Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-14 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS May 14, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 pm . in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Carlston presiding. Members present: Members absent: Staff present: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith, and Sprecace (entered at 8:05) None Anthony Fruchtl, Planner Robert Simpson, Community Development Director Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Chair Carlston stated there were six members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance or appeal. Chair Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part Ill , Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Chair Carlston noted that Mr. Sprecace had indicated to the recording secretary that he would be late to the meeting. Chair Carlston set forth parameters for conduct of hearings: The case will be introduced; 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 . Chair Carlston stated in the appeal case , staff will make their presentation first, followed by the applicants . II. CASE #4-2003 Robert Gustafson 4596 South Broadway Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of posting and publication. She introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 1 foot 6 inches into the required 20 foot building setback. This is a variance to Section 16-4-12:E 1 b Building Line Regulations. Robert Gustafson, 1449 Riverside Avenue, was sworn in . Mr. Gustafson stated the existing Total gas station was built in 1971. Over the years it has undergone a few minor cosmetic changes . Diamond Shamrock has purchased all of Total 's assets and is interested in redeveloping the property at 4596 South Broadway to conform to the Diamond Shamrock image. He stated the company would like to enlarge the building to make it more efficient 1 • • • for customers and operations. The canopy and gas islands are proposed to remain in their current locations. The plan is to add on to the south and east of the existing building. Mr. Gustafson stated the variance is being requested because with the addition to the building there is an ADA accessible restroom that must be constructed. Due to the layout of the existing building, the addition needs to be constructed on the south and to the east. ADA requires a minimum sized restroom. By accommodating the restroom, the building will encroach into the 20 foot setback. As part of the redevelopment, there will be landscaping placed in the space east of the building between the building and the alley. There will be a 6 foot high masonry wall constructed along the entire length of the alley. Additional landscaping will be installed on the south side of the property and a decorative fence will be placed along South Broadway. There will be significant improvements made to the site as part of the redevelopment. Since they are required to conform to ADA requirements, they are limited with what they can do with the building and still maintain the 20 foot setback. Because of the alley, the actual distance from the new building's east line and the adjacent residential property is approximately 35 feet, which is in excess of the 20 foot required if they were immediately adjacent to a residential property. Mr. Gustafson continued; there will be significant improvements to the property-new landscaping, parking areas, a more modern facility which is more accommodating to customers-which will be an asset to the intersection. Mr. Seymour asked what was located next to the handicapped parking space shown on the plan. Mr. Gustafson responded; it will be a enclosure for the dumpster which will be six feet high and painted to match the building. Mr. Seymour asked if the interior access to the restrooms would be approximately in the same location. Mr. Gustafson stated the interior access would remain the same . Chair Carlston asked why they could not expand on the north side of the building. Mr. Gustafson responded; due to the original building's construction, there is a lot of electrical equipment that is on the east and north end of the building. It does not accommodate itself to expand in that direction. Mr. Seymour asked if there would still be access around the rear of the property. Mr. Gustafson stated there would not; the area between the building and the alley will be landscaped. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner was sworn in. Mr. Seymour asked if there was a minimum size for the property notice. Mr. Fruchtl stated there is a minimum size for the sign and the criteria was mailed to the applicant. He stated he drove by the property and the sign conforms to the regulations . Mr. Seymour clarified that the applicant's sign was large enough; Mr. Fruchtl stated it was. Chair Carlston stated she had a photo of the sign. Mr. Seymour stated he saw the sign; it just look small to him . There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. 