Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/15I City of WheatPdge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA October 22, 2015 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on October 22, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM (TMs is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA -15-10: An application filed by Caroline Mallory and Charlotte Kettering for approval of a 360 -square foot variance (60%) from the 600 -square foot maximum size standard to allow a 960 -square foot detached garage located at 3615 Teller Street. B. Case No. WA -15-11: An application filed by Dean Smith for approval of a 5 -foot variance from the 100 -foot minimum lot width standard to allow a 2 -family dwelling in the R-2 zone district located at 7075 W. 32°a Avenue. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS S. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — August 27, 2015 9. ADJOURNMENT Individuals with disahilities are encouraged to participate in all puhlic meetings sponsored by the City of WheatRidge. Call Heather Geyer, Puhlic Information macer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in partieipating and need inclusion assistance. 111611 CASE MANAGER: XEmaQIMM ►F_O01N ACTIONS REQUESTED: City of Wh6atRiLd �ge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: October 22, 2015 Lisa Ritchie WA -15-10 / Mallory and Kettering Approval of a 360 square foot variance from the permitted size of 600 square feet for an accessory building permitted on a lot zoned Residential -Three (R-3) located at 3615 Teller Street LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3615 Teller Street APPLICANT (S): Caroline Mallory and Charlotte Kettering OWNER (S): Malket Partnership APPROXIMATE AREA: 17,700 square feet (0.41 acres) PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Residential -Three (R-3) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-10 /Mallory and Kettering All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction for the Board to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow an accessory building 360 square feet larger than the permitted size of 600 sq ft, resulting in an accessory building that will be 960 sq ft. Per the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district standards, a major accessory building can be no larger than 600 sq ft. This results in a variance that would be greater than permitted to be reviewed administratively and requires a hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Because the application includes a variance request that exceeds 50% of the development standard, the application is not eligible for administrative approval and is required to be heard at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicants, who are also the owners, are requesting the variance at 3615 Teller Street in order to construct a 960 square foot detached garage with a workshop at the single family residence. The property is zoned Residential -Three (R-3), a zone district that provides 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 parcel is located on the west side of Teller Street, just north of 35th Place. The total lot area is 17,700 square feet (0.41 acres), per the Jefferson County Assessor. The property is in an area predominately zoned R-2 to the south and R-3 to the north. The subject property is zoned R-3, but is immediately adjacent to the area zoned R-2. The neighborhood character is low density residential to the south and east, and medium to high density residential to the north and west. The subject lot currently contains a single family home that was constructed in 1949, per the Jefferson County Assessor. The lot is platted as Lot 2 of the Morningside Retirement Community Subdivision. The single story home has a footprint of approximately 1,487 square feet. In addition to the construction of the detached garage, the applicants are also proposing 880 sq ft of additions to the primary home. The total lot coverage proposed with the additions and the detached garage of 960 sq ft will be roughly 3,327 sq ft, or 19%. The maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-3 zone is 40%. The lot is rectangular in shape with roughly 170 feet of width and 100 feet of depth. The existing home is located on the northern portion of the lot, with a 45'-8" front setback, a 21'-9" setback to the northern side property line, a 16'-0" rear setback and an 85'-0" setback to the southern side property line. The home is constructed on an angle in relationship to the street. The lot gently slopes from the southwest corner of the property to the northeast corner, with roughly 8 feet of fall. &ibit 4, Site Photos). The property owners have been renting the property for a number of years and now desire to live in the home. They are planning improvements, including the conversion of an existing sunroom to make it a Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-10 /Mallory and Kettering permanent space, an addition to the front living space, an addition toward the rear of the home, and other minor additions and upgrades. The property in its current condition has no garage. The property owners desire to add a three car garage and workshop to the property. The single story garage is proposed to be located on the southern portion of the lot, with a 33'-0" side setback and a 19'-0" rear setback. Additionally, the applicants have concerns for the safety of their vehicles, as there have been four reported motor vehicle thefts within a 600 foot radius of their property within the past year, per the Wheat Ridge Police Department. They desire the ability to secure their three vehicles. The variances would result in a single family home with an oversized detached garage with a workshop. All other development standards for the R-3 zone district will be met. R-3 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 7,500 square feet (min) 17,700 sf Lot Width 60 feet (min) 170 feet Major Accessory Building: Required Proposed Building Coverage 40% (max) 19% Building Size 600 sq ft max 960 sq ft Height for Accessory Building 15 feet (max) 11 feet Front Setback (east) 25 feet (min) 40 feet Rear Setback (west) 10 feet (min) 19 feet Side Setback (north) 5 feet (min) 113 feet Side Setback (south) 5 feet (min) 33 feet The 15 -day notification period for the public hearing is currently in progress. As part of their application, the applicants' provided a letter from residents at 3550 Teller Street stating they have no objection to the variance request (Exhibit 7, Letter from Craig and Debra Allen). As of October 15, 2015 no objections have been received. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance, 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 (Exhibit 6, 1E. 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. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -15-10 /Mallory and Kettering 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The requested size variance will result in the property staying in the same character as the surrounding area. The surrounding area predominately has lots with varying sizes, number of units, and street orientations. The proposed additions and garage will result in a property well under the building coverage threshold for the zone district. The proposed architectural design is compatible with the existing home and other homes in the neighborhood. While staff typically does not support variances for size of accessory structures, in this case, the size of the lot and its location adjacent to a wide variety of residential property types results in unique considerations which justify this request. 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 applicants are proposing a substantial investment in the property through the construction of additions and the detached garage. The project is expected to add value to the property, and the proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and will result in an owner occupied property. That being said, investment in the property could occur without the approval of this variance. Staff finds this criterion has not 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 is no particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property that presents a unique hardship upon the applicant. Rather, the applicants desire the garage be detached in order to maximize the amount of sunlight into the home on the southern and western sides. The location of the home near the northern property line leaves no option for the garage to be located on that side. 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 current property owners purchased the property prior to the establishment of the zone district boundaries and the construction of the existing house. 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, Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-10 /Mallory and Kettering 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 it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets or impede the sight distance triangle. The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Conversely, the proposed improvements will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by upgrading an aging ranch home and promoting investment in property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. As stated above, the applicants desire to construct a three car garage on the property that currently does not have one. There is a property safety concern that the applicants raise due to four motor vehicle thefts within a 600 foot radius within the past year, per the Wheat Ridge Police Department. The applicants desire the ability to secure their three vehicles. This is not a condition unique to the property. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. 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 Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-10 /Mallory and Kettering Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a variance to permit a garage in excess of the permitted size of 600 sq ft. Staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. There are unique conditions of lot size and variability within the neighborhood which will result in an accessory structure that is compatible with the surrounding area and the existing home. The proposed garage will appear incidental to the home, and significant property investment will occur as a result of approval of the variance. 2. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The alleged 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. No objections were received regarding the variance request. With the following conditions: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Attachments: A. Materials and Elevation Board B. Letter of Support from neighbor at 3550 Teller Street. C. Resolution Template Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-10 /Mallory and Kettering EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-15-10/Mallory and Kettering EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Board ofAdjudmer Case No. WA-I5-10/MalloryaM %erterirg EXHIBIT 3: ILC ,M, Cd.l1.E/'E SLRVEYMG, Wc. txi�IH 75)3 $mlll My YMy LNBeroe CO BOPS ins-sn-eom rm 3o3 -9n -Boot a;yga sw r = IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE I DerLY grey 1Mt itis kwa Iom0on ro'Bflmre wm PRald fa 0 6 30 IAVAT PMREi♦9P lE¢11! nm ii o rot a ba arver pot Q r arsy pot a+e mor B In o not ro De rites W¢ fa Ba ¢IfEfA a lacy Wft,Q a = fasatl Cmcele orlr- talus nvwa en f as h fs . a v .* W uee by r-1 NHJ�Et PPARESCiP = Gavels atl O!e¢Dm rDe N� ¢pevare 206-nT-%. I Ivlhr ovlilY Irvl Me L'�_ FpoYmr.e m Ba move dw6M Pad m Mi Ma XI6QYN, mcgf Miry ` Fxa ooeeciaq ae m1FtlY wft L Me hv.loim a me pad, kl, m eDOv\ Bior 1Dae art ro evad3nmh �^ Xa M ibatl pmeea DY FK� m my �Joiig�e� v¢yr m rholeq otl Bpt MQe 6 ro gpveR eviEace Q rmng v bNa1g ary pot of epitl pam� wacapf m Me6 tbBca A�mJrn M Gtlaatlo low you mnf cmaace Ibfa N pottetl aq gpaap e®mimts my IgY ¢M1¢ bmetl �Fm mY delecf T f1�6 4oa� RvuE ema�mra b m . ve t.Rre.ana,r aoat arllrcae w m -g wmrea DY :nanmmn pem+a.e by ria a a Yo+ fr�f Sswere0 aaT delM mrmc. vi® vlDsw%e rore6 Em F ro evmr, nloy my xlion �OB�AEQivt irvow�tmbcabl cctiBmle O � fV Vg��^yo� P` mmcCN TTe 1Fm tat Kmle then Icwt 3'� �6�9 Ali - f f�i" rof a fi PLS �b .....••'S� FFnfessard Latl Su'aeypr �+f ux� Existing Property Condition Bo dofAdjwt en[ CareNo. WA-15-10/hallo andKet ring EXHIBIT 4: SITE PHOTOS Board ofAdju tment 10 Case No. WA-I5-I0/Mallory and Kettering r• Shown above is the rear of the home, taken from approximately the location where the garage is proposed, looking toward the rear of the home. The existing sumoom will be improved to be a permanent structure. The applicants desire to preserve the windows shown in this photo. Board ofAdjwtment 11 CareNo. WA-15-10/MalloryandKettering Shown above is the rear of the home, taken from approximately the location where the garage is proposed, looking toward the rear of the home. The existing sumoom will be improved to be a permanent structure. The applicants desire to preserve the windows shown in this photo. Board ofAdjwtment 11 CareNo. WA-15-10/MalloryandKettering EXHIBIT 5: PROPOSED SITE PLAN FO//LW LLECAP GBLE >D h• ESiOR! 