Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/2008city of WheatP~idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA March 27, 2008 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on March 27, 2008, 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. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-07-23: An application filed by Mary Austin for approval of a 7.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 7.5 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 15 Twilight Drive. B. Case No. WA-08-01: An application filed by the City of Wheat Ridge Parks & Recreation Deparhnent for approval of a 3 foot variance to the 4 foot maximum fence height requirement within a minunum 30 foot front yard setback AND a 1 foot variance to the 6 Foot maximum fence height requirement behind the front setback line resulting.in a 7 foot fence on property zoned Commercial-One (C-1) & Agricultural-Two (A-2) and located at 4315 Van Gordon Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - January 24, 2008 B. Election of Officers 8. ADJOURNMENT FWH~T ~i Re OF WHEAT RIDG~ FCITY ANNI~TG DIVISION S3'AFF REPORT C~~ORP00 TO: Board of Adjustments CASE MAIVAGEA: Adam Tietz CASE NO. & NAME: WA-07-23/Austin DATE: March 27, 2008 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 7.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot setback requirement resulting in a 7.5 foot side yard setback on proper[y zoned Residential One (R-I). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 15 Twilight Drive APPLICANT (S): Milt and Mary Austin JS3'NER (S): Milt and Mary Austin APPROXIMATE AREA: (3,514 square feet (31 acre) PRESENT ZONING: Residential- One (R-1) PRXi SENT LAND USE: Single Family Home ENTFR INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILF, & PACKEI ' MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map OJGO] mon moia N009 NOfl fA0i5 _ N016 I ! - OJ01] ' - . " ccnm - - . m is. coooa mooe mo~a 00M OJC03 aooia OOG \ . mo]t All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 7.5 foot side yard setback variance for the purpose of constructing a 117 square foot shed, resulting in a 7.5 foot setback. All other development standards have been met. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to heaz and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing, before the Boazd of Adjushnent. II. CASE ANLYSIS The applicants, Milt and Mary Austin, is requesting the above variance as the property owner of 15 Twilight Drive. The property is located in the Paramount Heights Subdivision on Twilight Drive in an R-1 zone district. The property is bounded by Rangeview Dr. to the north, Dawn Ct. to the east, and Twilight Dr. to the south. The lot is 13,514 square feet or .31 acres. The R-1 zone district allows for maacimum lot coverage of 25%. Based on a lot size of 13,514 square feet, 3,378.5 square feet of lot coverage is allowed. The home and other existing improvements on the property cover approximately 2,778 square feet or 20.5% of the lot. The applicants wish to construct a 117 square foot, wood frame shed that is 10 feet high on the west side of the home within the required side yard setback (Exhibit 11 Site Plan). The R-1 zone district allows for single family dwelling units and accessory structures, which includes sheds. The required setback in an R-1 zone district for all accessory structures is 15 feet. The proposed shed would be 7.5 feet from the west property line. With the proposed shed, the lot coverage would increase the lot coverage to 2,895 square feet or 21.4%. The property in question is unique in that it has 3 street frontages (Exhibit 2, Street Map). In situations where a property has more then one street frontage the setbacks along those streets are increased to 30 feet. This may limit the ability of some owners to place ar construct accessory shuctures on their property. However, the lots in this particular subdivision were platted lazger then the R-1 minimum lot size of 12,500 squaze feet, including the property in question. Even with the increased setbacks on 3 sides, the properry has a large amount of space where improvements can be made (Exhibit 3, Site Photo). The shed is proposed to be conshucted on the side of the home that does not have any street frontage but is constrained as the result of the home already being approximately 2 feet from the setback requirement Exhibits 4 and S; Site Photos Board of Adjustment WA-07-23/Austin There has only been one variance granted on the block since the subdivision was platted. The variance was for a fence height in 2006 at 14 Twilight Dr. A visual inspection of the aerial photographs, research of building files and site visits reveal there are very few properties in the neighborhood with accessory structures (Exhibit 6, Aerial Photo). It appears that the properties that do have accessory structures comply with the required 15 foot side yard setback requirement. The Community Development Director is empowered to decide upon applications for which a variance of fifty (50) percent or less is being requested from the strict application of the development standards pertaining to the zone district. He has denied the applicants the right to an administrative review and has required the application be heard at a public hearing where the decision will be made by the Boazd of Adjustments. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following criteria to evaluate vaziance requests and shall 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-7). 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 still yield a reasonable return in use. The property currently has a single family home and it may remain in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicants would still be able to construct a shed but it would be required to meet the setbacks for the R-1 zone district. Staff fmds 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 could possibly be altered. The subdivision consists of large lot, low density single family residential units. There aze very few homes in the area that do have accessory structures. Of the homes that do have them, the structures have been built in compliance with the setbacks. 