HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-09 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
August 9, 2000
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to
order at 7:45 P.M. i n the Englewood City Council Chambers, Vice Chair Rasby presiding.
Members present: Bode Ce nte re d meeting at a pm), Carlston, O'B r ien, Rasby, Seymour, and
Smith
Members absent: Davidson
Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney
Tricia Langon, Planner
Haro ld Stitt, Senior Planner
Robert Simpson , Director of Community Development
Guest: Don Elliott, Clar ion Associates
Vice Chair Rasby stated that there were five members present; therefore, four
affirmative votes are required to grant a variance. Vice Cha i r Rasby sta t ed that t he
Board of Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to grant variances by Part III, Section
60 of the Englewood City Charter .
Vice Chair Rasby set forth parameters for conduct of hearings: The Vice Chair w i ll
introduce the case; applicants will present their request and reasons the variance
should be granted; proponents will be g iven an opportunity to speak; opponents will
address the Board; and then staff will address the Board.
Vice Chair Rasby stated that staff wished to address the Board. Ms. Langon stated that
Ms. Reid indicated to her that due to a publicat ion error in Case #14-2000 the Board
needs to make a determination as to whether the information wh ich was omitted in the
publication is material information. If the Board makes such a determination, the case
will need to be reposted and republished. If the Board determines it is not material
information, the case can proceed. Ms. Langon stated that the information omitted
was the property address. Ms. Langon also stated that in the same publication there
was an error in the Code citation; a letter was omitted.
Ms. O'Br ien asked if any address was contained i n the publ ication. Ms. Langon
responded that in this particular case the newspaper omitted the address.
1
Mr. Smith moved;
Mr. Seymour seconded:
THAT CASE #14-2000 BE CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 TO ALLOW
FOR PROPER PUBLICATION AND POSTING.
Motion carried. The Vice Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote.
Chair Bode entered the meeting and assumed his position as Chair. Chair Bode stated
that six members were now present; therefore, five affirmative votes were needed to
grant or deny a variance.
II. CASE #10-2000
Charles L. Willingham
4233 South Sherman Street
Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and
publication. He also stated that the case was continued from July 12, 2000. He
introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-4:M.3.b to exceed the
maximum total floor area of 200 square feet for other accessory structures by 40
square feet, and a variance from Section 16-4-4:M.3.c to exceed the maximum height
•
of 12 feet for other accessory structures by 3 feet. •
Charles and Barbara Willingham, 4233 South Sherman Street, were sworn in. Ms.
Willingham stated that they are attempting to place a workshop in their backyard.
Since the size is limited is 200 square feet, they wish to add an additional 40 feet to
make the workshop 12' x 20' rather than 10' x 20'. She stated that they didn't want a
garage because accessing it off of the alley would be a hassle. She testified that they
are requesting the building to be higher than the allowable height. In the staff report,
there was an error. The report states that the building would be an additional 9 feet
higher. She clarified that it would only be 3 additional feet. The top of the structure
would be used for storage since they do not have a garage or a basement. The
proposed building is "barn" style with a high roof and 8 foot sidewalls.
Mr. Seymour asked the applicants to explain the type of workshop they are proposing.
Mr. Willingham responded that it would be for home projects. His father gave him
some woodworking tools, and he wanted to store those in the workshop and use them
to work on small projects. Mr. Seymour asked for the size of his machines. Mr.
Willingham stated that he has a Delta table saw with a one horsepower motor; it is
approximately 25 years old. He stated he 'also has a band saw with a one horsepower
motor, a small drill press, and various hand tools. Mr. Seymour asked if there would be
any excess noise. Mr. and Mrs. Willingham both stated that there shouldn't be any
unusual amount of noise. Mrs. Willingham stated there would be one door on the •
structure which would face their house. Mr. Seymour confirmed that the workshop
2
•
•
•
would not be obnoxious to their neighbors in any way. Mr. and Mrs. Willingham
responded that it would not.
Mr. Smith stated that the paperwork submitted indicates a number of options for height.
Mrs. Willingham stated that they would not be able to add 8-foot sidewalls with those
options. Mr. Willingham stated that before they were aware they would need a
variance, they asked the manufacturer for 8-foot sidewalls. Mr. Smith asked if they had
already purchased the structure. The applicants responded they had not; they only put
a deposit down. When they went to obtain the permit, they learned they would need a
variance. Mr. Smith asked why they didn't change the size of the shed rather than
asking for the variance. Mr. Willingham stated they wanted something bigger.
