HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 28
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 28, 2024
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on March 28, 2024, 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-24-01: An application filed by Persistence Sample for approval of
a 16-foot-5-inch (65.67%) variance from the required 25-foot side yard setback
for an attached garage in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district. and located at
3795 Holland Street.
B. Case No. WA-24-02: An application filed by Valiant Spaces LLC for approval of
a 7.5-foot (50%) variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback for a
residential addition and attached garage in the Residential-One (R-1) zone district
and located at 23 Skyline Drive.
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes – October 26, 2023
B. Upcoming Dates
C. Member Updates
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: March 28, 2024
CASE MANAGER: Alayna Olivas-Loera, Planner II
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-24-01 / Sample
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 16-foot, 5-inch variance (65.67%) from the required 25-foot side
yard setback for an attached garage in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3795 Holland Street
APPLICANT: Persistence Sample
OWNER: Persistence Sample
APPROXIMATE AREA: 10,585 square feet (0.243 acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Two (R-2)
PRESENT LAND USE: Single-Unit Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Site
Board of Adjustment 2
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
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 16-foot, 5-inch variance (65.67%) from the required 25-foot
side yard setback for an attached garage in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district to allow for the
conversion of an existing carport into an attached garage at 3795 Holland Street.
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 upon variances from the strict application of the
zoning district development standards that are in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The site is located on the southwest corner of W. 38th Avenue and Holland Street (Exhibit 1, Aerial).
Access onto the property is taken from Holland Street. The property is zoned Residential-Two (R-2).
Adjacent properties to the west, east, and south are also zoned R-2. The R-2 zone district provides for
high quality, safe, quiet and stable, low-density residential neighborhoods. The adjacent property to the
north is zoned Residential-One (R-1) (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map).
The subject lot is approximately 141 feet deep, from east to west, and approximately 80 feet wide,
from north to south. It is approximately 10,585 square feet (0.243 acres) in size, according to the
Jefferson County Assessor. The subject property contains an existing single-unit dwelling and two
carports, all built in 1955. There is currently no garage on the property.
The applicant is requesting the variance in order the convert one of the existing carports into an
approximately 567-square foot attached garage. The proposed attached garage would be located in the
exact location of the existing carport on the northeast side of the property (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The
property is a corner lot and therefore has increased setback requirements of 25 feet on both street
frontages. The existing carport is considered legally nonconforming because of its current setbacks
and because it was constructed before the City of Wheat Ridge existed. The carport complies with all
other standards including height and size. The carport is served by an existing driveway off of Holland
Street.
Per Section 26-625 of the code, a carport or patio which is open on at least three sides is allowed to
encroach into the setback to some extent. However, once a carport is converted to a fully enclosed
garage, it is required to meet the minimum setbacks. In this case, the setback variance is being
requested in order to enclose the existing carport on the north side of the property, such that the
proposed garage would have a substantially similar footprint and setback.
The garage is proposed to accommodate a single car, with space for storage (Exhibit 4, Elevations).
The garage’s maximum height is proposed to be 9 feet-8 inches tall to the midpoint, which would
comply with the primary structure height standards of 35 feet to the midpoint. The garage would be
required to meet all other development standards of R-2.
Board of Adjustment 3
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
R-2 Development Standards: Required Proposed
Height 35 feet (max.) 9 feet-8 inches
Side Setback (north) 25 feet (min.) 8 feet-7 inches
Side Setback (south) 5 feet (min.) 25 feet +
Front Setback (east) 25 feet (min.) 25 feet +
Rear Setback (west) 5 feet (min.) 5 feet +
Overall Lot Coverage
(sum of all structures on lot)
40% (max.) / ~ 4,234 sq. ft.
(max.) ~28.4% / ~ 3,007 sq. ft.
The applicant did consider converting the second existing carport at the rear of the property. The
conversion of the second carport would have still required a variance for the southern side setback .
Additionally, use of the second carport for a garage would require the applicant to access the property
from W. 38th Avenue which posed safety concerns. The applicant had also considered building a new
garage but ultimately landed on the conversion due to cost, to avoid having to access the property from
W. 38th Avenue, and to avoid having to remove existing landscaping and usable backyard space. The
proposed location of the garage is likely the least impactful and the most consistent with historic
conditions.
Public Comment
The property was posted for 10 days and letters were sent to adjacent property owners notifying them
of the application. One comment in support of the request was received prior to the distribution of this
staff report.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve a variance, the Community Development Director must determine that the majority
of the “criteria for review” listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. Staff provides
the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. The applicant also provided a response to the
criteria in Exhibit 6, Criteria Responses.
