Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/13City of Wheat -Midge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA April 25, 2013 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on April 25, 2013, 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 Officer at 303- 235 -2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA- 13 -03 :. An application filed by Douglas Small for approval of a 34 -foot variance from the 100 -foot minimum lot width requirement to allow a two - family dwelling on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2) and located at 4110 Upham Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes — February 28, 2013 8. ADJOURNMENT V, City Of 9 r Wh6atPLdge i l�13 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: April 25, 2013 CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED: Lauren Mikulak WA -13 -03 / Small Approval of a 34 -foot variance from the 100 -foot lot width standard for a two- family dwelling on property located at 4110 Upham Street and zoned Residential -Two (R -2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4110 Upham Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: Douglas Small Douglas & Hedy Small 12,810 square feet PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Two (R -2) PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant land with accessory structure ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -13 -03 /Small 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 34 -foot (34 %) variance from the 100 -foot lot width standard for the purpose of allowing a two- family dwelling on property at 4110 Upham Street. Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for a variance from the strict application of the zoning code, if the variance request is not in excess of fifty (50) percent of development and if the variance request does not result in an additional dwelling unit. The application is not eligible for administrative review because the request would result in the approval of a second dwelling unit. Therefore, the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction to hear and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Doug Small, is requesting the variance as the owner of the property. He purchased the property this month on April 4, 2013. The subject property is located at 4110 Upham Street, is zoned Residential -Two (R -2), and has an area of 12,810 square feet. The parcel was originally developed in the 1940s with a single - family home on the west side of the lot and an accessory structure in the backyard. The site is largely surrounded by other properties zoned Residential -Two. Two lots to the south on Upham Street are properties zoned Residential -Three which contain multi- family apartment buildings xhibit 1, 2oriing. In 2008, a fire on the i roperty damaged the home and it was entirely demolished under building permit #080664 s . Demolition by a previous property owner included asbestos abatement. The accessory structure remains on the east side of the lot, but the property has not been redeveloped since the fire. Mature trees are located throughout the site, a fence runs along the west and north property lines, and an unpaved driveway is located on the south side of the lot. The applicant has proposed to redevelop the lot with a two- family dwelling. He describes the existing accessory structure as a small guest house which includes one bedroom and one bathroom; a neighbor has also stated that the accessory building has served as a dwelling unit in the past. There are no City records to verify if a building permit was ever issued for this accessory dwelling unit. A storage shed appears to have been subsequently added on the south side of the structure. The building does not appear to have been used for vehicle storage as there are no overhead garage doors M. Anecdotal information from a neighbor suggests that the existing dwelling unit has been deemed uninhabitable by the Fire Marshall and that demolition of the structure may require asbestos abatement. The neighbor also suspects that the former location of the home may have been filled in with construction debris; this could entail additional cleanup costs for a developer or future property Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -13 -03 / Small owner. Code enforcement records indicate at least five citations issued to previous owners related to property maintenance issues since 2009. The property is unplatted, but the applicant has provided an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) which indicates the lot dimensions ftibil - 10. The parcel meets the minimum lot area for single - and two- family homes in the R -2 zone district, but does not meet minimum lot width requirements, as shown in the table below. • Option 1: Keep the existing accessory structure as a dwelling unit and construct an addition to the west with a second dwelling and garage. • Option 2: Construct a new duplex and convert the existing structure to a garage. • Option 3: Construct a new duplex and demolish the existing structure. The enclosed site plans are relatively conceptual, but demonstrate that the applicant will definitively meet all minimum setback and lot coverage requirements. The only alternative that would not require a variance would be to use the property for a single - family home. This could be done by either using or replacing the existing dwelling unit. The property is considered a nonconforming lot of record because it does not meet minimum lot width (75') for a single family home. Per Section 26 -120.13 of the City Code, a single- family residence and customary accessory buildings may be built on the subject property without a variance even though the lot fails to meet the lot width requirement. The applicant has expressed that construction of a duplex is more desirable because it makes redevelopment of the property more cost effective. The 15 -day public notification period for the public hearing is currently in progress. At the time of publication of this staff report, no written comments have been received. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA The Board of Adjustment shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that a majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The a licant has rovided an analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria Staff provides the following review and analysis. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -13 -03 / Small The applicant is seeking to redevelop the property with two dwellin units and has proposed several scenarios, all of which would require a lot width variance 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. The property could function as a single - family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A lot width variance to allow a duplex is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The R- 2 zone district allows for two - family homes, and a variety of housing styles exist on Upham Street. While the properties to the north are single family homes zoned R -2, there are several ro erties to the south which are zoned R -3 and contain multifamily apartment buildings The applicant has stated they can meet the minimum R -2 setback requirements, and the site is large enough to accommodate the required number of off - street parking spaces. The site may be negatively affecting the character of the neighborhood more in its current condition than if it were to be developed with a duplex. If the existing structure was, in fact, used as a separate dwelling unit before the main home was demolished, then construction of a duplex will not result in any noticeable change from the historic use of two dwellings on the property. The proposed design of the new construction will be traditional in nature. The applicant has provided a sample of craftsman and cottage st les; similar characteristics would be used in the final design of the home for the subject site Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property by developing a site which has been underutilized and under maintained for five years. Rehabilitation of the site and development of a duplex is expected to add value to the property, but may not be possible without a variance. The City's Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) encourages investment in property, calls for new housing stock, and supports thoughtful residential designs. Approval of the variance could ensure that the substantial investment being proposed offsets the applicant's risk and results in a high quality end product which is consistent with the goals of the NRS. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Board ofAdjustment 4 Case No. WA -13 -03 /Small 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The shape and size of the property present a unique hardship because the site is unusually narrow. At about 66 feet in width, the lot is nonconforming because it does not meet minimum width requirements for any use in the R -2 zone district. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship described above was not created by the proposed purchaser or any person currently having an interest in the property. The applicant did not create the substandard lot, and thus is not responsible for the existing conditions or shape of the property. Staff finds this criterion has 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 is not expected to injure neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The structure would not impede the sight distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The lot size is large enough to accommodate a two - family dwelling, and development of the underutilized property may actually be a benefit to the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 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. The property south of the subject site is Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -13 -03 / Small also substandard in width, but all other R -2 parcels on Upham appear to meet minimum lot width requirements. 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. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single- and two - family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 34 -foot (34 %) variance from the 100 -foot lot width requirement for a duplex in R -2. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in an underutilized and blighted property which may not be possible without the variance. 3. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. 4. The property is unusually narrow for the R -2 zone district. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public safety or welfare. With the following conditions: 1. All minimum setbacks for a two - family dwelling in the R -2 zone district be met. 2. The driveway be constructed in compliance with section 26 -501.17 of city code. Specifically, the first 25 feet of driveway area from the existing edge of pavement into the site shall be surfaced with concrete, asphalt, brick pavers, or similar materials. 3. The property shall comply with the landscape requirements of section 26 -502 for new single - and two - family residences. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -13 -03 /Small EXHIBIT 1: ZONING MAP a Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-13-03 Small EXHIBIT 2: AERIALS 2010 Aerial 2012 Aerial Bourd of. I diustmew Case Na 11 1 -13 -03 Small EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS Looking east at the subject property from Upham Street. The accessory structure is visible in the distance where the arrow is pointing. A view from inside the property of the existing accessory dwelling. Windows are covered with plywood; the storage shed on the right side appears to have been added on. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -13 -03 /Small EXHIBIT 4| � e O J v { � \ §b■% \ ° ( m 5 p Lu �jw o / / § Z i ! z t3� - w } Z in Q $ o �., f -e Lz + - - -- _o_ /� % /* § \ ƒ - -- - -�� -�- -� O§ - PY yHdn § iEILL � Q e 01 r 1-5 - 2 v) t Case No. NgalmlzSmall - -- � � g I� � ° R n \ co 25. �) n 8 - - @X9 = a /\ 7 ■ z n� °���3�k 3 « a k o2@ a,u / \ ; ( ONR � � `2w - c � , ■s -� ® | R J ��§a��2x \�K2� 2 %I2 .oi•,9 - Q w ■ - @_ �, e �® .� w E��0zozu� -� u \ §B((�KA! .,.rx ; .., A o © kK /\k W » 2 a o»k6 tw it ( (�•zw ®g / \;9 � e O J v { � \ §b■% \ ° ( m 5 p Lu �jw o / / § Z i ! z t3� - w } Z in Q $ o �., f -e Lz + - - -- _o_ /� % /* § \ ƒ - -- - -�� -�- -� O§ - PY yHdn § iEILL � Q e 01 r 1-5 - 2 v) t Case No. NgalmlzSmall EXHIBIT 5: SITE PLANS 4110 Upham Street OPTION NUMBER 1: Create a duplex by adding -on to the existing house. Lot Area: 12,811 sf Bldg. Coverage: 21.6 0 /,; SCALE- 1 " =20' Y V O h N 86.1(' I DUPLEX UNIT # 2 (Existing House) U UPHAM STREET w tr 9 Board ofAdjustment Case No. KA -13 -03 , Small 85.19 4110 Uph 10ffi0I►I Convert ti house intc garage ar new duple Lot Area Bldg. Cov SCALE 1 Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA -13 -03 /Small UPHAM STREET 4110 Up OPTION Demolist house ar new dupl garages Lot Area: Bldg. Co% SCALE: 1 66.19 Board ofAdjustment Case No. W4 -13 -03 .S►nall UPHAM STREET EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF REQUEST Description and Response to Variance Criteria for Review (Property Address: 4110 Upham Street, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033) Brief description and history of the property: 4110 Upham Street is currently zoned R2 and is approximately 12,811 square feet. The dimensions of the property are approximately 66. 10 feet wide by 193.81 feet deep. Originally there was a main house and a small guest house built on the property in the 1950's. The main house was destroyed in a fire a few years ago and the small guest house is the only structure that still remains on the property. The small guest house is in total disrepair and needs extensive work on both the inside and outside. The house is approximately 700 square feet and is a one bedroom, one bath unit. The neighborhood is a mixture of single family and multifamily residences. The property adjoining this property, to the north, has a single family residence with a guest cottage behind it. Directly across the street, to the west, is another single family residence with a guest cottage behind it. Two lots to the south of this property is an apartment building, and there is another apartment complex across the street from that. As it stands, the existing structure is an eyesore for the neighborhood and is definitely hurting resale values for the properties around it. We are looking at different scenarios that would allow us to rehabilitate the property and add value to the existing structure as well as to the neighborhood. Due to the fact that the property was subdivided many years ago, the original developers did not need to take into account the current development standards with respect to "Minimum Lot Width". The subject property can meet all of the development standards with respect to building a "Two-Family Dwelling" ((i.e. Setbacks, Minimum Lot Area, Maximum Building Coverage, Maximum Height, etc.) with the exception of the Minimum Lot Width. In order to make it financially feasible for us to rehabilitate this property we would need a variance to meet the current Minimum Lot Width requirements. Due to the significant costs associated with rehabilitating this property, we are currently exploring different options that might be more cost effective. We are requesting a variance to allow us the ability to develop the property into a duplex using one of the following scenarios: l.) Add on to the existing structure and tum it into a duplex. 2.) Convert the existing structure into a detached garage and build a new duplex. 3.) Demolish the existing structure and build a new duplex. Any of the scenarios listed above would have no problem meeting all of the other development standards associated with the R2 Zoning for the construction of a duplex (i.e. Setbacks, Minimum Lot Area, Maximum Building Coverage, Maximum Height, etc.) assuming that a variance would be granted for the Minimum Lot Width requirement. Board of Adjustment 14 Case No. KA -13 -03 /.Small RESPONSES TO VARIANCE CRITERIA FOR REVIEW; A. 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. The current structure is very small and was not intended to he the primary residence on this property. It was used as a guest house before the main residence burned down. It's only a one bedroom, one bath cottage in need of major repairs. Without doing one of the scenarios described above, it would be cost prohibitive to rehabilitate this property and would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The neighborhood is a mixture of single family and multifamily residences. The property adjoining this property, to the north, has a single family residence with a guest cottage behind it. Directly across the street, to the west, is another single family residence with a guest cottage behind it. Two lots to the south of this property is an apartment building, and there is another apartment complex across the street from that. By granting this variance, the proposed new construction would not alter the essential character of the locality. In fact, it would add to the character and property values of the surrounding residences. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. Rehabilitating this property will be a very costly venture and would be cost prohibitive without the proposed variance. The subject property will be able to meet all of the development standards (i.e. Minimum Lot Area, Front Setbacks, Rear Setbacks, Side Setbacks, Maximum Building Coverage, etc.) with respect to building a "One - Family Dwelling" or a "Two-Family Dwelling" with the exception of the Minimum Lot Width. In order to rehabilitate this property we would need a variance to meet the current Minimum Lot Width requirements. D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Due to the fact that the property was subdivided many years ago (approximately the 1950's), the original developers did not take into account the current development standards with respect to "Minimum Lot Width" because these standards did not exist. This is a large property that can easily meet all of the development standards associated with Minimum Lot Area, Front Setbacks, Rear Setbacks, Side Setbacks, Maximum Building Coverage, etc. However, a variance would be necessary to overcome the Minimum Lot Width requirement. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship was created by the fact that the original primary residence on this property was destroyed in a fire a few years ago. The hardship also has to do with the fact that the property was subdivided many Board of Adjusuneni 15 Case No. WA -13 -03 Small years ago, and the original developers were not able to take into account the current development standards with respect to "Minimum Lot Width" because these standards did not exist at that time. F. 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 appropriate light and air to the 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. It is important to remember that there was originally a main house and a small guest house built on the property. The main house was destroyed in a fire a few years ago and the small guest house is the only structure that still remains on the property. As it stands, the existing structure (the small guest house) is an eyesore for the neighborhood and is definitely hurting resale values for the properties around it. It's also a target for vandalism as indicated by the broken windows that needed to be boarded up. We are exploring different scenarios that would allow us to rehabilitate the property and add value to the existing structure as well as the neighborhood. We would not be creating any additional congestion or traffic in the neighborhood since the original property already had two residences on it before the fire. if anything, our rehabilitation of this property would increase the property values within the neighborhood. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. This neighborhood was originally developed many years ago, before the City of Wheat Ridge had established the current development standards. The current Minimum Lot Width requirement was not something that the original developers needed to be concerned about because it did not exist. This property meets all of the other requirements associated with the current development standards for R2 zoning, with the exception of the Minimum Lot Width. The requested variance and the proposed rehabilitation of the property are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA -13 -03 i Small EXHIBIT 7: DESIGN EXAMPLES The following images are sample design which exhibit design characteristics similar to those which would be incorporated into a final design for the subject property. SAMPLE DUPLEX PLAN Board of Adjustment 17 Case No. II A-13-03 tip„ all City of WheatPidge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting February 28, 2013 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Alternates Present: Sally Banghart Janet Bell Lily Griego Paul Griffith Paul Hovland 3. 4. Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak time. PUBLIC HEARING Tom Abbott Russ Hedden Jennifer Walter Betty Jo Page p.m. in the City Council ie, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Lauren Mikulak, Planner I Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary A. Case No. W3- 13 -01: An application filed by Boston Market for approval of a 9 -foot variance from the maximum 7 -foot height limit and a 20 -foot variance from the 30- foot setback requirement, resulting in a 16 -foot tall freestanding sign with a 10 -foot setback on property zoned Mixed Use - Commercial (MU -C) and located at 3820 Wadsworth Boulevard. The case was presented by Lauren Mikulak. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Mikulak reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The purpose of the variance request is Board of Adjustment Minutes February 28, 2013 to allow the applicant to replace an existing monument sign with a new monument sign that is 16 feet in height and located 10 feet from the front property line. Staff outlined recent planning efforts along the corridor and described the current zoning, the proposed sign, and several alternatives. Having found the application not in compliance with a majority of the review criteria, staff gave a recommendation of denial. Board Member GRIEGO asked how nonconforming signs, such as the tall freestanding Burger King sign, are treated in the code. Ms. Mikulak stated that nonconforming signs are allowed to be kept or modified as long as they do not increase the nonconformity. The sign code does not require nonconforming signs to be removed by a certain date. All newly constructed signs have to meet current standards. Board Member BELL stated she could understand why the applicant wants additional height for the sign given the presence of other taller signs on Wadsworth. The setback of the building from the street reduces visibility of wall signs especially compared to the visibility of the Burger King sign. Board Member BELL inquired about the height of the retaining wall along the front property line. Ms. Mikulak stated the wall is about 2.5 feet tall. Board Member BELL commented that the height of the wall affects visibility of the existing Boston Market sign. Board Member HOVLAND commented on the addition of the digital cabinet on the Burger King sign. Ms. Mikulak stated that the digital portion is allowed because it does not increase the nonconfonmity and is within the signs size limits. The allowed area of a sign is based on building size, and Boston Market could also increase the size of their sign and add an LED sign. Board Member BANGHART stated she supports the idea of Wadsworth being more pedestrian friendly, but it is a high traffic area where auto - oriented signs may be appropriate. Ms. Mikulak stated Wadsworth is a state highway and it is slated to be upgraded in the future. The vision for Wadsworth in the City's comprehensive plan is to have detached sidewalks and fewer parking lots between the sidewalks and buildings. The mixed use zoning requires new buildings to be closer to the street. In response to a question from Board Member WALTER, Ms. Reckert stated that the multitenant sign to the north was constructed in the early 1990's and the inline tenants feel it doesn't provide enough signage. Board Member GRIEGO commented on a photograph in the staff report which shows that the street tree foliage may reduce visibility of the proposed taller sign. Board Member BELL commented that the sign standards in the mixed use code are based on a future vision for Wadsworth and not on existing conditions. Board of Adjustment Minutes February 28, 2013 Chair ABBOTT commented that the future design of Wadsworth is unknown and the timing of a widening is unknown. Ms. Mikulak agreed these are unknown but stated that funds have been secured for a preliminary environmental study and Wadsworth is a high priority area for the City. Mike Pharo The applicant's representative was sworn in by Chair AB OTT. Mr. Pharo introduced Diane McClelland, a Purchasing Agent and Design AdmiAstrator with Boston Market, who was in the audience. Mr. Pharo expressed disagreement with the long.,term view of Wadsworth as a pedestrian - oriented environment, and stated it is and will continue to be an auto - oriented corridor. He explained that the City's vision in the comprehensive plan will not be achieved without governmental intervention or participation, and this is not happening. Mr. Pharo stated that Boston Market is requesting fair treatment and is requesting equal exposure. He explained that if nonconforming signs are permitted to exist, Boston Market should not be held to such a different standard. He stated that restaurants use signage to attract drive -by customers, and the applicant does not have equal exposure to the vehicular market. Mr. Pharo compared the applicant's property to the neighboring Burger King which has a taller sign and no street trees. Boston Market would prefer a taller sign even if a tree canopy partially blocks the view. Mr. Pharo described the inequity of a sign code that allows competing restaurants to have much taller signs. The applicant is open to alternative sign designs, but wants a taller sign to be able to compete fairly. He described the recent investment in an interior remodel and Boston Market's commitment to the location in Wheat Ridge. Board Member GRIEGO asked about the location of the next closest Boston Market restaurants. Mr. Pharo and Ms. McClelland stated they are at Wadsworth and Crestline in Littleton and at 92nd & Sheridan to the north. Board Member GRIEGO asked if the Wheat Ridge location is considered a destination restaurant. Mr. Pharo acknowledged it may be but the sign they have not is not adequate for the impulse diner. Board Member GRIEGO stated that competition is a given in the restaurant business and asked the applicant to discuss the alternative designs staff had proposed in the report and presentation. Mr. Pharo stated the alternatives do not allow a taller sign, and therefore do not solve the issue of visibility to vehicles. Board Member HOVLAND reiterated the two factors of the request - height and setback - and clarified that setback is based on the height. He asked if the applicant would consider a 15 foot sign which would eliminate the need for a setback variance. Mr. Pharo Board of Adjustment Minutes February 28, 2013 explained the 16 -foot request was based on wanting the sign to be taller than the nearby bus shelter, but the applicant would consider a 15 -foot sign as a reasonable solution. Ms. Mikulak responded to a comment that 30 foot setbacks seem exorbitant. The City typically does not allow signs above 15 feet unless a property is within a '/4 -mile of the interstate. In that instance a sign may be up to 50 feet tall to be seen by interstate traffic, but a sign from 15 to 50 feet tall requires a 30 foot setback. This site is not within a '/ -mile of the interstate. Board Member BELL asked if the street trees could be trimmed or modified. Ms. Reckert stated the