Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/2010♦~A( City of Wheat RJdge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA January 28, 2010 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on January 28, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29`t' 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. WF-10-01: An application filed by Kevin Larson for approval of a Class II special exception permit to allow construction of a two-family residence in the 100 year flood plain on property located at 6701 West 48th Avenue. B. Case No. WA-10-01: An application filed by Robert Chapman for approval of an 8 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement pursuant to Section 26-611.A.1 resulting in a 2 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 11595 W. 32nd Ave. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - October 22, 2009 B. Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meetings 8. ADJOURNMENT City of Wh6atP.,j:0-d e CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE: January 28, 2010 CASE MANAGER: Adam Tietz CASE NO. & NAME: WF-10-O1/Swiss Valley ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a Class II Floodplain Permit to allow for the construction of a two family dwelling unit on property zoned R-2 LOCATION OF REQUEST APPLICANT/OWNER: APPROXIMATE AREA: 6701 W. 48`h Avenue Kevin Larson for Swiss Valley, LLC 22,760 s.f. PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Two (R-2) PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION r~ Site xev=. ~ 2'9)5',. , ~ F..•-- j~ Case No. WF-10-0 Swiss Valley JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met therefore there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST: The property in question is located at 6701 W. 48`h Avenue is zonedR-2 and encompasses several parcels. Combined the parcels make up just over an acre of land with 56,061 square feet (Exhibit 1, Property Survey). The applicant is requesting a Class 11 Floodplain exception permit to allow for the construction of an attached two-family dwelling unit (Exhibits 2, Letter of request). A similar request was presented at the September 24, 2009 Board of Adjustment meeting for the same property. Due to difficulties on the site, the applicant has proposed the duplex to be located at a different location on the property. Since the new location of the proposed duplex lies in the floodplain, a new flood study must be performed to ensure that the new location of the duplex will not negative impacts to other properties in the area. Section 26-808(D) (Floodplain Control) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide appeals of Class I special exemption permits which have been denied by the floodplain administrator and requests for Class II special exemption permits as provided within these regulations. II. CASE ANLYSIS: The property currently has an office building that is used an architecture office while the rest remains vacant. A single family home was located on the property until it burned down in 2008. The portion of the property where the duplex is proposed is located within the Clear Creek 100 year floodplain (Exhibit 3, Flood Plain Map, Exhibit 4, Aerial photo with floodplain overlay, Exhibit S, Site plan). The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws states that in order for any habitable structure to be constructed in the 100 year floodplain a flood plain permit must be obtained. Specifically, Sec.26-808(D) states that any new construction of any residential structure for human occupancy within the floodplain must obtain a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit. As a part of the application for a Class If Floodplain Exception Permit plans certified by an engineer must be submitted to the floodplain administrator that show the lowest floor will be elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation. The applicant has submitted all the required information which included a floodplain study and analysis. The required drainage report was prepared by a registered engineer which does indicate the lowest floor of the duplex will be over one foot above the base flood elevation of 5,300.35 feet (Exhibit 6, Flood study conclusions). The proposed duplex will have a Case No. WF-10-0 Swiss Valley 2 finished floor elevation of 5,302 feet, 1.65 feet above the surface of the water in a 100 year flood. The study also indicates that the proposed construction will not cause the flood water levels to increase in the area; that damage to the duplex caused by flooding on the property will be minimized; and the utilities on site will be protected from flooding. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Upon review of the above request staff concludes that the two-family dwelling unit as it is proposed will not have a negative impact on the 100 year floodplain. Therefore staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The proposed construction will not result in raising the flood water height in the area. 2. The damage due to floods will be minimized. 3. The utilities will be installed in a manner that will be protected from flood damage. 