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 was denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use as the
property would still function as a single-unit dwelling with adequate parking.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The request would not alter the essential character of the area. Some nearby properties also
contain structures with similar setbacks. The existing condition would not be changing, the
footprint of the garage would not deviate from the existing carport, and the garage would be
Board of Adjustment 4
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
shorter in height than what is allowed by the code. The applicant is also proposing to utilize a
design and materials that match those of the existing house.
Many homes in this neighborhood were built without garages and to the extents of the required
setbacks. A property southeast from the subject property had a variance approved under case
number WA-83-27 to allow for a carport at a 13-foot front setback, and another variance under
case number WA-22-07 approved for a carport at a 3.5-foot side setback and a 12.5-foot front
setback at the property immediately to the east, so the proposal is consistent with conditions in
the neighborhood.
While there are two other alternatives (converting the second carport at the rear of the property
or constructing a new garage), one would still require a setback variance and the other may
negatively impact the essential character of the area by requiring the removal of mature trees,
landscaping, and usable backyard space, which are a defining and valued features in established
Wheat Ridge neighborhoods. Additionally, both alternatives would require the applicant to
access the property from W. 38th Avenue rather than the current condition, from Holland Street,
which is a safer access point.
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 conversion is a substantial investment in the property, and it would not be
possible to convert the existing carport without the variance. Although other locations are
possible, constructing a garage in those alternative locations would require the removal of
mature trees, landscaping, and usable backyard space. The removal of the trees and
landscaping, and the significantly higher cost of constructing an entirely new structure would
render the project financially infeasible.
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 lot has a change in grade to the north and the existing carport sits lower than the house and
higher than W. 38th Avenue limiting where a structure can be placed. Multiple mature trees
exist at the rear of the lot which also creates a unique hardship. The trees would be required to
be removed if a garage were to be constructed in another location. The property is a corner lot,
and current zoning standards require 25-foot setbacks from both streets which reduces the
developable area of the lot (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The placement of the home relative to the
larger northern setback physically also limits alternatives for a garage.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Board of Adjustment 5
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
The applicant is not responsible for the existing location of the house, the carport, or the
presence or location of mature trees and landscaping, which existed well before the applicant
acquired the property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located,
by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supp ly 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 conversion would not impede the sight distance
triangle and 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.
Unusual conditions are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. This
particular neighborhood is well established and features dense landscaping and mature trees
both of which are present on the subject property. A steep grade exists in the neighborhood,
starting at the subject property and impacting properties heading south on Holland. The grade
change affects this particular property in that the topography would make constructing a new
garage at the rear difficult, not only in location but financially as well. Additionally, most of the
dwellings in the neighborhood were built in the mid-1950s, without covered or enclosed
vehicular storage on the property, and such an investment (carport or garage, attached or
detached) is appropriate for a contemporary homeowner and would not be possible without a
variance.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
Board of Adjustment 6
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
This variance does not impact the ability of the lot to accommodate a person 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
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 16-foot, 5-inch variance (66.67%) from the required 25-foot side yard setback for an
attached garage in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district to allow for the conversion of an existing
carport into an attached garage at 3795 Holland Street.
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 neighborhood; the proposed location
of the garage is likely the least impactful option and is the most consistent with historic
conditions.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment which would not be possible without the
variance.
3. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
involved results in a particular and unique hardship, notably the presence of mature trees, a
change in grade, and the corner lot configuration.
4. These unique physical hardships have not been created by anyone having an interest in the
property.
5. The granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.
6. The unusual circumstances or conditions are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to
the property.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and architecture shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application
materials subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit .
2. A building permit shall be submitted to the Building Division within 180 days of variance
approval.
Board of Adjustment 7
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Board of Adjustment 8
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
Board of Adjustment 9
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
In the site plan provided by the applicant, the red shading depicts the carport that is
proposed to be converted into a garage and which is accessed off of Holland Street. The
blue dashed line shows the setbacks. Because the lot is on a corner, larger 25-foot setbacks
apply to both frontages making it difficult site a new garage.
EXHIBIT 3: SITE PLAN
Board of Adjustment 10
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
Elevation of the carport looking south and west, respectively.
Elevation of the carport looking east.
EXHIBIT 4: ELEVATIONS
Board of Adjustment 11
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
Persistence Sample
3795 Holland Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
We are requesting the variance in order the convert one of the existing carports into an approximately
567-square foot attached garage. The proposed attached garage would be located in the exact location
of the existing carport on the northeast side of the property. The Carport will meet all other
development standards of R-2.
