►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting August 11, 2021
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/119676?handle=01F5EF1E422E43988B7497307246F2BC
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/119675?handle=972BD4D9711C480D912AE4D5BE3CEDFC
1. Chair Finn approved the agenda.
2. Call to Order
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Findings of Fact
5. Public Hearing:
Case VAR2021-008 Applicant: John B Lane Property: 2751 South Grant Street Request: The applicant is appealing the Planning Manager's decision to approve an administrative adjustment request related to...
Due to COVID -19, the public hearing will be held virtually. Anyone interested in speaking in favor or against the variance, please call 303.762.2342 or email commdev @ englewoodco .gov 24 hours prior...
7. Staff's Choice
Discussion on in person meetings.
8. Attorney's Choice
9. Board Member's Choice
10. Adjourn
6. Case VAR2021-009
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/119676?handle=01F5EF1E422E43988B7497307246F2BC
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/119675?handle=972BD4D9711C480D912AE4D5BE3CEDFC
B
B
C
C
C
B
E
D
A
F
C
E
A
C
C
So
there
are
six
members
present.
Therefore,
five
affirmative
votes
are
required
to
grant
a
variance
or
appeal.
The
board
is
authorized
to
grant
or
deny
a
variance
by
part,
3
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.
C
However,
such
appeal
must
be
made
within
30
days
of
the
board's
decision.
Any
approved
variants
is
effective
at
the
end
of
the
appeal
period.
Building
permits
for
construction
associated
with
approved
variants
will
not
be
issued
until
the
appeal
period
is
ended,
building
permits
must
be
obtained
and
construction
began
within
180
days
of
the
variance's
effective
date
procedure.
For
the
meeting,
for
the
variance
is
that
the
case
will
be
introduced
and
overview
will
be
given
by
staff.
Applicant
will
present
their
request
reasons.
Variants
should
be
granted,
proponents
will
be
given
an
opportunity
to
speak.
C
So
the
first
one
we
have
up
on
our
docket
for
tonight
is
case.
Var
2021008-
and
this
is
john
b
lane
2751
south
of
grant
street
the
applicant
here-
is
appealing
the
planning
manager's
decision
to
approve
an
administrative
adjustment
request
related
to
lot
width,
so
staff.
I
believe
now
the
ball
is
in
your
court.
G
D
G
G
G
The
background
of
the
case
is,
in
april
of
2021
kevin
anderson
on
behalf
of
property
owners,
glenn
schneiderman
and
clint
fish
applied
for
administrative
adjustment
at
the
for
the
property
at
2751
south
grant
street.
The
administrative
adjustment
was
required
to
complete
a
subdivision
of
the
property
into
two
single
family
residential
lots
and,
as
for
the
inglewood
development
code,
section
16,
2,
17
quote
unquote.
The
city
manager
or
designee
may
vary
in
minor
ways.
Some
provisions
of
this
title
otherwise
applicable
to
a
property.
Pursuant
to
the
procedures.
G
G
G
G
G
So,
when
staff
looked
at
administrative
adjustments,
we
take
a
look
at
a
couple
sections.
The
code,
one
is
udc
section,
16,
217
d2e
and
that
is,
staff
must
review
the
criteria
for
an
administrative
variance
approval,
which
is
the
following
one.
The
adjustment
shall
not
exceed
five
percent
of
the
minimum
required
lot
width,
and
so,
as
I
previously
stated,
this
was
a
request
to
for
fro
frontage
of
50
foot
to
48.59
or
1.141
feet,
which
does
not
exceed
the
five
percent
cap.
G
G
Number
four
is
the
result
of
an
approved
administrative
adjustment
result,
an
increase
in
the
maximum
development
density
or
intensity
for
residential
developments.
The
result
of
an
administrative
adjustment
shall
not
exceed
one
additional
residential
dwelling
unit,
so
the
approval
of
this
administrative
adjustment
with
the
subdivision
of
the
slot
would
result
in
one
additional
residential
unit
meeting
criteria
number
four.
G
So
this
property
is
in
the
bates
logan
neighborhood,
as
defined
by
the
inglewood
forward
comprehensive
plan.
Bates
logan
is
identified
as
a
mixed-use
transition
area
which
includes
diversified
land
use,
mix
and
a
medium
density
housing
to
buffer
the
broadway
and
lincoln
commercial
corridor.
The
approval
of
the
administrative
adjustment
would
allow
the
development
again
of
one
additional
single
family
residence
item.
Two,
the
requested
adjustment
meets
all
other
applicable
building
and
safety
codes,
so
the
proposed
adjustment
is
required
to
meet
all
other
applicable
building
and
safety
codes.
G
Once
the
applicant
submits
plans
for
the
new
single
family
residence,
all
those
are
going
to
be
reviewed
by
all
city
departments
and
everything
is
going
to
need
to
meet
code.
Three.
The
requested
adjustment
does
not
encroach
into
a
recorded
easement
and
there
were
no
recorded
easements
identified
within
the
adjustment
area
on
this
piece
of
property.
