►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting January 11, 2023
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/152952?handle=8D94E2C94AB04472B50DB07F955F6D08
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/152951?handle=D74E8121B3954194A80AB55D2E6D1960
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 VAR2022-005 (Continued Hearing from October 12, 2022) Applicant: Sam Baxter Property: 3880 S. Bannock St. Request: Variance for an accessory dwelling unit to be located outside of the rear thirty...
Case VAR2022-007 Applicant: Ken & Whitney Cobb Property: 3350 S. Emerson St. Request: Renewal of the primary residency waiver for a Short Term Rental in the R-1-C zone district. Staff Contact: Eri...
7. Staff's Choice
8. Attorney's Choice
9. Board Member's Choice
10. Adjourn
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/152952?handle=8D94E2C94AB04472B50DB07F955F6D08
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/152951?handle=D74E8121B3954194A80AB55D2E6D1960
C
E
D
C
B
C
C
C
A
F
B
D
B
B
So
a
Voice
vote
to
approve
the
minutes,
we'll
just
again,
all
in
favor
say
aye
I
any
opposed.
There's
none
opposed.
So
the
approval
of
the
minutes
passed
approval
of
finding
a
fact
for
November,
9th
2022
I
need
a
motion
and
a
second.
We
don't
have
one.
We
don't
have
all
right.
That's
why
it's
blank,
but
I
just
thought:
I'd
hit
it
anyway.
All
right
so
never
mind.
I,
don't
need
emotion,
so
we
will
jump
into
the
Public
Public
part
of
the
hearing.
B
So,
as
I
stated,
there
are
six
members
present.
Therefore,
five
affirmative
votes
are
required
to
Grant
a
variance
or
repeal
the
board
is
authorized
to
Grant
or
deny
a
variance
by
part
three
section:
60
of
the
Inglewood
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.
B
Any
approved
variance
is
effective
at
the
end
of
the
appeal
period.
Building
permits
for
construction
associated
with
an
approved
variance
will
not
be
issued
until
the
pure
appeal
period
is
ended.
Building
permits
must
be
obtained
in
construction,
begun
within
180
days
of
the
variance's
effective
date
procedure
for
the
meeting.
As
the
case
will
be
introduced,
an
overview
will
be
given
by
staff.
Applicants
can
present,
their
requests
should
be
granted.
Proponents
and
opponents
will
give
an
opportunity
to
speak,
and
then,
if
needed,
staff
will
address
the
board
again.
B
Which
is
continued
from
the
hearing
of
October
12
2022
is
now
open.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
to
be
located
outside
of
the
rear.
35
percent
lot
placement
requirement
for
an
accessory
dwelling
structures
in
the
r1c
zone
District
and
to
allow
the
existing
structure
to
encroach
into
the
three
foot
setback.
B
C
G
G
Daniel
herring,
thank
you
good
evening
and
Ryan
planner
one
here.
Thanks
got
to
finally
work
with
you
all
on
meat,
so
this,
as
you
know,
probably
variances
will
be
granted
when
four
criteria
are
met,
we'll
go
through
each
one.
First,
one
physical,
unique
physical
conditions,
size
shape,
location,
topography,
so
a
I
mean
just
our
Municipal
Code
allows
or
requires
that
new
Adu
construction
is
located
entirely
behind
the
35
lot
line
or
a
percentage
of
the
lot.
G
What's
that
really
mean
that
35
debt
down
the
depth
of
the
lot,
you
need
to
have
all
your
accessory
structures
located
past
that
line,
so
this
lot
is.
This
parcel
is
typical
for
the
Zone
50
by
125
that
makes
that
35
line
at
43.75
feet.
So
how
much
of
an
encroachment
are
we
talking
about
four
feet
to
the
West
percentage-wise?
That's
two
percentage
over
so
37.
G
Is
this
variance
consistent
with
maintaining
public
health,
safety
and
Welfare?
So,
what's
the
point
of
a
35
rear
lot
requirement
in
the
first
place,
and
where
does
this
come
from?
It's
actually
a
pretty
common
requirement
and
it's
consistent
with
the
surrounding
communities.
Why
is
it
so
common
because
it
helps
maintain
a
certain
sense
of
human
scale?
It
makes
it
very
apparent
that
the
additional
dwelling
unit
is
subordinate
to
its
principal
structure.
