Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/16I City of WheatPdge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA August 25, 2016 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on August 25, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM (TMs is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA -16-13: An application filed by OUTFRONT Media for approval of an 18 -foot (56%) variance to the maximum height of 32 -feet for a billboard resulting in a 50 -foot tall billboard on property in the B-2 zone district located at 8105 W 48' Avenue. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS S. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - July 28, 2016 9. ADJOURNMENT Individuals with disahilities are encouraged to participate in all puhlie meetings sponsored by the City of WheatRidge. Call Carly Lorentz, Assistant to the City Manager, at 303-235-2867 at least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in partieipating and need inclusion assistance. City of ,9�Wheat idge TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: August 25, 2016 Zack Wallace WA -16-13 / OUTFRONT Media The applicant is requesting approval of an 18 -foot (56%) variance to the maximum height of 32 -feet for a billboard resulting in a 50 -foot tall billboard on property in the B-2 billboard district located at 8105 West 48" Avenue. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8105 W. 48th Avenue APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: OUTFRONT Media Wheatridge Industrial Park, LLC 43,386 square feet (0.99 acres) Planned Industrial Development (PID) / B-2 Billboard District Office Warehouse / Billboard ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Loc Site (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -1 6-13/ 0 UTPRONT Media Billboard Location All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant, OUTFRONT Media, is requesting approval of a variance from the maximum billboard height in order to raise the height of the existing billboard to 50 feet. This is a 56% variance from the maximum billboard height of 32 feet. The existing billboard currently measures 32 feet in height and is located on the west end of the existing structure on the 8105 W. 48th Avenue property rxhibit 1, Aerial). The property is zoned Planned Industrial Development (PID) and is located within the B-2 billboard district, which allows billboards (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Because this application includes a variance request that exceeds 50% of the development standard, the application is not eligible for administrative approval and is required to be heard at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to raise an existing 32 -foot tall billboard to a height of 50 feet (Exhibit 3, Simulation). Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code allows billboards to have amaximum height of 32 feet. Therefore a height variance of 18 feet (56%) is being requested. The purpose of the height variance is to increase visibility from Interstate 70 (I-70). The current billboard is double sided, targeting both eastbound and westbound vehicles on I-70. The applicant has stated the billboard is "nearly invisible" from eastbound traffic. This is said to be due to the lower grade of the land the billboard sits on, compared to I-70, coupled with the existing sound wall along I- 70. In Staffs opinion, based on afield visit, the sign is adequately visible from the main travel lanes of I-70. Staff does agree that the sign is not 100% visible from the Wadsworth Boulevard exit, but it remains largely visible, and certainly not invisible, even to those drivers exiting I-70 (Exhibit 4, Site Photos). Staff recognizes that the City of Wheat Ridge has a more restrictive maximum height for billboards than many Denver Metro cities. In the past City policymakers have made conscious policy decisions to maintain the 32 -foot maximum billboard height. As recently as August 1, 2016 Staff presented City Council with a memo addressing many aspects of billboards, including height. Staff outlined the maximum height in neighboring cities, in acknowledgement that the City of Wheat Ridge is more restrictive. City Council declined to address or entertain changing any development standards for billboards at that time. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 5, Criteric Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -16-13 / 0 UTPRONT Media 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to function as a light -industrial property. The existing billboard remains visible from the main travel lanes, and mostly visible from the Wadsworth Boulevard off -ramp lanes, and as such will continue to yield a reasonable return in use under the City's existing billboard maximum height allowance. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. There have been no billboards in the adjacent area which have received variances. The City's zoning code does allow business/commercial signage up to 50 feet in height near the highway; however these signs are limited to on-site businesses, and are limited in size based on the size of the structure for which they are providing signage. Staff finds a 50 -foot tall billboard (which is allowed a maximum of 750 square feet in size, by right) to be excessive and out of character with the locality, especially considering it will dwarf the signage of local businesses along the corridor with a large off -premises billboard advertisement. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. A billboard currently exists on the property at the maximum allowed height of 32 feet. Raising the billboard to a higher height will give the billboard more visibility. However, Staff viewed the billboard from various travel lanes along I-70 and has determined that the billboard is visible at its current height. Staff finds this criterion has not been met 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Parallel to the billboard, I-70 sits approximately four feet above the property, according to the City's topographic information. Moving west, the highway becomes increasingly elevated, as compared to the adjacent land. On the west end of the subject site, the highway sits approximately 10 feet above the property (Exhibit 6, Topography). In addition, there is a sound wall along I-70 which the applicant alleges is creating a hardship by reducing the visibility of the billboard. That being said, in the opinion of Staff, the billboard is clearly visible for a reasonable amount of time as you travel along I-70 (Exhibit 4, Site Photos). Staff finds this criterion has not been met. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -16-13 / 0 UTPRONT Media 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The alleged hardship has been created by the grades between the highway and adjacent properties. Seeing as the elevation of properties to the north and south of the highway are approximately the same, it is likely the grade changes were a result of the construction of I-70, which occurred in the late 1960s at this location according to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). I-70 also has existing sound walls in place, which the applicant alleges are creating a hardship. CDOT does not have any interest in the subject property, or the billboard. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. It may be injurious to neighboring property or improvements due to its proposed height and maximum allowable size by right (750 square feet). The adequate supply of air would not be compromised as a result of this request; however, the adequate supply of light may be. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The development would not increase the danger of fire. It is also unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has mostly been met. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The grade changes between I-70 and the adjacent properties are present in the surrounding area (Exhibit 6, Topography). Sound walls along I-70 are also common along this stretch of the highway. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Accessibility requirements are not applied to billboards. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -16-13 / 0 UTPRONT Media 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to billboards. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application not to be in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends DENIAL of an 18 -foot (56%) variance to the maximum height of 32 -feet for a billboard resulting in a 50 -foot tall billboard on property in the B-2 district located at 8105 West 48th Avenue. Staff has found that while the sign has limited visibility for those in the Wadsworth Boulevard off - ramp lanes due to a grade change and existing sound wall, this does not deny visibility from the intended audience travelling along I-70 in the main eastbound and westbound travel lanes. Therefore, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: 1. The property will continue to yield a reasonable return in use. 2. The variance would alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The particular surrounding topography does not render the billboard invisible. 4. The billboard is currently visible from Interstate 70, at the City's maximum allowed billboard height. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -16-13 / 0 UTFRONT Media EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-16-131OUTFRONTMedia EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-16-131OUTFRONTMedia EXHIBIT 3: SIMULATION (PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) 8105 W 48"' Avenue Before and After Photos raising the structure from 32 to 50 ft in total height Before: After: Board ofAdjustment 8 CareNo. WA-16131OUTFRONTdkdia 750 � { St1y;�ndA A ' 303-432-8860 ..-n.,vr-a&raadrtAvxxxn A EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS (PROVIDED BY STAFF) View of the billboard from the center lane of I-70 (eastbound) approximately 400 feet west of the billboard location. Note: The image quality and legibility is reduced when printing. Staff will provide further evidence of the billboard's visibility during the hearing. Board ofAdfusbnent CaseNo. WA-16-13/OUTPRONTMeda EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS (cunt'd) (PROVIDED BY STAFF) V J, View of the billboard from the Wadsworth Boulevard exit lane of I-70 (eastbound) approximately 250 feet west of the billboard location. Note. The image quality and legibility is reduced when printing. Staff will provide further evidence of the billboard's visibility during the hearing. View of the billboard from the Wadsworth Boulevard exit lane of I-70 (eastbound) approximately 130 feet west of the billboard location. Note. The image quality and legibility is reduced when printing. Staff will provide further evidence of the billboard's visibility during the hearing. Board of4udinent 10 Case No. WA-161310UTFR0NI Media EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS (�.Vd) (PROVIDED BY STAFF) Board ojndmslmenm CaseNo. WA-1613/OUTFBONTMerda EXHIBIT 5: CRITERIA RESPONSE (PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) Responses to variance Criarm 8105 W. A8^ Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 I 7/14/2016 I A, As our current board sits on theproperty, it is almost invisible to eastbound traffic on I. 70, its primary audience. Our entire business is driven by airlb, llit and a hidden board does not inform the drivers or appeal to businesses or organizations that are trying to communicate with those driving by. We are requesting a variance to the height requement regulation. If the variance Is not approved this board will stay hidden and tM1ere will be no opportunity to reach those driving by. B. The area in question is currently zoned industrially, and has been for at least 40 years. There is no residential zoning in the vldnity, so the sign is not an eyesore far people living In the neighborhood. There are other large signs In the area, both on and off premise, s0 altering our sign would not take away from or alter the existing character of the area. C. OUTFHONT Media is willing to fried a significant amount of money