Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-11 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS May 11, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 p .m. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Carlston presiding. Members present: Members absent: Staff present: Carlston, Cohn, Green, O'Brien, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace None Anthony Fruchtl , Planner Dan Brotzman, City Attorne y Chair Carlston stated there were seven members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance or app eal. Chair Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or den y variances b y Part Ill , Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Variances granted b y the Board are subject to a 30-day appeal period. Variances are effective at the end of the appeal period. Building permits for construction associated with an approved variance will not be issued until the appeal period is ended. Building permits must be obtained and construction begun within 180 days of the variance 's effective date . Chair Carlston set forth parameters for the hearing: 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. II. CASE #VAR0504-0001 Diana and Leigh Bray 2890 South Clarkson Street 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 exceed the maximum allowed height of a 3 foot solid fence by 3 feet within the front setback. This is a variance to Table 16-6-6.2 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Diana Bray, 2890 South Clarkson Street was sworn in. Ms. Bray testified there were several issues that prompted applying for the variance. The first issue has to do with safety . The house is very close to East Bates and South Clarkson. They have seen several accidents and "near misses" at that corner, and she is concerned that one of those accidents will • • • result in a car or truck comin g onto the property or crashing into their sleeping areas which are along East Bates. People are consistentl y driving fast and dangerously down Bates. They would like a physical barrier between their house and the street. The second issue is privacy. More than 30 feet of their property was taken to widen South Clarkson Street in the 1960's. It caused the front of their house to sit very close to the street. As people are walking or driving, they look into their windows. When their windows are open, they can hear people's conversations as they walk by. The y would like some privacy. The third issue is precedence . When the street was widened, the City granted the previous owners the right to build a six foot fence, which has been in existence for more than 30 years. The fourth issue is noise and dust. The y would like a barrier between the outside of the property and Bates Avenue because there is considerable noise and dust due to the dirt road which is exacerbat ed b y hea vy truck traffic and "hot-dogging" cars . Their proposal is to build an aesth etic all y pleasing m asonry wall which will not impair th e dev elopment of other peopl e's prop erties. Mr. Sprecace stated th e re is an agreement with the prior owners date d March 18, 1968. He asked if there would be anoth e r ag reement. Ms. Bra y responded that agreement was a temporary right to install a fence. Ms. O 'Brien pointed out to Mr. Sprecace that the suggested motion in the st aff report contemplates a new Encroachment Agreement. Ms. Bra y stated that she and staff did discuss an Encroachment Agreement since they are too close to the property line w ith th e propos ed fenc e. Mr. Sprecace stated the old Agreement states the City can require th e homeowner to tear down the wall. Ms. Bra y stat ed sh e understands that is a possibility in th e future as well. Ms . Bra y stated the y are proposin g to build a solid masonry wall around th e corner and then change the material to something that looks the same but is less structural. It will most likel y change from masonry to wood framed covered in stucco. The y want the barrier on the corner that is structural in case it is run into b y a vehicl e. The proposal may seem like overkill, but their bedrooms are located right on the street, and it is very frightening when they hear the screeching of tires at night when cars ar e making that turn. Mr. Green asked if there was significant safety between a three foot and six foot masonry wall. Ms. Bra y stated she did not know; part of the reason for the height is the privacy issue . Mr. Green confirmed the wall along Bates is four feet. Ms. Bra y stated the wall along Bates is six feet for the first 80 feet and then it goes to a five foot fence. Also along Bates is a fence that is higher than six feet; it was constructed as a dog barrier. She estimated it to be eight feet, but she has never measured it. Mr. Smith asked if she was going to build the wall along the entire length of Bates and Clarkson . Ms. Bra y responded that is what is being proposed. Mr. Smith stated there is 2 • presently a six foot fence for approximately 80 feet along Bates and 60-80 feet