1: 11 CC � l ,oada6 ''w 'l '�\\`°� ?tp• r�. `•'��!ii/. � i4.,p.o3 LOT 1 -I 00 /fly i za.osoe J) J) m U) Z7 m -I PpFFpO��LM IlLEG19K Board ofAdjwtment 12 CareNo. WA-15-10/MalloryandKettering EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF REQUEST and RESPONSE TO CRITERIA The placement of the existing structure at 3615 Teller Street is situated with a southern exposure for light and winter heat with large windows and a sunroom. Solar heating and use of natural light will continue as a focus for the house. Due to the location of the house —the garage can only be placed on the south side of the property. There is no place to attach the garage to the house. There is sufficient room on the property to place a three car garage at a reasonable distance from the house to allow for solar light and heating and not compromise the required set backs or encroach upon neighbors. The unique handicap for this property is the condition of Teller Street and the recurring automobile thefts and vandalism. We would like to have a secure place for our vehicles. It is unfortunate that this single family home is locked into an R3 zoning which necessitates a variance to provide an appropriate structure to house three vehicles. Board ofAdjwtment 13 CareNo. WA-15-10/MalloryandKettering Response to the Variance Review Criteria for 3615 Teller Street 1. The residence at 3615 Teller Street is a single family home. It is not a multifamily dwelling. It has been in this location for 65 years. 2. The variance would not alter the character of the locality. 3. We will be making a substantial investment in the redevelopment of this property. A three car garage is the north for new single family dwellings. It will help increase the security and value for future resale. 4. There is no place to park three cars as there is no street parking for residents and visitors. The three car garage will allow off street parking for three cars and those of visitors. This will help prevent additional congestion on Teller Street. 5. The hardship for this property is that it is a single family home lost in an R3 zone 6. A three car garage would not be a detriment to the public or injurious to other property or the neighborhood. The north property line is adjacent to a retention pond for Momingside Retirement Community. The west property line is adjacent to parking garages and a blacktopped driveway for Morningside Retirement Community. The south property line is adjacent to a single family residence which is zoned R2. The south wall of the garage will be 33 feet from the adjoining property line. The improvements to the property will be an advantage to surrounding property owners. Letters from owners of adjacent properties regarding this garage will follow. 7. The need for secure off-street parking is a recurring problem for residents of single family homes on Teller Street and other adjacent streets where street parking is not an option. Examples of garage solutions are: 1. A detached three car garage at 3425 W. 30 Ave. 2. A detached large workshop garage at 3405 Teller Street with very narrow set backs. 8. This is a single family home. 9. This is a single family home. _✓ l Board ofAdjwtment 14 CareNo. WA-15-10/MalloryandKettering EXHIBIT 7: LETTER FROM CRAIG and DEBRA ALLEN August 31, 2015 Craig and Debra Allen 3550 Teller St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: 3615 Teller St. Wheat Ridge, CO $0033 To Whom It May Concern: My wife and I were approached by the owners of 3615 Teller St, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 about building a 3 car garage on their property. We have NO CONTEST to their request. If you have any questions, feel free to call 303-425-0213 or 303-359-1283 or contact us by mail. Regards, Craig E. Allen Debra K. Allen Board ofAdjustment 15 CareNo. JVA-15-10/MalloryandKetterine ♦�4� .�qrWh4 111611 CASE MANAGER: 1►XEmaQIM F_O01N ty of at idge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment Lisa Ritchie WA -15-11 / Smith MEETING DATE: October 22, 2015 ACTIONS REQUESTED: Approval of a variance to the lot width requirement of 100 feet to allow a two- family dwelling on a lot that is 95 feet wide for property located at 7075 W. 32 Avenue and zoned Residential -Two (R-2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 7075 W. 32"d Avenue APPLICANT (S): Dean Smith OWNER (S): Dean Smith and Karen Eberle Smith APPROXIMATE AREA: 13,678 square feet (0.31 acres) PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: Residential -Two (R-2) Single Family Residential (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Board ofAdfustment 1 Case No. WA -15-11 JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow the construction of a second dwelling unit on a lot that is 95 feet wide. Per the zone district standards, the minimum lot width in the Residential - Two (R-2) zone district to have two dwelling units is 100 feet (5% variance). Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards when the approval of an additional dwelling unit will be the result. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Dean Smith, is requesting the variance in order to construct a second dwelling unit at the single family residence. - The property located at 7075 W. 32°d Avenue is zoned Residential -Two (R-2). The parcel is located on the north side of W. 32°d Avenue at the intersection with Saulsbury St, which has a T -intersection with W. 32°d Avenue approaching from the south. The total lot area is 13,678 square feet (0.31 acres), per the Jefferson County Assessor. The property is in an area predominately zoned R-2, with the exception of a Planned Residential Development on the southwest corner of W. 32°d Avenue and Saulsbury and a small number of parcels zoned R-3 directly to the northeast. The neighborhood character is low density residential. � Zonis . The subject lot currently contains a single family home that was constructed in 1957, and has an addition toward the rear of the home that was constructed in 1963, per the Jefferson County Assessor. The entire home has a footprint of approximately 1964 square feet. The lot slopes downward approximately 8 feet from the front property line to the mid -point of the home, resulting in a walk -out lot. The front portion of the home is single story with a walk -out basement and a flat roof. The addition on the home, toward the rear of the property, is two-story, constructed at the level of the walk- out basement of the front portion of the home, with a garage on the first floor and living area above. This portion also has a flat roof. There is also an existing shed on the eastern side at the rear of the property. No building permits were located associated with either the home