There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Bode
incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing.
Mr. Seymour moved;
Mr. Smith seconded:
THAT CASE #10-2000, 4233 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, BE GRANTED A
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:M.3.b TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL
FLOOR AREA OF 200 SQUARE FEET FOR OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BY
40 FEET AND FROM SECTION 16-4-4:M.3.c TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF 12 FEET FOR OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BY 3 FEET.
Mr. Smith moved;
Ms. O'Brien seconded:
TO DIVIDE THE MOTION INTO TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.
Motion carried.
Mr. Smith moved;
Ms . O'Brien seconded:
THAT CASE #10-2000, 4233 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, BE GRANTED A
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:M.3.b TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL
FLOOR AREA OF 200 SQUARE FEET FOR OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BY
40 FEET.
Mr. Smith stated that he understands the 40 foot increase in size, but increasing the
height "just because" does not meet the criteria. Mr. Smith stated that it is not a
dramatic increase in size and will not have a large impact on the neighbors. Mr .
Seymour stated that it is a 20 percent increase. Mr. Seymour stated that the width of
the structure is the problem. Ms. O'Brien stated that if the Board grants them the extra
3
square footage, they don't need the extra height. Mr. Seymour stated that if he wants •
a workshop, 10 feet wide is not wide enough; 20 feet is long enough.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes." It meets the spirit of the Ordinance. Although there
are no exceptional circumstances on the lot, the size of the shed is not unusual. It
observes the spirit of the Ordinance because it will provide a place to do his
woodworking and to store his materials out of the weather. It will not adversely affect
the adjacent property or neighborhood since it is already developed, and there are a
number of sheds in the neighborhood. It will not substantially or permanently impair
the development of adjacent property because it is already developed and the
neighbors do not have a problem with the variance. It may not be the minimum
variance, but it appears to be a standard size which makes it the least modification the
Board can grant.
Ms. O'Br ien, Mr. Rasby, Ms. Carlston, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes ",
concurring with Mr. Smith.
Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes." The applicant needs the additional space for a
workshop. It will not be that noticeable.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith
None
None
Davidson
The Chair announced the case approved by a 6-0 vote.
Mr. Smith moved;
Ms. O'Brien seconded:
THAT CASE #10-2000, 4233 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, BE GRANTED A
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:M.3.c TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF
12 FEET FOR OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BY 3 FEET.
Mr. Smith stated that height limitations are for sun, visibility, and skyline of
neighborhood. He didn't hear any justification for granting this request. If they choose
the 6.5 foot walls, the applicants would only need to exceed the height by 10 inches.
Ten inches would not bother him, but 3 feet does. There are numerous other options
that fit within the ordinance. He suggested they could also dig a three foot hole.
•
Ms. O'Brien asked if they could amend the motion to allow the 10 inches. Ms. Reid •
stated they have specifically requested a variance of 3 feet. The Board can make a
4
• motion that gives them the variance conditioned upon it being a certain number of feet
or inches. Discussion ensued.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Carlston and Seymour
Rasby, O'Brien, Smith, and Chair Bode
None
Davidson
The Chair announced the motion denied by a 2-4 vote.
Ms. O'Brien moved;
Mr. Rasby seconded:
THAT CASE #10-2000, 4233 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, BE GRANTED A
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4 :M.3.c TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF
12 FEET FOR OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BY 1 FOOT.
Mr. Rasby stated that one foot would not be noticeable.
• With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes.
•
Mr. Smith stated he voted "no." There are no exceptional circumstances. It does not
observe the spirit of the Ordinance. It adversely affects the adjacent property because
it will exceed the height by 1 foot. It will not impair the appropriate use or
development of adjacent properties because it is already developed. It is not the
minimum variance.
Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "yes." The first criterion is met by the strict application of
the regulation would result in a particular and undue hardship for the property owners .
They want to make a workshop and need a certain amount of height to work i n it
adequately. It will observe the spirit of the Ordinance and will not have any affect on
the public safety and welfare. It will achieve substantial justice. The var iance will not
adversely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood as is demonstrated by the
fact that the property is currently developed and neighbor statements have been
submitted supporting the application. With respect to the fourth criteria, Ms. O'Brien
stated that it will not i mpair the appropriate use or development of the adjacent
property. The variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief with the least
modification possible to the Ordinance considering the Tuff Shed plans they have
submitted and not requiring them to dig a hole and install a sump pump .
