Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2011City of '�q WheatWiidge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA January 27, 2011 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on January 27, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29 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- 10 -11 An application filed by Judy Helm for approval of a 1 '/2 foot variance to the 5 foot side yard setback requirement for a garage on property zoned Residential -One B (R- 113) and located at 3861 Moore Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes — July 22, 2010 B. Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meetings 8. ADJOURNMENT City of W heat�idge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE: January 27, 2011 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA- 10- 11/Helm ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a V -6" variance from the 5 foot side setback requirement on property located at 3861 Moore Street and zoned Residential One B (R -IB). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3861 Moore Street APPLICANT (S): Judy Helm OWNER (S): Judy & Wilton Helm APPROXIMATE AREA: 7,257 Square Feet (.17 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential One B (R -113) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map 03872 03870 Site __10580 � _ 10570 Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION 11 ISt�ll 11-14A, JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an administrative decision. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance of 1' -6" (30 percent) from the required 5 foot side yard setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a two -car detached garage on the south side of the lot, at the rear of the existing driveway. Section 26 -115.0 (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. The Director of Community may not make a decision on a variance if a written objection regarding the request is received during the public notice period. If this occurs the City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. This application was initially processed administratively, however it was scheduled for a BOA public hearing as an adjacent property owner submitted a letter of objection during the 10 -day noticing period. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Judy Helm, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 3861 Moore Street rh� The variance is being requested so that the applicant may construct a two -car detached garage on the south side of the lot. The applicant would like to locate the garage at the rear of the existing driveway. The driveway is approximately 11 feet wide where it intersects with Moore Street and narrows to about 8 feet in width at the opposite end 0114'' The property is located on the west side of Moore Street, two lots north of W. 38 Place. It is zoned R -1B, 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 block is predominantly single - family homes with residential zoning. The lots that abut W. 38 Place at Moore Street are zoned R -1 0 AW The property currently contains a one - story single - family home. There is no garage or shed on the property (Wx 4 . °` . The area of the lot -7,257 square feet —is less than the minimum lot size (7,500 sf) for single - family homes in R -1B, however the lot's width of approximately 63 feet meets the 60 -foot minimum. The R -113 zone district allows a maximum lot coverage of 40 %. The current lot coverage is 11 %. Despite the nonconforming lot size, the total building coverage with the proposed garage (20' x 20') would be 16 below the maximum 40% allowed in R -1B. The R- 1 B zoning requires a minimum 5 foot side setback for the garage. The applicant would like to construct the proposed garage at the end of the existing driveway, in between the south (side) property line and the existing home (Xlzihit 5,.$ to Pjq z). Due to the location of the existing home, there is only about 26 feet between the house and the south property line. Thus it is not possible for a standard Board ofAdjustment 2 Case No. WA- 10- 111He1m width two -car detached garage to meet the 5 -foot required side setback and retain an appropriate degree of separation from the dwelling unit. It would be possible to construct a garage farther west on the property that meets the required side setback, however this would require the removal of a mature tree from the property's rear yard. The property owners recognize that putting a garage in the backyard would not require a variance, but they are reluctant to remove the healthy tree. Alternative placement would also eliminate a significant portion of usable backyard space for the property owner. While a one -car garage would not require a variance, this alternative would not be as substantial of an investment in the property. It is typical that contemporary home buyers or renters expect covered parking for more than one vehicle. An attached two -car garage is a second alternative that may not require a variance, but this option is likely a cost - prohibitive investment. A number of other properties on the north end of the same block have reduced side yard setbacks for accessory structures. In 2003, a 3' variance to the side yard setback was approved for an accessory structure (Case No. WA- 03 -14) located at 4091 Moore Street. In 2006, a 2 '/4 -foot setback variance was approved for a carport at 4021 Moore Street (Case No. WA- 10 -06). Additionally, an R -1 B property to the west -3892 Nelson Street (Case No. WA- 06 -08) —was granted variances for side and rear yard setbacks in 2006 for a detached garage. During the public notification period, two neighbors contacted Staff including one neighbor with objections. The property owner at 10505 W. 38 Place (directly south of 3861 Moore Street) called and submitted a letter of objection to the variances The owner objects to the proposed garage on the basis that the proximity of the garage