or the accessory structures, though it should be noted that both the structure and the addition were constructed prior to the City's incorporation. The existing home complies with all setbacks and development standards for a single family home in the R-2 zone district. It should be noted that the property previously had a variance for lot width approved to allow the dwelling to be used as a two family dwelling, with Case No. WA -82-09. This variance expired when the second unit was no longer occupied as a second unit and the entire dwelling was occupied as a single family residence. (Exhibit 4, ILC,b. The property owner is an architect and has designed the second dwelling to be sensitive to the topography of the site, the architecture of the front original portion of the home, and the neighborhood Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-11 /Smith context. As part of the proposal, the rear addition of the home and the shed will be removed, and a new addition will be constructed in approximately the same location. The existing portion of the home to be removed is located 25.2 feet from the eastern side property line and is two stories with a flat roof in this location. The new addition is proposed to be located up to 10 feet from the eastern side property line and will be two stories with a flat roof, and total height of roughly 21 feet. From the elevation at the front property line, this height is roughly 3 feet taller than the height of the single story front portion of the home. The exterior finish of the addition is proposed to be a mix of materials that will be compatible with the existing home. The original portion of the single family home that will remain will have 1,294 square feet of lot coverage, and the new addition will have 888 square feet, for a total of 2,182 or 15.9% lot coverage. (Exhibit 5, Proposed Site Plan The lot width variance is requested in order to allow the construction of the second unit on the lot with the width of 95 feet. Per R-2 zone district requirements, a lot width of 100 feet is required to allow a second unit. Lots along the north side of W. 32°d Avenue in the area are typically 75 feet in width. The subject property's ownership appears to have acquired a portion of the adjacent lot to the east at some time in the past, resulting in a 95 foot wide lot. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that is supported by the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. Ultimately, the outcome of the variance requested determines whether or not the improvements are constructed. The variance would result in a two-family structure on a 95 foot wide lot, and the resulting two-family structure will meet all development standards including height, setbacks and maximum size. The following table compares the required R-2 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R-2 Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 12,500 square feet (min) 13,678 sf Lot Width 100 feet min) 95 feet Two Family Home: Required Proposed Building Coverage 40% (max) 15.9% Height 35 feet (max) ±21 feet Front Setback (south) 25 feet (min) 39.5 feet Rear Setback (north) 10 feet (min) ±25 feet Side Setback (east) 10 feet (min) 10 feet Side Setback (west) 5 feet (min) 15 feet The 15 -day notification period for the public hearing is currently in progress. As of October 15, 2015 no objections or inquiries have been received. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance, 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 hof Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-11 /Smith 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. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The requested lot width variance will result in the property staying in the same character as the surrounding area which includes both single and two-family dwellings. The proposed architectural design is compatible with the existing home and other homes in the neighborhood. There are 27 lots that front W. 32nd Avenue between Teller Street and Pierce Street, ranging in widths between 50 and 150 feet. Of the 27 lots, 7 lots have sufficient width of 100 feet to accommodate two units per lot. Of the 7 lots, it appears that at least four lots contain two or more units. 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. With the proposed removal of an older portion of the home and addition of a second dwelling unit, the applicant will be making a substantial investment in the property that will not be possible without the lot width variance. The addition of a second unit is expected to add value to the property, and the proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) and other documents supported by the city that encourage property investments. 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 shape of the lot is not sufficient in width to add a second unit. As determined when WA - 82 -09 was approved, the lot width is within 5% of the requirement for a second unit, exceeds the required size for a second unit and can be developed under the zone district requirements if the lot width variance is approved. Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-11 /Smith Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The current owner purchased the property in 2006, and thus is not responsible for the width of the lot. 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 it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets or impede the sight distance triangle. The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Conversely, the proposed addition will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood by upgrading an aging ranch home and promoting investment in property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The variance request is based on the applicant's desire to construct a second unit on the property that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. This being the case, the proposal to approve the lot width variance is consistent with the conditions in the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family and two 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 ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-11 /Smith 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 review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a lot width variance (5%) resulting in a second 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 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 proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. With the following conditions: The addition shall be consistent with the architectural representations shown on the submittal, or other as approved by staff. Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution Board ofAdfustment Case No. WA -15-11 /Smith EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL WITH CONTOURS Cole Co, N,a WA 15 A15 N11/Sndh EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Board ofAdjasv ent CaseNo. WA-L5-LL/Smith EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS Board ofAdjwtment Care No. WA -15-11 /Smith Board ofAdjwtment 10 Care No. WA -15-11 /Smith Board ofAdjwtment Care No. WA -15-11 /Smith EXHIBIT 4: IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE IMPLATTEO ]5' PARCEL A I' 123' � SHEO 91.0' 1R.3' IL-1 1' IDOT ELEVATES (M)� I PATO Im" I I I PARCEL B I' T� Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -15-11 / Smith 12 EXHIBIT 5: PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS ------------------- ----------------- I ; 6 j :mss ................. ........ .. j j araaaw.vwu.rw j � E g i 1 p umvn ra 1 1 aewwer I � remuc[esn �— _ 1 roa�uwm .•v 1 a¢arev 1 � I vmuvaimrw I P /A� carwware 1 \ _ _ aenex 1 I — ,.. amrtn u+ N` wasmenvexue \ \ Board ofAdjwtment 13 Care No. WA -15-11 /Smith _.Xl ::. Board ofAdjwtment 14 Care No. WA -15-11 /Smith EXHIBIT 6: LETTER OF REQUEST WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA Sept, 28 2015 7075 Variance Request Wheat Ridge planning Staff, It is our desire to construct a second dwelling on our current property at 7075 West 32nd Avenue. Our intent is to design and construct a modest residence that is highly energy efficient which would become our primary residence. We have lived at this address with our two children for over nine years. Itis located In the R2 one district which allows two family dwellings provided the lot area is a minimum of 12,000 if and minimum lot width of 100'. The existing dwelling is a single story and includes a walk -out basement. The topography of the parcel has significant fall towards the rear of the site, approximately 8'. There are multiple spot elevations on the site plan to describe the existing condition. The new work does not include any significant grading work. The actual site area is 13,750sf, approximately 13%greaterthan the requirement. The actual lot width is95'. We are submitting a request for variance for minimum lot width of 95'in lieu of 100'. cxisnuc------ We appreciate the existing building design and the relationship it has with the street. So that the existing building remains as the primary structure as seen from the street, and to provide ample parking for both dwellings, the new building will be significantly set back from the street. This places the new building on a flat portion of the site at the lower elevation. The building design Includes a Rat roof with large overhangs to emulate the existing building. Thank you for your consideration, please contact us with any questions or concerns. Dean 5 wL. Karen Eberle -3 Board ofAdjustment 15 Care No. WA -15-11 /Smith I City of WheatRidge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting August 27, 2015 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair HOVLAND at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29a' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Thomas Abbott Sally Banghart Janet Bell Paul Hovland Lily Griego David Kuntz Betty Jo Page Dan Bradford Alternates Present: Larry Richmond (not on dias) Board Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Lauren Mikulak, Senior Planner Mark Westberg, Project Supervisor Kelly Stevens, Deputy City Clerk 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No.FP-15-02 The case was presented by Mark Westberg, Public Works Project Supervisor and the City's Floodplain Administrator. He entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. He stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the presentation and staff report. Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 1 The applicant is requesting approval of a Class II Floodplain Permit to allow the construction of a single family dwelling unit on property within the Special Flood Hazard Area. Mr. Westberg made a brief Power Point presentation. He explained that the property is within a Special Flood Hazard Area and construction is allowed with a Class 11 Floodplain Permit. Class II permits require a higher level of review because the structure would allow for human occupancy. The site in question is within the Flood Fringe, a section of the floodplain which allows new structures where the lowest floor is at least 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BEE) of a hundred year flood. Only a small portion of the southeast corner of the site is in the highly restrictive Floodway and there will be no construction in that corner. Staff recommends approval of the Class II Floodplain Permit for a proposed single family dwelling unit. Member BANGHART asked who is responsible for getting the drainage certificate at the end of the project and asked how many houses are located in the floodplain in Wheat Ridge. Mr. Westberg stated City Public Works staff will receive a drainage certification and as- builts. There are over 500 homes in the floodplain in Wheat Ridge. Most of these were built long before the floodplain was officially mapped and declared. There are a few newer homes that were built according to current floodplain standards. Member BELL asked about the proximity of the property to the Greenbelt trail. She wanted to know if fences or barriers were proposed to separate public and private property. Mr. Westberg stated fences are not allowed in the floodway. In the floodplain, fences are conditionally allowed with a Class I permit. They must be built to certain design standards including being flood -proof and anchored appropriately. No fence has been proposed as part of this application, but could be applied for in the future. In response to a question from Member BELL about FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), Mr. Westberg explained that FEMA allows for and assumes that construction will occur in the floodplain, but it is not allowed in the floodway. The City is unique in that about half of the 500 acres in the floodplain are part of open space areas. There are fences throughout these areas. Member BELL asked about the type of fill being used on the property to elevate the home and about erosion control plans. Mr. Westberg indicated the fill would need to be classified as structural fill. As part of the building permit, an engineer would need to submit a grading, fill, and foundation plans. Staff will not approve a Certificate of Occupancy until the ground cover is Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 