►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting March 8, 2023
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/156506?handle=F4FF1F1CC816471AA074F1450459D6FA
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/156505?handle=2084E42BE90D4A83B56EB1026A10C920
1. Chair Finn approved the agenda.
2. Call to Order
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Findings of Fact
5. Public Hearing:
Anyone interested in speaking in favor or against the variance, please call 303.762.2342 or email commdev@englewoodco.gov 24 hours prior to the public hearing for directions on how to provide testimon...
Case VAR2023-001 Applicant: Craig Demmon Property: 1321 E. Dartmouth Ave. Request: A variance to encroach approximately five (5) feet, ten (10) inches into the required twenty-five (25) foot minimum f...
Case VAR2023-002 Applicant: Kelley Thompson Property: 3021 S. Corona St. Request: V ariances to encroach approximately three (3) feet, four (4) inches into the required five (5) foot minimum side setb...
6. Introduction of New Board Member
7. Staff's Choice
8. Attorney's Choice
9. Board Member's Choice
10. Adjourn
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/156506?handle=F4FF1F1CC816471AA074F1450459D6FA
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/156505?handle=2084E42BE90D4A83B56EB1026A10C920
A
B
C
C
D
B
B
A
A
E
E
F
A
G
H
A
A
So
case
procedure,
so
there
are,
as
I
stated,
five
member
presence,
so
four
votes
or
four
affirmative
votes
are
required
to
Grant
a
variance
or
appeal.
The
board
is
authorized
to
Grant
or
deny
a
variance
by
part
three
section:
60
of
the
Inglewood
City
Charter.
Anyone
agreed
by
a
decision
rendered
by
this
board
May
appeal
that
decision
to
a
court
of
record.
However,
such
appeal
must
be
made
within
30
days
of
the
board's
decision.
Any
approved
variance
is
effective
at
the
end
of
the
appeal
period.
A
Building
permits
for
construction
associated
with
an
approved
variance
will
not
be
issued
until
the
appeal
period
is
ended,
building
pyramid,
building
permits
must
be
obtained
and
construction
began
within
180
days
of
the
variances
effective
date
procedure
for
the
meeting
is
the
case
will
be
introduced
and
an
overview
will
be
given
by
staff.
Applicant
will
present
their
request
and
reason.
Civilians
should
be
granted.
A
A
A
B
I
I
Daniel
herring
good
evening
board
members
I'm
one
of
the
planner
one's
here.
If
you
haven't,
we
haven't
had
the
chance
to
meet
so
the
applicant
Craig
diamond
is
owner
of
1321
East,
Dartmouth
Avenue,
and
this
subject.
Property
is
7599
square
feet,
that's
relevant
because
that
makes
it
a
small
lot.
One
unit
dwelling
in
the
r1a,
it's
side,
setback
of
five
in
front
of
25,
the
entire
ex
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen.
I
I
However,
the
carport
located
on
the
east
side
of
the
house
is
where
the
face
of
the
house
is
closest
to
that
25
foot
setback
line
because
of
this
kiltered
arrangement
of
the
principal
structure
relative
to
the
front
setback
line
so
you'll,
see
on
the
side
where
the
existing
carport
is
is
where
the
building
is
closest
to
the
front
setback.
Line
This
Arrangement
is
the
impetus
for
the
applicant
requesting
a
variance
of
five
foot,
ten
inches
in
the
r1a
setback
for
a
proposed
attached
garage.
So
now,
by
way
of
analysis.
I
So
first
Criterion
is
a
unique
physical
condition,
such
as
a
size,
shape,
location,
topography
and
surroundings.
The
perpendicular
orientation
of
this
principle
structure
in
relation
to
the
front
property
line
originates
from
a
mid-century
design,
Trend
and
that's
observable
not
just
on
this
block,
but
throughout
the
entire
subdivision.
So
the
next
eight
properties
to
the
east
of
the
property
in
question
all
have
a
similar
kiltered
tilted
orientation
to
their
front
property
line
and
as
well
as
a
characteristic
of
this
subdivision,
as
you
can
see,
are
oddly
shaped.
I
I
Now
this
variance
will
enable
the
applicant
to
enjoy
the
use
of
a
garage
which
is
allowed
by
residential
districts
and
multiple
properties
on
the
Block
have
achieved
garages
of
a
similar
design.
