HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-96-26. ~'
cxr5r or Ws+t~-T Rsaac PL~-NN=Na a=ura=oN
itTarr REPORT
TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT bats Prepared: January 13, 15192
Date of Mesting: Januery 23, 1992 Cass Manager: Grag Moberg
Case No. ~ Name: WA-91-29/MEDVED C}iEVRO,ET
Action Requested: Approval of a variance to allow en
additional freestcnding sign.
Location of Request: 11001 South I-70 Frontage Road North
Nacre i Address of J-pplicant: 13001dSouth 1~70~Frontage Road North
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Nas+e t 7lddress o€. Oaner(s): ~ShTamarade Drive
Littleton, CO 80217
1lpproxis{ats 1-rsa: 8.86 Acras
Present Zoning: Commercial-One
Present Land Use: Automotive
Surrounding Zoning: N: A-1; $: A-1; ~: C-1; F:: A-1, C-1 & C-2
Surrounding Land Use: H, E, Ii: Vacant $: I-?0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date Published: January 9, 1992
ante to be Posted:
sate Legal Notices Sent:
l~gency Check List
Related Correspondence
----------------------
~R~ IN~'4 R~QR~:
( ) Comprehensive Plan
January 10, 1992
January 9, 1992
( ) Attached {XX) Not Required
(XX) Attached ( ) None
-------------------------------------
(XX) Case File & Packet Materials
(XX} Zoning Ordinance (XX) Exhibits
( ) Subdivision Regulations ( ) Other
ttratSatCT*_ON•
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all
notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore
there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
~oA~D or AnaasTMENT ~rAtr RaPO~T
CABS NO. WA-91-29 Page ]
I. BEQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow an
additional freestanding sign. The sign is to be located on a
site that already has two existing signs, the maximum number
allowed by the Code of Laws, Section 26-410(e)(2).
ZI. SITE
The property is approximately 8.86 acres in area r.,ontaining a
47,923 square foot building. Currently there are two (2)
freestanding sign. located on the property. The signs are 167
and 148 squero feet in area and advertise "GEO" and "Chevrolet".
The applicant would now like to, place an additional freestanding
sign on the site advertising a nee Cadillac dealership. It has
been indicated that the sign will be approximately 137 squero
feet in area and the height and setback will be approximately the
same as the two existing signs. It should be pointed out that a
sign thirty-six (36) feet in height is required to have a setback
of thirty (30) feet. This is a new requirement that was not in
place at the time the existing signs were permitted. Hence, the
new sign, if allowed, would be setback further into the property
than the existing signs.
YIi. FINDING OF FACT
1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in
us®, service or income if permitted to be used only under
the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in
which it is located?
The property has been yleiding a reasonable return in use
for several years, and will continue to if permitted to be
used only under the conditions allowed by Section 26-410:
Sign Coda.
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
There are no circumstances that could be considered unique.
The applicant is allowed, and currently has, two
freestanding signs. In addition, Section 26-410 (e)(5)
allows the applicant to increase one
fifty (50~) percent. Therefore, all
the proposed sign could be placed on
signs. This increase is not allowed
properties within the City of Wheat
front onto I-70.
of the allowed signs by
but 8 square feet of
the smaller of the two
for all commercial
tidge; only those which
3. if the variation were granted, would it alter the essential
character of the locality?
The granting of, the requested variance could alter the
essential character of the local neighboxhaod as no other
properties within the immediate area have more freestanding
signs than allowed by the Code of Laws.
BOARD O! l-DJt1d'PISLK't STAFF REPORT page 3
Ca1sti ItO. W11-91-T9
4. Yfould the particular physical surrounding, shape or
topographical aordition of the specific property ~nvoived
result in a particular hardship !upon the owner) as
ofethegregulations werercarried~~out?nce if the strict letter
There is na particular physical surrounding, shape or
topographical conditions involved that would result in a
particular hardship up^n th® property own®r;icant~ requect
is therefore for the convarience of the app
5, Would the conditio~~s upon which the petition for a variation
is based b® applicah~.e, generally, to the other property
within the Bame zon.ng classification?
The granting of this, varianuestsil result in the setting of
a precedent for similar req
6, desire tor~ake moneyeout oftthe property?lusively upon a
The purpose of this variance is to identify the site and the
product contained thereon•licantfore there is an economic
benefit derived by the app
7. person®presentlydhavinglar. interesthi~ thenpropertY?by any
The applicant has not cz•eated any hardship. However it is
the applicant's decision to request three freestanding
signs, identifying three different types of vehicles sold on
the premises, rather than combining two of the signs as
allowed under Section 26-410 (e)(5).
g, Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is
located?
The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood.
g, Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase
the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood?
The granting of the requested variance will not impair the
adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property nor
increase the congestion of public streetrc or increase the
danger of fire or public safety.
,.,.
.. .
So1utD 01 11DJUfSTM6NT STl1!'1 RsroR'e' gage a
C11S6 l10. WA-91-Z9
ZV. CONCLUSION i R6COMMENOIITZ01'1
Based an the preceding "Findinq~s of Fact", Stnff has reeched the
following conclusions:
1. The prapezty to yielding a reac+onable roturn in usa and w111
continue to if aignage is permitted only under th®.
conditions ellowed by Section 26-410• and
2, The property is allowed two fr®eatandicanti~~aincreaselonen
Section 26-410 (e)(5) allows the app
of the allowed signs fifty (50~) percent. Th®,refose, all
but B square feet of the proposed sign could be placet, on
the smaller of the two signs. These are the skme--
requirements that all other commercial properties wlthin the
notuniquehcircumstance concerning thensubjectfsite;tand^ is
3, These are no particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the property and thQrefore, this
request is for the convenience of the owner and is not due
to or related to any hardship: and
4. There are alternatives to the proposed request. The
applicant could combine either the two oxisting or an
existing and tha proposed sign, thus meeting the
requirements set forth under the sign regulations and no
variance wau1~1 be needed.
Fact~,ostaff wouldurecommendithatfCasetNO.pWAc91129 beiDENIED,of
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT § 26.410
offset, either vertical or horizontal, five (25) feet high, and thirty (30) feet
shall be required such that the existing for signs over twenty-five (25) feet high.
sign is not visually blocked by the new (See section 26.30(D.)
sign. (4) Landscaping requirement: For new devel-
b. From street right-of--way-Five (5) feet opment or total redevelopment, all free-
for signs under seven (7) feet high, ten standing signs shall be placed within land-
(10) feet for signs seven (7) tc twenty- soaped azeas.
(5) Maximum sign azea: Based upon the following table.
Floor area of Building
0-1,500 s.f.
1,500-5,000 s.f.
5,000-50,000 s.f.
Over 50,000 s.f.
MAXIMUM SIGN AAEA*
(Square Feet = s.f)
Single Use Development
35 s.f.
35 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each addi-
tional 50 s.f. of floor area over
1,501.
100 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each ad-
ditional 500 s.f. of floor area
over 5,001.
190 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each ad-
ditional 1,000 s.f. of floor azea
over 50,001 up to a maximum
size of 300 s.f.
Alultiple Use Development
60 s.f.
60 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each addi-
tional 40 s.f. of floor area over
1,501.
150 s.f. plus I s.f. per each 300
s.f. of floor area over 5,001.
300 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each ad-
ditional 1,000 s.f. of floor azea
over 50,001 up to a maximum
size of 400 s.C.
*Freestanding signs Cor retail or service business located within one-quarter mile of interstate
highways, that aze oriented to the interstate highway, will be allowed a fifty (50) percent increase
in azea for one (1) freestanding sign per development. All other permitted freestanding signs shall
meet the standazd area requirements.
(f) Illuminated:
(1) Within one hundred (100) feet of a residen-
tial structure, indirect or internal lighting
only.
(2) Over one hundred f100) feet from a residen-
tialstructure, any type of lighting source is
allowed, except search or flashing lights,
provided that it shall be shaded, shielded
or directed so that the light shall not ad-
versely affect surrounding premises or safe
vision on public or private roadways, in-
cluding highways.
(g) Off-premises sign:
(1) Permitted only on commercial or industrial
zoned property;
(2) Freestanding type of sign only;
(3) Maximum size: Fifty (50) square feet;
(4) Maximum height: Twenty-five (25) feet;
(5) An off-premises sign counts toward the al-
lowed number of freestanding signs for the
property where the sign is located; and
(6) Maximum number ofoff-premises signs far
any one activity equals two (2).
Supp `. o: 13 1835
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: January 23, 1992
Page 2
` 2. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion was made by Board Member HOWARD, seconded by Board
Member REYNOLDS, that the agenda be approved as printed.
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any
subject not appearing on the agenda.)
No one came forward to speak.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WA-91-29: An application by Medved Chevrolet, Inc.
for approval of a variance to allow an additional free-
standing sign on property located at 11001 West I-70
Frontage Road North.
Greg Moberg presented the staff report. All pertinent
documents were entered into record, which Chairman BERNHART
accepted. Mr. Moberg informed the Board the sign was posted
only for 14 days, instead of the required 15, and asked i£
that-would present a problem for any o£ the members. There
were no objections registered.
Board Member REYNOLDS wanted to know the size o£ the
building, and Mr. Moberg answered 47,900 square feet and
keep in mind the applicant is allowed two £ree-standing
signs approximately 180 square £eet per sign due to the size
of the building. Mr. Moberg added the two existing signs
are allowed.
Board Member ROSSILLON questioned would the applicant then
have 40-50 square feet left over £rom the total o£ both
signs, and Mr. Moberg said he would if the area were
combined, but the sign ordinance does not .work on that
basis. The applicant is allowed 180 square feet per sign,
not what is total on the site. However, the new Sign Code
allows for an increase of 50$ for one of those signs (this
is only allowed for businesses that Front on West I-70).
Mr. Moberg continued saying the applicant would be allowed
to place the smaller sign on the larger one without a
variance.
No Further questions were asked of staff at this time.
The applicant,-John Medved, #5 Tamarac, Littleton,. CO, was
sworn in. Mr. Medved discussed his purchase of this
property and prior request in 1988 for a sign variance,
noting then the Board determined the location to be a
hardship. The property not only is on a road where traffic.
goes by at speeds of 55-75 miles per hour, but the property
also has 3 or 4 huge electric power towers on the site.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: January 23, 1992
Page 3
Mr. Medved said the reason for the sign request tonight is
because he has acquired the rights for a Cadillac franchise.
Entered into record was a letter from the Cadillac Division,
labeled Exhibit 'A'. The franchise used to be located on
West 6th Avenue and after a study was completed, it was
determined the reason it folded was due to location and poor
signage. Mr. Medved said he was granted the franchise under
certain conditions from the Cadillac division and one of
them being a demand for separate signage. Mr. Medved
continued saying another condition calls for a separate
showroom between 4-5 thousand square feet to be built as a
separate entity for Cadillac. Building plans and the land
plat, labeled Exhibit 'B', were presented and discussion
followed regarding the power lines-and drainage ditches that
run across the property_ Mr. Medved stated one of the signs
granted in 1988 for Parfet Street had to be placed on the
frontage road due to the power lines.
Mr. Medved said his business is viable and he wants to keep
it that way. The automobile business is going through a
tough time right now and the only way for a dealer to exist
today is to cover the entire spectrum from the 'high' line
down to the 'entry' level. With everything presented
regarding the street, location, and the property complicated
by power lines, Mr. Medved feels this is not a viable area
for retail business.
Mr. Medved emphasized without signage he cannot exist. He
spends over a million and half dollars a year on advertising
but without it he would have been out of business 3 1/2
years ago. Many businesses have come and gone along the
frontage road and Mr. Medved presented a video tape, labeled
Exhibit 'C', showing how the businesses have faired on that
street during the last four years and what the neighborhood
looks like today.
Board Member REYNOLDS asked if this will be a separate
operation, and Mr. Medved replied yes, it is very important
for General Motors to have this a separate entity.
Chairman BERNHART wanted to know where-the addition will be
built, and Mr. Medved answered on the east side of the
existing building.
Board Member HOWARD asked if the intent is to put the
Cadillac sign up where the GEO sign is, and Mr. Medved
replied no, it will be between the two signs.
Board Member HOWARD questioned where the entrance will be to
the Cadillac business, and Mr. Medved replied there will be
one entrance in front and another entrance on-the east side.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: January 23, 1992
Page 4
Board Member HOWARD asked if the parking area will be shared
by Cadillac and Chevrolet divisions, and Mr. Medved said
right now the area is being re-worked by the engineering
department.
Board Member ABBOTT asked why there is shrubbery on the GEO
sign and not on the Chevrolet sign, and Mr. Medved replied
it was just part o£-the original landscape plan. Mr. Medved
added he will add landscaping if necessary, as he wants the
area to look good. .
The proposed sign was pointed out on the overhead per
Chairman BERNHART'S request and setbacks were discussed.
Mr. Medved showed where the Cadillac showroom would be._
Glen Gidley told the Board this is the first the department
has heard of the plans to expand the building and voiced his
concern about the existing crowded parking situation. Mr.
Gidley added-when he was at the site he noted 56 .cars parked
in the public street and cannot see building an addition
that takes up more parking when there is not enough as it
is. The only way would be if the site itself was expanded,
and Mr. Medved explained they have purchased nine acres to
the west of his. property and plan on graveling it and using
it for employee parking which will alleviate the street
parking.
Board Member HOWARD questioned the sign facing Parfet
Street, and Mr. Medved said the GEO sign faces Parfet and
cannot be moved closer due to the power lines, and therefore
feels the sign should not be included in the calculation of
signs on the frontage road.
Mr. Medved ended--by saying he and his wife moved here from
back east and invested every dime they had into this
business and asked the Board to please give them
consideration.
No further questions were asked of Mr. Medved.
Diana German, German Sign Company, 13761 West 78th Avenue,
Arvada, CO, was sworn in. German Sign Company is doing the
work on this sign and also put up the other two signs on the
property in 1988. Ms. German said in 1988 a hardship was
established with the location of the lot. General Motors
will not let_Medved combine the. signs because they all are
individually engineered.-
Chairman BERNHART asked if the signs could be stacked one on
top of another, and Ms. German answered no they are not
engineered for that because. of wind load and weight. Ms.
German added they would like to keep the same setback on all
three signs if .possible.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: January 23, 1992 Page 5
t Board Member HOWARD wanted to know how far apart the two
existing signs are, and Ms. German guessed around 200 feet.
No further questions were asked of Ms. German.
Chairman BERNHART asked staff if an additional variance
would be required to place the proposed sign with the same
setback, and Mr. Moberg said this variance is just for the
approval of an additional sign and the setback would depend
on the height of the sign. Mr. Moberg again explained the
exact amount of signage that would be allowed and discussed
other Cadillac dealerships and their signage in the area.
Mr. Gidley added that assuming the two existing signs are
setback less than 30 feet and were put there under the old
Sign Code, a variance would be necessary now to keep the
sign consistent with the other two.
Chairman BERNHART asked staff to explain the earlier
variance in terms of the GEO sign and why it was not placed
on Parfet Street, and Mr. Gidley said under the old sign
code one free-standing sign was allowed per street frontage,
however, staff administratively allowed the sign transfered
from Parfet Street to the frontage road because of the power
lines. Mr. Gidley continued saying under the current sign
code, each free-standing sign must be on the street to which
it advertises, so today the sign would have to be on Parfet
Street.
Mr. Gidley said if Mr. Medved plans on locating the Cadillac
dealership on the newly acquired property to the west, they
would be allowed a free-standing sign by right (without a
variance).
Mr. Medved spoke again saying the land to the west was
purchased for the future, but at_this time he has no
intentions to do anything but using a small portion of it
for employee parking. Mr. Medved added he does not have the
money right now to develop the land, but maybe someday. Mr.
Medved explained to the Board he only leases the signs and
they are engineered, designed and actually owned by General
Motors, therefore cannot be changed.
Mr. Medved said he wants to maintain the aesthetic beauty of
the lot, and asked if the motion could be worded to keep the
three signs in alignment with one another and then Mr.
Medved thanked the Board for their time.
No further questions were asked of_the applicant.
Mr. Gidley corrected prior statement by saying the actual
request was to approve a £ree-standing sign, but the Board
could specify in the motion that the sign be placed in line
. ~ i •
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: January 23, 1992 Page 6
with the other two and that would be sufficient to meet any
legal requirements.
Mr. Moberg stated there were two inquiries regarding this
case; one was in the form of a letter from the adjoining
property owner in favor of the request, and the other was
from a Public Service employee concerned about the number of
easements across the property.
Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT that Case No. WA-91-
29, an application by Medved Chevrolet,_be APPROVED for the
following reasons:
1. The existing sign's columns and footings are not
engineered to support the structural and wind load
imposed by additional signage.
2. Total square footage of three signs will exceed the sign
code by eight square feet.
3. The proposed free standing sign will match the general
character of the existing signage as described in the
intent of the Wheat Ridge Master Sign Plan.
4. Cadillac division of General Motors requires all
franchisees to provide separate and exclusive free
standing signage.
5. There is no viable alternative to the proposed site
locations.
6. There is a unique hardship in respect to sign visibility
created by high tension power transmission towers along
both east and west property lines.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The base of all three signs will be landscaped.
2. This variance is granted to address specific conditions.
3. If the Cadillac franchise expires or moves the third
free standing sign must be brought before the Board of
Adjustment for reconsideration of possible reuse within
sixty days.
Motion was seconded by Board Member ROSSILLON. Motion
carried 5-0. Resolution attached.
2. Case No. WA-91-28: An application by Gerald Biehl for
approval of a variance to allow an additional free-standing
sign on property located at 3350 Youngfield Street.
