Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/2010I City Of ]�qr Wh6atWidgc BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA August 26, 2010 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on August 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Of at 303 -235 -2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA- 10 -08 An application filed by Kathleen Peters of Freeman Signs for approval of a variance to allow a freestanding sign up to 144 square feet in area on property zoned Commercial -One (C -1) and located at 6065 West 48th Avenue. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes — July 22, 2010 8. ADJOURNMENT 11 � � City Of Wh6atP,i:Ldge TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment DATE: August 26, 2010 Sarah Showalter WA- 10- 08/Peters Approval of a variance to allow a freestanding sign up to 144 square feet in area. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6065 W. 48` Avenue APPLICANT (S) OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA Kathleen Peters, Freeman Signs Shawn Kordouni 39,814 SF (0.9 acres) PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Commercial -One (C -1) Gas Station and Auto Repair ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site JURISDICTION• All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance of 106 square feet from the allowable 38 square feet in order to construct a new sign cabinet that is 144 square feet in area. The purpose of the variance request is to allow for a new sign cabinet to be added to the existing support structure of a nonconforming freestanding sign. The existing sign has six sign cabinets, totaling 153 square feet in area, and was originally permitted in 1970. The sign cabinets are currently empty and have not been in use for several years. Section 26- 706.A.2 of the Wheat Ridge Zoning Code states that any nonconforming sign that is discontinued for a period of 60 consecutive days must thereafter conform to the provisions of the zoning code, or be removed. Thus, in order for the applicant to add a new cabinet to the sign that is greater than the allowable 38 square feet in area, a variance is required. Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50 percent from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment. The variance request from the allowable sign area is over 50 percent, II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Kathleen Peters of Freeman Signs, is applying for the variance on behalf of Shawn Kordouni, the property owner of 6065 W. 48 Avenue. The variance is being requested in order to construct a new sign cabinet on the existing support structure of a nonconforming freestanding sign that has been discontinued. The property is located on W 48 Avenue between Harlan and Ingalls Street and is situated immediately north of I -70 (Exhibit 1, Aerial Map). The site is zoned Commercial -One (C -1), a zone district established to provide for areas with a wide range of commercial land uses which include office, general business, and retail sales and service establishments. The property is bordered by a multifamily property, also zoned C -1, to the northeast and a single - family residential property, zoned R -111, to the northwest (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). North of these properties are low- density residential uses with a mixture of residential zoning. To the west, across Ingalls Street, are commercial uses with commercial zoning. To the east, on the other side of Harlan Street, lies the City of Denver. The properties east of Harlan are single- and two - family homes. South of the property, across W 48 Avenue, is the interstate. There is an interchange providing access to I -70 at Harlan, adjacent to the property. The site is approximately 39,814 square feet, or 0.91 acres, in size. It contains a gas station and auto service shop that is 1,680 square feet. The only other structure on the property is a canopy that covers the gas pumps (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The gas station was originally built in 1970 as a Texaco station. It was converted to Phillips 66 station in 2004. The current owner purchased the property in 2008 and very recently converted the station to Shell, which requires the installation of new signs with the Shell logo. The property has two existing freestanding signs, however one is currently not in use (Exhibit 4, Site Photos). Per the current zoning code, two freestanding signs are allowed since the site has more than one street frontage. Allowable sign areas for freestanding signs are calculated based on building area. The building on site, which is 1,680 square feet, is entitled to 38 square feet of sign area. Thus for this property, two 38 square foot freestanding signs are permitted per the code. One of the property's freestanding signs is a two -pole sign, 21 feet high, located at the corner of Harlan and 48 Avenue. This sign has been in continuous use since it was originally constructed. This sign is larger than the Board of Adjustment 2 Case No. WA -10 -08 1Peters permitted area of 38 square feet, making it a nonconforming sign. The zoning code, per Section 26- 706.A.1, allows nonconforming signs to be re -faced as long as the existing support structure is utilized. The applicant has already received a permit and re -faced this sign to match the new Shell logo. The second freestanding sign, which is the subject of this variance request, has a two -pole structure, six empty cabinets, about 25 square feet each (which originally spelled the word "Texaco "), and is 43 feet tall. The sign is permitted to be as tall as 50 feet since it is