The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/27/2003City • Wheat Ridge Communily Develol2ment Department Memorandum TO: Board • Adjustment DATE: March 21, 2003 WTI 1 # 7 1 the regular meeting. Materials will be delivered prior to Thursday or handed out at the training session. TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Variances for inoperable vehicles DATE: March 27, 2003 Staff has put together some initial thoughts on the new category of variances, which the Board will be reviewing. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 36-2002, in all residential zo districts, the keeping of one vehicle in non-operative condition is allowed. Such vehicle cannot be parked within 6' of the front property line and must be completely covered with a standard vehicle cover, The ordinance continues that a property owner can apply to the BOA for variance from limitation of one for the purpose of outside storage of additional non-operative vehicles. The application shall be processed according to Section 26-115, and requiresnosting, vublication_anJLp&L1*1;�' • _f The Board can attach conditions to an approval relating to location on the property and method of screening or covering the vehicle being restored. The public hearing is quasi-judicial in nature and the voting patterns designated under section 2-53 shall be followed (greater than majority rule). I - Will granting of the TIVP alter the character of the locality? 2. Will granting of the TIVP contribute to blight in the neighborhood? 3. Will the inoperable vehicle • adequately screened from adjacent properties public streets? 4. History of compliance of zoning violations by the applicant? 5. Will the restoration create environmental hazards (use of paint, body work, welding, ground contamination)? 6. Other factors for consideration CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA March 27,2003 (A dinner training session will be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the second floor conference room.) Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on March 27, 2003, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) A. Case No. WA-03-04: An application filed by Vance & Diane Kolesar for approval of a 3.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 5 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 1.5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One A (R-I A) and located at 11626 West 37 Place. B. ' Case No. WA-03-06: An application filed by Chris Whiteman for approval of a variance to the fence height standard in the minimum front yard setback for property zoned Agricultural-One (A- I) and located at 4745 Parfet Street. C. ' Case No. WA-03-07: An application filed by A-1 Pattern for approval of an increase of non-living landscaping, not to exceed 50 percent, as described in Section 26-502 (Landscape Requirements) for property zoned Industrial (1) and located at 4860 Van Gordon Street. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE V's ill A1SLX'4 TO: Board of Adjustment ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 1.5-foot rear yard setback variance from the 5-foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in 3.5-foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential-One A. NMMMUM�� WMMMH�� Single-Family Residence JURISDICTION: M.- t; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. MEMEMKIlm The property in question is located at 11626 W. 37 Place, and is currently a single-family residence. The property is zoned Residential-One A (R-IA), (�� I'M A I . • MWOMANX03 - 1010mg—mramelmUL =sUrgy-14- I.I. SITE PLAN If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property is currently utilized as a single-family residence, and this use may continue. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The size of the shed is 80 square feet, and is located in the same location as a previous shed. Im pact-to-the-character of the-locality-will-bem inimal-since-the-im, pact-was-already--in-place-from-,- the previous shed. The previous shed could have remained in perpetuity, even though it did not meet the setback requirement. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result 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 in question is a comer lot without significant depth. A 30-foot setback from any street is required for any structure in the R-lA zone district. This setback requirement renders approximately 5,610 square feet of the property unusable. The applicant has stated that significant areas of landscaping and hardscaping would need to be removed or altered if the shed is to be located elsewhere on the property. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant, who has sole interest in the property, has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing a structure that does not meet the setback requirement for the district. A shed previously Board of Adjustment 2 WA- 03-04/Kolesar existed on the property in the same location as the new shed. The applicant did not know that a permit was required for a shed under 120 square feet in size. I m " 01. "12LWI" 1.1 a FW1. li ffi l MW owl. request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request would not result in a contribution or benefit to the neighborhood, and would merely be a convenience for the property owners. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation *f a person with disabilities, IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance - request - .Staf - f - bas - fDund--that-theT-e , are-mique.cir-cumstances--atti , 4buted.,to,,ther-.qu4Dst,-that,-would-war-r.ant...,,- approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: Board of Adjustment 3 WA-03-04/Kolesar .► r • ffmw M! } DEPAUMENTOF MAP ADOPTED: June 95, 9994 FLANW* AND DEVELOrMENT Last Revision: 5e to ber 90 2001 aE 2 To be rifled out by staff. * A'4 70 dk Vance and Diane Koles 1] 626 W, 3 71 Place Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustments 7500 W. 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 This is to explain an application for a variance for a storage shed located 18" from the south fence/lot line of our property. This shed was placed on a previous base location. A building permit was not obtained prior to installation since a contractor acquaintance had informed me that a permit was not required if the structure was to be less than 120 square feet (our misunderstanding). This is the only reasonable location in the small rear yard (approximately 1/4 of yard size - 1,260 square feet). The rest of the area is comer front and side yard. If the shed were moved west, it would shrink - the already small yard. Moved inward from the fence line, it would be into a tree base and upward on a hillside/slope, if closer tt. the. The shed is of attractive construction and is compatible with the neighborhood. Three sheds (on their lot/fence lines are visible to the west from this yard. The neighboring ff d - e� 46 i i§ across the street to the east have sheds on the lot/fence lines. There are 12 • 14 sheds existing and located on the lot lines along the block/street to the south and "V shaped street to the north. Thus, existence and location of storage sheds are common in this area. this property. Please refer to enclosed photos and pl�n. Id f a 56� N 1- r� ffifflw��M TO: Board of Adjustment ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a variance to the fence height standard in the minimum front yard setback for property zoned Agriculture-One (A- 1). 1 11 11211 �' I Fill 1 11111 ITITI.T&TFI Chris Whiteman 4745 Parfet Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 11 �I 2!1 [111111 IF i 1 110 1:10 1 1 1 1111101 4 1 !1 l�� ;I i' 11111 1 E I Ili 1 1 Ii I I I I! I I I I I I III I I I I I! I! I III ; I 1111111I I I! I! III! I I � I I �l�i! I �l�� I I II I III I III� I � I "I I I I 1 111 11 1 1 11 111 , 1IIiII1 1 1 111111��I;i 1111�pllp�IJI JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. MEMOMMUM I I neigni MOM in ruir, TFUTIRTY777 iYont yMw 7FIFTIM, III +rtlet VV,&UCp U11 umbuq; Lurdl F� H. SITE PLAN Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question 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 is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property is currently utilized as a single-family residence and for agricultural uses, and these uses may continue, 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? Board of Adjustment 2 WA-03-06, Wbiteman 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result 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 property is rectangular in shape and relatively flat. At 268,848 square feet, the lot exceeds the minimum lot size requirement in the A- I zone district. The property has lot frontage of approximately 362 feet, which exceeds the minimum lot width requirement for a single-family residence in the A- I zone district, There are no unique topographical conditions that exist on the property that render any portion of the lot unbuildable. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant, who has sole interest in the property, has created a self-imposed hardship. The applicant did not have PCL Construction remove the fence when they were done with the sound wall project. 1 7MM I M M1 17 "PT 7MT = Tootnerpropernesintnearea. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire, The request could have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria I through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or trhutioxr.to the comm unity, ,as, distinguished benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The reMuest would not result in a contribution or benefit to the a convenience for the property owners. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with 1 isabilities. ■ - NW 21 i Y DEFAKTMENTOF MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1954 PLANNING AND DEVEl.O MENT Last Rev"islon: Se temt er 10, 2001 LAND USE CASE PROCE! EXHIBIT 2 *H A, Planning and Developrr I 7500 West 29" Avenue, Wb Z3 Phone(303)23 OR# ORPI I in� 111111 1 � N j 9 WAV # fl V44141 "K�Dj gAUG $102 t 2 0#100 LOA dl 10f OB F# 1A Location of request (address): !Z M & r Yq--Y Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request,) Application submittal requirements on reverse side 0 Change of zone or zone conditions 0 Special Use Permit 0 Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) • Right of Way Vacation • Temporary Use, Building, Sign ■ Variance/Waiver (from Section (S Other: V!&t it Z, P- 4'c koin WN I- �Fevc'e Required information: Assessors Parcel Number: Size of Lot (acres or square footage): Current Zoning: i o - I Proposed Zoning:_ A - ( Current Use: zrPRU' Proposed Use: Signature of Applicant Subscribed and sworn tome this 11- day of T ME M-M Ed M. My commission expires My Commission Evires Date received &IS102 Fee$-- Receipt No�9 � CaseNo. Comp Plan Desig. Zonin L--4 I - Quarter Section Map Aj k," ' Related Case No, Pre-App Mtg. Date �� C'AHIBIT 4 Part of W 742 of MEJ NWJ of Sec. 21 742' T3S, R69W !Z k. o. I • m 742' 377.6' S 362 2/3 of the H 495.4il of the W 742 of NEq' N* • Sec. 21, T3S, R69W R aI l pp sty CL m Regi stered P. E. and". 0 9 W-W 10" ■ LvJ M 1CM *31 I&EIM anti EkMlt" N't i 1 1 ( ?' ' ' e UMM, I - MYSME hmIul 1 WIM.3 1111 t] =Wei K1113,3 31 0 1 F-1 2 i1#104 10 Ell I W. S A ii 0 F 11 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE: N & W: Office/Warehouse S & E: Vacant Land - -------- --- --- DATE PU13LISHED: March 13, 2003 DATE POSTED: March 13, 2003 DATE LEGAL NOTICES SENT: March 13, 2003 WIN 03 tit" 02 MA1 (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (X) EXHIBITS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION JURISDIC'YION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. mnnn ! � The property in question is located at 4860 Van Gordon Street, and is currently an office/warehouse facility. The property is zoned Industrial (Exhibit 1, Zoning Map). 9. 'Wr�vmdlh;awt and owner Steve Aberle,, is reyuestin landscaping on the subject property (Exhibit 2, Letter of Request). The building has been constructed and a certificate of occupancy was issued late last year. Upon completion of the building, the owner supplied the City with a landscape escrow that allowed occupancy without the completion • landscaping. I Lel W I I INV L01 grol AIR 1. I= I Mal -WAy I The existing building was reviewed and constructed under the previous Code of Laws and is approximately 28,800 square feet in size. The previous Code • Laws stated that a nuinimurn • 10%ofthelotbelandsc,4pq Th s sc ite _ p . lan details over 13% of the lottobe land 4p of 8,535 square feet of landscaped area. Of this, 3,068 square feet is proposed to be rock area. All of the required street tree and additional tree and shrub quantities have been met, and, have been installed. The previous Code stated that one street tree must be planted for every 30 feet of street frontage. This lot has 195 feet of street frontage adjacent to Van Gordon Street. Given this standard, seven street trees would be required. The property meets this requirement. • W_W'T'11� square feet of lot area. Uven a 10T si "Wilucialonai t would be required. The site plan details a total of 109 total trees and shrubs. Both the required street tree count and additional tree and shrub quantities have been met, as defined by the previous Code • Laws. 11 11111111pi�11111 11�11� III 1 WIN - m0=1 1. Can the property in question 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? - 0 01111=_1 'I 1 0, .41 1 i I-rulltl:T imlizot as all *111 reautso, unu Lrus use may cominue, regaraless of tiie outcome of the variance request. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the variance were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. Most of the surrounding properties have, at most, ten percent of the lot landscaped. Some of the surrounding properties have little if any landscaping. The applicant has designed an attractive alternative to high-water consumption ground cover, and the proposed plan exceeds every other landscaping standard in respect to quantities and area. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the speciflc property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished kom a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were canie? out? The shape • the lot is irrelevant to this request. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an I interest in the property? The applicant wishes to increase the non-living landscaped area • the lot to help mitigate the effects of the current drought. While the applicant has not created the drought, this ............... ......... . .. . ....... - -------- . . . . .... ...... . ........ ... request would reduce short and long term costs of landscaping maintenance, thereby saving the applicant money. T M ZN' L7 C;W C i 7 1 #7 J. i � to otner properties in the area. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger • fire. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria I through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request would not result in a contribution or benefit to the neighborhood, and would merely be a convenience for the property owners. The request could result in reduced outdoor water consumption, which in turn could be beneficial to the drought situation. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. variance requesi. STUR nas iounu, inat Lnere are unique circlyaris OR would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: I . Approval of the request would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. A person having interest in the property has not created the hardship. The applicant has taken a pro-active approach to reduce his outdoor watering. 3. Approval of this request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties n the neighborhood. BE NE 17 ARVADA PARGEULOT BOUNDARY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) -- WATER FEATURE ti iflr SE 17 1� .a DEPARTMENT OF MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1991 PLANNING AND PEYELOPMENr Last Revision: Se tember 10, 2001 l + +% Foundry Compa + 81 f 1! Ridge Co ► ' 1 3 03-202-988 4 M M MOM Re; Letter of • MM i � • I ns • . President na/ 1} CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting February 27, 2003 L"I"11#1614 af - SWUN flEfflffl:*B I'm Foil I Ito 1, 1 ty" �11=2 Members Present: Tom Abbott Bob Blair Bill Echelmeyer Paul Hovland Bob Howard Members Absent: Paul Drda Jerry Montoya Kent Young Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Travis Crane, Planner Mike Pesicka, Planning Tech Gina Gabriel, Planning Intern Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Ad ustment minutes for the Public Hearing of 271"Z0n---'- i 'b6th -- 6ffi1c& -- bfth the Community Development Department ♦ the City of Wheat Ridge. "l if [0 • I A. Case No. WA-03-01- An application filed • Royal Investments for (A) approval • a 23-foot front yard setback variance from the 50-foot front yard setback requirement resulting in a 27-foot front yard setback and (B) for approval • a partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscape Requirements) for property zoned Commercial One and located at 4896 Marshall Street. Board of Adjustment Page 02/27/03 This case was presented by Travis Crane. He advised the Board that all posting noticing requirements had I been met and there was jurisdiction to hear the case. H If entered all pertinent documents into the record and re-Niewed the staff report. Sta recommended approval of the requests for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern about the possibility that Marshall Street could • widened at some time in the future necessitating the removal of the existing trees which were planted • the applicant in the right-of-way. This could leave the property with no street trees on Marshall. D'agked there were , ooh g" far sent who 'to . adds es's matter. There was no response. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member ECHELMEYER, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and oi l ! I'M 7 1-273 Tat 7 7e , 7% 77 7 0 M recognition that there were no protests registered against it; I Board of Adjustment Page 2 02/27/03 Whereas, the relief applied for MAY be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 03-01(A) be, and hereby is, APPROVED. 1! N, I I I 111111111 1 1 11111111 11111111111 ''11 Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: pi gill I 1 1! # Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-03-01(B) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and --- - ---------------- - . e pro - pi - erty - KA's - be"ch - sted - th - fifffee 'd4ys - re - quife a b Ia tid recognition that there were no protests registered against it; . # IN11i"Wil l MOM # I # I Ci- l i I I E. t I Ei I S 3ow, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 03-01 (B) be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Board of Adjustment Page 3 02/27/03 The motion passed 5-0 with Members absent. (Vice Chair HOVLAND declared a brief recess at 8:18 pm. The meeting reconvened at 8:23 P.M.) • Case No. WA-03-02- An application filed by Valerie and Mike Kashefska for approval of a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 0-foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential- One A and located at 3723 Simms Street. This case was presented by Mike Pesicka. He advised the Board that all posting and noticing requirements had been met and there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and reviewed the staff report, Staff