Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-11 BAA MINUTESENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS January 11, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:35 P.M., Vice Chair Clayton presiding. Present: Christman, Cohn, Seymour, Smith, Welker, Clayton Absent: None Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt Assistant City Attorney Dan Brotzman Vice Chair Clayton announced a quorum of six members present; five affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. Vice Chair Clayton stated the Board is authorized to grant vari- ances by Section 16-2-8 of the Englewood Municipal Code. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. December 14, 1994 Vice Chair Clayton asked for consideration of the Minutes of December 14, 1994. Seymour moved: Smith seconded: The Minutes of December 14, 1994, be approved as written. The vote was called; motion carried unanimously. ID. PUBLIC HEARING -Case #1-95 4905 South Galapago Street Mary Vuksic, applicant Vice Chair Clayton set fhrth the parameters for conduct of the Hearing. Mr. Clayton stated that anyone aggrieved by a decision rendered by the Board may appeal that decision to a court of record; however, such appeal must be made within 30 days of the Bo_ard's decision. Mr. Clayton then asked that staff present the case. Harold J. Stitt, was sworn in, and testified that the applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum total floor area for sheds to allow a second storage shed to remain on the subject property. This is a variance from Section 16-4-2:M 2 b, Maximum total floor area, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The owner of the property is Chuck Standen. 1 Mr. Stitt testified that staff has received a citizen complaint regarding the posting of the subject property. The complaint alleges insufficient information is contained on the sign to properly inform the public of the issue to be heard before the Board. Legal Counsel Brotzman advised the Board they need to determine whether the information contained on the posted sign meets the minimum standards for legal posting; does the sign contain sufficient notification to the public. This determination must be by motion and made a part of the record of the proceedings. The "Certification of Posting" containing a picture of the sign, as posted, was presented for pe- rusal of the Board. (Exhibit #1) Smith moved: Christman seconded: The posting for Case #1-95 does, in fact, meet the minimum require- ments of the Ordinance of the City of Englewood, and the Board of Ad- justment and Appeals does have the jurisdiction to hear the issue. Ms. Cohn inquired regarding the wording of the Ordinance requirements. Mr. Smith quoted the posting requirements cited in 16-2-lO:B-1 of the Englewood Municipal Code . Mr. Welker inquired on the determination of the wording for the signs. Mr. Stitt responded that the City provides the exact wording to be used on the sign to the applicants. Mr. Smith cited that the posting must set forth the date, time, place, and purpose of the Hear- ing. Mr. Welker stated in his opinion, the sign as posted meets those requirements. Mr. Brotzman stated that the citizen concern was that the square footage of the shed was not cited on the sign. The vote on Mr. Smith's motion was called; the motion carried unanimously. Vice Chair Clayton asked the applicant to make her presentation. Mr. Buckholtz identified himself as legal counsel for Ms. Vuksic, applicant. Mr. Buckholtz stated that the applicant has obtained photographs of other properties in the immediate neigh- borhood with more than •_one shed, pictures of the condition on her property, letters and state- ments of agreement from other property owners in the neighborhood, and there are other neighbors present to speak in favor of the request. The applicant will show how the informa- tion to be presented will address the five specific criteria the Board must consider to grant a variance, and that the testimony to be presented will "fill in any gaps in the application". Mr. Buckholtz stated that the subject property has no garage, there is no basement in the house, and one very small "shed" or workshop; the site has no storage space. Mr. Buckholtz stated that the applicant understands there will be opposition to the requested variance, and com- mented that the "source of opposition is reported to be opposed to single parents, minorities, 2 .. • and renters." Mr. Buckholtz asked that the Board keep in mind the opposition that has been received from this individual on previous variance issues in this neighborhood. Ms. Cohn expressed amazement at Mr. Buckholtz's statement, and asked if he will present more specifics on his allegations. Mr. Buckholtz responded that he became involved in the issue earlier on this date, but that preliminary investigations indicate that opposition is from "one source", and that individuals testifying will be addressing their experiences in this neigh- borhood. Ms. Cohn asked for an explanation on the "temporary" nature of the variance. Mr. Buckholtz stated that Ms. Vuksic is a tenant, and is asking to maintain the storage shed for the period of her tenancy; as such time as she moves from the site, she would remove the storage shed and take it to her new site of residence. Mr. Clayton asked if Ms. Vuksic is the owner