Currently, the carport is fully exposed to the public and 38th. Being by two bus stops and down the
street from a school, we have no storage for things to be put away without being tampered with from
the public (ex: things have been stolen or broken due to lack of coverage and bein g overexposed). The
current carport is also covering our main access to our house, which we would like that to have more
coverage and security as well. Using the current carport would make it more cost effective to use
existing slab and footprint. If we were to use the back carport, you would have to remove a minimum
of 4 mature trees, completely remove all landscaping that borders the driveway, potentially move the
entire Xcel electrical pole that services our neighbors just to turn into the garage, as wel l as then you
run into having a completely blind exit and entrance onto a busy 35 mile an hour road, being 38th. This
deeming it to be completely reckless and not actually a value add to the property and waste of
resources.
We considered the back carport but as said above there were too many factors, cost of removal of
landscaping, and then access being illogical as 38th is a busy road and having a safe access point and
driveway at the front of our home where home access actually is, was the smarter, more cost effective
and overall best valued investment. Adding a whole new garage structure was slightly considered but
immediately denied as there is no place for it to go on the land, unless you wanted to use 38th as the
main access again, which was not even remotely something anyone would think would be a good idea.
It would also still include the following: removal of mature trees, removal of landscaping, impeding on
yard space, moving of electrical posts, and added costs. For all these reasons, we knew that converting
the front carport was the best use of space and resources all while providing the security and integrity
of the home.
EXHIBIT 5: WRITTEN REQUEST
Board of Adjustment 12
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
Review Criteria: Variance
A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique
physical hardship is present. Per Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, the reviewing
authority (Community Development Director, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or City
Council) shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which an applicant demonstrates that a
majority of the following criteria have been met:
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.
N/A
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which
would not be possible without the variance.
The cost of the conversion is a substantial investment and is not possible without the
requested variance.
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience.
Given that this is a corner lot, the setbacks are increased to the north. There is a grade
change on the north side and there are mature landscaping and trees present.
5. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created
by any person presently having an interest in the property.
The hardship was not created by the present owners and has existing since the house was
built.
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
EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSES
Board of Adjustment 13
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within
the neighborhood.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public nor to neighbors in any
way. In no way does the conversion of the carport compromise safety or property values
nor does it risk increasing congestion of public streets. The proposed variance wi ll make
parking easier at the residence and the design will match the existing house .
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the
neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The circumstances necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and
are not unique to the property.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.]
N/A
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family
homes.]
N/A
Board of Adjustment 14
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
EXHIBIT 7: SUPPORTING PHOTOS
View of the existing carport looking south from W. 38th Avenue.
View of existing carport access. Vehicle access difficult due to low clearance.
Board of Adjustment 15
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
View of the secondary driveway from W. 38th Avenue. Vehicular access onto the property is
not taken from this point due to safety concerns.
Board of Adjustment 16
Case No. WA -24-01 / Sample
View of the second carport at the rear of the property. Conversion of this structure for a
garage space would require access to be taken from W. 38th Avenue and would still require a
variance for the southern side setback.
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
CASE NO: WA-24-01
CASE MANAGER: Alayna Olivas-Loera, Planner II
APPLICANT NAME: Persistence Sample
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3795 Holland Street
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA-24-01 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-24-01 be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE:
Request for approval of a 16-foot, 5-inch (65.674%) variance from the required 25-foot side yard
setback for an attached garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2).
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; the proposed
location of the garage is likely the least impactful option and is the most consistent with
historic conditions.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment which would not be possible without
the variance.
3. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship, notably the presence of
mature trees, a change in grade, and the corner lot configuration.
Commented [LM1]: This seems like our thesis. Can you
insert this into your presentation? I’ve added as a custom
reason for approval.
4. These unique physical hardships have not been created by anyone having an interest in
the property.
5. The granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.
6. The unusual circumstances or conditions are present in the neighborhood and are not
unique to the property.
7. …
8. …
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The design and architecture shall be consistent with representations depicted in the
application materials subject to staff review and approval through review of a building
permit.
2. A building permit shall be submitted to the Building Division within 180 days of variance
approval.
3. …
4. …
or,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No.
WA-24-01 be, and hereby is, DENIED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE:
Request for approval of a 16-foot, 5-inch (65.674%) variance from the required 25-foot side yard
setback for an attached garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2).
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. …
2. …
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.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment DATE: March 21, 2024
CASE MANAGER: Alan Sielaff, Plans Reviewer/Zoning Inspector
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
ACTION REQUESTED: 7.5-foot (50%) variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback for a
residential addition and attached garage in the Residential-One (R-1) zone
district
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 23 Skyline Drive
APPLICANT: Valiant Spaces LLC
OWNER: Darin Hammerschmidt
APPROXIMATE AREA: 29,266 square feet (.672 acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential-One (R-1)
PRESENT LAND USE: Single-Unit Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Site
Administrative Variance 2
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
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 7.5-foot (50%) variance from the required 15-foot side yard
setback for a residential addition and attached garage in the Residential-One (R-1) zone district and
located at 23 Skyline Drive.
Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Community
Development Director to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict
application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of
the standard. However, upon receipt of a written objection, the variance request is required by code to
be heard by the Board of Adjustment through a public hearing process. A written objection on this
request has been received causing the case to be referred to the Board of Adjustment.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The site is located between Skyline Drive and Hillside Drive (Exhibit 1, Aerial) with the existing home
taking access from Skyline Drive to the east. The property is zoned Residential-One (R-1). Adjacent
properties to the north, south, east, and west, are also zoned R-1 (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The subject
property was previously comprised of two lots that were recently consolidated into one. The lot has an
irregular shape and includes overhead transmission lines and an associated 68-foot overhead
transmission easement on the western portion of the property. No development is allowed within the
easement.
The lot is approximately 290 feet deep from street to street, with 130 feet of frontage on Skyline Drive
and 45 feet of frontage on Hillside Drive. The lot is approximately 80 feet wide at the narrowest point
in the middle and is crossed by the transmission lines at its widest point in the rear portion of the lot. It
is 29,266 square feet (.672 acres) in size (Exhibit 3, Hammerschmidt Consolidation Plat). The subject
property contains an existing single-unit dwelling built in 1956.
The R-1 zone district provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low-density residential
neighborhoods. Building coverage is limited to 25% of the lot area. Building placement must be
outside of the setbacks, which include a 30-foot front setback from Skyline Drive and due to the
double frontage, a 30-foot rear setback from Hillside Drive. 15-foot side setbacks apply to all interior
property lines on the north and south.
The applicant is requesting the variance in order the construct a 1,730-square-foot single-story rear
addition that includes a sunroom, office, and attached garage that will be accessed from Hillside Drive.
The proposed addition and attached garage would be located on the southern portion of the property
(Exhibit 4, Site Plan). The addition is proposed to be a one-story structure and will be slightly shorter
than the existing 16-foot 1-inch height of the existing house. The proposed design will preserve
existing trees while accommodating an internal courtyard feature. Architectural floor plans and
elevations have also been provided (Exhibit 5, Floor Plan and Elevations). The addition would be
required to meet all other development standards of the R-1 zone district.
Administrative Variance 3
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
R-1 Development Standards:Required Proposed
Height 35 feet (max.) Approximately 15 feet (16 feet 1
inch to top of existing roof)
Side Setback (south) 15 feet (min.) 7.5 feet
Side Setback (north) 15 feet (min.) 15 feet
Front Setback (east) 30 feet (min.) 30 feet
Rear Setback (west) 30 feet (min.) 118 feet
Overall Lot Coverage
(sum of all structures on lot)
25% (max.) / ~ 7,316 sq. ft.
(max.) ~21.4% / ~ 6,262 sq. ft.
The applicant considered an alternative two-story design for the proposed addition, but due to a variety
of factors, a single-story addition was selected in part as a more compatible design with the existing
neighborhood (Exhibit 6, Narrative).
Public Comment
The property was posted for 15 days and letters were sent to property owners and residents within 600
feet notifying them of the application. As of the writing of this staff report, four (4) objections have
been received, two (2) by phone call and two (2) written objections by email. The two emails have
been included in Exhibit 7, Neighbor Objections. This includes additional written material and photos
provided from the neighbor at 21 Skyline Drive who describes concerns about impact to the character
of the area that generally includes 15-foot setbacks throughout the neighborhood and concern for the
particular impact to her property when alternative designs can be accommodated. The objection from
16 Skyline Drive addresses the variance approval criteria.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve a variance, the Board of Adjustment must consider the extent to which the majority
of “criteria for review” listed in Section 26-115.C.5 of the City Code have been met. 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 requests were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use as
the property would still function as a single-unit dwelling.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2.The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
While the variance does result in a smaller setback than is seen in much of the neighborhood,
the proposed addition has been designed to align with the existing development pattern in the
neighborhood by prioritizing a single-story height and preservation of mature trees in order to
maintain the essential character of the area. Because the existing home and the property line are
Administrative Variance 4
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
not parallel, the proposed variance area is triangular in shape and has minimized impact to the
property frontage as much as possible.
From an architectural standpoint, the addition is proposed to be compatible with the character
of the existing home in terms of height and roof design. The applicant has proposed only
clerestory windows on the south façade to minimize the privacy impact on neighbors (Exhibit
5, Elevations).