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. Board of Adjustment WA-07-23/Austin The applicant is proposing an investment in the properly that could improve the existing conditions on the property. The investment in the property would still be possible without the granting of this variance. The large lot does provide other areas where the shed could be conshucted that would meet the setback requirements. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved resutts 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 surrounding physical conditions that have resulted in the request for the shed to be constructed on the west side of the property. The property has three street frontages and the setbacks along those property lines are increased to 30 feet because of it: However, the shape, topography and the location of the home do not preclude the construction of a storage shed in the appropriate location. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. A person who has interest in the property has caused the hardship. The request relates to the location of the proposed storage shed that does not meet current development standards. It is possible to relocate the proposed shed in a location on the property where the required side yard setback could be met. Staff finds this criterion has not 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 permanentty 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 welfaze 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 Board of Adjustment WA-07-23/Austin will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The home would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent street and would not impede in the sight distance triangle. Staff fmds this criterion has been met. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The circumstance necessitating the variance request is the fact applicant would like to construct the shed in a location that will be screened from the public view as much as possible. The request is unique in that there are very few homes with accessory structures in the area. It is also unique that the shed is proposed to be constructed within the required side yard setback in relation to the rest of the neighborhood as the few homes that do have them, haue constructed them in a location where they do meet the setback requirement. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory structures 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 Sile Design Manual. 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 reviewed the application for a 7.5 foot side yard setback variance at 15 Twilight Drive. Staff has found there not are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of the variance. The applicable review criteria are not supportive of the request; therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: Board of Adjushnent WA-07-23/Austin 1. Grranting of the variance could potentially change or alter the character of the neighborhood as a majority of the shuctures in the neighborhood all meet the required side yard setback requirements. 2. Other opportunities may exist where the shed could be constructed while complying with the development standards in the R-1 zone district. 3. The hardship has been created by a person having interest in the property. 4. There are no physical conditions or other irregular conditions present on the properiy or neighborhood that would preclude the shed from being constructed in a manner that meets the set back requirements. Board of Adjustment WA-07-23/Austin ~ a ~ ;r . / . , . a , . ~ ~ ~ 5! ..i ~ ♦ V a 0 ~ e a ~ ~ ~ . lRiAe.t~ ~ • ~ s ( ^ e V f ° ° v S e a s ~ 1 ~ r a' r S ° +G. f • i 6 0* ~ ~ • ~ . e f . _ . ~ _ 's.. _ . _ _ - ~ e p ..m . .--r. _ - - w e e s 1 a ~ = .`s ti p,.C ~C W Y ~ ^ ~ N W ~ O~ ~ O ~ ~Q ~ t ; l ~ 00021 J \ oo0~ ' 00020 ~ ! ~ r 00019 "_'_,y--- ~ ~ 00018 I , 00014 00017 ' 00007 00069 00011 00015 00027 00018 ~ ' 00025 00017 , 00003 ~ I 00019 00023 oooas 00008 0001 5 ~ Tyv~ l/~~ ~ , 00014 00004 ' 00011 W 00011 00021 , )01 5 00012 4 00001 ~ 00409 z 00007 $ 00022 , 00019 00001 / Q Q 00010 00017 00020 I 00002 00004 00006 00008 00015 O0018 I Exhibit 2 Board of Adjustment 8 WA-07-23/Austin Exhibit 3 Board of Adjustment WA-07-23/Austin 9 ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w Board of Adjustment 10 WA-07-23/Austin J020 ~ ~ s q 7 Exhibit 6 Board of Adjusrinent 11 WA-07-23/Austin Ftesponse to Variance Griteria ihed PIacemenf 15 °I°wilight Dr. 4V€9{tora and Mary Austin (Owners) A. The placement of tt'is sheci vvill increase starage and value For any property owner a# this property. 1# wiil increase the Over a{I desirab€lity and value of thi~ ~~operty. B~ t do not feel tha# gran#ing of this wariance will efifeet The the essential characteY o# this Ioca(ity, in fact '1'he shed should blend in nieelya, C. l°he inrrestment that ! arrrt rrraking is the actua! Variance request itself. 7'he firne and money spent ~ By myseff is for the goad of aII. I am tryinq taa put ~ 1'he sheti iri the most inconspicuous place possible. W So as to no# make it o'atstaiiding or overly visfble In th~ locality. D. This unique property has 3 frontage streets. The proprsed PEacement Of thls shed wrll mir,im'sze its visibility from The fresntage streets. E. The shape af the yard and €rontage streets of the property Has not been createef by any person havirag interest in the Property F. The focation of the shed wauld not be anjurious tn the Deve9opment Qf aeay adjacent property ncsr weauld it be Detriniental to pubiic welfare. ft wil{ no# impair adequate Supply of light ar air to the adjacent praperty. it will not Affect congestiQn on psabiic streets in any way+. ft will not Endanger public safetli or diminish property vafues in The neigtsborhsscac3. It shauld not increase fire danger. G. 6 tiave noticed that it i-s not uniasual far sheds tca be Piaced closer that staEidard var(anee ailows iro this neighboncood. FWH~T CTTY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~<ORP00 TO: Board of Adjustments CASE MANAGER: Adam Tietz CASE NO. & NAME: WA-08-O1/Parks and Rec DATE: March 27, 2008 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 3 foot fence height variance to the masimum 4 foot fence height limit within the 30 foot front yard setback AND a 1 foot fence height variance to the maximum 6 foot fence height limit behind the front setback line resulting in a 7 foot high fence on property zoned Commercial-One (G1) and Agricultural-Two (A-2). LOCATION OF RE, QUEST: 4315 Van Gordon St. APPLICANT (S): City of Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Department OWNER (S): City of Wheat Ridge, Coforado APPROXIMATE AREA: 54,537 square feet (1.25 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Commercial-One (C-1) and Agricultural-Two (A-2) PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant land FUTURE LAND USE: Parks and Open Space (P) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site w~•i..