of the older shed on the property. Mr. Buck- holtz responded that she is not the owner of that structure. Ms. Cohn pointed out that the Board is not bound by prior decisions; the Board makes deci- sions based on a case-by-case basis, and the information presented on each case. Mr. Buck- holtz responded that this is understood, and further offered the opinion that the requested vari- ance will not do violence to the neighborhood concept. Mr. Smith announced that he has known Mr. Buckholtz for a number of years, has worked with him previously, but does not feel there is any problem with him sitting on the Board for this case. Ms. Mary Vuksic was sworn in. Ms. Vuksic presented the following items for perusal of the Board: • Exhibit #2: Statement signed by Debbie Askew, 4935 South Galapago; • Exhibit #3: Letter from Chuck Standen, dated December 7, 1994; • Exhibit #4: Twelve statements signed by neighborhood property owners voicing no objec- tion to the variance; • Exhibit #5: Pictures taken of neighborhood properties which have more than one shed, or that have materials stored outside with no shed; each picture has address and descriptive in- formation written on the bottom; • Exhibit #6: Pictures taken of the property she occupies showing first shed or workshop; showing the second shed and interior point of access to the crawl space in the house; each picture has descriptive information noted on the bottom. Ms. Vuksic testified that she leased the property at 4905 South Galapago, and moved in on September 26, 1994. She was told that she would be able to put up a shed to provide the needed storage space, which she did. The shed cost her $620 and required three people working evenings for two weeks to get the shed erected. Ms. Vuksic testified that the existing 3 "shed" or workshop is very small, is finished with insulation, electricity, peg boards and a built in work bench. There is a small "attic" which can be accessed via an outside ladder, but only very light items, such as Christmas decorations, can be stored there. Ms. Vuksic testified that she refurbishes homes, works with handicapped people, formerly did upholstery work, and loves to garden. She needs adequate storage space for her tools, rare woods, art equipment, gardening and lawn tools, and flower pots. Ms. Vuksic reiterated there is no basement in the house, which is three bedroom, one bath; there is no garage, and only a small crawl space ac- cessed via moving furniture and pulling back a rug, or the small workshop which was on the property when she moved in. Ms. Vuksic addressed Criteria #2, stating that allowance of the second shed will prevent clut- ter in the yard. It may even prevent children who might stray into the yard from possible in- jury. Ms. Vuksic commented that she has some rare woods (cherry wood) that needs to be stored out of the elements, and bicycles, lawn materials, etc. which clutter up a yard if not stored in a garage or shed. Criteria #3 was addressed by Ms. Vuksic. In her opinion, the variance she is requesting will not adversely impact the adjacent property or the neighborhood. She further stated that she has not lived in the neighborhood very long, and in fact met most of her neighbors when she approached them to sign the statements regarding the second storage shed which she presented earlier. She stated that several of the neighbors had commented that they think the second storage shed is nice looking. Ms. Vuksic further noted that in the photos· she presented, there are several properties in the immediate area with two or three storage sheds, and she does not feel that allowing the second storage shed on the subject site will be out of the ordinary. Ms. Vuksic commented that in her opinion, there are some properties which could use a storage shed to alleviate the "clutter" in yards. Criteria #4 was discussed. Ms. Vuksic noted that adjacent properties are developed, and the second storage shed she is requesting will not substantially or permanently impair the appro- priate use or development of the adjacent property. Criteria #5 was addressed. Ms. Vuksic stated that the second storage shed will provide the relief needed to provide minimum storage area. Ms. Vuksic stated that at the time she purchased the shed, and made arrangements for its erec- tion, she was not aware \ she needed a Building Permit; she stated that she will get such a Permit if the variance is approved. Mr. Buckholtz asked that Ms. Vuksic clarify the sizes of the respective ·sheds. Ms. Vuksic stated that the storage shed she purchased is 10' x 14', or 140 square feet. The workshop/shed which was on the property when she moved in is approximately 1111,4" x 122 1/2". Ms. Cohn inquired from Ms. Vuksic verification that the variance would be "temporary". Ms . Vuksic stated that she signed a one year lease on the property, but hopes to stay three years until her children are through school. At such time as she chooses to relocate, the shed would 4 • • be dismantled and moved to her new place of residence. Ms. Vuksic described the shed, which is metal, placed on a wood base. The floor is "pressed wood", which will be treated to inhibit moisture. Mr. Smith inquired about the width of the walkway, and the size of the house. Ms. Vuksic stated that she could not answer that question. Mr. Clayton asked Ms. Vuksic whether