Greg Moberg presented the staff report. All pertinent
documents were entered into record, which Chairman BERNHART
accepted.
Board Member HOWARD wanted to know what properties are
~ included in this request and how many small signs-did they
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE ~ -- ThE Cit Of
P.O. BOX 638 - _ - y
WHEAT PIDGE. CO 80D34-0638 '_ (303) 234-5900. R Z Threat
City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police-Dept. Fax # 235-2949 ~ V'~V idge
October 14, 1994
Dean Gokey
Medved AutoPlex
11001 W I-70 Frontage Road North
Wheat Ridge, Co 80033
RE: Used Car Lot
Dear Dean,
I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss Medved's request for a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for the used car lot.
Public Works and Planning have the following concerns relating to
the current condition of the project that affect issuance of a
TCO.
1. According to the letter from Robert Brutyn to Meredith
Reckert there are approximately $111,669 in outstanding
contract work as of the 12th of October. We understand that
Medved has a considerable excess. of funds available versus
construction obligations. The City's policies require us to
obtain financial guarantees for outstanding improvements as a
condition of issuance a TCO. The financial guarantees can be
ar ~~~n the form of~:a cash escrow .or an .irrevocable letter of.
.Y, r' L-,3 L'1E ;credit in: the amount of 125& of the value of the outstanding
improvements ($145,862).
2. Primary access to the site is intended to be from the
frontage road, not cross access from the existing dealership.
We understand that work to complete these improvements is
underway and this work is expected to be completed in a
couple of weeks. We consider Medved's proposal to provide
temporary access to the site through the existing dealership
to be inadequate for both the public and emergency access.
We have observed the fire lanes blocked or obstructed with
vehicles on a regular basis. Temporary access from the
frontage road will be required as a condition of the City's
granting the TCO.
3. Drainage improvements on site are. not completed. We
understand that control structures are being poured and
metering devices will be installed next week. A separate
financial guarantee will not be required for this work
because of the amount required in (1) above.
1
ca ~a~~.~o-e i+.r.,
4. We will also require a letter from Mr. Medved granting
the City and City representatives (contractors, etc.)
unlimited access to the Used Car Lot Site to effect
completion of required improvements in accordance with the
approved plans in the unlikely event Medved AutoPlex defaults
on the terms of the TCO.
5. Completion of the permanent grading and erosion control
in the area north of the Used Car Lot must be completed prior
to issuance of a CO.
6. Additional development around the Medved AutoPlex is
nearing the final planning stages. This development will
require construction of West 50th Avenue for access including
the segment of West -50th Avenue lying along the northern.
boundary the AutoPlex. We will require appropriate financial
guarantees from the AutoPlex prior to issuance of a CO for
the Used Car Lot. Issuance of a TCO for the Used Car Lot
will not be delayed by this issue. Please consider this,
letter as notice of this requirement. This item will be
addressed in more detail in further communications with Mr.
Medved.
Please contact me at 235-2863 to discuss the terms of this
letter.
Respectfully;
~~
John Oss, PE
Senior Project Engineer,,:. .
cc: Glen Gidley
Bob Goebel
'"req ,Knudson
Meredith Reckert ___
,~„,.,.
2
Y
~j,
7SQ(
4 r.O.
~WNE
I" ' s.C
~~
r
r ham '~F' - -.
- a ;~
y ..
29TH AVENUE
.. - -
as ~
- 1 -
7fie City of
~
GE CO 80034'0638 .... ~ ,, __~~,,,~,.., w.>(303) 234 5900 ~
{.
__ '_ . ~L eal
Chevrolet
I-70 North Frontage Rd.
Ridge, ;CO 80033
~.: ;:y .,
~,
x~: '::Construction Ot W. 50th Avenue
Dear.Mr. Medved,
~..
Congratulations on your expansion completion. It is truly an
asset .to the community.
We :are told, by the property owner at 50th & Robb, that
development of an office warehouse unit will begin sometime in
the spring of '95. A requirement of that development is the
construction of the south half of 50th Avenue from Robb Street
east to your N.W. boundary. It is therefore time to construct
50th Avenue along your north frontage of 50th Avenue. The
subdivision plat requires that you construct the 1/2 street along
your frontage at your expense and that we are required to give
you notice. This letter shall serve as that notice.
With the construction of 50th Avenue you will have street
frontage .on 3 sides of your development. If you wish access to
50th Avenue,. now is the time to consider the location so that it
can be incorporated in your design.
The design and construction along your frontage must be
coordinated with the design of the property on Robb St. It may
be feasible to have the same engineer and: contractor do both
designs. The choice, of .course, is yours.
We will work very closely with your engineer to make sure that
review time is minimal for final phase.
We look forward to working with you in the near future.
Very Truly Yours,
Bob Goebel, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
cc: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development
Dan Wilde, Mayor
Bob Middaugh, City Administrator
~, .: ~...
>_
~,:,;
y>'
'~, .
.._
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE The City of
WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6797 (303) 234-5900 GWheat
City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 Ridge
April 22, 1996
Mr. Sohn Medved
Medved Autoplex
11001 West I-70 Frontage Road North
Wheat Ridge CO 80033
Dear John: _. _ _
This letter is in regard to your request for approval of a master
sign plan with variances for property located at 11001 West I-70
Frontage Road North pursuant to case No. WA-96-14.
I have scheduled this case for public hearing in front. of
Planning Commission on June 6, 1996. Please be aware that a
completed process application and processing fee of $50 are
required to be submitted prior to the public hearing.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 235-2848-
Sincerely yours,
Meredith Reckert
Planner
MR:slw
cc: WA-96-14 file
--
The City of ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION
Wheat
~Rid~re Department of Planning--and Development
6 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Phone (303) 237-6944
West I- phone 421-0100
Applicant --NERVED AUTOPLEX Address FmntaaP Read-North
Owner John Medved _ Address same Phone same
Location of request X001 West I 70 Frontage Road North Wheat Ridcre Colorado 80033
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below ---
which pertain to-your request:)
^ Change o£ zone o_r zone conditions Variance/Waiver
Site development-plan approval Nonconforming use change.
Special use permit Flood plain special exception
Conditional use permit- Interpretation of code-_
Temporary use/building permit Zone line modification.
Minor subdivision Public Improvement Exception
Subdivision Street vacation
Miscellaneous lat
8 Preliminary p
Final Solid waste landfill/
[] ** See attached procedural .guide mineral extraction permit-
for specific requirements. ® Other
Detailed Description of request The applicant is seeking approval of a master
_ - -:
sign plan.
.. - ., , '~
List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real.-_
property, as owner, mortgagee,- lessee, optionee, etc.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
John Medved Medved Autot~lex 11001 West I-70 Frontage Road North,: 421-0100
- _ ~ ~~
._ ... - .-_ air. ,:-. .
I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and
correot_to the best o£ my knowledge and that in filing-this application, I -
am acting with the knowledge and consent o£ those persons listed-above,
without whose consent the requested action, cannot lawfully be accomplished.
Applicants other than owners must. submit power-of-attorney from the owner
which approved of this actin -on,his behalfA~P~
JO
Signature o£ Applicant BY: F
,~ S B.'
Subscribed and sw to me day of Ju~-Y 19 96
;'~': ~~
1 ,'jg'~,~~..,' Cheryle B. otery Public -
~.._ My commission expires 10/25/96
., .~ Q4i "1 r~~o Trn --
llat 2.: xece~a.vec. ~ ~/ -!~v ••G •, •..•r~ ...,. .. -
-~ -- ----- .- ... ..m -_.- ... ..,,
MEDVE~ ~
g V T O P L E 7Ca 71001 West I-70 Frontage Rd. NorU~
^ ® ^ WYieat Ridge. Colorado 80033
303.421.0100
Fax. 303.940.9029
OIflR~LLtT mx.owreo a~~®
CITY O^F WHEAnT RIDGE
March 22, 1996 ~ !42J~I1`i ~~
,~~'~? ~ w 1°~~
~~U U
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Department of Planning
and Development
City of Wheat Ridge
7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat__Ridge, Colorado 80033
Gentlemen:
Medved Chevrolet, Inc., is requesting that the City of Wheat
Ridge consider a "Master.-Sign Plan" as set forth in City Code,
Sec. 26-411, and as :shown on the attached plan documentation.
We are requesting consideration of the location; height and sign
area as shown on the overall signage plan for the following
reasons.
1. The original signage that was approved and placed upon the
site was for the original dealership, Craig Chevrolet, which
was then owned by Les Metzger. Since that time, I have
purchased the dealership from Mr. Metzger and renamed it as
"Medved Autoplex°." Since installation of the original
signage, I have also added several new lines of automobile
franchises: Geo, Cadillac, HUMMER, and a separate used car
facility. I am currently in the process of possibly adding
franchises for new European and/or Asian automobiles. These
new franchises have considerably increased our volume and
need to market my cars effectively in an constantly increas-
ing competitive sales market.
2. The manufacturing corporations with which I have my fran-
chises have rather stringent sign guidelines for marketing
their products through my dealership. Some of these
guidelines concern: (a) Separate sign and recognition for
each franchise; (b) Overall height and proportion of the
franchise name and logo; (c) Orientation to a major highway
frontage; (d) Coordinated placement of the signs with
respect to others; and (e) Unity in the sign appearance,
colors and materials so that one sign franchise is not
dominant or subordinate to the others.
Department of Planning _ -
and Development
City of Wheat Ridge
March 22, 1996
Page 2
3. Not only do I want to capture customers to achieve an equal
footing for the City of Wheat Ridge and benefit it with
sales tax revenues, I should note that, if we do not become
an impact on the freeway relative to two retail automobile
marketing centers that are being developed and built in the
Golden area, those two areas will overpower our location.
The Dodge dealership will be moving from Colfax within the
next 18 months and the Chrysler-Plymouth dealership will
also move there in the not-too-distant future.
Consequently, if we do not become a consideration with the
customer and have proper signage to become that, we will not
have an opportunity to compete with Golden. A great number
of potential customers drive by on Interstate 70, and it is
our only opportunity to make us a contender.. If we do-not
look massive and strong enough to compete relative to -
choice, the customer will not take us into account, and the
business and potential tax revenue will go to that area
rather than to the City of Wheat Ridge.
To look as if the customer has a choice with us, we must
have the correct signage to make an impression on the
customer so that (a) the customer will think of us_and give
us the opportunity to sell them, and (b) the tax revenues
can be collected by Wheat Ridge. Otherwise, those revenues,
whether they are for sales or service, will go to the other
municipalities.
4. signage visibility is also important so that the potential
customer is immediately cognizant of the Medved Autoplex
location and ease of access from the frontage road at the
Kipling and Ward Road exits from I-70. Knowing that ease of
access is also important for my customers as it is for the
other dealerships in Golden and Lakewood, my signage program..
will alleviate customers' concerns about how to find the
Medved Autoplex once they decide to exit the I-70.freeway.
5. The Medved Autoplex is located in the B-2 zone, Business-
Highway Frontage, which allows for billboards that would be
greater in number locations and square footage per sign and
total signage areas than that which we are proposing. The
messages on the Medved signages would be consistent and
would not change every month.
6. The "central" Medved Autoplex sign is the "signature sign"
for all franchises owned by me. This sign. has a LED display
Department of Planning
and Development
City of Wheat Ridge
March 22, 1996
Page 3
for time, temperature, and brief special messages. I am
willing to place special community service messages from the_
City of Wheat Ridge on-this display also.
7. All of the proposed signes are situated in an orderly manner
within the landscape/automobile display pads as shown on the
plan. The landscape and surrounding paved areas are kept in
a clean and we1L maintained condition at all times of the
year.
8. Finally, I want to emphasize that the proposed Medved Master
Sign Plan meets the intent and purpose of the seven condi- -_-_
tions of the City of Wheat Ridge sign code: (a) Structural-
ly safe; (b) Orderly arrangement for visibility and traffic
safety movements; (c) Easy, safe and pleasant commuications;
(d) Harmony with the B-2 zone neighborhood; (e) Balances
legitimate marketing and advertising needs with visual
harmony; (f) Legible and compatible with the surroundings
(Medved Autoplex); and (g) Opportunity for, constitutionally
guaranteed right of free speech in an extremely competitive
market.
Please consider my_request for this Medved .Master Sign Plan
in conjunction with_my real mark in needs in the surrounding
west Denver community. If ygu~desi~ further information, please
contac_t__my application rep dsentati, es, Dennis Polk and/or Ralph
Snyder. ; ~!
Y
Johri F. M
President
JFM/pah
Enclosure - Application
cc: Dennis B. Polk, Esq.
Mr. Ralph A. Snyder
x~
' ~ ~.;.
. ,October 2, 15
I-
~» t
lie. highway Frontage Signs at I 70
bear John',
~ r
4 ~
- Y
z
¢
.~.tr ~,
. -ties .., ..-.. .~-~
..i3 k t 1
r
_
i.;i ~v
£
_
~.~ A ' ~
~
~ ;
- ~
~~T ~~ ~"`~ I realized from talking to Dean that you have been extremely busy with your
landscape architecture new dealership in Castle Rock, and for the changing of the new caz Model
urban/Regional alarming , 'Year, Therefore, I am sending to you and those belowvia this letter and
Interior alantimg oeslgm enclosures the latest plans for the revamping ofthe highway frontage signs at
I-70. :.
I am sending two plans identical in concept, except that: one plan shows the
36' height (commensurate sign fai•,e azea equals 3,177 sq. ft.) that should be
shown initially to the City of Wheat Ridge; and, the second plan shows the 28'
height (commensurate sign face area equals 2,525 sq. ft.) that would be the
ultimate signage that we could end with depending upon negotiations with the
City of Wheat Ridge. Both plans show the current sign azea at 1,028 sq. ft.,
which is greater than "allowed" by the City's new sign code (90,000 sq.. ft.
Main Facility + 2,200 sq. ft. Used Caz Facility = 92,200+ sq. ft. total @ sign
code allowances = 800+ sq. ft.) .
I am sending copies of this letter, plans, and the sign code provisions to
Dennis Polk for his review. Upon your review and directive, I will schedule a
meeting with the City, Dennis, and myself to initiate the approval process on
your behalf
Please let me know of your direction on this. I am available most any time to
discuss this in greater detail
1
<.. , . ..
S E LY,
n // ~ /
./Ralph A. Snyder, Landscape Architect
Principal
copy: Dennis Polk
Dean Gokey `
Valerian, Inc. • 7000 E- 6elleview • Suite 340 • [n~lewood, CO 80111 • 303/771-1700 • F~ 771-0502
%~o
Iz to ~ q~„
o.P yr(
=0
~.
-
Tor~~.w.~-r
- ~_ ~„
~~~,E ~~~- r,~_ J,.
I h~~v
~~~~
~'
~ ~~~
rows
LE~E
Z
~ IS°
1 ~
~°
°
J~
-~,-_~ ,_„-.k-T,~
-~--
Z-~o _
,, z- ~-"--~ .,.o
z=z ~
r~_I ~~J~"~1~. ~ ~,~
~~!:~vu ~ L;51
~~~~~~
~J ~JO
~" _ "' °
pIP3C~°Oo ~C~DD
~l°300°~1~°p~~'3
z z'
~I
,.
_, _
~i~~-~~y~
IIIG ~I~ F y
lj
~c~ e'ii
~r~
~~,~:
~~
~.I i
\I/_i.'.
~~: ,.
it ~~
\ J'.I,.
ice,
~w'(e-
~I~_:. I
~~!_
no
_\ Ii
~J~rf;-
~~r"~
r~= ~_
Ll--li
~_~L.
4.,u
.: ~~~
ILLUN
•~sft
\~,;~.
\ ~~.[
\\1 ~i, r
:,:.
'1/! J
z
a
z
R
L
`z
n
R
n
Z
~ m~
o~,vc
~~~~€
~ynyi0r`~`„
N K ~ mp
~~=0~ L
_`-~~~D~
Dm~~~
~~Z~t
~~ZOZ
npm~~m
r rz
o m
A
O
O
ggo
t~
1.
n~
a ~ Y
,~
P.O. BOX 638 TELEPHONE: 303/237-6944 The City Of
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE .WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80034 cwheat
Ridge
July 3, 1996
This is to inform you that Case No. WA-9 -26 which is a
request for ,'1nTYn[-A~ of a marl-Pr iC~~plan with variances
for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
-North will be heard. by
the Wheat Ridge Plann;nn ~orrm;~s;on in the Council Chambers
of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at ~.~n g-m ,
on ~ iRy i4~
All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under
consideration must be present at this hearing before the
EiannincT Commissiori
As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to
attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It
shall be the applicant`s responsibility to notify any other
persons whose presence is desired at this meeting.
If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please
contact the Planning Division. Thank you.
PLANNING DIVISION
<pc>phnoticeform
"Thc~ Carnatio~i Citv"
m~ '~ y
v X d ~ w
~
`mm ~' ~
R' ry
N 0 N~ N LT' w
m 9 "
$ y m m
~ E
fTl 0
W
y ~ N c h r3 LL. m
_
n
3~ a
"
S
~ D
~ m
0~
a
i
O y Q CL "'
O T 'O N
.
'~~'~^ ~ ~ ~ T
o ~ U ' ~ a
'
Z
O ._ [V ~ d
O _
lT V
>
~ ~
~ m m
vwJ
N
Y
a`
a~' ~-
m ~o
E
3 ~ a
v ~\
~
{
~
~ e~ ~ d
~ $ `~
,
c
~:~~~
,
" ~ --,
`
s;
4
V
~O .1 r
d .~
.