2 • Mr. Bode moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT CASE #4-2003, 4696 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 1 FOOT 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-12:E 1 b BUILDING LINE REGULATIONS . With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. There are exceptional circumstances in that the ADA requires ADA-compliant restrooms. It is the minimal encroachment into the side setback. There is a fence that shields the property from any unsightliness. It observes the spirit of the ordinance by complying with all the laws, including the ADA. The improvements to the property will enhance the area. The variance will not adversely affect the adjacent property or neighborhood which is already developed . Improving the building will help the neighborhood. It will not impact or impair the use or development of the adjacent property because it is already developed. The variance is the least modification necessary to grant relief to the applicant. The 1 foot 6 inch variance is minimal. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms . O'Brien, Mr. Se y mour, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes • concurring with Mr. Smith. • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Sprecace The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. Ill. CASE #4-2003 Jimmie L. Flores 3000 West Monmouth Avenue Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of posting and publication. She introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 7 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback. This is a variance to Section 16-4-2:H Minimum Front Yard. Jimmie Flores, 3000 West Monmouth Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Flores stated he wishes to construct 1 O' x 18' porch. He is building the porch due to some of his medical conditions and to keep the snow off the sidewalk . Mr. Smith asked staff if there were other similar porches on the block. Mr. Fruchtl responded that there are similar porches in the neighborhood. Mr. Smith asked if anyone 3 • did the analysis of the porches . Mr. Fruchtl stated the analysis was not done; the analysis is done from the foundation. The current porch is projecting past the foundation . Mr. Smith clarified; the analysis is only for the main structure not the porch. Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #5-2003, 3000 WEST MONMOUTH AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 1 O' X 18', 180 SQUARE FOOT COVERED PORCH THAT WILL ENCROACH 7 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-2:H MINIMUM FRONT YARD. Mr. Seymour stated he is familiar with the neighborhood, and porches are normal in that neighborhood. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes. It will not be a hardship to the neighbors . It will be a • good addition to the neighborhood and the applicant's house. • Ms. O'Brien stated she voted yes finding the five criteria had been met. With regard to the first criterion, the applicant is seeking a variance to construct a new covered porch the same size and in the same location as the original porch that was constructed in 1965 . It is her understanding that due to time and weather, the original porch deteriorated in the mid- 1980's. With respect to the second criterion, the requested variance will allow the applicant to construct a front porch which is typically found on residences. With respect to the third criterion, the proposed variance provides for an amenity that is typical to the neighborhood. With respect to the fourth criterion, adjacent properties are developed and will not be adversely impacted. With respect to the fifth criterion, it is least modification necessary since it is the same size as the original porch. Mr. Bode, Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes concurring with Ms . O'Brien. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Sprecace The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote . 4 • • • IV . CASE #6-2002 Brian and Tracie Bleile 4201 South Clarkson Street Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of publication. She introduced the case by stating the applicants are appealing the decision rendered by the Community Development Director to deny a proposed 1,500 square foot garage that does not graphically depict the same elevations or scale as the single-story garage that was approved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals specific to Case #2-2003. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner, stated City staff denied the applicants' application for a building permit to construct a garage that does not graphically depict the garage presented to the Board in Case #2-2003 . On March 12, the applicants received approval from the Board for a variance to construct a garage which was 1,500 square feet. When the applicants submitted for a building permit on April 18, the plan did not graphically depict a one-story structure. The drawing submitted to the Board and staff represented a one-story, single roofline structure. When the applicants submitted their building permit, there was an additional 7 46 square foot second story addition included. Staff contacted the applicants and informed them that the second story was not permitted since the Board approved a 1,500 square garage. Additionally, staff informed the applicants that what was submitted was not the garage approved by the Board and would need to be brought back to the Board to render a