Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/14- 1. V, City of �9�Wh6atP,�dge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA September 25, 2014 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on September 25, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored y the City o ff'heat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public In forniation Qfficer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) A. ' Case No. WA-14-14: An application filed by Dye Enterprises for approval of a sign setback variance for a freestanding sign exceeding 15-feet in height on property located at 4855 Miller Street in the C-1 zone district. # t A. Approval of minutes -- June 26, 2014 City of Wh6at"Ige TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: MEETING DATE: PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustments Meredith Reckert WA -14 -14 /Dye September 25, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of an 1 1' variance from the 30' required setback for a freestanding sign on property located at 4855 Miller Street LOCATION: 4855 Miller Street Owner: Daniel Dearing (property owner) APPLICANT (S): David Dye (applicant) APPROXIMATE AREA: .78 acres PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: ENTER INTO RECORD: Commercial -One Vehicle display and sales lot (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -14 -14 /Dye JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant, David Dye, is requesting approval of a variance from the 30' setback requirement to allow a 19' sign setback for a freestanding sign over 15' in height. The purpose of the variance application is to allow the applicant to replace an existing sign with a new changeable copy sign that is 25' in height and located 19' from the front (southern) property line. Section 26- 115.C. (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. II. PROPERTY HISTORY The property is located at the northwest corner of Miller Street and the North I -70 Frontage Road. (Exhibit 1, Aerial photo) The property is approximately .78 acres in size. It is zoned C -1 and contains a metal office building. (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map) The property is used as a vehicle display and sales lot and has been occupied by the current tenant since 2013. Prior to occupation of the site, the applicant submitted and received approval of an application for Special Use Permit (SUP) to legitimize the sales and display lot. The approval was conditioned that certain improvements occur to the site prior to occupation. The attached site plan shows perimeter parking lot landscaping which was installed and inspected. (Exhibit 3, Site plan) Those landscape improvements included installation of a ten foot wide landscape buffer with a masonry wall, street trees, shrubs and extension of a sprinkler system. These improvements are still in place today. (Exhibit 4, Site photos) There is one existing freestanding sign on the property. It is located in the landscaped island at the corner of Miller and the frontage road. It is on a wooden frame, measures 12' x 8' and is 15' high. The applicant uses another larger sign which is just off the property to the west. This sign is larger and appears to be at least 30' in height. Both of these signs are nonconforming relative to setback. The applicant has indicated that if he can erect a new, changeable copy sign, the existing wooden -based sign will be removed and his sign copy will be removed from the larger sign adjacent to the western property line. The property is surrounded by a variety of zoning and land uses. To the immediate north is an A -I zoned parcel which is currently vacant and owned by the same property owner as 4855 Miller. Beyond that is an office /warehouse facility zoned PID. Property to the east is zoned C -1 Board of Adjustment 2 Case No. W A -14 -14 /Dye and contains the American Motel. Land to the west is also owned by the same property owner. It contains a 20,000 s.f. vehicle repair facility. To the south is 1 -70 which carries over 100,000 vehicles per day. The applicant has expressed that they desire a taller sign because of visibility. Because the property is within one -fourth of a mile from 1 -70, a 50' high sign is allowed. Any sign over 15' in height must have a 30' setback from right -of -way. III. CASE ANALYSIS The sign code regulations are located in Article VII of the zoning and development. Generally, a commercial business is allowed one freestanding sign per street frontage abutting the property. As such, if the property is a corner lot, one freestanding sign is allowed per street frontage, or the permitted sign area for each sign can be combined into one larger sign. The allowable sign area is based on building footprint. The required setbacks for freestanding signs are dictated based on sign height: • If a sign is less than 7' in height, a 5' setback is required from r -o -w. • If a sign is 7' to 15' in height, a 10' setback is required from r -o -w. • If a sign is over 15' in height, a 30' setback is required from r -o -w. • If a property is located within one - quarter mile of the interstate, a 50' high sign is allowed and is required to have a 30' setback. The required setback is measured from the leading edge of the sign and not the sign support. Because the property in this situation is a corner