It's
not
an
ad
separate
address
structure.
We're
not
meant
to
be.
G
You
know
it
also
helps.
You
know,
maintain
a
the
image
of
a
look
density,
some
things
like
that.
So
if
these
are
things
that
are
the
intent
of
the
code
and
your
interpretation-
and
we
wonder
if
it's
four
feet
encroachment
is,
you
know
really
encroaching
much
on.
You
know
against
our
intent
of
maintaining
health
safety
and
Welfare
setbacks
for
fire
safety,
Etc,
maintaining
human
scale.
G
G
No
I,
don't
imagine
how
that's
the
only
note
that
we
actually
have
is
that
this
is
still
maintaining
residential
use,
they're
moving,
adding
new
construction.
That
will
be
a
principal
structure
as
people
are
entitled
to
in
a
single-family
or
single
unit
residential
neighborhood.
So
we
don't
see
how
this
imposes
difficulties
on
surrounding
Lots.
Fourth,
Criterion
is
of
variance
is
not
self-imposed
difficulty
or
hardship.
This
is
something
that
was
constructed
before
the
current
owner.
Mr
Baxter
bought
this
property.
It's.
G
B
G
That
is
true,
that
is
a
violation
or
an
encroachment,
that's
beyond
what
is
allowed
for
an
Nadu
or
principle
structure
or
accessory
or
otherwise,
but
the
same
over
underlying
argument,
I
think
applies
to
each
Criterion,
Without
Really,
breaking
it
down,
meaning
that
health
safety
welfare
is
not
really
impaired.
Very
much
it's
just
not
within
a
it's
not
close
to
the
plan
structure,
it's
actually
14.2
feet
away
from
the
plant
structure
and
the
adjacent
properties.
It's
not.
You
know,
within
a
unreasonable
distance
to
the
adjacent
property.
E
G
Is
So
the
plan
is
that
they're
living
they're?
What
is
the
principal
structure
now
will
become
the
Adu?
What
is
being
built?
They
will
move
into
and
live
in
out
as
their
primary
structure
and
what
they
are
in
now
it
is
existing
will
become
the
Adu.
It's
just
a
redesignation,
if
you
think
about
it
now
whether
you
designate
that
existing
property
as
principle
or
accessory
that
side
back
this
side
setback
is
too
close.
D
D
F
D
D
B
G
F
B
G
C
I
B
I
B
And
I'm
guessing-
and
this
is
purely
a
gas
that
there
it
appears,
there's
a
fence
line,
an
existing
fence
line
and
that
might
have
been
the
assumed
property
line
at
one
point,
and
it
looks
like
the
setback
from
that
fence
line
to
the
existing
one-story
frame
is
probably
about
five
feet
and
that's
maybe
where
originally
they
thought
they
were
within
the
correct
setback.
Yeah.
I
B
B
C
H
C
B
H
No,
no,
that
piece
of
the
side
setback
specifically.
If
you
look
at
like
the
structure
itself,
it
probably
is
pretty
close
to
five.
My
guess
is
in
the
past.
They
did
like
an
addition
for
a
rear
entry
exit
way,
and
that
is
what
protrudes
closer
to
the
sideline
or
to
the
side.
So
you
see
that
I
think
I
think
Mr
Taylor
might
have
mentioned
that
six
feet
in
the
back
right,
so
that
would
be
South
East
Point!
H
You
know
more
specifically
there,
so
it
is
only
a
portion
of
the
house
that
is
that
the
side
setback
and
then
yep
for
the
the
front
variants
of
the
35
percent
I
think
Ryan
did
a
good
job
of
explaining
that
so
nothing
more
on
that.
It's
also
home
from
1933.
It's
pretty
cool
little
house
and
it
was
fun
to
update
the
inside.
So
yeah.
H
B
H
There
was
a
there
was
a
covered
porch
or
something
of
that
nature
that
we
took
out
ended
up.
Taking
out,
you
can
see
in
the
the
attached
photo
that
I
provided
today
with
the
sign
in
front.
You
can
kind
of
see
it,
but
I
think
that
was
originally
a
Porsche
that
we
ripped
out
and
the
concrete
remained
okay.
B
All
right,
Mr,
Baxter
I,
believe
we're
done
with
you
for
the
time
being
as
well.