If
granted,
the
variance
would
be
essentially
consistent
with
the
intent
of
our
dimensional
standards
of
the
Zone
district
and
not
create
a
public
health
safety
or
welfare
issue.
The
third
Criterion
is
that
this
will
not
permanently
impair
the
use
of,
or
development
of,
an
adjacent,
conforming
property.
I
The
proposed
garage
would
decrease
the
existing
front
setback
encroachment
by
approximately
a
foot
foot
and
it
will
still
maintain
their
side
setback.
The
property
arrangement
of
the
garage
is
consistent
with
similar
properties
on
the
Block,
as
I've
stated.
The
fourth
Criterion
is
that
this
is
not
a
self-imposed
hardship
and,
to
reiterate,
this
is
a
design
from
another
era
that
was
popular
in
this
subdivision,
and
this
is
not
a
something
that
arises
from
a
choice
of
the
current
property
owner,
so
in
some
Department
recommendations
to
approve
the
ovariance.
I
A
C
J
A
B
B
J
J
J
K
J
The
we
do
not
have
the
a
sign
statement
from
the
adjacent
neighbor,
but
they're
willing
to
do
that.
If
needed,
they
don't
have
any
opposition.
We
can
certainly
get
that
documentation.
If,
if
there
is
anybody,
that's
opposed,
and
the
other
nice
portion
part
about
this
is
that
these
two
houses
are
actually
mirror
images
of
each
other,
so
the
garages
are
adjacent
to
each
other.
A
J
J
H
A
B
B
A
H
A
L
A
B
B
B
B
A
G
I
G
A
F
E
A
Second,
all
right
so
we'll
do
a
Voice
vote
all
in
favor.
Actually,
I
don't
need
a
Voice
vote
because
it's
it's.
We
got
a
motion,
so
my
I
don't
know.
If
we
want
to
do
a
friendly
Amendment
to
just
make
that
six
feet,
it
seems
that
five
feet
ten
inches.
We
could
I
just
don't
want
anything
that
seems
to
me
like
we're
splitting
hairs
a
little
bit
I'll.
A
Do
yep
is
there
a
second
for
to
amend
that
to
six
foot
I'll?
Second,
that
as
well
Perfect
all
right?
So
this
we
do
need
to
vote
on
we'll
do
Voice
vote
all
in
favor
of
accepting
the
friendly
amendment
to
six
feet
say
I
I,
any
opposed
all
right,
so
the
so
we're
sitting
at
six
feet,
discussion,
thoughts.
H
Really
good
looking
at
it,
it
makes
sense
if
looking
at
the
kind
of
that
whole
neighborhood,
it
looks
like
almost
every
house
is
encroached
at
least
the
majority
of
encouraged
at
least
some
extent,
or
at
least
visually
from
a
map
appear
to
be
at
about
that
same
level
via
whether
it's
a
carport
or
whether
it's
a
barrage
or
something
similar
or
just
an
expansion
to
the
structures.
So
it
looks.
F
Like
it
fits
the
area,
it
definitely
looks
like
a
that
physical
condition
exists
with
the
orientation,
even
though
it
is
somewhat
common
on
in
this
specific
area.
It's
definitely
not
common
to
to
this
r1a.
So
it's
kind
of
it's
definitely
a
an
odd
situation
that
is
just
kind
of
what
variances
are
for
I
feel
like.
F
That
second
Criterion
is
met,
that
the
intent
of
the
Zone
district
is
for
homes
to
be
able
to
have
garages.
The
third
Criterion
has
met
that
the
variants
will
not
permanently
impair
the
user
development
of
adjacent
properties
it
it
will
not
as
it
is
currently
drawn,
and
then
the
fourth
Criterion
is
that
the
variance
is
not
a
self-imposed
difficulty
or
hardship
that
this
Arrangement
on
the
lot
was
not
self-imposed.
A
A
The
property
is
at
3
30
21
South
Corona
Street
they're,
requesting
a
variance
to
encroach
approximately
three
feet:
four
inches
into
the
required
five
foot.
Minimum
side
setback
as
well
as
encroach
approximately
eight
feet,
eight
inches
into
the
required
25
foot,
minimum
front
setback
and
encroach
approximately
one
foot
vertically
into
the
required
bulk
plane
to
add
a
proposed
Second
Story
addition
for
the
property
in
the
r1c
zone,
District.
