Approved - 7 to 0

Item No. 2 - SUP and Variance at 7500 W 29th Avenue

Case: SUP-21-01 & WA-21-02
Resolution No. 31-2021 – a resolution approving a special use permit and height variance to allow a new freestanding commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) facility on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 7500 W. 29th Avenue The applicant is requesting to install a new 140-foot freestanding commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) facility to replace the existing 159-foot CMRS facility located at 7500 W. 29th Avenue due to structural issues. The property contains existing municipal government facilities and is owned by the City of Wheat Ridge. Because the property is zoned Residential-Two (R-2), which does not permit new freestanding CMRS facilities and has a maximum height restriction of 35 feet, the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney, has determined this request can be considered through review of a Special Use Permit (SUP) with a height variance through a City Council public hearing.
This is a recording of the June 14, 2021 City Council meeting

Videos

Applicant Presentation

Staff Presentation

Files

Council Action Form ( 9.56 MB )
Planning Division Staff Report ( 5.72 MB )
Special Use Permit and Variance Review Criteria
Per Section 26-114 of the City Code, the city council shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the following criteria have been met. An analysis of these criteria are provided in the staff report linked above. 
1. The special use will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 
2. The special use will not create or contribute to blight in the neighborhood by virtue of physical or operational characteristics. 
3. The special use will not create adverse impacts greater than allowed under existing zoning for the property. 
4. The special use will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to the detriment of persons whether on or off the site. 
5. The property is appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk, buffering, screening and landscaping, so as to be in harmony and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas and neighborhood, especially with adjacent properties. 
6. The special use will not overburden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks, schools and other public facilities and services. 
7. There is a history of compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with Code requirements and prior conditions, if any, regarding the subject property. 
8. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. 
9. The proposed special use promotes goals and outcomes from applicable portions of the city's comprehensive plan and any subarea plan applicable to the subject property. 

Per Section 26-115 of the City Code, the city council shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates a majority of the following criteria have been met. An analysis of these criteria are provided in the staff report linked above. 

a. 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.
b. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 
c. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. 
d. 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. 
e. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 
f. 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. 
g. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 
h. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 
i. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. 


















Comments & Feedback

Comments
 
This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
Online comments closed at 12:30 PM MDT 6/14/21.
Comment period closed. No comments were received.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Your Question has been submitted.