Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS September 13, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:40 P.M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Bode presiding. Members present: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, and Seymour Members absent: Rasby and Smith Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Tricia Langon, Planner Kate Newman, Planning Technician Robert Simpson , Director of Community Development Chair Bode stated that there were five members present; therefore, four affirmative votes are required to grant a variance. Chair Bode stated that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to grant variances by Part III, Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Chair Bode set forth parameters for conduct of hearings: The Chair will introduce the case; applicants will present their request and reasons the variance should be granted; proponents will be given an opportunity to speak; opponents will address the Board; and then staff will address the Board. II. CASE #14-2000 Larry Underwood 2250 South Zuni Street and 2377 West Iliff Avenue Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication. He also stated that the case was continued from August 9, 2000. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-5-13:A.2.b, Minimum Front Yard for Residential Corner Lots, to encroach 18 feet into the required 25 foot side yard setback. Larry Underwood, 3033 South Oak Way, Lakewood, Colorado was sworn in. Mr. Underwood stated in order to save t he existing house at 2250 South Zuni Street and ma intain two lots, he wants to subdivide the two properties from east to west. The south lot would be 50 feet wide along Zuni and 120 feet along Iliff. It would create two lots which would conform to street frontage and lot size requirements. This buildable 1 area of the south lot would not be functional. If the structure faced Iliff, the front and • rear setback would be 25 feet. If it faced Zuni, the front setback would be 10 feet. The side setback along Iliff would be 25 feet; the side setback to the north 25 feet; and the rear setback to the east would be 10 feet. This would leave a buildable area of 20 feet x 100 feet, as shown in Figure 2 of the staff report. With regard to the five criteria, Mr. Underwood testified that the present property line is approximately 1 foot from the rear of the existing house, which leaves no backyard. Due to the present configuration, he is not able to develop and sell the two properties separately. The proposed variance would allow these properties to be separated. With respect to the spirit of the ordinance, the variance would allow for the development of single family housing in the area while resubdivision would provide conforming setbacks of the ex isting home. With respect to the third criterion, Mr. Underwood testified that when he bought the property there was an old, two-room, condemned house on the lot. Since that time , he has demolished that building and improved the appearance of the area. He stated that he also restored the existing house. The proposed new housing would also improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The adjacent property is already developed, but new housing would encourage future investment and development. With regard to the least modification, Mr. Underwood testified that proposed setbacks conform to the R2C standards, and he is only requesting that the orientation of the setbacks be changed. • Mr. Underwood submitted neighbors' statements to the Board. Ms. O'Brien asked if Mr. Underwood owned both lots. Mr. Underwood responded that he did. Ms. O'Brien asked what had changed since he bought the lots, and why he didn't know this was a problem when he bought the properties. Mr. Underwood stated he was new to this type of situation. His original plan was to develop the existing house, and change the lot line around because the original lot line runs north to south and runs through the rear part of the existing house. He stated he wants to build a house on the other lot and sell it separately. Ms. Carlston asked when he bought the property. Mr. Underwood replied that he bought the property in the middle of June, and he has been working on the ex isting house for three months. He stated that he has also improved the landscaping on the lot. Ms. O'Brien stated that on West Baltic there are four lots that have been divided north/ south rather than east/west. Ms. O'Brien directed the applicant to Figure 3 in the staff report. Ms. O'Brien asked why he couldn't divide the property in the same manner. Mr. Underwood ask for clarification as to which lots Ms. O'Brien was referring. Ms. O'Brien stated she was referring to Lots 19 and 20. Mr. Underwood replied it has to do with how the existing house is located on the property. The north/south property line on the • 2 • • • existing property runs to the back of the house. Ms. O'Brien asked if staff could clarify the issue. Tricia Langon, Planner, was sworn in. Ms. Langon approached the Board. She referred the Board to the staff report and proceeded to explain how the property was currently configured and how the applicant wished to change the property line . By changing the orientation of the property line, it brings the existing house into conformance with all setbacks and provide the owner with a buildable lot. Ms. Langon clarified that Mr. Underwood can subdivide the property as it currently exists; that is not the issue. The issue is having buildable area that is practical. Ms. Langon stated the existing house is currently five feet from the proposed property line. If the orientation of the property line is not changed, there would be more variances needed to subdivide the property. There would