Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/2005 ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting March 24, 2005 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Drda at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Daniel Bybee Paul Drda Bob Howard Paul Hovland Members Absent: Betty J 0 Page Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff Hirt, Plarming Technician Steve Nguyen, Public Works Department Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of March 24, 2005. A set ofthese minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department ofthe City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one indicated a desire to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. W A-OS-Ol: An application filed by Mark & Kimberly Davis for approval of a waiver from the requirement for an escrow of funds in lieu of construction of public improvements pursuant to Section 5-45 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws for property zoned Residential-Two (R -2) and located at 4240 Garland Street. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - I - the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. In reply to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Hirt stated that there are no other property owners to the best of his knowledge on the subject street who have put money into escrow for public improvements. He also stated that no interest would accrue to the property owner for escrowed funds. Board Member BELL asked if other property owners on the street would be assessed if future curb, gutter and sidewalk are installed. Steve Nguyen explained that property owners who have not improved their property would not be assessed. Mr. and Mrs. Davis are being asked to place money in escrow based upon the improvements they are making to the property. In reply to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Hirt stated that thirty property owners in the area signed a petition in support ofthe applicants. Further, a certificate of occupancy has been issued with a condition based upon the Board's decision tonight. Board Member ABBOTT questioned the statement made in the staffreport that approval of this waiver would set a precedent because each case is judged on individual circumstances. Mr. Hirt explained that his intent in the staff report was to point out that it would make it more conducive for people constructing homes in the future to ask for the same waiver. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Mr. Nguyen stated that the subject area is not included in the ten-year capital improvement program for the city. He also noted that Garland Street is very flat and therefore conducive to drainage problems. Board Member BELL commented that Wheat Ridge will have to comply with EPA storm drainage requirements which would apply to everyone on the street. Steve Nguyen stated that was a possibility in regard to water quality and erosion issues. However, flooding or drainage problems are something to be looked at in addition to EP A requirements. Board Member ABBOTT asked if Public Works had analyzed the property to determine drainage problems that would be incurred by construction of the house. Mr. Nguyen explained that they had not analyzed the situation and were going strictly by the code. Board Member ABBOTT asked what authority the city would have if it became apparent that runoff from the subject property was causing damage on the neighborhood. Mr. Nguyen explained that improvements would have to be made through the CapitaLImprovement Fund. Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 2- Board Member DRDA asked if Mr. Nguyen thought potential drainage problems from the construction would manifest themselves in two or three years. Mr. Nguyen said they probably would. Kimberly and Mark Davis 4240 Garland Street Mr. and Mrs. Davis, the applicants, were sworn in by Chair DRDA. Kimberly Davis stated that, although they are constructing a new house, no grade change has occurred from the previous structure. Channeling water has been a problem since the 1950's due to the way the street was constructed. Drainage comes off the street onto properties and, therefore, each property owner has dealt with these issues on their own to drain into a ditch that drains toward 44th The Davises objected to the fact that they are the only property owners who are being requested to place money in escrow. They believe a hardship has been imposed on them by requesting a $3000 escrow which would be held in an account for ten years earning no interest for the applicants. This money was intended to pay for landscaping. Mrs. Davis stated that they were perfectly willing to pay their share of improvements but felt it was unfair to be the only property owners who are assessed. Mark Davis stated that they have complied with the city's request to keep water from draining onto neighboring properties and that they also have met the city's public improvement requirements. Board Member BELL suggested a swale with a pipe under the driveway to accommodate storm runoff. Ms. Davis explained that runoff presently goes down the driveway toward 44th Chair DRDA invited public comment. Tish Gregerson 4389 Garland Street Ms. Gregerson was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She has lived in the neighborhood for 15 years. She spoke in support of the applicant and expressed concern about curb, gutter and sidewalk ever being installed in their semi-rural neighborhqod. Judy Wade-George 4255 Garland Ms. Wade-George was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She spoke in support of the applicants. She lived at this address as a child and her son presently lives in the house. She has been associated with this property for over fifty years and stated there has never been a flooding problem. She also requested that this area remain semi-rural without curb, gutter and sidewalk. Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 3- Kevin George 4255 Garland Mr. George was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in support of the applicants. He commented that any flooding would come from Clear Creek and curb, gutter and sidewalk would do nothing to prevent that. He also asked that the semi-rural nature of the area be maintained. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-OS-Ol is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the ruteen days required by law, and in recognition 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. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-OS-Ol be and hereby is approved. Type of Variance: A waiver from the requirement for an escrow of funds in lieu of constructitm of public improvements pursuant to Section 5-45 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4240 Garland Street. For the following reasons: 1. Sidewalk, curb and gutter for this street are not on the 10-year capital improvement planning list as per the city's Public Works Department. 