Mr. Rasby, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Carlston, and Chair Bode voted "yes", concurring with Ms.
O'Brien.
5
AYES:
NAYS:
Bode, Carlston, Rasby, O'Brien and Seymour
Smith
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Davidson
The Chair announced the motion granted by a 5-1 vote.
III. CASE #15-2000
William Chandler
4188 South Logan Street
Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and
publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-
4:M.3.b, Maximum Total Floor Area for Other Accessory Structures, to exceed the
maximum floor area of 200 square feet by 164 square feet.
William Chandler, 4188 South Logan Street, was sworn in. Mr. Chandler stated he
needed a garage for his new truck. The current building was converted from a chicken
shed to a billiard room. The neighbors like to come over and play pool. According to
the City, two off-street parking spaces are needed. The garage will provide those
spaces. Everything in the neighborhood has been developed and the neighbors have
no complaints. The south neighbor 's garage is 12 feet in height. He testified he
wanted to construct a standard size garage.
Mr. Seymour clarified that the Board is being asked to "correct" the billiard room. Mr.
Chandler stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour asked the size of the pool table. Mr .
Chandler stated that he has a small bar table, approximately 4' x 6'. Mr. Seymour
asked if he knew what his lot coverage would be with the garage. Mr. Chandler stated
it would be 44 feet from the edge of the garage to the back of the house. The house is
approximately 696 square feet. The garage will also be used for storage.
There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Bode
incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing.
Mr. Seymour moved;
Mr. Smith seconded:
THAT CASE #15-2000, 4188 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE
FROM SECTION 16-4-4:M.3.b, MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA FOR OTHER
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 200
SQUARE FEET BY 164 SQUARE FEET.
6
•
•
•
Mr. Seymour stated the property has a nice backyard, and the garage will diminish that.
Ms. Carlston stated that the neighbors don't have a problem with the variance. Mr.
Smith stated that a few problems can be solved with the variance. Two off-street
parking spaces will be provided and the accessory structure will be brought into
compliance. A two-car garage in this case is less of a problem than in other cases the
Board has heard. There appears to be adequate room to maneuver, and it fits within
the lot. It appears he is allowed approximately 1,350 square feet of lot coverage, and
his lot coverage will only be 892 square feet.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
Mr. Smith voted "yes." The exceptional circumstance is that there is no garage, and the
garage will provide off-street parking. It observes the spirit of the Ordinance and
promotes public safety and welfare because it will get cars off the street. It will not
adversely affect the adjacent property and neighborhood because they have garages
and the neighbors do not object. It will not substantially or permanently impair the
appropriate use or development of the adjacent property since it is already developed.
It is the minimum variance necessary to afford the applicant relief. A 22' x 24' garage is
the minimum garage size to make it usable.
Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Rasby, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Carlston voted "yes", concurring with Mr.
• Smith.
•
Chair Bode voted "no." It does not meet the fifth criterion.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith
Bode
None
Davidson
The Chair announced the variance approved by a 5-1 vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the July 12, 2000 public
hearing.
Mr. Smith moved,
Mr. Seymour seconded:
THE MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2000 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN .
AYES:
NAYS:
Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith
None
7
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Davidson
The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved.
V. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT
Mr. Smith moved;
Mr. Seymour seconded:
THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #11-2000, STEVE LAMMERMANN, 2730
SOUTH OGDEN STREET, AND CASE #12-2000, SHARON HEIDEMAN, 4428
SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith
None.
None.
Davidson
The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved.
VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE DISCUSSION
Ms. Langon stated that staff is working on a Unified Development Code, which is the
rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance and the related development codes that correspond
with the Ordinance. Don Elliott from Clarion Associates is present to gather the Board's
input. She asked the Board to express any concerns regarding the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Elliott will explain the project and provide the Board with background and the time
frame.
Mr. Elliott stated he was last before the Board regarding the group home case. A case
which dramatically illustrates the difficulties of dealing with a Code when it is not up-to-
date and does not have good definitions and criteria. Clarion Associates was hired to
integrate and revise the Code. He stated he would outline the terms of their contract
and the timeline for the work. The City has contracted to do the project in two parts.
Phase I would be done between now and the end of the year. This would involve a
reorganization of the existing material. Mr. Elliott stated that Clarion Associates is
confident that the material will be reorganized and clearer for the Board to understand.
Mr. Elliott continued; During Phase II, the substantive changes will be made. Between
now and December, he will collect information from the Board, staff, and Planning
Commission. Drafts will be prepared with substantive changes in response to the
•
•
information gathered. After it is completed, it will then go through the adoption process •
by City Council.
8
Mr. Elliott stated that Phase I is the non-exciting part of the process, but the Board
should like the end result. There are currently four Ordinances that are not integrated
in the electronic version of the Code. Clarion Associates will integrate those
Ordinances.
Mr. Elliott stated that Englewood is a mature city. Englewood has some annexation
potential, but essentially Englewood will be involved in the business of redevelopment.
Very few Codes were written to promote good redevelopment. Most Codes were
written when cities were annexing, re-subdividing, or adding additional zoning districts.
He stated that Clarion Associates has rewritten the Code for Detroit and Nashville
making them more friendly towards redevelopment.
Mr. Elliott continued; A Santa Fe Corridor Overlay District is being drafted for
consideration by another firm. A site planning process has been requested. A
variety of federal acts affect what local governments can do. Those limitations and
conditions need to be integrated into the Code. Clarion has also been asked to draft
more objective standards for review and approval. Mr. Elliott stated that he was very
interested in hearing if the Board thinks the current standards are correct and
adequate. If the Board is routinely approached with the same type of variances and
have developed a course of action of practice in those cases, those need to be
• addressed in the Code.
•
Several people have mentioned the importance of encouraging reinvestment in houses.
Englewood is a mature city and will face the same issues as Denver, Lakewood, and
Aurora face. People with either be able to reinvest in their houses, which often means
making them larger, or they will leave the city and move where they can have larger
houses. The City of Denver has most notably dealt with this issue by the "pop tops"
and "scrape offs." Housing reinvestment is a line drawing issue. If citizens are allowed
to build houses or accessory structures that are too big, the neighbors will legitimately
complain. On the other hand if you "hamstring" them, the City runs the risk of them
selling their homes and moving to another city. Mr. Elliott welcomed the Board's
thoughts on that issue.
Another major theme that he has been asked to address is mixed-use zones, not only
along the light rail corridor but in other parts of the city. He asked the Board to
consider what design standards, if any, it would like to have for commercial, industrial,
and mixed-used development.
Finally, Mr. Elliott stated that another substantive change would be definitions. He
asked the Board for particular terms it would like to see defined within the Code .
Mr. Smith stated that the Board previously received case summaries and asked that Mr.
Elliott review those. He also requested that staff provide the Board with case
9
summaries for years 1998 and 1999. He also requested a partial summary for 2000.
The recording secretary responded that she would prepare those summaries and mail
them to the Board. In reviewing the summaries for 1994-1997, Mr. Smith stated that
the Board dealt with 17 cases regarding setbacks, 7 cases with square footage of
buildings, and 4 cases addressing lot area - 2 of those cases were substandard lots.
Mr. Smith also stated there appeared to be 6 cases regarding fences, but that issue
seems to have been taken care of with the new Fence Ordinance. The large majority of
the cases are setbacks, and Mr. Smith stated he didn 't know whether or not there was a
solution that could be built into the Zoning Code. He agreed that Englewood is a
mature city. Perhaps the standards need to be different for individuals trying to
improve their own property than for developers. The two issues he would like to see
addressed are setbacks and the size of the buildings.
From an organizational setup, Mr. Smith stated that he would like City Council to
appoint alternates to the Board. It does not appear that there is a prohibition on having
alternates. It creates a hardship for the applicant if there aren't seven members
present for voting. Mr. Smith also asked Mr. Elliott to investigate shortening the
publication and notice requirements. On those occasions when there are urgent cases ,
the Board could start and finish in less than 30 days. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Reid if that
was the approximate time period currently required. Ms. Reid responded that the
property must be posted for 15 days and published 10 days prior to the hearing. The
problem the Board faces is that Englewood has a weekly newspaper, rather than a
daily, for publication. There is an extra 10 days of lag time to get it published.
Ms. O'Brien stated she would like to encourage citizens to enlarge their houses w ithin
reasonable limits. There should be significant standards on the materials used so the
City doesn't end up with ugly residential areas. Also, the Board, at times, has to be
creative to justify the five criteria to see that justice is done and to allow citizens to
reasonably accomplish their plans that don't fit within the current standards. Ms.
O'Brien asked Mr. Elliott to develop reasonable standards .
Mr. Smith stated that the current standards are negative. There is nothing in the
criteria that allows the Board to grant a variance because it will make the neighborhood
better.
Mr. Elliott suggested addressing incentives. In a redevelopment scenario, it is good to
consider what can be offered in way of flexibility or incentives.
Mr. Rasby stated one area he would like to see addressed is enforcement and adequate
enforcement staff. He agreed that the ideas presented have been valuable.
Chair Bode asked Mr. Seymour if he had anything to add. Mr. Seymour stated that he
went off on a "rabbit trail" when Mr. Elliott started talking about how great he was. Mr.
Seymour wanted to know who thought Mr. Elliott was so great.
10
•
•
Mr. Elliott responded that he didn't recall that statement but if Mr. Seymour wished to
point out what he said, he would be more than happy to explain.
Mr. Simpson responded; As ma ny of you know, staff has wanted to revise and update
some of the Development Codes for some time. He determined it was not possible to
accomplish those revisions internally. He believes Clarion is an excellent company to
provide those services. Clarion has done numerous development codes across the
country, their credentials are very good, and they also have demonstrated a good ability
to work with the City. Staff has required Clarion to interview boards and commissions
to gather their input.
Mr. Seymour asked what it was costing him as a taxpayer and whether hiring Mr. Elliott
was a more efficient spending of his dollar rather than increasing staff to do the job.
Mr. Seymour stated that he has seen volunteers do this type of work in the past. No
one was hired for the Sign Code, and now it is to "hell in a hand basket."
Mr. Simpson stated he appreciated the request as to whether hiring Clarion was an
efficient use of money. Mr. Simpson stated he believes it is; he uses City resources in a
very efficient and effective manner. Staff has tried to work on development code
revisions for the past five years. It has had a tendency to be placed into a lower
priority because of the development pressures that have been hitting the Community
Development Department. It was felt that hiring Clarion was an effective method of
putting the issue back on the table in a fast manner. He believes that this will be a
more efficient use of taxpayers' dollars in the future.
Mr. Seymour stated that was a better explanation than just dropping Mr. Elliott on him
cold with his own "brass band." Mr. Simpson apologized for not providing enough
background. Staff believes that development regulations within the City is a very
important issue. Even with Clarion's assistance, it will take 18 months to revise the
Code. Mr. Seymour clarified that he doesn't appreciate "outside paid help." He prefers
staff or citizens.
Mr. Simpson stated that method was tried for five years. Staff continues to do many
Ordinance revisions in-house.
Ms. Carlston stated that she would like to see clearer definitions.
Chair Bode stated that he had three concerns. First, he would like to have a clearer
definition of a home office and what is permitted as home occupations. Mr. Simpson
asked Chair Bode to clarify whether he wanted more or less home occupations. Chair
Bode stated he was a "computer person", but he didn't want four people working at his
• house or at his neighbor's house.
11
Secondly, Chair Bode stated he was extremely worried about redevelopment. He stated
that he grew up in the eastern part of the country. Cities there would build a lot of
buildings and after redevelopment there was revitalization, which was tearing down the
buildings from the redevelopment phase. Chair Bode stated that City staff and
consultants are hired so that areas are better planned out and don't have to be
continually redeveloped or revitalized. Chair Bode stated that he is also concerned
about height restrictions in residential districts. Chair Bode stated that when he looks
outside he wants to see the mountains, not the lady next store feeding her cat. Mr.
Simpson clarified that Chair Bode was in favor of maintaining residential height
restrictions. Chair Bode responded that was correct. Chair Bode also stated that he
didn't know which was the worse of two evils -allowing citizens to build whatever they
want or having them move out of the city. He continued; a 2 112 story house in the
center of a residential neighborhood sticks out like a sore thumb. It is no longer a
neighborhood. He reiterated that his main concern was redevelopment.
Mr. Elliott stated that when he was speaking of redevelopment he did not mean to
imply publicly financed projects such as urban renewal. He was trying to emphasize
that the City needs correct incentives so that individual property owners are encouraged
to reinvest in their properties as opposed to moving out of Englewood. Chair Bode
stated that what scares him the most about redevelopment is that most people want to
make the City responsible . City Council wants to make something happen yesterday. It
is a matter of being a politician.
Ms. O'Brien stated that she does not like what is happening in Observatory Park in
Denver with the scrape offs and pop tops; it is all building and no land.
VII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Simpson apologized for changing the format of the Board's staff report. It was bad
communication problem on the part of staff, and it won't happen again. Staff had some
issues on how to provide the Board with better information. Obviously, it went in the
wrong direction. Mr. Simpson took full responsibility for the decision and once again
apologized to the Board. Under departmental comments, there will now be a section
for Community Development staff to provide input. He assured the Board that he
would communicate better with them in the future.