along Clarkson; the remainder of the street is open with the lower fence . He asked whether they wish to close the west and south sides . Ms. Bray stated there was a six foot fence or higher along East Bates , except for the last part which is between five and six feet. The South Clarkson section does go down in height. When they built their renovation, they extended the house and built a garage . They considered building a three foot fence in that area and are still not opposed to that idea, but they thought visually they might try to accomplish some other aesthetic things to make it look nice. They are considering wrought iron windows in the stucco walls and gates . They also are considering stone pillars to break up the wall. Mr. Smith stated he can understand protection for the first 60-80 feet for the structure along Clarkson, but he does not completely understand the need for the wall for the remainder of Clarkson . Ms. Bray stated she understood Mr. Smith 's perspective, and she is not opposed to changing the height towards the north end of South Clarkson. The y do not want the wall to look like a huge barricade, but at the same time the y do want som e separation. People are constantly coming onto their property; they jog onto their property; let their animals run onto their property, etc. Mr. Smith stated he would not object to some ty p e of open, wrought iron fencing on the • northern 164 feet of South Clarkson, but a solid block wall the entire length is a fortress. • Ms. Shotwell stated she drove by the property and there is an existing fence on the two lots. There is a renovation on one, and the other house has not been renovated . Ms. Bra y stated that is correct; the other house will be renovated soon . Ms. Shotwell asked how far the garage or house is to the sidewalk. Ms. Bray responded that it is approximately three feet. Ms. Shotwell stated then it is approximately six feet from people driving down South Clarkson . She asked Ms . Bray if she thought South Clarkson was a well traveled street. Ms. Bray stated the street is frequentl y used, and is looking for ways to slow traffic down, which is her next project. People often go 50-60 mph; it's not that there is a lot of traffic; it's just very fast moving. Ms. Shotwell asked if noise was also a problem. Ms. Bray stated that noise is definitely a problem, but it is more on East Bates than on South Clarkson. Mr. Green asked if it was due to East Bates being a dirt road. Ms. Bray stated it is partly because it is dirt and also because the house is so close. The house was built in 1911 before the lane was built. Mr. Cohn asked if the City ditch would be covered b y the wall. Ms. Bray stated they are working on that with the Utilities Department. The y are proposing to run the wall along the property line which will affect where the City ditch runs , which is a separate process. They thought about jogging the wall over the City ditch, but they have had problems with dumping, and decided to talk with City staff about making a larger change. City staff would prefer bringing the ditch back five feet onto the property and make the wall straight. They may choose to do that if it seems acceptable. Mr. Cohn asked if the wall along East 3 - • • Bates would go to the neighbor on the east. Ms. Bray stated it would run to the neighbor's stucco wall on the east. The y have a large stucco wall as well. Ms. Bray stated their wall on Bates would like very similar to their neighbor's large stucco wall. Mr. Smith stated the variance request seems to be premature; there appear to be a lot of unresolved issues -the Encroachment Agreement, the City Ditch issue. He still has an issue with the northern half of South Clarkson. He can understand the six foot wall along Bates and the corner on Clarkson, but does not want to see a solid six foot wall the entire length of Clarkson. Chair Carlston asked when the property was purchased. Ms. Bray stated they purchased the property in 2001. Chair Carlston stated they were aware how close the house was to the street when they purchased the property. Ms . Bray stated that was correct; however, the y didn't realize how bad the issues would be until they actually started living in the house . Referring to the site plan, Chair Carlston confirmed that the request is not for the fence along Bates Avenue. Chair Carlston asked if the y considered any other type of construction for the fence on the corner. She understands that it is a safety issue for the applicants, but she is concerned that if someone hits the wall the y could be seriousl y injured. Ms. O 'Brien clarified Chair Carlston 's concern is for drivers that leave the roadway and crash into a wall. Chair Carlston stated from the standpoint that the wall could be increased from three feet to six feet. Mr. Sprecace st ated that at three feet the car could go over the wall, which is worse . Chair Carlston asked if there was originall y a fence where the addition is located. Ms. Bra y responded yes; the y took down part of the fence. Ms. Bra y stated she has noticed a large wall on Elati Street which is eight feet adjoining a private development. Those houses are set back much farther from the street than her house, and the street is less bus y than South Clarkson . It seems that there is precedence in the city for masonry walls. Mr. Green asked for the height of the previous fence on Clarkson . Ms. Bray stated that it was six feet. On Clarkson the fence went from six feet to four feet. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner was sworn in . For clarification, the Encroachment Agreement is obtained after the fence permit is applied for; the y are processed concurrently. With regards to the Licensing Agreement to go over the City ditch and after speaking with the applicant, the Utilities Department, and Public Works Department, the decision was if the variance was granted the fence should be built first then they would know that they are building a six foot fence. As the fence goes over the City ditch, there are certain types of criteria for structural building that occur with that. If the Public Works Department knows that they are reviewing a six foot fence, then they will be able to do the necessary calculations . Those are the reasons why the applicant is before the Board asking for the • variance first before obtaining the Encroachment Agreement and the Licensing Agreement. 4 - • • • - If the Board denies the variance, there will be different calculations involved for the City ditch. Mr. Smith asked what part of the fence could be replaced without the variance. Mr. Fruchtl responded that any portion past the first 25 feet on East Bates can have a six foot fence. Mr. Fruchtl approached the Board and showed the Board on the site plan the section of the property requiring a variance for a si x foot fence . Mr. Smith asked why the applicants could not replace the original six foot fence on South Clarkson and on the corner of East Bates . Mr. Fruchtl responded that the original Encroachment Agreement was specifically for a temporary wooden fence. If the applicants were requesting a replacement for a wooden fence, there wouldn 't be a problem. By changing the materials, it changes the language and requires a new Encroachment Agreement and a variance. Mr. Fruchtl stated he has spoken with the City Attorney, and he concurs . Mr. Sprecace confirmed that along East Bates no variance is required. Mr. Fruchtl stated that is correct, except for the first 25 feet. Chair Carlston asked if the Board addresses the construction of the fence. Mr. Fruchtl stated the construction of the fence will be reviewed by the Engineering Division. Since it will be higher than four feet, it will require engineering specifications and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. Mr. Smith confirmed that there was no original variance . Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct. There w as an Encroachment Agreement and a temporary right to install a wooden fence which was granted in 1968 b y City Council. The original variance was for a three foot wooden fence along Clarkson which would actuall y now be located in the middle of the street. After speaking with legal , the variance has been deemed null and void. Mr. Smith stated it appears the City condemned some property and in order to compensate for taking the property, they gave the owners a 35-y ear, temporary fence; now the owners cannot rebuild the fence. Ms. Shotwell stated that in reading paragraph 3 in the 1968 Agreement, that the reason it was temporary was because the City might need to take more property. Mr. Fruchtl stated the reason paragraph 3 is included in the Agreement, and continues to be included in Encroachment Agreements, is if there is ever a need for work to be done in the City right of way or to widen the sidewalks, it lets the owner know that the City has reserved the right to remove the fence and that it is the responsibility of the property owner to remove the fence and incur the associated costs . In essence, the owner is granted the right to place the fence on the City's property with the understanding they ma y at some point have to remove it, at their cost, should the City need to access the property to conduct maintenance. Ms. Shotwell stated it is reasonable to assume that at the time the owners wanted to build a wood fence, and it could have just as easily been a stone fence . It seems to be semantics. 