A
O
O
O
The
applicant
is
Kelly
Thompson
at
3021,
South,
Corona
Street,
and
the
request
is
to
encroach
three
foot
four
inches
into
the
required
five
foot
setback
as
well
as
eight
foot,
eight
inches
into
the
required
25
foot
front
setback
and
to
encroach
approximately
one
foot
or
less
into
the
required
bulk
plane.
So
if
you
don't
mind,
I'm
gonna
share
my
screen
and
get
you
oriented
here.
Hopefully,.
O
Okay,
very
good,
so
the
property
at
3021,
South,
Corona
Street,
is
located
between
Cornell
Avenue
and
Dartmouth
Avenue
in
the
3000
block
of
South
Corona
Street,
one
block
west
of
of
South
Downing,
that's
in
the
northeastern
portion
of
the
city.
It
is
zoned
r1c
as
as
are
the
surrounding
properties,
and
it
is
50
feet
wide
by
125
feet,
deep,
which
equals
6250
square
feet,
and
it
is
a
one
unit,
dwelling
I'm
going
to
be
flipping
through
some
different
slides
here.
O
C
O
O
But
you
can
see
the
highlighted
property
and
the
light
blue
portions
are
the
hundred
year
flood
plain
and
then
the
black
cross-hatched
areas
within
that
are
is
the
flood
way
and
in
essence,
anything
located
within
the
100-year,
floodplain
or
flood
way
needs
a
flood
plain
development
permit.
But
a
more
particular
importance
is
being
located
in
a
flood
way.
O
You,
you
cannot
raise
the
flood
the
base
flood
elevation
at
all,
zero
meaning
it
makes
it
very
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
expand
a
footprint
of
any
kind
of
structure.
Be
it
a
garage,
a
house,
so
it
becomes
pretty
much
impossible
to
do
that
and,
as
we'll
see,
the
applicant
originally
wanted
to
do
that.
Expand
the
structure
on
the
first
floor,
but
once
they
found
out
about
the
floodplain
and
floodway
issues
they
are
now
proposing
to
pop
the
top
and
go
up
instead
without
expanding
the
footprint
of
the
structure.
O
O
So
this
is
a
survey
plot
and
the
Green
Cross
hatched
areas
show
the
required
front
and
side
setbacks,
and
you
can
see
with
the
red
outline
that
the
current
footprint
of
the
structure
is
within
the
five
foot
side
set
back
to
the
North
and
the
25
foot
front
setback
to
the
east.
In
fact,
it
encroaches
to
the
north,
approximately
three
foot
four
inches
and
to
the
East
End
of
the
front
setback
approximately
eight
feet.
Eight
inches
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
how
that
happened.
O
I
do
believe
that
the
house
was
built
in
1950.
This
part
of
town
was
annexed
into
the
city
in
1949,
and
it's
hard
to
tell
from
looking
at
the
building
file
exactly
when
all
that
happened
there
could
have
been
some
overlap
there.
I
do
know
that
in
that
time
frame
there
used
to
be
some
side,
setbacks
that
were
seven
on
one
side
and
three
on
the
other,
how
it
got
to
be
one
foot,
seven
from
the
north
property
line.
I
I
do
not
know,
but
that's
where
it
is.
O
This
is
a
an
official
survey,
so
what
the
applicant
is
proposing
you
can
see
here.
This
is
a
survey
of
the
site,
here's
another
plan
that
shows
essentially
the
same
thing
with
the
existing
footprint,
but
you
can
see
that
there's
an
existing
covered
patio
on
the
first
floor
and
then
there
is
an
existing
carport
and
then
there
is
a
proposed.
O
The
the
proposed
second
floor
area,
which
would
not
increase
the
first
floor
footprint
you'll
see
in
the
next
slide,
but
it
basically
creates
a
full
rectangle
here
and
I'll
show
you
it
now.
So
this
is
what
the
proposed
Second
Story
would
look
like,
and
they
are
proposing
to
go
straight
up
from
the
existing
footprint
with
the
Second
Story
walls.
O
As
you
get
closer
to
a
property
line,
you
are
limited
in
the
amount
of
openings
you
can
have
for
fire
code
purposes.
It's
it's
perfectly
fine
to
do
that,
you
could
build
to
a
zero
lot
line,
but
provided
that
you
had
the
correct
fire
ratings
as
well
as
lack
of
openings
or
or
no
openings
so
to
to
just
get
into
the
criteria.
