Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/2009City of W heatidge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA October 22, 2009 Notice is hereby given of a public meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on October 22, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-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. B. Case No. WA-09-11: An application filed by David & Kathy Montgomery for approval of variances to minimum lot size and minimum lot width to allow for a three-family dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4000 Jay Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - September 24, 2009 8. ADJOURNMENT City of Wh6atPsid e CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: Board of Adjustment Adam Tietz WA-09-1 0/Kuczek DATE: October 22, 2009 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot setback requirement resulting in a 10 foot side yard setback to allow for a single family home on property zoned Residential- One (R-1). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 10561 West 38'h Avenue APPLICANT (S): Leroy A. Kuczek OWNER (S): Leroy A. Kuczek APPROXIMATE AREA: 17,031 square feet (39 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-One (R-1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residence COMP PLAN LAND USE: Single Family Residential not to exceed 4 units per acre (SF4) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Site Location Map Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-09-1 0/Kuczek . 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 5 foot (33.3 percent) side yard variance to the required 15 foot side yard in order to have a 1,720 square foot manufactured home placed on the property indicated above. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard unless the Director of Community Development denies an administrative variance or objections directly relating to the request have been received in writing. If either occurs the City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. The applicant was denied administrative approval by the Director of Community Development. II. CASE ANLYSIS The applicant, Leroy A. Kuczek is requesting a variance as the property owner of 10561 W. 38` Avenue. (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request/Applicant Responses to "Variance Criteria for Review') The application for a 5 side yard variance is being requested so the applicant may replace the home that is currently on the lot with a manufactured home. (Exhibit 2 and 3, Manufactured Home Photos) The property is zoned R-1. This zone district was 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 surrounding neighborhood has a mix of different zone districts and uses. The properties surrounding the applicant's are zoned R-1 to the west, east, and north. Directly to the south across W. 38th Ave, the property is zoned C-1 as are the majority of the properties to the south as this area is in close proximity to the W. 38'1' Ave and Kipling St. intersection, a major commercial intersection. The area also has R-3 zoned lots just to the west, R-1B zoned lots just to the north, and Planned Commercial zone districts a little further to the east. (Exhibit 4, Zoning Map) The lot size is approximately 17,000 square feet and relatively flat. (Exhibit 5, Existing Site Plan) The minimum lot size for the R-1 zone district is 12,500 square feet. The lot is very deep but when the property was subdivided, it did not meet the minimum lot width of 100 feet for a single family home in the R-1 zone district and is only 85 feet wide. The Board of Adjustments 2 Case No. WA-09-10/Kuczek wide. The R-1 zone district allows for twenty-five (25) percent maximum building coverage. The proposed home will be placed in the same location as the existing home and will be approximately 1,700 square feet in size (Exhibit 6, Proposed Site Plan). The new home will increase the lot coverage from 12.8 percent to 15.7 percent. The existing conditions on the lot contain a two-story 1,200 square foot (footprint) home with a 952 square foot detached two car garage making the lot coverage 12.8 percent. (Exhibit 7-10, Site Photos) The existing home was originally constructed in the 1900's with additions coming at later dates. The applicant has expressed that the home is in poor condition, structurally. According to the applicant, demolishing the home and placing a new manufactured home on the lot is far more financially feasible than repairing the existing home. The applicant would like to place the manufactured home on the lot that will require it to be 5 feet closer to the property line then is allowed for the R-1 zone district. Since the home has been pre-manufactured it's size or dimensions cannot be changed to meet the setback requirements. The Neighborhood Revitalization Study (NRS), a document prepared for the City of Wheat Ridge in July 2005, was recently adopted, June 2008, by the City Council as an addendum to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The NRS articulates the need to revitalize and reinvest not only the commercial corridors of the city but also many of the older residential neighborhoods where the housing stock is aging and may not meet the demands of contemporary homebuyers. Three of the main goals derived from the N.R.S. are aimed at targeting the housing stock within the city: 1. Develop new market rate housing at key locations throughout the city. 2. Acquire, upgrade, and sell out-of-date housing at key locations. 3. Improve multi family rental property at key locations. 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. The applicant has provided his analysis of the applications compliance with the variance criteria. (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request/Applicant Responses to "Variance Criteria for Review') Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return. The property currently has a single family home and a detached garage on it and they may remain and be used in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicant could still demolish the home on the lot and have a home that meets the setback requirements constructed on the lot. Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-09-1 0/Kuczek 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 not be altered. Even though the area surrounding the property in question is zoned R-1, the majority of the lots do not meet the 15 foot setback requirement. Many of the homes have been built within 5 feet of the property line. In addition, the lot has a detached garage that is 10 feet from the property line. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property. The existing home needs major interior and exterior renovations but the cost of such renovations warrant a new home being constructed on the lot. A new home will have a much more substantial impact on the property then renovations to the existing home would. The new home would help to increase property values in the area as well. A new home on the lot would also accomplish one of the goals of the N.R.S. by encouraging re-investment in existing neighborhoods. 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 appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping. In addition the lot is relatively flat. However, the lot is only 85 feet wide and with 15 foot setback on both sides. This leaves only 55 feet of buildable area which is smaller than usual for a normal lot of 100 feet wide in the R-1 zone district. Regardless, the request is an inconvenience from the letter of the regulations. 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. The hardship described above relates to the size of the lot and the location of the proposed home in respect to its 15 foot side yard setback. The applicant purchased the lot after the lot was platted and therefore did not have an interest in Board of Adjustments 4 Case No. WA-09-10/Kuczek the property when a lot with substandard width in the R-I zone district was created. The hardship has been created by the applicant selecting a manufactured home that is to long to meet the setback requirements. 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 permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Staff believes the request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. Nor would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance triangle. It also would not increase the danger of fire. 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 conditions present in the neighborhood that may necessitate the request for a variance. The majority of homes in the area or their accessory structures in the neighborhood have been constructed within the required 15 foot side yard setbacks. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. Board of Adjustments 5 Case No. WA-09-10/Kuczek 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site 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 found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 5 foot side yard setback variance to the required 15 foot side yard setback resulting in a 10 foot side yard. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The side yard setback variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. There will be no negative impact to the public welfare or other properties in the area. 3. The request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, encroach into the sight distance triangle, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. The conditions necessitating the request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Board of Adjustments 6 Case No. WA-09-10/Kuczek Leroy A. Kuczek 10561 West 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Review of Request for Variance Proiect Description The property is located on 38th Avenue between Kipling and Youngfield. It is on the north side of the street, second lot east of Nelson. The subdivision directly adjacent to the north is labeled Wheat Ridge Manor on city and county maps. The property contains two structures: a residence and a detached garage. The garage has one level with a storage loft. It was built in 1984 and is in good shape. The residence is a two-story, parts of which were built in the early 1900s. It is in need of a major remodel and I have been evaluating alternative ways to address this need for some time. The conclusion drawn is that best long term plan involves removing the existing residence, leaving the garage intact, and replacing it with a manufactured home in approximately the same position on the lot. I have been working with a builder on choosing the best model that suited my needs and fit my budget. Progress was slow until recently when the builder offered one of his model homes (installed at a viewing site in Colorado Springs) at a substantial discount. Prior to the offer, we had been focusing on houses in the 1200 to 1400 square foot range. Floor plans were comfortable but always had some attribute that didn't quite match needs. The model home offered is just over 1700 square feet and has a floor plan that is much better suited to my long term needs. It is an Energy Star home with R- 21 wall insulation, R-50 roof insulation, %-inch Thermal Pane windows, and other features intended to maximize energy efficiency. It is also being offered at a price approximately equivalent to the smaller houses being considered. Variance Request The lot is 85 feet wide and 200 feet deep, excluding the right of way for 38th Avenue on the south end. Applying 15-foot setback rules to the east and west sides, a maximum width of 55 feet for any structure is allowed. The width of the proposed residence is 57 feet 4 inches: slightly more than fits the lot without variance. The east side of the property has no concerns. There is a fence separating me from the adjoining lot, but nothing else. The west side of the property, however, has a row of E-~ H W Leroy A. Kuczek - Review of Request for Variance Page 1 of 4 utility poles which are used to supply electricity and communications to residences on