►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment and Appeals 08 Feb 2017
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/21916
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/21914?handle=8DEC556BD52D4B6892C441B3E494D626
Minutes HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/25009
Minutes PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/25007?handle=5BF58953A12144108B34D906D40F9D65
1. Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:00 pm in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Finn presiding. Chair Finn stated there were five memb...
2. Public Hearing:
Case VAR2017-001 Rowland+Broughton 600 West Bates Avenue Chair Finn opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case stating the applicant is requestin...
Ms. Flynn voted yes. Surrounding properties are zoned industrial, as is the subject property. When the property to the north was rezoned to permit residential, it created a unique situation for the su...
Case VAR2017-002 Jennifer Tempas 2201 & 2235 West Iliff Avenue Chair Finn opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication. He stated the applicant is requesting a varianc...
Ms. Flynn voted no. There are no unique physical conditions to the property warranting the variance. The variance is not consistent with the zone district regulations. The variance would alter the cha...
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Findings of Fact
5. Staff's Choice
One case is scheduled for March 8. City Council appointed a new member, Robert Ellstrom, to the Board.
6. Attorney's Choice
Mr. Comer had nothing further.
7. Board Member's Choice
The Board had nothing further.
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/21916
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/21914?handle=8DEC556BD52D4B6892C441B3E494D626
Minutes HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/25009
Minutes PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/25007?handle=5BF58953A12144108B34D906D40F9D65
A
All
right,
I'll
call
to
order
the
meeting
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment
an
appeals
meeting.
There
are
five
members
present.
Therefore,
four
affirmative
votes
are
required
to
grant
a
variance
or
appeal.
The
board
is
authorized
under
his
authorized
to
grant
or
deny
variance
by
part
three
Section
six
of
the
angle
at
City
Charter.
Anyone
aggrieved
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.
The
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
has
ended.
Building
permits
must
be
obtained
and
construction
begun
within
180
days
of
the
variances
effective
date.
The
procedure
for
the
meeting
is
the
case
will
be
introduced
by
staff.
With
an
overview
applicants
will
present
the
request
and
reasons
for
the
variance
should
be
granted.
Proponents
will
be
given
an
opportunity
to
speak.
Opponents
will
also
be
given
an
opportunity
to
speak,
and
then
the
staff
will
address
the
board
if
needed,
miss
Vinton.
Will
you
please
take
role.
B
A
D
I
do
Audrey
Kirk
with
Community
Development
good
evening
before
you
tonight
his
variant
case,
2017,
zero,
zero
one
for
the
record,
proof
of
publishing
and
proof
of
recording
has
been
submitted
before
there's
any
confusion.
I
just
wanted
to
explain
the
addresses
the
properties
that
we're
discussing
tonight
were
previously
addressed,
2901
and
2905
south
fox
street.
They
were
recently
combined
and
re
addressed
so
that
they
have
a
West
Bates
Avenue
address.
D
D
The
variance
request
does
state
that
the
reduction
of
the
setback
be
reduced
from
10
feet
to
8
feet.
However,
after
further
discussion
with
the
client
and
tweaking
of
the
drawings
they
are
requesting
that
you,
you
reduced
the
setback
from
10
feet
to
6
feet.
So
the
motion
would
have
to
be
made
to
reflect
the
6
feet.
Are.
D
D
No
just
six
feet
on
the
north
side,
staff
had
had
a
discussion
regarding
these
setback
all
the
way
around,
as
it
stated
in
the
code
and
the
staff
believes
the
intent
of
that
was
only
to
have
the
10
foot
setback
on
the
property
line
that
about
Sidonians
the
residential
zone
district.
So
we're
only
asking
for
the
north
property
line
reduction
at
this
point.
Okay,
I'm.
D
D
A
A
E
E
E
All
right,
thank
you
for
hearing
this
case.
Yes,
so,
as
Audra
stated,
the
the
only
side
of
the
street
that
we're
concerned
about
is
this
side
right
here,
and
one
of
the
main
reasons
that
we
are
asking
for.
This
variance
is
because
we
want
to
allocate
our
parking
in
the
back
and
in
order
to
get
the
necessary
Drive
aisle
and
parking
space
requirements
here.
It
forces
us
to
push
the
building
beyond
that
ten
feet.
E
This
will
provide
a
much
better
street
presence
as
we'll
see
here
shortly.
