Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 10 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 March 10, 2022 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on March 10, 2022, 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-22-02: An application filed by Carl Maes for approval of two variances: Request A) a 0.7-foot (14%) variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement for a detached garage and Request B) a 0.9-foot (18%) variance from the 5-foot side setback requirement for a home addition on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3655 Holland Court. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes – February 25, 2021 B. Resolution 01-2022: Establishing a designated public place for posting of meeting notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. C. Election of Officers 9. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: March 10, 2022 CASE MANAGER: Alayna Olivas-Loera CASE NO. & NAME: WA-22-02 / Maes ACTION REQUESTED: A request for approval of two variances: Request A) a 0.7-foot (14%) variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement for a detached garage and Request B) a 0.9-foot (18%) variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement for a home addition. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3655 Holland Court APPLICANT (S): Carl Maes OWNER (S): Carl and Celina Maes APPROXIMATE AREA: 9,470 Square Feet (0.217 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Two (R-2) PRESENT LAND USE: Single-Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 2 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 two variances on a property located in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district in order to continue construction of a new detached garage and home addition: • Request A: a 0.7-foot (14%) variance from the 5-foot side setback requirement resulting in a 4.3-foot setback for a detached; and • Request B: a 0.9-foot (18%) variance from the 5-foot side setback requirement resulting in a 4.1-foot setback for an addition to the existing dwelling. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to hold public hearings to hear and decide upon variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard or to hear and decide upon variance requests which are ineligible for administrative review. Staff has determined the request does not meet a majority of the criteria and therefore is ineligible for administrative review. II. CASE ANALYSIS Existing Conditions The site is located on the west side of Holland Court between W. 37th Avenue and W. 36th Avenue. It is considered a “through lot” with the front yard adjacent to Holland Court and the rear yard adjacent to Hoyt Street (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The site is zoned Residential-Two (R-2). Surrounding properties are also zoned R-2 to the north, east, and west. Further to the west and south, properties are zoned Residential-One (R-1) (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The property is surrounded entirely by residential uses. Wheat Ridge High School is further to the south. The R-2 zone district provides high quality, safe, quiet and stable low to moderate-density residential neighborhoods. In the R-2 zone district, accessory structures over 10 feet tall have a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet. Per an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) (Exhibit 3, Original ILC), the lot measures 9,472.5 square feet and is 75 feet wide. It currently contains a one-story house and previously contained an approximately 500-square-foot detached garage that encroached into southern side setback and western rear setback. According to the Jefferson County Assessor, both structures were originally constructed in 1955. Previous Variances & Recent Construction In November 2020, the applicant applied for two variances to replace the detached garage with a reduced rear yard setback and a wider driveway (Case No. WA-20-05). These requests were reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment at a public hearing on December 10, 2020. The approved variances were: Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 3 • Request A: a 20-foot (80%) variance from the minimum 25-foot rear yard setback requirement for a rear yard which abuts a public street, resulting in a 5-foot setback, and • Request B: an 11-foot (45.8%) variance from the maximum allowed curb cut of 24 feet, resulting in a 35-foot curb cut. Subsequent to the approval, the applicant submitted a building permit application, and the permit was issued on March 4, 2021. The applicant began improvements to their property by demolishing the then-existing substandard detached garage, and their contractor began building a new detached garage as well as a home addition and covered patio. The new garage was to be a 910-square-foot, three-car garage, with the garage doors facing Hoyt Street. The addition was to be 596-square-foot master bedroom addition placed on the rear of the house on the southernmost side of the property. See Exhibit 4, WA-20-05 Approved Site Plan and Exhibit 5, Elevations. For projects that have reduced setbacks, such as the 5-foot rear setback approved by the BOA, it is standard practice for the City to require that a surveyor verify the setbacks when concrete forms are completed and prior to the pouring of a foundation. This condition of approval was included on the building permit: As part of the foundation inspections and PRIOR TO proceeding with any further construction/inspections, a completed, signed and sealed, Foundation Setback and Elevation Certification shall be submitted to the City for review. The certification form shall be fully completed by a Professional Land Surveyor licensed in the state of Colorado, stating that the foundation was constructed in compliance with all applicable minimum setback and elevation requirements of the City. The condition of approval requires that the contractor provide the completed form to the City’s Building Inspector, and this verification process is meant to ensure that new structures are positioned in the correct location on a property. Inspection records indicate that on August 31, 2021 a foundation inspection was failed for lack of providing the Foundation Setback and Elevation Certification. Despite this, the project proceeded. On January 3, 2022, the garage’s proximity to the street caught the attention of Public Works field staff who were concerned that the structure may be located within the public