5 • • Ms. Shotwell asked staff whether it was imperative that it be a wood fence at the time the Agreement was written. Mr. Fruchtl responded that he did not know the answer. Mr. Smith stated that as an attorney that represents government, any time governments allow people to build things on city property it is a license that the government can make the owners move it at anytime for any reason because they do not want to give them a permanent right unless the property is sold. Mr. Brotzman stated the City does that in all their agreements, especially concerning the City ditch. Concerning the materials, he stated it was probably the materials used at the time. The old Code had 50 percent for a solid fence. A stone fence would be different than a wood fence . Mr. Sprecace stated he is concerned about the fence running the whole length of South Clarkson. The applicant stated she was flexible for the northern section of South Clarkson. He has no problem with the six foot fence along East Bates and around the house, but doesn 't want to see it down the whole length of Clarkson . He feels it will look like a fortified compound, and will not look aestheticall y pleasing. He asked the applicant how firm she was on having a six foot fence on the northern half of South Clarkson. Ms. Bray stated she is flexible on that portion; it is a trade off. She was told by staff that the aesthetics were not going to be considered, so she did not focus on speaking to the aesthetics because they are subjective . Mr. Smith stated he has the same concerns as Mr. Sprecace; however, he is not talking about aesthetics. He is talking about a walled, two-acre lot; openness vs . closed. He is not concerned what color or material the wall is made out of; he is concerned that it is a concrete barrier. Ms. Bray stated a lot of people build houses that she would consider aesthetically not pleasing in Englewood and she does not get to have a say on their aesthetics. She stated that they are calling it a "barrier", but she hears them saying that it is an "aesthetic barrier." It is private property, not a public park. Her house is the closest house to South Clarkson ; no other house on South Clarkson is as close to the street as her house . Chair Carlston clarified with staff that the Board does not rule on the aesthetics of the fence; they rule on the height with regard to the variance. Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct. Ms. Bray stated they are proposing to move' the fence on the corner closer to the house then it currently is located . They are proposing to bevel the edge of the fence and bring back the fence on East Bates three feet. Mr. Sprecace confirmed that the current fence is six feet over their property line, and asked if there was an easement. Ms. Bray stated there is the Agreement that has been discussed, • and they are proposing to change it to three feet. 6 • • • There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston incorporated the staff report and ex hibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Ms. O 'Brien moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #VAR0504-0001 , 2890 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF A 3 FOOT SOLID FENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK BY 3 FEET WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE FENCE MUST BE LOCATED IN THE SAME LOCATION AS DEMONSTRATED ON THE ATIACHED SITE PLAN ; AND 2. THE APPLICANTS MUST RECEIVE PERMISSION TO LOCATE THE FENCE WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WHICH REPLACES THE 1968 ENCROACHMENT AGREEME N T; AND 3. THE APPLICANTS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL CITY OF ENGLEWOOD UTILITY DEP A RTMENT'S REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING LICENSE AGREEMENTS PERTAI N IN G TO THE CITY DITCH . THIS IS A VARIANCE TO TABLE 16-6-6.2 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Ms . O 'Brien stated there are unique circumstances since the house is so close to the street, and she is not as concerned as some of her fellow Board members are of a huge barrier . She believes it is six foot fence, and the applicants are considering aesthetics. Ms . Shotwell stated she belie v es there are unique ph y sical conditions with respect to the property. Thirty feet was taken b y the City so it is not a self-imposed hardship. The proximity of the house to the street, in light of the 30 foot taking, does create a safety and privacy issue; it also creates a problem with the health, safety, and welfare. It does not impair the development of the other properties or alter the character of the neighborhood. She stated that aesthetics are subjective. It appears to be in keeping of the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Sprecace stated that he believes the six 'foot fence to the northern 164 feet on South Clarkson will alter the character of the neighborhood. There are no other six foot walls in that area. He has no problem with the first 100 feet. It will look like an ey esore the entire length. Mr. Green stated he agreed; it is out of character in the neighborhood. He understands it needs the protection, but going the full length makes the property a fortress and makes it out of character with the other houses in the neighborhood. 