Q
~
~ 1~
y~
[
y@ V N
L .~L µ
M W (ryS
Wr'S YY ~
"~ V
O
O_
0 D
..
T
Q 1.
rl W
_
LL
I
~. n
V'
m
~
~ l1
T ~ 'a N D
m
p fn
b
~°.
U a
? m
o
Q.. U ~ h
~ ~ ~
J
~ N
~ .w.
D ¢ O
`
v ~ of
t,+
s-}
N
~ ~
~ q
-.
wr
~
~J V
rvIl
ti
~
s ~
^ ~
Y
..7y
rwl
~
^IS
i~1
f Z
C•
W ~^t ~yl~
C
~
~ m
fib
4-t ri
C yM
Fa
~ >
v '
~ ~
` ~ W
~ W
$b ~c N 4 a
n
wtiO ~ Q
~
~
'SS3ki00tl NHRL3l1 dO lHOlfi 3H
{'S
° .7 ~
2 >.
~
, N
a ~
~` ,
~ :} ~.i ~
013dO13AN3 d0 d011V N3AOLLS 30tl'1{
B ~__- _
__ - w ~ m
a
~
g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi x
S F" a '
_
0 5
N R :£ ~ '-
q
e ~ ~ ~ ~ "I ~ ~ m r
+
" ~
~ m P
•rf S7 '7 'J p ~ ~ M
~
o _
~
W " ~ d y
l f5
'~ C
~ .G r ~
~1 N 'O Q
' ?
U ~
~ ~
~
O pp
'E ~ '
Z
i W~~g
~
¢ ,.Si ~ ~/
'
~
X O
Y ¢
F
~ N• • •• C$ N V
j
C1
a
I ~ V ~ _
w a e ~ I ~"
L ° ~ °
{ t
~'' ` ~ 1
j :~ f .,.
f ~ M O
w ~ w
mZ a ~$ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~¢ a -s - •~• Iy:
v w ~ ~.
~ ~ o
1 ws LL ~~ s~+ u C~3 ~ f ~~ ~ LL ~~ B'{ tn° ur
i ~w ~ < ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~~ e a zo r¢ i6 C n
~ ~~ LL ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~o
~~°a
3w a = ~. ~e 1
I[ ' 6 ~ ~ I ~-1 ES @
l ~ ~ ~i s .. ~ ~ ~'` Q
i ~ a v I- ml 01 OLL ~ ~ = v O BSI C'~ CO Fsa
F W u~ W ~ '~ ii .^` ~~ w w w w
I ¢ ¢ v~ ~ tt ¢ vi ~
N I
U I
i °w
U¢
w
a ~ ~ w
~ °~
~ a
~w
_~ w a
~ 3o
ov
~ w
°
~ _ a
a
O `~ ¢o
ma ~ o
~ I
C7
~ 2 a w
v
LL
~ ¢
(/7 w w w
d C ¢ N
D
Q
ro
a
y u ~'
6
~'
~
U
1"47
~' Lt
«~
... ~
m
C? `~ o
.~ g
j a
C cD [~
~ ~ ~ rn
H
O
@ yy~
1~
@@M _
~i N
~
~
LL
a
r.->
~ _.
m -
U
a
3
'U
666 E`Ch fl96..d ~. 566 E'Ch 096 d j 966 E'Ih fl96 d
m N
,c$'o
r H ~ >...~.
~ O h ~ N
%
a
i c y ~ -~
m ti d e w
'3 Z a w 8
om ¢ ¢
~ ~' ^ ^ ~
O ~- N
~
~
v-
I7'
m
ri
, S
s
z `p
~ ~'
V
-
a a
0
W
V-
H
°' W
t-~' U
u
~ ~ `
N
^,a
~.
.~
~ I
~
r
a
' 9
~,
D
N~
d 'O
a r
¢ ~
'~
w
i J
a
z
E t0 m
.d +o
^ p
Q
~ d d
- I~ W
_ - ~
~ c g
I
v
F
C
$
$ 5
?
t~ ^A
~~
O
NN
~'
4 ~ ~'.~
~
$~!,S_
~
r ~ ~ V {
tl
CT ~
~
~ "
~~ u
~
W r.'o'
I s ~
~~ o~ m x} As .,.
~ k v
e
~ P~
s s
E
f
~
~ ~ ~
€
o
a ~~ ~ Fit M L~ ~
5
3 P
'
g .~
m ~ 8 4 JG
3
~ ~e ~
'. c ~ ¢
~Y .~ j
~ as '8+ 4`ry1
Q ~ ~ V ~ a
J
W
~ Y,
~ 2
~ ~ ._~
`
U
._ ~
.
Z ~ ~ dl t^{ ~
! N
~
~. :~ ~
r a
i ui
n !
~'
n
~
U
I ~
~ ~~
(]
~ W m ~.
L LL N ~
L
_ ~ i. ~~~
~ ~~
n
W
>
cn
V1 ] ~ O y J
~ f
J m O ~
Q f ~ Q
^ ID
V ~ W
-~
`o a
y R
N ~
N
°' /~
ro
~~
0
_W
V.
UUI
i
~ x
i ""
~o ,®~N
SV F
u ~ ~' ~ `t
~ ~ Z
1 a
~ V
~ ~ m~
2C$
a .-+ ~,
U
~ ~
~ ~
.
l Q f
~
\ ~ R I \
~ 4 ~~wir:~tF
C ~., ~ l
~ ~ (•? Raj
+ i I w o ~ qi
~~ f ~ a ~ ~ ~~
~
~
¢i o
80
3 ~
Su ni
~
~
~~ w az ,i OJ .. I
~ a
~a - ~ N !
C ~ O I
2 2 N
2 }L/~ ~d W ~¢ ~i
ow ~
o U_
~V
Cxi
U
/
4iS
~
I
FL" ~ LL UZ
5'
+ %N
p
v
E a oc
~
0
['~ ~ o
o a oe
w ~' S.i W ED
w +
0o
X
W
F
a ~LL
$
'~'~
~
P ~
o0
- a ~~ ~ ~
30 '
`
o
w i
~o ~ P ~ ~.
' I ~~ ~ a iz
w ~ ~ 1
t
W
I C: H R$ t
h u°N C
6 N6 V Y
m ~ j~
w
t O ~ ~ ~ c
G ~ ~
( 1"P
W W¢
j e ~ ~ W
~ ~
d~ W W W W
~ ~ N ~ --
f 96 6 E 'Ch p96 d " ~ -:..~lpp .h'Ch p96 d=
I
j
-- -
~~
a
_. -
_~-
-- _ _~
7
+"~ ~
~j
m
~,
._ ~
..
,~
~~ ..
i~
I ~}
r
~
T w ; ~~
c ~ rah Z 111111.
~ '~
j 7 c
,
T u
r ~, a
x ° ~-
~ ¢
r,~ .a _ _ ___,_ . ._ .~
? ,
~ ~
U
.~
S
~ rn
m
O >.
d m
it
m
p"
~ M
i ~
nx O
i
~a
y ~ L
~ - ~U
;
~
o.
F~
i~
1
~ U
J¢ o
O~ P P
~
l
~
~
¢~ ~ 44i
O a
M
tl
t
I~ ~ _ _
*Y W
\ ¢
` zo
oc
~~ ~
LL
`
is C$ O O1 4 t
'~ ® ~ ~
~6
U
O
~ ~
o
h ~
~
~~
y
Z d V Y .. O
~~
^
W W W Z
W µ
I
~p N rn a
U
.i
ro
N
0
a
t66 E`Ch p96 d-
a
aCC
N N
atia~
~ W
~ y
J
~ v2
] ¢ ~
n
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to
the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on Jul
at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge,
All interested citizens are invited to speak at th
Hearing or submit written comments. The following
shall be heard:
be held before
y 18, 199'6
Colorado.
e Public
petitions
Case No. SUP-96-3: An application by Pacifica Holding
Company for approval of a special use permit to place more
than 20,000 cubic yards of fill dirt on property located at
9505 West I-70 Frontage Road North. Said property is
legally described as follows:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4
70 Executive Center Amended Subdivision
City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson
State of Colorado
Case No. WA-96-14: An application by John Medved for
approval of a master sign plan with variances for property
located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road North.
Said property is legally described as follows:
Lots 1 and 2
Craig Chevrolet Minor
City of Wheat Ridge,
State of Colorado
ATTEST:
Subdivision
County of Jefferson
San a Wiggins, Se r ary
Wanda Sang,- City C/~le~r~/k-
To be Published: Y7(l--a~~~
Wheat Ridge Transcript
b:\d071896.phn
,,
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON S: POLK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK
SUITE 100, BUILDING 19
1667 COLE BLVD.
GOLDEN. COLORADO 50401
GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY
SCOTT D. ALBERTSON
DENNIS B. POLK
ERIC E. TOAGERSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
HOWARD R. STONE July 19, 1996
Ms. Meredith Reckert, Planner
City of Wheat Ridge
Dept. of Planning and Development
7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Re: Medved
PHONE (303) 233-7838
FAX (303) 233-2560
Dear Ms. Reckert:
Enclosed herewith you will find the original Posting Certification regarding Medved
Autoplex dated July 1, 1996.
If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~.BFR~'SON & POLK, P.C.
Legal A~si~tant to Dennis B. Polk
/cb
Enclosure
cc: J. Medved, Medved Autoplex
' i ' "SCC WESP2°iH Avc~'UE ~ -- The Crty of
~.0, b~Y. Orb - _ ~.
WHEAT RIDGE. CO 90Q3~~Cc_S _ t3Q31 23LL~SSOC R~ TL }
ea
City Admin. rax = 23<-55?a Police Deot. Fzx = 23529-9 Ridge
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. SU ~ -4 C~ '-'J
PLANNING CONII•IISS~I7ON - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF ADNSTMENT (Circle One )
HEARING DATE: / - / ~' Y G
I , //TE~df~~ ~~ ~F Peck- ~ z- ~ ~~os -~
n a m e
residing at c~ / e~/ ( h >~ ~~
(a d r e s s)
as the applicant for Case No. BCff'- ~~- ~- hereby certify
that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearinaag~~ at
c a t i o n
on this ~ day of / 19 ~, and do
hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place
for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of
public hearing of this case. The sign was posted in the position
shown on the map below.
NOTE
r
Signature:
This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case
and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the
Department of Planning and Development.
_
_ ~ N
_
- -- PGD
_-~_.,
:_.~~.
5'.~3^~"9'On
._~- .~~~Y
.Z, R-9 PI D
~-2
.-~C r~GY.r.6E D .,,;v-..
__
~-. ~ _
~__
~~
P.O. BOX 638- _- - - - TELEPHONE: 303/237-6944 The City Of
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE .WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80034 ~]Vheat
Ridge
July 3, 1996
This is to inform you that Case No. WA-96-26 which is a
request for apprci_ai of a ma at-ar G; an plan with variances
£or property located at 11001-and 11201 West 2-70 Frontage Road
will be heard by
the Wheat Ridge Ulann;n~ commission in the Council Chambers
of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at ~-3n p.m.
on J,aly i g, i a4r; -
All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under
consideration must be present at this hearing before the
Planning CommiSSiori __ _ _ _ _ _ _
As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to
attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It
shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other
persons whose presence is desired at this meeting.
If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please
contact the Planning Division. Thank you.
PLANNING DIVISION
<pc>phnoticeform
"The Carnation City"
,``
OEFI GI ~L ~~ ZOO p15TRIGT 6ouVDRY
ZONING M~hP - PhRGEL/LOT BOUNDRY
WHET RIDGE ~~I~I.W,T,=S I~,
+~=•°- GTY LIMIT LIDI`
GOLORf~DO TER ~^""~
• DENOTES MIA.TIPLE ,1DDRESSES
M,4P ADOPTED
Last Rcvisiac Auquat 17, 1993
SW IC
~~~
.~
o m~~~
1~..~
DL~/,RRB.'T OF ftIJMN6 M77 DE~HOPrENf - X35-~i2
i
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE OF MEETING: July 18, 1996 DATE PREPARED: July 3, 1996
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-96-26~Medved CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a master sign plan wRh variances
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 11001 and 11201 W I-70 Frontage Road North
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Medved Autoplex, 11001 W I-70 Frontage Rd No.
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Same.
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
PRESENT ZONING: Commercial-One
PRESENT LAND USE: New and used vehicle sales and service
SURROUNDING ZONING: N S: A-1; E: G7, A-1; W: PID, PCD, A-1
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: P W eommercia0l, agr cultural ral, vacant, single-family;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA~~~M_~N-~~~____~~~~...~_~._~
DATE PUBLISHED: June 28, 1996
DATE POSTED: July 2, 1996
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: July 3, 1996
AGENCY CHECKLIST:
O ATTACHED
( XX) NOT REQUIRED
RELATED CORRESPONDENCE:
ENTER INTO RECORD:
( }COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(XX) ZONING ORDINANCE
( )SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
( )OTHER
O ATTACHED
( XX) NONE
( XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
( )SLIDES
( XX) EXHIBITS
JURISDICTION:
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been
met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
Planning Divisionn Staff Report Page 2
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
REQUEST
This request is for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances for the number of signs, the amount of sign
area, sign heights and sign setbacks. The applicant is John Medved.
The sign plan is for the Medved Autoplex properties known as 11001 West I-70 Frontage Road (new car sales
lot) and 112001 W I-70 Frontage Road (pre-owned car sales lot).
As you will recall, a planned building group plan for development of the pre-owned car lot was approved in
1994. The plan shows a temporary building with an ultimate build-out as an additional dealership lot with up to
62,000 square feet of building area. The applicant has requested that the proposal be analyzed based on
utimate build-out. Attached is a list of exhibits for your reference.
Attached also are copies of the proposed sign plan showing existing signage and proposed signage, as well as
supporting documentation. Staff would note that a variance for an additional freestanding sign on the eastern
lot was approved by the Board of Adjustment, pursuant to Case No. WA-91-24.
11. ALLOWED SIGNAGE
The following is Staff's calculation regarding the allowed amount of signage and analysis of the number and
types of variances needed.
Lot 1 Total building footprint = 51,994 square feet
Lot 2 Total building footprint = 62,370 square feet
(assuming total build-out with
another new car dealership)
Total of building footprints = 114,364 square feet
Assuming this is a multi-use development, allowed signage is as follows pursuant to Section 26-410(e)(5):
114,364 square feet
-50.001
64,363 = 300 square feet
64,363 - 1000 = 64.00 square feet
300
+64
364 square feet of signage allowed
x1.5 (because of proximity to I-70)
546 square feet of total freestanding signage allowed for both lots
Planning Divisionn Staff Report Page 3
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
Variances requested are as follows:
Allowed Proposed Variances
5 8 3
No. of (for both lots based
Signs on frontage road, Parfet
& 50th Ave adjacency
Sign Hpt. 1 sign) 25' _ 7 signs) 25' 7
in height in height
1 sign) 50'
in height
Sign Area 546 sq. ft 1723.21 sq. ft. 1177 sq. ft of signage
total (one side total (one side
counted) counted)
Setbacks 30' setback 23', 9', 9', 5', $
for signs over 16', 19', 19', 12'
25' in height
III. VARIANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Variances must be considered separately from the other cases and requires agreater-than-majority vote
based upon Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 253(s). and Section 26-6(D)(2). Staff has the following
comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance:
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 d is located?
If the variances are denied, the property could still be utilized Tor used and new car sales and provide a
reasonable return in use, service and income.
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
The plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. All commercially-zoned properties in Wheat
Ridge must follow the same regulations. The applicant contends 4hat circumstances are unique due to
competitors in unincorporated Jefferson County and Lakewood who have massive amounts of signage.
3. If the variation was granted, would iY alter the essential character of the locality?
If the variances are granted, it could result in a "forest of signs" along I-70.
4. Would the particular physical surrounding shape or topographical condition of the specrfic properly
involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if
the strict letter of the regulations were carried out?
Planning Divisionn Staff Report Page 4
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
There are no physical attricutes of the property which result in a hardship. The property has three
frontages (I-70 Frontage Road, Parfet Street and West 50th Avenue) which allows more signage than
typical commercial properties. The property is at grade with I-70, therefore no topographical hardship
exists.
5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the
other property within the same zoning class'rfication?
If this application is approved, Staff is concerned that a negative precedent could be set for similar
requests.
6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property?
Staff concludes that the request is for marketing purposes.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the
properly?
There is no hardship.
8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located?
Granting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare, although it will be a distraction
for travellers on I-70. There could be a negative affect on aesthetics in the area.
9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the
public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood?
No.
N. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff concludes that the criteria used to evaluate requests for variance do not support this application. Without
the variances, the Master Sign Plan cannot, and should not, be approved. Staff recommends denial.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move that Case No. WA-96-26, a request for approval of a Master Sign Plan wflh variances be denied. The
reasons for this action are:
Variance evaluation criteria, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 do not support granting of the variances requested.
2. The size, number and magnitude of variances requested are extreme.
3. Without approval of the variances, the Master Sign Plan is moot, as it cannot be approved.
b:\wa9626.sr
Case co~nued to 09-05-96
Case continued to 10-17-96.
' PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST
CASE NO: WA-96-26 DATE: July 18, 1996
REQUEST: An application by John Medved for approval of a master sign plan with
variances for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
North.
The City of
~JVheat
Ridge
r
~_
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION
Department of Planning and Development
7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Phone (303) 237-6944
Applicant MEDVED AUTOPLEX
Phone 421-0100
Owner John Medved Address same Phone same
Location of request
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below
which pertain to your request.)