will negatively affect her property. It is this written objection that requires the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide upon the variance request. After being made aware of the complaint, the applicant made an effort to reach out to the neighbor at 10505 W. 38 Place. In response to the objection, the applicant met with the neighbor to discuss and explain the proposed garage. The applicant voluntarily amended the site plan to increase the degree of separation between the proposed garage and the neighbor's kitchen window. The amended site plan moves the garage 4' to the east to allow more sunlight to reach the neighbor's kitchen window VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance request, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria 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 continue to function as a single- family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Board ofAdjustment 3 Case No. WA -10 -11 1He1m Staff fmds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The R -1B zoning allows for detached garages, and several homes along Moore Street have existing accessory structures, including detached garages and sheds. The architectural style of the proposed garage is compatible with the character of the area, and the material selections match neighboring accessory structures. A number of other properties on the north end of the same block have reduced side yard setbacks for accessory structures. • A property to the north -4061 Moore Street —has a nonconforming detached 2 -car garage in the southwest corner of the lot, which does not meet the minimum required side or rear setbacks. • In 2003, a 3' variance to the side yard setback was approved for an accessory structure (Case No. WA- 03 -14) located at 4091 Moore Street. • In 2006, a 2 '/4-foot setback variance was approved for a carport at 4021 Moore Street (Case No. WA- 10 -06). Additionally, an R -1B property to the west -3892 Nelson Street (Case No. WA -06 -08 )—was granted variances for side and rear yard setbacks in 2006 for a detached garage. 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, which would not be possible without the variance. A detached two -car garage is expected to add value to the property. While a one -car garage would not require a variance, this alternative would not be as substantial of an investment. It is typical that contemporary home buyers or renters expect covered parking for more than one vehicle. An attached two -car garage is a second alternative that may not require a variance, but this option is likely a cost - prohibitive investment. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The location of a mature tree in the property's rear yard restricts alternative site arrangements for the proposed two -car garage. The property owners recognize that putting a garage in the Board of Adjustment 4 Case No. WA -10 -11 1He1m backyard would not require a variance, but they are reluctant to remove a healthy tree. Alternative placement would also eliminate a significant portion of usable backyard space for the property owner. Staff fmds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship described above was not created by the current property owner or any person currently having an interest in the property. The current owner purchased the home in May 2010, and thus is not responsible for the existing conditions of the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or 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 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. The garage would not increase the danger of fire. The Chief Building Official has confirmed that there are no building code issues or safety concerns related to the location of the garage and its proximity to other structures. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The garage may in fact have a positive affect on the neighborhood and allow covered storage of large items that are currently stored in the driveway and visible from the public right -of -way. 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 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. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 1' -6" variance from the 5 foot side setback requirement. 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. 5. Alternate placement of the garage would require removal of a mature tree, and eliminate a significant portion of usable backyard space. 6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as a majority of the homes in the area have constructed garages or carports. With the following condition: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage be similar in character to the existing house, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Board of Adjustment 6 Case No. WA- 10- 111Helm EXHIBIT 1: LETTER OF REQUEST 3861 Moore Street — Variance Request Request 30% variance of Sec. 26 -207 to allow permission to build a garage within 3.5 feet of South side property line at 3861 Moore Street. The requested variance would place the garage 13 feet from the neighbor's house. Fire rated walls would be provided to the extent required by the applicable building code. The elevation of the garage is lower than either the house on the property or the neighbor's house. Statistics: Lot size: 7617 sq. ft. House setback from curb: 32 ft. 8 in. Proposed garage setback from curb: 45 ft. 8 in. Separation between proposed garage and house: 3 ft. Proposed garage setback from South (side) property line: 3.5 ft. (30% variance) Separation between proposed garage and neighbor's house: 13 ft. House elevation: 16 ft. Neighbor's house elevation: 16 ft. Proposed garage elevation: 13 ft. Criteria: A. A two car garage is generally considered the minimum practical configuration in our current culture. The proposed garage is 20 feet wide, which is the minimum practical width for a 2 car garage. B. Many other properties in the neighborhood