lot, the applicant would be allowed two freestanding signs (one per street front); however, they have opted to combine the square footage and have one sign on the property which is roughly 87 square feet in size and 25' high. Because the sign is over 15' in height, 30' setbacks are required from both Miller and the frontage road. The applicant has requested a variance to allow a new sign with combined square footage to be erected in the existing planter area on the corner of the property. In order to meet the 30' setback from both frontages, the sign would be located in the vehicle display area. The applicant is requesting a 19' setback from the frontage road which requires an 11' setback variance (36%). The 30' setback from Miller Street can be met. (Exhibit S, corner detail) Commercial properties are also allowed wall signage on the sides of the building that are appurtenant to the street. The structure has a small wall sign on the south side of the structure. Commercial properties are allowed to have electronic changeable copy signs as long as the sign message doesn't flash or scroll and the message doesn't change sooner than every 15 seconds. No off - premises advertising is allowed. Board of Adjustment 3 Case No. WA -14 -14 /Dye IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance request, the Board of Adjustment must determine that a 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 6, variance criteria responses) Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 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 yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a used vehicle sales lot, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The surrounding area has a mix of commercial and industrial zonings and uses. Many of the existing businesses have 50' high signs and it appears that several of those in the immediate vicinity may not meet the 30' setbacks. The existing sign on the property is unattractive and crudely constructed. Replacement of the existing sign with a reduced setback will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The proposed sign would constitute a substantial investment in the property. However, the same sign could be built with a compliant setback. 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. There appears to be no hardship due to the topography, size or shape of the lot. There are numerous freestanding signs in the area which provide visual clutter but this doesn't constitute physical hardship. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -14 -14 /Dye 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The applicant has created his own hardship for requesting a sign which does not meet setbacks. Staff finds this criterion has not been ►net. 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 and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent property. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it increase the danger of fire. The request will most likely not have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood. Although the proposed design is auto - oriented and intended to attract the attention of drivers, it would not cause an obstruction to motorists and would not impede the sight distance triangle at the corner. There were no comments received from the neighborhood in response to the variance noticing. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The applicant has indicated that the sign height and resultant setback variance are required for visual exposure for the site. There are numerous businesses located on the frontage road that have 50' high signs. The subject site and structure which dictates sign size is much smaller, providing less visibility than other businesses' signs along the frontage road. (Exhibit 7, Area photos) Staff finds that this criterion has been met. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -14 -14 /Dye 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The construction of a new sign on the property will not result in disability accommodation. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The ASDM does not apply in this situation. This criterion is not applicable. VII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Not having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review, criteria, staff recommends DENIAL of an 1 I' variance from the 30 -foot minimum setback for a freestanding sign that exceeds 15' in height. Staff finds no unique circumstances attributed to this request and warranting approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: 1. The subject property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use and function as a vehicle display and sales lot if the variance were denied. 2. There are no unique physical features or other irregular conditions on the property that would preclude a new freestanding sign from meeting required setbacks. 3. Having found the application for Case No. SUP- 12 -05, a Special Use Permit to allow a vehicle display and sales lot on property zoned C -1, to be complete and in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff is granting APPROVAL of the special use request based on the following findings of fact: Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- I 4-14/Dye Exhibit I, Aerial Photo 5 AVE ihF ti 9,Tj H. 14 I MEMO& 'Lill r It ........ ... ...... Board of Adjustment 7 Case No. WA-14-14/Dye Exhibit 2, Zoning Map Board of Adjustment Case No. W A -14 -14 /Dye Exhibit 3, Site plan -- - --- -- -- Exr s TintG- 1 � � DISALAY J I j r~xrs � tr S ro-ry a",.... w - i- :;o 4 re w'7'q AD— QQ- N Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- I 4-14/Dye Exhibit 4, Site photos View of Miller Street frontage View of intersection from M i I ler Street Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA -14 -14 /Dye DYEAUTOS.CO Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 14-14/Dye Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA -14 -14 /Dye Exhibit 5, Corner detail Board of Adjustment 13 Case No. WA- 14-14 DN e 8/14/2014 Dye Enterprises 4855 Miller St Exhibit 6, Applicant letter and photos Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303 - 286 -1665 dyeautos @Rmail.com City of Wheat Ridge c/o Meredith the senior planner 7500 W 29` Ave Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Meredith, Variance Criteria Review explanations Dye Enterprises is happy to have chosen the City of Wheat Ridge for the home of our business at 4855 Miller St. Wheat Ridge has made a calculated effort to improve the City's appeal to its citizens and business alike. In return, we have made in effort to show the City that we are respectful and complainant to the codes and requests from the City. We have worked well with the property owner Dan Derring, the City planner's and code enforcement to acquire a Special Use permit and we maintained our property a higher standard than the previous tenant Phil Wolf. We use many businesses in the area to help our community's economics like MedVed, the Remote Start Guys, Big 0 Tires, Thunder Bird Motorcycles and more. We are looking to make more improvements that will increase traffic vision, be architecturally appealing to the City and improve the overall looks of the property. We are wanting to install a Board of Adjustment 14 Case No. WA- 14 -14 /Dye new digital sign that would setback further than the current signs and be higher than our newly planted trees. We will be reducing the overall square footage of our signs and not impede the accessibility of the property. We are asking for a variance to the sign code for our new digital sign because of our neighbors billboard sign and because of the uniqueness of our business. A. Our income will be affected by relocating the sign if we adhere to the City's recent sign codes. There are many examples in Wheat Ridge how signs are not within code. We have provided these photos for you as examples. Our next door neighbors at the American hotel have a huge Lamar billboard on the South East Corner of Miller St and 48` that is low lying and it dwarfs our signs. This sign alone makes it difficult to relocate our sign further into our property with the City's sign code dimensions and still able to see it from the highway which is over 35% of our customer lead base. B. The sign variance would not alter the character of the property and greatly improve it. The property has had a number of issues in the past with the previous tenant Phil Wolf which Dye Enterprises has made a huge improvements. After taking over from Phil Wolf, Dye Enterprises has taken the property from dead non - irrigated plants, broken wood fences and a blatant encroachment into the City's right of way to an attractive well landscaped irrigated property and has moved out of the right of way. We are willing to remove both large signs hence reducing the overall sign square footage on the property. By removing the sign on the south west corner of Miller St and 48` that will help improve the attractiveness of the lot, improve property values as well as improve the local traffics line of sight at the corner. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 14-14 Dy e C. The variance will allow the possibility of not being obstructed by the neighbor's billboard and by our ever - growing trees we planted for the City's landscaping plan and to be visual from the highway. The investment into this sign will be over six figures and for a small to mid -size business like ours it is essential that it literally drives customer to our lot. If 35% of our business is from highway drive -by traffic then our signage is an intricate part of our marketing. Reducing from two signs to one sign will make the placement of the one sign crucial and the most important aspect next to the square footage of the sign. We installed and planted trees and plants to the City's architectural plan to get Special Use permit and in the near future the tree will grow high enough that we are taking into account the placement of the sign. Again, we will also have to compete against our hotel neighbor's obnoxious low lying Lamar billboard. D. There is a unique hardship and is not just an "inconvenience" to follow the City's signage code for our lot and we need the variance for lot space. Unlike most businesses our customers do not come inside a building to shop and are business is unique. Our lot is our display and shopping area similar shelving space at a grocery store. By placing the sign inwards towards the interior of the lot we will lose more inventory space. We have given up space for our agreement to landscape to receive our Special use permit. Since our niche in the automobile market is trucks, they can be a