Mr. Smith stated that he made comments at the last meeting that he was extremely
upset with the changes. He clarified that he was not angry with Ms. Newman or Ms.
Fenton; he was angry with Mr. Simpson. His comments were solely directed at Mr.
Simpson.
Ms. O'Brien stated that Ms. Newman, with more experience, may be able to impart
•
•
information to the Board in a more "palatable" form. Mr. Simpson stated that he would •
12
•
•
•
have a senior staff member present at all future Board meetings. He works to train his
staff at all different levels and believes it is helpful that junior staff have an opportunity
to address Boards and Commiss ions. Ms. O'Brien stated that she liked seeing the
comments from the Community Development staff.
Mr. Seymour stated he had no ob j ections to staff's comments, but he objects to staff
making any type of recommendation. Mr. Seymour stated he liked the "pros and cons"
in the staff report. He stated that it appears staff tries too hard. He suggested that
staff not try to "invent" pros and cons.
Mr. Smith agreed; "none identified" is an appropriate comment if there is neither a pro
nor a con. He likes to hear the professionals' analysis of the pros and cons. Chair
Bode agreed.
Mr. Simpson thanked the Board fo r their comments and contributions. He expressed
his appreciat ion to the Board for the work they do.
Mr. Simpson stated that the height of the dais has been lowered. Additionally, the
audiovisual equipment is still being worked on. It is working much better, but the
sound system still needs some "tweaking." A voter board is on order and will be
installed within 30 days. The Board will then be able to register its votes publicly .
Further, the City closed with Miller Weingarten, and they will be proceeding with retail
development on the CityCenter property. Trammell Crow will be sta rt ing construction
on their residential and retail portion of the project in October. Wal-Mart will be
opening in mid-September.
Finally, Mr. Simpson invited the Board to attend the CityCenter Englewood celebration
on August 26 at 5:00 p.m. It is a combination event between the City and the Museum
of Outdoor Arts. Mr. Seymour asked if that was the event applying for the liquor
license. Mr. Simpson responded it was not. The City is hosting the opening reception
for the Railvolution Conference in October. The conference is for people from all over
the United States who have an interest in transit development. The CityCenter
Englewood site is being recognized nationally as an exciting transit village.
Mr. Stitt stated that the Board granted a variance a few months ago to the Olsons at
4710 South Fox Street. They requested a couple of variances to encroach into the side
yard setbacks with an addition. The existing wall was at a point of 2.3 feet from the
property line. The Board conditioned the variance on the existing wall being retained.
It has now been determined that there is no foundation under that wall. The wall itself
was sitting on the ground, and the floor in the structure was sitting on pallets. The
applicant was issued a stop work order because the wall was taken down and replaced .
The variance condition was that the wall had to be maintained in order for the variance
to be granted. The applicant has requested consideration by the Board, and Mr. Stitt
13
stated it was his opinion that the only action the Board can take is to invite him back
next month to consider the variance. The Board could, however, determine that due to
the circumstances of the lack of a foundation, the applicant met the spirit of the
variance.
Mr. Smith stated he would defer to the City Attorney, but it appeared the applicant
would need to appeal the stop work order. Ms. Reid stated that he could request an
appeal or apply for a modification to the variance. Ms. Reid stated he would really have
no basis to appeal. She stated the best course of action would be for Mr. Olson to
apply for a modification to the previous variance.
Mr. Stitt stated it was Case #7-2000 and was heard at the May hearing. Mr. Stitt stated
Mr. Olson would not be able to continue working until the Board hears the request at
the September meeting. Mr. Seymour stated that puts a hardship on the property
owner. The applicant didn't try to deceive anybody. Ms. O'Brien stated she doesn't
believe it complies with the spirit of the variance. She recalled that it was determined
that if the wall came down the owner could change the footprint of the house.
Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid interjected that the matter needs to be discussed at a
public hearing. Mr. Smith stated that after looking at the minutes, the Board made it
clear that the South wall not be torn down because he was asking for a variance for a
remodel not a scrape off. He wouldn't have needed the variance for a scrape off. The
•
variance was granted only because it would be a hardship to tear the entire structure •
down.
VII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further.
IX. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE
The Board stated they had nothing further.
There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared
adjourned at 9: 15 .m.
\ /)fL0. ;J"!ib~
Nancy Fe on, Recording Secretary
14