^ Change of zone or zone conditions
Site development plan approval
Special use permit
Conditional use permit
Temporary use/building permit
Minor subdivision
Subdivision
e Preliminary
Final
** See attached procedural guide
for specific requirements.
Variance/Waiver
Nonconforming use change
^ Flood plain special exception
interpretation of code
Zone line modification
Public Improvement Exception
Street vacation
Miscellaneous plat
Solid waste landfill/
mineral extraction permit
® Other
Detailed Description of request The applicant is seeking approval of a master
List all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described real
property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee, etc.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
John Medved Medved Autoplex ll001 West I-70 Frontage Road North 421-0100
I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and
correct..to.the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I
am acting with the knowledge and consent of those persons listed above,
without whose consent the requested action, cannot lawfully be accomplished.
Applicants other than owners must submit power-of-attorney from the owner
which approved of this action;on his behalf.
TnunT nnFrn>Fa1_ MF~D'VF'.D AUTOPLEX
Signature of Applicant BY:/ /, .
~,:i~1N35
Subscribed and sw to me
:'•'„~"j~, n~. `. Cheryle B
.' : S~~Lt .~... .
day of July 19 96
any Public
My commission expires 10/26/96
ate.: Received ~ ~ / ' ~I<0 Receipt No. ~7~! 'f' Case No.
§ 26-d1D ~YHE.4T RIDGE CITY CODE
Sec. 26.410. Permitted signs; specifications (6) Maximum height in PRD District, with
and regulations. commercial uses and For commercial uses
only, twenty-five (25) feet.
(a) Animated. Size of sign is based upon the
sign type (i.e., freestanding, wall or projectingi. (7) Must be set back a minimum often (10) feet
See subsections (e), (i) or (o) below, from any property line.
(b) Arcade:
(1) Nonresidential uses and Class II home oc-
cupations only.
(2) Maximum height, bottom of eave, balcony,
canopy, awning or other structural over-
hang orpassageway to which it is attached.
~ 3) Minimum height, seven l7) feet above grade.
t4) Maximum one (1) per building entrance for
nonresidential uses; only one (1) per each
residence for Class II home occupations.
(5) Maximum azea, four (4) square feet for non-
residential uses, two (2) square feet for Class
II home occupations.
(c) Bulletin boards:
(1) Nonresidential, nonagricultural and
multiple-family uses only, as specified under
section 26.407(2).
(2) Maximum azea, thirty-two (32) souaze feet.
!3) Maximum height, eight (8) feet.
l4) Maximum one (1) per street frontage.
(5) Must be set back a minimum of ten t10) feet
from any property line.
(d) Freestanding-Residential districts:
(1) Permitted only for nonresidential, nonagri•
cultural and multiple family uses.
(2) Maximum sign azea is two (2) squaze feet
for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of
lot area, with a maximum of thirty-two (32)
squaze feet per sign.
(3) Maximum of one (1) per street frontage.
(4) Maximum height in R-1, R•lA, R-1B, R-1C,
R-2, R-2A and A-1, districts, six (6) feet.
(5) Maximum height in R-3, R-3A, and PRD
districts, without commercial uses, twelve
(12) feet.
(8) May be illuminated.
ens
(el Freestanding-Nonresidential districts:
(1) Maximum height: Twenty-five (25) feet; pro•
vided, that signs for retail and service busi-
nesses within one-quarter mile of an inter-
state highway, that are oriented to the
interstate highway, are permitted one (1J
freestanding sign up to fifty {50) feet high.
Any other permitted freestanding sign shall
not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height.
(2) Maximum number of signs per develop-
ment: One (1) per street frontage, not to
exceed two (2) per development, except as
may be permitted by a master sign plan
pursuant to section 26.411.
Where two {2) freestanding signs are per•
mined by virtue of multiple street frontage,
the sign azea allowed may be transferred
from one (1) sign to another; provided, that
such transfer does not allow the lazger sign
to exceed one hundred Fifty (150) percent of
the maximum area allowed based upon
building azea. Additionall}•, the sign azea
alloµ•ed for the smaller sign shall be re-
duced two l2) squaze feet for each one (1)
square foot transferred (e.g., two l2) signs
are allowed on a corner lot up to one hun-
dred 1100) squaze feet each. One sign could
be increased tc one hundred fifty (150)
square feet; however, the other sign's area
was transferred 2 for 1, therefore, the other
sign would not be allowed.)
(3) Sign setback requirements:
a. From adjacent properties-Ten (10) feet
where adjacent to residential-zoned
properties; no setback where adjacent
to nonresidential-zoned properties.
Where a sign exists on an adjacent
property and that sign is within twenty
(20) feet of the proposed location oC a
new sign on the adjacent property, an
Supp. No. i 1834
.,!
TO: tanning Commission
FROM: V~eredith Reckert
RE: Case no. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
DATE: August 30, 1996
•
aF WHFAT
~ PQ
v m
~~L ORP~~
This memorandum is in regard to the request by John Medved for approval of a master
sign plan with variances. This case was originally scheduled for public hearing in front
of Planning Commission on July 25, however, because of the strong denial
recommendation from Staff, the applicant requested a continuance. The applicant has
revised the submittal by reducing the sign heights and sign face areas. Please refer to the
attached revised plan. The applicant has also submitted a photo exhibit of his
competitors' signage.
After discussion with the City Attorney regarding the provisions of the sign code and the
master sign code regulations, Staff has come to the following conclusions:
Pursuant to section 26-410(e) of the sign code, a development is allowed one sign
per street front but not to exceed more than two per development. Based on this
provision the Medved autoplex would be allowed two freestanding signs total as
the two lots are considered as one overall, unified development. In the original
staff report it was inaccurately indicated that 5 freestanding signs would be
allowed. This was based on the fact that there were two lots with frontages on I-
70 Service Road, Parfet Street and W. 50th Avenue. Staff has redefined our
position to specify that the number normally allowed on the property would be
two. A variance was granted in 1990 allowing an additional freestanding sign,
therefore, there are three existing signs on the property; all facing the Frontage
Road.
The master sign provisions indicate that a master sign plan can be approved for a
property which allows Planning Commission to grant up to a 100 percent increase
in the number of signs and a fifty percent increase in maximum sign area. These
increases are to be considered bonuses, not variances. Any approvals granted over
these bonus maximums are considered variances. Based on this, Staff has revised
the table presented in the original staff report attached.
Variances must be considered separately from the other cases and requires agreater-than-
majority vote based upon Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 2-53(s). and Section 26-
6(D)(2). Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a
variance:
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 variances are denied, the property could still be utilized for used and new car sales
and provide a reasonable return in use, service and income.
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
The plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances except regarding setback. All
commercially-zoned properties in Wheat Ridge must follow the same regulations. The
applicant contends that circumstances are unique due to competitors in unincorporated
Jefferson County and Lakewood who have massive amounts of signage. Existence of the
irrigatioro ditch and transmission tower could be considered a unique circumstance
affecting setback.
3. If the variation was granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
If the variances are granted, it could result in a "forest" of signs along I-70.
4. Would the particular physical surrounding shape or topographical condition of the
specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were
carried out?
Other than the existence of the irrigation ditch and the transmission tower which affect
placement, there are no other physical attributes of the property which result in a
hardship. The property is at grade with I-70 ,therefore no topographical hardship exists.
5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be
applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification?
If this application is approved, similarly situated properties in this zone district could
expect similar treatment. Staff is concerned that a negative precedent could be set for
similar requests.
6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out
of the property?
Staff concludes that the request is for marketing purposes.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having
an interest in the property?
No hardship exists therefore the applicant has not created his own hardship.
8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
property is located?
(2)
,~
Granting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare, although it will
be a distraction for travelers on I-70. There could be a negative affect on aesthetics in
the area. The "community standards' which the City has embodied in its' Sign Code
would be abridged.
9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or
increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish
or impair property values within the neighborhood?
No.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff acknowledges the fact that the applicant has reduced the request from the original
submittal. However, staff concludes that the criteria used to evaluate requests for
variance do not support this application. Staff would support approval of the master sign
plan with one (1) additional sign which is compatible in character of the other three
existing signs. Therefore, no variance would be necessary, only approvaB of the fourth
"bonus" sign under the terms of the Master Sign Plan provisions of Section 26-411, of the
Code of Laws. This additional sign should be required to meet the setback and height
requirements of this Code. We would recommend in favor of the 50% increase in size,
as well.
MR:slw
b:1mr83096.mem
(3)
H H V1 V7 Z
n ~ no
W z z z•
yo
A n
a -~
T
OW ~
7o Q ~' ~ N
(nN
~~ ~~
~~ N
~ + r
o
w O ~
y CT V D
~ ~
v~ z ~ ? v
N
ui ~
m
~~
O Z
~
,~ t0
p A
~ T
00 7D
O
r m
O y
Z n
C
Y Z
r y
m
N
_. V
W V N N
n ~ O
W zN ~, ~n
a, W
~, o z
a
Ul TI = _ ~ ~
n~
__
° ~A
ca
~ A ~° n
~, v ~+
T
~ V
N ~
~n
; m
a ~ zy Oy
m
to
N W ~
m
~ p ~ ~ Q
T
= = a
r
n~
__
'
° a
m
A ~?
N
~, ~
N
~
~ ca
~z
C7
~
~ ~m
my
N
T
3 26-410 R+FIEAT RIDGE CITY CODE
(4) May not extend more than fifteen (15) Sec. 26.412. Billboards; specifications and
inches beyond the surface of the wall and regulations.
may not extend beyond the side of the wall. (a) General prouislons:
(5) Commercial, industrial, multiple-family, (1) For the purpose of this subsection, the city
public and semipublic uses only. is divided into two (2) billboard districts,
(Ord. No. 1991-860, § 1, 5.2.91; Ord. No. 1994-960, g-1, and B-2, as shown on the official bill-
§ 1, 4.11-94; Ord. No. 1994-967, § 2, 5-23-94) board zoning map of the city and incorpo-
rated herein as figure 26.IV-1.
Sec. 26-411. Master sign plan.
(a) The planning commission may approve a
master sign plan for planned developments of any
size and far any existing or proposed business
center or office complex of at least two (2) acres or
more in size which are under unified control ei-
ther by ownership, legal association or leasehold.
(b) The intent and purpose is to encourage well-
planned and designed signage within a large mul•
tiple building or multiple use complex which ex-
pressesunification and integration by elements of
architectrucaI style, size, color, placement and
lighting while at the same time allowing for rea-
sonable individual business identification. An ad-
ditional purpose is to encourage the elimination
of existing nonconforming signs. The planning
commission may grant as a bonus forwelldesigned
plans up to a one hundred (100) percent increase
in the number of signs and/or fifty (50) percent
increase in ma.•cimum squaze footage, and/or may
permit signs in locations other than normally per-
mitted, based upon a finding that the proposed
master sign plan substantially meets the intent
and purpose of this subsection relating to unifica-
tion and integration of signage.
(c) Once approved at a public hearing by plan-
ning commission, all master sign plans shall be
recorded with the Jefferson County rernrder's of
fice and shall constitute a covenant and must be
complied with by all owners, proprietors, Iessees
or assigns, whether current or future. No substan-
tial variation from the plan shall be permitted
without planning commission approval. Approval
procedures under this provision shall be subject to
those requirements for a conditional use, as set
forth in this Zoning Ordinance, section 26.6(A),
(Ord. No. 1991.860, § 1, 5-2-91)
Supo. \o. i3
1838
(2) Billboazd structurse are allowed in the city
as provided by this section; provided, that
any billboard proposed to be located, relo-
toted or rebuilt within six hundred sixty
(660) feet oftheright-of--way line of any state
or federal highway is additionally approved
by the state in writing and that such written
approval fs made available to the depart-
ment of planning and development.
(3) Setbacks shall be as required fora prin-
cipal structure in the zoning district where
located.
(4) Roof billboards are not allowed.
(5) All new billboards shall be of the pedestal
type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as
certified by a professional engineer.
(6) Existing billboards are to be maintained in
a neat and safe condition; provided, that no
existing billboazd may be rebuilt or replaced
except in conformance to these regulations;
and provided, that when, in the opinion of
the building inspector, the safety of an ex-
isting billboard is questionable, the bill-
board owner shall either remove the bill-
board within thirty (30) days of notification
or shall Furnish a certificate from a
Colorado-registered professional engineer
with a specialization in civil, structural or
mechanical engineering certifying to its
safety.
(b) B-1 district:
(1) Maximum number of structures equals
thirty-five (35), the number of structures
existing as of April 1, 1976.
(2) The only locations allowed shall be those
exact locations oC existing billboards on lo-
cation as of April 1, 1976.
SEP-04-96 WED 11:22 AM HOLLEY ALBERTSON POLK FAX N0. 3032332860 P,01/0~
° •
HOLLEY, ALBEttrSON & YOLK, P.G
ATroaNE» Ar 7...w
DENVEx WEST OFFI[S PARK
SUITE 300, BUILDING 29
1667 COLE BLED.
GOLDEN, CgLORnDO %0403
GEORGEALAN nOLLEY
$COT1'D. ALBERTSON
DENNLS B. POLAC
ERIC & TOREL~RSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
nOti4'ARD R. \'[T)Nli
September 4, 1996
ViA FAR No 23 2857 AND TJ.S. MAII.
Mr. Glenn Cridley
Director, Planning & Development
City of wheat Ridge
7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215
YTA FA7~ No 235-2857 AND iT.5. MAII.
Planning Commission
City of Wheat Ridge
7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215
Re: Case No. WA-96-26
*„aster Sian ADDlication of~Vl~dved Auto~lex
bear Planning Commission and Mr. Gidley:
PHONE (303) Z33-7538
FAX (303) 233.2860
This letter is written to confirm my verbal request to Mr. Gidley to continue the above
referenced matter from the Planning Commission hearing presently scheduled for September 5,
1996, to the Planning Commission hearing to be held on October 3, 1996. The basis for the
continuance is the continuing effort between the Applicant and Staff to develop a plan with
which both parries may agree and support.
As you may be awaze, the Applicant substantially revised its submittal and received Staff
comments with regard to the revised submittal. The Staff comments reflect a change in position
by the Applicant, as well as a change in position on behalf of Staff with regazd to the application
and the ordinance involved in the Master Sign Application. Because of these differences, the
Applicant respectfully retluests that the case be continued until October 3, 1996, in order to
SEP-04-96 WEB 11 23 AM
HOLLEY ALBERTSOH POLK
Page 2
I.eRer W G. Gidtey & Planaing Commission
Re: Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Auwpiex
SentemNer 4, 1996
FAK N0, 3032332860
P, 02/02
facilitate further communication between the Applicant and Staff. For example, the Applicant
and Staff, assuming a continuance is granted in this matter, intend to meet again on September
9, 1996, in an effort to develop revisions to the Master Sign Application which are acceptable
to Staff and the Applicant. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this matter be continued
until October 3, 1996.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
AOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POI,K, P.C,
GLit/L'4
's B. Polls
cb
xc: 7ohn Medved, Medved Autoplex
MEMO
To: Planning Commission
From: Meredith Reckert
Subject: Case No. WA-96-26/Medved
Date: September 27, 1996
Staff is requesting that Case No. WA-96-26, a request by John Medved for approval
of a master sign plan with variances be continued until the October 17, 1996
Planning Commission meeting.
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON S[ FOLK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK
SUITE 100. BUILDING 19
16(7 COLE BLVD.
GOLDEN. COLORADO SO401
GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY
SCOTT D. ALBERTSON
DENNIS B. POLK
ERIC E. TORGERSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
HOWARD R. STONE
September 30, 1996
PHONE (303) 233.7838
FAX (303) 233-2860
VIA FAX No. 235-2857 AND U.S. MAIL.
Ms. Meredith Reckert, Planner
City of Wheat Ridge
Dept. of Planning and Development b!d'Y OF IMNEA i RIDG!`
7500 West 29th Avenue ~ ~~;1~ i7~n
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 e j
ACT ®~ 9996 I{
Re: Medved Master Sign Application -
'V- '~ L7` L! i1 ~
Dear Meredith: PLANNING & BEVELOPMENT
This letter will confirm our recent telephone conversation, at which time you advised me
that the above referenced Master Sign Application will be heard before the Planning Commission
on October 17, 1996.
I believe that you should have received the amended plan at this point in time, which is
consistent with our prior discussions. You will note that the number of signs sought has been
reduced to six (6) signs. I believe this is also consistent with the understanding that we had
reached with Mr. Gidley at our prior meeting. I look forward to receipt of your revised staff
comments supporting this proposal.
If my understanding as to the time of the hearing in error, please contact me
immediately.
Sincerely,
cb
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C.
De nis' B. Polk
xc: Ralph Snyder
John Medved
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Date:
P anning Commission
eredith Reckert
-Case No. WA-96-26/Nledved Autoplex
October 10, 1996
This memorandum is in regard to the request by John Medved for approval of a master sign plan
with vaziances. This case was originally scheduled for public hearing in front of Planning
Commission on July 25, was continued until September 5, 1996 and was continued again until
October 17, 1996.. In both cases the applicant requested continuances based on strong denial
recommendations from staff.
Once again, the applicant has reduced the request by eliminating two of the original eight signs
proposed which has substantially reduced the number of variances needed. Please refer to the
attached graph which compares the three proposals with the standazds in the sign code and the
resultant scope of variances required.
Staff has indicated to the applicant that we would support the reduced number of signs (6) and
the resultant, reduced combined sign azea (908.02 square feet). However, we still feel there is
no compelling justification for the five sign height variances (28' where 25' is permitted).
