews' property. Nit: Andrews explained that he had taken mitigation measures to preuent flooding. He also explained that the driveway would be designed with a'gutter to cazry water away from his neighbor's house. Board Member BELL asked Mr. Andrews if he had given thought to directing drainage to provide water far landscaping. Mr. Andrews replied that he has placed cobble and mulch so that when water comes from the back yard, it percolates into his landscaping. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Tietz stated that staff has not received any comments from the neighbors concerning this application. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mr. Andrews stated that the garage would have a gabled roo£ He also stated that the garage would be built to be in compliance with city code. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BUCKNAM, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment Minutes - Z- June 28, 2007 Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-07-06 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 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. WA-07-06 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. For the following reasons: Compliance with the 10-foot 2. 3. virtually cut off access to the main home. Alternate placement of the garage would i significant demolition of improvements al by the owner which greatly enhance the p The request is consistent with the existing surrounding area as a area have been constn degree tha counter to the north, their prop to the ate and require a done on the property ndifions in the , sheds and garages in the red setback areas to the requirements would run ial character of the neighborhood. The homes to east all have:garages that are within one foot of Additionally, the applicanYs home is 1.5 feet from the northern property line and the existing garage is also within the required sethack area. 4. The hardship has not been caused by the applicant. 5. The garage being constructed is to replace an unsafe structure that has become unusable to this extent. 6. Granting of this variance appears to further the objectives of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. 7. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that will result in a positive outcome to the character of the neighborhood. The investment will not be possible without the granting of a variance. Even if the applicant were to replace the garage in the same location as the existing garage, a variance would need to be granted for its construction. The new garage will enhance the many improvements already done on and throughout this entire property. 8. Modern standards require a two-car garage as minimal for a single family home. requirement would al1 but Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3- June 28, 2007 9. Rationale for the variance resonates positively with six of the nine criteria. 10. Staff recommended approval. With the following conditions: 1. The garage must be constructed in a manner which is complimentary to the existing home including a similar roof pitch, materials and architectural style. 2. No window opening may occur on the wall adjacent to the property to the south as a precaution against the spread of fire. The motion passed 8-0. Chair BLAIR advised the applicant that his requesf for variance was granted. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BLAIR closed the public hearing at`7:41 p.m: 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to coine before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS • Approval af Minutes - Apri126, 2007 It was moved by Soard Member BELL and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes of Apri126, 2007 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Meredith:Reckert announced that John Schumacher has been hired for the building official position in the Community Development Department effective July 9,2007. • Meredith Reckert announced that Alan White has resigned as Director of Coimliunity DeZelopment to take a position with the City of Englewood. His resignation<is effective July 20`h. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Robert Blair, Chair Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Minutes June 28, 2007 Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjushnent 4-