^ azm Case No. WA-08-0 1/Parks and Rec 1 JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 3 foot fence height variance to the maximum 4 foot fence height limit within the 30 foot front yard setback and a 1 foot fence height variance to the masimum 6 foot fence height limit behind the front setback line resulting in a 7 foot fence. The property is currently undeveloped and will remain in this manner. It will be used for the storage of landscape and plant materials integral to the operations of the Parks Department. 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. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANLYSIS The applicant, The City of Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Department, is requesting the above variance as the property owner of 4315 Van Gordon Street. (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The property is located south of W. 44`h Ave on Van Gordon St. where the street dead ends into the property for which the variance is being requested. The property is encompassed by both the Gl and A-2 zone districts. The C-1 zone district extends approximately onto the northern quarter of the lot while the remaining three-quarters is zoned A-2. The lot is 54,537 squaze feet or 1.25 acres and is currently undeveloped. A 7 foot, chain link fence already exists on the east and south property lines (Eaihibit 2;: Site Photos). The property had been previously used as greenhouse and landscape nursery with green houses on the premises. The applicant has since demolished the buildings that had been on the property and it is now unimproved (EzhibiY 31Site PhoLOS). The properiy is bounded to the north with light industrial and office/wazehouses uses that have commercial zoning. Tabor Lake and the Clear Creek Open Space abut the property to the south and east while residential uses with the corresponding zone districts are located to the west (E~tliit 4: AertaKPfiotoerarihl. Both the C-1 and A-2 zone districts allow for fences up to 6 feet in height on the entire properry except if the fence is located in the required 30 foot front setback area. If a fence is located witlun the front setback, the height must be reduced to 4 feet. The applicant will wishes to construct a 7 foot, chain link fence to provide extra security, provide additional screening to the surrounding properties, and to match the fence height of the existing fen'ce already on the east and south sides of the property (E004 5,~Site Ptan). _ Case No. WA-08-O1/Parks and Rec 2 The applicant has indicated that the fencing is needed to enclose the property as it will be used as a storage facility for landscaping materials such as mulch, compost, limbs, rocks and trees and other plants. Section 26-624 of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws requires that such bulk storage materials be screen from view from adjacent properties by a view obscuring fence that is six feet in height. There has been no fence height variances granted within the area. Several variances have been granted primazily to setback requirements and sign height. The majority of variances that have been granted have been to businesses along W. 44h Ave. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following criteria to evaluate variance requests and shall determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. Staff provides,the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Request A: 3 foot fence height variance to the 4 foot limit in a front setback area. 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 still yield a reasonable return in use. The property currently is undeveloped and it may remain in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. However, if denied, the applicants would not be able to use the property as proposed as it is required that this type of use be screened by a 6 foot fence. 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 surrounded by open space and light industrial operations which should not be impacted by the fence. In addition, a 7 foot chain link fence already exists on two sides of the property. The fence will provide additional screening to the surrounding properties as well. 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 an investment in the property that will lead to the property being able to be used in a manner that is reflected in the Comprehensive Case No. WA-08-O1/Parks and Rec Land Use Plan that is also suitable for the zoning and the area. An investment of another type would be possible without the variance request but a variance to the fence height in the front setback area would be required regardless, if the property is to be used as proposed. Staff finds this criterion has 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. The surrounding physical conditions that have not resulted in the request for the fence to be constructed 7 feet high the property is rectangular in shape, and is relatively flat The surrounding physical conditions that have not resulted in the request for the fence to be constructed 7 feet high in the front setback area. The hardship has come as a result of City Code requiring that properties to be used for the storage of landscape materials be screened by a 6 foot fence. 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. A person who has interest in the property has not caused the hardship. The request relates to the height of the fence in the front yard setback but a minimum 6 foot fence is required for the use that is being proposed on the property. 