she was aware the ordinance requires specific setbacks and floor area size on sheds. Ms. Vuksic stated that she was not aware of any requirements until she received the Notice of Violation. Mr. Clayton suggested the owner could erect a garage, and asked if there was some unique character on the site to prevent construction of a garage. Ms. Vuksic noted that the concrete walk is broken from tree roots, and the garage would probably have to be constructed to the front of the house itself. Mr. Welker asked how close the shed is located to the fence lines. Ms. Vuksic stated that the shed is 22.5" from the rear fence (west), and 37" from the side fence on the south. The older shed or workshop is 24" from the west fence, and 288" inches from the north fence. Mr. Seymour asked if there was a garage on the site at one time. Ms. Vuksic stated that the attached garage had been converted to living space some years ago ; this is the area she uses as the "library", and where the crawl space is accessed. Mr. Smith noted it appears the site its~lf is approximat~ly 133' x 75'. Vice Chair Clayton asked if Mr. Clearwater wished to address the Board. Bill Clearwater was sworn in, and testified that he helped construct the shed. He commented that this is an "expensive" shed, and described the construction of the shed: Douglas Fir 2 x 4s on 2' centers, with the pressed board flooring atop the 2 x 4s. Mr. Clearwater stated that the ground under the shed was leveled, and the 2 x 4s rest on the ground. Ms. Debbie Askew, 4935 South Galapago was sworn in. Ms. Askew commented on the well- maintained, neat condition of Ms. Vuksic's property, and the fact this is a working single woman ~sing two childfen. Ms. Askew commented on the number of complaints that were made to the City on her own personal property since she and her family moved in: Barking dogs, bouncing of basketballs, etc. Ms. Askew commented that "sometimes people are bored and find anything they can to complain about." Ms. Askew commented on the unfortunate way Ms. Vuksic has been welcomed to the neighborhood. Ms. Askew urged that the re- quested variance be approved. Lisa Houser, 795 West Chenango Avenue, was sworn in. Ms. Houser stated that she and her family recently moved to Englewood, and that Ms. Vuksic's back yard faces the front yard of her home. Ms. Houser described the property layouts of that immediate area, noting that she 5 can view the rear yards of several properties which abut her ownership. She commended Ms. Vuksic on the neat maintenance of her property, and was "thrilled" to see the shed being con- structed to accommodate the materials Ms. Vuksic had stored in the rear yard shortly after moving in. Ms. Houser stated that her home does not have a basement, and she can well re- late to Ms. Vuksic's need for additional storage space; her family recently erected a three-car garage. Ms. Houser stated that "someone" approached her to sign a petition in opposition to the variance, and stated "if she (Ms. Vuksic) has to take it (the shed) down maybe she will move". Ms. Houser stated that in her opinion, Ms. Vuksic is an asset to the community, and urged the Board to allow the variance. Mr. Buckholtz asked if Ms. Houser could identify the person who approached her to sign the petition, and if this individual was present at this meeting. Ms. Houser stated that the woman's name was "Eva", and she is in attendance in opposition. Chuck Standen was sworn in. Mr. Standen testified that he purchased the property in 1989, and the garage had been converted to living space at the time he purchased the property. The property is large enough to accommodate construction of a garage, but he made the determi- nation to turn the property into a rental and move back to the mountains to live. He stated that he built the small workshop/shed, and acknowledged that it is very small. Mr. Standen stated that he is favor of allowing the second storage shed for Ms. Vuksic, and also commented on the good care Ms. Vuksic is taking of the property. Mr. Smith asked if the size of the house approximated 1,400 square feet. Mr. Standen stated that the house is "probably" about that size. Mr. Welker inquired about the foundation on the first shed constructed by Mr. Standen. Mr. Standen stated that the foundation is a concrete slab; there was an old, dilapidated shed on the site when he purchased; he tore the old shed down, and constructed the new shed on the same foundation. There is an "attic" in this shed, accessed by a ladder. In response to a query re- garding construction of a garage, Mr. Standen stated that he is not considering constructing a garage on the site. · Collette Standen was sworn in. Ms. Standen stated she supported Ms. Vuksic's request for the second shed. Ms. Standen commented that not all tenants are "neat and tidy", but that Ms. Vuksic takes good care of the property, and the shed is a nice, modern structure, and a nice addition to the neighborhood. Ms. Cohn commented that when the "temporary" structure is removed, there will be dead grass under the shed. Ms. Standen responded that grass seed can always be sown on the site. Mr. Clayton then called for opponents to present their case. Eva Eisenberg, 4950 South Galapago, was sworn in. Ms. Eisenberg stated that she raised the question about adequacy of the wording on the sign posting the