that side. While these poles are on my neighbors' side of the property line, they are in small back yards with no access for trucks or other machines. Common sense dictates that I allow room for such maintenance operations when I make changes on my side. Clearly, I need to place the new residence so as to maintain reasonable separation from the east neighbor while maximizing access to the back of the lot. I am requesting that the east side setback be reduced from 15 feet to 10 feet for the new residence, leaving 17 feet 8 inches on the west. This will provide enough width for the larger house and address the other issues described above. Variance Criteria for Review A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. How does one define reasonable in this case? The proposed residence represents the best balance of cost and utility found to date. It has more room and a better layout than smaller alternatives. And, it could be considered more attractive and enhance property values in the area. All benefit the homeowner. That said, it is worth pointing M..l out that the city could benefit also. One would expect a new, slightly-larger house to generate higher tax revenues which, while probably not dramatic, still contribute to the H neighborhood. So, it would seem that reasonable in the context of the proposed project ~j means better results for a given investment without significant impact to surrounding properties. I believe the quality of those results would be diminished if the variance is denied. B. The variance would not after the essential character of the locality. While multi-unit dwellings are present, the neighborhood surrounding on north, east, and west sides consists primarily of single family residences. The architectural style is predominantly ranch. Floor space in surrounding properties ranges from approximately 1000 square feet to 1800 square feet: some with basements, others without. The existing residence is a two story enclosing approximately 1370 square feet. The proposed residence is a ranch style of 1720 square feet, which is consistent in size and shape with surrounding properties. The new structure's position on the property will be about the same as the old. The driveway will remain in its current location and there will be no increase in traffic on/off the property. Other than the change from two story to ranch, there will be little difference in overall appearance. Leroy A. Kuczek - Review of Request for Variance Page 2 of 4 C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. Investment associated with this project is expected to be on the order of $200,000. This constitutes the upper limit on what I can sustain long term. The builder offers other floor plans that would fit on the lot without a variance. Unfortunately, these alternatives all carry substantially higher price tags. I have has delayed the project for months searching for an appropriate balance between utility and cost. These efforts were unsuccessful until the builder made his current offer. If this variance is denied, the project cannot go forward as planned. The search for a solution will resume. D. The particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. The primary obstacle to progress is the property's shape. It is deep but not very wide. Current minimum lot width for R-1 zoning is 100 feet. The width of the lot under consideration is 85 feet. For reasons explained in item C, compliance would impose a financial hardship. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. No, the hardship was not created by the current owner. With the exception of the detached garage, the property is as it was when purchased 31 years ago. No subsequent changes, such as lot modification or subdivision, have occurred. F. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. I believe I have made choices in terms of size, shape, placement, access, and cost that make the answer to all question no. Supporting information has been given above. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. MMM MCI W Leroy A. Kuczek - Review of Request for Variance Page 3 of 4 Yes, this is a correct statement. Lots throughout the area north of 38th Avenue are typically deeper than they are wide when viewed from the street they face. Of course, there is variation. Most of the homes in the Wheat Ridge Manor area were built in the late 1950s and individual properties change over the years. Nevertheless, side setbacks are frequently less than code requires now. I would not consider my request atypical for the area. H. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Not applicable. I. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Not applicable r-~I H i-~ w Leroy A. Kuczek - Review of Request for Variance Page 4 of 4 -.J v ~L 1 ~~7 c h~ M i y". e; i ■ ri ~i i i ~~1 N ~T~ I"~ M w ~J u~ 03872 03862 10595 03840 R-1 B 03870 03875 NOW. r _ / .4b- f; U) w 03860 03865 O I 114 -ir- 10475 10425 38TH PL s rein: w "°'l Awm6 10560 10580 10570 10490 F d R-3 10600 03861 10505 10561 10471 a 38TH AVE 00 p °i 10450 w# u~i r Yf'° C-1 t a O 10560 10500 10450 i r I vl° 10450 'PP B3F,95 R-1 10559 10499 10499 ~ ~ of ~I N ~I v 7 ~ i J LL ~I d P - ~Kw~w x o, o~ mi ' I y a„ Q 1 ry < } a ~ I ~ I 0 N ~ ,5~1 072 a0i W a a > 5 V\ -a; X ® i ~ I ~ a t~ ~I p ;y f aai ~qfF • t ~I f v[ 4 ~ 7 a [ iL til Ilk" ~ 1 i 3 1 i } i yy ~I j I I s ,BLS 41 S, I t }f I f f f' L1 i ~O _~MH t rt t l t 3 4 a Ali s~y aye II` T' ca A[t i = 5 a NA! f I io~ VIA r r MM x !y~t 994 VW- I~1 -x W J 4 3ry/. T t, V 1 1lVJ' ZZ V " ~ 4 (1 t" i X14 ~.~~I 1 1- 17 fl.T yy~ t- R 1r~R ~ A f r' f 'cn s .rk. ad t 9 rA ~ i 'tie T- t `=1yt c~ T +4- 4. ^q Si 4N xf .!I r r~ L Y i r~ a r "'fff r ~ g F 48- ' - ,j Z i z' 4 77 mim r f fprr, N i r rx t", O r^~ luu' 1f~7M1 i~ City of r Wh6a-tP,,i:.dgc CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: Board of Adjustment Adam Tietz WA-09-11 /Montgomery DATE: October 22, 2009 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 600 square foot variance to the minimum 12,500 square feet and 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 (R-3). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4000 Jay Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: U.S. Bank David and Kathy Montgomery 11,900 square feet (27 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Three (R-3) PRESENT LAND USE: Three Family Dwelling Unit COMP PLAN LAND USE: Single Family Residential not to exceed 6 units per acre (SF6) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION Location Map W _ 1'- 1 ¢ ~ WE 4_1 r l R-2 7 Site R-3 ` R-1C f ~ Board of Adjustments ~°R Case No. WA-09-1 I/Montgomery p G 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 600 square foot (4.8 percent) variance to the required minimum 12,500 square feet resulting in a 11,900 square foot lot for a three family dwelling unit AND approval of a 10 foot (12.5 percent) lot width variance to the 80 feet required for both frontages when a three family unit is located on a corner lot resulting in a 70 foot wide lot located at the property indicated above. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. The Director of Community may not make a decision on a variance if the variance is less than fifty (50) percent if the variance would cause the creation of additional dwelling units to occur. If this occurs the City Code empowers the Board of Adjustments to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. This variance application does cause the creation of additional units which would not be allowed under the current zone district based on the lot size. II. CASE ANLYSIS The applicants David and Kathy Montgomery are requesting the variances as prospective buyers for the property located at 4000 Jay Street. (Exhibit; 1, hettertofRequest) Both of the variance requests are being requested to legitimize the illegal conversion of the single family home into several units. The property is located on the northeast corner W. 40th Ave and Jay St. and is zoned R-3 which does allow for 3 family dwelling units but only if the lot is over 12,500 square feet. (Exhibit 2, Aerial Photo) The R-3 zone district was established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable medium to high-density residential neighborhoods, and to prohibit activities of any nature which are incompatible with the medium to high-density residential character. The area in which the variance is being requested is located in a highly residential area as there are no arterial streets or commercial corridors in proximity to the request. The zone districts range from R-1 C to R-3. (Exhibit 3, Zoning Map) This has created a large mix of residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Within proximity to the propoerty in question there are single family homes, duplexes, 3 family dwelling units, as well as large multi-family units that have as many as 8-10 units. The properties directly to the cast, west, and south all contain larger multi-family structures. (Exhibit 4-6, Site Photosa The property for which the variance is being requested contains 3 units but has several buildings on the lot including the original home that contains two units; one detached Board of Adjustments 2 Case No. WA-09-11/Montgomery garage that has a second story; a second three car garage; and a storage shed.' (Ezhihifs (7- 10, Site Photos) The two story detached garage has one unit above the garage and at some point it appears that the ground floor of this garage was in the process of being converted into a fourth unit but was never completed. When the lot was subdivided it was made too small to accommodate a 3 or a 4 family dwelling unit. However, the lot is large enough to accommodate a duplex in the R-3 zone district as duplexes only require a lot size of 9,000 square feet. Since the lot is approximately 11,900 square feet it does not meet the size requirement for a three family dwelling unit. The lot is relatively long and narrow which causes the property does look somewhat clustered with the number of structures on it. Even though the lot is somewhat clustered, the structures do not exceed the maximum lot coverage of 40 percent. The applicants have also stated they will remove the storage shed in order to remove some of the "clutter". The original home on the lot was constructed in 1960 as were most of the homes in the area. At that time, the home was permitted to be constructed as the proper building permits were obtained. Over the course of the years, all of the accessory buildings were constructed without building permits ever being obtained. In addition, permits were never obtained to convert the home into a two-family dwelling unit. This has led to the determination that the home was illegally converted and the accessory structures illegally built. Typically when structures have been converted or built illegally, they are required to be converted back to what the original building permits were obtained for. At the discretion of the Chief Building Official (CBO), there is some leverage to allow the conversions or illegal buildings to continue to exist. This being, the conversions or other illegal buildings can be brought up to code and permits are obtained to do so, then it may be possible to allow them to remain. The applicants have met with the CBO and have received all the information from him as to what will be required to bring all 3 units up to the City's building code. As a result of their discussions, the CBO will allow the units to remain if they are brought up to code and permits are obtained to make those changes. The applicants plan to meet all the building requirements and additionally will be upgrading many of the out-of-date items used in the units. Exterior upgrades to the entire property are planned as well. They are proposing to invest approximately $82,000 to upgrade, rehab, and bring all three units into compliance with the building code. In addition to bringing the units into compliance with the building code requirements, a variance must be approved in order to allow for the three units to remain. If the