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 addition is a substantial investment in the property, but as has been discussed
alternative designs are possible even if potentially more impactful or more difficult to
construct. It would be possible to construct a usable addition of similar size without the
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 are several unique physical features that create a hardship: unusual lot shape, an
oversized utility easement, and the presence of mature trees. First, the lot is irregular in shape,
due to both the curvilinear layout of streets in this neighborhood and the recent consolidation
with the adjacent lot to the west. Both lots were originally wedge-shaped, which means the
existing home is not parallel with the side lot lines; this makes it difficult to site an addition
without encroaching into a setback. Because the original two lots do not share the exact same
rear lot line, the consolidation of the two lots resulted in a narrow pinch point in the middle of
the property which also limits the location of a rear addition to the existing home.
Another unique condition is the presence of the overhead transmission lines and the associated
68-foot wide easement. The rear portion of the subject property was never developed with a
single-unit home because of the disproportionate impact of the overhead lines on this lot. The
easement traverses the entire neighborhood but in most other cases, it covers front yards or
straddles lot lines allowing parcels to be developed. While the overall size of this lot is large,
the developable area is significantly diminished by the easement and lot shape (Exhibit 8,
Buildable Area).
Lastly, within the developable area of the lot are several mature trees that further constrain
options for an addition. These are shown in the site plan and in the images provided by the
applicant in Exhibit 6, Narrative. The proposed design seeks to preserve the existing mature
tree and integrate it into the proposed courtyard patio.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Administrative Variance 5
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
The applicant is not responsible for the irregular shape of the lot, the location of the existing
home relative to the side lot lines, nor the location of overhead transmission lines which existed
well before the applicant acquired the property. While the property was consolidated by the
applicant, it did not create any conditions that are more restrictive than before. The
consolidation actually helped facilitate more options for an addition by allowing the addition to
extend toward Hillside Drive over the rear lot line that previously separated the two parcels.
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.
While the submitted objections express concerns, it is staff’s opinion that the proposed single-
story addition does not interfere with public health, safety or welfare.
The request 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 conversion would not impede the sight distance triangle
and would not increase the danger of fire.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Unusual conditions are present in the neighborhood as several lots nearby are also wedge- or
irregularly-shaped or impacted by overheard transmission lines which have created the need to
facilitate other setback variances in the area.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
This variance does not impact the ability of the lot to accommodate a person with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
Administrative Variance 6
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
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-unit dwellings.
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 7.5-foot variance (50%) from the required 15-foot setback in the Residential-One
(R-1) zone district to allow for a residential addition and attached garage to the existing home. 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 neighborhood.
2. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
involved results in a particular and unique hardship, notably an irregular lot shape, overhead
transmission lines, and mature trees.
3. These unique physical hardships have not been created by anyone having an interest in the
property.
4. The granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.
5. The unusual circumstances or conditions are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to
the property.
6. The proposed single-story design with a variance is likely less impactful than an alternative
two-story design without a variance.
With the following conditions:
1. The location of the addition and attached garage shall be consistent with representations
depicted in the application materials subject to staff review and approval through review of a
building permit.
2. Existing trees as depicted on the site plan shall be protected and preserved during construction.
Best practices to maintain long-term tree health for the applicable species are encouraged.
3. A permit application for the structure shall submitted to the Building Division within 180 days
of variance approval.
Administrative Variance 7
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Administrative Variance 8
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
Administrative Variance 9
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 3: HAMMERSCHMIDT
CONSOLIDATION PLAT
Administrative Variance 10
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN
Administrative Variance 11
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 5: FLOOR PLAN AND
ELEVATIONS
Administrative Variance 12
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 5: FLOOR PLAN AND
ELEVATIONS
Administrative Variance 13
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 6: NARRATIVE
Darin & Jamie Hammerschmidt
23 Skyline Drive
Wheat Ridge, CO 80401
February, 28th 2024
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Attn: Lauren Mikulak/Board of Adjustments
Dear Board,
This letter is regarding the 23 Skyline Drive Administrative Variance Hearing schedule for
March 28th.
We purchased our home in July of 2015. We fell in love with the single level ranch homes and
large trees in the neighborhood, but what drew us to our particular home was the size of the lot.
At the time of purchase, our oldest daughter was 7 months old and knowing that our family
would grow, we felt like the lot size would allow our family options to expand if necessary. In
addition, we have always had a goal of building an additional attached garage with access from
Hillside Drive. My wife and I now have three daughters (9,7,5) and although our home has 4
bedrooms, we need a space that could be used as an office/guest room. Since Covid, I spend
roughly 40% of my week working from home.