property. Ms. Eisenberg dis- cussed her contacts with staff regarding the wording on the posted sign, and to clarify wording • for the petition she circulated in opposition. Ms. Eisenberg stated that she spoke to an "advisor" 6 • and questioned the right wording for the variance notice. She stated she should have contacted an attorney, as advised. Ms. Eisenberg stated that she is aware there are proposed amend- ments before the City Council which will impact the size of sheds and accessory structures. Ms. Eisenberg stated that the applicant is asking to keep a second shed, which is oversized. She stated that she did not know that tenants or renters could ask for variances, and that it seems strange to her that tenants have that right. Ms. Eisenberg stated that the shed is a "regular tin shed", set back from Chenango. There is no shrubbery to shield the view of this shed, and it's almost touching a utility pole, which she does not think should be allowed be- cause of fire hazards. Ms. Eisenberg stated that "she knew there was no storage when she rented the place". Ms. Eisenberg acknowledged that she is "busy" in her neighborhood, and she is trying to "preserve the R-1-A District;" that she wouldn't be satisfied unless she tried to maintain the best in Englewood. Ms. Eisenberg stated that she objects to two sheds on a prop- erty, and to oversized sheds. Ms. Eisenberg presented a petition in opposition, Exhibit #7, to the Board for their perusal. This petition was signed by 22 people, representing 16 properties. Mr. Smith inquired whether Ms . Eisenberg had any sheds on her property. Ms. Eisenberg responded there is one 100 sq. ft. shed. Ms. Eisenberg stated that she didn't know of any oth- ers in the area that aren't in compliance. Ms. Eisenberg asked whether she would be allowed to read the letters submitted by the applicant. Ms. Eisenberg was informed that she does have that right, and could read them now if she so wanted. Mr. Buckholtz asked whether Ms. Eisenberg's home had a basement and/or a garage. Mr. Clayton stated he did not feel that was an appropriate question, and comments should be re- stricted to the property of the applicant. Mr. Buckholtz stated that the question was posed in the context of addressing deficiencies in the applicane s property as compared to other neigh- borhood properties. He expressed the opinion that it is proper to determine if other properties have storage capability, and whether it is a case of the "haves" denying the "have-nots". Mr. Buckholtz stated that the applicant's property cannot be considered in a "vacuum '', and the Board must determine whether granting the variance will do violence to the neighborhood. Mr. Welker stated that he would like to hear Ms. Eisenberg's response to Mr. Buckholtz' question . Discussion ensued. . I Welker moved: Seymour seconded: Ms. Eisenberg be asked to enumerate storage provisions on her property, i.e., does she have a garage, basement, storage shed, to provide storage. The motion carried, with Mr. Clayton voting in opposition. The Secretary was asked to restate the motion for Ms. Eisenberg. Ms. Eisenberg responded that her property has a two-car tandem garage, a 2/3 basement in the house , a crawl space, and the aforementioned 100 square foot shed. 7 Mr. Clayton asked whether other people Ms. Eisenberg asked to sign the petition in opposition had garages, basements, etc. on their property. Ms. Eisenberg responded that some do; the majority are older homes, and some don't have basements but do have storage sheds. Mr. Clayton asked whether the City had further comments regarding the request. Mr. Stitt responded negatively. Ms. Cohn asked for delineation of the R-1-A Zone District Boundaries. Mr. Stitt indicated the boundaries on the zoning map on the wall of the Council Chambers. He further commented that the provisions governing sheds are the same throughout the single-family zone districts. Mr. Clayton asked if R-1-A is the most restrictive zoning in Englewood. Mr. Stitt stated in that R-1-A does not allow Home Occupations, it is restrictive; it also requires larger lot and house size. Ms. Christman asked of Ms. Vuksic what she would do if the variance was to be denied. Ms. Vuksic responded that she would have to try to break her lease, relocate, and would end up losing money. Ms. Vuksic commented that she had cared for her mother the last three years preceding her death, and all of her personal possessions had been in paid storage during that time. Mr. Buckholtz summarized that testimony has established that the subject property does not provide storage within the confines of the building envelope, and there is need for storage space. The garage was converted to living space a number of years ago , and the property owner is not interested in constructing a garage on the site at this time . Mr. Buckholtz dis- cussed the 100 square foot restriction on storage shed size, noting that opponent Eisenberg has acknowledged that some of the people she contacted have storage sheds larger than the 100 square foot maximum cited in the ordinance. Mr. Buckholtz addressed the number of proper- ties that have more than one shed: are these grandfathered in, bootlegged in, or allowed by variance. He noted that this really doesn't matter; what does matter is that there are number of residences that have storage outside the confines of the main structure in excess of the 100 square foot maximum shed size. He acknowledged that there is, on the subject property, a 90 square foot structure which may be called a "shed", but could also be called a "play house", or a "doll house", and doesn't provide adequate storage. The new shed erected by Ms. Vuksic is an attractive storage shed, and the square footage of this structure, when added to the existing 90 square feet of the existing older shed, will provide 130 square feet of storage in excess of that allowed by the Ordinanee. Mr. Buckholtz stated that Ms. Vuksic's rental is a corner lot, so the shed may be more visible than if it were located on an interior lot. Mr. Buckholtz stated that the request for the second shed is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, is consistent with the sheds on other properties in the neighborhood, will not adversely impact the adjacent properties or the neighborhood, and no objections were filed from the "adjacent" property own- ers. Mr. Buckholtz emphasized that this is a request for a "temporary" variance, and the shed will be removed when Ms. Vuksic relocates from the property. The granting of this variance will provide the minimum relief requested by Ms. Vuksic, with the minimum modification to the intent of the Ordinance. The requested variance is reasonable, and should be granted. 8 • • • Ms. Eisenberg again addressed the Board, and stated that when she circulates a petition, she "tells i t as she sees it", and whoever she has contacted can sign the petition or not. She indi- cated that she had two refusals on this latest petition she circulated. Ms. Eisenberg further commented that she does not pass on what anyone may tell her in the course of conversation. Mr. Clayton asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. No one else indicated a desire to address the Board, and Mr. Clayton declared the Public Hearing closed. Board members discussed the requested variance. Seymour moved: Smith seconded: Applicant Mary Vuksic, 4905 South Galapago Street, be granted a "temporary variance" to maintain a second storage shed, not to exceed 10' x 14', which shed exceeds the allowable maximum floor area for sheds. The "temporary variance" is to coincide with the dates of her lease to rent the subject property, and will be for the remainder of the first year lease , and may be renewed a maximum of three times . This variance is from § 16-4-2:M 2 b of the Englewood Municipal Code. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Seymour commented that while he discounted the importance of the pictures presented by the applicant, he does support the need for a reasonable amount of storage space as evidenced by Ms. Vuksic's testimony . Ms. Cohn expressed concern about safety factors if the shed is, indeed, too close to a utility pole. The shed should be relocated to meet the minimum setbacks. Mr. Smith pointed out that the variance request does not address a variance for setback prov isions or location , only allowance of the shed; either the applicant will have to pursue a second variance, or take steps to relocate the shed to meet the minimum setback requirements. Mr. Welker agreed there are requirements on the placement of the shed that are not being addressed through the current variance. request. Members of the Board re- viewed the documentation presented by the applicant, and by the opponent. Including the property owner of the subject site, s ~x properties in the 4900 block of South Galapago are in favor of allowing the second shed, and five properties in the 4900 block of South Galapago are opposed to the second shed. Mr. Clayton questioned "how much storage space is enough", and noted that there was, at one time, a garage on the site which has now been converted to living space. Ms. Cohn commented that it is unusual to have a three bedroom house with no base- ment and no garage, and only 90 sq. ft. of storage space. Mr. Smith stated that preliminary calculations indicate tha d with allowance of the second shed, there will still be only 16% to 17% lot coverage. Mr. Welker commented on the need to consider what people do when they "overflow" the house they live in --many people stack items on the porch, or stack it in cor- ners of the yard and eventually fill the yard up with garbage. Mr. Smith stated that the pic- tures presented by the applicant do show a lot of properties that have more than one shed, and also show properties that need to have a shed. Mr. Welker further commented that he drove through this neighborhood, and he canno t disagree with anything the applicant brought up . The votes were locked in. Members were polled: 9 Mr. Seymour said he voted yes, citing support from the neighborhood. He stated he person- ally does not like the appearance of the shed, but Ms. Vuksic has cleaned up the property, and the variance is a "temporary" solution during the length of her tenancy. Ms. Christman stated she voted yes; she feels the applicant did address and meet the five cri- teria. The variance is "temporary" for the duration of Ms. Vuksic's tenancy, and Ms. Vuksic does not have the option of construction of a garage as a property owner would. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes, stating he feels this is an exceptional situation, and the lot cov- erage, including the second shed, will not exceed 20%. Mr. Smith stated that granting the variance will adhere to the spirit of the ordinance, will contribute to the public safety by keeping tools and equipment enclosed; the request is not inconsistent with uses of surrounding property, will not adversely impact or impair the adjacent properties, and the request is for a "temporary " shed. Ms. Cohn stated that she voted yes. Ms. Cohn stated that the variance request did address the five criteria , and pointed out there may need to be some modification of the shed location to properly meet the setback requirements. Ms. Cohn further commented that she wanted to thank everyone who participated in this public hearing process, and to Ms. Eisenberg for her efforts to monitor what happens in her neighborhood. Mr. Welker stated he voted yes. He concurs with reasons cited by other members of the Board. A property owner would have options available to address a storage shortage that a tenant does not have; the approval of a "temporary" shed will assure the neighborhood of its even tu al removal. Mr. Clayton stated he voted yes. He stated he feels there is an extraordinary situation on this piece of property; the tenant is not able to modify the property to meet her needs, and is re- questing the second shed only for the duration of her tenancy. He is of the opinion the tempo- rary variance is an appropriate solution to the problem. Mr. Clayton stated that he is con- cerned the Douglas Fir foundation · will not withstand the possible four year period for the shed. He also agreed there will probably be some need to modify the location of the shed to meet the setback requirements at the time of permitting. The variance will not impact the ad- jacent properties, and Mr. Clayton stated he is impressed with Ms. Vuksic 's interest in keeping the property clean and clutter-free. Mr. Clayton stated that this is the minimum variance to provide the requested rel~ef. Mr. Clayton also thanked members of the audience for their par- ticipation in the Public Hearing. The votes were displayed. Six members voted in the affirmative, no votes · in opposition. Vice Chair Clayton ruled the variance granted, and advised applicant Vuksic to contact the City to obtain the proper permits and to determine proper placement of the shed. A short recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. Members present: Seymour, Christman, Smith, Cohn, Welker, Clayton Members absent: None 10 • • • • • IV. PUBLIC HEARING -Case #2-95 Kent Village Association 3400 South Race Street This matter has been postponed unti l February 8 , 1995. V. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt discussed a re-organization of the Department of Community Development, which has resulted in the reassignment of personnel, and severely curtails delivery service for Board notebooks. Mr. Stitt suggested that Board members take their notebooks home; staff will mail the information for subsequent meetings to the members, who will be responsible to place the information in their notebooks for reference during the meeting. Mr. Stitt suggested that members may have the option to come by the City Hall to pick up their notebook if that is their choice. Discussion ensued . Mr. Stitt stated he understood Ms. Cohn has chosen not to apply for reappointment to the board, but that Mr. Welker and Mr. Seymour have applied for reappointment. Mr. Stitt stated that it has been a pleasure to work with Ms. Cohn, and wished Mr. Seymour and Mr. Welker good luck in their interviews with City Council. There is only one item on the agenda for the February 8th meeting, that being the variance re- quested by the Kent Village Association. VI. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Mr. Brotzman discussed changes in the Building Code regarding the authority granted to the Chief Building Officer, and a possible conflict with provisions in the Englewood Municipal Code, §8-1. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith requested copies of the new Building Code be included in the February packet for Board members. Mr. Brotzman stated tha tl the City Council will hold a Public Hearing on January 16 regarding the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory struc- tures . The meeting will begin at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE. Ms. Cohn inquired about the status of the BOA Handbook. She asked whether it would be appropriate to vote on approval and publication at this time, even though it is not on the agenda . Mr. Stitt stated that the Handbook is substantially complete, and it is only a matter of doing the appendices and publishing. 11 Cohn moved: Clayton seconded: The Board of Adjustment Handbook be approved and published. The motion carried. Ms. Cohn stated that this is her last meeting as a Board member; she stated that the Municipal Court is developing a "teen court", and she hopes to become very involved wi th this program. Ms. Cohn stated that she has enjoyed her service on the Board, and expressed her appreciation to Board members and staff for their service. Mr. Seymour stated that if he is not reappointed to the Board, he has enjoyed his past 20 years of service on the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:45 P .M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary ---- 12 • •