variance is not approved the property would only allow for two units. If a variance is approved and once the building renovations are complete, the applicants do intend on keeping the property as a rental property. The Neighborhood Revitalization Study (NRS), a document prepared for the City of Wheat Ridge in July 2005, was recently adopted, June 2008, by the City Council as an addendum to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The NRS articulates the need to revitalize and reinvest not only the commercial corridors of the city but also many of the older residential neighborhoods where the housing stock is aging and may not meet the demands of contemporary homebuyers. Three of the main goals derived from the N.R.S. are aimed at targeting the housing stock within the city: Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-09-1I/Montgomery 1. Develop new market rate housing at key locations throughout the city. 2. Acquire, upgrade, and sell out-of-date housing at key locations. 3. Improve multi family rental property at key locations. 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. The applicant has provided his analysis of the applications compliance with the variance criteria. (Exhibit 11) Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. REQUEST A: A request for approval of a 600 square foot variance to the required minimum 12,500 square feet resulting in a 11,900 square foot lot to allow a three family dwelling unit 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return. The property currently has a single family home two detached garages and a storage shed on it and they may remain and be used in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicant could still purchase the property and legally convert the home into a duplex and use it in this manner. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. If the request were granted, the character of the locality would most likely not be altered. The property is located in a residential neighborhood with zoning that allows for single, two-family, and multi-family attached dwelling units. The neighborhood is comprised of all three property types. Many of the existing multi-family units are on lots that would be considered substandard with respect to today's zoning regulations. However, these units were constructed when the development standards allowed for multi-family dwelling units to be constructed on smaller lots. All of the units will be upgraded and the exterior of the units will also be upgraded to make the units of a higher quality. The development also will be more attractive by improving it from its current and previous state. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Board of Adjustments 4 Case No. WA-09-11/Montgomery 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 clearly proposing a major investment in the property that will be in compliance with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) and other documents supported by the city that encourage reinvestment and property improvements. The existing units need major interior and exterior renovations but the cost of such renovations warrant that the three units remain. 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 appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping. The request is more of an inconvenience from the letter of the regulations. 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. The hardship described above was created by the creation of illegal units by previous property owners. The applicants are trying to legitimize the units by bringing them up to code and obtaining variances to allow them to remain. Since the applicants did not convert the home or build the additional units and garages they did not have an interest in the property when the hardships were created. 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. Staff believes the request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-09-11/Montgomery impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. Nor would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance triangle. It also would not increase the danger of fire. 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 conditions present in the neighborhood that may necessitate the request for a variance. There are other multi-family units in the neighborhood that are on smaller lots than what would be allowed by today's zoning code. In addition, the three units have been used as such for several years. The applicants are not creating a new condition on the property or in the neighborhood by keeping the three units. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The City of Wheat Ridge codes will have to be followed when the proper permits are obtained in order to allow three units to remain. When the permits are reviewed, they will be reviewed to ensure that they do meet all requirements including those which require the units to be upgraded to be able to accommodate persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site 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. REQUEST B: Approval of a 10 foot lot width variance to the 80 feet required for both frontages when a three family unit is located on a corner lot. Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-09-1l/Montgomery 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return. The property currently has a single family home two detached garages and a storage shed on it and they may remain and be used in this manner regardless of outcome of the variance request. If denied, the applicant could still purchase the property and legally convert the home into a duplex and use it in this manner. 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 not be altered. The request would legitimize the three units on a narrow lot. In addition, the condition already exists today and will not change if the variance is approved. 