7 - • • • Chair Carlston stated the request is for a six foot fence . It could be open wrought iron or it could be masonry. It is not the Board's job to say what material the fence is made out of. Mr . Smith stated the Ordinance talks about the difference between solid and open construction. Chair Carlston stated she clarified with staff whether or not the Board needed to address the materials , and staff stated the Board addresses the height only . Mr . Smith stated the Board does not address aesthetics, but there is a difference between open and solid construction. Ms. Shotwell stated aesthetics is not an issue; safety is an issue. Part of the problem is that the wood fence presents a safety issue; there needs to be a stronger barrier. The house is extremely close to the sidewalk and to the street; there is no privacy . Mr. Smith stated he agrees and that is why he has no problem with the southerly 100 feet which protects the house . Mr . Green stated he does not believe the extra 164 feet is a safety issue. Chair Carlston asked Mr. Smith if he was proposing an amendment to the motion. Mr. Smith stated either that or votin g no and allowing the applicants to reappl y for another variance. He stated he cannot vote for the motion as presented, but can vote for a motion to allow a six foot fence for the southerly 100 feet and allow the applicants to come back to the Board for another variance for th e northerly 164 feet if that helps get the process moving. Ms . O'Brien stated there are clearl y three Board members who have indicated they oppose the motion. It may make sense to change the motion . Mr. Smith stated that he would not object to changing the motion to reflect that it is the southern 100 feet of South Clarkson and the first 25 feet of East Bates. Discussion ensued . Ms. Shotwell stated she had no objection to the suggested changes, but 100 feet may not be enough to protect the house . Chair Carlston stated she believes it is a starting point based on the site plan. Ms. Shotwell stated she believes the house extends further than 100 feet on South Clarkson. Mr . Smith stated the danger comes from people turning the corner . Ms . Shotwell stated the house is very close to the street along the enter length of South Clarkson that it is still a matter of safety. Ms. O'Brien agreed. Chair Carlston stated the depth of the property is 264 feet; half of that would be 132 feet. Mr. Fruchtl stated he could clarify a couple of issues if permitted. With regards to wanting to protect the house, something that could be taken into consideration by the Board is that 8 - • • • the variance can extend to the northern tip of the house that way the fence covers the house . Ms. O 'Brien suggested adding "as currently constructed." Mr. Smith stated he didn 't have an objection to that language assuming the City Attorney's office can have it measured and draw up an appropriate Agreement. Mr. Sprecace stated the new portion of the house is set back significantly from the street. The older portion of the house is approximately five feet from the street. Ms. O'Brien stated that if it were her house she would not want to see the fence stop at some mid-point of the house . Discussion ensued. Mr. Sprecace stated he wanted to know the significance of the 100 feet. Chair Carlston reopened the public he aring. Mr. Fruchtl stated the significance of the 100 feet is the existing fence that encroaches into the City right of way . Mr. Smith asked if the Board granted a six foot fence for 100 feet on Clarkson if that would cover the house. Mr. Fruchtl stat ed he did not know, but can get the approv ed plans from his office, and determine where the house is located on the property . The Board took a short recess . Mr. Fruchtl stated the most northern tip of the original house is 118 feet along South Clarkson . Mr. Smith asked if that included the garage. Mr. Fruchtl stated that does not include the garage . Ms. Bray stated she wished to make a couple of points. The adjoining property to the east has a 250 foot, six foot stucco wall. Mr. Sprecace stated he has seen that wall. Ms. Bra y stated that in terms of the neighborhood, she wanted to point out the stucco wall and there are other six foot wooden fences in the neighborhood. Ms. Bra y stated that there is a neighbor across the street that is a convicted sexual pedophile. She has been in touch with the District Attorney in the last few months about this neighbor since the crime, which was extreme, just happened and it was against two girls . She has three young girls . This neighbor wanders into their yard through South Clarkson. She has four children and she would like them to feel safe playing i n their backy ard and not have to worry that some stranger with very serious problems who might come into their backyard . He is on the registered sexual offender list. This also led to their decision to request the variance for the fence along South Clarkson . There were no further questions for staff or the applicant; Chair Carlston closed the public hearing. 