I have learned a lot about building code (easement/right-of-way, bulk plane, setback, maximum
lot development, plat consolidation etc.) since purchasing the home. We were fully aware of the
set-back restrictions imposed by Wheat Ridge building code and the Xcel 34’ Right of Way from
either side of the center transmission line. Due to these restrictions, we held a pre app meeting
with the community development department on September 22nd, 2020. The current design
originated from feedback that I received during the pre-app meeting. A lot of prep work, time
and money has gone into getting this project ready to submit for permits over the last 3 ½
years…with the expectation that the current design would not need administrative variance
approval based on the feedback I interpreted from the pre-app meeting. Whether I misunderstood
or I was misinformed during our meeting is not relevant for this discussion (background notes
can be referenced in my file). I wasn’t initially planning to design the project to encroach in the
15’ setback as I didn’t think it was an option. I feel this is important to mention as it addresses a
few points in Ms. Wojewoda’s objection submission.
We have been working with our designer and contractor for almost two years. Hopefully you can
tell from our design that our intent has been thoughtful. Even though our home sits on 6/10’s of
an acre; we have only had two design options worth considering that would meet our goals.
Details below:
EXHIBIT 6
14
o Plan A – Current Design
Pros
• More budget friendly.
• Does not require my family (Wife and 3 little girls under the age of
9) to move out of our home for an extended period of time.
• 6–7-month construction process.
• Keep our large Ash Tree in the backyard.
Cons
• Encroaching 7.5’ in the SW corner of the property line which
would require an administrative variance approval.
o Plan B – Second Story w/ Garage and Breezeway
Pros
• Enhances our mountain view from the addition of the second story.
• Provides more usable living space for our family than Plan A.
• Conforms to code and would not require a variance from Wheat
Ridge.
Cons
• Would require my family to move out of the house for roughly 6
months.
• 2 Story homes are out of character for the neighborhood.
• Would inhibit the view of my southern neighbor on Skyline Dr.
• Adds a substantial amount of time to the construction process so
the job would take roughly 12-14 months.
• Substantial increase to the project cost.
• Would need to remove the large Ash Tree in our back yard.
• Potentially need to involve Xcel for right of way approval.
We thought it may be helpful to provide additional context to Ms. Wojewoda’s objection
comments. Our hope is that our comments assists in understanding our thought process as to why
we are attempting to move forward with Plan A vs. Plan B.
Objection #1
- Our lot is .63 acres; however, given our goal is to have the addition attached to our current
home our options are limited. Building west from the north side of the property would not
work due to being attached to our primary bedroom. Building west from the center of our
home is not an option as we wish to keep the large Ash tree directly west of our back patio.
Thus, leaving us with the option to extend west from the south side of our property. We have
2 design options that would accomplish these goals. Listed above.
Objection #2
EXHIBIT 6
15
- In my opinion, keeping the addition to a single story would be more in line with Paramount
Heights’ “Character of Locality”. In either design option, there will be a development
extending down the southern property line, it’s just whether the project encroaches or not.
Objection #3
- See objection #1. In addition, we do have another option that would conform with code. We
hope that you understand why we chose to lead with Plan A vs. Plan B.
Objection #4
- Inconvenience vs. Hardship is up for interpretation. One could argue that when comparing
the pros/cons of the two options, Plan B provides more inconveniences/hardships for all
parties involved.
Objection #5
- I do not disagree with Ms. Wojewoda regarding this objection. I created this hardship due to
the conversation that occurred with Community Development during my pre-app meeting.
Objection #6
- Throughout Ms. Wojewoda's comments in objection #6, she refers to the “visual
impairment” that the variance would inhibit along the property line. Below are pictures of
what the property line used to look like a few years ago and what it looks like now. Any
development along the property line, variance or not, would be difficult to see through the
vegetation overgrowth, especially in the summer months. I understand that this point may not
be relevant to the discussion, but I find it interesting that all of sudden Ms. Wojewoda is
concerned about the visibility along the fence line when it has looked like the pictures since
we moved in.
- It is not my intent to negatively impact Ms. Wojewoda’s (or any neighbor’s) property value.
Whether any project along the fence line would negatively/positively impact Ms.
Wojewoda’s property value or whether the variance will negatively/positively impact Ms.
Wojewoda’s property value is debatable, and two separate discussions. We could argue that
the vegetation overgrowth along the property line negatively impacts our property value. We
could also argue that an investment of this magnitude in our property could have a positive
impact on my surrounding neighbor’s property values. What is relevant for this conversation
is, does encroaching 7.5 feet make a difference when comparing A vs. B?
- The realtor’s comments never discussed whether the variance would affect Ms. Wojewoda’s
property value, they only discussed how properties with a view historically have been more
attractive to potential buyers than properties without a view. The realtors also didn’t address
an unobstructed view vs. an obstructed view. From the photos Ms. Wojewoda’s provided, the
view is obviously obstructed, if it even exists at all.