within 1 /a mile of I -70. The sign meets the setback requirements in the current zoning code. However, the sign in its existing configuration — six separate cabinets totaling 153 square feet in sign area — is well above the 38 square feet in permitted area. This renders the sign nonconforming per the zoning code. Section 26- 706.A.2 of the zoning code states "In the event the use of a nonconforming sign is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days, the nonconforming sign shall thereafter conform to the provisions of the zoning district in which it is located or be removed." When the current property owner purchased the property in 2008, the sign's six cabinets were already empty. Based on building permit records for the property, it appears that the sign was discontinued at or prior to conversion from the original Texaco to the Phillips 66 in 2004. The sign was never removed or modified after that time. The applicant would like to construct a new sign cabinet on the existing support structure that is larger than the allowable 38 square feet. Shell corporate has image criteria that require the applicant to use a pre- approved sign for any new sign. The smallest sign available from Shell for a tall pole sign is 12 feet by 12 feet, which totals 144 square feet (Exhibit 5, Proposed Sign). The proposed 144 square foot sign would be 50 feet tall. The applicant's intent is to create a sign that is large enough to be easily visible from I -70 and that meets Shell's image criteria. There is no sign pre- approved by Shell's corporate imaging standards that meets the 38 square feet size. Installing a new cabinet on the existing sign structure would provide great visibility from I -70 and likely improve business for the owner. Due to topography, the site is located below I -70 and a tall sign that is visible from the highway is a logical addition to the site. While it is certainly reasonable to reinstate use of a highway - oriented sign at this location, there are other options available to the applicant that would follow code regulations and not require a variance. First, it would be permitted by the zoning code to keep the existing two - pole structure and add a new sign that is 38 square feet in size, up to a maximum of 50 feet in height. The applicant has stated that this is not feasible because Shell's corporate imaging standards do not include a sign that is close to the 38 square feet of allowable area. The smallest sign available from Shell's approved designs is 12 feet by 12 feet. A second option, presented by the applicant, would be to keep the existing two -pole structures and utilize one of the six existing sign cabinets. Each cabinet is approximately 25 square feet. The applicant indicated in their application that if a variance to allow a 144 square foot sign is not approved Shell would allow the use of one cabinet, and the others would remain blank (Exhibit 6, Alternate Sign). This option would be allowed by the code since the total area devoted to signage would only be 25 square feet. A third option would be for the applicant to invest in a new highway pole sign, including a support structure, up to 50 feet tall and 38 square feet in size. This would allow a new sign structure that is designed to match the sign cabinet, which would be the most aesthetically pleasing option. The applicant, however, has indicated that it would be cost prohibitive to construct any sign without being able to utilize the existing support structure. A final option could be to utilize just one of the poles that make up the existing two -pole structure and top it with a sign cabinet with an area that is equal or close to the allowed 38 square feet. The applicant would need to complete a structural analysis of the existing support to determine whether this is possible. Again, the applicant Board of Adjustment 3 Case No. WA -10 -08 1Peters has indicated that the issue of building a sign that does not meet Shell's imaging standards (i.e. is not 12 feet by 12 feet) would be an issue. Allowing a new sign cabinet up to 144 square feet would have a visual impact on the surrounding properties. The greatest impact, including shadows, would be on the multifamily residential property that is directly north of the sign. However, the support structure would remain the same and has been in place since 1970 so any new or additional impact would be small. It is not clear that the alternate sign design presented by the applicant, which utilizes just one of the six sign cabinets, would have a more positive visual impact for immediate properties or the area as a whole. This proposed alternative is not as large or as tall as the proposed 144 square foot sign, but it is an odd design in which the sign cabinet does not fit the size and configuration of the support structure. Moreover, since the six - cabinet sign was originally designed and permitted as an internally lit sign, it is unclear whether the five blank cabinets would be lit. If they were, this would have a negative impact on the character of the area during nighttime hours. A sign that is closer in size to the allowable 38 square feet and that has a structure designed for the sign cabinet, with a single pole rather than two, would best match other highway signs in this area (Exhibit 7, Sign on Adjacent Property), as well as other commercial signs adjacent to the interstate throughout the city. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff utilizes the following criteria to evaluate variance requests and shall determine whether the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided responses to each criterion (Exhibit 8, Applicant Response to Criteria). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use, service, and income. The property has functioned as a gas station and auto service shop for several years without use of the highway- oriented sign. It is true that the business owner would likely experience improved business with a highway sign, and the code would allow a highway- oriented sign up to 50 feet in height. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance could have a negative impact on the character of the locality by allowing a sign that is larger than allowed by code and that has a cabinet which is not designed to match the support structure. However, the alternate design, which calls for use of one 25 square foot cabinet, could also have a negative impact on the character of the area even though it would be allowed by code. This design results in an odd configuration in which only one small sign cabinet is utilized. The preferred alternative, based on the highway sign adjacent to this property at 6161 W 48` Avenue (Exhibit 7, Sign on Adjacent Property) as well as other highway- oriented signs in the city, would be to construct a sign closer to the allowed size on a monopole support structure. This design would best fit the character of a commercial district adjacent to the highway. Although the proposed sign may have a negative impact on the character of the locality, it is not clear that it would essentially alter its character, given that there is already a fairly intense commercial use on the property and the sign structure is existing. Board of Adjustment 4 Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The proposed sign would constitute an investment in the property that will improve its value. However, there are other options for investing in a highway- oriented sign that do not require approval of a variance. The applicant has more than one option for constructing a new cabinet — or a new sign, including the support structure — up to 50 feet in height and 38 square feet in size, which would be visible from the highway. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. While the site is lower than the highway due to topography, this is not unique for this area or other commercial sites adjacent to the interstate, which is elevated above nearby properties in several locations in Wheat Ridge. The allowable sign height of 50 feet per the code would enable the owner to construct a sign that is visible from the highway (the current sign cabinets, which are 43 feet high, are visible from I -70) and therefore the topography does not present a unique hardship. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. One hardship that the owner faces is modifying a nonconforming sign that has been discontinued so that it is compliant with the current code. The sign was discontinued by a previous owner, thus this hardship was not created by a person presently having an interest in the property. There is a second hardship, which is the applicant's inability to construct a sign that is 38 square feet due to Shell's corporate imaging requirements. Although this hardship has not been created by the owner or applicant, it has been created by a company that has an interest in the property. The hardships at stake are at least partially created by a company with an interest in the property. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent property and, Board of Adjustment 5 Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters it is not likely to impair adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. It would have no impact on congestion in the streets and should not increase fire danger. It is very unlikely that the request would have an impact on property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There are no unique or unusual circumstances present in the neighborhood that are also present on the property that necessitate the need for a variance. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable since the Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to signage. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found that the application is not in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends denial of the variance request as presented by the applicant. Staff has found that there are other viable options for creating a sign that is visible from the highway and that is compliant with current zoning regulations. In particular, staff would recommend an option that is closer to the allowable 38 square feet and that incorporates a holistic design for both the cabinet and support structure. A monopole structure with a sign similar in size to 38 square feet would have a more positive impact on the character of the area. This option could potentially be achieved by utilizing one of the existing poles from the existing two -pole support structure, subject to a structural analysis. Staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. The applicant would be able to make a substantial investment in a new sign visible from the highway without the variance. The code allows a sign up to 50 feet tall and 38 square feet in area. 2. There are no unique site or topographical conditions that create a unique hardship for the property owner since most properties in Wheat Ridge that are adjacent to I -70 are lower than the highway and a 50 -foot tall sign would be visible from the interstate. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has been partially created by a company that presently has an interest in the property. 4. There are no unusual circumstances or conditions in the neighborhood that necessitate the variance request. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -10 -08 1Peters EXHIBIT 1: Aerial Map Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters EXHIBIT 2: Zoning Map Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters EXHIBIT 3: Site Plan A.P6* Par6q . 37.50' I 2 Mandl .,..25,. u. Location of sign I I C 4 PoA g 25' —p ! J1 Eri3lig Fore rN �r.md 7 6 0 b 4 Asphd! Pork .4 � (eland — W 48" Ave i 0' �p le I� Board of Adjustment 9 Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters EXHIBIT 4: Site Photos View of property and discontinued sign from Harlan Street, looking west View of property from W 48` Ave Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters View from property looking southeast toward I -70. This view includes the existing sign on -site that is 21 feet tall and has already been re -faced to the new Shell logo Board of Adjustment 11 Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters EXHIBIT 5: Proposed Sign Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA -10 -08 1Peters EXHIBIT 6: Alternate Sign Board of Adjustment 13 Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters EXHIBIT 7: Highway Sign on Adjacent Property Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters - 44 1 Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters EXHIBIT 8: Applicant Response to Criteria a sign of good business FREEMAN SIGNS, INC. 3883 N. Monaco Pkwy Denver, CO 80207 -1435 Phone: 303.781.0106 Fax: 303.762.8293 www.freemansigns. net This letter is in reference to the sign variance request for 6065 W. 48` Ave. This site is a fueling station that is re- branding from Phillips 66 to Shell. There are 2 existing pole signs. One is a 20' tall dual pole sign that serves to advertise pricing and the Auto Repair Service. The second sign, which is the one in question, is a 43' tall high rise that currently has 6 individual cabinets approximately 25 sq. ft. each. The code will only allow for face replacements on this structure but Shell Corporate has image criteria that they would prefer we adhere to and the layout of this sign does not accommodate that. We respectfully request a variance to replace the (6) existing cabinets totaling 153.09 Sq. Ft. with a single cabinet totaling 144 sq. ft. Criteria Address: A. This fueling station is located in somewhat of a valley considerably lower than the highway. This sign is critical to their visibility and highway exposure. B. Since this site has always been a fueling station and the sign is existing , there would be no additional impact to the neighborhood. C. If we are denied this variance for any reason, Shell Corporate has given us permission to vary from their image requirements and keep the (6) individual sign cabinets by placing one Shell Pecten in the first cabinet and blank white faces in the remaining. Since this sign is critical to their business, this will be our second, but not preferable, option. D. Since this fueling station is located in the valley and so much lower than the highway, if they do not have this sign they would be limited to the immediate neighborhood traffic /visibility as their location would not be seen from the highway. They would have considerably more income with highway visibility. E. We will assume that they were originally allowed to erect this sign due to the nature of the topography in reference to the highway and the existing hardship it presented for the visibility of the location. This is the same owner he just has a different fuel supplier. F. The change we are requesting is minimal and does not impact the surrounding properties or businesses in the sense that this sign structure is already existing and we would just like to re- configure it a little. G. On both sides of the highway in the surrounding area there are many signs that are this tall and much larger in square footage. The businesses along this section of highway are all located far enough from the highway that their high rise signs are critical to their advertizing. Board of Adjustment 15 Case No. WA -10 -08 /Peters ♦��4' 1, City Of l W heat �idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 22, 2010 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair FISHER at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Paul Griffith, District One, joined the Board as a regular member. Jen Walters, District One, joined the Board as an alternate member. ROLL CALL Board Members Present Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Ryan Fisher Paul Griffith Paul Hovland Bob Howard Betty Jo Page Larry Linker Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Sarah Showalter, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Secretary PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There were no members of the public who wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA- 10 -07: An application filed by Barbara Sileo for approval of (A) a 10 -foot variance to the 15 -foot required rear yard setback and (B) a 5 -foot variance to the required 15 -foot side yard setback per Section 26- 205 resulting in a 5 -foot rear yard setback and a 10 -foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential -One and located at 3845 Dudley Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 22, 2010 The case was presented by Sarah Showalter. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation and gave Board members copies of a letter from a property owner at 3881 Estes Street who was not in favor of the application. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. In relation to the side yard setback, Board Member ABBOTT commented that while it may be possible to build without a variance, it would not be practical. Barbara Sileo 3845 Dudley St., Wheat Ridge Mrs. Sileo, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair FISHER. She stated they have lived in their home for 38 years and the neighbors who would be affected the most are in favor of the expansion. The home has always been too small, but they stayed there because they loved the house. The addition next to the garage will be used for storage for a lawnmower and other yard equipment. The reason for making the improvements to the main floor, rather than adding a second story, is that it will make it easier for her to function with her condition of fibromyalgia. They also have a need for an office and additional bathroom. She stated they have made improvements over the years that have enhanced the property as well as the neighborhood. Those improvements have also increased the value of the house. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mrs. Sileo explained that these are not the final drawings. They did not wish to spend any more money for architectural drawings until they know if they will be granted a variance. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the application Case No. WA- 10 -07(A) was not eligible for administrative review; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition of one protest 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- 10 -07(A) be and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 10 -foot variance to the 15 -foot required rear yard setback per Section 26 -205 resulting in a 5 -foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential -One. Board of Adjustment Minutes 2 July 22, 2010 For the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance from the rear yard setback. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring properties or improvements. 5. The request would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 6. The proposed addition would have minimal impact, if any, on adjacent properties and the two abutting properties that would be most impacted are supportive of the request. 7. With no basement, this home lacks practical and modern storage capacity. The addition, as proposed, offers an unobtrusive and much preferred alternative to a shed structure which would be allowed and could be placed within the required setbacks. 8. Staff recommended approval. 9. A majority of the criteria are met, according to staff. 10. The actual encroaching portion of the structure is a very small percentage of the total addition. Board Member HOVLAND commented that the plan has been well thought out. They have a unique situation with the way the house is situated on the property. Board Member PAGE referred to the letter of protest, and commented that because the property on the side is higher than the subject property there is no issue of light blockage. The motion carried 8 -0. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member ABBOTT, the following resolution was stated. Whereas, the application Case No. WA- 10 -07(B) was not eligible for administrative review; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition of one protest registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 22, 2010 Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA- 10 -07(B) be and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 5 -foot variance to the required 15 -foot side yard setback per Section 26 -205 resulting in a 10 -foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential -One. For the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance, especially for the variance for the rear yard. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring properties or improvements. 5. The request would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 6. The proposed addition would have minimal impact, if any, on adjacent properties and the two abutting properties that would be most impacted are supportive of the request. 7. With no basement, this home lacks practical and modern storage capacity. 8. Staff recommended approval. 9. The encroachment is small in square footage because of the triangulation of the house on the property. Board Member ABBOTT offered a friendly amendment to add an additional reason as follows: While the addition may be possible without a variance, the Board feels it would not be practical. The amendment was accepted by Board Member HOVLAND. The motion carried 8 -0. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair FISHER closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes —January 28, 2010. It was moved by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board Member PAGE to approve the minutes of January 28, 2010 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Board of Adjustment Minutes 4 July 22, 2010 7. NEW BUSINESS Board Member PAGE asked if the Board wanted to sponsor a banner for the Carnation Festival again. Board members would each make a small contribution to the cost of the banner. There was consensus to sponsor a banner this year. Board Member PAGE will attend to all the details. • Board Member FISHER requested that the minutes be sent out via e -mail within a week or two from the meeting. • Meredith Reckert announced that Adam Tietz, Planner One, has resigned to attend graduate school in South Carolina. Also, Ryan Stachelski, Economic Development Director, has resigned to take a position with the City of Northglenn. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. for Board members to view a training video (Preventing Pubic Officials' Liability) in the first floor conference room. Ryan Fisher, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes July 22, 2010