O
O
Hardships
is
there's
also,
if,
if
you
don't
stack
the
walls
meaning
go
straight
up,
there
are
some
structural
issues
and
even
potentially
some
sort
of
symmetry
issues,
but
there
it
creates
some
structural
issues
as
well
as
some
space
issues,
if
if
they
have
to
come
inward
with
that
proposed
Second
Story,
and
so
there's
there's
some
issues
there
in
terms
of
the
second
Criterion.
This
would
not
create
any
public
health
safety
or
welfare
issues.
O
As
far
as
the
third
Criterion,
it
will
not
be,
it
will
not
be
affecting
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
It
is
not
going
Beyond
any
of
the
existing
setbacks.
It's
not
encroaching
any
further
and
the
applicant
does
have
neighbor
notification
forms
from
both
the
North
and
South
property
owners.
Lastly,
in
terms
of
a
self-imposed
difficulty,
this
is
not
a
self-imposed
difficulty
or
hardship.
This
owner
hasn't
had
the
property
very
long.
This
condition
existed.
O
In
fact,
the
property
owner
didn't
even
know
about
the
flood
plain
issue
prior
to
applying
for
this
building
permit.
So
with
that
I'd
be
I,
I
guess
I
will
I.
I
would
summarize
this
with
the
Community
Development
Department
recommends
that
this
variance
requests
be
granted
or
variance
requests
be
granted
for
the
reasons
I've
I've
stated
so
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
with
that.
G
O
That
could
be
I
see
what
you're
talking
about
you've
got
the
survey
plot
here
with
the
carport
not
extending
in,
and
then
you've
got
the
existing
plat,
presumably
showing
that
it
is
extending
in
yeah
I.
Think
we
can
ask
the
applicant
that,
as
they
come
up
for
their
presentation,
that
thank
you
for
noticing
that
I
did
not
notice
that
that
could
be
a
drafting
error.
O
A
H
H
O
A
O
O
That
to
my
knowledge,
none
of
that
has
been
done
and
so
yeah.
This
is
Overland
flow
and-
and
certainly
even
you
know,
even
even
looking
at
it-
you
know
you
would
not
think
that
it
flows
through
there.
This
is
something
that's
relatively
new
within
the
city,
but
no,
it
is
Overland
flow.
That
is
correct.
O
H
O
Well,
so
so,
no
matter
what
that's
a
great
question:
they
have
to
get
a
floodplain
development
permit
from
the
from
public
works
and
that's
gonna.
They're
gonna
have
to
hire
an
engineer
with
a
specialty
in
in
flood
plain,
and
they
will
look
at
the
situation
and
and
offer
them
options.
I
think
I
think
the
the
question
that's
really
before
the
board
tonight.
L
O
Decisions
because
and
and
we'll
hear
from
the
applicant
on
whether
or
not
the
new
deck
that's
going
to
be
on
top
of
the
carport
will
encroach
to
the
into
the
five
feet.
I
I
would
think
not
because
that
would
be
a
another
variance
request
that
hasn't
been
requested
here
yet
tonight.
But
the
real
question
before
the
board
doesn't
have
as
much
to
do
about
what
they
can
do
or
not
doing.
The
flood
plain,
which
is,
is
clearly
Limited
and
has
been
stated
as
such
by
the
public
works
department.
O
The
the
floodplain
development
permit,
which
will
again
they'll,
have
to
hire
a
consultant
that
will
be
its
own
thing
and
and
so
that
that
could
have
its
own
challenges.
But
but
this
is
a
a
an
easier
question,
but
in
my
experience
and
I'm
not
an
engineer,
but
in
my
experience,
they're
not
going
to
say
yeah,
go
ahead
and
expand
this
footprint
for
your
Edition.
E
M
B
A
M
If
you
don't
mind,
Kelly
I'd
like
to
go
first
by
all
means
yeah,
first
of
all,
Brooke.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
thought
that
was
a
very
thorough
and
accurate
explanation
of
what
we're
looking
to
seek
here.
Matt
did
notice
an
error
on
my
behalf.
The
carport
is
not
intended
to
be
in
the
setback
at
all.
That's
not
a
request
that
we're
making
it's
our
understanding
that
we
will
be
allowed
to
reconstruct
the
cardboard,
not
expanding
any
of
the
footprint.
M
So
the
existing
columns
that
are
there
will
remain
in
size,
potentially
become
a
steel
as
opposed
to
wood,
to
support
the
deck
without
taking
up
additional
footprint
and
creating
any
potential
additional
displacement
for
within
the
floodway.