4. The floodplain administrator has reviewed and supports the findings of the floodplain analysis. With the following conditions: 1. The lowest floor elevation of the proposed duplex must be constructed 1 foot above the base flood level of 5,300.35 feet. 2. The elevation must be verified by an elevation survey after the foundation has been poured prior to other construction commencing. Case No. WF-10-0 Swiss Vallee ~a a i v Eo o[ Y~a ~ j N ~ - € • E = 3 ~ S ' 1 - - ' L _ _ _ _ w rs ~amr „-.o >y o .i .n~vu ~ n m s y - ° y . , u a . Ps _ aso i z 5 c W it I S Lr tectonic Architecture I Construction Management management group, inc General Contracting 6695 West 48th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 301403]228 January 5, 2010 Meredith Reckert AICP City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 2901 Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 RE: Swiss Valley LLC Request for Variance 6695 W. 484'Ave. Building in a Flood Plain Dear Meredith, We appreciate the opportunity to submit this Request for Variance for the above referenced property. Our intent is to receive a variance on the property to allow the construction of a new duplex apartment to be built in an existing flood plain area. Under Section 26-115. Variances, item 2we submit the following; a. A copy of the Special Warranty Deed is attached along with a Tax Statement b. No Power of Attorney is provided in that the Applicant is the Owner c. A copy of the Property Survey is included d Enclosed is some additional information for your review in the package from HVS Engineering. e. A proposed Site Plan has been provided for review indicating the proposed new structure and the existing well location. f. Architectural Elevations have not been provided due to the nature of the variance. g. A Posting Certificate will be submijted at the hearing to the clerk h. Other information: a. The Swiss Valley Property is a unique piece of land The original single family residence was destroyed by an arsonist in late 2008. With the revisions to the flood plain maps from the city the property now has an area that occurs in the flood plain. Please see the attached Flood Plain Analysis for reasons to allow the construction of a new building in the flood plain. P # e, l N MM~ h~ W J, i. VI, io' kf S.4 11 J oNE,B lr' - her l1 l YEAR FL . LAI •0 p y. M CO ..DENSE- _ Y \1 1-4 / 1, v M 1 l1 ~r 0 100 200 ` L" \ \ M H ` LOR i'/v DATUM: 1988 NAVD HVS ENGINEERING INC. CLEAR CREEK DATE MODIFIED FROM DRAWING FLOOD HAZARD AREA STUDY 9-3-09 PREPARED BY ICON CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ 5m A. O R ENGINEERING, INC. M) 94O ~0DZ °t SHEET -3W7 - N. DATE REM9aNS APPR. DATED APRIL 2007 MOE' lam) ~0 rua (w3) ea sus PLAN STA. 424+00 TO STA. 455+00 13 IPOI tow Amf. y M Ft} c~ s fir Ir 5 0681 1 G ~ - I I i ~ it I 7 F I Ig I ~ I" D I - 3]N3~n13n f 37 0. 2A C .9I \ \ L _ _ a I Gay soo,erew +o iv / ~ r- 150'4- of ~b ! _ --t----- ------,---------1_- - - - / / r I cn m m / ~ p I rn a n I y / / / /i \ (aa rn I ip CD I / / i L / V I m m' x \ a0y05V 9r]' ~ r E s i _ wfs~ e. zav a i ' 124 v, E _ / 9/ • CID K L . ? cc v l Ai EXHIBIT ~ a K g / JANUARY 4, 2010 REVISION Due to questions related to ownership of the portion of the property where the new building was originally planned to be constructed, the building needed to be relocated to the southwest comer of the site. Since the 100-year flood elevation for the entire site is controlled by bridge backwater, relocating the building anywhere on the site will not cause an increase in flood heights. The base flood elevation (BFE) will remain 5300.35. The finish floor elevation of the relocated building will be lowered to 5301.5. This will still place it 1.15' above the 100-year flood elevation. Thus, the relocation of the building does not change this report other than to revise the site drawing located in the rear pocket. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Swiss Valley property located at 6695 West 48`h Avenue is in the City of Wheat Ridge, except for the northwest corner of the property, which is located in the City of Arvada. The property is located in Zone X on the FEMA FIRM, indicating that property is outside the 100- year floodplain. However, most of the property is located within the 100-year floodplain in the 2007 FHAD, which was adopted by the City of Wheat Ridge for regulating the 100-year flood plain. The entire property is located outside the floodway as defined in the 2007 FHAD. Placing fill on the portion of the Swiss Valley property that is within Wheat Ridge will have no effect on either the FIRM defined or 2007 defined 100-year floodplain. Thus this study finds that the proposed construction, as shown on the accompanying site drawing will: 1. not increase flood heights in the area, 2. minimize flood damage and protect utilities, and 3. result in the lowest floor elevation of the new building being over 1' above the base (100 year) flood level of 5300.35. ExH _ T City of Wh6atPi:.ddge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE: January 21, 2010 CASE MANAGER: Sarah Showalter CASE NO. & NAME: WA-10-01 /Chapman ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of an 8 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement pursuant to Section 26-61 LA. I resulting in a 2 foot side yard setback for a property zoned Residential-One (R-1). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 11595 West 32nd Avenue APPLICANT (S) OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA Robert Chapman Robert Chapman 14,723 SF (.34 acres) PRESENT ZONING PRESENT LAND USE Residential One (R-1) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site ~4 - 7 J3;f9 R-7A r R_1 (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION __,.32NDAVE. JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. L REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance of 8 feet (80 percent) from the required 10 foot side yard setback for porches, patios, decks and balconies in the R-1 zone district. The purpose of this variance is to allow for a covered patio, open on three sides, with a footprint of approximately 10 feet by 14 feet. 