decision . Mr. Baker asked for the maximum height of a garage. Mr. Fruchtl responded that the maximum permitted height is 18 feet for a garage . Brian and Tracie Bleile, 4201 South Clarkson Street, were sworn in. He didn't realize that the upper storage area was considered part of total floor area. It was conveyed to him that it was similar to attic space or an unfinished basement and did not count towards total finished square area. When Mr. Fruchtl brought it to his attention, he removed the second floor. He was then informed that he was not allowed to build the garage to the permitted 18 feet; he would either need to maintain the roofline of his current garage or build to the roofline of the house . He is before the Board to dispute that decision; Englewood allows a maximum of 18 feet building height. He met with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Fruchtl and discussed the fact that the Planning Department could not issue a decision based on something that was submitted to the Board in January. The original variance application was submitted January 18. From that time until the Board met in March, he was given the zoning regulations. He asked the Building Department for the necessary Codes he needed to meet and told the Building Department what he wanted to build . After the approval from the Board, his architect went forward with drawing up plans and submitted them to the Building Department. At the building permit stage is when these discrepancies came up . Mr. Bleile commented that the photos submitted in January were not to scale. It was a 3-D application program he thought would be nice for the Board to see. The drawings were 5 • • • not required as part of the application , but because he submitted the photos he is now before the Board again. He wasn 't told that what he submitted with the application in January is what he had to build . Again , he thought it would be nice to submit pictures to show how it fit in the alley and on the lot. Mr. Smith asked for the height of the current garage. Mr. Bleile stated the height from grade to finish is 12 feet. Mr. Smith asked why he wanted the extra space. Mr . Bleile stated he wants to store his 12-foot camper in the garage. He stated he is looking for a 12- foot garage door. Mr . Smith stated that explained an additional two feet. Mr . Bleile stated the garage needed a 16 foot wall and a 4/12 pitch. Mr. Smith stated that for a 12 foot camper, he only needed 13 feet. Mr . Bleile stated he needs a 12 foot door; the camper is actually 11 feet 7 inches. Ms . O'Brien stated when the Board heard the case last month, it was because the neighbor stated the lot size was improperly conveyed. Ms . O'Brien asked if the neighbor was correct. Mr . Bleile responded ; the neighbor was not correct. From the time the Board approved the variance in March and came back in April, he learned that the survey shows his lot and his neighbor 's lot were originall y owned by one family. When they sold the house to Darrel , they subdivided that lot. The extra room was not counted correctly. If he measures from the staking point to the sidewalk, he has 89 feet. In his original application, he measured it at 91 ; he was off 3 feet. His lot is approximately 11 ,300 square feet. Ms . O 'Brien clarified that the lot was measured incorrectl y; she asked b y whom it was measured incorrectly. Mr. Bleile responded that the neighbor, Mr. Brereton , who appealed the decision. When Mr. Brereton measured the lot , he used the legal description of the lot. Mr. Bleile stated that his legal description actuall y states that he has 3 lots , but in actuality his lot is 91 feet wide. Ms . O 'Brien asked if Mr. Brereton accurately depicted the legal description. Mr. Bleile stated he did. Ms. O 'Brien confirmed that he was aware the neighbor was concerned about the size of the garage; Mr. Bleile stated he was. Ms . O 'Brien stated he changed the photos presented to the Board which represented the garage at the same roof line as the house and then increased it to 18 feet. Mr. Bleile stated he didn 't understand the question . Ms . O 'Brien stated he submitted photos to the Board which showed the proposed garage w ith the same roof line as the roof line of the house . Mr . Bleile stated that was correct. Ms . O 'Brien stated he is now seeking to raise the garage to 18 feet. Mr . Bleile stated that was correct. Ms. O'Brien stated he submitted photos to the Board that showed a depiction of the roof on the proposed garage was the same height as the roof on the house. Mr. Bleile stated that was true . Mr. Smith stated he would like clarification on the three lots and 91 feet. Mr. Bleile stated the lot size in Englewood is 25 feet. Mr. Smith stated that typically lots are 25 feet; they may or may not be. Mr. Smith asked the applicant for his lot sizes . Mr. Bleile stated he didn 't know; he assumes 25 feet. Mr . Smith stated that he only has 75 feet, not 89 feet. Mr. Bleile stated he was unable to determine the setback from the street. 