Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-221. 2 3. 4. 11( City of Wheat�idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting October 27, 2022 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair PAGE at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Dan Bradford Michael Griffeth Paul Hovland Thomas Burney Betty Jo Page Larry Richmond Laura Sicard Alternates Present: Robert DeVries Board Members Absent: Janet Bell Staff Members Present: Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager/Interim Director Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No.WA-22-04 The case was presented by Lauren Mikulak. 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 requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the presentation and staff report. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 27, 2022 The applicant is requesting an appeal of an administrative zoning determination related to the term "billboard" as defined in Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and a request for an interpretation that would affirm eligibility of a billboard at 4990 Kipling Street. She described the City's legislative history related to billboard regulations and described the evolution of billboards in Wheat Ridge. She described the recent history of billboard vacancies and the series of determinations made for billboards located deemed ineligible. Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request because staff has determined the billboard does not meet the definition and is not oriented to the highway and because the determination is consistent with the City's legislative intent and prior determinations. Member DEVRIES asked if the Code is being changed in this decision if approved. Ms. Mikulak clarified the Code will not be changed as written and it is not black and white so there is room for discretion on what it means to be oriented to the highway and what the Board is determining is if staff has correctly interpreted the gray zone or not by finding a decision on how the definition should have been applied to this property. Member GRIFFETH inquired about the letters written by Mr. Johnstone specifically paragraph 4 on page 21 of the packet and he wondered what the arguments were and why he concurred. Ms. Mikulak explained there was not a formal land use case submitted by Mile High Outdoor, so she does not have the arguments from Mile High Outdoor. There was then some discussion about the size of signs on Ward Road and why those were not considered billboards. In response to a question from Member GRIFFETH regarding the repercussions if the billboard location is overturned, Ms. Mikulak explained that staff tries to be consistent on how the Code is interpreted and makes policy determinations by how the Code has been interpreted in the past. She added that if the Board decides to contradict staff s interpretations of prior decisions it would make it more difficult to determine future decisions based on consistency and there might need to be a Code Amendment. The Board decision does not amend the code but informs future interpretations of the current code. Member GRIFFETH asked if the maximum number of billboards in the City will still be 16. Ms. Mikulak clarified the maximum will still be 16 and the decision tonight will determine how future determinations of eligibility are made. Member HOVLAND questioned what the main focus of orientation is and if distance is a factor. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 27, 2022 2 Ms. Mikulak commented that staff s contention is there are a few things to consider about what it means to be oriented to and in this case distance, visibility and the things that happen in between a location and the interstate highway. She confirmed there is not a specific distance in the Code stating how close to the highway a billboard must be, but distance is a contributing factor. Member DEVRIES thought the distance was within 660 feet from an interstate. Ms. Mikulak clarified that Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has jurisdiction of the billboard is with 660 feet from the interstate, but the City's Code has no maximum distance requirement. Member DEVRIES said it seems contradictory that Spencer Fane LLP wants a definition of clarity in the Code for orientation. Ms. Mikulak explained there are a lot of words in the Code that are not defined, and staff needs to use their judgement and legislative intent to interpret. She added there are a lot of places in the City that you can put a sign that are visible from the interstate, but that has not been the intent or how staff has decided to regulate billboards. In response to a question from Member PAGE, Ms. Mikulak confirmed that the City has 15 billboards and one under review. She mentioned that the purpose of tonight's decision is whether 4990 Kipling Street is an eligible location for a billboard and added that this decision will impact the future of how staff interprets the definition of a billboard. Jacob Hollars, Spencer Fane Attorney Representative of United Advertising Corp. (UAC) Mark Giordano, United Advertising Corp. (UAC) 11 Sunrise Drive, Englewood Brett Kelley, United Advertising Corp. (UAC) 11 Sunrise Drive, Englewood Mr. Giordano mentioned that currently United Advertising has 2 billboards in the City of Wheat Ridge. Mr. Hollars, Mr. Giordano, and Mr. Kelley gave brief presentations and examples for their reasoning for appearing in front of the Board and mentioned there is a disagreement with staff on the definition of the word "billboard" and what it means to be "oriented to an interstate highway." Mr. Hollars mentioned that an aspect of visibility should be a part of the deciding factor of the orientation of a billboard. Member PAGE inquired about the visual test sign and how big the test signs were. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 27, 2022 3 Mr. Giordano clarified the test signs were standard billboard size of 14x40 feet and 31 '/z feet high and located in the southwest corner of the 4990 Kipling property, precisely where the billboard would be placed. Member HOVLAND asked what the purpose of getting the billboard in this location is and who they are reaching out to. Mr. Hollars said the primary audience will be I-70 traffic and Mr. Giordano concurred and added the secondary audience will be Kipling. Member GRIFFETH was curious why the applicant waited 6 months to appeal the decision. Mr. Giordano mentioned he had a conversation with Mr. Johnstone approximately one week after receiving the denial letter and was given the option to appeal, but it took 3 months to secure a surveyor. He added there was an option to file a restraining order to shut down the entire lottery process, but it was not the way he wanted to do business with the City. In response to a question from Member DEVRIES, about setting a new precedence with this vote would it cause percussions to previous applicants, Ms. Mikulak said it will not because it is not retroactive. Member BURNEY asked Mr. Hollars if he thinks all the billboards in the City are oriented to interstate traffic in general and are basically perpendicular to the interstates. Mr. Hollars commented that he does not think the one at 6064 Harlan is oriented to the interstate because it sits below the fence line on I-70. Mr. Giordano added all billboards are basically perpendicular to the interstates, but one is flared out in a V- shape. Member BURNEY mentioned the billboard on Harlan is visible from I-76 and thinks the proposed Kipling billboard would be oriented more towards Kipling than I-70. Mr. Hollars added that the Kipling billboard would not be perpendicular because it is not on an adjacent property to I-70, which is not a requirement. With no members of the public present to testify, Chair PAGE invited staff and the applicant to make final comments. Ms. Mikulak commented that absent black and white regulations, staff has tried to apply the Code consistently site -to -site and consistent with their legislative intent that signs be compatible with the surroundings. She added that visibility has been one consideration but not the only one. Distance is also a consideration, and this Kipling property is two commercial sites from the interstate; orienting it more to Kipling and 491h Avenue. Staff does not believe facing it towards the interstate is the threshold by which to allow a billboard in Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 27, 2022 4 Mr. Hollars commented that UAC's request is that the Board conclude that UAC's proposed billboard is an eligible billboard for the lottery that happened earlier this year. They are not asking to set in stone that visibility isn't a criterion but can be taken into account. Mr. Hollars reiterated that this property is not adjacent to the interstate, but it is in the B-2 zone district. He added that if the Board sides with staff because it isn't immediately adjacent to I-70 making it an ineligible billboard the repercussion is that other billboard companies will run into the same issue. If the Board finds in favor of UAC then it avoids all the issues and giving UAC the relief it is seeking. Chair PAGE invited discussion of the application by the board. Member BRADFORD noted his concern that visibility is not in the Code and could have been added in 2007 and was not. Member DEVRIES commended both staff and UAC for their work on this case but has concerns with setting a precedence because we are not here to change the code. Member GRIFFETH mentioned he does not disagree with UAC's case, but the definition that staff is to interpret is vague and puts them in a spot to interpret a difficult definition. He added that tonight's intent and purpose are being looked at and 30 years ago the B-1 zone was intentionally taken out of the code. Member HOVLAND agrees with both staff and UAC and is aware the definition is not clear, and this will be a tough decision. Member BURNEY commented that he agrees with comments from both sides, but to see this proposed billboard a person in a vehicle on I-70 would have to look 90 degrees to see it and believes it is oriented more toward Kipling. Member PAGE concurred. Member SICARD said UAC has presented a good argument and the wording in the definition is not clear enough because it is visible from the interstate. Member GRIFFETH added that the proposed billboard is oriented to the interstate, but Mr. Johnstone said it is not visible. In response to a question, Mr. Dahl explained an approval vote requires a super majority of 6 votes and a denial will require a simple majority of 5 votes. Upon a motion by Member SICARD and seconded by Member DEVRIES, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, the proposed billboard was denied by an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment Minutes October 27, 2022 WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case no. WA-22-05 is an appeal to this Board from the zoning code interpretation of an administrative officer; 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, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-22-05 be, and hereby is, APPROVED TYPE OF VARIANCE: This request is an appeal of an administrative zoning determination related to the term "billboard" as defined in Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and request for an interpretation that would affirm eligibility of a billboard at 4990 Kipling. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. It [the proposed billboard] is visible. 2. According to the verbiage before the Board, it [the proposed billboard] meets those conditions. Chair PAGE called for a vote. Motion failed with a vote of 5 to 3 with Members PAGE, BURNEY and GRIFFETH voting against. Mr. Dahl confirmed that the vote results in a denial based on the Board's bylaws. 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair PAGE closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS In response to a question, Ms. Mikulak confirmed Board training is not calendared but could take place next year to include newer members. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — March 10, 2022 It was moved by Board Member GRIFFETH and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes with two corrections to reflect that meeting was in -person and not on Zoom and to correct Member GRIFFETH's first name. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Board Member DEVRIES abstaining. B. Member GRIFFETH asked about the pledge of allegiance and how to ensure it remains part of the agenda. Mr. Dahl noted that the pledge of allegiance is not Board of Adjustment Minutes October 27, 2022 6 currently required as part of the bylaws and the bylaws could be amended to include the pledge. Ms. Mikulak described the process to update the bylaws. It was moved by Board Member GRIFFETH and seconded by Board Member BRADFORD to make the pledge of allegiance a permanent part of the agenda. The motion passed 8-0. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member HOVLAND and seconded by Member GRIFFETH to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Motion carried 8-0. C) J e"b- , Tammy Odean, RecoMilig Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes October 27, 2022 7