have added a garage at various points in the last 50 years. The architecture of the garage is intended to fit into the look of the neighborhood. C. The garage adds significant value and usability to the occupants of the house, and thus value to the property. D. The only alternative would be to place it behind the house, which would significantly reduce the back yard size and require removal of a mature tree. Both of these would have an undesirable impact on both the property and the neighborhood. E. The situation isn't of recent creation. The house was built in 1958 and has remained substantially unchanged for 52 years. Meanwhile two car garages have become an expected norm. F. The impact of the variance is diminished by the fact that it is lower in elevation than surrounding structures on both sides and is set back from the road 45 feet. The neighbor's house would still be 13 feet from the garage, and it is the backside of their house in an area with Minim I r ft-Wl! windows. G. All lots in the neighborhood are 64 feet wide or less and most of the width is taken up by the house, making it difficult to locate a garage. Some had attached garages when built, but only single car. H. The garage itself presents no barrier to a disabled person, nor does it add any additional barriers to the property as a whole. The.property was not designed with disability in mind. I. Yes. Board ofAdjustment 7 Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm EXHIBIT 2: AERIAL Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm EXHIBIT 3: ZONING MAP 04141 Q— C415 �: 10571 04090 04095 '. i- C4070 04075 04040 10805 04080 01095 A -;1 ! 04091 04088 04060 04075 04090 01060 04075 --1 C4061 01080 04040 0403.E 10800 �C4086 All -40 04040 04035 040E0 01021 — A. 0 04030 04025 04040 04001 04030 04025 10805 04040 04020 04015 04020 C3995 04020 04015 01000 04005 "- J04-000 03975 041000 C6995 -- — 594C I M945 10800 04000 5995 03952 03955 03920 5925 5925 03920 C6925 00922 03925 04000 03925 03900 03905 06900 03905 5902 02905 RAC 5900 03905 5900 133905 5890 5895 5892 5891 5890 5895 5890 5885 RAB 03880 03885 03890 5885 5882 5881 10800 03880 03885 5880 5875 03880 5872 5871 5870 03875 03870 013875 10695 10605 03862 5861 10805 03860 5865 10695 10605 10595 10505 10300 10710 . EM a R - l. 10551� 04090 04095 '. i- C4070 04075 04040 04045 04020 04025 04000 04005 03992 03991 03972 5971 03952 03951 03922 5921 5902 5901 5890 5895 5880 03885 � # 58070 03875 03860 5865 I_ 10475 10425 10580 �10570 10560 '10640 '3� y -- R -1 10490 5840 10561 10559 03815 5820 10499 10499 10471 Board of Adjustment 9 Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm . 0 1` 1 i i Property immediately south (10505 West 38 Place), rear side of neighboring house will face proposed garage • r i r '• 7 A �4! low View of 3861 Moore Street and proposed garage location from property immediately south (10505 West 38 Place) Board ofAdjustment 12 Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm EXHIBIT 5: SITE PLAN .\. N 1 4 -d dti TI 4 -24 F, (1 u 01--tt 0 A G C4 I'v f f4ea V k 13— 2 6 o >: 1 X32 �i .... Ow -inkh"t. -t i" P40 11im"Pi, Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm All C 13 r . 400 20 TI 4 -24 F, (1 u 01--tt 0 A G C4 I'v f f4ea V k 13— 2 6 o >: 1 X32 �i .... Ow -inkh"t. -t i" P40 11im"Pi, Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm All C 13 Elevations At4 -.�•� N'ecq+t4bvy h I i i t 1 (=2N G.& /)')a {,tAr a�o..' .� 7' / -�! w� Yt��It•�P �vo v� .e v.t� �" QQ '' Pain/' 49 Coord' ;P -]6 tnJ/ Q p�Y�(c s Chun. CJ� TO �Z t 1 3'�� �X t o JF ! o1C� 6 (2 oQoo g I J A Board ofAdjustment 14 Case No. WA- 10- 11/Helm P wp6cac! 9`a � 14 0 aj - e- EXHIBIT 6: OBJECTION LETTER �. �, J� , C �•,_,e 1L� d w)K -1 v - CQM q, I 1tikrU -vim :�. �•r.A �".`''�,-� �, cep -x'_ �' Lj �3 �C C ! J t o %- Y Board ofAdjustment 15 Case No. WA- 10- 11/Helm i IL L6 cm Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA -10 -11 /Helm 2 � In't ., I cy • O QI un b O V1 O rl 44 Fl 7s Yep{ s, ao9 y'°t�'N� 0 O cq 11 � City of Wheat -Midge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 22, 2010 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair FISHER at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colora4. Paul Griffith, District One, joined the Board as a regular member. Jen Walters, District One, joined the Board as an alternate member. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Ryan Fisher Paul Griffith Paul Hovland Bob Howard Betty: Jo Page Board Members Absent: ,Larry Linker Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Sarah Showalter, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There were no members of the public who wished to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA- 10 -07: An application filed by Barbara Sileo for approval of (A) a 10 -foot variance to the 15 -foot required rear yard setback and (B) a 5 -foot variance to the required 15 -foot side yard setback per Section 26- 205 resulting in a 5 -foot rear yard setback and a 10 -foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential -One and located at 3845 Dudley Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes July 22, 2010 The case was presented by Sarah Showalter. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation and gave Board members copies of a letter from a property owner at 3881 Estes Street who was not in favor of the application. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. In relation to the side yard setback, Board Member ABBOTT commented that while it may be possible to build without a variance, it would not be practical. Barbara Sileo 3845 Dudley St., Wheat Ridge Mrs. Sileo, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair FISHER. She stated they have lived in their home for 38 years and the neighbors who would be affected the most are in favor of the expansion. The home has always been too small, but they stayed there because they loved the house. The addition next to the garage will be used for storage for a lawnmower and other yard equipment. The reason for making the improvements to the main floor, rather than adding a second story, is that it will make it easier for her to function with her condition of fibromyalgia. They also have a need for an office and additional bathroom. She stated they have made improvements over the years that have enhanced the property as well as the neighborhood. Those improvements have also increased the value of the house. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mrs. Sileo explained that these are not the final drawings. They did not wish to spend any more money for architectural drawings until they know if they will be granted a variance. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL,the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the application Case No. WA- 10 -07(A) was not eligible for administrative review; and Whereas,, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition of one protest registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA- 10 -07(A) be and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 10 -foot variance to the 15 -foot required rear yard setback per Section 26 -205 resulting in a 5 -foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential -One. Board of Adjustment Minutes 2 July 22, 2010 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 from the rear yard setback. 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 properties or improvements. 5. The request would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 6. The proposed addition would have minimal impact, if any, on adjacent properties and the two abutting properties that would be most impacted are supportive of the request. 7. With no basement, this home lacks practical and modern storage capacity. The addition, as proposed, offers an unobtrusive and much preferred alternative to a shed structure which would be allowed and could be placed within the required setbacks. 8. Staff recommended approval. 9. A majority of the criteria, are met, according to staff. 10. The actual encroaching portion of the structure is a very small percentage of the total addition. Board Member HOVLAND commented that the plan has been well thought out. They have a unique situation with the way the house is situated on the property. Board Member PAGE referred to the letter of protest, and commented that because the property on the side is higher than the subject property there is no issue of light blockage. The motion carried 8 -0. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member ABBOTT, the following resolution was stated. Whereas, the application Case No. WA- 10 -07(B) was not eligible for administrative review; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition of one protest registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment Minutes 3 July 22, 2010 Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA- 10 -07(B) be and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 5 -foot variance to the required 15 -foot side yard setback per Section 26 -205 resulting in a 10 -foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential -One. 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, especially for the variance for the rear yard. 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 properties or improvements. 5. The request would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 6. The proposed addition would have minimal impact, if any, on adjacent properties and the two abutting properties that would be most impacted are supportive of the request. 7. With no basement, this home lacks, practical and modern storage capacity. 8. Staff recommended approval. 9. The encroachment is small in::square footage because of the triangulation of"the house on the property. Board Member ABBOTT offered a friendly amendment to add an additional reason as follows; While the addition may be possible without a variance, the Board feels it would not be practical. The amendment was accepted by Board Member HOVLAND. The motion carried 8 -0. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair FISHER closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes —January 28, 2010. It was moved by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board Member PAGE to approve the minutes of January 28, 2010 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Board of Adjustment Minutes 4 July 22, 2010 7. NEW BUSINESS Board Member PAGE asked if the Board wanted to sponsor a banner for the Carnation Festival again. Board members would each make a small contribution to the cost of the banner. There was consensus to sponsor a banner this year. Board Member PAGE will attend to all the details. • Board Member FISHER requested that the minutes be sent out via e-mail within a week or two from the meeting. • Meredith Reckert announced that Adam Tietz, Planner One, has resigned to attend graduate school in South Carolina. Also, Ryan Stachelski, Economic Development Director, has resigned to take a positionwith the City of Northglenn. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. for Board members to view a training video (Preventing Pubic Officials' Liability) in the first floor conference room. Ryan Fisher, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes 5 July 22, 2010 City of W heat j dge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: BOARD OF ADUSTMENT THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant DATE: January 21, 2011 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 2011, which identifies the lobby of the Municipal Building and the City's website as the designated place for posting of meeting notices. Attachment 1. Resolution 01, 2011 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 01 Series of 2011 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 , 2011. Chair, Board of Adjustment ATTEST: Secretary to the Board of Adjustment e AplanningWormsVescc