sufficiently established so as to prevent erosion. This applicant is not proposing a basement — nothing on the site will be below the base flood elevation (BFE). In reference to the floodplain permit plan, Member ABBOTT asked for confirmation of what could and couldn't be built within the triangular floodway area in the corner of the property. Mr. Westberg explained that the triangle of land in the floodway must stay at the existing grade. The floodway boundary must be staked off prior to construction starting, and staff will monitor construction progress to ensure the construction does not move into the triangle of land in question. According to the plans, the yard will taper down and end before the floodway. Member GRIEGO asked about the proposed wall near the floodway and how it could be constructed without disturbing the area in the floodway. She wanted to know the proposed setback and height for the wall and if staff supported the request for the wall. Mr. Westberg stated that a licensed surveyor must stake the boundary of the floodway prior to start of construction. The setback is 1 foot and the proposed wall will be 2 feet tall. The wall is permitted and is primarily designed to give the homeowners a flat spot to walk around the building. Staff is approving the wall because its design complies with applicable floodplain regulations. Ryan Stephenson 4010 W 69u' Drive, Westminster, Colorado The applicant, Ryan Stephenson, was sworn in by Chair HOVLAND. Mr. Stephenson stated he was a lifelong Colorado resident and was looking for the perfect house in which to raise his family. He and his wife wanted a property close to parks and trails for his family and his kids to enjoy. They searched for along time and then saw this property. They explored many options before buying this property. He has been very impressed with Wheat Ridge City Staff as they have been very helpful in understanding the floodplain regulations. He and his family tried to design a house that suits their family and fits with the surrounding area. They have taken extra precautions around the floodplain area and hired an engineer who specializes in floodplain analysis. In response to Member BELL's questions, Mr. Stephenson explained that the property borders the open space, but does not encroach upon it. Eventually, they have plans to put in simple split rail fence (with the proper permits) not for security but just to highlight the boundary between their property and the open space. The bike path is about 60 to 80 feet south of their property line. Regarding the planned retaining wall near Floodway; was recommended by design professionals to accommodate the grades on the property. It is planned to be only 1-2 feet high and shouldn't pose any problems. If the Board considers the wall to be an issue, he is willing to negotiate this element of the plan, if necessary. Member BELL asked about stormwater coming off the street and the location of an inlet. Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 Mr. Westberg stated that review of a drainage plan would occur with the subsequent building permit application. That said, the intake pipe shown on the floodplain permit plan is 6" in diameter, and there are plans to increase this to a 12" pipe. This will be addressed during the building permit review. The pipe would carry water from the street to the Wheat Ridge Open Space. In response to a question from Member BANGHART, Mr. Stephenson indicated they were aware of the fact that the property was in the floodplain before they purchased it. They consulted with an engineer and City staff before making the purchase to confirm that their plans were compliant with floodplain regulations. Member ABBOTT referenced Exhibit 5 in the packet, the flood zone topography map, and asked how the map may be changed after construction. Mr. Westberg said the map would be changed to reflect the new construction when the area is remapped in the future. Member ABBOTT asked if this construction will have a measurable effect on the drainage to and from other nearby properties in the floodplain. Mr. Westberg stated this is only one house —not a whole development and will have minimal measurable effect on the floodplain. A small effect from construction is allowed and accounted for in the regulations, but this construction will have a negligible effect. Member BELL expressed concern about the impacts to wildlife and asked about the relocation of prairie dogs, if needed, and the migration of deer. Mr. Westberg responded that the City does regulate wildlife on private property, and the project size does not hit the threshold to warrant review by the Colorado Department of Wildlife. Ms. Mikulak reiterated that the City does not have the jurisdiction to regulate wildlife on private property. Member BELL responded that the City should take care of wildlife regardless of the jurisdiction. Member GRIEGO remarked that the public hearing process can open up additional requirements. She implored staff to be proactive and look beyond code requirements and all appropriate agencies. Mr. Westberg stated the Parks & Forestry Supervisor has not expressed concern about this project. Staff understands the concerns about wildlife and will look into it. Mr. Stephenson stated he had never seen prairie dogs on this site. They don't want to disturb any wildlife either —that is one of the many appealing things about this property. Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 Member PAGE asked if elevating the property will force additional stormwater drainage onto lower adjacent properties. Mr. Westberg answered that the water will be a little higher in the creek, but this is allowable. Member KUNZ stated it would be like dropping a pebble into a bathtub. The localized rise will so negligible it cannot be accounted for. Member PAGE asked about localized flooding in the area. Mr. Westberg indicated that Wheat Ridge hasn't had a 100 -year flood event in over 140 years. Localized flooding from storms is possible, the 12" proposed drainage pipe should improve the situation and redirect drainage into the creek. A drainage plan will address up to 100 -year floods. Chair HOVLAND opened the public hearing. Kim Davis 4240 Garland Street, Wheat Ridge Ms. Davis was sworn in. She lives two lots away from the subject property. She expressed support for the proposed single family home. She indicated that there has not been a substantial flood in this neighborhood in years. The new home will increase property values in the neighborhood. In terms of wildlife, she has never seen prairie dogs or deer, but has seen rabbits and birds. Because