Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 25 Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Sara Spaulding, Public Information Official, at 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A G E N D A April 25, 2019 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on April 25, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-19-01: An application filed by Amy Coffey for approval of three requests 1. Request for approval of a 5-foot (100%) variance from the 5-foot setback requirement for a deck. 2. Request for approval of a 2-foot 6-inch (50%) variance from the 5-foot side setback for an above ground pool. 3. Request for approval of a 2-foot 2-inch (36.1%) variance from the maximum allowed fence height of 6 feet for a side yard fence to be constructed on property zoned Residential-One C (R-1C) located at 5575 West 35th Avenue. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes – December 13, 2018 B. Resolution 01-2019: Establishing a designated public place for posting of meeting notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. 9. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE: April 18, 2019 CASE MANAGER: Zareen Tasneem, Planner 1 CASE NO. & NAME: WA-19-01 / Coffey ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of three variance requests A) a five-foot (100%) variance from the five-foot side setback requirement for a deck, B) a two-foot six-inch (50%) variance from the five-foot side setback for an above ground pool, and C) a two-foot two-inch (36.1%) variance from the maximum allowed fence height of six-feet for a side yard fence to be constructed on property located at 5575 W. 35th Avenue and zoned Residential-One C (R-1C). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 5575 W. 35th Avenue APPLICANT (S): Amy Coffey OWNER (S): Molly Barden APPROXIMATE AREA: 9,375 Square Feet (0.22 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-One C (R-1C) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Board of Adjustment 2 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey 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 three variances on property located in the Residential-One C (R-1C) zone district in order to construct a new deck with an above ground therapy pool and privacy fence on the side of the house: • Request A: a five-foot (100%) variance from the five-foot side setback requirement for the deck, resulting in a 0-foot setback for the deck, • Request B: a two-foot six-inch (50%) variance from the five-foot side setback for an above ground pool resulting in a two-foot six-inch setback, and • Request C: a two-foot two-inch (36.1%) variance from the maximum allowed fence height of six-feet resulting in a privacy fence up to eight-foot two-inches in height. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hold public hearings to hear and decide only upon applications for variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. While the fence height variance is less than 50 percent, the requests are all related and are being presented together. II. CASE ANALYSIS The variances are being requested so the property owner may construct a new deck with an above ground therapy pool, screened by a privacy fence, on the west side of the house. The existing house sits on a 9,375-square foot parcel on the north side of W. 35th Avenue and was originally constructed in 1941 per the Jefferson County Assessor (Exhibit 1). The property is zoned R- 1C, as are the properties immediately to the west, north, and south. The properties to the east are zoned Residential-One B (R-1B). The property is surrounded primarily by single-family residential uses, with some pockets of multifamily uses (R-2 and R-3) nearby (Exhibit 2). The R-1C zone district provides high quality, safe, quiet and stable, medium-density single-family residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the medium-density residential character. In the R-1C zone district, side setbacks are five feet for all structures and, like all zone districts citywide, fences are limited to 6’ in height. Above ground pools are treated like accessory structures, so both the deck and pool would be subject to the five-foot setback. The home has a substantial front setback at 64’ and is located at the far north end of the property. The original portion of the house was a one-story frame house 20’ wide and 34’ deep. Prior to the current property owner’s (Molly Barden) purchase of the property in 1999, the previous owner, David LeClear, expanded the house in 1992. LeClear’s new addition was 32’ wide and 17’ deep, attached along the northern border of the original house. With the new addition, the backyard became 10’ deep. In 2003, the applicant, on behalf of the property owner, was before the Board of Adjustment with Case No. WA-02-18. The request was to build a two-story addition, which included an attached-garage, Board of Adjustment 3 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey along the back right border of the house. The applicant received approval for A) a 5’ side yard setback variance from the 10’ side yard setback requirement for a two-story structure resulting in a 5’ side yard setback and B) a 7’6” rear yard setback variance from the 10’ rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 2’6” rear yard setback. The addition from this prior variance request is shown in Exhibit 4. The current request is based on a desire to install a therapy pool on a new deck adjacent to an existing sliding glass door on the