2. The property is too small to require a drainage study and, therefore, Public Works has not studied the building plans related to drainage. However, it appears there are no current negative safety or storm runoff situations related to the lack of curb, gutter and sidewalk on this section of street as per the Public Works Department and as per a petition signed and submitted by thirty adjacent neighbors. With one condition: - 4- Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 1. A shallow swale shall be constructed and maintained at the front property line to facilitate carrying normal storm runoff along its normal course along the street. The motion passed 7-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicants that their request was approved. B. Case No. W A-OS-03: An application filed by Jeffrey Battershill for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-One A (R-lA) and located at 3811 Wright Court. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mr. Hirt stated that the proposed garage height would require a ten foot setback lmder the current development standards. In response to questions from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Hirt stated that there are no other detached garages in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and that the size of the proposed garage would be within the city's lot coverage requirements. In residential zone districts there is a prohibition for accessory buildings over 120 square feet to be metal. They must be sided or constructed of brick materials. Jeffrey Battershill 3811 Wright Court Mr. Battershill, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He hasowned this property for ten years and stated that prior to the zone code amendments in 2003, of which he was unaware, he could have built his garage without a need for a variance. He submitted eleven photographs of houses within five blocks of his property that have detached garages. These photos were made a part of the official record. He stated that locating the garage in another area of his property would necessitate the removal of mature shade trees. He stated he checked with the city in early 2003 to make sure he could build the garage with a 5-foot setback. When he was advised that this would be possible, he had the underground power lines moved away from the area where he plarmed to build the garage. It was later in 2003 that the setback requirements were changed. He plans to use the garage to accommodate his classic car collection. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Battershill stated the garage would be frame construction with siding and that, ifhe could match the obsolete brick on his house, he would trim the garage walls with brick. Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 5 - In reply to questions from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Battershill stated that he could accommodate six or seven cars in the garage. Presently, he has two cars in storage, and others are parked on his property. Chair DRDA invited public comment. Ralph Santangelo 3801 Wright Court Mr. Santangelo was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in opposition to the application. He has lived in the subject neighborhood for 35 years. He expressed concern that his property values would be reduced if the application is approved and he stated that he would pursue litigation for lowered property values if necessary. He submitted three photographs into the record which depicted the cars presently parked on the applicant's property. He also submitted copies of the neighborhood covenants into the record. The covenants state that all buildings must be brick or brick veneer. He expressed concern that the applicant could use his garage as a workshop, a rental or a commercial building and still park his cars outside. He believed the garage would be in violation ofR-IA zoning. Board Member HOWARD commented that the applicant may legally build a detached garage on his property. The only authority the Board has is whether or not a variance may be allowed. In response to a request for clarification from Board Member BELL, Ms. Reckert stated that the city has no jurisdiction over neighborhood covenants. Mike Lewis 3812 Wright Court Mr. Lewis was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He lives across the street from the applicant and spoke in favor ofthe application because it would improve the appearance of the neighborhood by providing a place for the applicant to store his cars and pursue the hobby that he loves. Moving the garage to another location would necessitate the removal of a maple tree and also make a more difficult entrance into the garage. He stated that if anything decreases property values in the neighborhood, it is the close proximity to I-70, the greenbelt which produces mosquitoes, and the shopping center across 38th Avenue from the neighborhood. He did not believe the applicant's garage would decrease his property values at all. Charles Powell 3832 Wright Court Mr. Powell was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in opposition to the application. He has lived at this address for 36 years and the neighborhood association has worked in the past to keep the neighborhood in compliance with the covenants. In response to a Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 6- question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Powell stated that he was appearing as an individual property owner and not as a representative of the homeowner's association. JoAnn Garin 12537 West 38th Drive Ms. Garin was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She stated she was opposed to the application. John Santangelo 3551 S. Y oungfield, Littleton Mr. Santangelo was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He is the son of Ralph Santangelo. He spoke in opposition to the application. He expressed concern that the vehicles would still be sitting out in front of the home while the garage is used for a workshop. Jeff Santangelo 765 S. Oneida Street, Denver Mr. Santangelo was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He is also a son of Ralph Santangelo. He spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that the applicant has already removed mature trees. Randy Woods 3821 Wright Court Mr. Woods was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he was undecided about the application and that the situation seemed to concern the applicant and Ralph Santangelo. John Croy 12673 West 38th Drive Mr. Croy was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he lived directly behind the applicant and he did not want to look at a l5-foot garage from his back yard. He expressed concern that the garage would decrease his property values. He suggested the applicant move to a neighborhood where he would be welcome to build such a garage. Ruth Gonzales . 12668 West 38th Drive Ms. Gonzales was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She spoke in opposition to the application. She expressed concern that the garage would decrease her property value. She also expressed concern about noise and paint fumes if the applicant restores cars in the garage. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Ms. Reckert stated that noise problems would fall under jurisdiction of the city's code enforcement or police department. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Ms. Reckert stated that city regulations allow cars to be parked in the front setback as long as they are on a hard surface and are licensed and operable. Board Member HOWARD commented that a 10 Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 7 - foot setback would allow cars to be parked in the setback. This would not be possible with a 5 foot setback. Board Member HOVLAND commented that a hardship must be established in order to grant a variance. Board Member HOWARD commented that the detached garages in photos submitted by the applicant were not in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Battershill replied that one of the detached garages is 300 feet from his property and is built on the property line. JoAnn Garin returned to the podium and commented that when their subdivision was built, the area had not yet been made a part of the city of Wheat Ridge. Ralph Santangelo returned to the podium. He stated that he was unaware of the garage that is built on the property line but, if it exists, it is illegal and the city should make sure that the property owner does not continue to use it. . Board Member BELL asked if building code requirements would address noise and painting problems. Ms. Reckert stated that painting of cars is not allowed in residential neighborhoods. Jeff Battershill replied that he would not be painting cars in his garage. He also commented that while the covenants require all structures to be built of brick or brick veneer, there are several frame detached structures in the neighborhood and the most expensive house in the neighborhood is framed with brick trim. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-OS-03 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 protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted 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. W A- 05-03 be, and hereby is, denied. Type of Variance: A 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-One A (R-IA) and located at 3811 Wright Court. Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 8- For the following reasons: 1. The property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be used as a single family residence without the need for the variance. 2. There are no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. The property in question is rectangular in shape and flat. The property is larger than the minimum lot size and width for the R-IA zone district. 3. The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. 4. The request would not result in the reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. S. The structure, as described by the applicant, would appear to be excessive in height exacerbating an aesthetic perception to neighbors. The motion passed 6-0 with Board Member BYBEE abstaining due to a conflict in interest in this case. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance was denied. (The meeting was recessed at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m.) C. Case No. W A-OS-04: An application filed by John C. Bandimere, Jr. for approval of a 2 foot variance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standard pursuant to Section 26-603 resulting in an 8 foot fence on property zoned Residential-One B (R-lB) and located at 3655 Chase Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staffrecommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. John Bandimere, Jr. 3655 Chase Street Mr. Bandimere, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that interlocking steel posts would be used in construction of the fence. In response to an earlier question from the Board, he explained that his property line is located right in the middle of the existing retaining wall. He stated that he had previously contacted the property owner who lives in Utah and offered to pay half the cost of removal of the crooked retaining wall and construction of a new straight wall. He could have then built a fence on top of the retaining wall without the need for variance. The property owner did not respond to his offer. He stated that, while he does not like fences, conditions at the adjacent rental property necessitate a fence and the fence will be built just inside the retaining wall. Several neighbors were present earlier in the evening to speak in favor of the application - 9- Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 but, due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Bandimere told them it was not necessary for them to stay. Chair DRDA invited public comment. Jerry DiTullio 3250 Newland Street Mr. DiTullio was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in favor of the application. Chair DRDA mentioned for the record that the sign-up sheet for this case contained six signatures, all of which indicated support of the application. Board Member HOVLAND commented that this case represented a classic example of justification for a variance. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Bandimere stated that the fence will stairstep down to four feet in the front setback. There was discussion regarding the length of the variance. The application is for 94 feet while 110 feet would be allowed taking the front yard setback into consideration. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-OS-04 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; 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. Now, therefore be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-04 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 2 foot variance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standard pursuant to Section 26-603 resulting in an 8 foot fence on property zoned Residential-One B (R-lB) and located at 3655 Chase Street. For the following reasons: - 10- Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 1. There is an approximately 2 foot grade change along a retaining wall between the property in question and the property to the south, the property to the south existing approximately 2 feet above the applicant's property. The manner in which the height of the fence is measured pursuant to the Code of Laws (from finished grade 5 feet inside the property which it belongs) makes it problematic to have a true 6 foot privacy fence for the property owners on this portion of the lot. 2. The request will have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. An 8 foot fence at the proposed location will be less impactive than normal given the significant grade change between the two properties. 3. Six citizens offered to speak in approval of this variance. With the following conditions: 1. The fence height variance is approved for 110 feet along the south property line as specified by the applicant in Exhibit 1 and as modified by the Board. Construction of a fence within the minimum required front yard must adhere to applicable height standards including the method in which the fence height is measured. 2. The fence may stairstep down to 4 feet prior to the front yard setback requirement. The motion passed 7-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request for variance was approved. D. Case No. W A-OS-06: An application filed by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority for approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side and 10 foot rear yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4501 Everett Street. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval ofthe application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member HOWARD expressed concern that Jerry DiTullio, a member of City Council, was presenting this case. Mr. Hirt stated that Mr. DiTullio was presenting the case as Chair of the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority and staff had concluded there was no conflict in this regard. Board Member HOVLAND asked if the utility easement would be affected by the variance. Ms. Reckert explained that the easements are 5 feet wide and that is what the setback would be. - 11 - Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 Jerry DiTullio 3250 Newland Street Mr. DiTullio was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He clarified that he was appearing strictly as Chair of the Housing Authority and not as a member of City Council. In discussions with the Community Development Department he learned that four garages could be built on this property without a variance. Since this is an 8-plex, the Housing Authority would like to build 6 garages to get more cars off the street and promote sale of the units. It is plarmed to build storage units and patios for the units. Board Member BELL expressed concern about the lack of a play area for children. Mr. DiTullio replied that there is a park across the street where children can play. Board Member HOVLAND expressed concern about homeowners using the garages for storage rather than parking cars. Mr. DiTullio stated that once the units are sold, a homeowners association would address these types of matters. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. DiTullio stated the garages would be constructed with vinyl siding. Doug Knop 1260 Corona, Denver Mr. Knop is one of the Housing Authority's technical advisors with the Jefferson County Housing Authority. He stated there was no other suitable configuration for the garages. Six garages would allow for more offstreet parking and make the units more desirable. If the number were reduced to five garages it would only eliminate one setback problem. Space is needed for turnaround radius and to provide courtyard space. Larry Nelson 8534 West Swarthmore Place, Littleton Mr. Nelson was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He is with Cornerstone Realty, broker for the Housing Authority. He stated that this is the third Housing Authority project and he has found that garages and private spaces are very important to buyers. In previous projects, the units with garages were the first to sell. Seven ofthe units will have private courtyards if six garages are allowed and there would also be adequate turnaround for vehicles. Board Member ABBOTT commented that there are many private homeowners who have similar situations when wanting to build a garage and there doesn't seem to be a hardship issue here other than marketability. Mr. DiTullio replied that the variance would adjust to an area that is poorly plarmed and zoned and each Board of Adjustment case is considered on its own merits and does not set precedence. This is a unique situation in the area. The objective of the Housing Authority is to improve the area and provide affordable housing. Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 12- Meredith Reckert commented that staff believes there are unique circumstances because half of the lot is taken up with front setbacks. Board Member BELL commented that the need for affordable housing in Wheat Ridge is overwhelming and garages are desirable amenities. Board Member HOVLAND agreed that providing affordable housing and improving the neighborhood are worthy goals, but it is important to adhere to all the variance criteria. Board Member DRDA stated that he was having difficulty in finding a hardship in this case. Meredith Reckert commented that a unique circumstance is also presented by an attempt to improve a nonconforming property. Board Member BYBEE expressed concern that a 10 foot setback may be more conducive to collecting junk. Board Member BELL commented that she believed a hardship exists because of the lot configuration and the great need for affordable housing. This is the kind of situation that needs to be addressed when revising the Comprehensive Plan. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BYBEE the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-OS-06 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; and Whereas, the relief applied for 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- 05-06 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard and 10 foot rear yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4501 Everett Street. Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 13 - For the following reasons: 1. The applicant has very limited options for placement of a garage to accommodate an 8-unit multi-family structure without the need for a variance or variances. 2. Approval of the variance would hopefully provide an incentive to make improvements to a dilapidated property and perhaps be influential to adjacent properties to do or request the same. 3. The intent of the property being owned by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority is to provide a public service therefore resulting in a benefit to the community. 4. The adjacent property to the north is also zoned multi-family. S. The corner lot placement of this apartment building places the building with a significant double front yard setback therefore limiting available space in the rear. 6. The 10 foot required setbacks do not seem to provide a definable benefit to this neighborhood as compared to a less dense location. With the following conditions: 1. If it is determined that any portion ofthis structure is within the 100-year floodplain, a Class I floodplain exception will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The structure shall not have an exterior with visible metal materials. Chair DRDA reminded everyone present that a super majority vote of 6 affirmative votes was necessary to approve the application. The motion failed 5-2 with Board members DRDA and HOWARD voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicant the request for variance was denied. S. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - January 27, 2005 Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 - 14- It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to approve the minutes of January 27, 2005 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. B. Voting Change Staff is proposing that the voting rules for variances and other matters ruled on by the Board be modified from a super majority vote to a simply majority vote. City Council will be discussing this issue at a future study session. There was a consensus of the Board to recommend leaving the voting rules as they are. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 a.m. The motion passed unanimously. 17-1 Z2~ -----raiilDrda, Chair ~~ Ann Lazzeri, Secretary - 15 - Board of Adjustment 03-24-05