Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 25 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A G E N D A February 25, 2021 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on February 25, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., This meeting will be conducted as a VIRTUAL MEETING. No members of the Board or City Staff will be physically present at the municipal building for this meeting. The public may not attend in person; however, the public may participate in this way: 1. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone: • Click here to join and provide public comment (create a Zoom account to join) • Or call 1-669-900-6833 with Meeting ID 953 0513 4798 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-21-03: An application filed by Joshua Williams for approval of a 39- foot (39%) variance from the 100-foot lot width requirement to allow for an additional unit to be constructed on property located at 3711 Pierce Street and zoned Residential-Three (R-3). 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS (continued on next page) BOA Agenda – February 25, 2021 Page 2 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. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes – December 10, 2020 9. ADJOURNMENT * Public comment is welcome during any public hearing item. For reference for the public, the standard procedure for a public hearing is as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant presentation – if applicable c. Questions from the Board to staff/applicant d. Public comment – time may be limited at the discretion of the Chair, often to 3 minutes e. Staff/applicant response f. Close public hearing g. Commission discussion and decision CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment HEARING DATE: February 25, 2021 CASE MANAGER: Zareen Tasneem CASE NO. & NAME: WA-21-03 / Williams ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 39-foot (39%) variance from the minimum 100-foot lot width requirement to allow for an additional unit to be constructed on property located at 3711 Pierce Street and zoned Residential-Three (R-3). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3711 Pierce Street APPLICANT (S): Joshua Williams OWNER (S): Joshua Williams and Erin Lafferty APPROXIMATE AREA: 21,500 Square Feet (0.494 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Three (R-3) PRESENT LAND USE: Two Single-Family Houses ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Board of Adjustment 2 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams 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 39-foot (39%) variance from the minimum 100-foot lot width requirement for multifamily lots in the Residential-Three (R-3) zone district to allow for an additional unit to be constructed for a total of three dwelling units. Section 26-115.C (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard without a public hearing, so long as the approval of such a variance does not result in an additional dwelling unit. Because the approval of this request would result in an additional dwelling unit, the request must be approved through a Board of Adjustment public hearing. II. CASE ANALYSIS The site is located on the west side of Pierce Street between W. 38th Avenue and W. 36th Place (Aerial, Exhibit 1). W. 38th Avenue is one of the main east-west arterials and commercial corridors in Wheat Ridge. The site is zoned R-3; properties to the southwest, south, and east are also zoned R-3 (Zoning Map, Exhibit 2). Properties to the immediate west, north, northeast, and along W. 38th Avenue are zoned Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N). There are also pockets of different types of commercial zone districts along W. 38th Avenue. Further to the east and south, properties are zoned Residential- One C (R-1C) and Residential-Two (R-2). To the south and west of the property are mostly single- family residential uses, to the east are duplex and multifamily (i.e. three or more dwelling units) uses, and to the north are multifamily and commercial uses (Surrounding Land Uses, Exhibit 3). The R-3 zone district provides high quality, safe, quiet and stable medium to high-density residential neighborhoods. In the R-3 zone district, multifamily lots are those that contain three or more dwelling units. A multifamily lot in R-3 requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a minimum lot area of 12,500 square feet. A minimum of three thousand six hundred thirty (3,630) square feet of land area shall be required for each dwelling unit for multifamily buildings. Per the Survey (Exhibit 4), the property is L-shaped, narrower in the front and wider in the back. It is unplatted and measures 21,563 sq. ft. in total. The lot width, taken at the front setback line, is about 61 ft.; however, the back half of the property is about 125 ft. wide – more than twice as wide as the front half. The front half of the property is about 7,332 sq. ft. in size and contains a one-story single-family detached house. The back half of the property is about 14,230 sq. ft. (almost twice the size of the front half) and contains another one-story single-family house, as well as several sheds. A driveway runs parallel to the north property line and provides access to both houses. According to the Jefferson County Assessor, both houses were built prior to the City’s incorporation: the front one in 1937 and listed as in average condition and the back one in 1947 and listed as in poor condition. The applicant is looking to improve their property by demolishing the existing single-family detached home in the back and building a duplex in its place (see Written Request and Variance Criteria Board of Adjustment 3 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams Response (Exhibit 5), Site Photos (Exhibit 6), and Site Plans and Floor Plans (Exhibit 7)). They have owned the property since 2004 and have lived in the back house since the purchase. They state the existing back house is in poor condition, not able to accommodate their growing family, and requires significant upgrades; therefore, they would like to demolish it and a shed next to it and build a new two-story duplex structure instead. “Dwelling Unit 1” would be the bigger 4-bedroom/3.5-bathroom unit