So
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
we're
really
only
seeking
to
be
in
the
setback
on
the
North
and
the
East
Side
the
front
and
the
side
setback
so
that
we
can
basically
just
maximize
our
structural
efficiency
and
build
up
vertically.
On
the
existing
first
floor
walls,
foreign.
A
Could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
why
you
couldn't
just
shift
the
whole
thing
to
the
South
somewhat,
because
I
know
that
there
were
some
structural
conversation
about
you
have
an
existing
wall
there,
but
the
the
problems
that
that
would
cause.
If
we
don't
allow
a
setback
to
the
north
and
then
you
have
to
move
that
back
for
three
feet.
M
Yeah
sure
so
the
the
space
as
you
can
see
right
now,
is
on
the
exterior
of
the
building
just
over
a
thousand
square
feet,
so
she's
a
pretty
needs
to
have
a
pretty
efficient,
lore
plan
to
begin
with,
and
if
we
start
introducing
structural
columns
within
that
first
floor
volume,
it
really
affects
the
efficiency
of
what
she
currently
has
right.
Now,
the
proposed
plan
that
we
have
the
stairwell
will
actually
go
along
that
north
wall,
which
would
allow
it
to
be
a
solid
wall.
M
Feet
is
a
big
deal
that
that's
a
substantial
portion
of
this
home,
the
space
that
we're
looking
to
capture
over
the
covered
carport
or
the
the
patio
on
the.
What
is
the
Northwest
corner?
That's
substantial
for
us
to
be
able
to
in
order
for
us,
in
order
for
my
client
to
spend
money
in
a
reasonable
way
in
order
for
her
to
go
up
and
have
it
be
efficient.
M
A
M
It
would
then
create
like
an
interior
structure
within
her
home,
that
her
second
floor
story
would
be
bearing
on
it
wouldn't
be
bearing
on
that
north
wall.
We
would
have
to
then
have
structure
on
the
interior
of
the
first
floor.
That
would
support
that
north
wall
That's
not
bearing
on
the
first
floor
wall.
M
A
M
M
But
I
I
wasn't
aware
of
that
and
based
upon
what
I'm,
showing
I,
don't
think
that
we're
going
to
need
that
wall
to
extend
beyond
18.7
feet,
I
mean
we're
very
close
to
it,
because
another
caveat
that
I'm
not
sure
if
you're
aware
of
or
not,
but
any
second
story
that
this
owner
adds
is
going
to
have
to
be
one
foot
above
the
book
or
above
the
100
Year
floodplain
limit.
So
that's
eight
feet.
So
then
she
has
to
go
up
nine
to
nine
feet.
M
So
anything
that's
cantilevering
over
at
that
patio
on
the
south
side
and
her
carport.
All
of
the
bottom
of
those
structures
now
have
to
be
a
foot
above
the
flood
plain.
So
that's
where
that
Second
Story
height
is
being
driven
from
because
we're
dealing
with
a
vertical
datum
that
we
we
don't
have
control
over.
A
A
B
N
A
N
Yeah,
so
let's
see
the
first
thing
I
want
to
say
is:
this
has
been
because
this
is
my
first
Excellence
board
I'm
sitting
in
on,
and
so
thank
you
guys
all
for
doing
this.
This
is
important.
Work
and
I
appreciate
that
there
are
people
who
are
giving
their
of
their
time
to
do
this,
and
the
second
thing,
I
would
say,
was
so
I
also
own
a
property
one
block
away
on
Corona,
and
so
when
I
saw
the
sign.
N
Then
I
also
spent
time
walking
around
looking
at
it
and
knowing
that
knowing
Englewood
and
that
sometimes
these
things
have
been.
How
has
this
had
been
added
on
to
over
the
years
and
not
necessarily
everything
conforms
so
that
was
I.
Think
probably
my
main
question
and
sitting
in
on
this
was
number
one
is
in
in
in
not
in
theory,
in
on
on
premise
like
I:
don't
like
the
idea
of
encroaching
into
green
spaces
or
or
the
borders
between
houses,
just
because
I
think
that's
something.
N
That's
really
important
about
Englewood
and
I
really
appreciate
about
it.
However,
I
also
understand
what
I
was
waiting
to
hear
was.
Is
this
what
where
the
house
already
is
and
that's
exactly
what
it
is
like
this
is
what
she
inherited.