challenge to move around because of their size and we would lose even more useful space. This would be like putting a sign in the middle of the aisle at our grocery store to try move your cart around while trying look at the products on the shelves E. Both Scott and David Dye have nice clean homes and follow their HOA guidelines for our home communities and we treat this property like a second home. Dye Enterprises has continually made improvements to the property since the last uncooperative tenant Phil Wolf Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA -14 -14 /Dye by improving the irrigated landscaping, implementing handicap accessibility and keeping up with maintenance of the property. Adding this sign will help the value and improve the looks of the property and help to set an example as good business working the City's overall development. In addition, we are still considering developing the property behind us in the future to tie into this property and it will keep it up to the same high standards. F. The new location of the sign will set back from the current location of the corner sign and the height raised which will improve the traffics vision near the corner at Miller St and 48 The overall look of the property will be more appealing from the wooden pole sign structure to a metal less complicated design improving the ascetics of the property. G. There are many examples in Wheat Ridge that signs are not in compliance with the newer sign codes. A few in our area include the corner of 170 and Kipling Shell gas station. And of course, the Lamar billboard at our American hotel neighbors across from the same corner on Miller St and 48 do not comply with the City's new sign codes and they have a negative impact on our property's values as well as impede the traffics line of sign near the corner. H. Since the variance we are asking for would allow us to place the corner sign within the corner landscaping, people with disabilities would not be affected negatively by the placement of the sign. By placing the sign in the interior of the lot by current code may actually affect the ability for people to get in or out of our vehicles as well affect the maneuverability of the vehicles on the lot. I. The sign placement would be setback form the current location of the sign and still incorporated in to the landscaping which would not negatively change the architectural design Board of Adjustment 17 Case No. W A- 14- 14 /DN,e of the property and would be in the best location for the accessibility to the inventory and the profitability of the business. Dye Enterprises has two signs that are not incompliance with the Architectural and Site Design manual but we are willing to remove one sign completely and work with a variance from the City to minimize a setback from the corner to our square footage specifications and height. The square footage would be less than the corner sign is now but must legible to the highway traffic where we receive more than 35% of our business from. Thank you for your variance to code consideration on our new digital sign. We will be spending a great deal of money for a small to medium size business and placement is crucial for its effectiveness. Please consider the amount of business we receive from the highway when considering the location and square footage amendments to the sign. This sign will actually clean up the look of the property for the City. David Dye Scott Dye Board of Adjustment 18 Case No. WA -14 -14 /Dye ( Y pv Y+- O Z � O L Q vim' V`� 0 -7C:> C3� rn m r � o k Y+- G Z Board of Adjustment 19 Case No. WA- 14 -14 /Dye V, f } .. IW 46,.. 1 -_ 3- 1 CO Z- -�7 14P F, Board of Adjustment 21 Case No. WA - -14 /Dye 4 _ - x . - � 'jf Pit Exhibit 7, Frontage road photos View looking west along frontage road Closer view looking west along frontage road Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 14-14/Dye 23 WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA -14 -14 APPLICANT NAME: David Dye LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4855 Miller Street WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -14 -14 was denied by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -14 -14 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 there [were /were no] protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for [may /may not] 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. be, and hereby is, [APPROVED/DENIED]. TYPE OF VARIANCE: An 11 -foot variance from the required 30 -foot setback for a freestanding sign FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 2. 3. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 2. 