into this picked because of the anticipated value of this sign once it has been moved and raised. Investing close to $200,000 into this rebuild is only viable if we Can assure our corporate oHltt that the improvements will significantly Increase the board's attraction. proaimhy to the mad and length of read effect our business substantially, especially considering the fad that you can barely see the current sign, If at all, D. The property on which the board currently sits, partial 34343-00-101, is an irregularly shaped property. The variaare specific tc the hardship surrounding Its physical characteristics whim we would like to address is as follow:: HEIGHT Indian 367111: The current board is 3Y feet tall, and is nearly invisible from 1-70 heading eastbound. The property sits laver than the grade of I-70, so we re disadvantaged by abiding to the allowable height Addkionally, there is and wall running along the south side of 1-70 leading up to our sign, blocking it for an even longer period of time, By raising it to SO', we will eliminate the both of these visibility problems. E. The disparity in height from the grade of the road is a hardship created by COOT when they annelid land fair and constructed 1-70. COOT has n0 interest in this property. F. TM1ere is already an existing sign on the properly, so raising it would remain consistent with the current nature of the neighborhood It is in an Industrial area, with no close residential zonln& and the sago will be located fully on the property, so it will not ncreaxexre nngan i Ind -runner we build a sign, 116firseers to ensure we are constructing the most safe, secure structure possible. Ataller, more "ble sign will actually increase the property's value, not diminish it. G. The entire area bordered between 1-70 and W, 48`^ Ave is lower Man the grade of the interstate. The sound wall runs along this same stretch of land, creating the need fpr taller signs than In other, flatter areas. H. There are currently no elements of our structure that would inhibit a person with disabilities' access to the property, and the rebuilt sinecure will maintain these same standards. L According to the Architectural and Site Design Manual, the mapeny on which our sign sits falls under the Suburban Overlay designation. Thusly, there are no additional setback requirements than those in the Municipal Code, and a variance may be requested As we are not building a building, we referred to the signage requirements of the manual. In section 5,2, it Sines that pole signs are diswnn e d unless the sign is highway oriented, which ours is, sadden 5.3 addresses the lighting of signs. Our lights shine only on the sign, and are turned off at night, minimaing light pollution, Board ofAdjwtment 12 CcOfi WA-16131OUTFRONTAkdia EXHIBIT 6: TOPOGRAPHY 5320 5320 rmot745-31 Geographic , - ' �'- Information Systems y� Legend Subject Property Billboard Location ti 22 53 Contour Lines r�20 5320 N 5322 i r/ - b f� OF Fry ° .._,5320 b � N �b 4� 5322 = Sitz s•' � Z 5322 N a�'rl 12� La State Plane Coordinate. e N C larada Cental Zone Datum: NAD83 Board ofAdjustment Case Mo. WA-16-131OUTFRONTMedia 13 I City of WheatRidge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 28, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29a' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Alternates Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members PrNt: 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 1 Thomas Abbott Janet Bell Dan Bradford Paul Hovland Betty Jo Page Larry Richmond Michael Griffeth Sally Banghart David Kuntz Lily Griego Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary A. Case No. WA -16-05: An application filed by Gray Properties for approval of Request A: a 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street and approval of Request B: a 5 -foot (100%) variance to the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story located on property zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at the Northeast corner of 33`d Avenue and Ames Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 1 The case was presented by Zack Wallace. He entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. He stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the digital presentation. Request A: Mr. Wallace explained the side setback for the southern end of the property is 25 -feet and the applicants have proposed a 15 -foot setback. The applicant did a property analysis along 33`d Ave and concluded the average setback from the property lines is approximately 13 -feet; so the proposed 15 -foot setback is in line with what is present in the neighborhood. Along with the 15 -foot setback there will be an added amenity zone so the building will sit about 20 -feet away from 33`d Avenue. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if numbers in Exhibit 7 were provided by a surveyor or the applicant. ►r Mr. Wallace explained it was provided by the applicant because surveys are not kept by the City. Based on a visual inspection by aerial photography this looks to be accurate to staff, but there is no way to verify the accuracy without a survey. Board Member GRIFFETH asked who deemed theproperty developable as stated on page 3 of the staff report. Mr. Wallace stated it was the City Attorney. Board Member GRIFFITH asked about the two calls in opposition and if any letters were submitted. Mr. Wallace said there were no formal written objections. Board Member BELL commented about the setbacks being created before the City was incorporated in 1969 and asked if the building to the north came in to existence when under County planning laws. Mr. Wallace agreed. Board Member BRADFORD asked if there has been any analysis done from the Building Division regarding codes; for example - property distance. Mr. Wallace stated that the Building Division has not looked at anything yet. Todd Briney 4070 N. Albion Street, Denver 80216 Mr. Briney explained he works for Gray Properties and he performed the measurements manually for the property lines on 33`d Avenue; finding on average the Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 setback were 13 -feet. He stated that it will be difficult to make this development work if there is not a 10 -foot variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback. The fourth unit makes this development profitable. Chair ABBOTT asked about the square footage of each unit, being a total of three stories. Mr. Briny stated 2,289 sq. ft. is the total. He also stated there was a lot line adjustment done to take the two lots and make it one so from an investment standpoint it is better to get 4 units on one lot than a duplex and single family on 2 lots. Board Member PAGE asked how wide the units are. Mr. Wallace said the units are 24 -feet wide. Chair ABBOTT asked about what is meant by the perceived setback. Mr. Wallace explained the 15 -foot setback will look larger because added to it will be the 5 -feet of ROW and amenity zone, making the setback look approximately 20 -feet. The City's property will be the ROW and amenity zone. Ms. Ritchie added that what is called for in the Streetscape Manual will be done. She believes a 5 -foot attached sidewalk will be created and the ADA ramps at the corners will have to be reconstructed. Board Member GRIFFETH asked the applicant if their civil engineer is licensed with the state. Mr. Briney replied yes, they have PE and PLS licenses. Board Member GRIFFETH asked why the variance would not result in any additional accommodation of a person with disabilities. Mr. Wallace stated that there is nothing on the site that will prevent the building from being built without the ADA requirement. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member GRIFFITH, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -16-08 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing and City of Wheat Ridge; and Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request A of Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16- 08 be, and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10 -foot (40%) variance from the 25 -foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The lot has two street frontages which require increased setbacks, which have not been adhered to along the same 33 Id Avenue corridor. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not unique to the property. 6. The perceived setback is greater than the actual measurement thereby negating the impact on the distance from the street. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Site Plan be in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Request B: Mr. Wallace explained the 5 -foot variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for the third story of a multifamily principal structure. Chari ABBOTT asked if the variance affects the entire north side of the building or just the third story. Mr. Wallace stated this variance affect only the third story of the northern portion of the building. Board Member GRIFFETH asked why the code asks for the 5 -foot setback. Mr. Wallace explained it is to act as a bulk plane and is required for multifamily buildings to scale back the massing of structures. Chair ABBOTT asked for bulk plane to be explained. Mr. Wallace explained bulk planes typically extend above a property line then angle 45 degrees into property. This code section acts more like a `step back,' but is similar to a bulk plane. The R-3 code asks that the third story be stepped back 5 -feet for multi -family structures. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 Ms. Ritchie added that depending on the development, a step back allows more light into the neighboring property. Board Member BELL commented that the architecture over the last 10 years has changed and feels this building is in line with all the new construction and like the additional 5 -feet on the northern end of the building because it makes the building look symmetrical. Board Member HOVLAND added that the 5 -foot step back would reduce the tunnel affect but in this case the adjacent building is going to be 50 -feet away so it is not a problem. Chair ABBOTT and Board Member GRIFFETH agree with Board Member HOVELAND. Board Member GRIFFETH asked if the variance doesn't pass, will the 3`d floor be designable. r Mr. Briny stated it would depend on the units on the southern end, but we would like to maximize the amount of square footage and make it flow with other rectangular buildings in the area. Board Member HOVLAND asked if the 5 -feet that would be stepped back and cut out is living space or covering for the stairwell. Mr. Briny explained it is both and would take out a skylight to the stairwell. The floor plan would have to be adjusted and the laundry room would have to be adjusted or put somewhere else. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member PAGE, the following motion was stated: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Request B of Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16-08 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Approval of a 5 -foot (100%) variance from the additional 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a third story in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The 55 -foot separation between the buildings will not cause any impact or reduction on air, light or sunshine to either property. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 4. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 5. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0 B. Case No. WA -16-09: An application filed by Designs by Sundown for approval of two variances. The first is a request for a variance to the maximum size permitted for an accessory structure in the Residential -One (R-1) zone district. The second is a request for a variance to permit a metal accessory structure for the property located at 3390 Oak Street. The case was presented by Lisa Ritchie. She entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. She stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the digital presentation. Ms. Ritchie explained the area of the property is 25,600, sq. ft., just a little over half an acre with an existing single family home on the property. The intent of this request is to build a retractable pool enclosure. It would be 500 sq. ft. larger than the 1000 sq. ft. permitted in the R-1 zone district. The pool enclosure will bean anodized aluminum frame with a polycarbonate sheeting, kind of like a green house. The back portion will be fixed and then part of it can retract or keep the pool covered during the colder months. The structure will only be 13 -feet in height which is 2 -feet under the allowable height. There were no neighborhood objections. One of the conditions would be to have the owner replace any trees on the property if they should die from becoming damaged or diseased. Board Member PAGE stated she found a typo in the staff report and the model for approval. Number three under For the Following Reasons should not be included in the approval. Board Member GRIFFETH asked who came up with the condition of replacement of trees and if that will transfer to later owners of the property. Ms. Ritchie stated that staff came up with this condition as long as the structure is in place and the property owner agreed with it. Also, it will transfer to the next owners. Chair ABBOTT asked about how staff came up with the tree replacement condition because he has never heard of this being done before. Ms. Ritchie explained she discussed it with the director and the structure won't be visible to the neighbors because of the vegetation and because they are getting a benefit above and beyond what the zoning code will allow so staff determined it was reasonable to make the request. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 Board Member HOVLAND wondered if the tree replacement is in perpetuity or during construction and feels it is far reaching if it is in perpetuity. Ms. Ritchie state it is in perpetuity, but the Board can state how they would like it in the motion. Board Member BELL feels it is important to maintain vegetation. Roy Martin, Owner 3390 Oak Street, Wheat Ridge Jeremiah Lord 8562 Ingalls Circle, Arvada Mr. Martin explained he wanted to create an oasis in the backyard that is private and the trees were mature when we placed them in the yard and this was by design. He stated he has no problem replacing the trees and has done so in the past when he lost four trees to a devastating storm in 2009. A few trees will be removed right up against the house to install the pool, but this will not affect the neighbors view. Chair ABBOTT asked why does the owner need such a large structure and why metal. Mr. Martin explained he would like some walking room around the pool when the structure is closed during the winter months and aluminum is the only material that satisfies the requirement to look good over a long period of time. Mr. Lord added that when the structure is closed the owners want the pool to be functional and safe to walk around. It will be also be non -impactful to the neighborhood and will increase the property value. Board Member PAGE asked if the structure was attached to the house if the variance would be needed. Ms. Ritchie said no, not if it is attached to the house. Bruce Waring, neighbor 3370 Oak Street, Wheat Ridge Mr. Waring says he is in favor of the variance. We live in a great neighborhood and nobody disapproves, the view will not be obstructed and there will be no other impacts. The tree requirement is a nice idea as part of the construction, but in perpetuity if far reaching and shouldn't be required. Board Member PAGE asked what the requirement is about fencing pools. Mr. Lord explained that because there is already a 6 -foot fence around the backyard then the requirements have been met. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 Upon a motion by Board Member GRIFFETH and second by Board Member HOVLAND, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -16-09 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may not be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing and City of Wheat Ridge NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -16- 09 be, and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: a variance to the maximum permitted size for an accessory structure, and a request for approval of a variance to permit a metal accessory structure. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The proposed pool cover will appear incidental to the home, and significant property investment will occur as a result of approval of the variance. 2. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 4. No objections were received regarding the variance request. 5. The building is only 13 -feet tall. 6. There is no variance request for setbacks or maximum lot coverage. 7. The building is primarily transparent with less than 10% metal. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed enclosure shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. 2. If any existing perimeter tree is removed or becomes damaged during construction, it shall be replaced with a minimum 2" caliper tree or 6 -foot tall evergreen tree. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 6. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair ABBOTT closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — January 28, 2016 It was moved by Board Member PAGE and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 7-0. C. Board Member PAGE encouraged the Board to attend the Mayor's Reception for the Carnation Festival on Wednesday, August 10. D. Board Member BELL thought there were some good discussions at the meeting tonight. She would like to suggest having a session with the City Attorney and discussions with the Board in general about the changes going on in the City. Chair ABBOTT added it would be nice to include the Planning Commission. Ms. Ritchie added that the Planning Commission has update discussions at least once a year and the same could be done for the Board of Adjustment. E. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chair ABBOTT adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m. David Kuntz, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28, 2016