Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/1996 W H E A T R I D G E $ OAR D O F A D J II S T M E N T MururES OF M88TING May 23, 1996 • Tom Abbott Bill Echelmeyer Paul Hovland Bob Howard Susan Junker Linda Mauro Jerry Sang (interim) Robert Walker None STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning and Development Sean McCartney, Planner Susan Sllis, Code Enforcement Mary Lou Chapla, Secretary PIIBLIC SEARING 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman WALKER at 7:34 P.M. on May 23, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of May 23, 1996. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~ , MINUTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 2 i 2. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Motion was made Board Member ABBOTT, seconded by Board Member SANG, to approve the order of the agenda as amended to continue Case No. WA-96-10 to the July meeting. Motion carried. 3. PIISLIC FORIIbi (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one came forward to speak. 4. PIIBLIC HEARING A. Case No_ TL7P-9H-3: An application by Lucile Knowlton for approval of a Temporary IIse Permit to allow a camper as a second bedroom on property zoned Agricultural-One and located at 4471 Kipling Street. Susan Ellis presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. • Board Member HOWARD wanted to know when the pictures were taken, and Ms. Ellis answered this morning. The property has been cleaned up since last year's meeting. The applicant has removed a couple of the campers and a motorhome and brought in a different camping trailer. Board Member HOWARD wanted to know if the triangle on the drawing is the property that has recently been rezoned to residential, and Ms. Ellis replied yes. Board Member HOWARD suggested that the description of the property as surrounding zoning as A-1 should also include R2-A to the south. Board Member ABBOTT said in the staff report it recommends that staff wants setbacks, so does it meet setbacks where it sits now, and Ms. Ellis said yes it could set right where it is. Board Member ABBOTT questioned the letter from Ptarmigan Condominiums saying it is not on letterhead and it is not signed, is that just our copy, and Ms. Ellis said it was written by the head of the homeowner's association and after their meeting two weeks ago they presented the letter to her via fax. Board Member ABBOTT asked if she believed there is • some validity to this unsigned, non-letterhead letter and Ms. Ellis answered yes. She talked to two home association • VPSEAT RIDGS HOARD OF AD~7IISTMENT MI.~~~c.S OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 3 members and two residents of the property last week and it is a concern to them. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked was this a request by the owner of the property or was the City looking at the property in the preceding couple of weeks. Ms. Ellis said this is a request by the owner who was denied the same request a year ago and there was not an appeal made within 30 days, so she had to wait another year to re-apply. No further questions were asked of staff. The applicant, Lucile Knowlton, 4471 Kipling Street, was sworn in. Ms. Knowlton reminded the board that her husband has Alzheimer's Disease. They did get the addition built so she could keep him at home as he is not too bad now, but Alzheimer's is very unpredictable. She sold the motorhome and bought the camper because it is self-contained and the party who is helping her will live in it. She needs somebody to help her also take care of the property because she does not want to have to sell. She • wants to be able to have this camper there as a bedroom. For quite a few years her motorhome was used just as a sleeper for relatives who came to visit. There were people living with her but they moved the first of the year. She now has someone who will stay there and will be there most of the time. There has been several times in the last few. months that she was in a bad situation because she cannot leave her husband alone. She is putting in a pretty good sized garden now and will need someone to help her with that and with the weed problem also. Ms. Knowlton is an artist and has her own home studio/gallery. She would like to stay doing what she loves to do with her husband there and she could be there most of the time to watch him. The camper is there for the party to be in and to take care of the yard. Mrs. Knowlton feels this request. will not hurt anyone physically, spiritually, mentally, or financially. She said the owner of the rezoned property to the south could not be there tonight, but told the applicant it was fine with him. The Camelot apartments said it was fine because they would rather have someone there. She talked to someone at the condominiums to the west and one lady has no objections. Mrs. Knowlton added the Camelot apartments have a lot of domestic problems. She said she is a Christian and so are the people that live with . her now, they believe in Biblical laws and thinks that is very important to keep it that way. She prays that the Board sees the benefit and reason why she has to have help • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Miiv~iaS OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 4 by someone living on her property. She does not want to put her husband in a nursing home, this way she can keep him at home and still have help. The doctor now is working on a situation where she might get a visiting nurse to come in once in a while, however at this point, she needs help right now. Board Member ABBOTT asked did t] someone else living with her in said she does have a party that rented the bedroom so she could She said again, the camper will there most of the time. ze applicant say there was the house, and Mrs. Knowlton lives there now, but just have a little more income. be used for someone to be Board Member ABBOTT asked if the person renting out the bedroom helps her at all with the outside chores, and Mrs. Knowlton answered no. • Board Member ABBOTT wanted to know what will they do about the restroom facilities for the camper, and Mrs. Knowlton replied he uses her bathroom when he is there. He does not cook in the trailer as she does the cooking and he eats with her. Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned how long has the camping trailer been there, and Mrs. Knowlton said about 2-3 months. No one is living in it now. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the people of the apartments to the north have expressed to her no problem, and was that the manager, and Mrs. Knowlton said no he is a resident. Board Member MAURO said she does not know much about something being self-contained, but doesn't the power source have to come from an electrical supply, and Mrs. Knowlton said when her helper gets up to speak he can explain about the generator. No further questions were asked of the applicant. • Doren Volzke, was sworn in. He explained he was a long term resident of Lakewood and Wheat Ridge and attended the Wheat Ridge schools, his family are also long term residents. He currently lives with his mother and to the west of them is the president of 1st Bank, and to the east is former Senator Joseph Shefflin and both of them could vouch for his character. The main purpose for me being there is to help with the property, the applicant is in her late 70's and her husband does have Alzheimer's and she cannot physically • WSHAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMHNT Ml+~ui,sS OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 5 manage the property as it needs to be done. Her property is over an acre and sets back from the road over 100 feet. The statistics on crime in the area show that the apartments next door are not considered the best in Wheat Ridge, the applicant was a victim of arson several months ago and a lot of her belongings were burned up. There is some danger there and Mr. Volzke feels that his presence-on the property would be an added measure of security. Being there would not be a physical unattractiveness. The camper is a 20' long Red-Dale and is self-contained and does have a bathroom, kitchen facility and does have the ability to have lights. None of that is hooked up. Mr. Volzke purchased the camper in late November and it has not been hooked up, nor has not lived there. • Mr. Volzke said after the fire damage, there was no way she could clean up. They had many dumpsters hauled out of there and he himself hauled pick-up loads of debris from the area. Mrs. Knowlton is a very giving merciful person and people have dragged things onto the property and have also taken things from her. He has known the Knowltons for about 15 years and it is not as though the relationship has come along suddenly. He does have the white van and the pick-up there, the latter being for sale. He is a quiet person, does not party or like loud music and considers himself a good neighbor. People have actually come over and told him how nice the property looks now. Mr. Volzke is a full time student at Metro and trying to get his degree in English so-he can teach. He works full time for the Rocky Mountain News as a district manager. He works in the Golden area and is in this general vicinity all of the time and come and go at will. His schedule is very flexible and he can be there at any time in a matter of 10 minutes if there were any problems. Mr. Volzke does not understand the letter from the condominiums behind them because the camper is not in sight of them in any way. With the proximity of the trailer he can not see any problem, and if there is a dispute then why are they not there tonight or at least sign their name to the letter. He talked on unsightliness in the area and feels the trailer is in good condition and welcomes anyone from the zoning department to come and take a look at it. Again, Mr. Volzke said he does not live there. He has been • there for lunch and dinner and because he lives close right now. He wants to live in the camper to help out and is wanting to find another place to live other than home. • WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT MIaruiaS OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 6 Board Member ECHELMEYER wanted to know how long will he be at Metro, and Mr. Volzke answered about a years worth of study left then a semester of student teaching. Classes are finished for this semester and he plans to be on the property there full time throughout the summer, along with a full time job. Board Member ABBOTT asked Mr. Volzke if he realized the TUP would be temporary and only for one year, so it would be. only a temporary fix. It will buy some time but will not help Mrs. Knowlton over the long haul in maintaining that property, and does he think that is the solution. Mr. Volzke replied it is a temporary fix, but they don't really know how long Max will be able to stay at home. Conditions and situations change, so if they were to be granted the variance maybe some stipulations could be put on it. Mr. Volzke added he_does not foresee himself staying there an extended amount of time, but for this period of time it is the right thing to do because it works and it works well. It is something that provides comfort for Max and Lucile. He wants to put up some more fencing along the south side. Part of it was burnt along with the fire, and there was a • real serious risk of the garage and house going up. There is a lot of fear and eminent threat with the type of people that are currently in the Camelot Apartments. No further questions were asked of Mr. Volzke. Ms. Knowlton spoke again saying that Mr. Volzke also has a truck with a snow plow and plows the whole road for her and there have been times that the whole driveway was snowed in. She added this situation would be temporary as she does not know how long, but wants to take care of her husband at least another year. She does not have a car of her own and without transportation it is a bad situation to be up against. Board Member ABBOTT asked staff if the camper meets setbacks now and if so, why is that in the conditions of the staff report. Ms. Ellis answered it is okay where it is at now if it is not moved closer to one of the property lines. Board Member ABBOTT questioned the condition that any temporary power source be inspected by the building and fire departments, because he believes they will not be able to do that. The uniform building, electrical and fire codes are all going to require, for a period of one year, requires a . permanent electric power line brought in and he does not see any way the codes would allow inspectors to approve an • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 7 extension cord. Ms. E11is answered that is always a possibility or they might approve nothing at all. She does not know if that is possible through the winter months even though the applicant says it is self-contained supposedly with a generator and fuel. Mr. Doren Volzke spoke saying he would be willing to meet any kind of zoning requirements. A lot of times there can be a pole put in with electrical source and have it hooked up. He would not mind having that done if necessary and have Public Service check it out. He has no generator as far as heating is concerned, there is a furnace that uses propane. He does not anticipate that making any noise or being afire hazard. He stated they never asked for an extension cord. He can see some concern with an electrical cord and he is willing to have a certified electrician hook up the pole directly with Public Service and it would be probably better then because his utilities would not be connected with the applicant's. Board Member ABBOTT said he does think Mr. Volzke needs electricity as the space heaters inside of a closed space are a danger, not so much of afire hazard as they are likely to kill the occupant. Mr. Volzke • said he will take the trailer in to the RV place on W. 44th Avenue and have it looked at. No further questions were asked. Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, that Case No. TUP- 96-3, an application by Lucile Knowlton, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicant's husband has Alzheimer's Disease and the couple is unable to maintain this large property without on site assistance. 2. The citizen who will occupy the trailer is also the owner and is native of the Wheat Ridge area and is not a transient. He has indicated that he understands that this is a temporary solution and does not intend to stay forever. He and the applicant feel this temporary solution is acceptable as opposed to the alternatives. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The camping trailer meets agricultural-One setback requirements. 2. Any power source is approved by the building and fire departments. • 3. There will be provisions made for proper sanitary facilities. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 8 4. The camping trailer will be used by Doren Volzke only. 5. She Temporary Use Permit will be for one year only. Motion was seconded by Board Member SANG. Mr. Gidley suggested that the board direct staff as to your desire for any enforcement proceedings. Normally in cases like this, enforcement would be through municipal court. An alternative would be to bring the matter back to the board for re-hearing and possible revocation. He said if you have preference for that approach state that in the motion, otherwise (on the record) should any violations occur on the property regarding this matter, then it would be through municipal court. He said that would be violations only as it relates to the issues at hand; which is the temporary use of the trailer. Mr. Gidley said it is a situation where we go directly to municipal court, the court will be enforcing the conditions. If the violation was brought back to the board, it would delay prosecution by a month or month and a half. Board Member ABBOTT added the following condition and Board Member SANG agreed. 6. Violations will be brought back to municipal court. Motion for approval failed by a vote of 5-3, with Board Members ECHELMEYER, HOWARD and MAURO voting no. The City Attorney, Gerald Dahl, spoke on the city code stating a super majority is needed for all matters requiring a decision by the board, even though the Board of Adjustment rules and regulations state different. He will be submitting an ordinance to city council that will clarify that and bring those two code sections in harmony. Discussion followed. Mr. Dahl suggested doing a motion for denial. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that would throw every vote that they have in the future into this same type of situation and also questions the votes we have had throughout the year. He continued saying a positive motion was made to grant the variance and a certain number of people voted for it and a certain number against it, if it fits into that category why do we have to do the motion over again on a reverse basis. Mr. Dahl stated all he can say is that the code section says that "for all matters requiring decision" you must get 6 out of 8 votes in an act of denial. • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MiiruiBS OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Dahl added he does feel that is too high a standard for a denial and that is why he is preparing an amendment to the code. With respect to actions that have happened in the past, the rules require that anybody that is going to challenge any action must take place within 30 days of that action. Things that have been done throughout history are not going to fall under that problem. Mr. Dahl feels it would be worth it to try for a denial motion. Board Member HOWARD asked why are there meetings then and explained that they are operating under the rules and procedures of aboard of adjustment and those procedures say that with 8 members, all votes must have 6 affirmative votes to pass if for approval. It does not say if it has 3 negative votes that it is denied. It there are 7 members present, it has to have 6 affirmative votes, and if 6 it has to have 5, and if 5 it has to have 4. The only situation that apparently that is in this 'super majority' is if there are 8 members present. Mr. Dahl said 'super majority' may be the wrong choice of words because the voting chart tells you how many votes you have to have to make a decision. He realizes in the rules and procedures it says if they fall short (as this one did) then the matter is deemed denied. There is a code section that this kind of mirrors and it doesn't say if you fall short it is deemed denial, it says 'for all matters requiring a decision' (positive or negative). The code section is different than the board's rules and regulations, and the code section controls. Board Member HOWARD suggested holding off on any board of adjustment hearing until that ordinance is changed. Board Member HOWARD feels that is just spinning wheels and he has better things to do than spin his wheels. Mr. Dahl said he has drafted the code section and intends to give it to the council as soon as possible. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked how many meetings with council will that take, and Mr. Dahl said it has to go through the standard 1st and 2nd readings, but they may be able to draft this as an emergency ordinance. Chairman WALKER said it appears that no one wants to make a motion to deny so therefore, the vote stands as it is and has been denied because it was not passed with enough votes. Mr. Dahl agreed the variance was not passed. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 10 Board Member HOWARD asked if he could be excused for the rest of the meeting and Chairman WALKER answered yes. The applicant was informed the request was denied and she asked the board what did they suggest her to do. Mr. Gidley replied for her to move the trailer. Mr. Volzke asked if the camper could remain where it is until the appeal. Discussion followed. B. Case No. WA-96-12: An application by C and E Communications for approval of a 22' height variance to the 32' billboard height requirement for property zoned Planned Industrial Development and located at 10501 N. I-70 Frontage Road. Glen Gidley presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. Gerald Dahl, City Attorney, spoke saying as a preliminary matter this particular case, as you know, was continued to this date at the applicant's request. He spoke with the applicant's attorney this afternoon and it appears there is • a mis-perception as to whether or not witnesses were permitted at this hearing. Mr. Dahl said he would like to discuss it with their attorney as it may affect whether or not he will ask to continue this case. The disagreement is this; the applicant's attorney is under the impression that staff had told him that witnesses were not permitted. After speaking with staff, he learned they told the attorney that the Board of Adjustment did not permit cross-examination and they liked to have witnesses just testify rather than questions and answers between witnesses and attorneys, but they did not inform the applicant that they could not bring any witnesses'. Mr. Dahl continued saying Mr. Melcher believes he heard it somewhat differently and that witnesses were not permitted and he relied on that and says he would have otherwise brought witnesses. The city is ready to go on this case here tonight and he guessed he would ask Mr. Melcher if he is willing to say yes he is ready to go. He has got what witnesses he wants to present and waive what they believe is not a defect, that staff told him no cross examinations but not no witnesses. That is not an issue that he wants to battle out in district court and then have to come back here for a new hearing. If they cannot get an agreement on this, then Mr. Dahl will ask for a continuance on this case. . Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned Mr. Melcher as to why he did not bring this up a month ago being he was present throughout 3-4 other appeals before this group. Some of • WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 11 which had witnesses, why did he not bring this up a month ago. Mr. Melcher answered saying he is ready to go tonight, and does not want to put this off any longer. The issue that Mr. Dahl raised is that he had face to face conversations with Mr. Glen Gidley and Sean McCartney to ask them the rules and how to proceed. He asked them if he would be able to have witnesses for cross-examining or what. Their statements were that he could have individuals come and make statements, but the Board does not like this to be treated as a trial. The Board does not want attorneys running this as a courtroom with people on the stand with cross-examining by those attorneys. He understood they could have people come and make statements but not be allowed to question and answer them. He raised an objection when Mr. Dahl said he would be calling Mr. Gidley as a witness and would be asking him questions. Mr. Melcher said Mr. Gidley could make statements but he did object to Mr. Dahl as an attorney presenting a witness because he was told he could not do that. He doesn't believe that could be done in consistent with due process without allowing the opposing council to cross-examine. • Mr. Melcher said to Mr. Dahl that if Mr. Gidley would like to make a statement then that is fine, but if they would put him on as a witness like a courtroom, then he would have to be allowed to cross-examine him and Mr. Melcher was not ready to and did not expect to because he was told that is not the way the board is run. He will be happy to have statements and is ready to go. Mr. Dahl replied he is as ready to go forward and delighted that they agreed. Mr. Dahl does not need to put Mr. Gidley on as a question and- answer witness as he will be giving the staff report and will cover what is needed. Mr. Dahl added he has exhibits that will be presented. Chairman WALKER asked if we question staff can we entertain questions from anyone else then, and Mr. Dahl replied he would suggest not to deviate from whatever procedures have been done in the past. Glen Gidley presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. Mr. Gidley noted that the request has been changed since the staff report. The billboard has been lowered to a height of 41 feet, so now the variance request is 9 feet. • Board Member SANG asked if the sign was lowered voluntarily by the applicant or did the city request it, and Mr. Gidley • WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT MINfJTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 replied the city requested that it be lowered limit of 32 feet, and the applicant would have the billboard was lowered