trees belong to the property owner, but extensive trimming could impact the shape. Chair ABBOTT stated that normally variances run with land in perpetuity but asked if a variance could be granted for a specific period of time such that a taller sign would be removed as the corridor started to redevelop. Ms. Reckert responded that conditions may be added, but for the sake of enforceability recommended a condition based on the tenant instead of based on a period of time. Board Member BELL expressed disagreement with the comprehensive plan's vision for Wadsworth and stated that the street has a vehicular orientation and not a pedestrian orientation. She agreed with Board Member HOVLAND's suggestion of a 15 -foot tall sign which would eliminate the need for a setback variance. There was some discussion on how the motion should be presented and what should be included in the motion. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA- 13 -01, applicant name Boston Market, location at 3820 Wadsworth Blvd. WHEREAS, the application was denied permission by Administrative Officer; and WHEREAS the Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -13 -01 is an appeal to the Board from the decision of Administrative Officer 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. Board of Adjustment Minutes February 28, 2013 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -13 -01 Request A be, and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE of VARIANCE: An 8 -foot variance from the 7 -foot maximum height standard for free standing sign in Mixed Use - Commercial zone district, thereby making a 15 -foot maximum height. For the following reasons: 1. Wadsworth is a vehicular corridor and sight is limited with the existing sign. 2. There are a number of non - conforming signs in the vicinity which block and distract from the lower height of the Boston Market sign. 3. The design is to be as presented. Board Member GRIEGO asked for confirmation that the approval is granted specifically to the design which was presented by the applicant. Chair ABBOTT confinned this was true. Chair ABBOTT thanked the applicant for the recent investment made on the interior remodel, but stated that lie intended to vote no, based on evidence that a taller sign does not entirely resolve the situation and the fact that alternatives may exist. Board Member GRIEGO stated that she intended to vote no based on there being insufficient evidence supporting the request. She stated for the record that she does not agree with the treatment of nonconforming signs in the sign. code. Board Member WALTER stated she intended to vote no because alternative options may exist. There was some additional discussion of sign visibility with adjacent traffic, traffic speeds, the auto versus pedestrian character of the corridor, and the challenge that any solution addresses only part of the problem. Chair ABBOTT called for a vote and advised that a super majority of 6 affirmative votes would be required for approval. The motion failed by a vote of 4 to 4 with Board Members ABBOTT, GRIEGO, WALTER, and HEDDON voting no. Ms. Mikulak explained that because the height variance failed, the setback variance is no longer applicable. Chair ABBOTT encouraged the applicant to continue to work with the City and thanked them for having their business in Wheat Ridge. Board Member BELL asked if there was a time limit for Boston Market to submit an alternate proposal. Ms. Reckert stated the applicant may request a re- hearing in front of Board of Adjustment Minutes February 28, 2013 the Board. The request must be filed in the office of the City Clerk within 30 days and new evidence must be submitted. If a request is submitted, the Board will vote on whether or not to conduct a re- hearing. Chair ABBOTT expressed appreciation to all those who participated in the hearing. 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair ABBOTT closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was some discussion on orientation for new members with the City Attorney. Ms. Mikulak stated staff could arrange a training to discuss the functions of the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — May 24, 2012 It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member BANGHART to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 7 -0 with Board Member GRIFFITH abstaining. B. Election of Officers Paul Griffith was elected to serve as Chair of the Board of Adjustment. Lily Griego was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Board of Adjustment. C. Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meeting. it N% as moved by Board Member GRIEGO and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve Resolution No. 01, Series of 2013 — Designating a Public Place for the Posting of Meeting Notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. The motion passed 8 -0. D. Nis. Reckert provided a staffing update: 1. There \vas an introduction for Kim Waggoner, Administrative Assistant of the Community Development Department and Recording Secretary for Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission and Housing Authority. 2. David Kuntz was introduced as the new Representative for District II. 3. Sarah Showalter has taken a position with the City of Denver and her last day will be March Stn 8. ADJOURNMENT Board of Adjustment Minutes February 28, 2013 It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member GRIEGO to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 8 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Tom Abbott, Chair Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes February 28, 2013