~ ~
l
~~
x
~ - ~
I 1` xo
`Nn d` ~ ~
v ~ ~
1 V (Z
\ x
N
U7
'~J F`
"rd ~1N
O ~ w
3~
^y H ~O
C{1 lD `
~ .~
y~
y N
Oo-
~~ m
U] H
y~
~ ~~ ~
~ -'~ ~ c.
~ ~
~ ~z
~~ ~o
~z y ono ~
N
~ ~
H
d to vz
~ m 4]
o~ z
by N
lTi
d
w
y t-'
O ~o 0
~~
rm
H J
~ ~
H H H
J ~ ~
N z z
W Cn
m
N O W
H ~m
r+] H ~+
x c~
x
N
N r
O
z d
~rroi
~ Z H
y LzJ
O Ul 'rb
t~" ~ ~
~z
d
~ rb rb
w C7 ro ~
~tOH
Nye
\rr
m
o zc
o~ o~
,
W y N Co iA H
C~
C~ ~
i
St7Z
fn L~7 C]
7! d CrJ
N v b
cn m H
H HH C+7b xl
zz dog
°
cn N cn m w ro th
~ \om
\r
~ x
~ Hx
4] H
x c~
x
N tiJ ,b
to i0 ',ti
W y N J iA C, H
~
~'
r ~
~ d ~
H l0 H (77
~
~ HH H
r
n ~o roro
y
1p ~ zz eon
N ~
0
0
~ O O
N O N \
C
~iy ~~ ~ W N,'b H
~
~ ~ r ~
C
1~ `i
d H - ~ x
y
~ H m ~
3 -~
G~
x c~
x
C
Ol O O U7 N [x]
~
C L
+~J
~
o y t~
fi
d
G a (
n
a p
~_
~ J
i h
L~]
y
~
C]
x .b H
tai 4]
~z Cs] H
H G]
xz
H H O
42
za
'TJ
m
H N
`rb O H ,b
` ru, ~ + r
~ H
H U] 61 (~1 O
zy z ~
o~n ~
d) q ~+7 N ~ C7
~ z (n
v C1 y `~
x ~
N ty
U7 `-'
`
~ ro~
r
yN ~H
i O ~o o y t+7
~ r ~ ~ O ~
r ~ H
~ c~
~z
~H
'~ JN HJ
Q W
~, ` U] U]
` H H H C7
m~~
N zz Hroo
~
.. W ~
~
]` m ao dOH
l0 N O W ny (~j
y N H ` 01 S O H
O O `
U] T, N ,b ,b
~` Ol ~ rr
G1H lD
yu xx ~,
o ~f c
t0
~
ao y N m ,p
C~ y
~~
~z
cn ~i C]
h] d t+]
H J p
~~ y
o ~
~
G]41 G~C
rJ
zz oc
H U] 07 N ro H
cn \ O cn
iA O N H C/] [rJ
° \ N
~ x ~
~ Hx
G1 H
x c~
x
~C
N
~
m n
i
y ~ ~a q i-~
~
~
ry
~ y
t' [~ tr1
m d m
by
H ~O N In
~ ~ d
LzJ ` ` [A U] y~
y
`° ° z oh
N z ~. d
yo cn rox
o `m o ~ room
~
r ~
~ ~ wr
~ ~ y
~
0 ,t
y ~ d
~ ~ ~
xm
x
C
~
61 O O U7 N iJ ,
b
L
N
4" H
rm ~~
~ m
yn
m e~
dm
1
~
z z z
ro ~ c~
n y ~o
x
~; ,
O W V1 r N
'.d O H
O Ut In +
~ r
H V1 01 ~
z
(
J1 [tl KJ N
~
V (~
~
N O
UI `-'
m ~
i y~ o H
~ ~
H
C' n] Y
r
n7 r
O
ro~
H
~N
O~
H
~z
O~ r,
W
3_ _
yO _
r H H d
i
1p~ w z~ H
~~
v
i .7
t
y_ m m OOH
l0 N O W b Gl
` r ~ m ~1 0 H
O o-
V] x N9' ~
~ m h] G ~ C" C'
~ ~ H
mr xG] ~
y u, x
o :d C
q
d H
m H N co iP
y
C r ~ z
m P7 a
~rj O Lq
r~
mm H
°oc
zz
y H y ~
m \ON
iP oN rv~W
Gtl m ~ m ~a b 0
~ t'
m x
~ Hx
x
c~
x
zc
p
N
co H N ~ a+
~
y
y
r61 ~~
~ O m
.q
r~ ru+ b
e
y
w o G]~ Cy1~ ~
N m zz m dog
° ~ e
O
p
, Q~ o tn ~o
L
v
N O N ~ ~ C
~ w C ~
~ N
~ ~ h7
y
~ H
G m O
3 3
x c~
x
m
Ol O
O VI N L
V Y'
J
C~ N
~ 5
~^~ H
~° N
H n
mm
o~
//
Planning Commission Minutes
October 17, 1996
Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion
Page 13
Motion carried 8-0.
2, r=fla No WA-96-26: An application by John Medved for
approval of a master sign plan with variances for
property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage
Road North. (Case continued from July 18, 1996 and
September 5, 1996)
Mr. Gidley presented the staff report, explaining carefully each
separate issue.
Commissioner ECKHARDT asked which sign had been approved by Board
of Adjustment? '
Mr. Gidley stated probably one of three signs he pointed out,
possibly the Cadillac sign.
Discussion followed.
Commissioner THOMPSON asked for an explanation regarding how much
signage is allowed, both on buildings and freestanding.
Mr. Gidley stated the building signs were not a part of the issue
being decided that night. He__explained how allowed building
signage is determined.
Commissioner THOMPSON asked if Commission should view this
dealership as five separate businesses?
Mr. Gidley answered that is how the dealership views the issue.
He explained further.
Chairperson LANGDON asked for some clarification of the request.
Mr. Gidley explained.
Dennis Polk 1667 Cole Blvd., Building 19, Suite 100, Golden, was
sworn in. Mr. Polk represented John Medved, owner of Medved
Autoplex. He stated that they had worked very hard with staff
coming up with a plan that would work for them. He elaborated.
Mr. Polk explained to Commission that the 50-foot-high sign would
contain a community bulletin sign, utilizing a continuous time;
Planning Commission Minutes Page 14
October 17, 1996
temperature, etc. feature. He explained further, addressing a
number of problems with the particular site.
Commissioner RASPLZCKA asked how many signs were currently in
place?
Mr. Polk pointed out the signs in place.
Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if all signs would be moved?
Mr. Polk answered-yes. _
Mr. Gidley asked if the white signs would be taken away?
Mr. Polk asked if Mr. Gidley meant the directional signs?
Mr_ Gidley stated the ones he was referring to were larger, white
signs, probably six or eight feet tall. He pointed some out.
Mr. Polk stated the signs would be removed if they needed to be.
Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if all General Motors dealerships had
the 28-foot signs?
Mr. Polk answered no that was. not the case. Different signs
marketing different products are used in other communities_
Commissioner GRIFFITH asked Mr_ Polk if there were currently
signs on the buildings that have the same information on them as
the proposed signs.
Mr. Polk answered yes there were signs with like or similar
information. However, those building signs could not be read
from the highway.
Commissioner THOMPSON stated she had a difficult time agreeing
with some of his arguments., She mentioned that 95,000 vehicles
pass by this site daily, creating high visibility for Medved.
She felt the continuous sign, '.mentioned previously, would be a .
distraction to motorists. Commissioner THOMPSON stated. that the
power lines and the-interstate were .built .prior to ,this
~ development and therefore, did not create a hardship for the ,
Planning Commission Minutes. Page 15
~ October 17, 1996 `
dealership. She added that cities could not change their codes
in order to meet the needs of every business. Commissioner
THOMPSON stated that residents had complained about the "forest"
of signs along the interstate and have requested less signage,
not more. She asked Mr. Gidley if sound barriers would be
installed around Mountain Vista Nursing Home and would they block
the view of this development in the future?
Mr. Gidley answered that sound barriers were proposed, but not
funded for the south side. They are proposed, but not funded,
for the north side east of Tabor Street in front. of Mountain
Vista and slightly to the east of Mountain Vista as well. He did
not believe they would block the view.
Mr. Polk stated that a federal highway requirement exists that
states you must have certain types of signs within certain
distances. He elaborated. Mr. Polk stated that all studies
indicated that slower traffic provides longer visibility for
dealerships. Additionally, no study supports-signs next to an
adjacent highway impedes the traffic flow or causes traffic
incidences. Citizens, generally do not like signs.
Commissioner THOMPSON asked about signage requested by other
developments along the interstate. Was there a chance that
Commission could be setting a precedent?
Mr. Gidley stated other developments had requested larger and
taller signage. He named a few.
Commissioner ECKHARDT asked M_r. Polk if he had said that the
Federal Highway Administration requires a sign of that nature?
Mr. Polk answered no. What he had intended to say was that signs
within a certain distance/location of a federal highway had to .
provide information such as time, temperature, etc. on them..
Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he was not aware of that
requirement.
Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if Mr. Polk was saying that every 50-
foot-high.sign in the City of Wheat Ridge along the interstate
~, highway must have the time and temperature flashing on it?
Planning Commission Minutes
October 17, 1996
Page 16
Mr Polk answered the sign must have a public informational
aspect.
Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that whatever information was on the
sign could be considered "public information".
Discussion followed. ~.
Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how that would be measured; from the
edge of .the highway or edge of right-of-way?
Mr pork stated that he believed it was measured from paved,
travelled mass, as opposed to the edge of right-of-way. He
elaborated.
Commissioner ECKHARDT.asked what the distance was.
Mr Polk answered it depended on the specific project design. He
added he was not certain which distance he was referring to.
Commissioner ECKHP.RDT stated he was referring to the distance
from the roadway to the sign.
Mr Polk answered he thought it was 250 feet.
Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Mr. Polk what distance the Federal
Highway Administration requires.
Mr. Polk .stated he believed it was 250 feet.
Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how far sign P4 was from the highway?
Mr. Polk answered he
less than 250 feet.
Commissioner THOMPSOI
federal standard Mr.
Mr. Gidley stated he
requirement,Mr. Polk
did not know,_but he thought it would be
J asked Mr. Gidley if he could address the
Polk refers to?
had really never heard of the FWA
had spoken of. He elaborated.
e
Page 17
Planning Commission Minutes
~. October 1Z, 1996
Commissioner THOMPSON asked about a sign that had once been on
Youngfield.
Mr. Gidley noted that sign had been a "continuous reader board".
He elaborated.
There were. no further questions for Mr. Polk.
Commissioner_THOMPSON asked if the criteria for variances
contained nine or ten items.
Mr. Gidley answered there were nine items making up the criteria
for variances. No change had yet been made.
Commissioner THOMPSON asked if any of the criteria change, based
on staff's new recommendation?
Mr. Gidley went over the four types of variances requested and
the variance criteria.
Chairperson LANGDON asked if the .28 foot height request was
flexible at all.
Mr. Polk stated the 28-foot becomes a big deal, since the
alternative size was 36_feet.
Chairperson LANGDON stated that the applicant was asking for more
signs than are allowed_on,the_si.tes._ Zf they were 25 feet rather
than 28, there would be no need for the height variance.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Gidley stated this_case would not go before City Council
unless it was appealed to City Council_by the applicant or
another aggrieved person.
Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr,_ Pol_k to .explain why the 28-foot
height was so important.
Mr. Polk stated the signs were manufactured by General Motors and
no 25-foot sign is available.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 18
October 17, 1996
Chairperson LANGDON talked about setting-a precedent.
Mr. Polk reiterated .that there were two separate lots; and
frontages consisting of the frontage road, Parfet street and West
50th Avenue. He did not feel the request was out of line.
Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the sign was a 25-foot sign, and
it sat on a three-foot pedestal?
Mr. Polk stated it was not that simple.
Commissioner WILLIAMS did not believe that._the average person
would notice if the sign was 25 or 28 feet tall.
Commissioner ECKHARDT reiterated that the Code allowed the 25-
foot height.
Mr. Polk reminded Commission that they had reduced the sign
height request from 36 feet to 28 feet.-
Discussion followed.
Commissioner ECKHARDT noted that the Hummer sign was different.
Mr. Polk stated it was not manufactured by General Motors
Company. He elaborated..
Chairperson LANGDON asked if six separate dealerships would be
allowed to have indididual, 36-foot-tall signs?
Mr. Gidley stated that the Code of Laws prevents that type of
situation. He explained.
Discussion followed. -
Ralgh Snyder, 8933 Uriion Avenue; Suite 208, Englewood, was sworn
in. Mr. Snyder explained that there were four different height
signs manufactured - 47-feet, 36 feet, 28 feet and 20 feet. They
are custom made -and provided to the dealerships around the U.S.
He explained the difficulty in shortening the signs.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 19
r October 17, 1996
Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he also had a hard time sympathizing
as he served on the Planning Commission at the time the proposal
was considered regarding rezoning for the site of the dealership.
He, at that time commented that he did not feel it was a good
location due to poor access. He elaborated. On the proposed 50-
foot-high sign, he stated he had a real problem with
informational-type signs. He felt the signs were often gaudy and
distracting.
Mr. Gidley suggested five separate motions, four relating to
variance requests; one for height, one for the number of signs;
one for the area and one for setback. Finally, a motion will be
required to either approve or disapprove the master sign plan. .
Commissioner CERVENY moved that regarding Case No. WA-96-26, an
application by John Medved for approval of a master sign plan
with variances for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70
Frontage Road the variance request for the number of signs be
approved for the following reasons:
1. The location of the business on the Interstate with the
service road being involved as well as two other streets.
2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City.
3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the
citizens of Wheat Ridge.
Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion failed 5-3,
with Commissioners THOMPSON, GRIFFITH and ECKHARDT voting
against. (Since this was a variance, a super-majority in favor
was required.)
Commissioner THOMPSON stated she voted no because assuming that_
the 50-foot sign will be approved, she believes there is adequate
visibility from I-70; there has been public outcry regarding too
much signage in Wheat Ridge; she's concerned about setting a
precedent for other businesses along I-70; and, based on
testimony given, she did not feel that each dealership can be
considered-a separate business.
l
Page 20
Planning Commission Minutes
~ October 17, 1996
Mr. Gidley suggested that Commission may want to be selective
regarding other variance requests. He asked Commission make a
decision next if they wished to approve the bonus sign which
would allow a total of four signs in the master sign plan. Once
that decision is made, Commission could decide which sign is the
bonus sign, if it was approved.
Chairperson LANGDON asked for clarification of the bonus sign.
Mr. Gidley explained that this is a bonus, not a variance.
Commissioner CERVENY moved to allow one bonus sign, making a
total.of four signs. He added that it was his desire to allow
Medved to decide which sign would be the bonus sign.
Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Commissioner CERVENY why he was
proposing to allow a bonus sign. _.
Commissioner CERVENY answered that under the master sign plan, a
bonus sign is allowed and for the same reasons stated above for
the number of signs.
Commissioner ECKHARDT stated it was his feeling that a bonus sign
would be allowed for a plan that was exceptional. He did not
feel that the plan before-them was exceptional.
Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-3,
with Commissioner THOMPSON, GRIFFZTH and ECKHARDT voting against.
Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Gidley since the number of signs
changed from six to four, would that make a difference in sign
area?
Mr. Gidley answered that the sign area does not come into play
then. He stated that the applicant has asked that Commission
vote on the original request, as it relates to sign area.
Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if it would be necessary to vote on a
variance for sign area with approval of the bonus sign?
Mr. Gidley explained that it would be necessary.
Page 21
Planning Commission Minutes
` October 17, 1996
Mr. Gidley explained to Commission that the motion must cover all
six variance requests, so that applicant will have the right to
appeal, if he so desires.
Commissioner CERVENY moved to allow the variance of 89.02 square
feet .over the bonus of 819 feet totaling 908.02 feet.
Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-1,
with Commissioner THOMPSON voting against.
Commissioner CERVENY moved that the requested setback variances
for all six signs be allowed for the following reasons:
1. The property configuration and its' close proximity to
overhead power lines, water rights and street right-of-way.
Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-1,
with Commissioner GRIFFITH voting against.
Mr. Gidley stated Commission-did not approve six signs.
i
Whichever four signs the applicant chooses to erect, they can
choose amongst the six setbacks approved.
Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the signs would meet sign code?
Mr. Gidley stated he had no problem with that. He just wanted
Commission to know that they had not reversed itself relative to
the number of signs.-
Commissioner CERVENY moved the request (five signs at 28 feet}
for five sign height variances be approved for the reasons
stated:
1. The location of the business on the Interstate with the
service road being involved as well as two other streets.
2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City.
3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the
citizens of Wheat Ridge.
Page 22
Planning Commission Minutes
1. October 17, 1996
Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion fails 5-3,
with Commissioners THOMPSON, GRIFFITH and ECKHARDT voting
against.
Mr. Gidley requested that Commission establish a maximum sign
height for the four allowed signs.
Commissioner CERVENY moved that the maximum sign height for the
four signs approved, one sign be 50 feet in height and three
signs be 25 feet in height.
Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion.
Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the 50-foot sign would include the
continuous reader board sign.
Mr. Gidley stated that the applicant could choose to include it.
Mr Polk stated that for the purpose of the record, he wanted to
make it perfectly clear that Planning Commission did not have the
legal jurisdiction to decide content of signs.
Motion carried 7-1 with Commissioner RASPLICKA voting against.
Mr. Gidley agreed that. government may not regulate the content of
signs, except under extreme circumstances. He elaborated.
Discussion followed.
Commissioner CERVENY moved to approve the master sign plan, as
amended, be approved. __
Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion.