Thank
you
thank
you.
Everyone
do
we
have
Shelly.
Do
you
know
if
we
have
any
people
that
would
like
to
speak
in
favor
or
opposition
of
this
request?
We
do
not
okay
staff
any
additional
comments
and
does
the
board
have
any
additional
questions
for
staff,
I.
Think
Dad.
For
me,
all
right,
I
will
now
close
the
public
hearing.
B
E
You
all
right,
I,
move
that
we
approve
a
variance
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
to
be
located
outside
of
the
rear,
35
percent
lot
placement
requirement
for
accessory
dwelling
structures
and
their
r1c
Zone
District,
and
a
variance
to
allow
the
existing
structure
to
encroach
into
the
three
foot
side
setback.
This
is
a
variance
to
section
16-5-4,
dot,
C,
dot,
7
dot,
I
sub
five
and
table
16-6-1.2
of
the
Englewood
municipal
code,
foreign.
E
B
B
B
D
E
B
I
Go
ahead
and
hop
in
here
a
second,
so
what
I
was
trying
to
do
and
I'm
not
finding
it
right
off?
The
bat
was
looking
for.
You
had
heard
a
similar
variance
case
about
a
year
ago
for
Brenda,
hubka
and
I'm.
It
was
a
very
similar
request
and
I
was
going
to
look
at
the
findings
of
fact
to
see
what
the
language
that
you
guys
had
used
at
that
time,
but
I'm
not
seeing
it
or
I'm,
not
finding
it
right
away.
I
Some
of
your
options
are
to
basically
acknowledge
the
location
of
the
existing
structure
and
that
location
of
the
structure
outside
of
the
35
percent
rear
setback.
That
would
also
count
for
the
side.
Setback
encroachment
as
well
or
you
can
do
something
more
specifically
say
like.
If
you
want
the
exact
measurement,
you
could
go
that
route
as
well
or
you
could
do
a
general
type
of
like.
G
H
F
G
That
way,
you
don't
have
to
say
specific
number,
but
it
also
doesn't
apply
if
that
directly
means
that
if
they
were
to
do
an
expansion,
anything
that
moves
that
footprint
of
the
building
that
triggers
non-compliance
because
it's
no
longer
as
built,
but
it
also
doesn't
obstruct
them
to
do
interior
work
and
get
our
and
then
run.
Afoul
of
your
rule.
My
suggestion.
E
B
So
would
we
want
to
so
how
many?
So,
if
we're
reducing
the
35
percent,
we
could
reduce
that
or
increase
that
right.
We
would
want
to
increase
it
and
I
think
you
said
I
think
staff
earlier
mentioned.
It
was
about
two
percent,
so
would
be
so
to
handle
the
placement.
We
could
Grant
a
variance
that
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
be
located
outside
of
the
rear,
38
percent.
D
B
D
D
E
E
F
I
Okay,
so
it's
accessory
dwelling
unit
to
be
located
outside
of
the
rear,
35
lot
placement
requirement
for
accessory
dwelling
structures
in
the,
and
that
was
for
Brenda's
case.
She
was
in
the
Mur
3B
Zone
District,
but
I
believe
this
is
an
r1c
Zone,
District
yeah
and
then
the
follow-up
to
that
was
the
structure
will
be
located
within
the
rear.
42
percent
of
the
property.
E
B
A
E
I
B
B
E
And
a
variance
to
allow
the
existing
structure
to
encroach
two
feet
into
the
three
foot
side
set
back
period.
The
structure
will
be
located
within
the
rear
39
of
the
property.
This
is
a
variance
to
section
16-5-4,
dot,
C,
dot,
seven
dot,
little
I
sub
five
and
table
16-6-1.2
of
the
Inglewood
municipal
code.
E
G
E
F
B
E
Oh
I
am
voting
yes,
the
first
Criterion
is
Matt,
there's
unique
physical
conditions,
because
there's
an
existing
structure
that
are
peculiar
to
the
land.
Second
Criterion
is
met.
It's
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
Zone
District,
it's
very
minimal
and
doesn't
change
any
of
the
General
character
of
that
zone.
District
third
Criterion
is
met.
It
will
not
permanently
impair
the
use
or
development
of
adjacent,
conforming
properties.