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 percent from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Robert Chapman, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 11595 West 32°d Avenue The variance is being requested for an existing covered patio on the east side of the home. The applicant replaced an older covered patio with the same footprint that was damaged by a severe storm (Exhibit 1, Photo of' Damaged Patio). A building permit was not issued for the patio and the applicant received a stop work order. A setback variance is required to legitimize the location of the patio so a permit can be issued. The property is located at the northeast corner of 32"d Avenue and Simms Street and is zoned Residential-One (R-1), a zone district 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 property is surrounded by other single-family homes to the north, south, east, and west (Exhibit 2 Aerial Photo). There is a detached garage behind the house with access from Simms Street. There is a wood fence along the majority of the property line to the south and west. On the east side, a wood fence wraps around the covered patio (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The lot width is approximately 65 feet. Since this is below the 100 foot width required for single family lots in the R-1 zone district, the lot is legal nonconforming. The lot size is approximately 14,723 square feet. The minimum lot size for a single family home in the R-1 zone is 12,500 square feet. The R-1 zone district allows for 25 percent maximum building coverage. The site currently has a single family home with a 1,223 square foot ground floor and an 880 square foot garage. The lot coverage with the home and garage is 14 percent. The patio, which is approximately 140 square feet, increases the lot coverage to 15 percent (Exhibit 4, Site Plan). The R-1 district requires a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet. However, Section 26-611.A.1 allows encroachments into the side yard setback of one-third the setback distance for patios, porches, decks, and balconies that are open on at least two sides. Since this patio is open on three sides, its required setback would therefore be 10 feet. The house itself, constructed in 1954, does not meet the 15 foot side yard setback since it is approximately 12.8 feet from the side property line to the east. Alternative locations for the patio are limited, especially due to the narrow lot width. The west side of the house, which is 18 feet from the side property line, requires a 30 foot side setback since the side yard is adjacent to Simms, a public street. Even with the provision for the two-thirds reduction of the side setback for patios, Board of Adjustment 2 Case No. WA-10-01/Chapman porches, and decks, it would not be possible to construct a patio on the west side of the home without a significant variance. In addition, there is not a door on the west side of the home to connect to the patio, as there is on the east side. It would be difficult to construct an attached covered patio to the rear of the home due to the location of the detached garage, as well as the fact that there is no door within the rear wall of the house. While the patio requires a variance to remain in place, it is a logical location based on the width of the lot and the location of the existing home/detached garage. The patio's location is largely screened from view by the wood fence, which helps mitigate the impact of the patio for the property owner to the east. Due to landscaping and the existing wood fence along 32n" Avenue, the patio's visual impact on 32nd Avenue is limited. Allowing the proposed variance would increase the value of the property and enhance it by providing an upgraded covered patio. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff utilizes the following criteria to evaluate variance requests and shall determine whether 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 responses to each criterion (Exhibit 5). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would still function as a single family residence regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. j The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The R- I zoning for the site allows for patios, porches and decks and the patio is in character with the house and surrounding neighborhood. There is only one residential property, directly to the east, that has a view of the covered patio and their visual impact is mitigated by the wood fence that surrounds the patio. Due to fencing, the location of the covered patio, and an existing bush, there is very little visibility of the patio from 32°'I Avenue. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. Due to the narrow lot and the required side setbacks for the west side of the property, it would not be possible to construct the patio on the west side of the house without receiving a significant variance from the larger side yard requirement (20 feet after the encroachment allowed for patios per Section 26-611. LA). Construction of the patio to the rear of the home would be very difficult due to the location of the detached garage, which is also behind the house. Additionally, neither the rear or west side options provide a door connection to the interior of the home, as the east patio does. Therefore, without this variance, it is unlikely that the investment could be made to improve the property. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-10-0110iapman 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. There are no unique physical surroundings or topographical conditions. The request is more closely related to an inconvenience from the strict letter of the regulations. Staff finds that 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. The alleged hardship relates to the location of an existing house and, most directly, to a legal nonconforming lot that is particularly narrow. The current owner purchased the property in 2006. He did not have an interest in the property when the lot was platted or the house was built in 1954. Staff finds that 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 and, since it is low enough - approximately 8.5 feet high where it is adjacent to the home to the east - it would not impair adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. It should have no impact on congestion in the streets and should not increase fire danger. It is vary unlikely that the request would have an impact on property values in the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. There are no unique or unusual circumstances present in the neighborhood that are also present on the property that necessitate the need for a variance. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. Single family dwellings are not subject to accessibility requirements. Board of Adjustment 4 Case No. WA-10-01/Chapinan 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable as the variance request involves a detached garage for a single family dwelling. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the variance request. 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 variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. 5. The covered patio should have a very minimal impact, if any, on surrounding properties. Board of'Adjustment Case No. WA-10-0UChapman 1 r. AA, x. i '4.1 EXHIBIT 2: AERIAL Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-10-01/Chapman EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS Front of property, from 32°a Avenue Board of Adjustment 7 Case No. WA-10-0110iapman i Views of patio form front of property Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-10-011Chapman West side of property, along Simms Street Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-10-01/Chaprnan EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN i 1595 ra), a~~~ gvo33 U,1f~,, ri ale co 66-01 T -N- I V EX'S 4 ; V\5 PloT Pl-,V~ oF' Res. P1roiOe.rtl I Pll,,,% of gS95 W.3AJI i9ve. Gravel (70.rPAS E. Qriv~ i 15.5 I L4dt~ Fnmovh 2. P,85. ` !g 1 '-•5 4 ex,S Pa1- 1 o j6 3 0 C-d V e.,- '.C r6 1 G~s'ler ~ 1 ; Covered s Patio Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA-10-01/Chapman EXHIBIT 5: APPLICANT CRITERIA EVALUATION A- no B- No. I'm replacing a existing patio and covered porch C- Replace a rotten deck and patio cover D- The property has an irregular size lot. The house itself is only 12.8 feet from the property line E- No F- No G- No. many houses have a covered patio. ROBERT CHAPMAN 11595 w. 32nd ave. WHEATRIDGE CO. 80033 Board of Adjustment 11 Case No. WA-10-0]Xheipman City of W heat Kidge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting October 22, 2009 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair Bucknam at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ' 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Janet Bell Bob Blair Alan Bucknam Ryan Fisher Bob Howard Betty Jo Page Board Members Absent: Tom Abbott Paul Hovland Larry Linker Staff Members Present: Adam Tietz, Planner I Kathy Field, Admin. Assistant 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There was no one present to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-09-10: An application filed by Leroy Kuczek for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 10 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 10561 West 38th Avenue. The case was presented by Adam Tietz. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He Board of Adjustment Minutes October 22, 2009 reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons set forth in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Tietz stated that no negative comments had been received concerning this case. Leroy A. Kuczek 10561 West 38`h Ave. Mr. Kuczek, the applicant, was sworn by Chair BUCKNAM. He stated that he has been working with the Manufactured Home Building Center of Colorado to select a model that would fit on his lot. Because the company is going out of business, he is able to purchase a better quality home for the same price as the first home he planned to buy. He believed the home would'be an asset to the neighborhood. The utility poles in question are on his neighbor's property, however it is necessary to provide room for utility vehicles. Shifting the structure five feet to the east would accommodate this purpose. Board Member BUCKNAM asked about structural issues associated with the existing house. Mr. Kuczek stated that the house was constructed around 1900 using a flooring system on top of unfired red brick that has resulted in an unstable foundation. The house also suffered significant damage from the storm that occurred this summer. He stated that he ordered a survey of the property which showed uneven boundaries. There were no other individuals present who wished to address the Board. Chair BUCKNAM closed the public hearinv-. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member BUCKNAM, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-09-10 is an appeal to the 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 detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge, and with substantial compliance with recommendations of the Neighborhood Revitalization Study. Board of Adjustment Minutes -2- October 22, 2009 Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-09-10 be, and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 5 foot side yard setback variance to the required 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 10 foot side yard setback to allow for a single family home zoned Residential-One. For the following reasons: 1. The side yard setback variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. There would 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. The conditions necessitating the request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. 5. Staff recommended approval. Board Member FISHER stated that he believed the reasons for erecting a pre- fabricated home are justifiable. Board Member BUCKNAM commented that he believed the house will add value to the neighborhood. Board Member BELL expressed appreciation to the applicant for providing room for utility vehicles. The motion carried 6-0. B. Case No. WA-09-11: An application filed by David & Kathy Montgomery for approval of (A) a 600 square foot variance to the minimum 12,500 square feet, and (B) a 10 foot minimum lot width variance to the 80 foot lot width requirement to allow for a 3 family dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Three and located at 4000 Jay Street. The case was presented by Adam Tietz. 