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 clearly proposing a major investment in the property that will be in compliance with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) and other documents supported by the city that encourage reinvestment and property improvements. The existing units need major interior and exterior renovations but the cost of such renovations warrant that the three units remain. 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 appears to be no hardship due to the topography, shape, or location of mature landscaping. The request is more of an inconvenience from the letter of the regulations. 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. Board of Adjustments 7 Case No. WA-09-11/Montgomery The hardship described above relates to the narrow lot and the number of units that are on the property. The lot was not platted or subdivided by the applicants. They also did not create the illegal units on the property as they were constructed by previous property owners. The applicants are trying to legitimize the units by bringing them up to code and obtaining variances to allow them to remain. Since the applicants did not subdivide the property or construct the three units, they did not have an interest in the property when the hardships were created. 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. Staff believes the request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. Nor would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance triangle. It also would not increase the danger of fire. 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 conditions present in the neighborhood that may necessitate the request for a variance. There are single family, two-family and other multi-family units in the neighborhood that also do not meet the requirements for lot width when a property is on a corner lot. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-09-11/Montgomery The City of Wheat Ridge codes will have to be followed when the proper permits are obtained in order to allow three units to remain. When the permits are pulled, they will be reviewed to ensure that they do meet all requirements including those which require the units to be upgraded to be able to accommodate persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is has been met. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site 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 REQUEST A: Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a request for approval of a 600 square foot variance to the required minimum 12,500 square feet resulting in a 11,900 square foot lot to allow a three family dwelling unit. 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 applicant is proposing a major investment in the property and community. 2. The request is consistent with the goals of 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. 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 affect 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: Board of Adjustments Case No. WA-09-11/Montgomery 1. All building permits must be obtained prior to beginning renovations to the property. 2. 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. REQUEST B: Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 10 foot lot width variance to the 80 feet required for both frontages when a three family unit is located on a corner lot. 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 applicant is proposing a major investment in the property and community. 2. The request is consistent with the goals of 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. 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 affect 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. 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 of Adjustments 10 Case No. WA-09-11/Montgomery Foothills Property Group, LLC 31001 Clubhouse Ln. Evergreen, CO 80439 September 29, 2009 City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment Application for Zoning Variance Property Address: 4000 Jay St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Explanation of Request for Variance We request this variance to allow the three existing residential units on this property to be rented. We are currently under contract to purchase the property at 4000 Jay St. Our purpose is to purchase the property as a rental / investment property and to rent the three units that are existing on the property. The purchase contract is contingent on the approval of this request for variance. History Over the years since this property was built as a single family residence, it has been remodeled and additions to the property have been made to convert the property into a three unit rental. The current zoning of this property is R-3, which is the appropriate zoning for properties that have three rental units. MCI Also in the years since this sub-division was platted, the lot size requirements for a IIT+~11 property to have three rental units has been changed. The updated size requirements make the lot size at 4000 Jay St. to small to legally allow the three existing rental units on the property to be rented. Today The property is bank-owned, empty, in a deteriorating condition and becoming an eye-sore in this neighborhood. Our purchase of this property as a rental investment property would allow the repair and improvement of the property and neighborhood, without changing the character of the property. Request We request a variance regarding the size of the lot, to allow three residential rental Units on the property. Respectfully Submitted, Kathy and David Montgomery Foothills Property Group, LLC O 47 41 _ a g H cr) r O y G I + iL ` O f O, co W L'46-* T 'No-, O OG R is s~~~r~rw a 't ra L' o LF) OD CC) C) C) rn m Oa O } IDL Q 8 8 8 = x x g r r F 1S SIIVE)NI uy rn a ti OD ~ g 00 (D V N Qj a) 9) ~m 9) a) Ql 00 2 2 B 8 8 ~ 8 00 m w o Tom: 3 ! , 44 m C' a 0 O O O O O x r O _ Pf I ~ CD LID 00 (D IN is ~,dr O LF) LI) 1 CD CD n) v N co o Q 00] m saw, IS abr M ~ O o o m j CD Cr) Lf-I C) CD r CD CD $ 0 CD l D Lf) r + y :\t 1 .cam ~ . w"1'Fr1' r Y 77- y i rye •a r S now" ■ ' L ~M H W ey 4 ,.1 ` }L s ♦~t s. ~s t ~ •'f c w+~s , "L7~ e L s r w 5 ~p t S5~"-t' ,,,,,•s.