9 - • • • Mr. Smith suggested a friendly amendment to the motion as follows: THAT CASE #VAR0504-0001, 2890 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF A 3 FOOT SOLID FENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK BY 3 FEET FOR THE SOUTHERLY 118 FEET OF SOUTH CLARKSON STREET AND FOR THAT PORTION OF EAST BATES AVENUE FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE FENCE MUST BE LOCATED IN THE SAME LOCATION AS DEMONSTRATED ON THE ATIACHED SITE PLAN; AND 2 . THE APPLICANTS MUST RECEIVE PERMISSION TO LOCATE THE FENCE WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WHICH REPLACES THE 1968 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT; AND 3. THE APPLICANTS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL CITY OF ENGLEW O OD UTILITY DEPARTMENT'S REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING LICENSE AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CITY DITCH. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO TABLE 16-6-6 .2 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE . Ms. O 'Brien accepted the friendl y amendment. Ms. O 'Brien stated the applicant can still come back to the Board for the northern portion of South Clarkson for a combination of a solid and open fence . Ms . Shotwell stated that the applicant raised issues that are worth y of consideration; there are other six foot solid walls in the neighborhood . Her request does not change the character of the neighborhood . There are also man y six foot wooden fences i n the neighborhood . With the safety, privacy, and noise issues, there appear to be sufficient justification that the applicant has met the standard for the wall. Ms. Shotwell requested the Board discuss those justifications before they are discarded. Ms. O 'Brien stated she agreed; she doesn 't see the wall as a change in the character especially when there is a 250 feet of solid wall adjacent to the property. Mr. Smith stated that wall is on East Bates. Mr. Sprecace stated that South Clarkson is a major street; there are more houses on that 'street and more traffic on that street than on Bates. He also doesn't agree with the wall on Bates ; it is an eyesore and also ruins the character of the neighborhood. It is also the onl y concrete wall in the area that he knows of; there are wooden fences , but no other concrete walls. Ms. O'Brien asked what the difference was between a solid wood fence and a conc rete or stucco wall. Mr. Sprecace stated it looks different; there is a difference. It has a different texture; it looks like a fortress. Ms. O 'Brien asked if he was concerned with the aesthetics 10 • • • versus that it is changing the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Sprecace responded that if the wall is put the entire length of Clarkson, it will be the only wall on the area except for the other wall on East Bates. Discussion ensued. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes for the reasons stated by Ms. Shotwell earlier. Mr. Green vote yes concurring with Ms. Shotwell. Mr. Sprecace stated he voted yes. The variance is not a self-imposed difficulty or hardship. It does not permanently impair the use or development of the adjacent properties. It does not alter the character of the neighborhood. It is within the intent of the regulations and there are unique physical conditions and history to the property. Ms. O 'Brien stated she voted yes concurring with the other Board members. Ms. Shotwell stated she voted yes for the reasons she stated earlier. Mr. Cohn stated he voted yes. The applicant clearly met all four criteria for granting a variance . Chair Carlston stated she voted ye s for the reasons she stated earlier. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, Cohn, Green, O 'Brien , Shotwell, Smith , Sprecace None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. The Chair instructed the applicant to contact the Planning staff for any additional or necessary information . 11 • • • Ill . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the April 13 , 2005 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Ms . O 'Brien seconded: THE MINUTES OF APRIL 13 , 2005 BE APPROVED. AYES: NAYS: Carlston, Cohn , Green, O 'Brien , Smith , Sprecace None ABSTAIN: Shotwell ABSENT: None The Chair announced the motion approved b y a 6-0 vote. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith mov ed ; Mr. Sprecace seconded : THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #VAR0503-0001, 3715 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, AND CASE #VAR0503 -0002 , 4 2 98 SOUTH LIPAN STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, Cohn, Green, O 'Brien , Smith , Sprecace None Shotwell None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote . V. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Fruchtl stated there are no cases scheduled June. The Board decided not to meet in June. VI. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Mr. Brotzman stated he had nothing further. VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Smith stated Arapahoe County has aerial and tax parcel maps of properties available online now. He requested that staff provide the Board with those maps in the future . 12 - • • • There was no further business brought before the Board. The regular meeting was declared adjourned at 9 :30 p.m . 13 -