recommended approval of the requests for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member HOWARD asked if there would be any roof overhang into the adjacent yard. ii&-Stf --- ------- - . ....... Valerie and Mike Kashefska, the applicants, were sworn in by Chair HOVLAND. Mike Kashefska explained that there would be no roof overhang because Tuff Shed requires an 18-inch clearance between the fence and the structure to allow room for workers to construct the shed. He explained they wished to replace a deteriorating metal storage shed with a new one. • Immignual 1 01 FIRM Vice Chair HOVLAND asked if there were any present who wished to address the application. Board of Adjustment Page 4 02/27/03 Board Member ECHELMEYER commented that hewalked this neighborhood and found at least eight instances of storage sheds being built against or within eighteen inches of a fence. IFTVJTF�; �# the following resolution was stated: I Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-03-02 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; Id"MMIM111111i'l Igg I r! 11 uJI t6s. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 03-02 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 0-foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One A and located at 3723 Simms Street. For the following reasons: Board of Adjustment Page 5 02/27/03 - wm allow an ovewr exist d---- 1ALMIA, the applicant some flexibility. For instance, it may be necessary to provide only 12 inches between the shed and the fence. for five feet as originally requested. A vote was taken on Board Member HOWARD's motion to amend the resolutio The motin failed by a vote of 2 to 3 with Board Members ABOTT, BLAIR an ECHELMEYER voting no. I o B WrIMA - T 1110 Tas"I Board Members DRDA, MONTOYA and YOUNG absent. C. Case No. WA-03-03: An application filed by James Sloan for approval of a 126 square foot variance from the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement to allow a two-family dwelling on vacant land zoned Residential Three and located afdYw6sf - df" 9q5 -- Slxe cfa B6ul 6 v a r d' p p ri o" - x iffi afe"I y 5 (1_ a I Avenue). In answer to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mr. Pesicka stated that the subject property is a lot of record. Board of Adjustment Page 6 02/27/03 Board Member ABBOTT noted that square footage of the propertywas based on an improvement location certificate (ILC) rather than a survey. Meredith Reckert stated that the City has allowed ILC's to be used in place of surveys in obtaining building permits and variance applications. - D446 - Si § - 6if -aJfi-d--- . ..... ------ ------ ------ - Ernestine Simpson 3995 Sheridan Both of these individuals were sworn in by Vice Chair HOVLAND. Duane Simpson is the son of Ernestine. Mr. Simpson testified that Mr. Maher is the godfather for his brother who is mentally disabled and is in the process of becoming a legal co-guardian. Mr. Maher plans to provide half the duplex as a home for Ms. Simpson and his brother and asked the Board to approve the application. Robert and Barb Hendrickson 3945 Sheridan Both of these individuals were sworn in by Vice Chair HOVLAND. Mr. Hendrickson stated that he was not opposed to a duplex being built on the property but did express concern that the variance could affect his property line. Meredith Reckert explained that Board of Adjustment Page 7 02/27/03 Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; t be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- $3-03 be, and hereby is, DENIED. Type of Variance: A 126 square foot variance from the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement to allow a two-family dwelling on vacant land zoned Residential Three and located immediately west of 3995 Sheridan Boulevard (approximately 5250 W. 40 Avenue). gut Board of Adjustment Page 8 02/27/03 Board Member HOVLAND agreed with Board Member ABBOTT that there are no significant issues present • make this property unique. A vote was taken on the motion for denial. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners DRDA, MONTOYA and YOUNG absent. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair HOVLAND declared the public hearing closel • Meredith Reckert asked Board members if they wished to have a study session to consider criteria issues related to the recently adopted ordinance which addresses variances for inoperable automobiles, Meredith Reckert introduced Larry Schulz, the newly appointed Board of Adjustment member from District IV, Meredith Reckert introduced Gina Gabriel who volunteers in the Planning Department in order to gain experience toward becoming a planner. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and s�ee6iideil fBo4ff he 2003 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. RIMMUF 13taul tit I 4.09040=�� 1,971grusaffu Walla t his 111411� 1 MWOT I MOW Board • Adjustment