This
is
where
it
is,
and
so
my
concern
so
given
that
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
it,
because
I
can
see
that
that's
you
know
you
have
to
work
with
what
you're
given
I
think
and
it
seems
to
me
like
that
front
portion.
N
It
looks
when
you
look
at
the
house.
It
almost
looks
like
that
was
an
add-on
at
some
point,
and
but
there
it
is
you
know,
and
so
I
guess
the
only
thing
I
would
be
concerned
about
is
just
wanting
to
make
sure
that
this,
this
variance
is,
is
unique
to
the
fact
that
these
conditions
already
exist.
Not
someone
who
wants
to
take
over
a
lot
demolish
a
house
and
build
to
the
you
know,
push
the
limits.
So
that
was
my
concern
because
that
that's
those
are
the
details.
A
Mr
sorry
I
was
I
was
muted
and
it
was
really
intelligent
that
what
I
was
the
comments.
I
was
adding.
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
to
confirm
that
this
variant
runs
with
that
house.
If
she
suddenly
says
I
want
to
bulldoze
the
house,
she
can't,
then
she
can't
encourage
that
becomes
a
different
issue
right
so
I,
and-
and
thank
you
so
much
for
taking
time
out
and
appearing
in
front
of
us
and
I'd
encourage
you
to
join
aboard.
We
have
openings,
I,
think
yeah.
N
A
A
O
So,
in
terms
of
the
bullet
plane,
we've
got
a
couple
of
things
that
that
I
looked
at
and
I
think
at
the
end
of
the
day.
If
the
board
wants
to
make
a
condition-
and
just
you
know
not
approve
that
portion
of
it,
that's
fine,
but-
and
this
was
a
little
late
in
the
game,
so
I
apologize,
but
so
I'm
gonna
share
my
screen
and
just
kind
of
show
you
where
some
of
my
thoughts
were
with
that.
O
Let's
see
if
I
can
get
the
right
one.
Okay,
all
right.
So
it
is
true
that
this
diagram
shows
potentially
the
bulk
plane
in
the
r1c
is
17
feet,
which
would
mean
you'd
go
up.
Well,
you
would
go
up
from
a
base
plane
which
this
isn't
necessarily
called
out.
If
everyone
can
see
my
screen,
can
you
see
my
screen?
Yes,.
L
O
So
the
way
the
bulk
plane
would
work
is
you
establish
a
base
plane
which
is
typically
lower
than
the
finished
floor
of
the
house,
and
then
you
go
up
17
feet
and
then
in
at
a
45
degree
angle.
Hence
what
the
architect
Drew
here
was
17
feet,
plus
one
foot,
seven
equaling
18.7
feet,
but
when
I
looked
at
this
I
thought
well,
The
Base
plane
would
would
not
likely
be.
It
would
not
likely
be
the
finished
floor
of
the
house.
O
O
A
O
D
O
I'm,
having
a
little
hard
time
actually
with
my
mouse
right
now,
I
was:
can
you
still
see
the
diagram?
Yes,
okay,
I'll!
Let
the
applicant
speak
to
that,
but
I
I,
I
think
I'm,
hoping
that
these
the
survey
plot
and
the
I'm
having
a
hard
time,
switching
between
drawings,
I
clicked
on
something.
Let
me
all
right:
let's
try
that
the
the
Hundred
Year.
O
O
Flood
elevation,
which
is
so
you've,
got
these
elevations
and
then
you've
got
a
survey
plot
which,
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
they're
giving
grades,
you
know
I
I,
hopefully
they're
on
the
same
data,
okay
and
and
all
that
will
shake
out
when
they
do
the
floodplain
development
permit,
and
so,
given
that
with
the
architecture
I
think
was
referring
to,
is
that
the
any
cantilever
needs
to
be
above
the
base.
Flood
elevation.
H
I
did
have
one
additional
question
as
well
for
Mr
Bell
specific
to
the
third
Criterion,
around
kind
of
the
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Do
we
know
how
many
other
second
story
houses
we
have
in
that
general
area
just
because
of
the
total
amount
of
square
footage
that
will
be
within
the
setbacks.
On
that
second
floor.
O
O
H
H
C
A
All
right
any
other
questions
for
Mr
Bell,
all
right,
I
think
Mr
Bell.