+i•_'y'_a -`'3e. Sa.~ i y i11x ~TA t S',~ Ir ,R .fir L £,:~Y~ i1~' IT ~r.~i A~~•j'i 01S L mow. ° l p ~tiJy 1 , . y "r ~ ~QS ~ il ~r rim I ' L ■re, v fp ~ •t J ~ 1 ICI LM L.- 1~I ipm ~t t t t l 1 t r ) r Wrt ~1 s i k •r r ~i i -T7 i A 41 w p . `C ~~F ,t .!r y f t ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r. ~ r . " a R ' E. w~`- - Y ~ : y of ~ ~y ~ a ~ ~ r ~ f ~ hh Y r~ ~ ~ ~ M ~'Y f 4 /}v ~ ! ~ ~ 4 ~ I ` f : R 4.. r ? l 1 ~ ~ y ~ ' ~ i ~n` . -f { i F ~ 1 1 J ` x ; i ~ r 9 ' ' ~LyY , rF ~ ~ ' L~ v} I N ~7 ~ y,~ K ~ y ~ r ~ " L ~ ~ i y,a; ~ , }}l~ 4F a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( j ~ ' g ' 1 ~ e y l . ~}pr 1 ~ ~ tr i, ~f;r ' ~ Y 1 i i ' j ~ , Y ~ ~ R 1-,. , ~ I rt -`~J h r W r F ~ I~ 6 71 f a ~ ~ • 7 ai ~ 4w t i is 14 4 I`1 . y a i l~♦~♦ t-. r ,r r _ ~e r. - VIA I 1 ' d„ ~u r 4~ Y r 'a9 r~ 40 W Application for Zoning Variance - 4000 Jay St. Kathy and David Montgomery Foothills Property Group, LLC 31001 Clubhouse Ln. Evergreen, CO 80439 Response to Variance Criteria The following criteria from the City of Wheat Ridge relating to variance submittals are important and relevant to this application. Each relevant criteria is addressed below. A. There are currently three residential rental units on the property at 4000 Jay St. Those include Unit A - Main house - ground level Unit B - Main house - Garden level Unit C - Apartment above the garage PHOTOS OF THESE UNITS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET. To be in compliance with the current lot dimensions/requirements that have been established by the City of Wheat Ridge, only one unit could be rented. Without rental income from the other existing two units, the property will not cash flow, or make it financially feasible to make the needed repairs, and code improvements. B. The granting of this variance request would not alter the character of the property at all. Repairs to the exterior of the buildings, roofs, and grounds are planned. C. We propose to make a substantial investment in this property with this application, which will not happen without this variance. Our sales contract to purchase this property is contingent on the approval of this variance. Please see the projected cost breakdown for purchase price and rehab/improvement expenses, included in this packet. F. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. No changes, except exterior and interior improvements, are proposed to the property appearance. All parking will be off-street, and as 40th St. is a dead-end at the rear of this property, no street congestion is anticipated. G. The request for this variance at 4000 Jay St. maintains the use of the property as it has been, although illegally, for years. The approval of this variance would allow us to bring this property into compliance with City of Wheat Ridge regulations, and building codes. Rental properties surround this property, on three sides in the neighborhood, and are not unique to this property. ( please see additional information in this submittal packet) MH ~I MH w „~1, City of BOW heatidge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting September 24, 2009 1. 2 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair Bucknam at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Board Members Present Staff Members Present Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Alan Bucknam Ryan Fisher Paul Hovland Larry Linker Betty Jo Page Adam Tietz, Planner I Mark Westberg, Flood Plain Administrator Ann Lazzeri, Secretary PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Bob Howard Mr. Howard questioned why the Planning Commission heard a variance regarding signage at Exempla Lutheran. He believed this should have been a matter for the Board of Adjustment to consider. Mr. Tietz explained that this case was not a variance from city code, rather it was a request for a change to the Planned Hospital District which was initially approved by Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-09-09: An application filed by Swiss Valley, LLC, for approval of a variance to Section 26-412.D.2 of the Subdivision Regulations to allow a new two-family residence at 6701 West 48`x' Avenue to have domestic water service ti-om a well. Board of Adjustment Minutes September 24, 2009 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, set forth in the staff report. Board Member BELL stated that she would like to make sure the well permit reflects the current ownership. Kevin Larsen 23924 Matterhorn Drive, Indian Hills Mr. Larson, the applicant, was sworn by Chair BUCKNAM. He stated lie has used the well for the past twelve years. There have never been negative results from monthly water testing. He stated that he would check on registration of the well. The subject site is the only one in the area that is buildable due to topographical issues. There is also a lift station for the sewer system that ties in with 48`x' Avenue. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mr. Larsen stated that the original house was destroyed by an arson fire. To replace the income lost from this house, he plans to build a two-family residence in its place. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Tietz stated that no negative comments have been received from the public. Board Member ABBOTT asked if there would be a shared agreement for the well water. Mr. Larsen stated that there would be an agreement for both the well and the sewer system. There were no other individuals present who wished to address the Board. Chair BUCKNAM closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT 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-09-09 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 Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2 September 24, 2009 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-09-09 be, and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: A variance to Section 26-412.D.2 of the Subdivision Regulations to allow a new two-family residence at 6701 West 48"' Avenue to have domestic water service from a well. For the following reasons: 1. An existing home on the property occurred up until a fire in 2008. 