to 41 feet. Chairman WALKER called for a 5 minute recess. Page 12 to the legal to answer why Upon convening, Mr. Gidley entered into record the building permit file and a copy of a drawing from the same file, for 10501 W. I-70 Frontage Road, labeled Exhibit '. Mr. Gidley passed the drawing out for the board's review. Entered into record letters from Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Strickland and GRC Engineering Inc. Mr. Gidley continued with the staff report. Mr. Gidley entered into record a copy of the Planned Industrial Development Regulations, Section 26-25 of the Code of Laws, labeled Exhibit ', and two letters, one from the immediate adjacent property owner, Volant and another from Holly, Albertson and Polk on behalf of Medved Autoplex, both stating they have withdrawn their objections. . Board Member ECHELMEYER wanted to know how did they ever arrive at 41 feet and were there any city employees involved in this process, and Mr. Gidley answered no city employees were involved in this process in terms of being there during the lowering. The applicant did ask if they wanted to lower the sign, would staff permit that, and staff indicated yes they would. They did not in any way say to the applicant that 41 feet would be acceptable. This all happened in one day and Mr. Gidley believes the 41 feet is because there is a joint at that point and much easier to unbolt at that joint. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if it was the same contractor that did the original work, and Mr. Gidley answered he is not really sure as they have no information on that. Other than the advanced question, the city had no information that this was taking place. Mr. Melcher added they called the city and they gave us permission to lower the sign. They knew when we were going to do it. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the answer then to #8, if the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property would be no, and Mr. Gidley answered that is correct, based upon the certification of the engineer. That was staff's primary concern. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MuoVaaS OF MEETING: Nay 23, 1996 Page 13 Board Member ABBOTT wanted to know if in moving the billboards from the B1 to the B2 district leaves a hole in the B-1 zone that can be filled again by another sign, and Mr. Gidley replied that no other billboards can ever be relocated, the only thing that can happen to the billboard in the B-1 zone is to be removed. All of them have to be removed this year and staff will be in contact with all billboard companies officially to encourage them to voluntarily remove them over the next few months. Board Member ABBOTT asked then to hasten this process we were offering this incentive to move the billboards to the B-2 district and Mr. Gidley said that is correct. Board Member MAURO wanted to know how far down would the next jointed bolt on the billboard pole be, and Mr. Gidley said he could look at the plans or perhaps the applicant could answer that easier. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the sign was reduced in width and Mr. Gidley answered no. . Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned if staff would normally accept written comment of the engineering of this sign after it was constructed without an on-site inspection. Mr. Gidley commented the city engineer, building inspector and himself all sat down and discussed this matter. Normally no, to be honest, but after city engineers reviewed the concrete specification tickets and saw the type of concrete and the additives and also the total depth of the pole, there was a conclusion that even if the concrete was not the best because of the depth of the pole in the ground, it is deep enough that even bad concrete would hold this billboard under windloads. In other words, the sign is over- engineered for the amount that is sticking above ground. Board Member ECHELMEYER said the applicants came in for the permit 2 or 3 days prior to the expiration date of the 31st of December and did that automatically insure them the right to go into the B-2 zone. Mr. Gidley answered they had to make an administrative determination as it relates to that matter. There is a specific provision on the building permit that says it is good for 120 days. There has been a history of issues relating to this billboard at another location and at this location. There had been legal concerns relating to the relocation of this billboard. Staff made an administrative determination and in this case • tried to cooperate with the billboard company, providing the • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJI7STMENT Miav~iES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 14 issuance of the permit as long as they actually built it before the permit expired. It was issued prior to the date provided by law. No further questions were asked. Chris Melcher, attorney with Brownstein, Hyatt, Garber and Strickland, representing C & E Communications, who is the owner of the billboard, was sworn in. Mr. Melcher said he would like to address four issues in what he believes is causing some confusion. First the question of the billboard company coming in two days before the deadline and getting this application. This company has been here working with the city for 5-6 months or longer prior to that deadline working with Mr. Gidley to get a permit. Mr. Gidley granted the permit and then after talking with Mr. Dahl they decided on technical basis to revoke that permit. Mr. Melcher read the letter and entered into record as Applicant's Exhibit '19'. C & E Communications was ready to go quite a bit before that deadline and all of a sudden the permit was pulled. So they scrambled to get a new permit and that is why is came up so close to the deadline. • Mr. Melcher continued saying as Mr. Gidley pointed out the City of Wheat Ridge is divided into two zones: B1 and B2, and has adopted a policy to get the billboards out of B1 into B2 , out of more residential areas into the highway and industrial areas. C & E has found two billboards that were in B1, got those billboards (or one, another billboard was put up by another company) taken down and put up along I-70 and they were going pursuant to the City's preference. That is why the billboard has ended up where it is right now. The area is a commercial-industrial area and there is a frontage road that runs along front of it and another 100 feet or so past that is I-70. This is the area you are supposed to have billboards in the City of Wheat Ridge because it will cost the least amount of disturbance to neighbors and least amount of eyesore. The issue about safety is a surprise to Mr. Melcher because C & E took extensive measures to make sure this billboard is as safe as humanly possible. They had engineer studies done and he referred to the blueprint which gives engineer certification and approval for these types of billboards to be built up to a height of 75 feet or higher. Height above ground level (RAGE) here goes up to 100 feet, so these billboards can go up to 100 feet or more. There is nothing unusual about a billboard being 150' high. There are three billboards in the city over 50' in height right now and Mr. Gidley should be looking at their safety issues also. • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJ[TSTMENT Mlnuxr:S OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 15 Mr. Melcher entered into record, applicant's Exhibit 'S', from WA-96-i1, the engineer's certified letter. The engineer relied on the contractor who swore in a statement as to all the details of the construction. There is a hole dug down over 17 feet into the ground and the hole was filled with two full trucks worth of concrete, the billboard is built way above any required industry standards. Entered into record Applicant's Exhibit '29', which is a letter from Mr. Polk to Mr. Gidley and Mr. Eckert stating they agreed that the issue of the structural integrity would not be raised at the April 25, 1996 Board of Adjustment hearing, and that the city would make a statement that C & E had satisfied all requests with regard to the billboard's structural integrity. C & E would not need to present any witnesses or evidence