We
are
done
with
you
again
for
the
time
being,
and
perhaps
for
this
case,
if
we
could
have
the
applicant
and
architect
back
and
if
you
guys
remember,
you're
still
under
oath
and
I,
would
just
like
to
kind
of
revisit
this
bulk
plane
for
the
simple
sake
that
if
we
don't
need
a
variance,
I
feel
like
we
should
not
be
granting
one.
A
So
is
it
your
opinion
that
we
are
under
the
bulk
plane?
It
shows
that
that's
18.7,
it
looks
like
the
wall
is
underneath
quick
and
dirty
calculations
seem
that
elevations,
probably
around
99
feet
and
then,
if
we
add
a
foot
for
the
floor,
that
would
get
us
to
only
like
117,
so
I'm
not
calling
into
question
your
architectural
ability
I'm
just
ensuring
that
we
don't
need
to
grant
that
variance.
In
your
opinion,.
M
A
M
A
M
F
I'll
move
to
approved
variances
for
the
property
at
3021,
South,
Corona,
Street,
to
crutch
three
feet
and
four
inches
into
the
required
five
foot:
minimum
side
setback
under
the
correct
eight
feet
and
eight
inches
into
the
required
25
foot
front
setback
and
to
encroach
one
foot
vertically
into
the
required
bulk
plane,
Per
Second,
Story
Edition.
This
is
a
variance
to
table
16-6-1.1
and
section
16-6-1
g
of
the
angle,
with
municipal
code.
D
Just
from
what
I'm
seeing
obviously
utilizing
the
existing
footprint
because
they
can't
expand
just
you
know
stating
what
was
already
stated.
The
only
way
they
can
go
is
up
I
think
in
order
to
maximize
that
space
and
to
keep
it
within
the
parameters
of
the
look
of
the
neighborhood
I.
Think
it's
a
good
plan.
A
Yeah
yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
that
again
it's
she
did
not
build
the
house
in
its
present
location.
So
we've
we've
been
down
this
road
before
keeping
the
the
sight
lines
yeah.
My
my
I
guess.
One
thing
is
I:
keep
going
back
to
the
bulk
plane
and
I
realize
it's
only
a
foot
but
I
I'm
not
inclined
to
Grant
variances
that
are
not
needed
because
then
they
could
be
taken.
D
I
can
actually
that's
one
of
the
questions.
I
was
asking
Mr
Bell
is
that
does
the
bullet
plane
start
at
the
flood
plain
because
the
it
was
actually
what's
the
best
way
to
put
it
by
the
applicant
stated
that
they
needed
to
start
their
construction
a
foot
over
what
would
be
the
existing
elevation
in
order
to
comply
with
the
flood
plain.
A
Yeah,
so
so
the
the
second
floor
has
to
be
a
foot
above
or
has
to
be
eight.
What
is
it?
It
was
eight
a
foot
above
yeah,
eight
plus
one,
so
that's
how
they
get
that
the
bulk
plane
is
is
derived
from
looking,
and
this
is
where
Brooke
was
talking
about
is
derived
from
looking
at
the
elevations
of
the
lot
and
usually
what
it
is.
Is
it's
a
Center
Line,
a
middle
of
the
lot
elevation
which
we
don't
have
so
what
he
did
was
he
took
the
two
point.
A
A
H
And
I,
don't
my
thoughts
are
very
similar
to
yours.
Chair
fan,
it
is.
It
sounds
like
that
specific
variance
would
be
it's
kind
of
like
a.
We
might
need
it
thing
which
it
doesn't
sound
like.
If
we
know
we
need
it,
it
makes
sense
to
pass
it
that
specific
piece,
but
if
we're
not
sure
I
think
we
I
I'm,
not
comfortable
saying
yes
until
we
have
the
information
to
say
yes,
this
is
actually
needed
for
sure.
A
Correct
that
and
that's
kind
of
my
thought
for
the
simple
sake
that
you
know
Inglewood
is
and
and
we've
had
we
had
the
one
person
come
forward
and
speak
tonight.
Inglewood
is
very,
is
watching
everything
that
gets
done
and
I
guess
I
I,
it's
it's
one
of
the
things
that
I
just
again.
If
it's
not
needed,
I,
don't
know
why
we'd
Grant
it
but
Mr
Taylor.
You
always
have
insight.
F
I
mean
I
I.