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 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 haue an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The Case No. WA-08-0 1/Parks and Rec fence would not cause an obshuction to motorists on the adjacent street and would not impede in the sight distance triangle. Staff finds this criterion has been met. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The circumstance necessitating the variance request is the fact city code requires a minimum 6 six foot fence be used to screen the proposed use from view. There are 7 foot fences already in the neighborhood and lot. The owner is requesting the variance in order to be consistent with the conditions that are already present on the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The property will remain undeveloped and will not be 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. No new buildings or other improvements to the site aze being made to the site. The Architectural and Site Design Manual is only applicable when a new building or a major addition is constructed on commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential properties. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. Request B: 1 foot fence height variance to the 6 foot limit behind the front setback area 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used oniy under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would still yield a reasonable return in use. The property currently is undeveloped and it may remain in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not aiter the essential character of the locality. Case No. WA-08-0 1/Parks and Rec If the request were granted, the chazacter of the locality would most likely not be altered. The properiy is surrounded by open space and light industrial operations which should not be impacted by the fence. In addition, a 7 foot chain link fence already exists on two sides of the property. The fence will provide additional screening to the surrounding residential properties as well. 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 an investment in the property that will lead to the property being able to be used in a manner that is reflected in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that is also suitable for the zoning and the area. A 6 foot fence would be allowed to be constructed without a variance but would it would not be consistent with the conditions that are present on the property. Staff finds this criterion has 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. The surrounding physical conditions that have not resulted in the request for the fence to be constructed 7 feet high the property is rectangular in shape, and is relatively flat. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. A person who has interest in the property has not caused the hardship. The applicants wish to screen the residential property to the west from the proposed land use and to construct the fence so that it is similar in nature to the fencing on the rest of the property. 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 Case No. WA-08-O1/Parks and Rec 6 increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property vatues 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 an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The fence would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent street and would not impede in the sight distance triangle. 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. There are 7 foot fences already in the neighborhood and lot. The owner is requesting the variance in order to be consistent with the conditions that are already present on the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The property will remain undeveloped and will not be 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. No new buildings or other improvements to the site are being made to the site. The Architectural and Site Design Manual is only applicable when a new building or a major addition is constructed on commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential properties. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Request A: 3 foot fence height variance to the 4 foot lunit in a front setback area. Case No. WA-08-0 1/Parks and Rec 7 Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends approval of the 4 fence height variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a vaziance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The request will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 3. The variance would result in the addition having a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. 4. The request is consistent with the existing conditions on the property. With the following conditions: 1. The fence must be screened with slats, mesh, or other similaz material that is durable: 2. The color of the screening materials sha11 be non intrusive in color and reflect the character of parks and open space. Request B: 1 foot fence height variance to the 6 foot limit behind the front setback area Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends approval of the 1 foot fence height variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would wanant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The request will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 3. The variance would result in the addition having a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. 4. The request is consistent with the existing conditions on the property. With the following conditions: 1. The fence must be screened with slats, mesh, or other similar material that is durable. 2. The color of the screening materials shall be non intrusive in color and reflect the character of parks and open space. Case No. WA-08-O1/Parks and Rec 8 T:lt? Cl:l y .:)i 740f' :b°:.. c!'-V{ ;r.i[)J:_Ir .v P n__ p , I _ _ Ntarci, 200` fo~k'hUr.t 11 N3tikCou¢ern: " TCl~~ 1-4;c Cisy- ul Tle3[ (2idye Ptsrks ard Recrc;ziiuii C)ep❑rtinci*.