that the applicant plans to live in, while “Dwelling Unit 2” is the smaller 1-bedroom/1-bathroom unit. Both are proposed to have their own attached garage spaces and private, fenced rear yards. Proposed elevations (Exhibit 8) show a cohesively designed duplex that makes the structure appear like a large single-family house. The following table compares the required R-3 development standards for multifamily lots with the actual and proposed conditions relative to the proposal. R-3 Development Standards: Required Proposed Lot Width 100 feet (min.) 61 feet Lot Area 12,500 sq. ft (min.) 21,563 sq. ft. Building Coverage 40% (max.) / 8,625.2 sq. ft. ~27% Dwellings Units Permitted (based on lot area/3,630) 5 (max.) 3 Public Comment As of the date of this staff report, February 17, 2021, the City has received one email in support of the variance from a neighbor (Public Comments, Exhibit 9). If additional comments arrive between the delivery of this staff report and the Board of Adjustment hearing, they will be entered into the record and provided to the Board members during the hearing. Staff has also received one general inquiry about the proposed plans. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the majority of the “criteria for review” listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. 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. The property could continue to function as two single-family residences, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The surrounding land uses present a variety of existing residential structure types (Exhibit 3). The property directly to the north contains a multifamily use and across the street, along W. 37th Place, are also properties that contain multifamily uses, all of which are higher in density Board of Adjustment 4 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams than the three units proposed on this property. In addition, the property directly to the west contains a duplex structure, therefore, this property would be a mirror of that condition. Furthermore, the duplex structure is proposed to be well set back from the single-family residential structures to the south (see Site Plans and Floor Plans, Exhibit 7), with the south part of the rear yard creating an open space buffer area. The applicant is proposing a two-story structure which is less tall than the maximum height permitted and compatible with development patterns in the area. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The proposed new duplex is a substantial investment in the property and it would not be possible to build the duplex on the property without the lot width variance. Even reconstruction of the back single-family home would require a variance. If the property were completely redeveloped, then based on its lot width of 61 feet and current R-3 development standards, then it could only be redeveloped to have one single-family residential structure because of the irregular shape. 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. Because the lot is irregularly shaped—narrower in the front (where lot width is determined from) than in the back—it restricts development potential and creates an overly large backyard situation. As mentioned above, even if the applicant wanted to demolish the back house that is in poor condition and replace it with a new one, current development standards would not permit such reinvestment without a variance. If the property was a uniform width, then, based on its lot area of 21,563 sq. ft., it could have up to five dwelling units. The dimensions of the back half of this property alone (i.e. 125 ft. wide and 14,230 sq. ft. in size), are eligible for three dwelling units. In this case, the irregular shape creates a unique hardship and prevents a reasonable and less dense development. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The applicant has only owned the property since 2004 and neither created the present physical dimensions of the parcel nor built the existing structures in their current configurations. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Board of Adjustment 5 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets. The addition would not impede the sight distance triangle and would not increase the danger of fire. 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. As seen in the aerial (Exhibit 1), most other lots in the vicinity are relatively rectangular in shape, with consistent lot width along the length of the lot. Therefore, the L-shaped lot configuration is unique to this property. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single-family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 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 Board of Adjustment 6 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a request for a 39-foot (39%) variance from the minimum 100-foot lot width requirement for multifamily lots to allow for an additional unit to be constructed for a total of three dwelling units on property in the Residential-Three (R-3) zone district and located at 3711 Pierce 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. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment which would not be possible without the variances. 3. Being an L-shaped property presents a particular and unique physical hardship for the property. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by persons presently 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. With the following conditions: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed duplex shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a planned building group land use application and building permit. 