Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/2006~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA April 27, 2006 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on April 27, 2006, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge,. Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 4. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WF-06-02: An application filed by Patrick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Class II Floodplain Excepfion Pernrit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One (R-1) and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street. B. Case No. WA-06-04: An application filed by Robin Hofineister for approval of a 15 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yazd setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 15 foot side yud setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 7105 West 29th Place. C. Case No. WA-06-05: An applicarion filed Copper Fields Land Holdings, LLC, for approval of a varianceto the maximum aliowable height for billboards under Section 26-711 for property zoned Commercial-One (Gl) and Industrial (n and located at 4901 Marshall Street. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Board of Adjustment Bylaws 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - February 23 & March 23, 2006 9. ADJOURNMENT City of Wheat Ridge oF wHEqT Community Development Department c~ m Memorandum ~o~oRAOo TO: Board ofAdjustment FROM: JeffHirt, Planner' SUBJECT: WA-06-02/Koentges DATE: Apri127; 2006 Plaxuiing staff is recommending a second continuance of case number WF-06-02, a request for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential Once (R-1) and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street to the May 25, 2006 Boazd of Adjustment public hearing. This case was continued indefinitely at the March 23, 2006 Boazd of Adjustment public hearing and reset and renotified for the Apri127, 2006 Board of Adjustment public hearing. Per the Board of Adjushnent Bylaws, Article V, no. 3, if the case is continued for an indefinite period of time it must be reset and renotified to be heard again. If the case is continued for a definite tnne, no additional notice must be given. Staff is recommending continuance to a definite time, May 25, 2006. All required information was submitted to hear this case; however it was concluded by planning and public works staff that there are multiple issues remaining that must be addressed prior to hearing this case. U~o WHE.iTq m C~ lOAP~ TO: CITY OF WI3EAT RIDGE PLANNIlVG DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-04/Hofineister DATE OF MEETING: Apri127, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 15 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 15 foot side yard setback. LOCAT'ION OF REQITEST: 7105 West 29`h Place APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: Robin Hofineister Robin Hofineister 9,076 square feet (.20 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Two (R-2) ' ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FII.E & PACKET MATERIAI.S (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE ( ) SUBDNISION REGULATIONS Location Map Subject Property r r- rr- 30TH AVE o 0) <9 n p to- ~0 J,D'- ~ `'1 17 29TH PLACE N ~ ❑ W W w Board of Adjustment 1 Case WA-06-04/Hofineister Jurisdiction All notificarion and posring requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 7105 West 29'" Place; and is approximately .20 acres in size ' . The property has Residenrial-Two (R-2) zoning and currenUy has a single faxnily residential structure on it. The applicant, Robin Hofineister, is requesting this variance as the property owner The request is for approval of a 15 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 15 foot side yazd setback for the purpose of conshucting a detached gazage. The development standards for detached garages in the R-2 zone disuict can be summarized as follows o Front Yard Setback: 30 feet o Side Yard Setback: 5 feet if the structure is less than 8 feet in height; 10 feet if the suucture is greater than 8 feet in height. o Rear Yard Setback: 5 feet if the structure is less than 8 feet in height; 10 feet if the sh-ucture is greater than 8 feet in height. o* Any side or rear yard which abuts a public street shall Lave a minimum setback of 30 feet for all structures The subject property is a corner lot, thus a 30 foot setback is applicable from the south (West 29`" Place) and east (Saulsbury Street) property ]ines. The applicant is proposing a detached garage setback ] 5 feet from the east property line adjacent to the Saulsbury Street right-of-way and 12.2 feet from the north property line. The detached garage is ap roximately 22' X 32' (704 square feet) in size and approximately 14 feet in height . The applicant has expressed that the fagade of the detached garage will match the house, with a brick veneer finish on the east fagade. II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 9,076 square feet in size, or .20 acres. The property measures 91.68 feet wide with a depth of 99 feet. The property currently has a single family residenrial structure on it of approximately 1784 square feet in size. The one car attached garage has recently been converted into living space, so there is cunently no garage space. The applicant has expressed that with the property being a comer lot, the two 30 foot setback requirements make it difficult to build a sizable and conforming detached garage. There may also be the possibility ihat a mature tree will have to be removed if the garage were pushed further west. The applicant has also expressed concem about the loss of backyard space and the security issues related to parking vehicles on the sfreet. There appears to be altematives for placement of the garage to either be in conformance with setback requirements or necessitate less of a variance request. Typical dimensions for a two caz detached garage are 24' X 24'. The applicant is proposing a detached garage that is 22' wide and 32' in depth. Construcring a garage that is 22' wide and 24' in depth would lessen the variance request to a 9 foot variance for example (21 foot setback from Saulsbury Street in contrast to the proposed 15 foot setback from the 30 foot required setback). Another issue is the fact that typically at least 18 feet of driveway depth is needed to allow for vehicles to be parked with adequate space. The applicant is proposing a driveway of 15 feet in length with this request. 18 feet is the required depth of a 90 degree parking space per the Code of Laws. Boazd of Adjustment Case WA-06-04/Hofineister Four comparable variance cases were found in the vicinity of this request ( WA-83-25 2935 Teller Street This case was a request for approval of two 10 foot variances to the 15 foot side yard setback requirements to allow for an addition to a house and detached garage of 720 square feet. Only the request for the 10 foot variance to allow for the addirion was approved. The variance request for the detached garage component was denied. . 2001 Aerial Photograph 2935 Teller WA-94-5 2490 Saulsbury Street This case was a request for approval of a 20 foot variance to the required 30 foot side yard setback for a detached garage adjacent to a public sheet (300'Avenue). The request was approved for the following reasons: l. The location of the house makes it considerably difficult in the placement of a two car garage while maintaining functional use of the backyard. 2. An 18 foot driveway will be created which equals a standard parking space. Board of Adjustment Case WA-06-04/Hofineister 2001 Aerial Photograph 2990 Saulsbury WA-04-14 2971 Teller Street This case was a request for a 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulring in a 5 foot side yard setback to consh-uct an attached three car garage on to the existing house. The request was denied for the following reasons: 1. The hardship has been created by a person having an interest in the property. 2. Crranting of the variance, while it would not potenrially change or alter the character of the neighborhood, does encroach a considerable distanceinto the required setback. 3. There are altematives available including reducing the size of the garage from a three-car to a two-car garage requiring a lesser variance or building a garage meeting setback requirements in the rear yard. WA-04-17 3010 Saulsbury Street This case was a request for a 12 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yazd setback requirement when adjacent to a pnblic street resulring in an 18 foot side yard setback . . The request was approved for the following reasons: 1. The garage, as proposed and with conditions to follow, would be an improvement and betterment to the neighborhood. 2. The variance wouid not cause an alteration to the essentia] character of the neighborhood nor affect air and lighf to adjacent properties. 3. The setbacks required on a comer lot significantly reduce the allowable buildable area of the ]ot and therefore create a hardship. 4. A petition was submitted signed by nine neighbors who were in favor of the variance as requested with the garage door facing West 300'Avenue. 5..,_ Alternative)ocations arguably would have a negative impact upon the property. 6. The requested 18 foot setback from 30'h Avenue appears to be more like 24 feet because of the six eef"- between the lot line and the pavement. 7. The variance would address safety issues described by the applicant and an adjacent neighbor by locating the driveway from 30'' Avenue as opposed to the altemative of locating the driveway on the comer of 30'' and Saulsbury. Board of Adjustment Case WA-06-04/I1ofineister 2001 Aerial Photograph 2971 Teller Street II. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has Yhe 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? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be used as a single-family residence without the need for any variances 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The requesYwould have a slight effect on the essential character of the locality. No adjacent properties observed have detached garages which encroach into the required setbacks. There are however at least two detached garages within a block of the subject property which have detached garages that encroach into the required setbacks. The two properties both are comer lots and received variances in 1994 and 2004. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as disfinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? There aze no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. The property in question is rectangular in shape and flat. It is, however, a comer ]ot_ Al] structures on a comer lot must adhere to 30 foot setbacks on each side abutting a public street.___ . _ _ 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a garage in this location. There are other altematives for placement of the garage to be more in compliance with setback requirements, or lessen the degree of the variance request. 5. Would the granting oF the variance 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, 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? Boazd of Adjuslment Case WA-06-04/Hofineister 2001 Aerial Photograph 3010 Saulsbury Street Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area. There may be a slight decrease in the supply of light and air to the property to the north, given that approval of the variance would result in a structure closer to the street than is allowed under cunent development standards. The request would not substantially increase the congesrion in public sh-eets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safery. Approval of the variance would however result in a driveway 15 foot in length which may result in vehicles extending out into the right-of-way when parked in the driveway. Properry values should not be impacted as a result of this request. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contriburion to the neighborhood or the community, as disringuished from an individual benefit on the part of the appticant, or would granting of the variauce result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request would not result in a substantial benefit or conh-iburion to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabiliries. M. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there aze unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. The property may stil] be used as a single-family residence without the need for any variances. 2. The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a garage in this location. 3. The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. 4. There are altematives available to construct a garage and meet the R-2 development standards, or lessen the degree of the variance request. 5. The request would result in a 15 foot driveway which is not adequate space for parking a vehicle. Board of Adjustment Case WA-06-04/Hofineister i O M D W ~ C1 (D „ 0 w. 0 m ' W N W - i S v r ~M W{~ ~ ~ ~ p-~'~ A~ m 3.4. ~o ~ . g g O ~rt ~ 3 a. ~ ~ p3p ~ . ~ w N ~ ~ ~ . o m m~ n aaa. ~~°3 . ~ ~ ~ ? w.o ~CA V(> N0 DC m ~ ~ pco ~ mer a. . . . . . N ~ ~ ~as $ft~ ' 5 a~m w ~ - g = P ~ n ~ o,am ~ -a C 0 ~~~g a 4 ~ as C. m X ~ ~ O a Y '.~e m'c 4 z " . C ` d ¢ G)' ° O , z o ~3 . g ~ m ~ SO 0 ~ . . I a ~ ~ o ~ p m Z ' ' S'. ~ ..0 . Vz N m Z , 5 w w ~ o ' ~ . ~ D • ~ ~ i N O ~ fa ~ W.'m m . . . ~ a ~ " ^ E ~ .o ii N . m ~ N ~ 2. m r Cl m 30.0 DRIVE V ~ 99' a 5' ESMT. i 237 Z ~ o p i - o r------; W ~ bo 2.Q' 2.1' ~ cn ~ N - O ~ -1 O ~ N r= 5:1' j ~ N V ~ . 31.3' SAU0BURY STREET N I~ 1 , FY1 I. V (G. ~ - -~-I O D O c Uf , 3 [n~ m~- 3 'a O ~ j ~ T ° T-o O 3! o ~ . c. rm7~ A lIC ~ 0 oo- Z(n, ;t Apri17,2006 To: Jeff Hirt From: Robin and Kelly Hofineister Re: Setback Variance for 7105 W. 29`h Place We wish to build a 22' by 32' detached garage in the back yard of our property, but by being on a corner lot it makes it difficult to conform to present setback requirements. We aze requesting a 15' setback from the required 30' setback when adjacent to a public street, in this case, Saulsbury Street. We currently do not have garage space for we have been permitted by the City to remodel the attached single garage into more living and kitchen space. We have carefully designed the garage along with the placement to maintain good property values by matching the house elevations in the neighborhood with same style roofing and brick face, as well as keeping in mind not to negatively affect air and light to adjacent properties. One reason for the request is that the other option of placing the garage more to the west would mean removing a mature fruit-bearing tree. This is coupled with reducing prime back yazd space and privacy which causes concern for lower property value. We would also be eliminating several street-parking spaces, which would create the potential for increased safety and decreased crime. Thank you in advance for your time in this matter. Sincerely, Robin and Kelly Hofineister EXHIBIT 2 ~ H ~ n Ml ~ ~ O ~ ~ H ~ ro M O ~Y O N e w ~ ~ r 4 ~ i b ~ R . ~ . . ~ y + ~ EXHIBIT 3 N A N ti ~ ~ ti N ti 0 100 200 Feet N 1-- cY) CY) t!') ~ O M O CD O M LO ~ O O Lo ~ O m cY) ~ W 00 rn W ~ N ~ U) ry W J J W ~ I-- 0 ~ N O ('7 LO ~ O M tO O O M rn c0 c") ~ r c- L" Lo LO ti r r 30TH AVENUE ° ° ° ti ti ti co LO LO LO LO N ~ N LO ~ ~ i~- d' ~ ~ m rn co .I~ 29TH PLACE 0 0 0 m (p M ~ r T ~ r- ~ 30TH AVENUE i 0 0 o rn ~ O S BJ E PROi' RTY 0 ~N EXHIBIT 4 0 ~ o ti ti ~ CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION O RIVINAL I, Ann Lazzeri, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Boazd of Adjustrnent, do hereby certify that the following Resoluuon was duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, on the 27th day of Januarv. 2005. CASE NO: WA-04-17 AI'PLICANT'S NAtVIE: Republic Garages LOCATION: 3010 Saulsbury WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Boazd of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-04-17 is an appeal to this Board from #he decision of an administra#ive officer, and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against ii; and VVHEREAS, the relief applied for MAY be granted without dehiment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of #he regulations goveming the City of Wheat Ridge. NOW, THEREFOI2E, BE IT I2ESOLVED that Boazd of Adjustrnent Application Case No. WA-04-17 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF Vr1RIANCE: A 12 foot side yazd setback variance from the 30 foot side yazd setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in an 18 foot side yazd setback for property zoned Residenria►-Two. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The garage, as proposed and with conditions to follow, would be an unprovement and betterment to ihe neighborhood. 2. The variance would not cause an alteration to the essential character of the neighborhood nor affect air and light to adjacenf properties. 3. "Ihe setbacks required on a comer lot significandy redvice the allowable buildable area of the lot and therefore create a hardship. 4. A petition was submitted signed by nine neighbors who were in favor of the variance as requested with the garage door facing West 30ih Avenue. 5. Altemative locations azguably would have a negative unpact upon the property. EXHIBIT 5 Board of Adjustment Resolution No. WA-0417 Page two (2) b. The requested 18 foot setback from 3e Avenue appears to be more like 24 feet because of the six feet beiween the lot line and the pavement. 7. The variance would address saf'ety issues described by the appficant and an adjacent neighbor by locating the driveway from 30'h Avenue as opposed to the altemative of locating the driveway on the comer of 30`h and Saulsbury. WITH THE FOLLOWING COiYDITIONS: Tlere will be a brick face on the gazage and a hip and gable roof to match the house. 2. The boazd fence will be moved back to be in line with the new garage face from the eastern property line and boazd fence removed from west of the garage and replaced with split rail as described by the appiicanf. VOTE: I'ES: ABBOTT, BELL, HflVLAND, HOWARD NO: DRDA ABSENT: BLAIR DISPOSITION: A 12 foot side yard sezback v,ariance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent ta a public street resulting in an 18 foot side yazd setback for property zoned Residential-Two was APPI20VED. ADOPTED and made effective this 27th day of Januarv. 2005. p a, Vice Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Boazd of Adjustment Boazd af Adjushnent TYPE OF VARIANCE: A lfl foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback reqairement resulting in a 5 ioot side yard setback tor property zoned Residential-One. For the foilowing reasons: 1. The Lardship has been created by a person having an interest in the property. 2. Granting of the variance, while iY would not potentially change or alter the character of the neighborhood, does encroach a considerable distance into the required setback. 3. There are alternatives available induding reducing the size of the garage from a three-car to a iwo-car garage reqairing a lesser variance or bui)ding a garage meeting setbaclc requirements in the rear yard. The motion passed 5-0. DRAFT Vice Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance was denied. ~ D. Case No. WA-04-17: An application filed by Republic Garages for approva] of a 12 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in an 18 foot side yard setback for property zoned Itesidentia] Two and located at 3010 Sautsbury Stree#. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. Prior to his presentation, he entered a letter into the record and provided copies to the Boazd. The letter was signed by nine neighbors expressing support of the application. Mr. Hirt entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd ihere was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended deniai of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. Jerry Cassell 3010 Sanlsbury Mr. Cassell, the property_owner, was swom in by.Vice Chair DRDA,_His_reason for requesting a variance is to build a three-caz defached garage. $e wants to get his vehicles off the street and driveway and into a garage. He stated thai the proposed garage would match the house with a hip roof and similar building materials. If he were to extend his single caz garage to the south it would necessitate the removal of two 25-year-old shade trees. The orily viable location for the proposed garage is the one contained in the application. There is also a safety facior involved with his property being located on the comer: There was one incident of a caz crashing through the split rail fence on the corner of his property as well as incidents of vandalism to his vehicles. There is a well-house in the back yazd that wiil not be removed. Boazd of Adjustment - 10 - O1-27-05 Board Member BELL commented that a tvuo-caz garage could be consUVCted without a variance. Nir. Cassell stated that he wanied a ihree-car garage to get his cars out of the driveway and street. He noted that there were other similar situations in his neighborhood. In response to a question from Board Member A$BOTT, Ms. Reckert siated that the proposed garage space would be within the lot coverage requuemenu. Patty Polich 3030 SauLsbury Ms_ Polich was sworn in by Vice Cha'v DRI3A. She lives two doors from the applicant and indicated her support of the application. There are other neighbors who have received variances which have not hurt the character of the neighborhood. She believed the garage would increase property values. Board 2vlember ABBOTT asked if she had a problem with the driveway entrance being located from 300' Avenue. Ms. Polich repiied that she believed the entrance from 30"' would be safer than the driveway which faces Saulsbury. Craig Sharbonno DRAFT 3030 Saulsbnry Ivir, Sharbonno was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. I-3e spoke in favor of the application. Getting the cars off the street and out of the driveway would be safer because of cazeless drivers coming around the comer. Decreasing the size of the back yard without the variaace wotiild decrease the property's value. Terry +Olson 2990 Saulsbury Mr. Olson was swom in by Vice Chair DRDA. I-Ie received a variance in 1994 Lo build a two-car garage. His lot is sma3ler than the applicant's lot. The Board decided that there would be sufficient room for a caz to be parked in the driveway withont encroaching onto . a sidewalk based upon ihe city's regulations for parking space size. The Board's major cancem was the chazacter of the neighborhood: His garage was bui3t to match his house and appears to have been buili at the same time as the house. He stated that he has also _ experienced probiems tivith cazeless drivers and vandalism when his cars were parked on the street IJpon a motioa by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HpVLAND tLe iollowing resolation was stated: Whereas, the applicaui was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-04-17 is an appeal to this Board irom tLe decision of an administrafive officer; and Board of Adjusiment - 11 - 01-27-OS Whereas, the properiy has been posted the fiffeen 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 witbout sabstantially impairing the intenY and purpose of the regulations governing the City of VI'heat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 04-17 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 12 foot side yard setback variance irom the 30 fooY side yard ~ sefback requirement when adjacent to a pnblic street resulting in an 18 toot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two. ~P o p ~ For the following reasons: ~ i. The garage, as proposed and with conditions to follow, would be an improvement and betterment to the neighborLood. 2. The variance would noY cause an al#eration to the essential character of the neighborhood nor affect air and ligLt to adjacent properties. 3. The setbacks required on a corner lot significantly reduce the allowable buildable area of the lot and i6erefore create a hardship. 4. A petitiun was submitted signed by nine neighbors who were in favor of the variance as requested with the garage door facing West 30th Avenue. 5. Alternafive 3ocaHons arguably would have a negative impact apon the property. Witb the tollowing conditions: 1. There will be a brick face on the garage and a Lip aud gable roo# to mafch the house. 2. The board fence will be moved back to be in line with the new garage face from the eastern property line and board fence removed #rom west oi the - garage and replaced with split rail as described by the applicant. _ Board Member HOVLAND offered a friendiy amendment Yo add twa more reasons: 6. TLe requested 18 #oot setback from 30"' Avenue appears #o be more like 24 feet because of the s'vc feet behveen the lot liue and the pavement 7. T6e variance wonld address safety issues described by the applicant and an adjacent neigLbor by locating the driveway from 30`h Avenue as opposed to the altemative o# locating the driveway on the comer of 30th and Saulsbury. The amendment svas accepted by $oard Member ABBOTT. Boatd of Adjustment - 12 - O1-27-05 Board Member DRDA asked for clarification about the statemeni that altemate locations would have a. negative impaci on the property. Board Member ABBOTT explained ihat moving and turning the garage another direction in the back would have a negative impact on the use of ihe yard for a single family house and, azguably, the property value. Board Ivlember DRDA siated that he had difficulty finding a hardship in this tase. Board Member ABBOTT commenied that options are considerably less on a comer lot ~ because of setback requirements on two sides of the lot. The motion passed 4-1 with Board Member DI2DA voting no. 5. CLOSE THE YIJBLIC $EARING Vice Chair DRDA closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - August 26, 2004 ~m m • Board Member HOVLAND offered an amendment to the minutes on page 6, paragraph 3: The sentence should read: "The motion failed (rather ihan "passed"). Ii was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member A8$OTT to approve the minutes of August 26, 2004 as amended. TLe motion passed unanimously. B. Resignations • Meredith Reckert submitted copies of a letter from Bill Echelmeyer notifying the Board of his resignation due to a serious health condition. Ms. Reckert also announced ihat James Ivlolnaz resigned from the Board to serve on the Building Code Advisory Committee. C. Election o# Officers It was moved by Board Member H03'LAND and seconded by Board Member $OWARD to select Paul Drda as Chair. The motion passed unanimously. It was moved by Board Member DRDA and seconded by Board Member IiOVLAND to select Janet $ell as Vice Chair. The mofion passed unanimnusly. Board of Adjustment - 13 - 01-27-OS F,~ WH~"qa CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~~OftA~O TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-05/Copper Fields DATE OF MEETING: April 27, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of an 18-foot height variance to allow a 50-foot tall billboard for proper[y zoned Commercial One and Industrial. LOCATION OF I2EQUEST: 4901 Marshall Street APPLICANT (S): Copper Fields Land Holdings OWNER (S): Same 4901 Marshall St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 296,002 sq. ft. (6.79 aa) PRESENT ZONING: Commercial One (C-1) & Industrial ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERTALS (X) D[GITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site ~ UEi ~ All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUE5T The applicant is requesting approval of an 18-foot height variance from the maximum allowable 32-foot limitation for billboards, resulting in a 50-foot tall billboard (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). II. CASE ANALYSIS Property History The property is currently zoned Commercial One (C-1) and Industrial (I), and contains an existing event center. The property previously contained a billboard at a height of 50 feet. There is no evidence of a variance granted to this billboard; it may have simply been constructed prior to incorporation of the City. This previous billboard was constructed by another advertising company. When the billboazd lease expired, the previous billboard was removed. A vaziance was previously approved (Case No. WA-96-16) for the property directly to the north at 4909 Marshall Street, which allowed a 50 foot tall billboazd facing the highway. Billboards Chapter 26, Article VII of the Code of Laws allows billboard shuctures in the "13-2" district; an area generally north of interstate 70. This property is located within the "B-2" district, therefore, a billboard structure is allowed. Article VII allows a masimum of sixteen billboards in the City of Wheat Ridge, all of which must be located within the "13-2" district. When the previous billboard lease expired, one billboard permit became available. Once an underlying billboard lease expires, one billboard permit becomes available on a first-come, first-serve basis. The applicant has applied for and received a building permit for the sixteenth billboard. The approved permit is for a billboard constructed at a height of 32 feet. If the variance request is approved, the billboard will be constructed at 50 feet. Request The property is 296,002 square feet in size, has an abnormal shape, and slopes severely from east to west. The applicant wishes to conshuct a new billboard to the south of the building, essentially re-establishing exactly what was previously there (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). The maximum size for a billboazd is 750 square feet, and the billboard must meet setbacks for a primary structure in the zone district. The proposed billboard meets all size and setback requirements as specified in Chapter 26, Article VII of the Code of Laws. The property slopes severely from east to west, where a large embankment transitions to the highway right-of-way. There is an elevation change of 24.2 feet from the base of the proposed billboard to the west-bound traveling lane of the highway. Many mature trees are located on the embankment, which would make visibility of a conforming billboard almost impossible. Based upon the current height limitation of 32 feet, only the top 8 feet of the billboard would be visible from the highway if the trees were not present. The trees are located within CDOT right-of-way, and may not be altered or removed without consent of the Department. The applicant has included a number of photographs and photo-simulations which illustrate the grade change. These photos have been attached collectively as Exhibit 3. Boazd of Adjustment WA-05-13Bepublic A letter of objection has been submitted from the advertising company which previously held the billboard lease on this property, and which operated a 50-foot tall billboard on the property for a number of years. This letter has been attached as Exhibit 4. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a vaziance 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? The request has no effect on the underlying use of the property, as the event center may continue regardless of the location of a billboard on the property. If the request were denied, the property owner would lose additional income received from the billboard lease. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. A variance was granted for the property directly to the north, which has an identical situation relating to grade change from the highway. A billboazd previously existed on this property which was 50 feet ta1L 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result 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 lot does have a unique shape. It slopes severely from east to west, and a large embaiilanent exists on the western property line. There is a difference of approximately 24.2 feet from the location of the proposed billboard to the westbound traveling lane of the highway. This grade separation creates an unusual hardship, especially as it relates to a billboard. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? A person who has interest in the property has not caused the hardship. The hardship arises from the severe grade change on the western property line. In addition to the grade change, many mature trees cover the embaukinent, which further obscure visibility. 5. Would the granting of the variance 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, 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 Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-05/Copper Fields increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, 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 resuit 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. IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S) Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The hardship has not been created by a person having interest in the property. 2. The hazdship is created by a severe grade change and mature trees which would render a conforming billboard largely invisible. 3. Granting of the variance would not change or alter the chazacter of the neighborhood. Boazd of Adjustmem WA-06-05/Copper Fields Copper Fields Land Holdings LLC 4901 Marshail St. Wheat Ridge CO 80033 April 5, 2006 Trauis Crane Planner City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29~' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: 4901 MARSHALL ST. - VARIANCE LETTER OF INTENT AND PURPOSE Dear Mr. Crane: We aze writing this letter to fully explain the intent and purpose of our variance application to the Boazd of Adjustment. Specifically, we are asking to raise the overall height of our billboard structure from 32' to 50'. We ask for this vaziance because, at 32' in overall height, the advertisements on our sign cannot be seen nor read. This is caused by a unique feature of our property: the majority of the property (and the area where the sign has been permitted) sits substantially below the grade of I-70. In addition, there are as many as three dozen trees lining the CDOT-owned embankment that separates I-70 from our property. These, too, block our sign. Visibility is paramount for the sale of the advertisements: ifthey cannot be read, then they cannot be sold. The rent we receive from the billboards provides Copper Fields Land Holdings LLC with sorely needed and necessary money that we need to operate our business. One important fact to note is that, until early December, 2005, we had an identical 50' billboazd in the same location on our property. Unfortunately, we could not come to terms with that billboard company and their structure was removed after 20 years on our property. We know that a variance was granted for that struchue back in 1985. Unforiunately, we could not locate the records of the Boazd of Adjustment hearing that granted that original vaziance. However, based on that structure's height of 50', we assume that it was approved due to unique physical characteristics of our property. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a complaint about the height of the billboard from any of our neighbors in those 20 years. ~ As mentioned above, our property sits at the bottom of a hill on the north side of I-70 _ approximately halfway between Harlan St. and Wadsworth Blvd. Near Hazlan; I-70 runs at or almost at the same grade as the properties that abut it on the north and south side. EXHIBIT 1 Page Z As you conrinue westbound towazds Wadsworth, I-70 starts to run slightly downhiil. At that point (approximately Lamar St.), the south abutting properties rise above the grade of I-70, while the north abutting properties fall below the grade of I-70. This is nature of our property - we sit substantiaily below the road surface of I-70. To describe the view from our property, I-701ooks like a rock ledge. At the locarion of the old sign and where our new sign is to be built, we aze 23.5' below the road surface. Basically, we sit in a"hole." Theoretically, with a sign height of 32' overall, travelers should be able to see the top 8.5' of our sign. However, this is not the case. Other factors also interfere with the visibility of the sign. First, if one is traueling eastbound, the road surface of I-70 rises up to completely obstruct the view of the sign. Then, there is a guazdrail and several CDOT-owned trees. If one is traueling westbound, one could theoretically look down to see the sign. I3owever, there is a"picket-fence" of CDOT trees that sepazates our property from I-70 as well as a guardrail. There are almost three dozen trees on the I-70 embankment. They run the entire length of our property and sit high on the embankment as well as straddle our boundary fence. The most substantial trees along our fence line aze in the immediate area of the sign, measure between 34' and 43' in height and completely shield the sign from traffic along I-70. To illustrate the visibility issues, we hired a crane to raise a standard billboard advertisement to 32' to illustrate our visibility issues. Those photographs are attached hereto. In them, you can plainly see that both the eastbound and westbound sign faces are not readily visible due to our below-grade property. The addition of the CDOT trees make the signs that much more difficult to see and impossible to read. From those photos, we superimposed a face at the proposed height. Those photographs are also attached. We believe that our request is reasonable. Even at 50' the advertisements will be slightly obstructed. While we can certainly ask for a taller sign, we feel that, at 50', the advertisements, while they will be still slightly obstructed, are visible and saleable. We are also aware that the maximum height of any structure in the Light Industrial (1) zone is 50'. At 50' we feel that the sign's impact, if any, on the adjoining properties is minimal. In effect, we are simply asking to replace a sign that earisted for the last 20 years. And, to the best of our knowledge, there has not been a single complaint about the height of that sign in the 20 years it was in place. Finally, when we purchased ow property in 2001, we fully enjoyed, expected and needed the rent from our billboazd tenant. It helped operate our business and keep our property clean and in good repair. Unfortunately, our relationship with that company ended on a sour note. We hope that the Board will allow us to restore our sign to the height of its predecessor. Without cleaz lines of visibility these signs aze worthless and they are not saleable. Quite frankly, we need this money to operate our business, maintain our Page 3 property, meet our financial obligations and remain a good tas-paying citizen of the City of Wheat Ridge. We respectfixlly request the staff s and the Board's consideration and support in our request to raise our billboard from the maximum allowed height of 32' to an overall height of 50' Thank you. Sincerely, Copper Fields Land Holdings, LLC Cheryl Wise Managing Member SITE PLAN SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAI MERIDIAN COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO N 2 ~ \ \ ~T \ ^ (1\ill ~ ~ ~ d 2% ~w.AE fJ' \ ^ ~M17 Cn~U ~ ' . ^ WOJD SXED I05' M 40' WWO SHEO s N /I'17'30" W 6].60' I6'Wi0E5EWQfGS=EM ~ . . VJJY i60. PWE 119 - - - - - - - - - - - - - NEILM OF RGFROVEO 33' OAX. BILLBMRD $iX11CNFE i0 BE P/.ISEO TO `A' OAN. (ALL OMEfl SIGN .WD SIPUCNRE SIZES INO OIMENSIONS TO REWJN THE SU1E) SIGN DETAIL N-~00"N4 . i . y Nore pIAFlNG SlPRES XOi LMFiEO g p PEA WFM PEOVESf hsrwll v1wNc f~ 01~10.0• ASV1ULi G~vdc NOTES SJBJECL GRJPE.m - IOxEO Y (pGXi IrvWSiRNL) pFC' \ M1b,\ ~t, 1. BFARING BASE: THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-qUNRTER Of SECTON ll, TOWNSHIP 3 SOIRH. RHNCE 69 WEST OF THE 51%IH PRMCIPFL MERIDNN AS BEPRING N 40'05'24" W(AS DESCRIBEO IN LECPL DESCRIPiION) 2. VISIBLE SURFpCE t1TILltt APpURTENhNCES HAVE BEEN LOCATED USiNG TYE STANDARO OF CPRE PREVAILING AMONG PROFESSIONAL L1N0 Sl1RVEYOFS PRhCiICING IN THE METROPOLIiAN PREA. NO OiHER REPRESENTATIONS CF UTIIJtt LOCATONS ARE MAOE OR IMPLIED. BEfORE COMMENCING ANY E%CAVATION THE UTILRIES SHOVLO BE FlELD LOCAiEO BY CALLING UTILItt IOCAiES AT 1-800-922-1997. ooro vwe fENCE ilES LEGFNO Cnvx u, F QI FENCE LORNEF O FOOND REPAR h GP ¢ Y e + 8.1' HortP+Ens1 Ls. no. 14112 ox w ic (MS) pGHT POIf ~ . O2 FENCE CORNER 0.0' NOHTHEAS1 ~ MqryHOLE ~ (MS) OVERHEAD ELECTRIL 3O FENCE CORNER ~ ~ TELEPHONF MANHOIE 1.0 $OUTHWEST (MS) ~ UiWtt POLE O FENCE COFNER 'cy 0 qpMq METEF O.Y N.W. % 5.2' E. a3'e aiaf i0 Je i GiGE (M5) ~ WATEF VALVE OS FENCE COFNER ~ RRE HYORFNT 0.3' SOUIHWEST (rrrs) (Hrs) " Nor ro scnLE ~c~`- ~ I ~ ~ ~ SITE PLAN 4941 MARSHALI SiREET CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COUNiY OF JEFFEFSON . STATE OF LOLOPADO ~ ~ o ~ ~s ~ x i ~ n o ' U --A N ~ b N W N W. SBM AK. B ~ ~ w. ssxo Mx. ~ SITE 70 ~ ~ s «m ..r VICINI7Y MAP - NOT TO SCALE PARCEL DESCRIPTION TIUT PPRi OF THE SOIRHWEST ONE-OUARTER OF THE SOUTHWESi ONE-QUPRiER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 3 SOIITH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIX(H PRINCIPAL MEFIOFN, OESCRIBEO AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING Ai THE S~WEST CORNER OF 5410 SECTON 13; THfNCE N 00'0524' W. ALONG THE WESi LINE SAID SOUTHWEST ONE-OUARiEft, A DiSTANGE OF 596.3 FEEt TO A POINi; iHENCE N]4'6]'00' E. AIONG THE NORiH UNE 0F TRACT OESCRIBED IN 300H o36 AT PACE 203, A DISTANCE OF 295.30 GEEi TO THE POINT, OF BEGNNMG; iHENCE N]6'd)'00' E, ALONC THE NORTH LME OF TRACT OESCRIBEO IN BOOK 694 Ai PAGE 203, A OISTANCE OF 609A3 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESiERLY flIGHT OF WAY I.ME OF NARSHAIL SiREEf (COLORA00 HIGHWAY NJ. 72) SA10 POIM BEING ON THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCNVE TO NORiHE45T; THENCE SOUTHE45TERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY liICFR OF WAY L1NE OF MARSHALL SiREEf AND AIONG THE PRC OF A CUME TO THE LEFf. 114VING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2232b3". A RADIUS OF 12063 PEEf, AN ARC OISTANCE OF 474.43 FEEf TO A POINT WHICH IS THE NORiHFAST CORNEfl OF TrLACT DESCRI2E0 UNpER RECEPTION N0. 82074789, AS CORRECTEO 91' INSTRUMEN! RECOROED UNOEft-RECEPTION NO. 90024405, THE CHORO OF SAID ARC BFARS 5 22'32'03" E, 471.38 FEEf: iHENGE 5 00'05 '24"`E, PARPLLEI WIiH THE WESi lME UF SAID SOUlHWESi ONE-QUFRTER A DISiANCE JF 48195 fEEf i0 THE SOUfHEAST CORNER OF SAIp TRACi: THENCE N 610630 W PLONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE Of SAID TRACT AND ALONG THE NORTHE45TERLY LINE OF iRACT OESCRIBED IINDER RECEPTION NUMBER 80069726, A DISiANCE OF 664.17 FEE4 iHENCE N 41'1730- W ALONC SND NORiHFJSTERLY UNE A DISTANCE OF 87.60 iEEf: iHENCE N 2455'15' W, ALONG SND NORRIEASiERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 262.00 FEET TO THE POINi OF BECINNINC, SND PARCEL CONTNNS 6.615 ACRES, MOFE OR LE55, COUNtt OF JEFFERSON, STATE QF WLORADQ NOiE: LECHL DESCRIPTON OERNED FROM THE RECORDEO tAND SURVEY PLAT BY NORT 0. IINN, JR., P45 N0. 14112, RECORDED IN THE RECOROS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY. WLORNpO M SURVEY BOOK 6, PACE J UNDER RECEPTION N0. 90066278. EXHIBIT 2 GRAPffiC SCALE ( pFEC!) i mcL ~ 50 fL NOTES UNITED ADVERTISING CORPORATION I~ )RSLL SURYEYlNG COMPANY 498 wEST ILiFF AvErvUE 500 XALANATH STREET DENVEft, COLOeADO 00123 ~ DENVSR, COLORADO 80204 vOC.Px w.6~CPp.wO 903-629-0f65 FAX 823-97O9 lu _ o wx xo.: asw-+o~ C3, C x~ ° o c ~ ~ ~ x o ~ c ~ o ~ ~ ~ r. rn ~ ~ m rn rn ~ 0 rn ~ ~ Z" O CD O CD rn m o rn o ,Y rn W UC? ."t. F~ R' N CD O N CD O ~ O rn w a r~ ° 0 w ~ ~ n M d O ~ rn~ .P o ~ a m~ c, E~~ rD EXHIBIT 3 rn C ~ rD. 0 c n 0 ~ m rn rn ~ m f. ~ w m ~ El " a~ ~ rn x ~ 0 rn ~ a 'a ~ 0 ~u ~ ~ ~ w c~ ~ oa ~ m ~ O ~ " rn ~ C h Iz o r E 0 ~m ~ w w ~ ~ o tro o ~ c a~ ¢ ,o ~ ~ o. 0 rn ~ rn ~ m c- 0 0 ~ Q- w o ~EJ t3 ~ c> tlo rn w rn r. ~ n m ~ m 0 ~ r. ~ rn ti «o ~ . ~ a- rn 0 ~n f. x m 'a ~ 0 0 ao w 'cs ~ w n rn 0 ~ n d O y ro y o ~ ~ n rn o ~ 6' o ~ ~ o rn 0 ~ ~ °a ~ CD 0 0~ rn ~ ~ cr rn CD 6 N ~ O w p o- p- a' rn rn ~ o o ~ CD ~ ~ J G CD Q ~ h N 6 ~ O ~ O ga. 6' ~ ~ O m ~ rn ~ C~ o t7 O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'0 o `D ❑ a- F ~ w ~ 6 ~ a~ . ~ x~ yroy 'a o 0 o. r, E ~ CD ~ ~ o cr o ~ m w m 0 M R T3 O Es ms- ~ O' ~ S W o' m Q' CD ~ N C3 p ~ N w w o- o- ~ m ts ~D -P o w o rn ~ o w p~ O w w ~ N a. c; 0 ~ o ~ ~ N ~ o ~ 6 Q. o ~ xn rn n. a. n m ° rn ~ O w N ,a C] N d ~ O~ ya ~ cr x w S• c~ O ~ M ~ W ~ r- b~ ~ ¢0 Cr_ ~ o~ ~a a° ~ ~a ~ o~ ~ r. o G ~ ~ O rn ~ 2 11 ~ N J ~ o ^ ~ o m ~ p- O ~ ? n rn ~ ~ GQ ~ ~ w ~ ~ a. ~ cr y ~ w , j w ~ w m ~ uc? o o ~ w m a' ~ a o x~ < p- -~s ~h ,jc~ ~0 -n ^ ~ N. ~ N m Uo 'a p ~ ~ 0. N R- ~ ~ ~C . ~ r' w ~ m w CD P ~ w W ~ m CD O ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ O C ~ ~ O m ~ o u, H v ~ O ~ s" O h ti ~ a O ~-y C3~' n (D CD F~ Ua ~ ~ O ~ P- ~ C O ~ N W ".3 vWi P. ~ x ~ m ~ 0 w ~ a- o n w ~ y ~ cr 0 o ~ x~ ~ o ~ ~ r. ~ m C ~ U~ rn ' a a ~ ..C3- s. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ¢o. CD ~j ~N ~o ~ S ❑ ~ UQ cr CT' ~ O r+ W ~t ^t N a. ~ ~ O N 7 n a d n ~ N ~ W N C ~ ~ CD p ~ N ~ 0. ~ O ~ ~ ~ y `C O r' ~ h ~ O n ~ N ~ ^ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 O G ~ P- ~ n ~ .~"h. O z 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ 0 ~a ~o a. ~ o. o rn ° a. f. rn o ~ ~ W CD C7 ~ O W t t N p. w rt O ~ O N n~-y I~ V ~ y A~ Ny a ~ N O ~ 'c3 f* O C N ~ O ~ rn ~ M w ~ w o f* G ~ ti rn m r. r* o ~ m m r+ ~ O C ~ a . ~ ~n 0 z 0 ~ ~ ~ r. ~ ~ ~ ~ CL o ~ ~o ~ ~ o~ f. o ~ ~7- a P,' w m ~o tro ~ ~ o ~ w » m ~ a C ~ ~ O O 'c3 C O CD N cD V~ ~q O R- ~ -i UQ ~ ~ w H rn ~ o m Q w v, ~ O f. N ~w m ~ n G C7 °c O~ w w ~ V7 z 0 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~n CD a o. CD~ ~N ~o ~ ~ ~ o~ o ~ w r. -s P- ~ ~ ~ O v. O ~ W ~ N W F ~ d" O "(3 < O N N tn ~ O W 'S ^S (~p R. ' 00 .y ~ H ~ N r~ " O N ~ O p ~ rn r, C7 ~ O~ ~ rn ~ w ~ ~ xz ~ o ~ N. ~ ~ w w ~ w~ ~a ~ o~ ~w G ~ 6 ~ N U~4 -s C j 'G O 5 ~ N C ti ~ ~ W ` C ~ O 0 'c3 Ct. ~ U' 0 r n p ~ N W ~ N >C W 0 ~ `C W N O ~ m r. O 10 r-~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ W O %y QQ t O G ~ ¢ ~ O G 0 w ~ ~ rn m ~ w ~ m ~ O ~ R. w ~ W O N EXHIBIT 4 *CBS OUTDOOR April 14, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 RE: Case No. WA-06-05, Height Variance for Billboard Dear Board Members: ~ As General Manager of CBS Outdoor Inc., in Denver (and as a person born and raised in Wheat Ridge), I am submitting these comments in response to the Notice of Public Hearing dated April 13, 2006. The comments are to correct several important misstatements contained in and misimpressions created by the April 5, 2006, letter from applicant Copper Fields Land Holdings, LLC, provided with the application materials. CBS Outdoor, and its direct predecessor companies - Mullins, Eller, Gannett, Outdoor Systems, Infinity and Viacom - have owned, operated and maintained billboards in Wheat Ridge for many decades, and continuously since the current Wheat Ridge Sign Code was enacted in approximately 1986. Although it is true that the prior billboard on Copper Fields' property, owned by CBS Outdoor, was 50' high, it is not true that it had been granted a height variance. That billboard had been initially constructed before 1970, when Wheat Ridge had no height restrictions on billboards in its zoning code. Thus, the prior billboard was allowed to remain only as a grandfathered, non-conforming billboard. Of course, as noted by planning and zoning officials in Wheat Ridge and around the country, and as recognized by our own Supreme Court, one of the major reasons for refusing to allow non-conforming structures to be replaced is that sound planning and zoning practice seeks to eliminate non-conforming uses and structures throughout a city. Indeed, over the years since Wheat Ridge passed its 32' height limitation on billboards, notwithstanding several efforts by CBS Outdoor, and perhaps other billboard companies in Wheat Ridge, no height variance has ever been granted for a billboard. CBS Outdoor submits that this is no time to begin granting variances on billboards. If the Board of Adjustment decides that height variances can be granted for billboards, however, CBS will immediately file several variance applications for signs it owns that are partially blocked by other buildings or are too low to be easily read by motorists passing on I-70. In this light, CBS Outdoor has attached photographs of two of its signs for which it will seek variances. It and its landowners, all of whom would like to increase the rental income they can obtain if the billboards on their property can be elevated, will submit applications on virtually all of its eight (8) billboards in Wheat Ridge. (CBS Outdoor suspects that Mile High Outdoor and Lamar will similarly seek variances for their billboards.) For a city that has prided itself in improving its aesthetics by controlling billboards (and, previously eliminating them from its downtown streets), it would indeed be anomalous to approve a height variance so that a billboard could be seen above more than 90 trees specially planted by CDOT in order to beautify this specific portion of the I-70 freeway through Wheat Ridge. 