[ 1:u5 rcutintlv purchaseci prcr+cs'ty .at [kc 43 15 `J;wn Wrdoit St. The Purl;s. svr•_strv and {3pcn S{slcc seeiieinc Lave a nvcd 'rbu a sCcUre staW-z.KC fa..iiity. Rccrnt ;luad plain designaUtm chzjt,es huN-c pluQed oui' cnrr~iit <tar:.ge f:wilitylveattid a; 43i1(7 I'iersnn hi thc OootS plain proliiniting the storage af ilutn+ h3~toricnll}s[oroci hwre. V°vr We .i:i uai goir.g ns~,Yl tu shn-c itcrns int,.graf tn our operuticn and ma'tn€cnaricc oE d;c Cic;''s I'arks aaici C3Ezau. Spaec iuuilitic,. ~[@iw ucsirLd aOu iur Uic propcety 4315 Y'an 000011 Se. "ouLcl Cc', calcc cn~cr th~ tintc'i<ar, •i* titc vuircitt prupt•rty Lit 4300 Picrsoit ps n stvra-ge IL,_ility ti>r i;xndscapirsg ztd:ta-i.ik ir:cludint tnuli!i. limh;, rarck and a lwWing urs;ss tiw Sms;s attd och_r,.l:mt,. Rclocatitte thcse items to 43 15 k':in 000011 %toi.iltl rcrn<rve rhCvc floatahEU storeci ❑taCm.tls [ium Ft:c flaacad pliain_ Tt?is tattci''r, request'sng permie:siun eo coi!ctrust a ? kixxt t;hain Iink PsGic4 eir the noetn an0 ucst Yxlun,?aria-s ufttl~ property ;at -7 i 15 l':in Gorilan St. lhrrc eNi,cs a? tiyot ch.ein link fc.ncc un the M>itin and ~asr hotnndariWS. [t i; our ;4esire to fcncc tliw rc.manirrig -.inienced .iiitf,.- (ihe na;Til "nd ~st sidtis) .~ith tmz;cirig .irniWr to the eziating icnciiig 2+n ihe sMuth :,nd dast s;dss anzl crar3 lntC iltis esiM:o>ure. Add•.:ionall,: tltcrc will bt a vehi.:lQ at.ces, g,itc plac«7 ~tithin the nc:rtl; te.cit:v Iinc, iiii'qctlv ~.~ft tltc suudi c3td ul' the exi.tisig pm'ement on au Ciordan tu al Inu for driec-in :3ci:es3. Tt:Crc will nz a e.:ta p1scatl wilhin tht "tst fenic JNc tluat "itl aiioic a4cess tv an iirigtation ditch r.iid liead gatti. !?ls mair,tenan2c purp,~scs. Gnciowd ynu wiil tenci :id.titiunal infunnatiosi rvsiccstcd ixi tha varianCe fin0ces, irtcludioz Laitd Cic. C'asc. Proccssing :lpplicvtic»t. +.enta;ive list of;»;ighbors 1or nofilication. pe'syof u§'uwnunship. kzind sutti-ey_ sca3ezf :ierial pfinto aat sito and sketch of' lence planned tbr site. PlvB+e Ict ,nc iawu if you re.qutse adcGtioei im'or^.nnYiun ur }ta~'c uny yt:cstion,. `.iinc4rclv. , tiiarU;iret agel Open Space C'ot7rdiaiacor c'3 ~,_:..,...ko>:-..... Case No. WA-08-O1/Parks and Rec Exhibit 1 9 EXh1b1t 2 Case No. WA-08-0 1/Parks and Rec 10 Exhibit 3 Case No. WA-08-OI/Parks and Rec Il Exhibit 4 Case No. WA-08-01/Parks and Rec 12 Case No. WA-08-0 1/Parks and Rec Exhibit 5 Ad0T`to :57c4Le 13 d... t`1oa~ if•sr~' f''°'P7ffPlwc°'"~e%. t&'s+"(„~.": l ♦~AI CItY Of Wheat id,ge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting January 24, 2008 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to arder by Chair BLAIR at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29`i' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Board Members Present Board Members Absent: Staff Membei-s Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Alan Buckuam BettyJo Page Larry Linker Paul Hovland Bob Howard Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Adam Tietz, Planner I Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to address the Board at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-07-20: An application filed by Phil Benallo for approval of (A) a l0-foot rear yard setback variance from the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 20-foot rear yard setback (39`h Avenue); (B) an 11-foot front yard setback variance from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement resulting in a 19-foot front yard setback (39`h Place); and (C) a 15-foot side yard setback variance fromlhe 30-foot rear yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 15-foot side yard setback (Ingalls Street); and located at 6088 West 39"' P1ace. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the Board of Adjustment Minutes - 1- January 24, 2008 case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The applicant is requesting approval of a three-fold variance request in order to construct an addition to the existing single family home on the property. Staff concluded that there are unique circumstances due to the property having three street frontages, however the extent of the requests is excessive. There are altematives such as reducing the size of the addition lessening the need for a variance on at least one side. For these reasons, staff gave a recommendation of denial for variances on three sides but would support variances on two sides with conditions as set forth in the staff report. She entered a letter into the record from S. A. Burson, 7311 Braun Way, Arvada, Colorado expressing opposition to a variance being allowed on all three sides of the property. This letter was the same as the one originally submitted to the Community Developmenf Director with a change in date to January 22, 2008. Board Member ABBOTT asked why Community Development Director had declined to approve the case. Ms. Reckert explained the Director thought it would be best for the case to be heard before the Board due to a letter of opposition which was received from a citizen. Board Member BELL commented that the proposed building would be within the 40% lot coverage. Chair BLAIR asked to hear from the applicant and members of the public. Phillip Benallo 6088 West 39`h Avenue Mr. Benallo, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR He stated that without all three variances, the house would look out of proportion and would also affect Yhe value. He stated that he would remove all the outbuildings and would not be removing any trees. When the garage is built and outbuildings are removed, there would be no vehicles parked outside the house. He plans to install matching brick wainscoting around the house and incorporate the design to blend in with the existing house. Board Member ABBOTT asked why the garage has to be so long. Mr. Benallo replied that the garage would accommodate a inotor home, a boat and his vehicles. There would be a storage room above the garage. Board Member PAGE expressed concern that the garage is so large that it could accommodate a business. Mr. Benallo assured the Board that no business will operate out of the garage and that it would simply accommodate his cars, motor home and boat. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2- January 24, 2008 Board Member BELL commented that removal of the present RV parking would provide for more yard space making the property more attractive. Jason Hart 6050 West 39"' Avenue Mr. Hart was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He expressed his support for all three variances. He stated that he has lived at this address since 1998 and Mr. Benallo's plan is the first improvement he has seen in the neighborhood. The proposed improvement will eliminate parking the boat outside and therefore improve Mr. Hart's property value as well. Emmett James 6060 West 39`" Place Mr. James was sworn in by Chair BLAIR: He has lived in the neighborhood for thirty-one years. He spoke in support of the application and stated that the addition to the house would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Betty James 6060 West 30' Place Ms. James indicated from the audience that she was in favor of the application. Tony Thiemen 12000 Pecos Street, Westminster Ms. Thiemen was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. She spoke in support of the application. She stated that she is a ReMax realtor and a cousin of the applicant. She has been involved with the applicant in making plans far the property. She was confident that the addition, and the meticulous manner in which the applicant takes care of his property; would improve the appearance of the neighborhood. Larry Douglas 10413 Qwens Circle, Westminster Mr. Douglas was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He spoke in support of the application. He stated that he is a friend of the applicant and has been involved in the planning overthe past three years to construct an addition that would blend in with the neighbarhood. The applicant's grandfather built the house and the applicant has lived in the house for eighteen years and plans to continue living in the neighbarhood. There were no other individuals to address the Board at this time. In response to a question from Board Meinber ABBOTT, Ms. Reckert stated that the city had not adopted a Dark Skies ordinance. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3- January 24, 2008 Board Member BELL indicated her support of the request. What the applicant is proposing would be an improvement to existing conditions in the neighborhood. It would also have better sight clearance than the property to the north. Board Member BLAIR cominented that he knows of no other situation in the city that compares to the applicanYs property. Board Member BUCKNAM commented that it is favorable that the house is being remodeled to remain a single family structure. In response to a question from Board Member PAGE, Mr. Benallo stated that the addition will not be constructed as a second unit. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: 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 was one protest 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 the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it`resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-07-20 (A), a 10=foot rear yard setback variance from the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street, be and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. There are a considerable number of substantial encroachments in this neighborhood within one block of this property. 2. There are seven other large residential structures within one block of 6088 West 39t" Place. All are in the Residential-Three zone district. 3. There is no living space above the over-height bay. 4. Staff found the first variance criterion has not been met and the Board concurs. 5. Staff found that the second variance criterion has been met and the Board wncurs. 6. Staff found the third variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 4- Jannary 24, 2008 7. Staff found that the fourth variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. 8. Staff found that the fifth variance criterion has not been met and the Board concurs. 9. Staff found that the sixth variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. 10. Staff found that the seventh variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs to a degree. 11. Staff found that the eighth variance criterion is not applicable and the Board concurs. 12. Staff found that the ninth variance criterion is not applicable and the Board concurs. 13. Several neighbors testified in favor of the variance. With the following findings: 1. This variance is not on a lot line immediately abutting neighbors' homes. 2. This structure sits on a'small parcel with two street corners resu►ting in three setbacks from streets`; 3. There are seven large multi-family structures within one block of this parcel, therefore this is not necessarily a'small single-story, single- family neighborhood. 4. Many other substantial encroachments in the setbacks within the neighborhood exist, some of a greater magnitude. 5. Design constraints were imposed. 6. Single family.use is being retained on a Residential-Three zoned lot. 7. It can be argued that completion of this structure in this neighborhood works in several ways toward the goals of the City's Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. 8. Lots across 39"' Avenue are elevated above the site in question thus offering some mitigation to view plane encroachment caused by the variance. With the following conditions: 1. The addition will be built consistent with the applicant's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. 2. All existing outbuildings and temporary structures will be removed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The existing driveway on the south side of the home will be removed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 4. A brick wainscoting three feet in height matching the original home will be provided on the 39t" Street elevation to lessen incongruities and visual impacts caused by the variance. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 5- January 24, 2008 5. Any outdoor lighting attached will generally meet Dark Skies concepts in retaining lighting leaving the property to a level that will cause no annoyance to neighbors. The motion carried 5-0, with Board Members HOVLAND, HOWARD and LINKER absent. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: 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 was one protest 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 the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-07-20 (B), an 11-foot front yard setback variance from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement, be and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. There are a considerable number of substantial encroachments in this neighborhood within one block of this property. 