west side of the house. The applicant has indicated that the pool has been recommended by a physician to treat rheumatoid arthritis (Exhibit 7 and 8). Given the location of the home on the property, there are limited options for an outdoor deck and pool. The applicant has explored all other alternatives and eliminated them for a variety of reasons. The rear yard is too narrow and not adjacent to an existing opening on the home. The front yard includes utility and irrigation conflicts, a mature garden, and would not be a desirable location for a pool from a privacy or aesthetic standpoint. The site plan (Exhibit 4) shows the proposed deck with the pool on the west side of the house. The deck would fill the entire width between the house and the western property line and would extend nearly the full length of the home. The above ground therapy pool measures 8’ wide, 19’ long, and 5’ tall. It would be placed 2’6” away from the fence, 3’ away from the house, aligned to the front of the home. The therapy pool is not the same as a hot tub or a recreational pool. The water jets and size of a therapy pool allow the user to exercise and alleviate joint pain. Hot tubs are more square-shaped, typically around 6’ long, 6’ wide, and 3’ high for a small one, and not meant to be used for exercise. A recreational pool is much bigger in size than a therapy pool and typically do not have the water jet features of a therapy pool. Currently, a chain link fence divides the subject property from the western/northern neighbor (this lot wraps the subject lot). The applicant is proposing to replace the existing fence with a solid privacy fence for a portion of the boundary (Exhibit 5). It would be four-feet in height in the front yard, up to the southern edge of the canopy in the front of the home. From there, the fence height would increase. There is a grade change on the property and the applicant is requesting the fence height stay parallel with the deck, not the ground, for the length of the deck in order to provide adequate privacy of the pool. This would result in a fence design starting at 6’9”, progressively gaining 17” for a maximum height of 8’2”. The privacy fence will drop down in height back to a six-foot existing chain link fence near the northern end of the deck, and further north the existing chain link will remain. The parcel meets minimum standards for the R-1C zone district. The following table compares the required R-1C development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: R-1C Development Standards: Required Actual Lot Area 5,000 square feet (min) 9,375 square feet Lot Width 50 feet (min) 75 feet Side Setback (west) 5 feet 0 feet (deck), 2 feet 6 inches (therapy pool) Front Setback (south) 20 feet 57 feet (deck), 64 feet (therapy pool) Rear Setback (north) 5 feet 20 feet (deck), 41 feet (therapy pool) Fence: Required Proposed Fence Height 6 feet (max) Up to 8 feet 2 inches Board of Adjustment 4 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Public Comment As of the date of this staff report, April 18, 2019, the City has not received letters from surrounding property owners. If letters arrive between the delivery of this staff report and the Board of Adjustment hearing, they will be entered into the record and provided to the Board members during the hearing. 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 also provided an additional narrative letter (Exhibit 7). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Because they are related and the analysis is similar, Requests A, B, and C are discussed together in the criteria analysis below. 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 requests 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 proposed deck and pool would intrude into the side setback, however, the proposed fence variance would screen the deck and pool from the neighboring property. In fact, the fence height variance would likely offset the visual impact of the deck and pool encroachment. The proposed design is not expected to alter the essential character of the locality. Because of the unusual location of the home on the lot, alternative locations, such as the front yard, would be more likely to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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. While the proposed fence, deck, and above ground therapy pool is an investment in the property, this investment likely does not meet historical thresholds for what constitutes a substantial investment. 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. Board of Adjustment 5 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey While the size, shape, and topography of the lot are not irregular, the placement of the house on the lot imposes a hardship upon the owner. As stated in the Written Request (Exhibit 7), the house and lot were originally a part of the property immediately to the north and west. It was later subdivided into its own lot, prior to the City’s incorporation in 1941. The previous property owner added a two-story addition to the north of the original house, and the applicant added another two-story addition to the northwest portion of the house (see Exhibit 4). The effect is that there is not enough space in the backyard now to place the therapy pool and maneuver around it. This means it would need to be placed in one of the side yards or front yard. In looking at the site plan, site photos, and applicant request (Exhibits 4, 6, and 7), several other hardships prevent use of the east and front yards. These include access to the crawl space, utility conflicts, the irrigation system, and access to power which would be needed to operate the pool. The other hardship on the property is the slight change in elevation, which necessitates the fence height variance. The property gradually drops in elevation from south to north. 