2. The well is 400 feet plus or minus deep so is not infiltration well. 3. The well has a state permit and has been tested for potability monthly for a significant time. 4. No other development of additional properties is likely due to the topography. 5. The economic feasibility of extending the domestic water to the property would preclude reasonable development. 6. The variance was recommended for approval by staff. With the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the new residence, evidence of water potability must be provided and reviewed by the City. 2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure, a consolidation plat must be recorded with Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 3. A legal document must be created assuring access rights to the water from the well to the residential property prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The motion carried 8-0. B. Case No. WF-09-08: An application filed by Swiss Valley, LLC, for approval of a Class 11 special exception permit to allow construction of a two-family residence in the 100-year flood plain on property located at 6701 West 48`x' 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 reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, as set forth in the staff report. Board of Adjustment Minutes -3 - September 24, 2009 In response to a question from Board Member PAGE, Mr. Westberg explained that Urban Drainage created a new flood plain map in 2007 which now locates this property in a flood plain. The City has adopted this new flood plain map as it official document. However, the applicant will not be required to purchase flood insurance until the new map is adopted by FEMA which will probably occur in 2011. The applicant will be required to obtain a flood plain permit in order to build the duplex. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Mr. Westberg explained that the lowest habitable floor must be one foot above the flood plain level. Some fill in Arvada will be required to attain this level. In response to a question from Board Member FISHER, Mr. Westberg explained that the flood plain review is very extensive and detailed. Kevin Larsen 23924 Matterhorn Drive, Indian Hills Mr. Larson was sworn by Chair BUCKNAM. He stated that when he first purchased the property, it was not located in a flood plain. He was notified about eighteen months ago when the flood plain map changed. There were no other individuals present who wished to address the Board. Chair BUCKNAM closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Board Member FISHER and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WF-09-08 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. WF-09-08 be, and hereby is APPROVED. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 4 - September 24, 2009 Type of Variance: Approval of a Class 11 special exception permit to allow construction of a two-family residence in the 100-year flood plain on property zoned R-2 and located at 6701 West 48t" Avenue. 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 flood plain administrator has reviewed and supports the findings of the flood plain analysis. 5. There were no objections to the proposed development. 6. A home existed previously and was destroyed by fire. With the following conditions: 1. Building plans and a site plan must be prepared for the proposed new building. The plans must be reviewed to insure compliance with the Flood plain Control ordinance. 2. The lowest building floor elevation must be at or above 5,301.50 feet. 3. A Wheat Ridge Fill Permit must be obtained prior to commencement of work. 4. As fill is proposed in a portion of the flood plain within the City of Arvada, a Flood Plain Permit must be obtained from the City of Arvada, if applicable. 5. Water and sanitary sewer services must be identified and not subject to flooding. 6. The domestic water well shown adjacent to the proposed new building must be waterproofed in a manner acceptable to the City. 7. A registered professional engineer shall certify that the building foundation construction forms are set at elevations in conformance with the building plans. 8. A registered professional engineer shall certify that the lowest building floor elevation is at or above 5,301.50 feet as soon as possible following construction of the lowest building floor. This is to occur prior to assurance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. The elevation must be verified by an elevation survey after the foundation has been poured, prior to other construction commencing. 10. A lot consolidation plat must be approved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The motion carried 7-1 with Board Member PAGE voting no. Board of Adjustment Minutes - 5- September 24, 2009 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 - July 23, 2009 It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes of July 23, 2009 as presented. The minutes were approved by acclamation. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Alan Bucknam Chair Ann Lazzeri Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes -6- September 24, 2009 City of ,i ge WheatP,, d COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant DATE: October 16, 2009 SUBJECT: Board of Adjustment Holiday Schedule Staff wanted to confirm with the Board a meeting schedule for November and December. Our schedule shows the Board's November meeting falling on November 26th (Thanksgiving) and the December meeting falling on December 24th (Christmas Eve/City Furlough). Staff would like the Board to confirm its concurrence with canceling the November 26th & December 24th meetings and holding one meeting on Wednesday, December 9, 2009. This meeting would be held in lieu of the two other meetings. Please call me if you have a conflict with this date at 303-235-2846. cc: Planning Staff