she has a basement, she has a sump pump, but she welcomes the new investment in the neighborhood and sees no negative impact. The only negative result has been a neighbor that put red graffiti on a retaining wall to announce the hearing, and she hopes the City will remove it. Member GRIEGO thanked Ms. Davis for coming to the meeting. She asked her if the sump pump was running during the recent heavy rains in May and June. Ms. Davis responded that her sump pump never ran during these rains. Patricia Lazzari 4175 Garland Street, Wheat Ridge Ms. Lazzari was sworn in. She wrote a letter to the Board that was distributed before the meeting. She has lived at the lower end of Garland Street for 23 years. Her property is immediately to the west of the subject property. She expressed concern with several elements of the new house: the potential negative impact on wildlife, the size of the home, the City's public noticing requirements and a lack of a sign facing the greenbelt, the potential for stormwater to drain onto her property, and the design of the retaining wall and future fences. Ms. Lazzari indicated she has no ill will towards the applicants but is concerned about the new construction. She noted that her crawl space has not flooded, but she is still concerned. She indicated that she had spoken with Member BELL, with Forestry Supervisor Margaret Paget, and with City staff at the Carnation Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 Festival. She also confirmed that she had painted her own retaining wall in order show the public notice information to the people in the Greenbelt. Mr. Stephenson indicated that a chain link fence will be temporary during construction and will only be placed if security is a risk. Member GRIEGO remarked that the plan should note that the chain link fence is temporary. Mr. Stephenson responded that the plans do note it as temporary. Ms. Lazzari expressed concern about the retaining wall so close to the floodway. Mr. Westberg stated that atemporary encroachment into the floodway is allowed for construction of the wall. The floodway will need to be in its original configuration after the wall is completed. After several questions were directed to staff and the applicant, Ms. Mikulak asked Ms. Lazzari to direct all comments to the Board. Any outstanding questions would be addressed at the end of the testimony. Member GRIEGO reminded the Board that the applicant stated they would be willing to remove the wall, and she suggested it could be a condition of approval. In response to a question from Ms. Lazzari, Member GREIGO confirmed that City staff will follow up with State regarding the wildlife in the area. Member KUNZ stated remarked that the City has limited jurisdiction over wildlife. Staff appears to have completed all necessary for this application related not only to wildlife but also to all floodplain regulations. Dan Lazzari 4175 Garland Street, Wheat Ridge Mr. Lazzari was sworn in. He testified that he has lived in neighborhood for many years and has seen water go up and down, and he has also see a lot of wildlife in the area. He expressed concern related to runoff from the house. Mr. Westberg reiterated that a drainage plan would address general over land and ground water drainage including gutter and downspout design. This would be reviewed as part of the building permit application. The Class II floodplain permit does not address routine drainage. Doug Gilmer 4280 Garland Street, Wheat Ridge Mr. Gilmer was sworn in. He expressed support for the project and said the construction would help the neighborhood. He has lived in the area for 21 years and does not feel that the addition of one more house will impact wildlife. He welcomed the family to the Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 neighborhood and expressed appreciation for their investment in a currently blighted lot. He expressed hope that the Board would approve the application. Martin Walaszek 4250 Hoyt Court, Wheat Ridge Mr. Walaszek was sworn in. He indicated that he lives in the neighborhood to the west but walks in the area frequently. He observed that the greenbelt floods routinely and asked how the construction will affect the path in then open space. Mr. Westberg indicated that the path and open space are all part of the floodway and are intended to flood more often than the private property to the north. Water on the site will go south and east from the property. Mr. Walaszek stated he welcomes the family and the new house to the neighborhood. Member GRIEGO remarked that maybe City Staff should look at some protections from increased drainage from the property. qw Mr. Westberg responded that staff is bound by the municipal code as to what they can require for new single family homes. Ms. Mikulak clarified how the floodplain permit relates to the subsequent approvals that will be required. The floodplain plan and permit must be reviewed before any building permit can be reviewed. The routine drainage issues that are being raised will all be addressed by a drainage plan which is reviewed in the next step in the process, as part of the building permit application. Henry Hollander 9201 West Tennessee, Lakewood Mr. Hollander was sworn in. He introduced himself as the applicant's floodplain engineer. He indicated that the 12" pipe will be put in to mitigate drainage from the house. All other drainage issues will be addressed in the building permit. Member GRIEGO asked Mr. Hollander if he had any comments after hearing the public comments. He addressed comments regarding flooding on the path in the greenbelt, and observed that the path is at a much lower elevation that the property. It will be a rare event that will result in flooding on the subject property. Mr. Hollander stated the only possible impact from this build would be from fill used to elevate the first floor of the home, and the 12" pipe running drainage to the creek will eliminate that. This construction will have no noticeable effect on flood plain. Karen Stephenson 4810 W 69a' Drive, Westminster Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 Ms. Stephenson was sworn in. She introduced herself as the co -applicant and wanted to reiterate her family's intention to build a home for their family and not to negatively affect the open space or the neighbors. Through their preliminary design process, they have tried to go above and beyond what is required and will continue to do this. They will work with their new neighbors to keep drainage away from them. She expressed that they want to do right thing as they move through the process. Karen Magarill 9295 W 42nd Avenue, Wheat Ridge