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 neither platted the lot nor constructed the original home in its current location or orientation. While the applicant did make an investment in the property in 2003 to construct an addition with an attached garage, there was no rear yard at that time and the applicant is not responsible for the location of the home relative to the lot. The later addition effectively eliminated the northeast side yard where the deck and therapy pool might have otherwise been placed. 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. The addition would not impede the sight distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. Board of Adjustment 6 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. 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. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are unique to the property only. Based on the aerial imagery of the neighborhood (Exhibit 1), surrounding properties have space in their backyard or side yard to allow the requested deck/pool to be built without encroaching in the minimum setback requirements. 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. The applicant has indicated that the pool is necessary to treat her and her mother’s arthritis (Exhibit 7). The applicant has provided a physician’s note (Exhibit 8) that recommends the “warm water hydrotherapy” that would be provided by the therapy pool. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of A) a five-foot (100%) variance from the five-foot side setback requirement for a deck, B) a two-foot six-inch (50%) variance from the five-foot side setback for an above ground pool, and C) a two-foot two-inch (36.1%) variance from the maximum allowed fence height of six-feet for a side yard fence. 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 to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The physical location of the home on the property and the topography both present a particular and unique hardship. 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. The therapy pool provides a reasonable accommodation for treatment of arthritis. Board of Adjustment 7 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey With the following conditions: 1. The design of the deck, pool, and fence shall be consistent with the representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Board of Adjustment 8 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board of Adjustment 9 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey EXHIBIT 3: ILC SURVEY ILC from 2002 showing lot dimensions and building footprint prior to the addition built per Case No. WA-02-18. Board of Adjustment 11 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN This Site Plan shows the sewer utility line running to and along the eastern portion of the house, while the water and gas lines run separately to the west of the house. A long driveway to the street occupies most of the space in the east side setback. This site plan also depicts how far setback the house is on the lot. The Barden Addition shown is from a previously approved variance request for this property allowing a new attached addition to the house (Case No. WA-02-18). Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 13 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey The proposed deck with the pool on the left side of the house. It will be 13’7” wide. The southern boundary of the deck is just south of the front building line, the western boundary is the privacy fence/western lot line, the eastern is the west side of the house, and the northern boundary is almost to the back of the house. The above ground therapy pool measures 8’ wide and 19’ long. It is placed 2’6” away from the fence, 3’ away from the house, and aligned to the front building line. It measures about 1’6” in height from the top of the deck to the top of the pool. The rest of it is submerged below the deck. Board of Adjustment 14 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey EXHIBIT 5: FENCE ELEVATION From the edge of the canopy in front of the house, the fence will become a 6’9” solid fence that will run parallel in height to the proposed deck for approximately 50’6”, progressively gaining 17” in overall height for a total height at the north edge of the deck of about 8’2”. From the northern edge of the deck to the rear property line, the fence will drop down in height back to a six-foot fence. Board of Adjustment 15 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey EXHIBIT 6: SITE PHOTOS A view of the east side yard. Open space in front of the enclosed porch shows the house meters that the gas and water utility lines shown in Exhibit 4 connect to, as well as doors that lead to the crawlspace underneath the house. Putting a deck with an aboveground therapy pool would hinder access to these spaces. The driveway is to the east. (Photo provided by applicant) Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey A view of the west side yard. This is the side yard the applicant is requesting the variances for to install the deck, therapy pool, and privacy fence. It has a chain link fence along the