4647 LEYDEN STREET, DENVER, CO 80216 •(303) 333-5400 • FAX (303) 322-6520 • cbsoutdoor.com City of Wheat Ridge April 14, 2006 Page 2 The "problem" Copper Fields asks this Board to save it from, was self-inflicted. Copper Fields was specifically told by CBS Outdoor that (a) its board was non-conforming and could not be rebuilt in its prior configuration; (b) that Wheat Ridge had never granted a height variance for a billboard; (c) that if CBS Outdoor had to remove its sign any new sign would be largely blocked by the CDOT trees; (d) that such blockage would render the sign virtually useless to any new sign company; and (e) that any new sign company would be likely to renege on any lease they had with Copper Fields and refuse to make the promised payments. Copper Fields refused CBS Outdoor's offer of significantly higher lease payments that CBS Outdoor could afford to make because of the grandfathered status of its existing biliboard. CBS Outdoor suspects, but does not know, that another sign company persuaded Copper Fields that it would have no problem building a new billboard like the CBS Outdoor sign and that the landowner would not lose any money by going with the new suitor. It would not be Wheat Ridge's fault that Copper Fields mistakenly believed the other sign company. Indeed, Copper Fields may be able to insist on receiving its lease payments regardless of the visibility of a billboard, which is "only" 32 feet high. The reality of granting the requested variance is that it will primarily reward the new billboard company for trying to avoid the clear and known limitations of the Wheat Ridge Sign Code. There is no doubt that a billboard location on I-70 has substantial revenue potential to a billboard company. Thus, allowance of variances to solve problems of untenable locations will place a high premium for all biliboard companies to seek any site on which they can obtain a lease, regardless of the site's suitability. Given the Wheat Ridge Sign Code, CBS Outdoor could not understand why another company would want to build a billboard on this site, unless it thought this Board would roll-over and ignore the Sign Code proudly passed by the City Council two decades ago and rigorously enforced ever since. CBS Outdoor may well agree that a 50' height limitation would be more advantageous for the sign companies without any significant downside to Wheat Ridge, but as CBS Outdoor understands it, that is a decision for the City Council, not this Board, to make. Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any additional questions, I plan on attending the April 27 hearing and would be happy to answer them at that time. Sincerely, Daniel M. Scherer General Manager, CBS Outdoor dms/nw OCBS OUTDOOR v u ro w aJ m ro w ro rt 0 a ro s, rt ~ 0 n v u ro u ~ H v ~ ~ H v U N Ga +J ~ N 3 ~ C ~ CL x ~ 0 n ~ N rt +9 m H v 4J ~ H I City of Wheat Ridge ~oF WHEqT,p Community Development Department ~ ° 1Vlemorandum ~~CORP00 TO: Board of Adjushnent FROM: Travis Crane, Planner I~ v SUBJECT: Case No. WA-06-06 DATE: 19 Apri12006 Due to an error in publication, case number WA-06-06 cannot be heard at the Apri127, 2006 Board of Adjushnent meeting. This case will be republished and rescheduled for the May 25, 2006 hearing. City of Wheat Ridge oF WHEqr,~ Community Development Department ~ ° Memorandum ~oCORA00 TO: B ard of Adjustment FROM: vleredith Reckert SUBJECT: By-laws DATE: Apri121, 2006 At the Mazch Board of adjustment meeting, the Board reviewed staffls recommended changes to the by-laws. Attached for final review are the by-laws with modifications made at that meeting. The changes are to number 3 on page 2 regarding non-owner representation and number 3, on page 4 regarding case continuances. The BOA changes are underlined. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY-LAWS ARTICLE I: MEETINGS 1. Regular hearings before the Board of Adjustment shall be held on the fourth Thursday of each month beginning at ` ffMM provided however, if Thursday falls on a City holiday, the Board will convene on the next Thursday which does not conflict with Planning Commission, or on a date otherwise set by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Board. 2. Special meetings and/or hearings shall be held at the call of the and at such other times that the Board shall determine. 3. All hearings shall be open to the public. Hearing notice shall be by newspaper publication, site posting and letter notice as provided in Section 26-109 of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. 4. A quorum of the Board of Adjustment shall consist of five (5) members. 5. All members shall attend all Board meetings in person unless excused for cause by the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. 6. The Boazd shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member on every case or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and it shall also keep records of such proceedings and other official actions, and such records shall be filed in the office of the Board. AI2TICLE II: CASES BEFORE THE BOARD Every request for relief shall be made to the Board in the name of the owner or owners of the affected property or his or her or their designee and shall include the data required in the applicable form so as to supply all the information (including such plans or plats as -1- 7. The Board shall hear a request for relief from the requirements of the Zoning and Development Code by any person aggrieved by such requirements as provided in Chapter 26 of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. may be necessary) required for a clear understanding of the case by the Board. 2. 4. The applicant shall prove his or her case by presenting evidence in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26. 5. The Board shall not hold hearings on requests which have been denied within the »revious twelve (12) calendar months, unless ARTICLE III: THE CALENDAR 1. Each case filed in the proper form, with the required data, shall be numbered serially and shall be placed on the secretary's calendar. The case numbers shall begin anew on January 1 st of each year and shall be numbered to reflect the year and type of case. 2. As soon as the case is put on the calendar, the applicant sha11 be notified to appeaz on the -2- No communication purporting to be a request for relief shall be regarded as such until it is made in the forxn required (including all required documentation). date when the case will be heard. ARTICLE IV: PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES 1. At the time of pubiic hearing, the Department shall presenf the case stating recommendations, the applicant shall state his or her case, then any person in fauor or opposed to the request shall be heazd and the applicant shall be given the opporhxnity to reply. Each side shall be given an opportunity to summarize its case. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the Board shall declare the Oublic hearing ARTICLE V: DISPOSITION OF CASES Every decision of the Board on any case shall be by resolution indicating the reasons of -3- the Board therefore. Resolutions shall specify type of action requested, amount of relief granted for what purpose and any stipulations or conditions. 2. The Board shall take action on every request for relieFto either approve, deny, approve with modifications or continue the hearing. A concurring vote based on the adjusted majority table set forth below shall be necessary to grant any variance, waiver, temporary building or use permit, any interpretation or flood plain special exception pernut or any matter requiring decision by the planning commission or the city council. All other actions shall be taken by majority vote of the members present. If a resolution or motion fails to receive the required nuxnber of votes in favor of the applicant, the action shall be deemed a denial, and a resolution denying the request shall be entered in the record. Adjusted Majority Vote Tabulation Table Members Present Votes Needed to Approve 6 Only one postponement of a hearing at the request of the applicant is allowed unless approved by the required number of affirmative votes as specified under Article Section 2 of the Board. Unless impossible, applicant may be at the scheduled hearing and ask for a postponement in person or notify the Department of the request for postponement in advance of the hearing. If the hearing is postponed, the case will be placed last on the agenda for the next meeting. No renotification of the hearing shall be required; however, the applicant will be required to re-post the property. -4- 6. If an aplicant or representative fails to appear for the scheduled hearing, the case , ~••~.v~,i ~s~a~~~~ M be placed on the next available meeting of the Board. The item shall be placed last on the agenda. Renotificarion of the hearing shall be required. ARTICLE VI: ADOPTION AND SUSPENSION OF RULES Amendments to these Rules of Procedure may be proposed and approved by the Board of Adjushnent at any regular meeting upon the affirmative vote of a simple majority of members present. Copies of such amendments shall be filed with the City Attorney and thereafter, forwarded to the City Council for approval. ARTICLE VII: OFFICERS At the November meeting of each yeaz, the Board shall elect a' » to ~ J the senior member of the Board shall preside. 2. The E'EMEMPIM, subject to these rules, shall decide all points of order and procedure, unless otherwise directed by a resolution passed by a sunple majority of the Boazd members present. The secretary, who shall not be a member of the Board, shall be provided by the City to record minutes of ineetings, assemble documents, duplicate reports, and perform such other clerical duties as the Board shall from time to time assign. Such clerical employee shall serve under the immediate supervision of the head of the department assigned to work with the Board. Chaixperson Date Rev. 3/17/06 -5- CITY OF WIIEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT Minutes of Meeting March 23, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Blair at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29t' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Members Absent: Davis Reinhart Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician Tim Paranto, Public Works Director & Floodplain Coordinator Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Meredith Reckert introduced Larry Linker as a new member of the Board. The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of March 23, 2006. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to address the Board at this time. All those present who wished to speak regarding cases presented during the public heazing were sworn in by Chair Bell. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No WF-06-02: An application filed by Patrick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow Boazd of Adjustment - 1 - 03-23-06 construction of a single fanuly home on property zoned Residential One and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street. Planning Staff recommended continuance of this case because insufficient information had been submitted to make an official recommendation for the request. It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member DRDA to continue Case No. WF-06-02 indefinitely. The motion passed 7-0. B. Case No. WF-06-01: An application filed by Donna and Fred Gimeno for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Pernut to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One and located at approximately 3575 Quail Street. This case was presented hy 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 recommended approval of the request for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member ABBOTT asked why this request had not been referred to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Tim Paranto explained that the Lena Gulch floodplain has been modified since the 1975 study which was used in the evaluation of this case. Those modifications have altered the elevations. In this case, the applicant hired an engineer to establish the best scenario for the floodway. The city is in the process of entering into a contract with Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (IJDFCD) to study L,ena Gulch inside Wheat Ridge to establish a new Lena Gulch Floodplain study. This study should be completed within a year. He further explained the UDFCD has no authority or regulatory powers with this case. The city can send plans to them for review, but in this case it was not necessary because of staff expertise and a good report from the applicanY s engineer. The applicant's engineer has taken on the liability of establishing the floodplain and floodway elevations for this property. City staff has also analyzed the case to make sure this property would be protected from any flood damage. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Paranto stated that about 90% of the property is designated as in the floodplain under the present study, but he anticipates aboat 50% of the property would fall outside the floodplain once the new study is completed. Boazd of Adjustrnent - 2 - 03-23-06 Henry Hollander 6600 Allison Street, Arvada Mr. Hollander, engineer for the applicant, stated that he had nothing to add to the staff's presentation. He stated that the proposed house would have a basement that would be below the floodplain. He asked for clarification that this basement could be built if it is flood-proofed. In response to questions from the Boazd, Mr. Paranto stated that as long as the basement is constructed so that no water could enter the house in event of a flood it could be built below the floodplain elevation. Donna Gimeno 1623 Ogden Street, Denver Ms. Gimeno, the applicant, explained how the house would be situated on the lot. There were no other individuals present who wished to address this case. Boazd Member ABBOTT asked for an explanation of "flood-proofing." Mr. Pazanto explained that, for a basement to be allowed, the applicant would have to guarantee that everything would stay dry in case of flood. Openings for emergency access and light would have to be above the floodplain elevation. He also stated that flood-proofing is addressed in the existing code. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WF-06-01 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. WF-06-01 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One. Boazd of Adjustment - 3 - 03-23-06 For the following reasons: l. Approval of the request should not have a detrimental effect on the 100-year floodplain as per testunony by the city's director of public works. 2. The requirements of the floodplain ordinance have been met. 3. The floodplain adininistrator has reviewed and approved the engineer's study. With the following conditions: 1. The proposed structure must be consistent with the development standards of Section 26-806(F). 2. The proposed structure must maintain a lowest floor elevation that is at least one foot above the base flood elevation of 5,410 feet above sea level. The basement, if any portion is below the flood elevation, must be "flood-proofed" to the standards of the city as stated in Section 26- 808 of the city code. 3. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, an elevation certificate shall be prepared and certified by the engineer of record and filed with the city. 4. Staff recommended approval of the application. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Jeff Hirt stated that if the floodplain exception were to be granted, the applicant would qualify for floodplain insurance. The motion passed 7-0. C. Case No. WA-06-03: An applicaYion filed by the Seniors Resource Center for approval of a 13-foot front yazd setback variance from the 30- foot front yazd setback requirement and an 11-foot reaz yard setback variance from the 20-foot reaz yard setback requirement for property zoned Residential One and located at 3227 Chase Street. This 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 recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Palmer Pekarek 3227 Chase Street Mr. Pekazek is Vice President of Public Affairs for the Seniors Resource Center (SRC). He stated that Jefferson County gave the property at 3227 Chase Street to l Board of Adjustment - 4 - 03-23-06 the Center and the SRC has also purchased the property to the north of the center. They aze planning to expand the existing facility to meet the growing demand for services provided by SRC and necessitated by the growing number of older citizens in Wheat Ridge. William Brummett 535 E. Mexico Avenue, Denver Mr. Brummett is the architect for the proposed expansion. He presented azchitectural drawings of the proposed expansion. The first floor would be utilized for adult day cue programs. The basement would be used for administrative space plus therapeutic spaces. The second floor would be used for respite and short term assisted living for eighteen people. One reason for the variance request is that the property lines "jog" from one property to the next. The alley would be improved (paved and widened) to accommodate fire truck access. The parking lot has been designed to reduce traffic through the neighborhood. If required to accommodate the large setbacks presently required, four respite rooms would have to be eliminated. This would also eliminate income the facility needs to operate. Linda Johnsfon 6280 West 74th Avenue, Arvada Ms. 7ohnston is Program Manager for Adult Day and Respite Services at the Seniors Resource Center. She stated that the day care program is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the majority of users there between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Boazd Member ABBOTT commented that when the original building which once housed a school was built, the setbacks were much closer to the street than they wouId be today and it seemed logical to see this type of building shifted closer to the streat. Mr. Brummett agreed that buildings constructed during that time were built closer to the street. However, there has been a trend to new urbanism since 1995 and buildings aze once again moving closer to the street. He also noted that where the street curves there would actually be a 28-foot setback. Boazd member ABBO'rT commented that it appears only 20% of the building is encroaching into the setback. Mr. Brummett agreed. Meredith Reckert commented that using the northem portion of the property for parking would ensure that traffic would not flow into existing residential areas. Board member HOVLAND commented that the addition blends very well with the original architecture. Board of Adjustment - 5 - 03-23-06 Board member DRDA expressed concern that while current standards call for buildings to be closer to the street in commercial areas, the setbacks are to be lazger as they go back into res'idential area. He asked if a five-foot reduction in the varianee would work. Mr. Brummett replied that the plan has been worked and reworked and any reduction in the variance would not allow complete wheelchair accessibility. There were no other individuals present who wished to address this case. Chair BELL closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Board Member HOWARD expressed concern that nothing has been shown that would indicate a hardship in this case. He wondered if the building could be extended north instead of east and west thereby eliminating the need for a variance. Meredith Reckert stated that expansion of the building to the north would eliminate much needed pazking. In terms of hardship, Meredith Reckert suggested that the Board consider the criteria that addresses accommodation of people with disabilities. Boazd Member BELL commented that the setback on the curve of the street is 28 feet and does have the visual appearance of a setback. Board member DRDA also expressed concern about a lack of hazdship in this case. Boazd member HOVLAND acknowledged the need for extra space for accommodation of wheelchairs and believed that constituted a hardship. He agreed that the 28-foot setback on the curve does not present a visual impact. Boazd Member BELL commented that a hardship exists imregard to state standards for providing handicapped accessible units. In order for SRC to function as respite care, the variance is necessazy. There was a consensus of the Board to allow the Chair to reopen the public testimony of the meeting in order to hear from the applicant. Mr. Pekazek returned to the podium. He stated that SRC has over 65 full and part-time employees at the center and they are trying to be good neighbors by restricting parking to their pazking lot and the firehouse. A larger facility will require more parking spaces. Pazking is also needed far buses that carry clients to the center. Board of Adjustment - 6 - 03-23-06 Mr. Brummett commented that the easdwest 20-foot lane is needed for fire access. Chair BELL closed public testimony. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-03 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-06-03 be, and hereby is, approved. For the following reasons: 1. The Seniors' Resource Center provides an important community service. In order to meet increasing demand for this service, a substantial exQansion of the existing facility is necessary which is problematic given current development standards for the front and rear yard setbacks. 