6 • • • Mr. Smith asked if the Vicinity Map in the Board's packet was to scale. Mr. Fruchtl stated it is a general Vicinity Map and is not to any type of scale . It is a map to clarify and identify the location of the property. Mr. Baker asked the height of the existing garage doors. Mr. Bleile stated they are 7 feet. Mr. Baker asked if there would be access to the rear of the new structure. Mr. Bleile stated there would not be a rear access. Chair Carlston asked if he plans on using the extra height in the garage for storage. Mr. Bleile responded; he would use it for rafter storage. He can't do storage as he originally planned. He would probably install shelving. He won't be adding the extra floor since he now realizes it is counted against the total floor area. Chair Carlston clarified; when he first came before the Board for the variance, he didn't anticipate any extra height. Mr. Bleile stated that was correct. Chair Carlston continued; the tiered-garage concept came into the picture after he received the variance. Mr. Bleile responded; once he received the variance and received the building criteria set forth in Section 16-4-4-M, Buildings and Accessory Structures stating what he could build, he took everything to the architect and the tiered- garage was developed. Chair Carlston stated he really didn't know what he was going to be building when he first came to the Board. Mr. Bleile stated he didn 't know what he could build when he made the application. Once he received the variance, he followed the what the Englewood Zoning Ordinance allows for height, had an engineer/architect draw it up, submitted it for the building permit, and was told the permit was on hold . Chair Carlston noted the Mr. Specace entered the meeting. Mr. Baker asked if the camper would go through the proposed door. Mr. Baker asked for the height of the door. Mr. Bleile stated it would be 12 feet. Darrel Jarred G, 4211 South Clarkson, was sworn in. He stated he lives next door to Tracie and Brian. There are other structures in the area that are bigger than what they are planning. If Brian is within the Codes, he doesn't understand why he shouldn't be granted permission to build the garage. The proposed garage is below the height requirement and the square footage requirement. If anyone was going to be impacted by the garage, Mr. Jarred stated it would be him because he is next door. He doesn't have a problem with the garage as long as it built to code. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the appeal. Chair Carlston incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Ms. O'Brien seconded : TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE COMMUNl1Y DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR . 7 • Mr. Bode clarified that the Board was not voting on the size of the garage. Mr. Smith stated that a "yes" vote keeps the garage at 12 feet. Chair Carlston further clarified; a "yes" vote means the appeal is denied. Mr. Smith stated the last witness clarified the problem. If the applicants were building it entirely to Code, there would never have been an issue. The Board is dealing with a variance. The variance was not misrepresented. The lot is larger than normal; he doesn't think anyone who measured the lot really knew how to do a legal measurement. The Board approved the variance knowing that the garage is larger than usual and that it will have some visual impact on the neighborhood. An 18-foot garage might as well be an apartment house. He stated it is too much of a visual impact on any neighborhood . Mr. Smith stated he believes the building official made a good decision. Ms. O 'Brien stated she agreed w ith Mr. Smith. She doesn 't believe there was any evil intent. She based her vote on two things : it was a larger lot and the garage would be the same height. Mr. Smith stated he presumed that all the Board assumed the garage would be the same height. Mr . Seymour stated the Board always ask if the y don 't understand and considers whether the structure is architecturall y compatible . The original information submitted to the Board appeared that the garage would blend in . • With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes. • Mr. Smith , Mr. Baker, Mr . Bode, Mr. Seymour, Ms. O 'Brien, and Chair Carlson stated they voted yes for the reasons stated during the discussion . Mr. Sprecace abstained . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker , Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien , Seymour, and Smith None Sprecace None Chair Carlston announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. The appeal is denied. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the April 9, 2003 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THE MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2003 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN . AYES: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith 8 • • • NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Sprecace None ..... The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #3-2003, 3900 SOUTH GALAPAGO STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith None Sprecace None The motion carried. The Ch a ir announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote . VII. BOARD DISCUSSION Ms. O 'Brien moved; Mr. Smith seconded: TO CONVENE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A MEMO PROVIDED TO THE BOARD . Motion carried. Mr. Brotzman stated the session would still need to be recorded. Mr . Fruchtl and the recording secretary left Council Chambers. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Brotzman how the subject matter warranted an executive session . Mr. Brotzman stated if the Board is discussing a memo, it doesn 't appear the Board is seeking legal counsel. Mr. Brotzman stated the memo doesn 't fit within the "niche " of an executive session so the Board can't go into executive session. Mr. Smith stated there are six reasons for going into executive session: contract negotiations, personnel, legal advice, litigation , etc. Mr. Brotzman stated the Board is usually seeking legal advice when it goes into executive session. He advised the Board to continue as an open meeting rather than as an executive session. Ms. O 'Brien stated that on Monday, May 12 at approximately 9 :45 p.m., she received a call from Mayor Bev Bradshaw who had seen the memorandum which had been discussed at the City Council meeting. Ma yor Bradshaw was initiall y disturbed about the memo and faxed her a copy for her to respond . Ms . O 'Brien conveyed that staff had never been asked 9 • • • to make a presentation at the meetings and frankly had been asked not to and only to comment after the applicant made his /her presentation . She continued; she was less concerned after she saw the memo than before she saw it. Her perception and recollection of the April meeting was that the memo is "nitpicking ." Ms. O 'Brien stated she asked the Mayor if she had ever received a complaint from an applicant that he hadn 't received a fair hearing before the Board. The Mayor indicated she wasn't aware of any such complaints. Ms. O'Brien pointed out to the Mayor that there had been a number of meetings where the press had been present and had never received bad publicity on how the meeting was conducted. Ms. O'Brien stated she acknowledged she was the Board member who was late; and in fact the Minutes reflect she apologized during the meeting under Board's Choice, and also that Ms. Reid being late was due to her . Ms. O 'Brien stated the Board used their microphones that evening, and the guests from Thornton sat in the rear of the room with their arms crossed. If they were unable to hear, the y never made any indication nor moved closer to the front. Ms . O 'Brien stated she found it particularly offensive their remark regarding how the Board paid more attention to the male staff member than the female staff member. Tricia has more seniority and has deservedly earned a lot of respect from the Board. Ms. O 'Brien stated that Tricia carries herself well and demands and deserves respect, and is afforded such. Sometimes, when there are technical discussions which occurred between Mr . Smith and Ms. Langon at the April meeting, the Board gets into quick dialogue back and forth . Perhaps that was misinterpreted. Ms . O 'Brien stated that was a brief summary of what occurred during the April meeting . Ms. O 'Brien stated that Mayor Bradshaw asked for some talking points to respond back to the memo with a letter to the Thornton ma yor. Ma yor Bradshaw indicated that Thornton was basically cantankerous or cranky and that they had this type of relationship with Englewood. Ms. O 'Brien stated she felt the memo was a continuation of that relationship. She stated she felt it would be foolish to overreact to the memo . Public perception is always important and the Board can be more observant of simply go through the Chair, but basically the memo is talking about stylistic items or things that are just not true, such as the microphones. Ms. O'Brien stated the one point made that sounded really bad was that she came in late and immediately made a motion about something she didn 't hear. The motion she made was because no one else offered a motion and it was on the appeal of the last case the Board heard this evening which was based entirely on the record. Nothing was added during the public hearing, because there was no public hearing on that issue . That is the type of twisting and misrepresentation that occurred in the memo. Chair Carlston stated the April meeting did start late. It started at 7:40 p.m. and that was because she wanted to give the benefit to the applicant that all board members be present. Ms . O 'Brien entered the meeting at 7:45 p.m., which was a 5 minute delay and normally the Board takes the roll call and she sets forth the procedure of the meeting. Chair Carlston stated she felt that Ms . O'Brien did hear what was going on and did enter a motion in proper form . Regarding item 7, Chair Carlston stated she felt she had control of the meeting. She follows the agenda, and she doesn't believe there would be a case granted or 10 • • • denied if there was little or no control. The Minutes speak for themselves . She gives a lot of leeway to Board members not having to go through her to ask a questions. Mr . Smith stated the Board is not a Nazi organization. He doesn 't believe questions should be addressed through the Chair. Chair Carlston stated some cities adhere to Robert's Rules of Order. Ms . O'Brien stated she remembers that procedure when Bill Clayton was Chair. Mr . Smith stated he doesn't