perimeter, a planter box, and some stone steps as of now. Part of this chain link fence would be replaced by the wooden privacy fence proposed by this variance request. (Photo provided by applicant) Board of Adjustment 17 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Another view of the west side yard. Further north in the side yard, there currently exists a wooden deck with a grill on top and side doors that lead directly in to the house. This deck would be replaced with the deck proposed in this variance request. The chain link continues on along the back property line. (Photo provided by applicant) Board of Adjustment 18 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey A view of the west side yard from the front yard. (Photo provided by applicant) View of the front of the property from the street. The requested variance area (middle left of photo, behind bushes) is well setback into the property and not easily visible from the street. (Photo from Google Street View) Board of Adjustment 19 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey EXHIBIT 7: WRITTEN REQUEST Board of Adjustment 20 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 21 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 22 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 23 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 24 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 25 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 26 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 27 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 28 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 29 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey Board of Adjustment 30 Case No. WA-19-01 / Coffey EXHIBIT 8: PHYSICIAN NOTE WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA-19-01 APPLICANT NAME: Amy Coffey LOCATION OF REQUEST: 5575 W. 35th Avenue WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA-19-01 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were/were not protests registered against it; and WHEREAS the relief applied for may/may not 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-19-01 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of three variances on property located in the Residential-One C (R-1C) zone district: • Request A: a five-foot (100%) variance from the five-foot side setback requirement for the deck, resulting in a 0-foot setback for the deck, • Request B: a two-foot six-inch (50%) variance from the five-foot side setback for an above ground pool resulting in a two-foot six-inch setback, and • Request C: a two-foot two-inch (36.1%) variance from the maximum allowed fence height of six-feet resulting in a privacy fence up to eight-foot two-inches in height. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The physical location of the home on the property and the topography both present a particular and unique hardship. 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. The therapy pool provides a reasonable accommodation for treatment of arthritis. 6. … 7. … WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design of the deck, pool, and fence shall be consistent with the representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. 2. … 3. … Voting requirements for reference: Per City Code and BOA Bylaws, the following number of votes are required in order to grant any variance, waiver, temporary building or use permit, any interpretation or flood plain special exception permit or any matter requiring decision by the planning commission or the city council. If a resolution or motion fails to receive the required number of votes in favor of the applicant, the action shall be deemed a denial, and a resolution denying the request shall be entered in the record. Members Present Votes Needed to Approve 8 6 7 6 6 5 5 4 All other actions require only a simple majority, including continuance of a case. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 13, 2018 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting December 13, 2018 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Thomas Abbott Janet Bell Dan Bradford David Kuntz Larry Richmond Betty Jo Page Alternates Present: Rocco Germano Board Members Absent: Michael Griffeth Paul Hovland Staff Members Present: Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Scott Cutler, Planner II Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No.WA-18-14 The case was presented by Scott Cutler. 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 December 13, 2018 2 Member BELL asked if the cars in the garage will be side by side or tandem. Mr. Cutler said side by side. Member ABBOTT asked why the property lines bisect the house to the east. Mr. Cutler explained that the property lines on the City’s aerial maps are plus/minus approximately 10 feet so it is a rough estimate. He explained that the property owner had a survey done so it is known exactly where the property lines stand. Member KUNTZ asked what the distance will be from the garage to the fence line. He also inquired if there will be enough room to walk in between the fence and garage. Mr. Cutler said there will be a 1-foot setback on either side of the property and the walking question can be saved for the applicant. Member PAGE asked about the status of the properties to the east and west. Mr. Cutler said there was no ownership research done on the properties, but to the west is a vacant lot and to the east is a single family home. Ms. Mikulak added that both