be variances for lot area and setbacks. Ms. O'Brien asked if the property could stay "as is." Ms. Langon stated that was certainly an option -leave it as one big property. Ms. Langon reiterated that the subdivision can occur whether a variance is granted or not. She continued; there are three situations: If no variance is granted, the property can be subdivided which is shown in Figure 1 of the staff report, which provides for no buildab le area. Figure 2 shows the buildable area as 25 feet wide because of the requirement for residential corner lots, rather than the R2C requirements. The configuration shown in Figure 2 can be accomplished without the variance, but it is not practical. Ms. Langon clarified that the applicant's request is shown in Figure 3 with the variance. Mr. Seymour stated that one of the neighbor statements did not have an address. He asked Mr. Underwood if he knew the address of Barb Fitzsimmons. Mr. Underwood stated that she lives next to the property on Iliff. Ms. O'Brien asked if the property had any prior variances. Ms. Langon stated it did not. Ms. O'Brien asked for Community Development's position on the value of having a house on a "weirdly" located lot w ith no backyard or private area to the house. Ms. O'Brien asked if Ms. Langon thought it would be an asset to the City. Ms. Langon stated that what has been demonstrated in the staff report is the buildable area-the area in which a house could be built according to the corner lot regulations. Ms. O'Brien again asked if Community Development had a position on the variance. Ms. Langon stated staff would support the request because it meets the requirements of the corner lot regulations. The corner lot regulations are for such situations where there is only 50 feet. Chair Bode asked staff to explain the corner lot regulations to the Board. Referring to a drawing, Ms. Langon approached the Board and explained the corner lot regulation. Ms. Langon stated it is a difficult case to understand because it involves a corner lot, but also that it is a corner lot "turned the other way." The corner lot regulations generally work on whether it is a short street or long street side of a block. In this 3 particular case, Zuni Street becomes the short street side of the block, which is key. • When a house faces the short street side, then the regulation allows for setbacks that are 10 feet on each side, 5 feet to the rear, and 25 feet to the front. The reason being is because all the other houses along Iliff are required to have a 25 foot front setback. On the corner, there would also need to be a 25 foot side setback. Referring to the staff report, Ms. Langon stated that Iliff is their "side" because they will face out to Zuni. Zuni is the other houses' front and the block requirement is 25 feet. The applicant would need to provide 25 feet which is really the side because it is Zuni Street Chair Bode asked if the corner regulations stated how far he had to be from Zuni Street. Ms. Langon stated it would be 10 feet. 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; Ms. Carlston seconded: THAT CASE #14-2000, 2250 SOUTH ZUNI STREET AND 2377 WEST ILIFF AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-5-13:A.2.b , MINIMUM FRONT YARD FOR RESIDENTIAL CORNER LOTS, TO ENCROACH 18 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. • Ms. Carlston stated that it would add to the neighborhood. She stated she didn't want it to be a rental property, and that a "normal size" house should be built on the lot rather than a small house. It will add to the development of the neighborhood. She stated that the existing house look improved, and that lot was a good size. She agreed that allowing the variance would allow the applicant to build a structure that would add to the neighborhood. Ms. O'Brien stated that the applicant knew what he had when he bought the property, and now the Board is being asked to cut it in half so he can make money by building another house. Ms. Carlston pointed out that Mr. Underwood is permitted to subdivide the lot regardless of the variance; he would just need to build a smaller structure. Ms. Carlston asked whether or not the Board wanted the applicant to build a smaller structure which isn't utilized efficiently rather than developing it into a single family dwelling which would add to the neighborhood. Mr. Seymour stated he drove by the property as well. He stated that he is usually against people who make money on dividing lots, but in this neighborhood, it is not an unusual request. A 50 by 120 foot lot is a standard sized lot i n Englewood. It has 6,000 square feet. It is not an undersized lot and the owner should be allowed to put a large house on it. • 4 • • • Ms. O'Brien stated that she wants separation between houses, and there is no backyard on this property. Mr. Seymour stated he didn't believe it was unusual for the neighborhood. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes." Ms. Davidson stated she voted "yes." It observes the spirit of the ordinance in that it encourages residential use. It will not adversely affect the adjacent property. There are statements from the neighbors supporting the variance request. It is the least variance to grant the applicant relief. The exceptional condition is the corner lot setbacks. Ms. Carlston and Ms. O'Brien voted "yes", concurring with Ms. Davidson. Chair Bode stated he voted "no." It does not meet all five criteria, and the corner lot criteria would have provided the owner with buildable space. He stated he wasn't convinced that the variance would not adversely affect the adjacent property. AYES: NAYS: Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, and Seymour Bode ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Rasby and