11 The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair C Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7.500 West 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Alternates Present: 7:01 p.m. in the City Council ic, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. L-auredlif M ikulak, Sr. Planner Key Johnstone, Community Development Director Mary McKenna, Community Services Supervisor Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary 0 Board of Adjustment Minutes June 26, 2014 CALL MEETING TO ORDER The case was presented by Lauren Mikulak. She introduced Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director and Mary McKenna, Supervisor of Community Services. She entered the contents of the case file, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record along with a letter of cornment from the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife that was received after the staff report was published. She stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She stated the City code grants the Board of Adjustment the authority to decide on two different types of zoning code interpretations. The first is the definition or intent of certain words or phrases. The second type is interpretation of a similar use which is the subject of this case. Ak" She stated earlier this year staff issued a detei wildlife animal rehab is not similar to anytbit a residential zone district and is therefore not determination to the Board of Adjustment. T overturn staff's decision. She stated board in property. An interpretation to the zoning co( city. She reviewed the staff report and digits be to approve the applicants request and a no uphold the determination that has:b made Board Member PAGE asked why a this applicable city wide. Ms. Mild Code of Laws for use' variances. A amendment approved by City Cour Board Member and sum J by City and Wildlife that in report. Ms. MiWa first mentioned in t] and medium sized It' City's zoning code. the applicant that a home based tht ;would be ise permitted in fitted �q applicant is appealing that board wall asked to v ote to uphold or to a single made bythe board , to the entire )resentation. She st y es vote would me would be to de ar request and ot be considered as opposed to making City does not have a provision in the I use category requires a code about kennels and clinics as special uses on agriculturally aspecial use is a use that is already listed in the zoning not ,b I c,approved depending on compatibility of the Nddinga,special use to the zoning code would have to be red about the letter from the Colorado Department of Parks he keeping of bobcats which was not mentioned in the staff that bobcats were not included in the application and were from the state. Board member PAGE inquired about small Ms. Mikulak stated there is no definition for that in the Board Member PAGE asked who would regulate the rehabilitation facility if it is approved. Ms. Mikulak stated there is no provision in the code so it is unclear how it would be regulated by the City. If approved, a code amendment may be required to make sure regulations are in place for residential zone districts. Board of Adjustment Minutes June 2 6, 2014 2 Board member PAGE asked if staff reviewed state and other agency documentation to see what size facilities are used for different animals. Ms. Mikulak stated that type of research would be done for a code amendment. Vice Chair GRIEGO stated this would impact the entire city. If this came through a city wide review process, neighbors would have the opportunity to testify in favor of or opposition to this type of facility being allowed in all residential zone districts. The implications of an approval by the board will impact how the city addresses this as a whole, Ms. Mikulak stated a code amendment rather than an interpretation is a more appropriate process through which to consider allowin new land use because it includes collaboration with various entities inclu 4' 4ii.,""," TZ tate local boards, city staff, the public, Planning Commission and City Council. Board member BELL spoke about en use in a residential area. The City's p property owners, and other people. A under the Department of Wildlife. Sly boundaries, Ms. Mikulak concurred. wildlife animal rehab is not similar to and more considerations and Ire' sine Vice Chair GRIEGO asked if th6 not in favor of the applicant. Ms. Council could dtrectaff,to initia The alternatl"Ve is that sit similar to vet clinics and N Board Member SA but it would not aft" completed. This is )r the applicant if the vote is a couple options. City ich is a multi-month process. dlife animal rehabilitation is agricultural zone districts, ificatiba,about what a yes vote means. Ms. Mikulak WiMlif 4",iiiinal rehabilitation is similar to some nti' one district. The board would need to identify ar to because it cannot be created as a new category yes vote would allow wildlife animal rehabilitation §kt,d if this was approved where the interpretation would be *k stated that staff keeps a record of all Board interpretations, in the municipal code unless a zoning code amendment is the best way to allow a new use in the City. Board Member ABBOTT reiterated wildlife rehabilitation could occur in the same zone district as a vet clinic. Ms. Mikulak concurred. Board Member BRADFORD asked if the board voted in favor or opposition of tile request would the applicant be allowed to continue providing wildlife rehab while going through the code amendment process. Ms. Mikulak stated she should not be doing any m nit hf " a' I d managing this type of 7K�o' would be 11 1 lations, adjacent tion detrimental animal would be .......... each jurisdictio . ... ...... " define their I that is part of the re'A that staff feels )ld pets as there are more vers involved Board of Adjustment Minutes June 26, 2014 3 rehabilitation because it is not allowed. The state terminated her licensure process because it is not allowed in the zone district. Board Member KUNTZ asked the applicah hy she didn't seek