Commissioner ECKHARDT requested to comment. He stated he was not
pleased with the continuous reader board sign. Additionally, he
did not feel here was a need for additional signs (more than
what was allowed by sign code), nor did he feel that additional
sign height was necessary from what was allowed by the sign code.
Since the sign height is tied into the setback, he did vote for
variances, on setbacks because he felt there were some
difficulties there. _. _ _
Page 23
Planning Commission Minutes
October 17, 1996
Commissioner GRIFFITH stated she voted as she did because she
does not feel they need any more signs. There are sufficient
signs already. She was in agreement with Commissioners THOMPSON
and ECKHARDT.
Mr. Gidley suggested that Commissioners reference the variance
criteria when formulating their reasoning.
Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested that regarding the master sign
plan, he asked the developer to make a commitment that the use of
temporary signs such as inflatables, pennants, streamers,
sandwich signs, etc. not be permitted on this development.
Mr. Polk stated he declined the request and reminded Commission
that City ordinances allow such temporary signage. The applicant
cannot be restricted in ways that other City businesses are not.
Commissioner ECKHARDT requested the developer strive for a nice
appearance. He elaborated.
i
Commissioner CERVENY stated. that .his motion did not include
Commissioner ECKHARDT's comments. He requested that discussion
be limited to the motion made.
Commissioner ECKHARDT_apologized if he was out of order.
Motion carried 7-l. Commissioner ECKHP.RDT voted against.
4F('RFT,~y'S COMMENT- Due _to the complex nature of this case, it
is believed that the final result of the Planning Commission was
as follows:
A Master Sign Plan was approved and that plan allows a total of
four (4) freestanding signs. Three of those four signs may not
exceed 25 feet in height and the fourth sign cannot exceed 50
feet in height. Setback variances were approved for whichever
four of the six signs proposed that the applicant chooses to
erect. Likewise, size variances were approved for whichever four
of the six signs proposed that the applicant chooses to erect.
8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
~ ll
~
e P=512 /~~i ±_ Ca ~~~
r!!!
~ ~ Ems. „'~
6
'~
' BO d °_ .. ^
~~
z
2~ ~ .. 3
~ y ~~ ~ .~
'=~ ~° r a z E y x
- ~ ~' cc V] .- s~
a
a`
t'
's
b '~
u
~~JJ'' ¢ _.
a
(D
? ~ ~ A ga ~~
y r `?" G
~ ~ ~ ~ `i
R~ i
~g~ ~F
~ a ~ ~ '~aC~'CA @ i
~ ;~
x g
5p
Y
b ~¢
C@
~~
S
c-
-a
_5 i~ b;
~~ ~~
9 t n ~-.
~~' '_#:
n
N
F
C
y
ro~~
z
G
--~ ~
u
S
~ ® X_
R
Y
•
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
/ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO: WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same_
REQUEST: Approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors to be considered with, the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and_incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and. T
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by
Commissioner-JOHNSON, that Case No._WA-96-26, an application by
John Medved for approval of a_Master Sign Plan with variances, that
one additional bonus sign be granted (for a_ total of four
freestnainding signs) for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-
70 Frontage Road and the bonus sign be APPROVED for the following.
reasons:
1_ The location of the business on the Interstate with the service
road being involved as well as two other streets.
2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City.
3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the citizens
of Wheat Ridge.
VOTE: YES: Williams, Rasplicka, Cerveny, Langdon and
Johnson
NO: Eckhardt, Griffith and Thompson
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
( Resolution was APPROVED by a 5 - 3 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado,_on the 17th day of October,_1996.-
orge L d h erson s, etary
WHEAT RIDG$ PLANNING- OMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
b:\wa9626b_res
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE N0: WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REgUEST: Approval of a variance to allow 89.02 square feet of
additional sign area for freestanding signs associated with
a Master Sign Plan
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts-
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by
Commissioner WILLIAMS, that Case No. WA-96-26, an application by
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances, that
the variance of 89.02 square feet over the bonus of 819 square feet
totaling 908.02 square feet be :granted for property located at 11001
and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road_and the variance be APPROVED.
VOTE: YES: Eckhardt, Williams, Griffith Rasplicka, Cerveny,
Langdon and Johnson
NO: Thompson
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was APPROVED by a 7 - 1 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council_Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, bn the 17th_day of October, 1996.
rge La on ~
~ WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING
f
b:\wa9626c.res
WHEAT RIDGE
COMMISSION
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO. WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REQUEST: Approval of front-_yard_setback variances for freestanding
signs associated, with a Master Sign Plan
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres _'
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
~. reached, it was moved;by_Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by
Commissioner_JOHNSON, that Case No. WA-96-26, an application by
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances, that
the requested setback variances for all approved freestanding signs be
allowed for property located at 11001 and 11201 west I-70 Frontage
Road and the setback variances be APPROVED for the following reasons:
1. The property configuration and its' close proximity to overhead
power lines, water rights and street right-of-way.
VOTE: YES: Eckhardt, Williams, Rasplicka, Cerveny,
Langdon, Thompson and Johnson
NOc Griffith
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was APPROVED by a 7 - 1 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 17th day of October, 1996_
c
~ rge J. an n,
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING
b:\wa9626d.res
ION WHEAT RIDGE
COMMISSION
I
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
~'
CASE NO: WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REQUEST: Approval of five height variances for freestanding signs
associated with a Master Sign Plan
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list.
of factors is attached hereto and-incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented
reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY,
Commissioner WILLIAMS, that Case No_ WA-96-26,
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan
the requested five sign height variances (five
allowed for property located at 11001 and 1120
Road and the sign height variances be APPROVED
reasons:
and conclusions
seconded by
an application by
with variances, that
signs at 28 feet) be
L West I-70 Frontage
for the following
1. The location of the business on the Interstate with the service
road being involved as well as two other streets.
2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City.
3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the citizens
of Wheat Ridge.
VOTE: YES: Williams, Rasplicka, Cerveny, Langdon,
and Johnson'
NO: Eckhardt, Griffith and Thompson
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution FAILED by a 5 - 3 vote of the members present at their
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE N0: WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West 2-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REQUEST: Approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors. to be considered with the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented
reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY,
Commissioner THOMPSON, that Case No. WA-96-26,
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan
the Master Sign Plan, as amended, be APPROVED
11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road .
and conclusions
seconded by
an application by
with variances, that
Eor property located at
VOTE: YES: Williams, Griffith, Rasplicka, Cerveny, Langdon,
Thompson and Johnson
NO: Eckhardt
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City ,of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was APPROVED by a 7 - 1 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 17th day of October, 1996.
(//./~~
`' /t~YC~
eorge. L do Chai erson S r tary
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE P G COMMISSION
b:\wa9626f.res -. - -
Certificate.of Resolution Page 2
r Case No. WA-96-26/Medved
\.
regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 17th day of October, 1996.
For the purpose of clarification, since the variances were denied, it
was further moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by Commissioner
JOHNSON .the maximum sign height for the four signs approved be
established so that one sign be permitted to be 50 feet in height and
three signs be permitted to be 25 feet in height.
VOTE: YES: Eckhardt, Williams, Griffith, Cerveny, Langdon,
Thompson and Johnson
N0: Rasplicka
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was APPROVED by a 7 - 1 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council ;Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge,. Colorado, on the 17th day of October,
ti< ~ i i! B
org , L d Ch person S tary
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANN G COMMISSION
b:\wa9626e.res
f
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON R[ POLK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER WEST OFFICE PARK
Surre 100, BUILDING l9
1667 COLE BLVD.
GOLDEN COLORADO SO401
GEORGE ALAN HOLLEY
SCOTT D. ALBERTSON
DENN[S B. POLK
ERIC E. TO17GERSEN
THOMAS A. WALSH
HOWARD R. STONE
October 18, 1996
VIA FAR No. 235-2857 AND CERTIFIED MAIL
City Council Mr. Glenn Gidley
City of Wheat Ridge City of Wheat Ridge
7500 West 29th Avenue 7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Re: Notice of Appeal -Case No. WA-96-26
Dear Members of City Council and Mr. Gidley:
PHONE (3031 233-7 838
FAX (303) 233-2860
Please allow this letter to serve as the Applicant's Notice of Appeal with regard to the
Planning Commission's decision in connection with the above referenced matter, which occurred
on October 17, 1996.
Without intending to limit the generality of the foregoing, the Applicant hereby appeals
the determination of the Planning Commission, which decision approved a Master Sign Plan,
but substantially differed from the application sought by Mr. Medved. The Applicant had a
sought a Master Sign Plan contemplating a total of six (6) signs to be placed on two (2) separate
lots. The Planning Commission approved a Master Sign Plan which authorized the placement
of four (4) signs on these two separate lots, but changed the height sought with respect to five
(5) of such signs, and otherwise failed to approve the sign plan of the Applicant.
It is respectfully submitted that the City Council should reconsider the decision of the
Planning Commission for a number of reasons. In the first instance, certain aspects of the
Master Sign Plan received an affirmative vote of five Members of the Planning Commission,
but did not receive six affirmative votes. It was the City's position that certain aspects of the
Master Sign Plan required a "variance" from aspects of the City's Code. The Planning
Commission affirmatively voted with regard to approval of the Master Sign Plan, but did not
61TY OF WHEAT RIDGE
D _~ r~rnn}~(R~r~
Q~ 2 2 {~3V
~~u u-
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Page 2
Letter to City Council / G. Gidley
Re: Notice of Appeal -Case No. WA-96-26
October I8. 1996
approve all aspects of the Master Sign Plan, based upon the determination that certain aspects
of the request constituted a request for a variance, which required, in the City's interpretation,
a 6-2 affirmative vote. It is respectfully submitted that the application for Master Sign Plan
should have been approved and that the sign plan was in compliance with all criteria for
approval. In addition, the Planning Commission may have applied incorrect criteria to the issues
before the Planning Commission.
Because of the nature of the overall sign plan application, it is respectfully submitted that
the City Council should reconsider the Applicant's request and approve the Applicant's request
as submitted. By filing this Notice of Appeal, the Applicant does not waive those approvals that
were made by the Planning Commission, but is seeking City Council approval of the Master
Sign Plan as sought by the Applicant.
If you require further or additional information, or additional basis for such appeal,
please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
HOLLEY, ALBERTSON & POLK, P.C.
i~
Dennis B. Polk
cb
xc: John Medved, Medved Autoplex
y_ _
7500 West 29th Avenue
The City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado Wheat
Telephone 303/ 237-6944 Ridge
Apri114, 1997
This is to inform you that Case No. WA-96-26 which is a request for~roval of a master sign plan
with variances far property located at 71007 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Ro¢d North will be
heard by the Wheat Ridge CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500
West 29th Avenue at :07 0 P.M.• on_ Agril 28.7997.
All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at this hearing
before the CITYCOUNCIL. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this
Public Hearing and/or submit written comments.
It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this
meeting.
If you have any questions or desires to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division.
Thank you.
PLANNING DIVISION
"The Carnation City"
Ivan & Virginia Hawn
4900 Robb St.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Bill & Sherrel Fraser
4996 Parfet St.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Anthony & Vincent Vecchiarelli
_4890 Robb St.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Andrew Metzger
15055 Juniper Dr.
Golden, CO 80401
Five K Investments Co.
11445 W. I-70 Frontage Rd. N.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
F --
v
_. ____. _
I~ POSTAGE •~ ~,,,ffi,~.:..._
I - - _ SENDER:
I RETURN SNOW TOw -i Comte-anlD~
ADpPE5sOF1-
RECEIPT i7 r"~ y~~riT~fam~arld-address cn the
CERTIFIED FED- -1D ~,
Ln SERVICE
TDTAI POSTAC~~ Attach this form [o the front o t e ma
N - N I U~ a 21l I O-WROIi
rtl SENT_TO: Nor
a.Article„~ddcessed_to:____
_ _ _ -. _-
m
Gb].~rt~ fXy = dSLi=: ~ ~ s
.~
-= i
- ~° ecel a 'Bg'yPrinf Name)
PS FORM 3800 .,
6. Sign~ure: (A dressee o
__ --~P~F0~3,pQ~81 Janu rY'
I ~- - POSTAGE - - . - .-.- : r
j RETURN SHOW TO WHC ---
AnDRESa of ~:--. -.-----_-. __ __.
RECEIPT - ~ - - - - ---
CERTIFlED FEE * RETUFN RECEIPT
SERVICE -- - - - - - - --
S TOTPL POSTAGE AND FEES
~ --
fll SENT TO. N NOT FORINTERNATIONAL NNLD
a 8311 & 5~7:rt31 T?t~ae~'
`° 4996 Pax~at St.
m ~, »~'3~r to 80033
0" ~r~~r~
O. ~~Z~D Rei j
PS FORM 3800 US Postal Service
F^ ~ - _POSTAGE ~Y-~ DTCRRitertis t antl/or 2 for a~
I RETURN sROw TO VM~ ~ print your name and atldress or
RECEIPT ADDRESS OF. .W
DERPREp FE~--- -h~isla[t[tto_Ihe_t[oilL4Lf1
SERVICE
m TowL PWTAC ~ TFe1~eErn Receipt will show to .
N SENT TO: " NoT ~~. rUde Addressed to:
m ~,... ~ ... i't
11445 sa~, x
n' Yht Rj.~ig ~..s. 1~.-;'
~'
L ~ FOLD AND TEAR HERE_ T
rag;diaoaa wn;ay 6uisn ~o; noR ~{uei{(, --
j~ N T ~
~N
~ o S ~
'm
m N Q ~ ~
m
N
~ _
O'
'N
° W m
~ ~
~, y :: E
y U d a y .~
rn LL N
N ~ C
> a n a
o H '`o « ~
m a is ~
y y a
E m Q w d
? ¢~
m iv
CC
a ~~U ~ ~ ~ ~_ y :.!
~
~ r
~
~° O
O
v
v ~ Q ~
~
F d- r; c6
E n
L_
~ _
a
- ~ ~
v
3 a ~
~ _~ ~ ~
_
y ~ M
E m ~
a
g °e_
N
F ~
m
0 3 •rw
~- ~"- ~ ~
.. o ~ E ~ ~~ ~ ~,
8 0 ,~ ~•
~.
~ € - -
:. ~
(V v ~ ~
O ~ O jl
= p ~ ~ a .a ._, t ~
a
aL~ ~ ~
_ R _-e-
-e ,
~ ~
,;, m
~
E m _ }}
m ~
~ E ¢
:~
>
m ~
~
a ~ ¢` ~
_
.. .. ~ ui
~~~
- 5 Received By: (Print Narr
-.. PS FORM 3800 _ ~~
_--~
- - __ -_... .v.=~.
!'°PS-FORM 1-1,. Januar _ _
.~._ r.- - ~;_..~ -~_
~.~
- --- _ v. .~--_< _..
m
`o T
~
m
a
:
h
~
h
d
~ T r
d f`7
~ ~
c ~
~x o
id a
~--
_
~ ~ e
t SENDER: - - - I also wish to receive the
omplete hems r and~or z mr additional services.
I- +C following services (for an extra fee):
.~-- - ~--- ` _
-_ - - --- ~. yo tl~£Pdf`th7s o~~rwe can reTth~cartl
~ -
-
-
--1. ^ Addressee's Address
1
1 RETURN fo ~
PQRTAGE
SHWJ TO Nn
Atrach this farm to 1M root o he mallplece, or on a ac c I space m~f!
°2- ^ RestrlCted DellVery
I RECEIPT ADDRESS OF
- e e u n IpfG~l`shovu f~rrt tfiEarticle was deliveretl and the date tleliveretl. CiOnSUt pOStmaSter fer fee.
SERVICE CERTIFIED ~- -_ _
-"m$!AriiCIZ-Addfe55ed t0:
4a. ArtIC10 NUmIJBr
fll roTU POSTp _ _
- -P 963 361 251
. ~
ru SENT TO: NO~_- I`''r3fl L 'C1Y~.1~ i~rA3
~ .'+LLA.tN+~,i ~C,_= -- t$1F~1, dLLLp*'~i ~..ii 1-it7~~
m QBgp _- ~ CERTIFIED
-
~, „. .,,.
Wheat
iii t"..-.
7. Date f livery
~ -_.___ -- _- -- _____. rr G~
~ ~:s~' ~~ -- - _
'
p _'~ Received By: (Print Name) s Address
8. Addressee
~ (ONLY if requested and fee paid.)
PS FORM 3800 i9 ure: ( dre see or Agent . -
3811, ,lanuary less Domestic Return Receipt
- ~~ ~ ~- .
-..-,.---.-~. L __Y- I also wish to receive the
_,. _., _.,
--- Re
P ~ iCompiere hems t an or or a aalarai-serv~c -- - - following services (for an extra fee):
RETURN 51~Ot ~'PiinTya~rlanie an -a~dre-ssorrthe reaerse of this farm so that we can return this caN t ^ Addressee's Address
RECEIPT ~Cr - ~~a' --
CER: • Attach this Corm to the front of the maipiece, or on the 6ack~space cos not permit
-
2- ^ ReslrlCted Delivery
,a ssawcE
~ Tfie ReWrn ecel~ill show oo w~t~a~r ide wasdeliceretl-antl the date tlelNeretl
. Consult postmaster for fee.