right-of-way. Staff investigated the situation, and it became apparent that the contractor inadvertently poured the foundation in the wrong location and had proceeded with building construction despite the absence of the Foundation Setback and Elevation Certification. When contacted by staff, the property owner rectified the situation by retaining a surveyor and submitting a Foundation Setback and Elevation Certification Form on January 12, 2022. Current Request That certification form (Exhibit 6) confirms the garage was built closer to Hoyt Court than the BOA-approved 5-foot setback. The partially constructed detached garage currently has a 2.8-foot rear setback. The applicant has decided to remove the portion of the detached garage which encroaches in the rear setback in order to meet the previously approved 5-foot rear setback. The setback certification form also revealed two other issues: it identifies the garage encroaching in the south side setback by 0.7 feet and the home addition encroaching into the side setback by 0.9 feet. A Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 4 stop work order was issued, and staff and the applicant discussed possible solutions, resulting in this variance request (Exhibit 7, Written Request & Criteria Response). The side setback was not contemplated as part of the BOA’s 2020 review. In this case, the 5-foot side setback is coterminous with a 5-foot easement for Xcel Energy. Prior to submitting this formal variance request, the applicant was required to obtain approval from Xcel Energy to encroach into the easement. Easements are often platted parallel to side lot lines, but they are not always utilized. Xcel confirmed that the encroachment was permissible and provided the enclosed Letter of No Objection (Exhibit 8). If this variance request were to be approved, the Building Division would require the walls and soffits of the home addition and detached garage encroaching into the side setback to have additional fire rating because the structures are less than 5 feet from the property line. The garage and addition are meeting all other development standards, including size and height. The following table compares the required R-2 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions relative to the proposal. Standards for Detached Garage: R-2 Major Accessory Structure Development Standards: Required Proposed Building Coverage 1000 sq. ft. (max.) 910 sq. ft. Height 15 feet (max.) 11.5 feet (mid-roof) Side Setback (north) 5 feet 34.8 feet Side Setback (south) 5 feet 4.3 feet Rear Setback (west) 5 feet (approved under WA-20- 05) 5 feet (garage will be modified to ensure this is met) Standards for Home Addition: R-2 Principal Structure Development Standards: Required Proposed Building Coverage 40% (max.) 3,789 square feet (max.) 30% (2,879 sq. ft.) (entire dwelling) 6% (596 sq. ft.) (addition only) Height 35 feet (max.) 11.5 feet (mid-roof) Side Setback (north) 5 feet 46.8 feet Side Setback (south) 5 feet 4.1 feet Rear Setback (west) 10 feet 40 feet Alternative Designs There are currently no alternative design recommendations. If the variances from the side setback are not approved, it is likely that the partially completed structures will need to be demolished and reconstructed. Building Division staff have indicated that it is not recommended to remove the portions of wall within the setback because the existing foundation would need to be repoured to match the new location of the structure which could be difficult and costly. Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 5 III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 26-115.C.4 provides criteria for review. The Board of Adjustment shall consider the criteria as part of their review. Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. Because they are related and the analysis is similar, both requests 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. As seen in the aerial (Exhibit 1) and in the current ILC (Exhibit 6), most of the lots are narrower and structures are built up to the required setbacks. The subject property is requesting reduced side setbacks of less than one foot difference from the required 5 feet. This reduction which would not be perceptible thus would not alter the essential character of the locality. 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 proposed new detached garage and home addition are substantial investments in the property though it would have been possible to build on the property without the side yard 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 results in a particular and unique hardship. The proposed structures could have been constructed further north in order to meet the required 5-foot side setback to the south. 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. Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 6 The garage and addition were inadvertently constructed in the wrong location meaning the hardship has been created by a person presently having an interest in the property. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. 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 request would not impede the sight distance triangle and, with the fire-rating required for the addition, the request would not increase the danger of fire. 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. Staff finds this criterion has not 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. Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 7 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 not to be in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends DENIAL of request for a 0.7-foot (14%) variance from the side setback for a detached garage, and a 0.9-foot (18%) variance from the side setback for an addition to the existing dwelling on a property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) located at 3655 Holland Court. Staff has found that the application does not meet the review criteria. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance. 2. It would be possible to build on the property without the side yard variance. 3. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved does not result in a particular and unique hardship. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has been created by a person presently having an interest in the property. 5. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are unique to the property. Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 8 EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 9 EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 10 EXHIBIT 3: ORIGINAL ILC The lot measures 9,472.5 square feet and is 75 feet wide. It currently contains a one-story house and previously contained an approximately 500-square foot detached garage that encroached into southern side setback and western rear setback. According to the Jefferson County Assessor, both structures were originally constructed in 1955. Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 11 EXHIBIT 4: WA-20-05 APPROVED SITE PLAN The applicant originally requested a new 910-square foot detached garage located 5 feet from the rear property line (encroaching into the required minimum 25-foot rear yard setback). Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 12 EXHIBIT 5: ELEVATIONS Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 13 EXHIBIT 6: SETBACK CERTIFICATION FORM Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 14 The setbacks at issue are identified by the red arrows. The partially constructed detached garage (with a 4.3-foot setback) and home addition (with a 4.1-foot setback) encroach into the required 5- foot side setback to the south. The detached garage also encroaches into the previously approved 5- foot rear setback to the west though the applicant intends to remove the portion that encroaches in order to meet the 5-foot rear setback requirement. This setback certification form and exhibit was submitted after the garage and addition foundations were poured and after framing had commenced. Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 15 EXHIBIT 7: WRITTEN REQUEST & CRITERIA RESPONSES Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 16 Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 17 Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 18 Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 19 EXHIBIT 8: XCEL APPROVAL Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 20 Above: View of Hoyt Street looking south from W. 37th Avenue. Below: View of Hoyt Street looking north from W. 36th Avenue. Image source: Google Maps EXHIBIT 9: SITE PHOTOS Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 21 View of partially constructed garage looking east from Hoyt Street. Image source: Case Manager Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 22 View of partially constructed home addition (background) and new detached garage (foreground) looking east from Hoyt St. This view shows the side setbacks at issue. Image source: Case Manager Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 23 View of partially constructed home addition (foreground) and new detached garage (background) looking west from Holland Ct. Image source: Applicant Case No. WA-22-02 / Maes 24 EXHIBIT 10: PUBLIC COMMENTS WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA-22-02 APPLICANT NAME: Carl Maes LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3655 Holland Court WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA-22-02 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-22-02 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: requesting approval of two variances on property located in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district in order to construct a new detached garage and home addition in the rear yard: • Request A: a 0.7-foot (14%) variance from the 5-foot side setback requirement resulting in a 4.3-foot setback for a detached; and • Request B: a 0.9-foot (18%) variance from the 5-foot side setback requirement resulting in a 4.1-foot setback for an addition to the existing dwelling. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. 2. Template for Approval 3. 4. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design of the proposed garage and home addition 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. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA-22-02 APPLICANT NAME: Carl Maes LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3655 Holland Court WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA-22-02 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-22-02 be, and hereby is, DENIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: requesting approval of two variances on property located in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district in order to construct a new detached garage and home addition in the rear yard: • Request A: a 0.7-foot (14%) variance from the 5-foot side setback requirement resulting in a 4.3-foot setback for a detached; and • Request B: a 0.9-foot (18%) variance from the 5-foot side setback requirement resulting in a 4.1-foot setback for an addition to the existing dwelling. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance. 2. It would be possible to build on the property without the side yard variance. 3. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved does not result in a particular and unique hardship. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has been created by a person presently having an interest in the property. Template for Denial 5. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are unique to the property. 6. 7. 8. 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 February 25, 2021 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting February 25, 2021 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair PAGE at 7:06 p.m. This meeting was held virtually, using Zoom video-teleconferencing technology. As duly announced and publicly noticed, the City previously approved this meeting format in order to continue with normal business amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the related public emergency orders promulgated by the State of Colorado and the Wheat Ridge City Council. Before calling the meeting to order, the Chair stated the rules and procedures necessitated by this virtual meeting format. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Dan Bradford Michael Griffeth Paul Hovland Betty Jo Page Laura Sicard Alternates Present: Julianne Stern Tiamo Wright Board Members Absent: Janet Bell David Kuntz Larry Richmond Staff Members Present: Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Zareen Tasneem, Planner I Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. Board of Adjustment Minutes February 25, 2021 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No.WA-21-03: The case was presented by Zareen Tasneem. She entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. She stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the presentation and staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of a 39-foot (39%) variance from the 100-foot lot width requirement. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of an additional unit on the property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 3711 Pierce Street. The proposal would meet all other development standards including height and maximum size. Staff recommends approval of this variance. There are unique circumstances attributed to this request that warrant approval. Member GRIFFETH asked to have parkland dedication fees be explained. Ms. Tasneem explained the code requirement that applies when a new dwelling unit is built; prior to issuance of the building permit process approximately $2500 is paid for parkland fees for each new unit. Ms. Mikulak added that the fee has been long established in the code and is essentially an impact fee due to the increased demand on parks and open space created by new residential development. Member HOVLAND asked that there is no park land available because this property is too small. Ms. Mikulak described that a fee in lieu is almost always required even for larger properties. Member WRIGHT asked if the only access to this property is from Pierce Street Ms. Tasneem confirmed this to be true. Member PAGE inquired if currently there are only 2 single family homes on the property. Ms. Tasneem confirmed this to be true and added that the proposed site plan will still be 2 structures: one being a single-family home and the other a duplex. Member BRADFORD wanted to know how wide the driveway will be going to the rear of the property. Ms. Tasneem clarified it is less than 18 feet wide. Board of Adjustment Minutes February 25, 2021 3 Josh Williams, applicant 3711 Pierce Street Mr. Williams mentioned he has been in Wheat Ridge since 2004 and loves the area. He also informed the Board that the new footprint of the duplex structure will be set 15 feet of the fence line and the 2nd unit of the duplex will also have its own garage. No members of the public wished to testify. Member GRIFFETH mentioned he liked the narrative and asked if the front home sits inside the front yard setback. Ms. Mikulak clarified that the structure is an existing condition and is legally non- conforming so there is no need to address that nonconformity as part of the variance approval since the front home is not being modified. Member HOVLAND likes this project and thinks it all makes sense. Upon a motion by Member STERN and seconded by Member GRIFFETH, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA-21-03 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-21-03 be, and hereby is, APPROVED TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for a 39-foot (39%) variance from the minimum 100-foot lot width requirement for multifamily lots to allow for an additional unit to be constructed for a total of three dwelling units on property in the Residential-Three (R-3) zone district. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment which would not be possible without the variance. 3. Being an L-shaped property presents a particular and unique physical hardship for the property. Board of Adjustment Minutes February 25, 2021 4 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 5. 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. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed duplex shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a planned building group land use application and building permit. 2. Per Sec. 26-414, the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication for the new dwelling unit at time of building permit. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair PAGE closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes – December 10, 2020 It was moved by Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member GRIFFETH to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Board Member SICARD abstaining. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member SICARD and seconded by Member GRIFFETH to adjourn the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Motion carried 7-0. __________________________ _____________________________ Betty Jo Page, Vice Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager DATE: March 1, 2022 SUBJECT: Annual Designation of Public Notice Location In accordance with the Colorado Open Meetings Laws (Section 24-6-401 et seq. C.R.S.), all local public bodies, including the Board of Adjustment, are required to annually designate the locations for posting public notices for public meetings. The designated locations may be in-person, on-line, and/or printed in a specified newspaper. Such notice is required for any meeting at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or at which a majority or quorum of body is in attendance. Last year, based on COVID-19 closures and remodeling in City Hall, the official posting location was moved from an area by the City Clerk’s office to the display cabinet at the main entrance of the municipal building. The enclosed resolution designates three official public notice posting locations: • the City website, • the Jeffco Transcript newspaper, and • the municipal building main entrance display cabinet. City Council designated the same locations at their first public meeting of the year on January 10, and Planning Commission did the same at their first public meeting on January 20. The Board is requested to do the same. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 01-2022 and recommends the following motion: “I move to recommend approval of Resolution No. 01-2022, a resolution establishing a designated public place for the posting of meeting notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law.” Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager DATE: March 4, 2022 SUBJECT: Election of Officers The bylaws of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment describe the roles of the Chair and Vice Chair. The primary role of the Chair is to preside over the meetings of the Board. The primary role of the Vice Chair is to preside over meetings in the absence of the Chair. In the absence of both the Chair and Vice Chair, the most senior member of the remaining members presides. The bylaws dictate that the Chair and Vice Chair positions shall be elected annually. They also state that the same member may not serve in the same role in successive years. Currently, the Chair position is vacant, and Betty Jo Page has been serving in the Vice Chair role. Election of a Chair and Vice Chair will occur at the March 10 meeting after the public hearing.