Many
of
the
the
adjoining
property
here
to
the
west
actually
has
their
parking
lot
on
the
street
and
in
discussions
with
both
traffic
engineering,
a
better
solution
for
all
parties
concerned
was
to
move
the
parking
to
the
back.
E
This
will
help
revitalize
all
streets
and
make
it
more
pedestrian
friendly,
and
the
other
thing
to
note
is
even
though
we
are
asking
for
a
reduction
of
four
feet
to
the
six
foot
setback
we
are
intending
on
maintaining
the
required
eight
foot
landscape
buffer
from
the
edge
of
the
sidewalk
to
the
building.
So
from
all
points
of
the
building,
we
will
still
maintain
8
feet
of
landscaping
between
the
structure
and
the
sidewalk.
So.
A
E
E
This
property
right
here
is
our
neighbor
directly
to
the
west.
This
is
the
Bates
Street
side,
and
so
what
we're
proposing
is
to
basically
in
lieu
of
what
they
have
here
as
a
parking
lot,
we're
going
to
be
providing
landscaping,
public
street
kind
of
soften
that
for
everybody
and
as
we
progress
through
here,
you
can
see
just
about
almost
all
of
these
properties
that
are
identified
have
much
less
than
the
required
eight-foot
landscape
buffer
and
almost
all
of
them
are
built
directly
to
the
property
line.
A
E
Of
the
specific
nature
of
the
building
this,
this
is
going
to
be
an
artist
studio
and
the
the
programmatic
requirements
for
the
space
inside
of
the
building,
as
well
as
the
restriction
of
moving
the
park.
My
apologies,
it
wasn't
a
restriction.
It
was
advised,
through
our
comments
with
the
city
of
Englewood,
to
move
the
parking
from
the
front
of
the
building
to
the
rear
of
the
building.
All
of
that
together
kind
of
precipitated
this
where
these
extra
4
feet,
we
really
need
that
in
order
to.
A
F
E
The
building
itself
will
be
an
artist
studio,
which
I
believe
is
one
of
the
uses
that
was
desired
by
the
city
of
Englewood.
For
this
particular
area,
the
majority
of
the
building
will
be
occupied
by
the
building
owner
as
his
own
artist
studio,
but
in
order
to
create
his
particular
type
of
art,
it
requires
going
through
many
different
stages
and
using
many
different
types
of
types
of
tools
and
things
like
that,
and
so
you
know
we
need
to
have
a
certain
amount
of
space
to
account
for
all
of
his.
A
D
D
A
D
D
F
G
D
F
B
A
I
mean
III
I
think
it's
something
that
I
guess
the
question
the
only
question
I
have
is
these
other
properties
that
are
listed
at
some
point
if
they're
redone
we'll
have
to
address
this
issue
again.
So
if
we're
happy
with
reducing
it
with
this
property,
we're
gonna
reduce
it
for
all
those
other
properties.
G
A
F
C
A
G
A
Me
it
makes
sense
to
only
look
at
the
north-facing
one
on
the
east.
There's
a
nice
vegetative
buffer
already,
that's
not
part
of
the
property,
so
that'll
stay.
So
that's
a
nice
addition,
this
property,
which
I
think,
makes
it
again
a
little
bit
more
unique
because
you'll
have
a
vegetative
buffer
above
on
the
east
on
the
north.
B
B
B
A
B
G
These
are
variances
table,
16,
6,
1.2,
summary
table
of
dimensional
requirements
for
accessory
structures
of
the
unified
development
code,
Englewood
Municipal
Code.
This
application
came
to
us
as
a
result
of
the
property
owners.
Interest
in
selling
a
portion
of
the
property.
I
might
point
out
that
2201
West
Iliff
Avenue
is
this
property
and
20
to
35?
Is
this
property
immediately
to
the
west?
Both
properties
contain
a
single-family
home
and
a
detached
garage.
Both
properties
are
owned
by
mr.
Mach.
We
have
been
informed.
G
He
would
like
to
resub
divide
the
property
and
that
resub
division
is
represented
by
this
hatched
area
on
lot
on
the
twenty
to
thirty-five
property
and
add
that
to
the
2201
west,
Iliff
Avenue
property
ordinarily,
that
would
be
permitted
rhe
subdivision.
Unfortunately,
the
zoning
ordinance
does
not
permit
two
detached
structures
detached
garages
on
one
residential
property.