2. There are seven otherlarge residential structures within one block of 6088 West 39th Place: All are in the Residential-Three zone district. 3. There is no living space above the over height bay. 4. ` Staff found the first variance criterion has not been met and the Board concurs. 5. Staff found that the second variance criterion has been met and the Board eoncurs. 6. Staff found the third variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. 7. Staff found that the fourth variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. 8. Staff found that the fifth variance criterion has not been met and the Board concurs. 9. Staff found that the sixth variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. Board of Adjustmen[ Minutes - 6- January 24, 2008 10. Staff found that the seventh variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs to a degree. 11. Staff found that the eighth variance criterion is not applicable and the Board concurs. 12. Staff found that the ninth variance criterion is not applicable and the Board concurs. 13. Several neighbors testified in favor of the variance. With the following rindings: 1. This variance is not on a lot line immediately abutting neighbors' homes. 2. This structure sits on a small parcel with two street corners resulting in three setbacks from streets. - 3. There are seven large multi-family structures within one block of this parcel, therefore this is not necessarily a small single-story, single- family neighborhood. 4. Many other substantial encroachments in the setbacks within the neighborhood exist, some of a greater magnitude. 5. Design constraints were imposed. 6. Single family use is being retained on a Residential-Three zoned lot. 7. It can be argued that completion of this structure in this neighborhood works in several ways toward the goals of the City's Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. 8. Lots across 39`h Avenue are eleuated above the site in question thus offering some mitigation to view plane encroachment caused by the variance. With the following conditions: 1. ' The addition will be built consistent with the applicanYs Exhibits 5, 6, and 7. 2. All existing outbuildings and temporary structures will be removed priorkto issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The existing driveway on the south side of the home will be removed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 4. A brick wainscoting three feet in height matching the original home will be provided on the 39th Street elevation to lessen incongruities and visual impacts caused by the variance. 5. Any outdoor lighting attached will generally meet Dark Skies concepts in retaining lighting leaving the property to a level that will cause no annoyance to neighbors. 6. The driveway on the north side will be removed. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 7- January 24, 2008 The motion carried 5-0, with Board Members HOVLAND, HOWARD and LINKER absent. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BUCKNAM, the following resolution was stated: 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 was one protest 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 the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-07-20 (C), a 15-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when-adjacent to a public street, be and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. There are a considerable number of substantial encroachments in this neighborhood within one block of this property. 2. There are seven other large residential structures within one block of 6088 West 39th Place. All are in the Residential-Three zone district. 3. There is no living space above the over-height bay. 4. Staff found the first variance criterion has not been met and the Board concurs. 5. ' Staff found'that the second variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. 6. Staff found'the third variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs:' 7. Staff found that the fourth variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. 8. Staff found that the fifth variance criterion has not been met and the Board concurs. 9. Staff found that the sixth variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs. 10. Staff found that the seventh variance criterion has been met and the Board concurs to a degree. 11. Staff found that the eighth variance criterion is not applicable and the Board concurs. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 8- January 24, 2008 12. Staff found that the ninth variance criterion is not applicable and the Board concurs. 13. Several neighbors testified in favor of the variance. 14. Lowering the west wall, thus increasing the pitch of the west roof, would be more impactive than the proposed height of the encroaching wall. With the following findings: 1. This variance is not on a lot line immediately abutting neighbors' homes. 2. This structure sits on a small parcel with two street corners resulting in three setbacks from streets. 3. There are seven large multi-family structures within one block of this parcel, therefore this is not necessarily a small single-story, single- family neighborhood. 4. Many other substantial encroachments in the setbacks within the neighborhood exist, some of a greater magnitude. 5. Design constraints were imposed. 6. Single family use is being retained on a Residential-Three zoned lot. 7. It can be argued that completion of this structure in this neighborhood works in several ways toward the goals of the City's Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. 8. Lots across 39`l' Avenue are elevated above the site in question thus offering some mitigation to view plane encroachment caused by the variance. With the following conditions: 1. The addition will be built consistent with the applicant's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. 2. All existing outbuildings and temporary structures will be removed prior to issuance of a Certi6cate of Occupancy. 3. A brick wainscoting three feet in height matching the original home will be provided on the 39t" Street elevation to lessen incongruities and visual impacts caused by the variance. 