2. Per Sec. 26-414, the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication for the new dwelling unit at time of building permit. Board of Adjustment 7 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Board of Adjustment 8 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Board of Adjustment 9 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 3: SURROUNDING LAND USES Subject property outlined in red. Land uses based on Jefferson County Assessor’s property records. SFR = single-family residential 2F = two-family (duplex) MF = multifamily (3 or more dwelling units) C = commercial SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR 2F 2F 2F SFR MF MF MF MF C C C C C C 2F Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 4: SURVEY The property is L-shaped, narrower in the front and wider in the front, and measures 21,563 sq. ft. in total. The lot width, taken at the front setback line, is about 61 ft.; however, the back half of the property is about 125 ft. wide. The front half of the property is about 7,332 sq. ft. in size and contains a single-family detached house. The back half of the property is about 14,230 sq. ft. and contains a single-family detached house, as well as several sheds. A driveway runs parallel to the north property line and provides access to both houses. Board of Adjustment 11 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 5: WRITTEN REQUEST & VARIANCE CRITERIA RESPONSE Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams Board of Adjustment 13 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 6: SITE PHOTOS Above: View of front of property looking west from Pierce Street. Driveway on right provides access to both houses. Below: View of the front house looking west from the front yard. This house would remain as is. Board of Adjustment 14 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams Above: View of the concrete driveway that becomes a gravel driveway and extends to the back. The area where the black car is parked currently is proposed to be replaced with a concrete pad that leads to the attached garages of the proposed duplex. The area behind the wooden fence would be where the smaller of the two new units would be. Below: View of the existing gravel parking areas. This property does not have any covered parking spaces. The house in the center of the image is the existing back house proposed to be demolished. Board of Adjustment 15 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams Above: View of the southern half of the rear yard behind the back house looking southwest. Sheds outlined in red are on the property and proposed to remain. Below: View of the northern half of the rear yard behind the back house looking north. Structures outlined in red (back house and a shed) are proposed to be demolished and would be, generally, where one unit of the proposed new duplex would be located. Where the trailer is currently parked, outlined in yellow, is generally where the other unit in the proposed duplex would be located. Board of Adjustment 16 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 7: SITE PLANS & FLOOR PLANS Board of Adjustment 17 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams The proposed site plan depicts the proposed new duplex in the rear half of the property. “Dwelling Unit 1” has a two-car attached garage and is proposed to be 2,470 sq. ft., not including the attached covered porch and covered deck. “Dwelling Unit 2” has a one-car attached garage and is proposed to be 811 sq.ft., not including the attached covered porch. Each unit would have separate fenced rear yard spaces. Board of Adjustment 18 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams The proposed floor plans shows the new structure would be two stories tall. “Dwelling Unit 1” has a two-car attached garage, a guest suite, and living/dining/kitchen space on the first floor and three bedrooms on the second floor. “Dwelling Unit 2” has just the one-car attached garage and foyer on the first floor, with the dwelling space of the one-bedroom residence on the second floor. Board of Adjustment 19 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 8: ELEVATIONS Board of Adjustment 20 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams Board of Adjustment 21 Case No. WA-21-03 / Williams EXHIBIT 9: PUBLIC COMMENTS WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE) CASE NO: WA-21-03 APPLICANT NAME: Joshua Williams LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3711 Pierce Street WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA-21-03 was not eligible for administrative review; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that there were/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-21-03 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for a 39-foot (39%) variance from the minimum 100-foot lot width requirement for multifamily lots to allow for an additional unit to be constructed for a total of three dwelling units on property in the Residential-Three (R-3) zone district. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment which would not be possible without the variances. 3. Being an L-shaped property presents a particular and unique physical hardship for the property. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by persons presently 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. … 7. … WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed duplex shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a planned building group land use application and building permit. 2. Per Sec. 26-414, the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication for the new dwelling unit at time of building permit. 3. … 4. … Voting requirements for reference: Per City Code and BOA Bylaws, the following number of votes are required in order to grant any variance, waiver, temporary building or use permit, any interpretation or flood plain special exception permit or any matter requiring decision by the planning commission or the city council. If a resolution or motion fails to receive the required number of votes in favor of the applicant, the action shall be deemed a denial, and a resolution denying the request shall be entered in the record. Members Present Votes Needed to Approve 8 6 7 6 6 5 5 4 All other actions require only a simple majority, including continuance of a case. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 10, 2020 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting December 10, 2020 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair PAGE at 7:03 p.m. This meeting was held virtually, using Zoom video-teleconferencing technology. As duly announced and publicly noticed, the City previously approved this meeting format in order to continue with normal business amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the related public emergency orders promulgated by the State of Colorado and the Wheat Ridge City Council. Before calling the meeting to order, the Chair stated the rules and procedures necessitated by this virtual meeting format. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Dan Bradford Michael Griffeth Paul Hovland David Kuntz Betty Jo Page Alternates Present: Robert DeVries Julianne Stern Tiamo Wright Board Members Absent: Janet Bell Larry Richmond Laura Sicard Staff Members Present: Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Zareen Tasneem, Planner I Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-20-05 Board of Adjustment Minutes December 10, 2020 2 The case was presented by Zareen Tasneem. She entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance, and the digital presentation into the record. She stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the presentation and staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of two variances: A) a 20-foot (80%) variance from the 25-foot rear yard setback requirement for a rear yard which abuts a public street, and B) an 11-foot (45.8%) variance from the maximum allowed curb cut width of 24 feet for a detached garage to be constructed on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3655 Holland Court. The proposed garage would meet all other development standards including height and maximum size. Staff recommends approval of this variance. There are unique circumstances attributed to this request that warrant approval. Carle Maes, applicant 3655 Holland Ct., Wheat Ridge Mr. Maes explained that he relocated from Arvada because they love the Wheat Ridge area and they like the single-family ranch house they are in even though the property is a little small. He mentioned they are adding on to the house and want a larger garage to park their cars in. He also thanked staff for helping him through the process. Member WRIGHT asked if all 3 cars will fit in the garage. Mr. Maes confirmed that their cars will be parked in the garage and, due to the 5 ft. setback, nobody will be able to park in front of the garage. Member DE VRIES asked if anyone parks their cars on Hoyt Street. Mr. Maes replied that occasionally, there are cars parked on Hoyt Street, but not consistently. Member BRADFORD inquired if the garage will be used for any major auto repair business use. Mr. Maes said no. Member HOVLAND asked where visitors park when they come to visit. Mr. Maes explained that typically any visitors park on Holland Court in front of the house. Member STERN asked for confirmation from Staff if street parking is allowed on Hoyt Street. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 10, 2020 3 Ms. Tasneem explained parking is allowed by permit only during the day on weekdays. Ms. Mikulak added that, per Code, a single-family home is required to have 4 parking spaces, which can be a combination of on-site and off-site (on-street) parking. It is not required that there be a driveway to accommodate parking. Member PAGE asked if there is any concern with Hoyt Street being narrow. Mr. Maes commented that there is a concern backing out of the garage and will be cautious when doing so. He added he might place mirrors to better see pedestrians and cars on Hoyt Street. Ms. Mikulak mentioned that while substandard for a street, Hoyt Street is a public street and is wider than some of the alleys in the City. Members DE VRIES and HOVLAND think the plan has been well thought out and is a good one. Mr. KUNTZ added that he did not think the letter submitted to the City was an issue and liked the plan as well. PUBLIC COMMENT Nobody wished to speak. Upon a motion by Member HOVLAND and seconded by Member BRADFORD, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, application Case No. WA-20-05 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 protests registered against it; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA-20-05 be, and hereby is, APPROVED TYPE OF VARIANCE: Requesting approval of two variances on property located in the Residential- Two (R-2) zone district in order to construct a new detached garage in the rear yard: • Request A: a 20-foot (80%) variance from the minimum 25-foot rear yard setback requirement for a rear yard which abuts a public street, resulting in a 50-foot setback • Request B: an 11-foot (45.8%) variance from the maximum allowed curb cut of 24 feet, resulting in a 35-foot curb cut. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: Board of Adjustment Minutes December 10, 2020 4 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The lot being a through lot presents a particular and unique physical hardship for the property. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by persons presently 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. Unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating a variance request are present in the neighborhood. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage shall be consistent with representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Motion carried 8-0. 6. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair Page closed the public hearing. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes – October 24, 2019 Member HOVLAND noted a correction in the first line to correct the person who called the meeting to order. It was moved by Board Member KUNTZ and seconded by Board Member GRIFFETH to approve the minutes as amended. Motion passed 5-0-3 with Board Member STERN, DE VRIES and WRIGHT abstaining. B. Waiver of Bylaws – Election of Officers It was moved by Board Member KUNTZ and seconded by Board Member DE VRIES to suspend the Board’s bylaws as it relates to Election of Officers until such time the topic is revisited in 2021 and to retain Betty Jo Page as Vice Chair. Motion passed 8-0. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 10, 2020 5 C. Ms. Mikulak thanked the Board for being adaptable with virtual format and for their time given to the board despite the inconsistent meeting schedule. 8. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair PAGE adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. __________________________ _____________________________ Betty Jo Page, Vice Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary