Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/2006 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTO R J GJ NAl Minutes of Meeting April 27, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Bell at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Davis Reinhart Members Absent: Paul Drda Staff Present: Travis Crane, Planner JeffHirt, Planner Jerry Dal1l, City Attorney Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of April 27, 2006. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There were no individuals present who wished to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WF-06-02: An application filed by Patrick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street. JeffHirt advised the Board that the application contained insufficient information to hear the case at this time. Therefore, the applicant requested a continuance to the meeting of May 25, 2006. Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 - 1 - It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member REINHART to continue Case No. WF-06-02 to the meeting of May 25, 2006. The motion passed 7-0. B. Case No. W A-06-04: An application filed by Robin Hotineister for approval ofa 15-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 15-foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential Two and located at 7105 West 29th Place. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He presented a petition containing signatures of the applicant's neighbors indicating their support for the variance. The petition was submitted by the applicant prior to the meeting. Mr. Hirt reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial ofthe variance request for reasons outlined in the staff report. All individuals who planned to speak during this hearing stood and were sworn in by Chair BELL. Robin Hofmeister 7105 West 29th Place He stated that he previously remodeled the attached garage into living space and now wishes to build a detached garage. The proposed location for this garage is the only place that will work because he wants to save a mature plum tree and does not wish to take up the major portion of the back yard with the garage. Further, the proposed placement would be in the best interest of the neighbors as far as appearance is concerned. He plans to build a tandem garage that would hold three of his four vehicles. Due to traffic and vandalism problems, he does not wish to park on the street. He stated that he didn't realize until today that there is a restriction for driveway lengths and he would therefore be willing to move the garage back 3 feet to create an 18-foot driveway. This would reduce the request for a 15-foot variance to 12 feet. Catherine Dunlap 7160 West 30th Avenue Ms. Dunlap stated her opposition to the variance because she felt it would have a negative effect on the neighborhood in that it would be larger than other garages in the area that were given variances. Ruby Hankel 7135 West 29th Place Ms. Hankel spoke in favor ofthe application and stated that she has resided in Wheat Ridge for 56 years in the location next door to the applicant. She stated that the Hotineister's were good neighbors and have done an excellent job in Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 - 2- improving their house. She was confident that the garage would be done in the same excellent manner. She commented that it would be safer to have three vehicles in a garage rather than on the street. Besides, parking vehicles on the street is a hindrance and makes the neighborhood look less desirable. There were no other individuals who wished to address this matter. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Hofineister returned to the podium to state that he plans to remove the existing fence. Board Member REINHART asked for clarification regarding a request to change the variance during the hearing. Travis Crane explained ,that the request may be allowed as long as it is less of a variance than was published. Ifthe requested change were for a variance greater than that published, a new hearing would be necessary. Board Member REINHART asked if staffs position would change if the variance were decreased to 12 feet. JeffHirt replied that similar variances granted in the neighborhood had been recommended for denial by staff. Board Member HOVLAND commented that, due to configuration of the street, the other variances in the neighborhood gave an appearance of 24 feet even though they were 18 feet. He preferred to see 20 feet with an absolute minimum of18 feet. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member REINHART, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-04 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that a protest was registered against it and in recognition of a petition in favor submitted by the applicant; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose ofthe regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. W A-06-04 be, and hereby is denied. Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 - 3 - For the following reasons: 1. The property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be used as a single-family residence without a need for variance. 2. The applicant has created the hardship by requesting a garage of this size and in this location. The perceived hardship simply does not rise to the level significant enough to allow the Board to approve the requested variance. 3. The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part ofthe applicant. 4. There are alternatives to construct a garage and meet the R-2 development standards, or lessen the degree of the variance requested. The motion for denial passed 5-2 with Board Member BELL and LINKER voting no. Chair BELL advised the applicant that his request for variance was denied. C. Case No. W A-06-0S: An application filed by Copper Fields Land Holdings, LLC, for approval of a variance to the maximum allowable height for billboards under Section 26- 711 for property zoned Commercial One and Industrial and located at 4901 Marshall Street. Board Member ABBOTT disclosed that he was acquainted with the applicant and his attorney through a business club relationship and that he had no financial or personal interest in the case before the Board. This case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of the variance for reasons outlined in the staffreport. Board Member HOWARD asked how many billboards in Wheat Ridge were 50 feet or more in height. Travis Crane replied that it is difficult to fairly ascertain height for all those billboards because so many are old. Three variances have been granted in the past 10 years to billboard height due to large grade change between highway and billboard. Three were denied in the past 20 years. Board Member BELL asked if the city has a period oftime when a nonconforming use expires. Mr. Crane explained that the use may continue indefinitely unless that use is eliminated. To be replaced, it must then conform or Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 - 4- have a variance. The original billboard was 50 feet in height but no record of variance or building permit could be found in city files. ill response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Crane stated that the trees in question were in CDOT right-of-way and that at a billboard height of 32 feet, only 8 feet would be visible from the highway. At this time, all individuals who wished to address this case stood and were sworn in by Chair BELL. Tom Ripp Boatright, Ripp and Sharp Mr. Ripp, attorney for the applicant, stated that a variance is being requested on the basis of hardship. He submitted into the record copies ofthe posting certification, correspondence in favor of the variance from the property owner to the east, and a certificate of resolution dated October 10, 1996 which granted a height variance to another applicant. He also presented copies of photographs showing different views of the billboard. He commented that the billboard is located near Clear Creek in a nonresidential area and has been in place for at least 20 years. Worthy Cummings 4901 Marshall Street Mr. Cunm1ings, the applicant, stated he was available to answer questions. ill response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Cummings explained that the billboard would be leased to various advertisers. The sign would be exactly the same size as the existing sign that has been in this location for over 20 years. ill response to a question from Board Member BELL, Travis Crane explained that this billboard could have continued at 50 feet in height ifthere were no change in lease or ownership. Dan Scherer 4647 Leyden Street, Denver Mr. Scherer, general manager of CBS Outdoor, spoke in opposition to the variance. CBS Outdoor was the prior lessee of this billboard. The board directly to the north ofthe subject billboard is operated by CBS and is 32 feet in height. His company currently manages 8 billboards in Wheat Ridge and none are above 32 feet. CBS was the lessee on the subject property prior to December and offered to extend that lease with Copper Fields, at 32 or 50 feet in height, but they chose to go with United, a competitor of CBS. He stated that CBS would love to have all their billboards in Wheat Ridge at 50 feet. He further stated that CBS is in the process of compiling applications to the Board of Adjustment to increase the present height of all of their billboards to 50 feet. Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 ~ 5 - Harry Sach 11808 W. 44th & 12505 West 44th Mr. Sach stated that he has a CBS billboard on his property as well as one next to Medved. They are both 32 feet in height. He stated that he would also like to have 50-foot signs that would be more visible from the highway. Alan Weiss 9745 E. Hampden, #200, Denver Mr. Weiss is Executive Vice President of Mile High Outdoor Advertising which has 3 billboards in Wheat Ridge, all of which are 32 feet in height. He stated opposition to the variance request. He stated that his company's request for a similar variance in 1997 for a 50-foot billboard on the south line of76 west of Sheridan was denied. His billboard cannot be seen by eastbound traffic and his company has suffered hardships ever since the variance was denied. He submitted copies of the minutes from the Board meeting where his request for variance was denied. Richard Holme 1550 17th Street, Denver Mr. Holme, attorney for CBS Outdoor, Mile High Outdoor and Lamar Advertising Companies since 1972, stated that, in all this time, he had never heard of a Board allowing a billboard to be erected so it could be seen over trees intentionally planted by anyone. He clarified that the subject billboard was built prior to 1970 without a variance and is therefore a nonconforming grandfathered use. He addressed several criteria in Section 26-115 of the city code to be considered by the Board when considering variances and stated the following: . The property could continue to operate without a variance. . It would probably not alter the character ofthe locality. . .A number of Wheat Ridge billboards are blocked because of the 35 foot height limit. Therefore, this case does not present a unique hardship. . If this variance were to be granted, the Board would be hard pressed to deny a variance of 50 feet for other billboards that have similar blockage problems and it would therefore have a detrimental effect on the public welfare. He asked the Board to deny the variance request and commented that the property owner would not be hurt but the billboard advertiser could be hurt. Worthy Cummings returned to the podium. He stated that they wanted to change companies which necessitated removal ofthe existing billboard and building a new one in its place. He requested that they be allowed to replace the old billboard with one ofthe same size. Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 - 6 - There were no other individuals desiring to speak at this time. Chair BELL closed the public testimony. Jerry Dal1l addressed that argument that granting of a variance in this case would result in setting a precedent for other cases. He stated that the Board of Adjustment deals with site-specific cases and cannot be in a position to decide this case based on what other cases might occur. This case needs to be decided on its own merits and provisions in the code. Board Member REINHART commented that an unusual grade differential exists that is worthy of consideration in determining whether or not there is a hardship. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the primary intent ofthe 32-foot height limitation on billboards was to keep them from being obtrusive to the surrounding population and especially residential districts. Since there have been no complaints about this billboard since 1970, it appears the public does not perceive this location to be obtrusive. Otherwise, the city would have received complaints. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Jerry Dal11 stated that the city does not have an amortization program for billboards of any height other than in the B-1 District. Board Member BELL expressed her struggle with a decision in this case. She stated that she understood CDOT planted trees with the desire to improve the driving experience and in this case the billboard would be visible for only 8 feet above those trees. She expressed concern about distractions for drivers traveling at a high rate of speed along the highway. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-0S is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the ftfteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were protests registered against it, in particular by CBS Outdoor and Mile High Outdoor; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 - 7- Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. W A-06-0S be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The hardship is topographical and is created by a severe grade change which would render a conforming billboard substantially invisible. From the perspective of the highway, the billboard at 50 feet will not appear as over-height. 2. The hardship has not been created by a person having interest in property. 3. Granting the variance would not change or alter the character ofthe neighborhood. 4. As a mitigating circumstance, there is no residential zoned property within the direct line of sight for several hundred feet in all directions. S. A letter of approval of the variance was submitted by an adjacent property owner. 6. Three other billboards exist with height variances with similar reasons occurring. 7. A 50-foot billboard has occurred historically on this site with no complaints registered with the city. 8. Staff recommended approval. With the following conditions: 1. The face of the billboard must be oriented perpendicular to Interstate 70. Motion passed 7-0. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing and announced a break at 9:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 p.m. (Board Member REINHART left the meeting at 9:45 p.m.) 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Board of Adjustment Bylaws At the March Board of Adjustment meeting, the Board reviewed staffs recommended changes to the bylaws. The Board reviewed and discussed the bylaws which included modifications made at the March meeting. It will be necessary to gain City Council approval of the changes before they are implemented. Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 - 8- It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to recommend approval ofthe Board of Adjustment bylaws as submitted. The motion passed 6-0. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - February 23, 2006 and March 23, 2006 It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of February 23, 2006 and March 23, 2006 as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 9. OLD BUSINESS . Board Member BELL suggested making an audio tape of Board of Adjustment training sessions that could be used by future members and alternates. 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ~ net Bell, Cliair ,~ Board of Adjustment 4-27-06 - 9-