N TDII~
_ _ _ -
- - - 4a. Article Number
"' SENT TO: 5
,_- _ -p 963 361 252
r-l - - ~I ~.~ 1 u
. .~ ~~~ r~ `~_ _ ~~ 4t ~ _ . _ 4b. Service Type
~' A4~ll ~ v8-.eatc eti,rys, u~ ~~~;s;
m ~ ~ _ _ ~ CERTIFIED
.~
~ _
- ~_~`~+'"
-. - -_
7. Date of elive
C. ~3"~-_ __
-~. Received-By: (Print Name)
_
-- 8. Addr see's ddress
!ONLY it requested and tee paid.)
--
PS FORM 3800 -=- ..:.~___
nature (Addressee or Agent)
?~. S
ig
~
/
°y`~ ~'! ' ps Fo Manua s~`~`-'- - -'-~ -=Domestic eturri Receipt
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: City Council
DATE OF MEETING: April 28, 1997 DATE PREPARED: April 14, 1997
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-96-26/Medved CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a master sign plan with variances
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 11001 and 11201 W I-70 Frontage Road North
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Medved Autoplex, 1 I OOl W I-70 Frontage Rd. No.
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): Same.
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
PRESENT ZONING: Commercial-One
PRESENT LAND USE: New and used vehicle sales and service
SURROUNDING ZONING: N. S: A-1; E: C-1, A-1; $':. PID, PCD, A-I
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: PSC land; S I-70; E: Agricultural, vacant, single-family;
~;, commercial, agricultural _
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Light Industrial
DATE PUBLISHED: April 11, 1997
DATE POSTED: April 14, 1997
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: ril , 1997
FNTER INTO RECORD: I
O COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'
(XX) ZONING ORDINANCE
() SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
() OTHER
( XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
() SLIDES
(XX) EXHIBITS
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been
met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
Planning Division Staff Report Page 2
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
I. REQUEST
This request is for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances for the number of signs and sign
heights. The applicant is John Medved. The case is being heard on appeal from action taken by the
Planning Commission.
The sign plan is for the Medved Autoplex properties known as 11001 West I-70 Frontage Road (new car
sales lot) and 112001 W I-70 Frontage Road (pre-owned car sales lot).
As you will recall, a planned building group plan for development of the pre-owned caz lot was
approved in 1994. The plan shows a temporary building with an ultimate build-out as an additional
dealership lot with up to 62,000- square feet of building area. The applicant has requested that the
proposal be analyzed based on ultimate build-out. Attached is a list of exhibits for your reference.
Attached also are copies of the proposed sign plan showing existing signage and proposed signage, as
well as supporting documentation. Staff would note that a variance for an additional freestanding sign
on the eastern lot was approved by the Boazd of Adjustment, pursuant to Case No. WA-91-24.
II. MASTER SIGN PLAN _
After discussion with the City Attorney regazding the provisions of the sign code and the master sign
code regulations, Staff has come to the following conclusions:
Pursuant to Section 26-10(e) of the sign code, a development is allowed one sign per street front
but not to exceed more than two per development. Based on this provision the Medved Autoplex
would be allowed two freestanding signs total as the two lots are considered as one overall,
unified development. Normally, the number of signs allowed on the property would be two. A
variance was granted in 1990 allowing an additional freestanding sign, therefore, there aze three
existing signs on the property; all facing the Frontage Road.
The master sign provisions indicate that a master sign plan can be approved for a property which
allows Planning Commission to grant up to a 100% increase in the number of signs and a 50%
increase in maximum sign area. These increases aze to be considered bonuses, not variances.
Any approvals granted over these bonus maximums are considered variances. Based on this,
Staff has devised the table presented on Page 7 of this Staff Report.
ILi. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission took action on the applicant's proposal on October 17, 1996. There were five
motions made as follows:
Planning Division Staff Report Page 3
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
A motion was made and passed 5-3 for approval to grant one additional bonus sign bringing the total
number of allowed freestanding signs to four versus six as requested for the following reasons:
1. The location of the business on the Interstate with the service road being involved as well as two
other streets.
2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City.
3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the citizens of Wheat Ridge.
A motion was made and passed 7-1 for approval of a 89.02 square feet sign area variance over the 819
square feet allowed to allow a total of 908.02 square feet. Staff would note that the 908.02 square feet
was for six signs, however, only four signs were approved. Hence, the sign area variance is moot unless
Council approves a variance for more than five signs.
A motion was made and approved 7-1, for approval of the requested setback variance for the following
reason:
1. The property configuration and its close proximity to overhead power lines, irrigation ditches,
and street right-of--way.
A motion was made, but failed 5-3, for approval of sign height variance to allow five signs at 28 feet in
height for the following reasons:.
1. The location of the business on the Interstate with the service road being involved as well as two
other streets.
2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City.
3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the citizens of Wheat Ridge.
This motion was denied because it did not receive a "greater than majority vote" required for variance
approval.
Finally, a motion was made and passed 7-1, to approve the request for a master sign plan as amended
by the previous motions.
According to the applicant's request for reconsideration, they are appealing the decision of the Planning
Commission ~ to deny two variances as follows:
1. To allow six freestanding signs total on the property where only four were approved by the
Planning Commission, and,
2. To allow one 50 foot high sign and the reminder to be 28 feet in height versus 25 feet per code.
•
Planning Division Staff Report
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
IV. VARIANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Page 4
In regazd to the appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of two variances, one for the number of
signs and the second for sign height Staff has the following conclusions concerning the criteria used to
evaluate variances.
(Variances must be approved by agreater-than-majority vote based upon Wheat Ridge Code of
Laws Section 2-53(s). and Section 26-6(D)(2).)
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 variances are denied, the properly could still be utilized for used and new car sales and
provide a reasonable return in use, service and income.
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
The plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. All commercially-zoned properties in
Wheat Ridge must follow the same regulations. The applicant contends that circumstances are
unique due to competitors in unincorporated Jefferson County and Lakewood who have massive
amounts of signage.
3. If the variation was granted, would it alter the essential chazacter of the locality?
If the variances are granted, it could result in a "forest" of signs along I-70.
4. Would the particulaz physical surrounding shape or topographical condition of the specifac
property involved result in a particular hazdship (upon the owner} as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out?
There are no other physical attributes of the property which result in a hardship. The property is
at grade with I-70, therefore no topographical hardship exists.
5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to
the other property within the same zoning classification?
If this application is approved, similarly situated properties in this zone district, and within the I-
70 corridor, could expect similar treatment. Staff is concerned that a negative precedent could be
set for similar requests.
Planning Division Staff Report Page 5
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the
property?
Staff concludes that the request is for marketing purposes.
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in
the property?
No hardship exists, therefore, the applicant has not created his own hardship.
8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other
property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located?
Granting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare, although it will be a
distraction for travelers on I-70. There could be a negative affect on aesthetics in the area. The
"community standards" which the City has embodied in its Sign Code would be abridged.
9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood?
No.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff concludes that the evaluation criteria do not support approval of either variance requested and,
therefore, gives a recommendation of Denial of both the request to increase the number of signs from
four to six and to increase the height from 25 feet to 28 feet.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Number of Siens:
Option A: "I move that the request for approval of a variance to increase the number of signs from four
to six within a Master Sign Plan for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
North, be Denied for the following reasons:
1. The evaluation criteria do not support approval,
2. Staff does not support the request,
3. Planning Commission did not support the request "
A •
Planning Division Staff Report Page 6
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
Option B: "I move that the request for approval of a vaziance to increase the number of signs from four
to six within a Master Sign Plan for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
North, be Approved for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3. ."
Sign Heieht:
Option A: "I move that the request for approval of a variance to increase the allowed sign height from 25
feet to 28 feet within a Master Sign for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
North, be Denied for the following reasons:
1. The evaluation criteria do not support approval,
2. Staff does not support the request,
3. Planning Commission did not support the request "
Option B: "I move that the request for approval of a vaziance to increase the allowed sign height from 25
feet to 28 feet within a Master Sign for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
North, be Approved for the following reasons:
1.
L.
3.
Planning Division Staff Report
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
MASTER
SIGN PLAN
ALLOWED BONUSES
Page 7
APPLICANT'S
PROPOSAL VARIANCES
DATED 9!23/96 REQUESTED
# OF 2 (+1 VAR.) 4 TOTAL
SIGNS
SIGN I SIGN>25' 0
HEIGHT 3 SIGNS<25'
SIGN 546 SF 819 SF
AREA (1 SIDE TOTAL
COUNTED)
SETBACK 30'SETBACK ---
FORSIGNS
> 25'
6 2
5 SIGNS 28' HIGH 5
1 SIGN 50' HIGH
908.02 SF 89.02 SF
TOTAL
9', 9', 6', 1T 6
l9', 20', (FROM
WEST TO EAST)
PLANNING
COMMISSION
ACTION
VAR. DENIED
APPROVED
I SIGN 50'
3 SIGNS 25'
VAR. DENTED
1 SIGN 50'
3 SIGNS 25'
VAR. APPRD.
BUT LIMITED
TO 4 SIGNS
~----------- ~~ g ,
s
~r ~ ~'
4 / ~~ r
~ ywj~;, tP' -
-t .F
.--~" ~
i
i
i
E
_i
--j-- - --,-- -'
-{--- --_
-=A~ 2!DGti
..Z-Tt- 9 ~~~
__ P'I
_?F.
_':
_' '
/ ~
i
i
i
i
i
-- -- --.-..•i
~- f
PGD
~sh~.
~JUS~Iti h4<
5'..9^v'9'a.
P I'D
w3-?J-.
~s Y
~~
Pt4~- i.~,s~nr.i.
'^ir
PiD
s~-,~
{'i+ I n wP-43-4 L.....
~ -
;fs-
OFF l GI f-.L _ >o,:= 7!5-z ~- ~n,~7e~
ONIhJ6 Mt~P
Z _=ArZOc_~-O-~O~~~~v
= ti
. OS~G~AT°_5 Onh.~S~
WHEP~T RIDGE __ -~~-~ _,N.- ~~_
D0 - ~A-=R ==A~J~=
GOLORt4 -
v,' o .700-7. one J, ~'' - '
~~
~-i
,~
9 ~1 ~ V
~_ _~
-~
~C PUBLIC HEARINGS
PROC./CEREMONIES
BIDS/MOTIONS
INFORMATION ONLY
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
AGENDA ITEM RECAP
QUASI-JUDICIAL ,~
Yes No
_ CITY ADM• MATTERS
_ CITY ATTY. MATTERS
LIQUOR HEARINGS
PUBLIC COMMENT
_ ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS
_ ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING
_ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
RESOLUTIONS
Case No.: WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex -Master Sign Plan Variances
11001 W. I-70 Frontage Rd. North
SIIMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Thiss~afrn'recommends DENIAL of both vanances.f two vaziances related to a Master Sign Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Staff Report
2) Master Sign Plan
3) Planning Commission Minutes
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
BUDGETED
ITEM
Yes No
Fund
DepUAcct # _
Budgeted Amount ~_
Requested Expend.~_
Requires Transfer/
Supp. Appropriation
Yes No
~z~
Nember of Siens:
for property loeated at 11 OI rand 11 Ool West I-70 F ontage Road Notths be DENIED for the follow ng reasonsWithin a Master Sign Plan
1. The evaluation criteria do not support approval
2. Staff does not support the request.
3. Planning Commission did not support the request."
OPTION B: "I move that the request for approval of a variance to increase the number of signs from four to six within a Master Sign"~lan
for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road North, be APPROVED for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
ACiEN~A ITEM RECAP
t;
Case No. WA-96-26/Medved Autoplex
Page 2
Sign Heieht:
OPTION A: "I move that the request for approval of a vaziance to increase the allowed sign height from 25 feet to 28 feet within a Master
Sign for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road North, be DENIED for the following reasons:
1. 'd'he evaluation criteria do not support approval.
2. Staff Does not support the request.
3. Planning Commission did not support the request "
OPTION B: "I move that the request for approval of a variance to increase the allowed sign height from 25 feet to 28 feet within a Master
Sign for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road North, be APPROVED for the following reasons:
y~;
1.
2.
3.
r;
- - -
MAY-04-99 TllE 03:05 PM HOLLEY ALBERTSON POLK PC FAx H0, 303 233 2860 P. O1
$OLLEY, ALEER~~SO^1rL&n POLE>1~C•
pp•~R wasl• Oe}[ca Paax
` Sb[xE 100, BUDDING I4
1667 COLEBLr'D.
f,DLVSN, COLOan1~080401
PHONE (303) 233.7838
GEORGE ALAN HOLLER FAX (303)233-2860
SCOTT D.ALBERTSON
AFN1vL5•T3. POLI'~
Eg,IC E. TORGERSEN
HO'V~'ARD R. "RICK" STONE
~ATIiERM.DAVLS~ - --==-CONPIDBNTIALTTY NOfiICE
This facsimile'trans~ission {and/or the docum_entst~ ~e~ndet
it) may coatai n confidential information belong g vilege • fihe
which 15 Protected by the attorney-clsent Pr.
information is intended only for the use of the individual or
entigy named below. If you ate not the inteade distriP.bution or ~
hereby notified that any disclosure, coPY~g.
.taking of ~y action .i_a reliance on the coatents of this
information is strictly prohibited - if you have received this
tease immediately notify us by telephone to
information i.a air. P
arraYlge for return of the documents.
fiELECOPIBR COVER PAG14
PLEASE DELIpgR fiSE PO&L~ING PAGE(S) TO:
To: Meredith Reckert - Fax #(303) 235-285?
gRpM: Dennis B. Polk, Esq.
RE: MEDVED AZ7TOPLEX -WHEAT RIDGE SIGNS
NI7MBER OP PAGES INCLIIDING COVER PAGE - 9
DATE: May 4, 1999
IP YOU DID NOT RBCEIVS ~' PAGES PLS2lSE CALL (303) 233-7835
AL7DITIONAL NOTES:
MAY-04-99 TUE 03:05 PM HOLLEY RLBEBTSON POLK PC FAX N0. 303 233 2860
N vlEw t
CURRENT SIGNS
52E] l sp IlaCriPaw
PROPOSED SIGNS
ypj,p2 a& P. NS~WL~
x..~""
,.,.,..~
wA~
bn ~w~.a~~.. ~wr~N ~~u~'
Medved Qutoplex
P, 02
"'
MAY-04-99 TUE 03.05 PM HOLLEY ALBERTSOft POLK PC FAX M0. 303 233 2860 P, 03
BEFORE TFiE CITY COUNCIL,
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
STATE OF COLORADO
Case No. WA-96-26. -Medved Autoplex
FINDINGS AND DECISION
This matter, comes on for hearing upon the appeal by Medved Autoplex, from
a decision by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission in the referenced case. The City
Council, having taken testimony and evidence in public hearing, issues the foilowirig
findings and decision:
Findln s
1. On July 4, 1996, Applicant, John Medved,' dba Medved Autoplex
("Medved" or "Applicant") filed an application for approval of a Master Sign Plan and.
a Variances For Signs for property located at 11001 and 11201 West 1-70 Frontage
Road {the "Subject Property"}•
2. Applicant's request was for approval of a Master Sign Plan, pursuant to
Seotion 26-41 1 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, which provides as follows:
Sec. 26-411. Master sign plan-
(al The planning commission may approve a master
sign plan for planned developments of any size and for any
existing or proposed business canter or office complex of
at least two (21 acres or more in size which are under
unified control either by ownership, legal association or
leasehold.
;b) The intent and purpose is to encourage well-
planned and designed signage within a large multiple
building or multiple use complex which expresses
unification and integration by elements of architectural
style, size, color, placement and lighting while at the same
time allowing for reasonable individual business
identification- An additional purpose is to encourage the
elimination of existing nonconforming signs. The planning
commission may grant as a bonus for well-designed plans
up to a one hundred {100) percent increase in the number
G€D153027116a607.1
MAY-04-99 TUE 03;06 PM HOLLEY ALBERTSON POLK PC FAX N0, 303 233 2860 P. 04
of signs and(or fifty {5d) percent increase in maximum
square footage, and(or may permit signs in tocatibns other
than normally permitted, based upon a fihding. that the
proposed master sign plan substantiaAy meets the intent
and purpose of this subsection relating to unification and
integration at signage.
(cy bnce approved at a public hearing by planning
commission, all master sign plans shall be recorded with the
Jefferson County recorder's office and shalt constitute.a
covenant and must be complied with by al[ owners,
proprietors, lessees or assigns, whether currenr or future.
No substantial variation from the plan shall be permitted
without planning commission approval- Approval
procedures under this provision shall be subject to those
requirements for a conditional use, as -set forth in this
Zoning Ordinance, section 26-6(A}. (Ord. No. 1991-$60,
§ 1, 5-2-911
3. Any increase in number, size and location of signs above that allowed by
a Master Sign plan (including allowed bonuses under any such plant may be approved,
if at alt, as variances pursuant to the requirements of Code of Laws § 26-6(Dl.
4. In 1994, a Planned Building Group Pian was approved for the Subject
property. The Subject ProperCy is composed of two separate lots or tracts of property-
5- 1:xisting signage on the Subject Property consists of three (3) free-
standing signs. The, Wheat Ridge Sign Gode, at § 26-410(e}, permits one {1) free-
standing sign per street frontage, but not to exceed more than two (2) signs per
"development."
6. "Development" is defined by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws at § 26-403 as
follows: .
Development. A single lot, parcel or tract of land or
portions or combination of lots, parcels or tracts of Eand .
which are held in a Single or common ownership and which
exist as a distinct functional entity. Multi-use buildings and
multiple building oompiexes which are held in singular or
common ownership,. either by individual, corporation,
paRnership or other legally recognized entity, shall be
considered a "development" for the purpose of signage.