4. Any outdoor lighting attached will generally meet Dark Skies concepts in retaining lighting leaving the property to a level that will cause no annoyance to neighbors. 5. Upright bushes or trees, as approved by the city, will be planted along the Ingalls Street frontage to lessen incongruities and impacts caused by the variance. Boazd of Adjustment Minutes - 9- January 24, 2008 The motion carried 5-0, with Board Members HOVLAND, HOWARD and LINKER absent. (Chair BLAIR declared a recess at 820 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:28 p.m.) B. Case No. WA-07-24: An application filed by Karen Stor for approval of a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 0-foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential-One C and located at 3025 Eaton Street. This case was presented by Adam Tietz. He entered al] pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation The applicant is requesting approval of a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the purpose of replacing an existing carport. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR; Mr. Tietz stated that staff had received no comments regarding the application. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Mr. Tietz explained that the existing concrete wall is four inches from the property line and won't be moved. The support beam for the new carport would be abutting the inside of cement walL In response to questions from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Tietz explained that the Karen Stor's application requested a 0-foot setback, but upon further study it is apparent that it is actually a 1-foot setback. Chair BLAIR asked to hear from the applicant. Karen Stor 3025 Eaton`Street Ms. Stor, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. The existing carport is leaking into the house so she will have to remove it whether or not she can replace it. She submitted a letter into the record from neighbors in support of the application. She explained that the downspout will drain into the garden. Julian Kasprzak 3025 Eaton Street Mr. Kaspryzak was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. He stated that the replacement of the existing carport would improve the appearance of the property. A 0-foot Board of Adjustment Minutes - 10 - January 24, 2008 setback was originally requested because when he drew up the plans he erroneously thought the gutter would figure into the setback. Upon a motion by Board Member PAGE and second by Board Member ABBOTT following resolution was stated. Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-07-24, 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 no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detrimen£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 Case No. WA-07-24 be and hereby is APPROVED. For the following reasons: 1. The request will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. The construction of #he new carport will be a substantial investment in the property. 3. ' The proposed carport will be a substantial improvement from the existing conditions. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. ° The variance would result in the addition having a minimal impact on the surrouniling properties. 6. The request'is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as a majority of the homes, sheds, and garages in the area have been constructed within the required setback areas. 7. The hardship has not been caused by the applicant. 8. The improvements will prevent further water damage to existing improvements and the home. 9. There were no objections received for the variance during the 15-day public noticing period. With the following conditions: 1. The materials used and architectural detail shall be complimentary to the existing improvements and home. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 11 - January 24, 2008 2. The carport shall be constructed as proposed: One foot from the property line rather than having the ability to be constructed up to the property line. Board Member BELL offered a friendly amendment to add a condition requiring that the downspout be directed so as to drain under the soil and not impact adjacent property. The amendment was accepted by Board Members PAGE and ABBOTT. The motion carried 5-0, with Board Members HOVLAND, HOWARD and LINKER absent. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BLAIR closed the public hearing portion of the meeting at 9:06 p.m. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. NEW BUSINESS A. Approual of Minutes - September 26, 2007 It was moved by Board Member PAGE and seconded by Board Member BUCKNAM to approve the minutes of September 26, 2007. Themotion passed unanimously. B. Meredith Reckert announced that Travis Crane has resigned effective February 13 -to accept a position with the City of Raleigh, North Carolina. She invited Board members to attend a reception for Travis to be held in the'second floar conference room on February 13. C. At the request of Board Member BELL, Adam Tietz presented an update on Urban Renewal plans for the 44`" and Wadsworth area. D. Board Member ABBOTT suggested that the city take a look at requiring pervious surfaces. E. At the request of Board Member PAGE, Meredith Reckert gave a brief update on light rail. Boazd of Adjustment Minutes - lZ - January 24, 2008 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 920 p.m. Robert Blair, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Addendum: Variance Criteria Board of Adjushnent Minutes - 13 - January 24, 2008 March 7, 2008 Save the Date Boards of Adjustment Workshop When: Saturday, May 10, 2008; 8 a.m. until 3 p.m. Where: Location to be determined. Topics: The role and authority of the Board; the purview and responsibilities of the Board; and Boards of Adjustment hearing procedural requirements. Who Should Attend: Local government Board ofAdjustment members, planning department staff, city attorneys, zoning hearing officers, planning commissioners, elected officials and others. 3ponsors: The Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association and the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Look for details about this event in coming weeks. 03/10/2008