EXHIBIT 6
16
- Once again, when comparing A vs. B, we believe encroaching in the back corner of the lot
inhibits less visual impairment than adding a second story that would tower over the
vegetation along the property line.
**Us cleaning out the vegetation over growth a few years ago**
Objection #7
- Agree to all of Ms. Wojewoda’s points except that we are unwilling to construct the addition
to conform.
In summary, we have always felt we had a good neighborly relationship with Ms. Wojewoda. It
has come to my attention through this process that Ms. Wojewoda left our conversation with
more questions than answers. I feel terrible that Ms. Wojewoda feels threatened/bullied by my
approach. I don’t know how I would have handled the conversation differently, however. To Ms.
Wojewoda’s defense, the hearing date may be the first time she is learning about “Plan B”. I
struggled with how to present the plans to Ms. Wojewoda and felt like if I presented two options
it could feel like an ultimatum. Thus, I only discussed the option we hoped to move forward
with. Not once did I ask Ms. Wojewoda or any other neighbor to sign anything.
We didn’t purchase our property because we love mowing an acre of grass. We bought the
property because we felt it could provide us with the necessary options to accommodate our
family if/when it grew to where we are today. This project is not intended to be an investment.
EXHIBIT 6
17
We never plan to rent out any part of our home. I am not doing this project to increase the sale
value because we don’t ever intend to sell our home (Our entire family followed us here, so
we’re stuck
����). We would really like Plan A to work, but it is not our intention to be a burden
to our neighbors/neighborhood. We hope you can see our vision to create more usable space for
the home we love, while keeping the integrity of the neighborhood in mind, mature landscaping,
and mid-mod design.
EXHIBIT 6
18
March 3rd, 2024
Attn: Board of Adjustment Committee Members
Please find this letter as part of the formal letters of support for the Hammerschmidt addition case,
located at 23 Skyline Drive, Wheat Ridge, CO 80401.
We have been working with Hammerschmidt’s for over a year now in efforts to secure project
approval and permitting to begin construction on the addition. In our experience, the
Hammerschmidt’s have made every effort to make the impact of this change to their home as
neighbor friendly as possible. We believe they have gone to great lengths in fact to ensure that the
benefit of the community was taken into consideration and have worked closely with the city to
ensure that we understood the requirements. Furthermore, they have invested countless hours in
planning, designing, and spending thousands of dollars in fees for the preparation of the project
submittal. Their resolve and motivation for its mutual success for all involved has been admirable.
As the General Contractor for the project, we will make every effort to support these motivations to
make this a successful project. We will work closely with the city to meet its standards and to make
the impact for our neighbors as little as possible. We will do what we can to work closely with the
city and its building department to construct the addition in a manner that is fitting for the
standards set by the city.
Please feel to reach me directly with any questions, comments or concerns.
Thank you,
Tom Martinez
President/Founder
720.234.5207
EXHIBIT 6
19
Administrative Variance 14
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 7: NEIG
HBOR OBJECTIONS
20
EXHIBIT 7
21
EXHIBIT 7
22
EXHIBIT 7
23
EXHIBIT 7
24
EXHIBIT 7
25
EXHIBIT 7
26
EXHIBIT 7
27
EXHIBIT 7
28
EXHIBIT 7
29
EXHIBIT 7
30
EXHIBIT 7
31
EXHIBIT 7
32
EXHIBIT 7
33
EXHIBIT 7
34
EXHIBIT 7
35
EXHIBIT 7
36
EXHIBIT 7
37
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any
suspicious activities to the IT Division. Thank you.
You don't often get email from gil2022@goodlifeincolorado.com. Learn why this is important
From: Gil Harari <Gil2022@GoodLifeInColorado.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:01 PM
To: Zoning Division <zoning@ci.wheatridge.co.us>
Subject: Case WA-24-02 Variance for Setback
Gil Harari
16 Skyline Dr.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
720-383-4445
Dear Board of Adjustment,
This letter is in reference to Case WA-24-02. I am opposed to granting a variance for setback
for the following reasons. Thank you for allowing me to provide feedback.
Per Section 26-115 of the WRMC the majority of the stated criteria must be met and NONE
of those criteria are met:
1)The current residence including the adjacent plot of land next to the current residence yield
a perfectly reasonable return in use as both a residence and a yard, THEREFORE THIS
POINT IN THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET
2) The variance would very much alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed size
would be much larger than any property or home on the block if not the whole neighborhood.
Additionally, it would encroach on the neighbor who is losing almost 8ft of space and
EXHIBIT 7
38
privacy. It also sets a ba d precedent for the rest of the neighborhood, THEREFORE THIS
POINT IN THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET.