Smith The Chair announced the case approved by a 4-1 vote. III. CASE #17-2000 Mark and Sherry Olson 4710 South Fox 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 16-4-2:1.1 to encroach ten (10) feet seven (7) inches into the 18 foot required total side yard setback, four (4) feet nine (9) inches into the required 7 foot minimum side yard setback on the south, one (1) foot ten (10) inches into the required 7 foot minimum side yard setback on the north, ten (10) feet six (6) inches into the required 18 foot side yard setback between adjacent principal structures on the south, and ten (10) feet ten (10) inches into the required 18 foot side yard setback between adjacent principal structures on the north. Mark and Sherry Olson, 4719 South Elati Street, were sworn in. Mrs. Olson stated they were requesting the variance so they can build a nice family dwelling. They started out with a remodel. After the first variance was granted with the condition that the south 5 wall remain, it was determined that the south wall was rotten. Mrs. Olson stated they • had no choice but to take it down. They are now asking for the same variance in order for them to build a nice single-family dwelling to upgrade their neighborhood. Mrs. Olson continued; the land falls within the RlA zone district, but it is really an RlC lot because the lot is 125 feet by 50 feet. They need to encroach on the south and north side so they can build a two-car garage and have a front and back yard. The two bedrooms on the main floor of the house are 10.3 feet by 11 feet; they are not large bedrooms. Mr. Olson stated that the master bedroom would be over the garage. It is approximately 29 feet by 20 feet. Mrs. Olson stated that if they are not permitted to encroach, it would make the house a "hallway"; they would rather make it a nice home. With the garage on the side, it will allow them a nice front and back yard. Mrs. Olson stated they have a family and intend on living in the house and need a front and back yard. Mr. Olson stated they tried to save the south wall, which was the condition of the first variance, but it did not have a slab or footings under it. The walls were sitting dirt on grade; the floors consisted of pallets on dirt sheeted with oak flooring. He test ified there was no way to determine this before the demolition. Mrs. Olson stated that the house had concrete on the north and south sides. They initially thought it was footings, but it was only a barrier to stop the weeds from growing up into the house. The concrete was pushed up against the house and under the walls. The floors were pallets. The applicants submitted pictures to the Board. Mr. Olson also submitted • drawings of the proposed house. Mrs. Olson stated that the drawings show that the house is not a "cheap throw up" home. They intend on building a beautiful home. Mr. Olson stated that upon discovering the rotten wall, they called their structural engineer and asked him to draw an addendum to the addition which was originally proposed. He submitted the addendum to the Building Department and the Board has a copy to review as well. Mr. Olson stated that there was nothing structurally left to the house to tie the addition. Mr. Seymour asked if there was any part of the house left or just a hole in the ground. The Olsons stated there was just a hole in the ground. Mr. Seymour asked if they had neighbors' statements. The Olsons stated those are in the Board's packet; and further, they have been open and honest with their neighbors, especially the two neighbors adjacent to the property. The property on the south will be affected more than the other properties. Mr. Olson stated that Mr. and Mrs. Baker, the neighbors on the south, have requested that they consider moving the house to the 3 foot minimum setback from the property line. Mr. Olson stated they didn't have a problem moving the house to meet the three foot minimum. Mr. Seymour asked how that would affect their floor plan. Mr. Olson stated that it would shrink the bedrooms in the back. Mr. Seymour asked how it would affect the staircase. Mr. Olson responded that there is room to absorb those 9 inches. Mr. Seymour confirmed that the master bedroom was upstairs. The Olsons stated that was correct; it is over the garage. Mrs. Olson testified that it was the only way for them to put a three bedroom home on that lot. Mr. Seymour 6 • • • asked ·if they had children. The Olsons responded that they had two boys, ages 7 and 13. Ms. Carlston asked the square footage of the house at the time they were asking for the initial variance back in May. Mr. Olson replied that the original house had 620 square feet. Ms. Carlston asked what the square footage of the house would have been with the proposed addition they initially proposed. Mr. Olson replied that the total house with the garage would be just under 1,900 square feet of livable space. Ms. Carlston asked whether the plans had changed since that time. Mr. Olson stated the house would now have a full basement. Mr. Seymour clarified that they could move the house to meet the 3 foot requirement. Mr. Olson stated it would not be a problem and would not drastically impact their plans. Mr. Seymour stated that it might make a difference with fire wall requirements. It might allow them some type of opening. Mr. Olson stated that there initial response to the Building Department was that the exterior is masonry veneer, which meets their one-hour fire rating. Ms. Carlston asked if they started erecting a new wall on the south side. Mr. Olson stated that it was originally going to be dropped in the hole with some sheeting on it to help shore the bank. Once the foundation was poured, the wall could be pulled out and set on top of the sub floor. Mr. Olson stated it