recall ever going through the Chair to ask a question. Ms. O'Brien stated perhaps it is a policy decision the Board should make. Mr. Smith stated he feels the Board has already spent too much time on this "jerk." Mr . Bode stated perhaps the Board should send him a letter telling him not to move to Englewood . Ms . O'Brien asked that the Board give the Mayor something more helpful to respond to the letter. Chair Carlston stated Mayor Bradshaw would like to respond to Thornton, and the Board should assist her in doing that. Mr . Seymour stated as he recalls , he was puzzled that when the meeting was over he learned Thornton was in attendance and never announced themselves. Mr . Smith stated that someone asked if they wished to be introduced and was told they didn 't want to be introduced . Mr . Seymour stated he thought it was odd that they came and went and the Board never knew why they attended or who they were. Mr . Smith asked staff if the y had ever met the gentlemen who wrote the memo . Mr . Simpson responded no ; the memo was recei ved via the webmaster. Ms. Langon is on vacation ; the memo ended up in Council's packet and he realized the Board needed to see the memo this evening. Mr. Smith asked who it was addressed to . Mr. Simpson stated that when e-mails are received via the webmaster, the y go to the City Manager's office and then are distributed to the appropriate department. Mr . Simpson agreed with Ms. O 'Brien that perhaps it was best not to overreact and suggested that perhaps there should be no response . Ms. O 'Brien stated the Board is in a difficult position because the Mayor asked her for talking points. Chair Carlston stated the Mayor did try to contact her, but she was unable to speak with her. The Mayor then called Ms. O 'Brien , and it is in the Board 's best interest to respond at the request of Mayor Bradshaw . Mr. Simpson stated that what he is hearing from couple of members is that the response should be minimal. Mr . Smith stated if a response is going to be drafted point by point for the Mayor, he would like to see it circulated before it goes out. If there is a general letter that goes out thanking Thornton for their observations, he doesn 't have an issue . If there is a detailed response, the Board should review it before it goes out. Mr . Smith asked why it went to City Council before the Board had a chance to review the e-mail. Mr. Simpson responded; the e-mail was supposed to go to both City Council and the Board but the e-mail went through the City Manager's office which is why the Board didn 't received it until this evening. Ms . O 'Brien stated that in the future it would be better to 11 • • • have the Board review any memos prior to sending them to City Council. The Mayor was initially very upset because she didn't have comments from staff or the Board. Mr. Brotzman stated part of his assumption is that there were two focuses in the Council discussion. The first was Councilmember Moore regarding a recommendation which has been an ongoing issue for the Board on how the recommendation is presented. The second is a Council issue which probably hit home with the Mayor regarding what is available for people in the audience to see. The Mayor is concerned about how a member of the public knows what is going on. Mr . Brotzman stated he met with the Mayor. She would like either the Board to construct a formal reply or meet with Council discussion presentation. Mr . Brotzman stated there is no problem; the memo is off base. Ms. O'Brien stated she would rather meet with the Mayor than write a response . Mr. Brotzman stated tonight 's meeting would have been an excellent opportunity for the Council to observe the Board; however, the y are all exhausted from the Centennial celebrations. Mr. Simpson stated the meeting went very well. Mr. Simpson stated there were areas staff needed to work on and are making those corrections . Mr. Simpson stated a meeting with the Mayor would probably work best. Mr. Brotzman suggested staff invite the Mayor to the June meeting . Mr. Fruchtl and the recording secretary re-entered the meeting. Chair Carlston stated for the record that the discussion was not an executive session . Mr . Smith stated the Board had an open discussion on the record. VIII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Fruchtl stated no cases had been submitted for the June hearing. He asked the Board if they wished to meet in June. Chair Carlston asked if they Board should hold the meeting to meet with the Mayor. Mr. Brotzman stated the Board can meet with the Mayor in July . The Board decided not to meet in June and to invite Mayor Bradshaw to the July meeting. IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Mr. Brotzman stated he had nothing further. X. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Ms . Sprecace apologized for being late. He had a previous engagement he could not reschedule. To comment on the memo, he stated he agrees with Mr. Smith that any response to City of Thornton should be brief. Chair Carlston noted the Board's agenda on the City's website is outdated. Staff stated the link would be updated. 12 • • • There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:45 p .m . 13