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 set forth in the staff report. Kathy Montgomery 31001 Clubhouse Lane, Evergreen Board of Adjustment Minutes -3- October 22, 2009 Ms. Montgomery was sworn by Chair BUCKNAM. She stated that the property is an existing three-unit rental that began as a single family dwelling in early 1960. It was converted illegally and is now in foreclosure and is visibly deteriorating. However, it can be a viable attractive property with improvements she plans to make if the variances are approved. She provided plans and cost breakdowns for proposed rehab improvements to the property. There were no other individuals present who wished to address the Board. Chair BUCKNAM closed the public hearing. Board Member BELL commended the applicant for undertaking an endeavor to improve this property. Upon a motion by Board Member FISHER and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-09-11(A) is an appeal to the 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 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-09-11(A) be, and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: Approval of a 600 square foot variance to the minimum 12,500 square feet resulting in an 11,900 square foot lot to allow a three family dwelling unit. For the following reasons: 1. The applicant is proposing a major investment in the property and community. 2. The request is consistent with the goals of the Neighborhood Revitalization Study. 3. The request will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 4. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Board of Adjustment Minutes -4- October 22, 2009 5. The variance is being requested to legitimize the illegal conversion of the home and construction of other structures by previous property owners. 6. The request will provide accommodation to people with disabilities. 7. The request will have a positive effect on property values in the neighborhood and will encourage other reinvestment in the neighborhood 8. The illegal units are already in existence and have been for several years. 9. There will be no change in the existing conditions. With the following conditions: 1. All building permits must be obtained prior to beginning renovations to the property. 2. A maximum of three residential units will be allowed on this property. No additional units may be added to any of the structures. If additional units are added they will be required to be removed. 3. The storage shed in front of the three car garage must be removed. The motion carried 5-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no. Upon a motion by Board Member FISHER and second by Board Member BUCKNAM, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-09-11(B) is an appeal to the 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 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-09-11(B) be, and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: Approval of a 10 foot minimum lot width variance to the 80 foot lot width requirement to allow for a three-family dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Three. Board of Adjustment Minutes -5- October 22, 2009 For the following reasons: 1. The applicant is proposing a major investment in the property and community. 2. The request is consistent with the goals of the Neighborhood Revitalization Study. 3. The request will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 4. The request will not be detrimental to the public welfare. 5. The variance is being requested to legitimize the illegal conversion of the home and construction of other structures by previous property owners. 6. The request will provide accommodation to people with disabilities. 7. The request will have a positive effect on property values in the neighborhood and will encourage other reinvestment in the neighborhood 8. The illegal units are already in existence and have been for several years. 9. There will be no change in the existing conditions. With the following conditions: 1. All building permits must be obtained prior to beginning renovations to the property. 2. A maximum of three residential units will be allowed on this property. No additional units' may be added to any of the structures. If additional units are added they will be required to be removed. 3. The storage shed in front of the three car garage must be removed. Board Member BUCKNAM commented that approval of this application will improve an illegal situation and be an improvement to the neighborhood. The motion carried 5-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BUCKNAM closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no other business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - September 24, 2009 Board of Adjustment Minutes -6- October 22, 2009 It was moved by Board Member FISHER and seconded by Board Member BELL to approve the minutes of September 24, 2009 as presented. The minutes were approved by acclamation. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. to Wednesday, December 9, 2009. Alan Bucknam, Chair M r Ann Lazzeri Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes -7- October 22, 2009 City of W heat Midge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: BOARD OF ADUSTMENT THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant DATE: January 21, 2010 SUBJECT: Resolution Designating a Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public Meetings Pursuant to legislative amendments to the Colorado Open Meeting Law at 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 2010, which identifies the lobby of the Municipal Building and the City's website as the designated place for posting of meeting notices. Attachment Resolution 01, 2010 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 01 Series of 2010 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 lobby of the Municipal Building and the City's website 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 , 2010. Chair, Board of Adjustment ATTEST: Secretary to the Board of Adjustment e: \plann ingUorms\rescc