regarding this issue at the hearing. In reliance on these statements, they have cancelled arrangements to present expert witnesses at the hearing on this issue. So they have representations from the City that they were completely satisfied with structural safety. They have simply stated they have satisfied all industry building codes that concerns were raised about. It was a surprise to him that he is raising that. Mr. Melcher wanted to address • that because it seemed to be a concern of the Board. Mr. Melcher entered into record powers of attorney labeled Exhibit '2' and '15'. Exhibit '15' is simply the power of attorney to file for this variance from Daniel Dearing and also stating he is in full support. The billboard was constructed in February of this year and constructed quickly because the billboard is located on a commercial property, an auto body shop, and the owner did not want cranes and workmen on his property during working hours obstructing business. The billboard was put up completely following industry guidelines but without wasting time. When they constructed the billboard it was intended to be 50 feet, and it ended up at 53 feet, and the reason is when they looked at the property, they realized the only location of this billboard was at the far western edge. If they put it up on the western edge and lowered it 32 feet, it would block the Volant factory and perhaps the High Country Auto Body sign. C & E communications thought it would be in everyone's interest if the sign were higher and did not obstruct the Volant sign or factory. They knew Volant had come to I-70 for the purpose of a lot of visibility. The property owner, Dan Dearing, had no objection and was happier to see the sign higher because it • caused less interference with his property. Mr. Melcher showed slides. When the sign was at that height, traffic going east & west could see both the billboard and the • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJITSTMENT MINOTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 16 Volant factory and sign very clearly. After they built the sign the city notified them that the sign was too high and objected. Volant objected to that height also and C & E was surprised as they believed Volant would be happier with the additional height. They were also surprised that the city objected because there are also 3-4 other billboards in the city over the 32' height. The city then put in a stop work order so C & E filed for a variance. The week staff was preparing the staff report, we told them we had a survey and with certifications from the engineer and told them full well what the certifications would say about the safety of the sign. We met with Mr. Dahl, Mr. Eckert and Mr. Gidley in March and wanted to know what to do to satisfy that the sign is safe. They said to have the engineers sign a certified sworn statement that the sign is safe, and they would that. They were surprised that the staff report came out with the answers it did on #8 and #9. Mr. Gidley has now withdrawn that as there is no concern about the safety. They realized then that people were very concerned about the height and not looking favorably upon the sign so we thought they should work out some sort of solution where everyone could win. That is why they went forward with the setback hearing but asked for a postponement of the height variance. We were wanting to work out a solution and see if there was some middle ground to satisfy the city, neighbors, and other property owners. . They spent a great deal of time talking to the two property owners that objected the strongest, Medved and Volant. They understood from them that they would like some middle ground on the height, so that is what they did and that middle ground is 41 feet. There still is some visual clutter but much less that it would otherwise be. The reasons for that is Volant will still get their visibility they want and it will be more in conformance with the neighborhood. Since there was a stop work order, they asked the city for permission to lower the sign and went out and lowered it. The sign was lifted off of the pole and the pole was taken down and cut of a 12-13' section in the middle. The pole was then welded and the sign placed back on top. That was done and they talked to both Medved and Volant, and it satisfied the majority of their concerns about this billboard. They believed, based on their good faith, by voluntarily going out and lowering that sign, trying to work out some middle solution, that Volant and Medved could support their application. • WSEAT RIDGB BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Melcher read and entered into record Applicant Exhibits '16' and '17', letters from Volant and Medved stating their support of the setback and of the height variance to 41 feet. Mr. Melcher entered into record Applicants Exhibit '18', a letter from Joe Asmuth, a professional surveyor who certified the heights of a number of signs. He also displayed photos on a poster board showing the same billboards all being higher than 32 feet. Entered into record, Applicant's Exhibit '5', the actual application for a building permit submitted by U.S. Outdoor Systems for the billboard at 12351 W. 44th Avenue. This shows that the billboard intended to be 50 feet high, and was approved by John Eckert. When they were told the billboard was too high, U.S. Outdoor Systems applied for a variance for 60 feet and was denied by the board. They came back a few months later and asked the Board for a variance of 41 feet. The Board heard testimony and decided to grant the variance at 41 feet, despite staff's objections. C & E Communications would like the same granted. Mr. Melcher went through the nine criteria. The billboard at 32 feet high will harm the neighbors and billboard. It will make it very hard to make a reasonable return in income unless the billboard is granted at 41 feet. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances because the only place this billboard can be located is at the far western edge of the property, next to the Volant property. If the billboard is forced to be lowered, it will hurt Volant and Dearing properties. The billboard will not alter the essential character of the locality. Mr. Melcher entered into record, Exhibits '12', '13', and '14' and Case Nos. WA-96-13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. A couple other billboard companies have submitted applications for variances along this road. He feels these are sham applications, there are four billboards along that road and they are all grandfathered billboards. If they came in and tried to replace those billboards, Colorado Department of Transportation would not authorize their permits because they no longer comply with the state code. They are in here to frighten the board and to suggest to the board that if they open this up they will have a number of other variance applications. • Gerald Dahl questioned a procedure stating the offered exhibits; the new files have not yet been heard by this • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Miav~iES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 18 board and yet they are being entered into record. They have not been published or posted and they may well be if they move forward. The applicants in those cases have the absolute right and expectation that their case will be heard on the merits by this board at the time after published and posted. He believes it is inappropriate and unacceptable for those files to be introduced into the record. These are files and cases that haven't yet been heard by this board and shouldn't be heard by this board in any way including submission of exhibits to this case. Mr. Melcher said he would agree with Mr. Dahl 100 percent, it was really unacceptable and inexcusable for that to be raised, and that is why he objected to Mr. Gidley raising it in the staff report. Mr. Dahl added those billboard owners go un-named.......Mr. Melcher said please let him finish. Mr. Dahl said what Mr. Melcher suggesting is they be named in this proceeding. Mr. Melcher said he is not suggesting anything. Chairman WALKER said they do not want to set a precedent and if they • start naming names then they are getting-into another facet of the case, and noted to not accept those names at this time. Mr. Melcher said he would withdraw the request to enter those case files into the record, he simply asked that the board ignore Mr. Gidley's rasing this issue and putting it in front of you. He did not raise this, Mr. Gidley did, and he is forced to respond. It is inappropriate, and it is frankly an effort by other businesses to harm us. Mr. Dahl added they are even since Mr. Gidley mentioned un- named people who may make applications, and Mr. Melcher mentioned a number of cases by number but has agreed not to introduce them into the record. He has gotten the benefit of the countervailing argument that there are other cases out there. Leave it at that and not introduce names and other cases that have not been filed as evidence in this case. Mr. Melcher objected saying he will not enter them into the record but will state it should have never been put on record but he was forced to respond. Mr. Melcher continued saying this hardship and difficulty is • because of the location of the factory next door and the other signs. They would suggest there would be no hardship if the variance were granted. Prior statements regarding • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MiavurES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 19 the safety of the sign have been withdrawn and trust that is now the staff report with no safety issues, no detriment to the public welfare, no impairment of adequate supply of light and air. With all due respect the board has ample evidence to decide with these unique circumstances that there is good reason to grant this variance. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked when was the sign lowered, and Mr. Melcher replied it was lowered May 18th. • Board Member ECHELMEYER commented that the applicant waited till the 23rd to prepare letters to Mr. Gidley and everybody else concerning the lowering of the sign. What did Mr. Melcher mean when he said they represent Medved Autoplex and Mr. Melcher said there was a mistake, that letter to Mr. Gidley was from Mr. Polk, Mr. Medved's attorney. Volant wrote their own letter to Mr. Gidley also. Mr. Melcher had nothing to do with the letter being prepared as late as it was, they have been trying to work this out for the last 3 weeks. They have made efforts the day after the last hearing to contact Mr. Polk and the other property owners, and it has taken us this long to get something worked out. Board Member ECHELMEYER commented in reality the applicant struck a deal with two firms up the street, they did not consult Mr. Gidley or anyone else in the city's administration as to what height their other two compatriots agreed to, so how can he possibly justify that kind of action. Mr. Melcher answered Mr. Medved and Mr. Kashiwa would be upset to think that they are my compatriots. They are independent businessmen who have had long established ties in this community and employ a number of individuals, pay property taxes--he has no control over them. Board Member ECHELMEYER added that the applicant agreed to 41 foot because they agreed to a 41 foot and did not come back to the city and ask would we agree to a 41 foot. Mr. Melcher said they informed Mr. Gidley that they were trying to work out a solution for all property owners on that road and Mr. Gidley said he has no authority to suggest any height other than 32 feet which is the code. He said to do what we think is best and so we talked to everyone that had an interest and did the best they could. • Board Member ABBOTT said there is a benefit side to the lessee and the owner of the sign and possibly to the neighboring businesses and they have to look at. What is the benefit to the over-height sign to the people in general that the sign code was written for. Mr. Melcher said the • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT Miar~ia5 OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 20 City of Wheat Ridge prefers these signs to be located along I-70 corridor, if there are going to be signs, let's move them closer to a highway and an industrial area so there is very little harm to the residents out in the outlying areas in the City of Wheat Ridge. With the over-height all businesses will benefit by increased sales, employ more people, pay more taxes, provide better benefits to the city which they live (they have been here as corporate citizens}. This will improve the economy of Wheat Ridge. Lowering the sign will harm all of these businesses for no real important reasons that isn't already satisfied by moving this billboard out to I-70 and the B-2 district. Chairman WALKER asked if Dennis Polk was in the audience, and Mr. Melcher said no, Dennis Polk and Chaffee both requested for him to sign their name to speak in the event they were able to make it, they would be listed there to speak, but they are not here tonight. Mr. Gidley stated that Mr. Chaffee did call him at approximately 5:00 p.m. and indicated he was faxing the letter you received and that behalf of the law firm he • represents were in favor of the variances and they have withdrawn their opposition. Mr. Melcher said both Mr. Polk and Mr. Chaffee had prior commitments. Board Member SANG asked when was the original permit first taken out, and Mr. Melcher answered he does not have that exact date because that was before he was involved. The permit was revoked September 13, 1996. Mr. Gidley said the original permit was pulled on February 1, 1995. Board Member SANG said if the permit was taken out February 1st and revoked on September 9th, it was already past the 120 days that the permit is good for. Mr. Gidley answered yes, that is one of the reasons it was revoked because it was past the 120 days; one of the reasons, there were several. Board Member SANG said the signs they were shown were not in compliance, are those signs in non-compliance. Mr. Gidley answered to his knowledge three of the billboards have variances, and he is not sure about the other two as they predate his employment here or at least his memory. Board Member SANG stated some of those could then be grandfathered under the old sign code and Mr. Gidley said it is possible that they predate the 1976 Sign Code. Mr. Melcher said four of those billboards were erected well after 1976, so none of • them are grandfathered. Mr. Gidley said he will not argue WSBAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJtTSTMENT • Miiv~~ES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 21 because he does not know any better and is not for sure if Mr. Melcher knows any better. Mr. Gidley pointed out that the elevation of the interstate is different than the elevation of the base of all these billboards. There were variances for at least three of these with unique circumstances, each location is different and each location is valuated based upon its own conditions. Relative to this billboard, the topography is different than the topography that relates to the five billboards. Mr. Melcher added in the staff report for one of the billboards, it states there is no unique circumstances or physical surroundings. He believes these are correct decision because there are good reasons for these to be over-height, they are near highways, they are not in residential neighborhoods. The C & E Communications billboard also has good reasons why it should be over-height. • • Board Member ABBOTT said there is no question in his mind that the others have to do with visibility down the highway, but he is orbiting around a totally different argument and that has to do with the visible impairment of one business sign versus another business sign. Clearly the Volant sign tends to blend in to the billboard. The argument to that is that this is just the competition for signage and if there is blockage that is just the way it is because in theory they are all limited to the height restriction. Mr. Gidley said generally yes, that is a general principal in sign regulations. Tn this instance, Mr. Gidley is not convinced the competition exists, at Least to the extent the applicant would like to believe. Mr. Gidley presented the slides one more time. Board Member ABBOTT said it is a kind of a question of angles, and Mr. Gidley said one would have