would have been very expensive to build those walls, shore them, and try to hold that spot with the dirt. Ms. Carlston stated that the condition of their previous variance was that if they tore down the south wall they were to come back to the Board. Mr. Olson stated they was why they were before the Board. Mrs. Olson stated that they stopped working, and in fact were issued a stop work order. Mr. Olson stated that he finished putting in the footers and didn't notice the stop work order. There was an old stove sitting in the front of the house and wind blew the stop work order under stove. He happened to notice the paper under the stove, and once he realized it was a stop work order, he immediately stopped working on the house. Ms. Carlston asked why the applicants didn't change the floor plans once they realized they would be starting from "scratch." Mrs. Olson replied that they still wanted a front and back yard. The only way they felt they could achieve that goal was to make the house wider. If they built it to the setbacks, the house was be long and narrow like a "hallway." They would not been ab le to put two bedrooms at the end of the house unless they were extremely small. Mr. Olson stated that he felt the two car garage was narrower than most garages. Mrs. Olson also stated that the house needs to be "resellable" and feels that the front and back yard are key for the house to resell at some point. Mr. Olson stated that the original house had 6.5 foot ceilings and he had 7 to walk bent over. With the exception of the two rear bedrooms and the kitchen, the new house has vaulted ceilings. Chair Bode clarified that it was the south side they would be willing to adjust to meet the 3 foot requirement. The Olsons stated that was correct. Jeff Baker, 4714 South Fox Street, was sworn in. Mr. Baker stated he is the neighbor on the south of the Olsons' property. Mr. Baker testified that the house has been demolished. He stated that it would be illogical to enforce the RlA zone district requirements on this house. The current houses in that neighborhood are not built to those standards. Mr. Baker recommended the Board consider a 3 foot offset from the property line on the south side. He stated that he and the Olsons have talked about it , and a 3 foot offset is acceptable. Mr. Seymour clarified that he was requesting a 3 foot setback from the south property line. Mr . Baker stated that was correct. Ms. Dav idson clarified that it would be acceptable to Mr. Baker if the Olsons bu ilt the house with the 3 foot setback on the south and would support the variance if that were required. Mr. Baker stated that was correct. Ms. O'Brien asked how the 3 foot setback wou ld affect the l ight on his property. Mr . Baker stated that it would not drastically affect his property. Ms. O'Brien asked where the previous south wall was located in relation to the property line. Mr. Baker stated • that he wasn't sure, but it was approximately 2 foot 3 inches from the property line. Ms. O'Brien stated that the 3 foot setback would provide 9 more i nches, and asked Mr. Baker if he thought that was acceptable. Mr. Baker stated he did. Ms. O'Brien explained that if the Board grants the variance, Mr. Baker will be "stuck" with it. Mr. Baker stated he has lived in his house for 18 years; it has always been "t ight" and the additional 9 inches would be helpful. Mr. Baker stated he felt the resale value of his property should be considered as well. There were no other persons present to testify for or aga i nst the var iance. Chair Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing . Mr. Seymour stated he needed the new numbers in order for him to make a motion requiring the 3 foot setback on the south. Discussion ensued. Mr. Seymour moved; Ms . Davidson seconded: THAT CASE #17-2000, 4710 SOUTH FOX STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:1.1 TO ENCROACH NINE (9) FEET TEN (10) INCHES INTO THE 18 FOOT REQUIRED TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK, FOUR (4) FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE SOUTH, • ONE (1) FOOT TEN (10) INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT MINIMUM SIDE 8 • • YARD SETBACK ON THE NORTH, NINE (9) FEET NINE (9) INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 18 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN ADJACENT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE SOUTH, AND TEN (10) FEET TEN (10) INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 18 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN ADJACENT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE NORTH. Chair Bode asked if the Board had to vote on the variance which was requested by the applicants and then amend it. Ms. Reid stated it can be done that way or the Chair can ask the applicants if they object to an amended variance request. Chair Bode asked the Olsons with they would accept the motion on the floor which changes their initial variance request. The motion only changes the south side of the property by requiring a 3 foot setback. The Olsons responded they would accept. Ms. Carlston stated the applicants are now adding a basement, which has changed from their initial plans. She is not clear why the Board should grant a variance to construct a structure that is starting from "scratch." Ms. O'Brien stated the Board was very clear in May when it considered the initial variance that it was only for a remodel and it was clearly defined in the Minutes what the remodel would be. It was also clear that it would be considered a rebuild if the south wall was not structurally sufficient and had to be removed. Ms. O'Brien stated that it is a standard sized lot, and they should make it fit. Ms. O'Brien further stated that she considers it a "scraped lot" and there is no need for a variance. It is a standard sized lot, and there is no reason why the applicants can 't build a house that fits within the requirements. She continued; the Olsons are very fortunate to have such an accommodating neighbor on the south, but she stills wonders why the Board should even consider the variance. Mr. Seymour stated it is a standard lot if it where in the RlC zone district but it isn't; the property is in the RlA district. The RlA district has larger requirements for side yard setbacks. Following those standards makes it d ifficult to put a house on the lot which is only 50 feet wide. Discussion ensued. Ms. Carlston stated the prior variance was defined by the south wall. The wall is now gone. Ms. O'Brien agreed; there is nothing tying into the previous south wall. The lot sizes in Englewood are what they are. Ms. Davidson clarified that it is basically the same structure the applicants presented in the previous case. Ms. O'Brien replied that Ms. Davidson is missing the whole point, but the basic answer to the question is yes. Mr. Seymour asked if he could ask staff a question. Ms. O'Brien stated he could not; the Board was having discussion. Mr. Seymour stated that off the top of his head the minimum lot frontage in a RlA zone district is 60 feet. In this case, there is only 50 9 feet of frontage. The applicants are already starting with a lot that is 10 feet narrower than the requirement which makes it an exceptional lot. Ms. O'Brien stated that was only one criteria; the applicants must meet all five. Mr. Seymour stated that the area is already developed and the neighbors don't have a problem with the variance. Discussion ensued. Ms. Dav idson stated she missed the hearing in May due to illness. Ms. O'Br ien asked if she read the Minutes. Ms. Davidson stated she did but wasn 't sure she really understood the south wall. Ms. O'Brien stated that basically the design of the proposed addition was based on the south wall remaining. The Board agreed to be accommodating and granted the variance only because the south wall couldn't be moved. The Board made it very clear that if it "shifted" from a remodel to a rebuild, the applicants had to return to the Board because the reason for granting the variance would be gone. Mr. Seymour agreed, but they still have a narrow lot to build a house on with RlA standards. Discussion ensued. Chair Bode agreed that the variance was granted for a remodel. The applicants are now asking for the same variance, but they are building the same house. In his opinion, there is no need for a variance. The house can be reconfigured to fit on the lot. He is not convinced that granting the variance is right for that neighborhood. Ms. Reid stated that even though the public hearing has been closed, the Board can • review the Zoning Ordinance to determine the setbacks and frontage for the RlA district. Ms. O'Brien stated that she believes the size of lot dictates the size of house. She doesn't want to see a group of houses that covers all of the property. Mr. Seymour countered that if she wants a proper sized house for a proper sized lot, this property is a RlC lot, not a standard RlA lot. Therefore, the RlC setbacks should be followed not the RlA. Discussion ensued. Ms. Carlston stated she wanted to look at the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Carlston stated the minimum lot frontage in the RlA district is 75 feet and the minimum lot size for single family dwelling is 9,000 square feet. Mr. Seymour stated that the property is actually 25 feet narrower than the requirement. Ms. Davidson asked to look at the requirements for the RlC district. Ms. Carlston stated the minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet and the minimum lot frontage is 50 feet for a single family dwelling. Mr. Seymour reiterated that the property meets the RlC district standards and the applicants should be allowed to build according to those standards rather than the RlA. Discussion ensued. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. 10 • • • Mr . Seymour stated he voted "yes." The applicants are between a rock and a hard place, and the applicants are just trying to build something that looks decent. Ms. Davidson stated she also voted "yes." It is an exceptionally narrow lot for that zone district; therefore the applicants should not be held to those standards. The spirit of the ordinance is to create livable single family residences. This property is exceptionally narrow and changing the floor plan of the house would be an extra expense and hardship to the owner. It does not adversely affect the adjacent property now that the Board is requiring a 3 foot setback on the south, which is more than the wall that was there before. She stated she wasn't sure it was the least modification, but it is the same structure that was proposed i n the first variance which the Board granted. She is taking into account the expense and the hassle for the app licants to redo the floor plan. They did not purposely find out that the footer was nohexistent. Ms. Carlston stated she voted "no." It did not meet the second criterion. It does not observe the spirit of the ordinance. It might be a small lot, but she believes there are other ways to construct a single family dwelling on the lot without a var iance. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "no." The spirit of the ordinance has not been met. It assumes development conforms to the zone district provisions of RlA. It does not meet the fifth criter ion. It is not the least modification necessary to grant relief to the applicant. She does not belief relief is necessary for a 50 foot frontage lot. Chair Bode stated he voted "no." At the first hearing, he voted yes because the south wall was existing. Since that time, there have been a number of changes. It does not meet the second, third or fifth criteria. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Davidson and Seymour Bode, Carlston, and O'Brien None Rasby and Smith The Chair announced the variance denied by a 2-3 vote. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the August 9, 2000 public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved, Ms. Carlston seconded: THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2000 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. 11 AYES: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, and Seymour NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Davidson ABSENT: Rasby and Smith The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. V. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Seymour moved; Ms. Car lston seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #10-2000, CHARLES L. WILLINGHAM, 4233 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, AND CASE #15-2000, WILLIAM CHANDLER, 4188 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, and Seymour None. Davidson Rasby and Smith The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated there were two variance cases for next month. They are located at 4020 and 4030 South Elati Street. She stated that Mr. Seymour had previously suggested that once the public hearings were completed, the Board adjourn to a conference room for the discussion portion of the meeting. She asked if the Board, therefore, would, like to adjourn to a more informal setting to cont i nue the meeting. Ms. Reid stated that the Board can move to a more comfortable setting and the public is invited to attend that portion of the meeting as well. Chair Bode stated he would prefer to conduct all the meetings in a conference room rather than council chambers. Ms. Reid stated that Council has directed that the Board meet in chambers because it is a Board of record and must have the meetings recorded on tape. Ms. Reid stated that the entire meeting needs to be conducted in council chambers in order to be recorded; that would include staff's choice as well as board's choice. The Board can then adjourn to a study session for discussion. VII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid distributed a North Carolina zoning case addressing the parking of a Mac truck • in a residential subdivision. She felt it was an interesting discussion by the court on a equal protection issues regarding issues the court will look at allowing restrictions on • 12 • parking. Further, in a previous case during testimony, the applicant testified she had two sheds on her property. Mr. Seymour informed her she was only allowed one shed. Therefore, the zoning enforcement officer notified Ms. Heideman that she is in violation and needs to remove the shed or come to the Board for a variance. IX. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Ms. O'Brien commended the City for using Bennett's Bar-B-Q at the City's picnic. Ms. O'Brien asked if it was appropriate for her to ask for staff's position in a case. Mr. Simpson responded that was part of what staff wished to discuss during the study session. Mr. Seymour stated after reading the Englewood Recreation Center was offering a free day at the recreation center, he suggested to Mr. Simpson and the City Manager that Boards and Commission members receive free annual passes to the Englewood Recreation Center. The Board took a short recess; and reconvened in the Community Development Conference Room at 9:40 p.m. for a study session. X. STUDY SESSION Mr. Simpson stated that a few months ago he assured the Board that he would provide a senior staff person at all the Board meetings. Ms. Newman will continue to present cases, but Ms. Langon will now be the Board's main staff contact. Mr. Simpson stated staff also wished to discuss how they could provide the Board with better information and improve communication. Ms. Langon stated that she would also like to discuss when staff speaks at the Board meetings. Discussion ensued. The Board decided it still wants the applicant to present their case and that staff may present any additional information and answer questions from the Board after the applicant has completed testifying. Further, if a Board member feels they need additional information after reviewing their packet, they should contact Ms. Langon directly and ask her to present that information at t he hearing. At the hearing, Ms. · Langon will inform the Chair she has been asked by the Board to present that additional information. Ms. O'Brien stated that Community Development should present as much information as possible, without a recommendation, in the staff report under department review. The Board agreed; the Board also directed staff that they would like staff's opinion or recommendation on the case if they ask for it. While they don't want a recommendation contained in the staff report, if the Board should ask at the hearing for staff's position, staff should make thei r position known. Chair Bode stated he, as well as other Board members, would like alternates appointed to the Board. He stated it is difficult for the applicant when Board members are absent, 13 and there is no one to step in. Ms. Reid stated that it is a City Council matter. Mr. • Simpson suggested staff draft a letter to City Council asking Council to consider the issue. Ms. Langon stated she would like to continue holding study sessions after the meetings. The Board decided it would like to meet every other month for study sessions. Ms. Langon suggested the Board contact her with issues they would like to discuss. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 14 •