Think
for
me
it's
that
there
is
a
physical
condition
here
that
is
requiring
us
to
go
up
a
bit,
and
it
is
just
a
what
it's
one
of
those
things
where
I
think
just
in
order
to
make
sure
they
are
able
to
build
outside
the
flood
way.
You
know
and
above
that
base
flood
elevation
just
to
make
sure
that
that
leeway
is
there,
but
I'd
be
open
to
if
we
need
to
just
split
these
up
in
a
separate
vote,
separate
motions,
yeah.
A
That's
the
approach
I
mean
my
again
I
I
understand
it's
just
a
foot,
but
it's
just
a
foot
when
you're
three
feet
away
from
the
property
line
is
a
lot
and
that's
the
only
concern
is,
is
that
it
appears
they
don't
need
it.
If
they
do
need
it,
they
would
come
back
and
they
can
always
come
back
and
it
would
be
probably
a
quicker
discussion,
I
hate
to,
but
so
I
guess
so
I
guess
we
should
probably
divide
up.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
second
so
we'll
do
a
Voice
vote
to
amend
the
motion.
I'm
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
any
opposed,
no
one's
opposed,
so
so
on
the
floor
sitting.
The
first
motion,
which
is
variances
to
a
variance
to
encroach
approximately
three
feet:
four
inches
into
the
required
five
foot
minimum
side
set
back
and
to
encourage
approximately
eight
feet:
eight
inches
into
the
required
25
foot,
front
setback.
A
F
A
E
A
F
A
H
Closing
thought
would
be
I
think
if
we
there
was
a
lot
of
assumptions
that
were
made
to
get
to.
That
is.
If
we
had
the
actual
measurements
that
we
could
say,
hey
I
could
look
at
this
and
say
Here's
the
exact
math
on
where
we
need
to
be
for
this
to
work.
I'd
be
comfortable,
but
since
we're
not
there
right
now,
that's
I'm
not
comfortable
in
this
current
state.
A
Yeah
I
mean
I
I,
understand
that
it's
only
a
fun,
it
would
be
kind
of
covering
a
little
cya
depending
on
if
something's
off,
but
I
do
feel
like
we
should
only
Grant
variances
that
are
needed
and
from
what's
presented,
I,
don't
understand
how
it's
needed
at
this
point.
With
with
what
was
put
in
front
of
us
any
other
discussion.
A
F
H
B
A
A
A
A
F
Feel
free
to
take
a
look
at
the
drops
are
all
up
on
the
engaged
Inglewood
page,
so
awesome,
I
I,
know,
there's
lots
of
feedback.
We
have
on
little
things
like
does
three
foot,
seven
foot
side,
setbacks
that
still
appear
and
and
and
how
maybe
some
of
those
things
can
no
longer
require
variances.
If
we
comment
on
that
kind
of
stuff
for
if
the,
if
you've
got
any
thoughts
on
the
criteria,
Now's
the
Time.
A
Perfect
I
would
encourage
everyone
to
just
take
a
look,
maybe
attend
one
of
the
meetings.
I've
heard
they
need
people
to
show
up
from
time
to
time.
I've
heard
they're,
it's
quite
the
talk,
I
see
on
the
social
site
again
I
want
to
thank
everyone.
Mr
Collins!
This
is
your
first
meeting.
I,
don't
remember!
Yes,
it
is
nice.
Do
you
want
to
give
us
a
quick
Spiel?
Thank
you
very
much
for
joining
us.
Of
course.
Thank
you
yeah.
Let's.
H
Matt
Collins,
my
background
of
the
last
few
has
been
data
analytics
prior
to
that
in
law
enforcement
for
a
short
stint
and
prior
to
being
on
this
board.
I
was
on
the
code
enforcement
advisory
committee
for
three
or
four
years
ago
and
ended
up
resigning
from
that,
because
I
was
pursuing
my
Master's
at
the
same
time
and
ran
into
some
conflicts
there.
H
A
G
A
Very
nice
well
welcome,
I,
think
you
know
I'm
very
proud
of
the
work
this
board
does
I
think
we
have
great
people.
It's
we're.
A
little
bit
lacks
with
with
I
encourage
the
board
people
I,
you
know,
I,
don't
need
you
to
raise
your
hand
to
speak
up,
just
jump
in
I
appreciate
you
had
great
input
tonight.
Thank
you
so
much
again,
I
think
it's
probably
the
best
board
out
there.
So
welcome
to
the
the
light
side
from
the
dark
side.
Thank
you.
I'm
excited
nice.