2. The eausting facility encroaches into the required 30-foot front yard setback by 8 feet. 3. The elevation and site plan submitted indicate that the applicant will match the appearance of the existing facility with the addition. 4. Granting the variance would allow for increased accommodation of persons with disabilities. 5. There are hardships in that arclutectural and use constraints including on-site parking and fire department access disallow shifting the size and shape of use areas within the structure. Also the irregular property lines create irregular setbacks. 6. The property line at the rear of the addition jogs. Eleven feet is the maximum variance that will occur along this rear property line. Board of Adjustment - 7 - 03-23-06 7. The city supports the front setback variance, in part, to allow for the occupancy to not increase traffic in the adjacent residential alley. 8. From an aesthetic perspective regarding the front setbacks, buildings from the 1920's such as the original school building routinely and elcpectedly sat closer to the street than current setback requirements. Therefore, the addition will appear architecturally correct. The motion passed 6-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing portion of the meeflng. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - February 23, 2006 Since there were no copies of the minutes in the packet, the minutes of Februazy 23, 2006 will be considered at the next regularly scheduled Boazd meeting. B. Board of Adjustment Bylaws Work Session At the direction from the Boazd, planning staff made changes to the bylaws. Meredith Reckert reviewed these changes as contained in the Boazd's packet. Board Member ABBOTT suggested removing the words "or tabled" from paragraph 3 under Article V. Board Member DRDA suggested removing the words "by an attorney or" in paragraph 3 under Article II. Board Member BELL suggested including a definition of "designated agenY" in pazagraph 3 under Article H. There was a consensus of the Board to forwazd the amended bylaws, including the above suggestions, on to City Council for ratification. Chair BELL asked Board members to submit names of people who could serve as alternates to the Board of Adjustment as soon as possible. Boazd of Adjustment - $ - 03-23-06 8. ADJOLIRNMENT It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Janet Bell, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Boazd of Adjustment - 9 - 03-23-06 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting February 23, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Blair at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29ffi Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Bob Howazd Betty Jo Page Members Absent: Paul Drda Paul Hovland Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of February 23, 2006. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Aevelopment Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to address the Board at this time. 4. ELECTION OF CHAIR Janet Bell was elected Chair of the Board of Adjustment. At this point, Vice Chair Blair turned the gavel over to Chair Bell. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No WA-06-02: An application filed by Leigh Gauger for approval of up to 2,190 square foot variance from the 12,500 square foot minimum lot azea requirement and a 25-foot variance to the 100-foot lot width requirement to allow a two fanuly dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Two and located at approximately 4525 Gazland Street. \ Board of Adjustment 02-23-06 -1- This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the case for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Hirt stated that most of the properties, including the subject property, were platted prior to the City's incorporation. He also stated that the majority of the sunounding properties on Garland have 75-foot frontages. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Hirt stated that, under City Code, a two-unit dwelling of any size would not be allowed on this property without a variance. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Mr. Hirt explained that it appears most of the duplex lots in this area have lot widths of 100 feet or more. At this time, all those present who wished to address the Board were sworn in by Chair BELL. Chris Eller 6400 South Fiddlers Green Circle, Englewood Mr. Eller stated that he was working with the applicant, Lee Gauger, to build and sell two housing units on the subject propez-ty. He stated the variance request was based on twelve other duplex properties within 100 to 200 feet across the street from the Gauger property: Those twelve homes exceed the standard 40% coverage and the variance request far 4525 Garland would come in below the 40%If approved, this variance request would add two disabled-accessible and affordable ranch homes in a community and city dominated by homes that are unfriendly to the disabled. There are 23 single family homes and aliout 18 duplex homes in the area so this variance would not change the balance in the neighborhood. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the neighbors immediately adjacent to the north and south did not sign the applicanYs petition. Mr. Eller stated that these people never answered their doors. Leigh Gauger 4820 West Hayward Place, Denver Ms. Gauger stated that they have researched housing prices in the azea to ensure that these units would be affordable. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Ms. Gauger stated there is nothing that would require sale of the homes only to people requiring disabled access. ~ Board of Adjustment - 2 - 02-23-06 In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Eller stated these units would be priced at market price and, although there is no guarantee that these homes would not be sold to investors, the homes would have separate tifles. Mr. Eller stated that their desire is to sell these homes to disabled couples or small families looking for affordable housing. He stated they would not be opposed to placing deed restrictions on the houses. Elaine Maichle 9336 S. Pepperwood Lane, Highlands Ranch Ms. Maichle stated that her mother lives across the street from the subject property. She and her sister own that property with their mother. She expressed concern that a duplex on this property would turn into rental property and affect property values and the chazacter of the neighborhood. There would be no objection to building a single family home on the lot. She expressed further concern about the increased number of vehicles that would be generated by a duplex. She submitted into the record a letter of objection written by her sister who is part owner in the property at 4565 Gazland. Della Downing 4565 Garland Street Ms. Downing lives across the street from the subject property and spoke in opposition to the variance. She expressed concern about increased traffic and parking in the neighborhood. She would have no objection to a single family home being built on the lot. 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. WA-06-02 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 protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not 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-06-02 be, and hereby is, denied. Board of Adjustment - 3 - 02-23-06 Type of Variance: Up to a 2,190 square foot variance from the 12,500 square foot minimum lot area requirement and a 25-foot variance to the 100-foot lot width requirement to allow a two family dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Two. For the following reasons: 1. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property could be developed as a single-family residence without the need for variances. 2. All properties immediately adjacent within the same block as the subject property on Garland Street are currently single-family residences. 3. There are no unique conditions relaYed to physical surroundings, shape or topography that render any portion of the property in quesEion unbuildable. The property is rectangular in shape and flat. 4. Even as R-2 allows for one or two-family dwellings, the subject property does not meet the minimum lot size and lot width requirements to allow a two-family dwelling even of a smaller size. 5. The request would not result in a snbstantiai benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. For whatever reason, the neighbors immediately to the north and south of the property did not sign the petitions subtnitted. An owner directly across Garland and adjacent property to the north testified to the Board in opposition to a multi- family use for the appealed property. The motion passed 5-0. Chair BELL advised the applicant that the request for variance was denied. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approvai of minutes - January 26, 2006 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of January 26, 2006 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Boazd of Adjustment - 4 - 02-23-06 B. Board of Adjustment Bylaws Work Session There was a consensus of the Board to change the meeting time for Board of Adjustment from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. There was discussion about the possible appointment of alternates to the Boazd of Adjustment who would fill in when regular members are absent. There was a suggestion that the alternates should be at-large. Boazd Member BLATR expressed concern about the percentage involved in requiring 6 affirmative votes when only 7 members aze present. There was discussion about present code requirements as they relate to the revitalization program and possibly meeting with staff, City Council and Planning Commission during study sessions to discuss various solutions. 8. ADJOLTItNNIENT It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Janet Bell, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment - 5 - 02-23-06