to get behind this sign to block the Volant sign (from Miller to the north). Any angle when you are on I-70 or the frontage road would not be blocking the Volant or the autobody sign; it is physically impossible unless you are further north. Mr. Melcher feels that depending on the angle and what direction being traveled, the signs compete for each other and do block each other. When you have two signs competing with each other, they wash, and a person gets confused because they only see the sign for a few seconds and it is such a muddle that neither sign gets any benefit, they both lose. That is why Mr. Kashiwa and everyone else is very much in favor of this variance. If you are standing in the parking lot there is no blockage, but the customers ,are on I-70 driving 55 mph. • WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MiivuraS OF MBETING: May 23, 1996 Page 22 Chairman WALKER commented this is a passing montage you are seeing when you're traveling down the highway 55 mph, if anyone can get a view of it for any moment, you have accomplished your purpose for getting your advertising out. Mr. Melcher said he has to respond to this to supplement the record because there seems to be now an issue. He added the highway department does studies on these things and a highway sign has to be read for 2-3 seconds at highway speeds for there to be any recognition of what's on the sign. If one is traveling east on I-70, the Volant sign will travel across that sign for a great portion of that visibility, and that is where the problem is. Any time the people look at that all they see is a montage or muddle. They don't read either sign. This is why Mr. Kashiwa and C and E Communications is so concerned about it. Studies have been done by the advertising industry to talk about that. You can get a quick view for a 10th of a second, but then you start to get the mix and the wash, and both signs are harmed. I could stand on I-70 and take a picture every 10 feet to show how that phenomenon occurs, and you could see a picture where there is no blockage, but the majority of the • viewing time there is a blockage. Chairman WALKER if we alI know the overall limit is 32 feet and you place a 32' sign behind another 32' sign it looks like it was a bad selection of a sign location and this is the new sign on the block, and in violation of the City's code. Mr. Melcher said they are trying to work out a solution, but is not for sure why that same argument does not apply to the other signs. These have already had variances granted, and I submit that this is a valid purpose for the City of Wheat Ridge, and a good business purpose. Mr. Melcher said he would ask that Mr. Chester Trubucco who is an investor and a director of C and E Communications, be allowed to briefly address the board. Board Member ECHELMEYER said the survey report indicates it was established at 'arbitrary points', it didn't say on the highway, so the surveyor actually could have used any number of points at which he made his angled measurements to determine the true height of these signs, and Mr. Melcher said that is a term of art and does not mean it is any less certain than any other survey method. The reason he said arbitrary points is because there is no identified spot on the highway or ground that says you should stand here to measure the signs. It is the exact same method the City • used when measuring sign. • WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMfiNT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 23 Mr. Chester Trubucco said he was a outside pseudo-passive investor until 1994 and now he is the sole investor in C & E Communications. Mr. Trubucco said he comes from a small town and this is clearly new grounds for him. His creed has always been 'ask first for permission' instead of forgiveness. it wretches him to have to ask for forgiveness and no one is arguing the fact that they applied for a permit suggesting 32 feet. He is hearing this himself for the first time in the last 30 days. He said he invites anyone to call and verify his reputation; always asking first when working with property owners. This is not the way he prefers to address this group, he would prefer to use all of the same arguments that Mr. Melcher presented, in a form of asking permission. Mr. Trubucco really feels strongly that it will harm them to lower the sign to 32 feet and Mr. Kashiwa would be looking almost directly into the sign from the corner of his office. The best thing to do is to move toward compliance, not to continue to fight and that is the direction he gave Mr. Melcher. They brought it down to 41 feet as it seems to make the most sense and thought it was a positive move and not negative. They certainly do not want to raise more red flags by lowering it. They wanted to • act in the spirit of fair plan and the spirit of compliance to do so. He submits that it somewhat blends in with the community rather nicely, again he believes if they were asking for permission instead of forgiveness we would be looking at it a little differently. He has taken over the business operations for C & E Communications as its full investor and will be reviewing all future permits, all engineering reports, etc., to make sure we are in. compliance. They want to be a good community neighbor and why he is personally involved with discussion with the property owners. He represents himself as a small business owner, this is one of two signs they have. Clearly, Mr. Carlisle took some liberties, for the right reasons, but did not go about it the right way. The approach and the process was dead wrong and it will not happen again. Mr. Trubucco thanked the board for their time, and stated they believe the right action is leaving the billboard at 41 feet. Board Member HOVLAND said he agrees the thing has been approached all wrong from the very begi^^~~g. There was a change made over the weekend to lower the sign height, too late for any of the members to know, we could have driven by there and made our own decision whether this is better at 41 feet, but it came too late. Once again, it is this whole procedure trying to pull the rug out from underneath the . City. • WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 24 Mr. Trubucco responded saying he has been involved for the last 3d days and has been trying to do everything possible that is the right thing to do, again he don't understand the protocol in terms of how the proceedings work here. He assumed that lowering the sign to 41 feet would be the spirit of moving in the .right direction. They could not get the contractors out here from Phoenix until this point in time or actually the Board would have had ample time to look at it. Their intent was to get it lowered as soon as possible. Mr. Trubucco has been unable to address any of the issues until the last 30 days and now he plans to be very actively involved in a solution. They thought they were going about this the right way and clearly by lowering it as soon as possible, and getting to a middle ground with the other property owners. They did not get an opportunity to show the board and that is why they brought all of the pictures tonight. He cannot speak for what the intent was prior to his involvement, but the last 30 days has been to work something out. No further questions were asked of Mr. Trubucco. • Mr. Dahl spoke again regarding the issue of lowering the billboard to 41 feet. He feels the picture of how that evolved has been an accurate one portrayed, but there should be absolutely no implication that any kind of entitlement or permission, formal or informal, came from the city. He does not want it to sound like a subtle 'they worked with the city on this thing' implication. Mr. Melcher has not stated such but it was their idea and they did it for whatever strategic reason they wished to. He added the permit was pulled in February 1995 and it was revoked in September 1995, but there should not be an implication that there was some kind of entitlement arising from that. There were significant reasons why that permit was revoked, the least of which because it was not used in the time required. One reason is because they did not own the billboard that they were to relocate. Lastly, they did not have