Thus,
in
order
to
affect
this
resub
division
and
sell,
does
the
southern
portion
of
twenty
to
thirty
five
of
variances
necessary
in
the
packet
was
a
copy
of
a
permit
that
was
issued
in
1981.
G
Yes,
I
forgot
to
put
that
tonight,
but
it's
in
it's
in
your
packet,
when
you
have
it
and
the
permit
was
issued
on
August,
17th,
1981
and
I
have
to
say
for
the
record
that
that
was
two
weeks
before
I
started
with
the
city
of
Englewood.
So
I
don't
have
any
fingerprints
on
this
particular
building
permit.
G
But
there's
a
note
in
the
remarks
section
that
said
garage
door
opening
is
temporarily
open
to
the
east
and
that
that
applies
to
that
applies
to
this
structure
right
here
it.
It
seems
to
us,
as
we
discuss
this
at
the
staff
level,
that
that
was
an
indication
that
at
some
point
the
garage
door
would
be
relocated
most
likely
to
the
south
side
of
the
garage
and
thus
provide
access
for
vehicles
for
the
22:35
property.
G
I
will
let
the
applicant
explain
what
the
garage
is
used
for,
and
you
can
see
from
the
staff
report
that
we
have
not
taken
a
position
with
respect
to
approval
or
denial
of
this
variance,
because
there
are
a
number
of
circumstances
that
I
think
the
board
needs
to
consider
before
making
it
a
decision
on
this
case.
But
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
G
A
G
G
G
G
Correct
that
this
area
is
owned,
r2a,
which
permits
single-family
and
duplex
dwellings.
The
zoning
regulations
in
the
r2a
allow
for
a
detached
garage
for
each
detached
unit.
So,
as
I
indicated
in
the
staff
report,
I
believe
it's
not
unusual
to
see
you
know
a
property
with
two
detached
garages
on
it.
Although
that
would
be
a
you
know,
two
single-family
attached
or
duplex,
as
opposed
to
a
single
family
unit
with
two
detached
garages.
What.
G
The
I
might
point
out
that
the
application
from
1981
indicated
that
the
garage
would
have
been
720
square
feet,
roughly
24
by
30,
when
in
fact,
at
some
point
the
garage
was
actually
built
larger.
The
information
that
we
have
available
indicates
that
the
garage
is
1008
square
feet
so
42
by
24
or
something
to
that
to
that
effect.
G
Is
no
no
maximum
limit
to
a
size
of
a
property
and
based
on
where
the
garage
is
sitting
right
now,
I
guess.
The
only
question
in
terms
of
dimensional
standards
would
be
the
South
property
line,
and
that
would
be
like
I
said
before.
That
would
be
up
to
the
applicant
or
the
excuse
me
of
the
property
owner
to
make
sure
that
where
that
line
is
placed,
provides
the
required
setback
from
the
garage,
as
well
as
making
sure
that
that
the
remainder
property
meets
the
minimum
6000
square
foot
lot
area.
A
H
Jennifer
tempest
and
for
par
circle,
Littleton
Colorado
ito,
one
two,
three
I'm,
not
sure
what
else
to
add
to
what
Harold
said,
except
that
when
Kurt,
when
mr.
Mach
built
this,
you
know
it
was
the
only
garage
there,
but
he
intended
he
actually
had
done
tried
to
reap
laughs
that
he
mistakenly
went
to
a
rapaho
County.
They
never
told
him.
H
He
was
at
the
wrong
location
to
do
that
and
they
allowed
him
to
replant
that
and
include
the
garage
on
his
with
both
garages,
and
it
was
about
a
year
later
that
city
of
Englewood
came
knocking
on
his
door
and
said
this
is
not
correct.
This
is
a
illegal,
and
but
he
in
that
separate
garage.
The
reason
it's
a
little
bit
bigger.
He
does
some
of
the
work
he
does
is
with
leasing
of
other
properties,
taking
care
of
them
he's
a
barber.
H
Did
his
had
a
has
his
workshop
in
there
to
sharpen
his
tools
and
so
forth
and
keep
the
equipment
things
of
that
nature,
but
once
he
gets,
this
read
evaded
to
answer
the
question
about
the
front
lot.
That'll
be
approximately
sixty
two
hundred
square
feet
so
that
lot
will,
you
know,
adhere
to
the
city
of
Englewood
requirements
and
his
lot
will
expand
to
a
little
bit
under
17,000
square
feet,
we're
in
the
process
right
now.
This
surveyor
has
completed
that
and
have
those
further
replanting.
H
H
F
F
H
Yeah
I
brought
them
tonight,
so
in
fact
there
is
a
another
20.
They
live
at
2268
West
I
live
right
across
the
street
to
the
south
of
mr.
Mach,
and
they
they
had
heard
that
he
was
going
to
be
building
a
high-rise
there
and
that's
why
the
variance
and
I
explained
to
them,
and
they
stated
to
me
they
don't
said
they
didn't
want
to
get
up
and
speak,
but
they
stated
that
they
were
not
opposed
to
it
to
him.
Having
the
two
buildings.
A
H
H
H
The
land
in
1938
that
whole
farm
area,
it
was
farm
at
the
time,
no
houses
on
it
and
they
slowly
put
started
putting
houses
on.
But
they've
worked
with
the
city
of
Englewood
through
the
years
they
vacated
land
so
that
they
could
put
Baltic,
which
is
just
to
the
the
street,
to
the
north
of
Iowa.
So
that
and
and
and.
A
B
H
A
G
I
might
be
able
to
shed
just
a
little
bit
of
light
on
the
garage
door
situation.
If
you
take
a
look
at
the
permit
from
1981
when
it
was
originally
filled
out,
the
address
for
the
garage
was
2201
at
the
time,
as
has
been
stated,
the
property.
All
these
two
lots
were
owned
by
by
the
MOC
family.
It
was
in
the
early
2000s
I
believe
that
that
MOC
subdivision
was
created.
I
think
that
might
have
been
what
you
were
referring
to.
A
G
No,
the
that's
a
single
lot.
Many
of
the
lots
in
North
West
Englewood
were
very
deep,
so,
for
instance,
this
lot.
In
fact,
both
of
these
Lots.
The
original
lot
went
from
Iliff
Avenue
up
here
to
essentially
either
the
middle
or
the
northern
edge
of
Baltic
Avenue
and
in
many
cases
in
particular,
here
the
property
owners
dedicated
twenty-five
or
fifty
feet,
depending
on
a
situation
for
the
creation
of
the
street
and
then
at
some
point
in
the
past
this.
G
These
two
Lots
right
here
were
carved
off
as
separate
properties,
but
at
the
time
the
MOC
family
owned
all
of
this
and
in
fact,
lots
farther
to
the
west.
But
if
you
look
at
the
the
building
permit
application,
you'll
notice
that
scratch
that
on
top
is
the
2201
address
and
written
in
by
staff.
Members
is
twenty
to
thirty.
Five
and
I
think
how
this
confusion
about
the
garage
door
came
up
is
when
the
when
the
original
applicant,
whether
it
was
mr.
Erving
Walker
mr.
G
Curtis,
Mach
I,
think
they
considered
both
properties
as
120,
201
and
20
to
35,
and
perhaps
didn't
realize
that
putting
a
garage
on
this
property
with
the
door
facing
to
the
east
would
be
in
violation
of
any
zoning
regulations.
The
staff
reviewed
it.
It
was
clear
that
there
were
two
separate
properties
with
two
separate
single-family
homes
and
while,
as
stated
in
the
staff
report,
the
garage
at
twenty
to
thirty
five
is
a
legal
garage.
G
The
question
is:
why
is
the
garage
door
on
the
east
side
if
it's
for
the
benefit
of
22:35,
because
in
order
to
access
that
garage,
you
would
have
to
cross
2201
and
hence
the
note
the
garage
door
opening
is
temporarily
open
to
the
east
and
that
that
note
tells
me
that
the
staff
member
that
put
it
on
there
anticipated
that
at
some
point
in
the
future,
the
garage
door
would
be
moved.
Obviously,
after
35
years,
that
hasn't
happened
so.
G
B
A
B
B
A
I
I
mean
it's
it's
interesting
in
a
lot
of
ways,
because
I,
if
if
this
lot
was
already
constructed
in
the
l-shape
I,
still
wouldn't
really
want
to
grant
at
a
variance
to
add
another
additional
garage
to
me.
It's
not
that
big
of
a
lot
in
the
past
we've
granted
other
detached
garages
when
the
lock
was
much
bigger
and
I
know
that
we've
turned
down
requests
to
build
additional
garages.