properties sit on 25-foot lots so the homes are very close to one another. Member KUNTZ asked why there was different setback dimensions on the application than in the staff report. Mr. Cutler explained that this is the reason for the continuance and when the ILC was complete it showed the property being only 25 feet wide instead of 26.5 feet wide which means the request is just a little different. Michael Claugus, applicant 6343 West 6th Avenue, Lakewood Mr. Claugus explained he purchased the house 4 months ago with an existing 1 car detached garage with structural damage. He mentioned this is a rental property and he wanted to provide a 2 car garage for the tenants. He confirmed what Mr. Cutler had mentioned about the measurements being off until the ILC was complete. Mr. Claugus added he has not received any complaints from his neighbors. Member PAGE asked what the neighbor to the east has in the backyard and if there is a fence separating the two properties. Mr. Claugus said his neighbor has an RV and a couple of sheds/workshops in the backyard and there is fence separating the 2 properties. He also added that the church on 26th Avenue owns the vacant lot to the west. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 13, 2018 3 Member KUNTZ asked if the fence is going to come down to build the garage. Mr. Claugus explained that he is going to use T 1 11 siding which is 4x8 sheet of siding which will be constructed on the ground and put up in one piece. In doing so the fences do not need to be demolished. Member PAGE asked how he will control weed growth in the 1-foot of open space between the fence and garage. Member KUNTZ mentioned he is concerned about the long term maintenance. Member ABBOTT asked about escaping the house if they cannot access the front door in case of an emergency. Mr. Claugus said the people could maneuver over the 3ft. fence after exiting out the back door. The other option would be to go through the man door of the garage and exit through the car door. Ms. Mikulak explained that the Chief Building Official has not shown any concern with any of the emergency exits currently. Member KUNTZ said he likes the throwback of the narrow lots and thinks this project will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Claugus added he will think about putting cement all the way to the property lines to control the weeds. Ms. Mikulak mentioned that nobody signed up for the public testimony. Upon a motion by Member KUNTZ and seconded by Member BRADFORD, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA-18-14 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-18-14 be, and hereby is, APPROVED TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 4-foot variance (80%) to the east side setback and a 4-foot variance (80%) to the west side setback for a detached garage. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 13, 2018 4 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 existing lot conditions present a unique hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. 4. The hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 5. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 6. The circumstances necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood and not unique to the property. 7. The proposed investment in the property is supported by the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. 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. 2. The applicant shall ensure the garage complies with applicable building codes, including fire rating, as determined by the Chief Building Official, through the permitting process. Motion carried 7-0. B. Case No. WA-18-15 It was moved by Board Member KUNTZ and seconded by Board Member PAGE to table Case No. WA-18-15 indefinitely. The motion passed 7-0. 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair ABBOTT closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes – October 25, 2018 It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member RICHMOND to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 6-0-1 with Board Member GERMANO abstaining. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 13, 2018 5 B. Ms. Mikulak informed the Board the Senior Planner, Meredith Reckert is retiring after an amazing 35 ½ years with the City of Wheat Ridge. Member PAGE said she would like to get her a gift if anybody wants to help out. C. Member BELL asked about the status of the vacant billboard in the City. Ms. Mikulak explained that because the previous billboard variance was denied the new process is underway and 3 applicants have submitted for the open vacancy. Once they are looked at and determined eligible then a lottery will be held. Ms. Mikulak added that none of the applicants chose the same location as the last variance. D. Member PAGE also wanted information on the metal car storage at 32nd and Harlan. Mr. Cutler explained that Ms. Sandoval has applied for a building permit in which she has a year to construct the new structure and once complete the temporary metal structure must come down. 8. ADJOURNMENT Chair ABBOTT adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m. __________________________ _____________________________ Thomas ABBOTT, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 01 Series of 2019 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 __________________, 2019. ________________________________ Chair, Board of Adjustment ATTEST: ______________________________ Secretary to the Board of Adjustment