a code amendment. The applicant stated she was told an interp et " i6n was the quickest way to appeal the decision. She stated she wanted the C it y :o o amend the code to like other communities have done such as Arvada, Broomfield, LOns, Long it, Boulder and Denver. Board Member B ELL asked the applicant why"'s" seeking to do this in Wheat Ridge, instead of another city that allows the use. The ali font stated she bought the house a few years ago without the intent of starting wildlife f6ibabilitation. She started the process with Colorado Department of Parks and Wi aiid l ater found out that Wheat Ridge does not allow the use in residential zone districts. Vice Chair GRIEGO asked the applicant several questions: if she knew the state required local approval, how she plans to conduct rehabilitation at her home, if she has discussed the uw, her neighbors, and if denied what steps will she take. Tile applicant stated ate l''wl�i'll'Id'tli" Aiii,,j are kept in separate locked cages at all times. Once they get larger go into ah" n tdoor locked cage. At the time of release a cage is set up away fro m residential are sand a soft release is performed. Once the animals venture out and do'h6t return to the cage, the cage is then removed. If the use is not approved the applioant,statcd she intends to request a code amendment. Wildlife rehabbers must to be licensed the Department Colorado Parks and Wildlife. She stated she canvased the neighborhood and sent out FAQ's to the neighbors and most were supportive of her. Board Member P , AGE "inquired about facility size and animal size specifically medium sized. The applicant I stated she cannot define it on behalf of the Department of Parks and Wildlife. She thinks mediums means bobcats and bigger/older raccoons. The facilities have to be approved by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. A state representative reviews the facility. Vice Chair Griego opened the public hearing. Carol Monaco 15200 Clinton St., Brighton, CO Board of Adjustment Minutes June 26, 2014 4 Ms. Monaco stated she has done wildlife rehabilitation for 5 years. Calls for bobcats are rare. The Department of' Parks and Wildlife has a very rigorous licensing process. An applicant must have a sponsor that has been licensed for 3 years. An applicant must go through a learning plan and a division person will inspect the facility. This is only for rehab. The State of Colorado has very few wildlife rehabbers. Jules Reid 4531 Boardwalk Dr., Y-7, Fort Collins, vl Ms. Reid stated Wheat Ridge is greatIA'#" 0 K tb e o f d " e services the applicant is providing. "J"'J e She stated the training and regulatory pens involved in obtaining license with Colorado Parks and Wildlife is extremelvit6oroux. David Bongiovanni 7255 Quartz St, Arvada, CO He reiterated that the applicant hk consideration of wildlife rebabilil animal wildlife rehabilitation and safety of the animals and surroun Patti Dellinger 4529 Foothills Dr., the hbiii r financial reasons and not in ited the a0lipant is passionate about ent Of Wild nspected the house for the er stated wildlite rehabbers, work together as a group in Colorado and irougli the National Wildlife,R-eliabilitation Association (NWRA). She stated are kept until they are weaned and then they are released. Ms. Mikulak addressed the board and stated the board is reviewing an interpretation, not a code amendment, and the question at hand is not whether animal wildlife shotild b allowed in the City, but whether it is similar to any existing category in the zoning code. Board Member ABBOTT stated this use is a need in any community and he hopes the City will pursue a code amendment. Board of Adjustment Minutes June 26, 2014 5 Board Member KUNTz stated the use is permitted in the agricultural zone district and does not need to be extended to residential zone districts. Board Member HOVLAND stated he concurred with Board Member KUNTZ and commended the applicant on her efforts of wildlife rehabilitation. that had been provided by staff* Mandy B14d"k This request rs;p apal of an administrative zoning wildlife arimat eilitatiora in residential zone districts, for an interpretatro that would allow wildlife animal itial zone districts basedon, it being a similar use to the ►ets And -,mail animals and .4),oultry as defined in Sections 26-123 and 26-606 of the the denied by an administrative officer; and No. WA-14-09 is an appeal to this Board i administrative officer; and has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and SAS, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the )ns governing the City of Wheat Ridge., 1, therefore, move to adopt a Resolution APPROVING Case No. WA -14 -09 Vice Chair GRIEGO reiterated a yes vote would be in favor of the applicant's request and a no vote is to deny the applicants request and uphold the staffs determination. The Vice Chair called for a vote on the recommendation motion and the board voted. Vice Chair GRIEGO encouraged the applicant to pursue other options. Board of Adjustment Minutes June 26, 2014 6 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair GRIEGO closed the public hearing, erne members for attending. members and spoke of the South an impact on the community. it is appreciated. I I � HOVLAND to Griego, Vic . Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes June 26, 20114 7