Ms. Magarill was sworn in. The property in question is directly south of her home. She indicated that her lawn flooded earlier this year. Her property sits lower than street and runoff is a concern for her. She also observed that the existing trail was unusable from the floods earlier this year. 46 Chair HOVLAND asked if anyone else would like to testify. No one else wished to speak, so Chair HOVLAND closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Member ABBOTT about the City's goals, Mr. Westberg indicated it was the City's goal to mitigate impacts from floods and to remove properties from the floodplain whenever possible. Ms. Mikulak remarked that in February 2014, the federal government adopted new floodplain maps. The City of Wheat Ridge has processed two code amendments since the update in an effort to implement best practices. Member ABBOTT observed that people in the floodplain often have to flood -proof their homes if they are in the floodplain and asked if the City is encouraging people to take action to reduce flood risk. Mr. Westberg affirmed this observation and stated that the City wants to make the community more flood resilient. There are FEMA grants available to accomplish this. Ms. Mikulak commented that the City isn't seeking to transfer flood risk— it wants to reduce it everywhere. In response to a question from Member BELL, Ms. Mikulak confirmed that some municipalities purchase floodplain properties at fair market value to help eliminate flood risk and to expand open space. Ms. Mikulak noted that the City has done this a few times, but it cannot afford to buy all floodplain properties. Member GRIEGO asked staff to explain the next review step if this application is approved. Ms. Mikulak stated that the Class II Floodplain Permit would require a supermajority vote to be approved six of the eight affirmative votes. If approved, the next step is to submit a building permit application with a site plan, construction documents, and drainage plan. If the Board denies the floodplain permit, there is an appeal process. Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 Upon a motion by Member KUNZ and a second by Member BRADFORD, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. FP -15-02 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and WHEREAS, the Class II Floodplain Permit applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. NOW, THEREFORE, I move to adopt a Resolution APPROVING Case No. FP -15- 02 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The lowest floor of the proposed single family residence is at least one foot above the BFE, thereby reducing the potential flood damage to the structure. 2. All of the proposed construction is outside of the floodway, thereby reducing the potential of this project causing flood damage to other properties. 3. The floodplain administrator had reviewed and supports the findings of the Floodplain Analysis, dated July 6, 2015. kill Y6Ir0IIa01610961111NIOX4167►111Y0[67► 1. Prior to commencing any construction on the property, the boundary of the floodway must be staked to ensure that no construction or storage of materials occurs within the floodway. The stakes shall be maintained throughout construction. 2. The proposed single family dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with the Floodplain Permit Plan outside of the floodway and at least one foot above the BFE. 3. .The location and elevation of the proposed single family residence must be verified with a Foundation Setback and Elevation Certification. 4. In order to verify that no construction has occurred within the floodway, a Drainage Certification must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. All utilities must be installed in a manner that will protect any equipment from flood damage. Member GRIEGO asked the Board to consider adding a condition that the drainage design include a 12" pipe instead of the 6" pipe shown on the plans. Members KUNZ and BRADFORD accepted the amendment to the motion. Condition 46. It will be added to the plans that he drainage pipe on the property must be at least 12". Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 Member GRIEGO asked if removal of the retaining wall should be added as a condition. The Board did not add this condition. Member ABBOTT stated he will vote in favor of this motion because the engineering was sound and understandable. He observed that all properties in the City negatively impact wildlife habitat, but he supports the application. Chair HOVLAND called for a vote. Motion carried 6-2 with Members GRIEGO and PAGE voting no. 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — June 25, 2015 The Board requested that spelling of Member GRIEGO's name be corrected. It was moved by Member GRIEGO and seconded by Member BELL to approve the minutes as amended. The motion passed 6-0 with Members PAGE and BRADFORD abstaining. B. Pledge of Allegiance Ms. Mikulak reminded the Board of the previous discussion regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and asked if the Members want to add the Pledge of Allegiance to the beginning of each meeting. Member GRIEGO suggested that yes, the Pledge of Allegiance should be added to the Board of Adjustment agendas. It is part of American culture and tradition and sign of respect for soldiers fighting to honor this country's flag. There was a consensus to add the Pledge of Allegiance to the agenda. It was moved by Member BRADFORD and seconded by Member PAGE to add the Pledge of Allegiance to the Board of Adjustment agendas. Motion passed 8-0. C. Public Testimony Ms. Mikulak reminded the Board of the previous discussion of why citizens are asked to state their name and address for the record. While this is not required, knowing where a citizen lives helps Members put the citizen's testimony in perspective. If a citizen is testifying and they live very near a property in question, their testimony Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 10 may have more weight with Members than the testimony of someone who lives far away. If someone objects to stating their address, they may be asked to simply state their city. There was consensus to continue asking for a person's name and address and to simply as for their city if they do not want to provide an address. D. Ms. Mikulak announced that the Community Development Department has hired a new administrative assistant to replace Kim Waggoner. She will start on Monday. 8. ADJOURNMENT Chair HOVLAND adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Paul Hovland, Chair Kelly Stevens, Deputy City Clerk Board of Adjustment Minutes — August 27, 2015 11