3) The applicant can still invest in the property just fine without the variance to the setback as
the area included in the setback is a small percentage of the proposed improvement,
THEREFORE THIS POINT IN THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET.
4) There is no related hardship imposed by the land. If anything, the abundance of land is the
opposite of a hardship, THEREFORE THIS POINT IN THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN
MET.
5) There is no hardship that requires a variance to the setback, THEREFORE THIS POINT IN
THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET.
6) The proposed variance setback is detrimental and substantially and permanently impairing
to the use of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, THEREFORE THIS POINT IN THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET.
7) The circumstances of the requested variance are unique to the requestor of the variance and
are not present in the neighborhood THEREFORE THIS POINT IN THE CRITERIA HAS
NOT BEEN MET.
8) There are no reasonable accomodations to a person with disabilities that are a factor in this
request and this request applies to a single or two unit home, THEREFORE THIS POINT IN
THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET.
9) Does not apply as this request applies toq single or two unit home, THEREFORE THIS
POINT IN THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET.
Aside from the criteria for a variance not being met, the requested variance would encroach on
the adjacent property and be visibly different in size and design, upsetting the adjacent
properties and setting a poor precedent for the neighborhood and city.
Thank you
Gil Harari
Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you.
EXHIBIT 7
39
Administrative Variance
Case No. WA-24-02 / Hammerschmidt
EXHIBIT 8: BUILDABLE AREA
40
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
CASE NO: WA-24-02
CASE MANAGER: Alan Sielaff, Plans Reviewer/Zoning Inspector
APPLICANT NAME: Valiant Spaces LLC
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 23 Skyline Drive
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA-24-02 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-24-02 be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE:
7.5-foot (50%) variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback for a residential addition and
attached garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2).
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
2. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship, notably an irregular lot
shape, overhead transmission lines, and mature trees.
3. These unique physical hardships have not been created by anyone having an interest in
the property.
4. The granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.
5. The unusual circumstances or conditions are present in the neighborhood and are not
unique to the property.
6. The proposed single-story design with a variance is likely less impactful than an
alternative two-story design without a variance.
7. …
8. …
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The location of the addition and attached garage shall be consistent with representations
depicted in the application materials subject to staff review and approval through review
of a building permit.
2. Existing trees as depicted on the site plan shall be protected and preserved during
construction. Best practices to maintain long-term tree health for the applicable species
are encouraged.
3. A permit application for the structure shall submitted to the Building Division within 180
days of variance approval.
4. …
5. …
or,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No.
WA-24-02 be, and hereby is, DENIED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE:
7.5-foot (50%) variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback for a residential addition and
attached garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2).
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. …
2. …
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 October 26, 2023 1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
October 26, 2023
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair PAGE at 7:03 p.m. This meeting was held in
person.
2. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present: Dan Bradford
Michael Griffeth
Paul Hovland
Thomas Burney
Betty Jo Page
Larry Richmond
Laura Sicard
Alternates Present: Alastair Huber
Board Members Absent: Jesse Pearlman
Staff Members Present: Jana Easley, Planning Manager
Cole Haselip, Management Analyst
Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
3. PUBLIC FORUM
No one wished to speak at this time.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
No cases to be heard.
5. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Amending the Board of Adjustment Bylaws
Mr. Haselip gave a brief, informative presentation regarding the amending of the
Board of Adjustment Bylaws.
Board of Adjustment Minutes October 26, 2023 2
In response to a few questions about the amending of the bylaws, Mr. Haselip
confirmed that some of what is not found in the bylaws is in the Code.
There was a minor discussion in which Mr. Haselip clarified a few points from his
presentation and also confirmed the Pledge of Allegiance will be added to the
Bylaws as part of the Agenda.
It was moved by Board Member HOVELAND and seconded by Board
Member BRADFORD to adopt amended bylaws for the Board of
Adjustment as presented by staff.
B. Approval of Minutes - October 27, 2022
It was moved by Board Member GRIFFETH and seconded by Board
Member BURNEY to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 7-
0-1 with Board Member HUBER abstaining.
C. Updates
Ms. Easley gave an overview and timeline for the upcoming Comprehensive Plan
Update.
In response to a question from Board Member PAGE, Ms. Easley said she has no
comment on the proposed Co-housing development because the project has just
been submitted for review. She added that Valvoline received their Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) and is open for business and Parallel Apartment also received
their CO and tenants are moving in.
Ms. Easley mentioned to the Board that staff will keep them apprised of the next
meeting which is unknow at this time.
8. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Member GRIFFETH and seconded by Member HOVLAND to
adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Motion carried 8-0.
__________________________ _____________________________
Betty Jo Page, Vice Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary