Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2009City of W heat Wdge ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA January 22, 2009 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on January 22, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-08-16: An application filed by John & Janet Jackson for approval of a 5.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 24.5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3225 Miller Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - December 10, 2008 B. Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meetings 8. ADJOURNMENT City of Wh6atP,,i:0Ld e CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Case File DATE: January 15, 2008 CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME Adam Tietz WA-08-16/Jackson ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 5.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot setback requirement resulting in a 24.5 foot side yard setback for a detached garage on property zoned Residential-One (R-1). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3225 Miller St. APPLICANT (S) OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA John and Janet Jackson John and Janet Jackson 16,261 square feet (.37 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-One (R-1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residence COMP PLAN LAND USE: Single Family Residential not to exceed 4 units per acre (SF4) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map 10400 03275 10300 10370 00275 3 A m 7 03250 Site 10411 10405 Site 03225 )0.32,25 10405 03225 Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson LE Z 00048 10340 00047 C 0 2 JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 5.5 foot (18.3 percent) side yard variance to the required 30 foot side yard setback when it is adjacent to a public street in order to construct a 378 square foot garage at the property indicated above. The request for the variance was published for the approval of a 7.5 foot (25 percent) side yard variance to the required 30 foot side yard setback based on information provided by the applicant. After the request was published the applicant informed staff of the correction. This correction is reflected in the following staff report. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard unless objections directly relating to the request have been received in writing. If an objection has been received 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. Two letters of objection have been received regarding this request. (Exhibits I and 2, Letters of Objection) II. CASE ANLYSIS The applicants, John and Janet Jackson are requesting a variance as the property owners of 3225 Miller Street. (Exhibit 3, Letter of Request) The application for a 7.5 side yard variance is being requested so the applicant may a construct a two car, detached garage on the southern side of the home, adjacent to West 32nd Avenue. (Exhibit 4, Site Plan) The property is zoned R-1 which does allow for detached garages but requires a 30 foot side yard setback when the side yard is adjacent to a public roadway. These development standards were established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low-density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the low-density residential character. The lot size is approximately 16,261 square feet. The minimum lot size for the R-1 zone district is 12,500 square feet. The R-1 zone district allows for twenty-five (25) percent maximum building coverage. The site contains a 1,959 square foot home with an attached two car garage making the lot coverage 12 percent. The proposed garage will be constructed on the south side of the home and will be approximately 378 square feet in size. The construction of the garage will increase the lot coverage from 12 percent to 14.4 percent. Board of Adjustments 2 Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson The existing home is on a lot that has frontage along both W. 32"d Ave and Miller St. Since the home has two street frontages the setback for the side yard alongW. 32°d Ave. is increased to 30 feet. The increased side yard setback along with 30 foot front yard set back have resulted in a relatively large front and side yards with a rear yard that is small and limited in its use and functionality. (Exhibit 5, Site Photos) In addition the to the increased setbacks that result in a smaller buildable area, the home on the lot has been oriented so that it is not parallel to either of the streets as is the case with most homes. (Exhibit 6, Site Photo) As a result of the home being oriented this way, a large portion of the buildable area on the lot has been used. The construction of a detached garage in the rear yard that meets all the required setbacks is possible. The rear yard is the only location on the property that the garage could be constructed within the required setbacks. If a garage were to be constructed in the rear yard it would be difficult to access and it would take up a majority of the back yard making it even more limited in its uses. Providing access to the garage from Miller St would be difficult if the garage were located in the rear yard as it would have to navigate around the existing home. Access to the garage from W. 32nd Ave would all but be impossible because of the grade separation between the back yard and the road. (Exhibit 7, Site Photos) It would also be unlikely that Public Works would allow a curb cut to be installed for access to a garage off of W. 32nd Ave. The garage will not extend into the front yard setback as it will be located 55 feet back from the front (Miller St.) property line and will not encroach into the sight distance triangle. All other development standards will be met with this proposal. If the proposed garage were to be constructed on a lot that did not have two street frontages, the required side yard setback would only be 15 feet. If this were the case, a variance would not be required to construct this garage as it is set back 24.5 from the property line. The applicant has expressed the proposed garage will be built of quality construction and will match the existing home and garage. It will be tied to the existing garage using the same brick, shingles and other materials and will also use the existing driveway to gain access. (Exhibit 8, Site Photos) A variance to the fence height for this property was granted in October 2008. The request was for a 3 foot height variance to the 6 foot fence height maximum. The variance was an administrative as the request did not exceed 50%. The Community Development Director approved the variance and an 8 foot fence has since been constructed on the property. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Board of Adjustments 3 Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson In order to approve an administrative variance, the Board of Adjustments 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 applications compliance with the variance criteria. (Exhibit 9) 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. The property currently has a single family home with attached double garage on it and these improvements may remain and be used in this manner regardless of the outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicant could still construct a detached garage on the property. The garage would have to be constructed in a location that would meet the 30 foot setback when it is adjacent to a public street. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. If the request were granted, the character of the locality would most likely not be altered. The property is located in an area of single family homes with large lots. Even with the garage extending in to the side yard setback the lot remains largely open. If the side yard setback was the standard 15 feet rather than the increased 30 feet, the garage would meet the setback requirement. In August 2008, an administrative variance was approved for a home across the street at 10370 Miller St. to be able to construct a garage in the required 15 foot rear yard setback. Staff finds 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 applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property. There are alternate locations on the property where the garage could be constructed without encroaching into setbacks. Due to the orientation of the home and other improvements; an increased side yard setback and the area where the garage could be constructed in accordance with the R-1 development standards would render the rear yard virtually unusable. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Board of Adjustments 4 Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson 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 are very unique conditions related to the topography and location of the property as well as the orientation of the home that result in a hardship on upon the owner. The southern property line, adjacent to W. 32°d Avenue, is several feet above the elevation of the home. As a result the property dramatically slopes from the south to the north. The property does level off some in the area where the garage is proposed. But the topography still presents challenges to locating a garage on the property. In addition to the hardship created by the topography, the property has an increased side yard setback because of its frontage along W. 32°d Ave. If the property were not located along W. 32nd Ave the setback would only be 15 feet in which case no variance would be needed. If the setback were only 15 feet the proposed garage would still be 9.5 feet away from the required setback. The orientation of the home also creates a hardship. Typically homes directly face the street from which they are addressed off of. In this case the home faces to the northeast. As a result, the home takes up more of the developable area on the lot then if the home had a straight orientation and was pushed to the setback lines. If the home did face the street and it was pushed to its northern setback line, there would be more room on the south side of the home to construct the garage and it could be built without encroaching into the increased side yard setback. These conditions do create unique hardships on the property in question and therefore the request for relief from the strict regulation of the law is more than a mere inconvenience. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship described above relates to the location of a detached garage in respect to its 30 foot side yard setback. The property was platted and the home was constructed prior to the current owner having an interest in the property. As a result, the owners did not create these hardships 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 Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson 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. Staff believes 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 properties. 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 cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance triangle. The danger of fire would not increase as a result of this request. Staff finds 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 topographical conditions that exist on the subject property do also exist at other locations in the neighborhood. This condition exists primarily in the specific area of the variance request around W. 32nd Ave and Miller St. There are also homes in the area that appear to have structures that have been constructed within the required setback. Some variances have been granted in the area for decreased setbacks, the most recent being in August 2008 where a detached garage was approved to be able to be constructed in the required 15 foot rear yard setback. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds 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. Board of Adjustments 6 Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 5.5 foot side yard setback variance to the required 30 foot side yard setback requirement when a side yard is adjacent to a public road, resulting in a 24.5 foot side yard. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The side yard setback variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. There will be no negative impact to the public welfare or other properties in the area. 3. The request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, encroach into the sight distance triangle, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. There are unique conditions on the property that create a hardship for the garage to be built in compliance with the R-1 development standards. 5. The said hardships on the property have not been created by the owner or any person currently having an interest in the property. 6. The conditions necessitating the request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. With the following condition. 1. The garage must be complimentary in building material and architectural style to the home subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Board of Adjustments 7 Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson Page I of 1 Adam Tietz From: clesher989@aol.com Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 144 PM To: Adam Tietz Subject: WA-08-16 Mr. Tietz, Further to our discussion this afternoon (12-22-08), I wish to express my opposition to the change set back of 30' requested in WA-08-16 at 3225 Miller Street. Overlook Estates was originally planned he with specific setbacks. Each change of the original plans reduce the open space around the dwellings and decreases the space between existing structures. People have purcl-~ased homes in this area due to the open space and low density of homes. Thanks, Carl L. Lesher Listen Start L to 350nq Nowc, sports, & news radio stations - including songs or the holidays _ FREE while you browse. Exhibit 1 12/22/2008 Dec 22 Uti U4AUp t5amara - rage 1 of 1 Subj: variance for setbacks at 3225 Miller Date: 1212212008 4:29:53 PM Mountain Standard Time From: Febllgirl To: .atietz@ci.wheatridge.co. us I am opposing case WA 08-16 for set back variance. I have bee a homeowner in Overlook Estates for 32 years and the reason I chose this neighborhood was for the a-1 zoning and covenants at the time. I had to stick to strict guidelines when building my home and when remodeling. I feel that the city should not compromise the neighborhood any more than they recently done. If we allow these variances to continue we will have a completely different neighborhood than what it was originally zoned to be. Thank You, Barbara Carmosino One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail. Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. Exhibit 2 Mondav. December 22. 2008 America Online: Febl 1 girl John and Janet Jackson 3225 Miller Street WheatRidge, CO 80033 (303) 237-8554 12 % s ~C ~ / LL1 ~ttiw 4-Y "P 44 v f V sal ' ~ / ( p J V f N Q' Cia Exhibit 4 a° 0 ~Q U v_ O z 1\ OX zOw Z` \ ~Rw SRO tit wl ~ a` 1 r 1 ~ o Q ~ W i i f- CID LU A ~(1"f Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson 12 e OV t-ln Exhibit 6 Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson 13 v Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson I A7 7-1 s i _lrr k Zs- Cc ~f Board of Adjustments 15 Case No. WA-08-16/Jackson from: John & Janet Jackson 3225 Miller Street Wheat Ridge. Colorado 80033 Phone: 303-237-8554 Email: lo.- The City of W neat Ridge Regarding: Variance Criteria for Review for 3225 Miller Street. We are asking for a small variance to erect a detached garage on the south side of our house. We are hoping that it could be an Administrative Exemption since the dimension we want is no more than 25%. A. The propem, in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, senice or income if permitted to be used onl} under the conditions allowed b) regulation for the district in which it is located. h The original two car attached garage is not large enough for two cars. The second vehicle must be out in the weather. We need a second garage to house our second car. We live on the corner of 32nd and Miller so therefore we do not have two sides and a front and bac!: to the house but only two fronts. one side and one back. The 30-foot rule for two sides of our home does not give us enough room to build the second garage or it' %A e stay in compliance it will be a very close garage with absolutely no storage area. B. The variance N ould not alter the essential character of the localit`. We only need 7.5 feet to the south, which would then be 22.5 feet from the edge of our property on 32nd instead of 30 feet. It would not obstruct the view for traffic, nor encroach on any other property. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial iavesunent in the property 4vit.h this application, which -vould not be possible without the variance. Xithout this variance it would require us to make a very tittle garage just the size of the car and could not be used for any kind of storage. It also would require the garage to be only 3 feet from the existing garage, which is too close for as. We want 5.5 feet between the two garages and an extra two feet in the garage for shelves on one side of the garage. Regarding: Variance Criteria for Review for 3225 Miller Street D. The particular physical surrounding, shape and topographical condition of tiie specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the ownerI as distinguished main a mere inconvenience. We want to buy a new second car but we do not want to let it stay out in the elements ana deteriorate faster than normal. We need the new garage and a size that is comfortable. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship. the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship is that we are on a comer and the 30-foot rule is on both Miller and 32nd k l . The granting of the x Griance would not be detrimental to the public %veiihm or injurious to other pro „ q or improvements in the neighborhood in wMch the property is located. by among other things substantially or permanently impairing ~o the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase in the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fine or endangering dtc r* public safety, or substantiaily diminishing or impairing property values within the ~ neighborhood. Ibis building will not obstruct anyone "s view, encroach on an adjacent property or be unsightly. It will match the house to the b--st of our ability and enhance our property. G. The unusual circumstance or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. T•itere is another garage in the process that is dust east of our property on Miller that has received a variance much greater than the one we are requesting. Than{; you for your time and considerat;on. John & Janet Jackson 131u~: au~stiof_ Black: answer ♦~AI 1, City of W heat Iidge 1. 2. 3. 4. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting December 10, 2008 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adj by Chair PAGE at 7:05 .m. in the City Council Chan Building, 7500 West 29' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colo ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Staff Members C ent was called to order of the Municipal Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Alan Bucknam Paul Hovland Betty Jo I Meredith Jeff Hirt, Ann Lazz ;mss Reckert, Senior Planner Planner II the Board at this time. A. Case No. TUP-08-02: An application filed by Eric Boivin of All Traffic Data for approval of a one-year temporary use permit to allow four temporary storage containers on property located at 9660 West 44`x' Avenue and zoned Commercial One. 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 reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons and with conditions as outlined in the staff report. The applicant requested approval of a temporary use permit to allow existing temporary storage containers to remain on the site while he determines how to accommodate necessary storage within existing zoning regulations. The applicant Board of Adjustment Minutes December 10, 2008 indicated there is not suitable space within the existing building to store his traffic data collection equipment. In response to a question from Board Member BUCKNAM, Mr. Hirt stated that the storage units are screened by an approximately 7-foot fence adjacent to the property to the south. The units are estimated to be 2-3 feet from the fence. Because they are temporary units and not classified as structures, they are not subject to setback requirements. Mr. Hirt commented that because the applicant's situation is not uncommon in the city, staff is working on a code amendment which would allow more flexibility for business property owners. Eric Boivin All Traffic Data 9660 W. 44th Avenue Mr. Boivin was sworn by Chair PAGE. He st; in his existing building to store traffic data col installed the storage units. He stated that if he would build additional space. If that is not po his building on the east side in order to elimin, Daniel Lynch 4371 Hoyt Court Mr. Lynch was sworn b, immediately adjacent to ted that Mr. Boivin his property. ~y3 d that there is not sufficient room ;tion materials and therefore he )uld acquire adjacent property he ble, he is considering adding onto the need for storage units. PAGE. He owns the apartment building licant's property. He spoke in favor of the id no objection at all to the storage units. He many improvements to enhance the appearance Board Member BUCKNAM invited discussion regarding safety and access issues in retard to the setback issues. Board Member BELL commented that, upon driving by the property, she didn't have a problem with the setback issue. The 7-foot fence prevents graffiti as well as people climbing on the units. Board Member ABBOTT commented that, from a fire department viewpoint, the steel, windowless storage units would not present a fire hazard. However, there can be problems with having junk stored in setback areas. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Board of Adjustment Minutes -2- December 10, 2008 WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; 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. TUP-08-02 be and hereby is APPROVED. For the following reasons: 1. Staff has recommended approval. 2. Approval of the temporary storage containers would not alter the character of the locality. 3. Approval of the temporary storage containers would not be injurious to other properties in the neighborhood. 4. The temporary storage containers would not result in traffic congestion or traffic hazards. 5. Approval of the temporary storage containers will accommodate a business owner in need of storage and allow time to consider long 6. The owner of the property immediately adjacent to the south testified in favor of the temporary use permit. With the following conditions: 1. The temporary storage container shall be allowed for one year. The one year time period shall begin with the approval from the Board of Adjustment on December 10, 2008. 2. Nothing immovable, combustible or noncombustible shall be stored immediately around any side of the containers. The motion passed 7-0 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair PAGE closed the public hearing. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3 - December 10, 2008 6. 7. 8. m. Arm Lazzeri, Secretary OLD BUSINESS Board Member BELL encouraged Board members to attend the December 18th Planning Commission meeting when proposed code amendments will be discussed. • Board Member ABBOTT commented that he is serving on the committee formed to review Comprehensive Plan. The process is consultant-facilitated. He encouraged Board members to attend public hearings on this matter. The first community meeting will be held on January 13, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. at the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - June 26, 2008 It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member BUCKNAM to approve the minutes of June 26, 2008 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. B. Election of Officers Alan Bucknam was elected to serve as Chair of the Board of Adjustment. Paul Hovland was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Board of Adjustment. Board of Adjustment Minutes -4- December 10, 2008 City of Wheat idge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: BOARD OF ADUSTMENT THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant DATE: January 16, 2009 SUBJECT: Resolution Designating a Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public Meetings Pursuant to legislative amendments to the Colorado Open Meeting Law as Section 24-6- 402(2)(c), Board of Adjustment is to annually designate at its first meeting for each calendar year a public place for the posting of notices for meeting. By properly designating a place for posting meeting notices, a public entity will be deemed to have given full and timely notice of any meeting so long as notice thereof was posted as the designated place at least twenty-four hours in advance thereof. Attached is Resolution 01, Series of 2009, which identifies the bulletin board in the lobby of the Municipal Building as the designated place for posting of meeting notices. Attachment 1. Resolution 01, 2009 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 01 Series of 2009 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DESIGNATED PUBLIC PLACE FOR THE POSTING OF MEETING NOTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE COLORADO OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, deems it in the public interest to provide full and timely notice of all of its meetings; and WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws, Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S. to require all "local public bodies" subject to the requirements of the law to annually designate at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year, the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting; and WHEREAS, "local public body" is defined by Section 24-6-402(1)(a) to include "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision- making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that: 1. The City's official bulletin board for legal notices located in the lobby of the Municipal Building shall constitute the designated public place for the posting of meeting notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. 2. The Community Development Director or his designee shall be responsible for posting the required notices no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the holding of the meeting. 3. All meeting notices shall include specific agenda information, where possible. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of , 2009. CHAIR, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTEST: Secretary to the Board of Adjustment e: \ptann ingWormsVescc