GEt)1530jT`.i8a6pt.t -2
_ __ _
- - - -
MAY-04-99 TUE 03:06 PM HOLLEY ALBERTSON POLK PC FAx N0. 303 233 2860 P. 05
7. Based upon the requirements of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. two (2)
signs are permitted on the Subject Property, which is considered a single development.
8.. En 1992. the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment granted a variance for an
additions! firee-standing sign on the easternmost lot of the Subject Property pursuant
to Case No. WA-91-29, bringing the total number of free-standing signs on the
Subject Property to three.
9. The Wheat Ridge Sign Code, at § 26-411 (b), permits as a bonus, up to
a 100% increase in the number of permitted signs on a given development- This.
permitted the Planning Commission to grant the one additional bonus sign, in addition
to the two signs which are permitted as of right pursuant to § 26-410(el, and the one
sign permitted by the prior BOA case, for a total of four permrted free-standing signs
on the Subject Property.
10. The Wheat Ridge Sign Code restricts the maximum height of signs in the
City to twenty-five {25) feet ICode of Laws § 26-ai0(e)1., However, § 26-410tei
zllows properties within '/a mile of Interstate 70 to have one free-standing s(gn up to
50 feet in height.
1 7 . The. Applicant applied to the Planning .Commission for approval of a
Master Sign Plan and Variances, as tollows_
a, For two 421 bonus signs under § 26-411 ib}, plus variances to
ailov~i two additional free-standing signs for a total request of six
free-standing signs;
b. For approval of an 89.02 square foot sign area variance over the
819 square feet allowed, to a total of 908.02 square feet
c. For approval of six t6) setback variances for the sign locations:
and
d. For approval of height variances to allow five (`~) signs at twenty-
eighi t28) feet in height and one (1) sign at fifty 1501 feet in
height.
12. The Planning Commission considered the application on October i 7,
1996, and after taking evidence and testimony, entered the following decision:
a. Approved the grant of one t1) additional bonus sign pursuant to
§ 26-4t 1(b), bringing the total number of allowed free-standing
signs on the Subject Property to four t4) rather than six (6) as
requested by the Applicant.
GEOt53o27t78a6o~.t -3-
_ _
MAY-04-99 TUE 03:06 PM HOLLEY ALBERT50N POLK PC FA}( H0. 303 233-2860 P, 06
b. Approved the requested 89.02 square foot sign area variance.
c. Approved the requested sign location setback variance_
d. Voted 5 to 3 to approve the requested sign height variance to
ailow #ive (5} signs at twenty-eight (2$) feet in height. Pursuant
to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws § 2-53td}, six (6) votes in favor of
the motion to approve a variance are required. Thus, the
requested sign height variance was not approved.
e. Approved the request for a Master Sign Plan, as amended by the
previous motions.
13. Pursuant to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws § 26-411 (c), review of Master
Sign Plan applications follows the review procedure set forth in Vyheat Ridge Code oL
laws § Z6-&(A), applicable to review of cenditionai use applications. § 2b-6(Aj
establishes the Planning Commission as the decisionmaking body For suci~
applications, and including any variance requests made a part of that application.
{See, § 26-6(D1(2}(b})- The Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was the aporopr~ate
body to consider the Master Sign P(an Appication and the associated area, heiGh[,
number of signs and setback variances.
14. Pursuant to § 26-6(A)(5), an applicant may appeal the decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council. The Applicant properly presented such an
appea( by certified letter dated October 78, 199& from Dennis 8. Polk, appealing the
denial of the two {2} requested variances as follows:
a. To allow six (6) free-standing signs total on the Subject Property,
where oniy four {4) were approved by the Punning Commissicn:•
and
b. To allow one {t) fifty (50) foot high sign and the remainder to be
twenty-eight {2$) feet in height as opposed to twenty-five (25}
feet as required by the Code of Laws.
15. Notice of the appeal hearing before the City Council was properly mailed
and published, and the hearing was held before the Council on April 28. 1997. The
Council took evidence and testimony from the Applicant, the Planning Department,
and members of the public.
Decision
The City Council, having considered the evidence and testimony, hereby denies
the appeal of John Medved, dba Medved Autoplex from, the Octnber 17. 1996
6EO~saorl~asasoi.~ '4
PLAY-04-99 TUE 03.07 PM
BOLLEY ALBERTSON POLK PC FA}{ H0. 303 233 2860 P. 07
decision of the Wheat Ridge Planning'Commis5ion denying additional free-standing
signs on the Subject Property, and denying the requested height variances for signs
on the Subject Properly; for the following reasons:
(1) The Planning Staff does not support the request;
12) The Planning Commission does not support the request; and
~3) The evaluation criteria contained in Wheat Ridge Code of Laws
§ 2fi-fi(p)(2)(c3 governing variance requests have not been satisfied, as follows:
a_ Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use,
service ar. income if permitted to be used only under the
conditions allowed by regulation far the district in which it is
located?
if the variances are denied, the property could stiti be utilized for used
and new car sales and provide a reasonable return in use, service and
income.
b. is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances?
The plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. All
cammerciatly-zoned properties in Wheat Ridge must follow the same
r~gutatians. The applicant contends that circumstances era unique due
to competitors in unincorporated Sefferson County and Lakewood who
have massive amounts of signage.
c, If the variation was granted, would it after the essential character
of the locality?
If the variances are granted, it could result in a "forest" of signs along
lea.
d. Would the particular physical surrounding shape or topographica!
condition of the specific property involved result in a particular
hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out?
There are no other physical amibutes of the property which result in a
hardship. The property is at grade with I-70, therefore na topographical
hardship exists.
GEDL53027~i9a6o~.t _5_
MAY-04-99 TUE 0307 PM
VOLLEY ALBERTSON POLK PC FAX K0. 303 233 2860 P. 08
e. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is
based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the
same zoning. classification?
If this application is approved, similarly situated properties in this zone
district, and within the 1-70 corridor, could expert similar treatment.
Staff is concerned that a negative precedent could be set for similar
requests.
f. Es the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to
make money out of the property?
Staff concludes that the request is for marketing purposes.
g, F[as the alleged difficulty or hardship been created try any person
presently having an interest in the property?
No hardship exists, therefore, the applicant has not created his own
hardship.
h, Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other prcpertY or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located?
Granting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare,
although it will be a distraction for travelers on I-70. 'There could be a
negative affect on aesthetics in the area. The "community standards"
which the City has embodied in its Sign Code would be abridged.
i. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the
congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or, substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood?
No.
READ, ADOPTED AND APPROVED, by the City Council of the City of Wheat
Ridge, this 12t1>jay of May, 1997.
Dan Wilde, Mayor
GEOUr302T18460td ~~
MAY-04-99 TUE 03 08 PM HOLLEY ALBEBTSON POLK PC FAX N0, 303 233 2860 P, 09
ATTEST:
,~
Wanda Sang, Cfty Clerk
GE61530271i8<501.t -7-
City of Wheat Ridge
Planning and Development Department
Memorandum
TO: Building permit file -11201 W. I-70 Frontage Road North
FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Sign permit
DATE: May 10, 1999
Please let this memorandum serve as a statement of conditions for the issuance of a sign permit
for the new automotive dealership on the western lot of the Medved Autoplex addressed as
11201 W. I-70 Frontage Road North.
In 1996, a master sign plan was approved by the City of Wheat Ridge for the Medved Autoplex
comprised of two parcels at 11001 and 11201 W. I-70 Frontage Road North. The master sign
plan approved by Planning Commission and ratified by City Council allowed for the following:
1. Four 25' high freestanding signs (two on each property) with 81.72 square feet of
signage per face.
2. One "mega" sign, 50' in height with 536.7 square feet of sign face (per side)
located on the western property.
3. The three existing freestanding signs on the eastern lot would be removed and
replaced with signs referenced in item #1.
The owner is in the process of purchasing property on the east side of Parfet Street to develop
into an additional dealership and feels that with the expansion, the signage needs will be
changing. The owner anticipates that once this property is developed, a revised master sign plan
will be pursued.
A sign permit application has been requested for a freestanding sign for the westernmost
property which is 25' high and 156 square feet in size. This permit is issued with the
understanding that this sign must be removed when the existing sign plan is enacted by
submission of an application for an additional sign on this property or when a new master sign
plan is approved.
Agent for owner
0
in
T
8
Q
N ~ ~
~ ~J'~ ~ ~~ ~T'
0
0
T
/. ®®
P2000 STANDARD 10' BRAND SIGN - AT 25' OAH
ILLUMINATED CORPORATE CORPORATE BLUE LOGO PANEL WITH EM80SSED WHITE LOGO.
OPAQUE-GREY COPY.PANEL WITH ILLUMINATED WHITE COPY.
Design No, 52216.99 ,
Seale 1/4'= t'-0' Dete 1-26-99 -
Drawn bYr wilcoz - _ _
Crested Yor the eppra vel ol:
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
~~ c Sfi ~" = 13~
I ~ 3 (~
~~
i Y,v ~ ~s ~ ~' - .
~~~~'~
~ Vy-'
~~ nom,
U
`~.,,:° n° 133 ~
~, (fir r~~~-.~-.:_,. k ,~:._,~
Y •J~l~
G'-`~'`-~'`- f;~ `y
~x~'~
V
~ ~~
f ~-' f ~/ ~~ ~~ -1-o--'
V ts~-~'~?'`
,.
~-~
., C-~
~. r - .
~~ ~ ~
_---~--_
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 28, 1997 Page -3-
Motion by Mr DiTullio to postpone this to June 16, 1997 Study Session, seconded by Mrs
Shaver
Mr DiTullio called for the question, seconded by Mrs Worth, tied 4-4 with Councilmembers
Shaver, DiTullio, Worth, and Fields voting yes Mayor Wilde broke the tie by voting yes
Call for the question carried 5-4
Vote on Mr DiTullio's motion to postpone to June 16 carried 6-2 with Mr Solano and Mrs
Dalbec voting no
tem 2. Request for approval of a variance to increase the number of signs from four to
six within a Master Sign Plan for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-
70 Frontage Road North
Request for approval of a variance to increase the allowed sign height from 25
feet to 28 feet within a Master Sign Plan for property located at 11001 and
11201 West 1-70 Frontage Road North
(Case No WA-96-26) (Medved)
Item 2 was introduced by Mr DiTullio, title and summary read by the Clerk.
Mr Middaugh asked that Mr Gidley be allowed to speak before the applicant, in order to
present Council with some background on this matter
Glen Gidley was sworn in by the Mayor and explained that this was an appeal from a
Planning Commission denial regarding the variances to the number of signs and the height of
those signs This will require a super-majority vote on the part of City Council
Dennis Polk, attorney for the applicant, was sworn in by the Mayor and asked for approval
of the variance to allow six signs and the approval of the variance to allow the sign height
from 25 feet to 28 feet.
Glen Gidley presented the staff report.
Ken Lewis, 3840 Wright Street, was sworn in by the Mayor and asked that this Item be
approved
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 28, 1997 Page -4-
Motion by Mr DiTullio that the request for approval of a variance to increase the number of
signs from four to six within a Master Sign Plan for property located at 11001 and 11201
West 1-70 Frontage Road North be denied for the following reasons 1 The evaluation
criteria do not support approval 2 Staff does not support the request. 3 Planning
Commission did not support the request. 4 That the City Attorney prepare findings in
accordance with that motion and bring back to Council for their debate and action for the
next regular Council Meeting two weeks hence, seconded by Mrs Worth, carried 6-2 with Mr
Eafanti and Mr Solano voting no
Motion by Mr DiTullio that the request for approval of a variance to increase the allowed sign
height from 25 feet to 28 feet within a Master Sign Plan for property located at 11001 and
11201 West 1-70 Frontage Road North be denied for the following reasons 1 The
evaluation criteria do not support approval 2 Staff does not support the request. 3
Planning Commission did not support the request. 4 That the City Attorney prepare findings
in accordance with that motion and bring back to Council for their debate and action for the
next regular Council Meeting two weeks hence, seconded by Mrs Worth, carried 6-2 with Mr
Eafanti and Mr Siler voting no
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
Item 3. Council Bill 14 - An Ordinance adding Chapter 25, Section 25, to the Code of
Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, concerning Economic Development
Advisory Board
Council Bill 14 was introduced on first reading by Mr DiTullio, who also read the title and
summary
Motion by Mr DiTullio that Council Bill 14 be approved on first reading, ordered published,
public hearing be set for Monday, June 9, 1997 at 7.00 p m in City Council Chambers,
Municipal Building, and if approved on second reading, take effect 15 days after final
publication, seconded by Mr Eafanti, carried 7-1 with Mrs Dalbec voting no
Item 3. B.
Mrs Shaver explained that a balance of $500 was left in the outside agencies account. The
Post Prom money request had been inadvertently submitted too late for the Agenda when
Council distributed the money
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
• CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO: TrlA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REQUEST: Approval of a variance to allow 89.02 square feet of
additional sign area far freestanding signs associated with
a Master Sign Plan
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors- to be considered with the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof;- and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
• NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by
Commissioner WILLIAMS, that Case No. WA-96-26, an application by
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances, that
the variance of $9.02 square feet over the bonus of 819 square feet
totaling 908.02 square feet be granted for property located at 11001
and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road and the variance be APPROVED.
VOTE: YES: Eckhardt, Williams, Griffith Rasplicka, Cerveny,
Langdon and Johnson
N0: Thompson
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was APPROVED by a 7 - 1 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 17th day of October, 1996.
•
.+ ~ .rites 'emu / / /c ~t_~
rgeLa on, air~rson v~~:~=~ F~yy~..-~, S r ary
• WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING CO ISSION WHEAT RIDGE PL G COMMISSION
b:\wa9626c.res
•
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION __
. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO: WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road __
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REQUEST: Approval of front-yard setback variances for freestanding
signs associated with a Master Sign Plan
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
• NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by
Commissioner JOHNSON, that Case No. WA-96-26, an application by
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances, that
the requested setback variances for all approved freestanding signs be
allowed far property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage
Road and the setback variances be APPROVED for the following reasons:
1. The property configuration and its' close proximity to overhead
power lines, water rights and street right-of-way.
VOTE: YES: Eckhardt, Williams, Rasplicka, Cerveny,
Langdon, Thompson and Johnson
NO: Griffith
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was APPROVED by a 7 - 1 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 17th day of October, 1996.
•
• Gorge J.JLang~6n,'~`hair~rson .:;,~.:~~:. i~T4g~i-t~s,~/Sec e~ary
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNI COMMISSION
b:\wa9626d.res
•
•
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
• CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO: WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REQUEST: Approval of five height variances for freestanding signs
associated with a Master Sign Plan
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
• NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by
Commissioner WILLIAMS, that Case No. WA-96-26, an application by
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances, that
the requested five sign height variances (five signs at 28 feet) be
allowed for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage
Road and the sign height variances be APPROVED for-the following
reasons:
1. The location of the business on the Interstate with the service
road being involved as well as two other streets.
2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City.
3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the citizens
of Wheat Ridge.
VOTE: YES: Williams, Rasplicka, Cerveny, Langdon,
and Johnson
NO: Eckhardt, Griffith and Thompson
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
• Resolution FAILED by a 5 - 3 vote of the members present at their
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO: WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REQUEST: Approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
• reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by
Commissioner THOMPSON, that Case No. WA-96-26, an application by
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances, that
the Master Sign Plan, as amended, be APPROVED for property located at
11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road .
VOTE: YES: Williams, Griffith, Rasplicka, Cerveny, Langdon,
Thompson and Johnson
NO: Eckhardt
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was APPROVED by a 7 - 1 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 17th day of October, 1996.
G orge~tY La~dox~lChair~erson ~ ,:3~:.~y1~a:.:.a;/ S r tary
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLPSII G COMMISSION
• b:\wa9626f.res
Certificate of Resolution
• Case No. WA-96-26/Medved
Page 2
regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 17th day of October, 1996
For the purpose of clarification, since the variances were denied, it
was further moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by Commissioner
JOHNSON the maximum sign height for the four signs approved be
established so that one sign be permitted to be 50 feet in height and
three signs be permitted to be 25 feet in height.
VOTE: YES: Eckhardt, Williams, Griffith, Cerveny, Langdon,
Thompson and Johnson
NO: Rasplicka
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was APPROVED by a 7 - 1 vote of the members present at
their-regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 17th day of Ootober,
erg Ld<`~~:fperson ~~~.°.~' ~,a.gg S~~P~~P,,,~~~~~~cccccc tary
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNCOMMISSION
b:\wa9626e.res
•
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE N0: WA-96-26 LOCATION: 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road
APPLICANT(S) NAME: John Medved
OWNER(S) NAME: Same.
REQUEST: Approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances
APPROXIMATE AREA: 17.5 acres
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a
list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list
of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the
Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
• reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by
Commissioner JOHNSON, that Case No. WA-96-26, an-application by
John Medved for approval of a Master Sign Plan with variances, that
one additional bonus sign be granted (for a total of four
freestnainding signs) for property located at 11001 and 112.01 West I-
70 Frontage Road and the bonus sign be APPROVED for the following
reasons:
1. The location of the business on the Interstate with the service
road being involved as well as two other streets.
2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City.
3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the citizens
of Wheat Ridge.
VOTE: YES: Williams, Rasplicka, Cerveny, Langdon and
Johnson
NO: Eckhardt, Griffith and Thompson
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
• Resolution was APPROVED by a S - 3 vote of the members present at
their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
• Building, Wheat Ridged Colorado, on the 17th day of October, 1996.
eorge ~. L dbrf~ h person C~n'_=`_'~ ~retary
WHEAT RIDG PLANNIN~~ISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
b:\wa9626b.res
i
•
•