Again,
it's
minimal
change
to
existing
setbacks
and
the
fourth
Criterion
is
met.
This
is
not
something
that
was
created
by
the
current
owner.
B
B
B
A
I
I
The
second
criteria
was
that
the
requested
waiver
from
regulations
will
not
weaken
the
general
purpose
of
this
chapter
title
five
and,
as
evidenced
over
the
past
year,
staff
has
not
received
any
complaints
or
any
sort
of
issues
with
the
Str
being
operated
as
it
is.
So
there
is
absolutely
no
evidence
and
staff
does
not.
I
Over
the
past
year,
everything
has,
as
far
as
we
can
tell,
have
been
operating
wonderfully
and
that
considering
that
the
property
owner
owner
lives
in
Inglewood
and
within
a
mile
of
the
subject,
property
and
I
even
believe,
there's
a
co-host
living
on
site
staff
does
not
have
any
concerns
about
that,
and
with
that
said,
staff
would
recommend
approval
of
the
renewal
of
the
primary
residency
waiver
and
also
I
thought.
It
might
be
pertinent
to
bring
up
if
maybe
per
a
period
longer
than
a
year.
B
D
I
B
J
Not
really
I
guess
I
would
just
say
that
we
are
still
actively
pursuing
our
original
goal,
which
was
for
Julian
our
son
Julian,
to
be
able
to
live
in
this
home
with
a
care
provider
and
down
the
road,
a
roommate
and
really
it's
been
the
pandemic.
That's
turned
that
upside
down.
It's
staffing
has
been
murder
for
somebody,
a
high
needs
individual,
like
Julian,
and
so
there's
two
pieces,
so
one
is,
is
helping
him
emotionally
get
used
to
and
like
the
home,
he's
very
attached
to
his
own
home.
J
He
is
that's
moving
along
well,
but
we
also
have
to
have
the
Staffing
as
well
as
kind
of
a
financial
model.
So
this
is
kind
of
you
know,
keeping
us
afloat
in
terms
of
being
able
to
pay
the
mortgage
without
Ken
and
I
having
to
do
too
much
out
of
pocket
and
and
I
just
want
you
to
know
that
we're
still
working
on
that
that
hasn't
changed.
J
B
J
B
F
I
B
B
F
B
B
B
I
said:
okay
well,
I
and
then
I
think
I
think
there's
a
second
Thompson
for
the
amendment
and
then
yep
for
the
amendment.
And
now
we
need
to
do
Voice
vote
for
the
amendment.
All
those
in
favor
of
accepting
the
amendment
as
amended
to
include
the
two
years
say:
I
I
I
any
opposed
all
right
so
that
passes
I,
don't
get
paid
enough
to.
D
F
It
makes
me
feel
fine
to
go
out
two
years
again
because
you
know
if,
if
circumstances
were
to
change,
it's
not
like
the
waiver
could
be
taken
advantage
of
so
going
out
another
two
years.
The
circumstances
haven't
changed.
The
end
goal
is
still
the
same
that
you
know
there
would
no
longer
be
a
short
term
rental
here
with
that
long-term
goal
of
that
that
Independence,
so
I
I,
don't
see
anything.
That's
changed
from
our
original
decisions.
B
F
D
F
B
F
I
voted
yes,
the
first
Criterion
is
met
that
special
circumstances
do
exist,
related
to
the
property
owner
of
the
short-term
rental
that
it
is
owned
by
the
parents
who
have
a
development,
disabled
son
and
they're
working
towards
an
independent
relationship
there.
That
would
no
longer
need
a
short-term
rental,
but
this
is
enabling
an
interim
solution.
The
second
Criterion
is
met
that
it
won't.
We
can.
The
purpose
is
it's
not
solely
used
as
a
short-term
rental
and
it
hasn't
weakened
any
of
the
other
pieces
that
are
in
the
intent
of
that
regulation.
C
B
I
B
All
right,
nothing
from
the
board.
Let's
adjourn!
Thank
you
again,
everyone
for
their
your
time
tonight.
The
board
members
again
I,
appreciate
it
I'll
see
if
I
can
get
us
a
raise
on
this
I
really
appreciate
your
time
and
and
as
always,
the
the
conversation,
the
discussion
that
I
think
helps
the
case.