permission from the landowner, Mr. Dearing, at that time to locate the billboard on that site. The city was getting phone calls and letters from Mr. Dearing stating they did not have the right to located on his site. They have since then worked that out, and they do have the legal right to put the billboard on that site. The issue is there shouldn't be an implication that the city held them up on this earlier permit. The permit got revoked at that time • because they did not satisfy the requirements to be able to re-locate and they ran out of time. • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MiaruiaS OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 25 Mr. Dahl continued saying in respect to the engineering safety issue, Mr. Gidley had to mention it because it was in the written staff report in front of the board, nothing more needs to be said on that. Pretty significantly, there are five other billboards floating around town and all vary around 50 feet, those were good decisions and the .Board should make that decision here too. Under the code there is criteria that has to be met with this property and the board's whole job here is looking at specific pieces of property. Every single one comes in with a different set of facts; you say yes to some and no to others. The reasons the board make decisions on them individually is whether or not the applicant in each case satisfies the requirements under the code, not whether the applicant last time satisfied the code, and if that was true the board would only have to do one of these, they can grant other setbacks because it is pretty much the same as the last one. The point Mr. Dahl is making is Mr. Melcher has a right to make that case, but the test of the board's decision will be what was the evidence in this case and did the applicant satisfy the requirements of the code in this case. • Mr. Dahl said with respect to the exhibits C-1 given, one thing not mentioned at all tonight was the reason why the sign got built 52 feet to begin with. The story as written was there was other code provisions (PID, Industrial, Free- standing) that all had different and higher numbers and they weren't sure what the real limitation was and so they kind of guessed and put it in the best place they thought where everyone would like it. Mr. Gidley nailed down Chapter 26, Article IV; 32 feet--and that is what applies here. Exhibits C-2 and C-3 which are both permits which on the document says 32 feet, and that bears upon the applicant saying they weren't sure. Exhibits C-6 through C-l0A has to deal with the argument that this is not really a billboard, it is a sign. If it is a sign then the 32' does not apply. The reasons for all of these exhibits is because they are mostly letters from the engineers and consultants hired by the applicant. All of the letters say with respect to the 'billboard', and the point is all of the applicant's experts call this a billboard. So if it is a billboard that means the 32' requirement applies. If there had been any realistic question as to what the real height requirement was, instead of spending the thousands that were spent building it to 52 feet, someone should have dropped a quarter and given Mr. Gidley a call and said they were not quite sure which section applies, and that didn't take • place. The billboard was intentionally constructed for the. reasons Mr. Melcher stated, but apparently they now feel 41. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MilvuiL$ OF MEETING: May 23, 1996 Page 26 feet is the best. If the city is in the business of having applicants come to us and telling us where they built it and then they lowered it, we should feel grateful to that and say yes then we do not have much more work to here at the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Dahl did appreciate the present owner saying he feels uncomfortable, but he did buy into a situation that was existing. At the time this permit was pulled, they could have run all the same fancy projections at a whole lot less cost to determine whether a 32 foot compliance billboard in that location would have interfered with other signs and whether they needed a variance and then next file an application that they wanted to build a billboard at 41 feet. That option was very available to them. On behalf of the city Mr. Dahl asked for denial of this application for at least failure to comply to requirements 1,2,4,5,6, and 7 of the code. Chris Melcher responded saying he would like to designate the case files for the following cases in their record. That would be 93-2, 91-29, 88-26, 87-6, 87-2, 84-37, 83-34, and 82-8, and would like to designate in the record the remainder of their exhibits here which he can give the court • reporter afterward. The first thing is they should not be here asking forgiveness but come here asking permission. That is the way it should have been done and never dispute that is the way he and Mr. Trubucco wishes it had been done. This is not a situation we want to be in, but fortunately they are here now and trying to figure out the best solution. The best solution for all property owners and the City of Wheat Ridge is to try and find an accommodation that benefits all property owners, and he submitted respectfully that accommodation is at 41 feet in height. Mr. Melcher said Mr. Gidley is right that you make the decision on individual bases and case, however, no case in which you have granted a variance has satisfied all nine of those criteria, especially the self-imposed hardship. They are here because they did not do enough homework and did not come and ask permission first, even if they do not satisfy all criteria, this is a good situation for the board to make an exception to grant the variance application. They did put in our statement that the applicant understood the City of Wheat Ridge wanted that billboard at 32 feet. It was after seeing other properties, the applicant thought it would be to everyone's benefit to make it higher. They are not claiming it was unclear, but simply stating there is a number of different regulations for heights. It is a situation that merits a win-win situation, and he requests- . that the board grant that application. No further questions were asked. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: blay 23, 1996 page 27 Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, that Case No. WA-96- 12, an application by C and E Communications, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. Conceptually, if not literally verbatim, and in recognition of the applicant's objections, the Board finds itself in agreement with the interpretation of the City staff whose language specifically modified in Items 6, 8, and 9 as presented related to the criteria. 2. In recognition of the applicant's arguments related to visual blocking and merging of the various sign images proximal to this site were reasonable. They would not appear to be a situation adequately unique as to vary the intent and purpose of the ordinance. 3. It is not the intent of the Board in any way to punish the applicant for the history of this application by denying this application or ignore possible harm to adjacent signage, but to interpret the intent and purpose of the ordinance to the benefit of the general public. Motion was seconded by Board Member SANG. Motion for denial • carries 7-0. Resolution attached. Mr. Chris Melcher said at this time they would like to withdraw their setback application-for Case No. WA-96-i1, as no survey has yet been located and to endeavor to find more information and re-submit. 4. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 5. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes Motion was made by Board Member SANG, seconded by Board Member HOVLAND, that the April 25, 1996 minutes be approved. Motion carried 5-0 with Board Members JUNKER and MAURO abstaining. 7. ADJOIIRNMENT Consensus was to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:33 p.m. Mary Lod hapla, Sec etary • B O A R D O F A D J U S T M.E N T PUBLIC FORUM ROSTER • - May 23, 1996 - THIS IS THE TIME FOR ANYONE TO SPEAK ON ANY SUBJECT NOT APPEARING UNDER ITEM 3 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF THE AGENDA. Name and Address Please Print •