G
So,
during
the
original
administrative
adjustment
case
after
the
property
had
been
posted,
community
development
staff
received
multiple
phone
calls
and
emails
in
opposition
to
this
administrative
adjustment
application.
There
was
a
total
of
13
emails
that
were
received
by
staff.
Those
are
included
in
your
packet
and
even
though
we
did
receive
these
phone
calls
and
emails
staff
found
no
evidence
that
the
approval
of
this
administ
administrative
adjustment
would
have
any
adverse
impacts
on
the
health,
safety
or
general
welfare
of
the
surrounding
community.
G
And
finally,
item
five
is
that
the
requested
adjustment
is
necessary
to
either
a
compensate
for
some
practical
difficulty
or
some
unusual
aspect
of
the
site
of
the
proposed
development
not
shared
by
landowners
in
general,
or
call
or
accommodate
an
alternative
or
innovative
design
practice
for
part.
A
the
determination
of
practical
difficulty
or
some
unusual
aspect
may
include
consideration
of
one
the
historic
aspect
and
development
of
the
subject:
property:
two,
the
use
and
development
of
the
subject:
property
compared
to
similar
properties
in
the
vicinity.
G
Three,
the
property's
use
and
development
under
previously
applicable
zoning
any
for
any
intervening.
Public
action
like
with
condom
condemnation
for
public
right-of-way,
not
applicable
in
this
case
or
any
other
factors
that
support
a
finding
of
practical
difficulty
or
usual
aspect
that
is
not
of
the
applicant's
own
making
or
under
the
applicant's
direct
control.
G
So
in
this
instance,
I
have
one
more
photo
to
share
here
and
what
you're
looking
at
here
is
a
the
original
plat
of
the
annandale
subdivision,
which
were
there.
These
lots
were
originally
planted,
we're
looking
at
lots,
12
and
13
and
portion
of
this
linvale
avenue,
which
had
been
vacated
at
some
point,
and
the
property
had
been
split
between
a
few
lots
in
here.
And
so,
if
you
take
a
look
at
this,
the
plat,
the
original
lab
12,
was
originally
planted
at
23.6
feet
in
width.
G
G
Subdivision
plat
depicts
the
east
side
of
this
block
recorded
at
that
23.6
in
length
and
then
with
the
rest
of
the
lots.
Divided
into
25
foot
lots
so
the
original
lot
as
it
was
created
and
once
the
lindvale
avenue
was
vacated,
that
extra
footage
got
attached
onto
lot
12
to
make
that
that
48.6
feet
in
width.
G
G
John
lane,
a
neighboring
property
owner
called
this
again
so
the
subject
property
is
in
yellow
and
the
appeal
application
came
from
the
property
directly
to
the
south.
There's
john
lane
submitted
an
appeal
application
within
the
30-day
appeal
period
from
the
date
of
the
community
development
director's
decision.
D
G
Right
so
then,
actually
the
code
explicitly
states
that
for
these
types
of
variances
they
don't
go
to
the
board
of
adjustment
right
away.
They
only
go
to
the
board
of
adjustment
through
the
appeal
process,
because
the
nature
of
the
adjustment
is
so
small
that
was
basically
granted
administrative
review
rights.
Okay,.
B
D
B
D
C
G
Yes,
yep,
it
still
meets
the
square
footage
requirements
and
they
would
actually
not
be
able
to
apply
for
both
a
lot
with
variance
and
a
lot
size
variance.
They
could
only
do
one
or
or
both.
So
if
it
was
lacking
in
both
width
and
size,
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
apply
for
a
administrative
adjustment.
Okay,.
E
G
H
Because
that
would
be
my
understanding,
I
don't
know
if
the
applicant,
who
was
the
person
who
requested
the
administrative
appeal,
I
don't
know
if
they're
present,
to
speak
to
the
board,
but
if
they're
not,
then
you
would
go
to
the
individuals
who
wish
to
speak
to
the
board
in
opposition
to
this
administrative
adjustment.
Okay,.
I
A
C
C
I
I
I
C
I
Okay,
thank
you
chair
finn,
so
I
live
a
few
doors
down
from
the
subject
property.
I'm
here
to
share
my
objection
to
the
administrative
adjustment
for
subdividing
the
property
against
the
zoning
rules
that
require
a
50-foot
minimum
lot
width
in
the
r1
zone.
I
was
going
to
read
the
purpose
in
from
the
municipal
code,
but
I
appreciate
that
mr
sampson
did.
I
will
point
out
that,
in
the
definition
it's
justified
for
small
adjustments
that
are
unlikely
to
have
adverse
effects
on
nearby
properties
of
the
neighborhood.
I
There
is
a
list
of
different
criteria
from
normal,
the
normal.
You
know
board
of
adjustment
and
appeals
cases
that
is
specific
to
admin,
adjust
admin,
administrative
adjustments
and
I'm
addressing
number
five
of
that.
It
says
it
has
to
satisfy
both
a
and
b.
I
don't
think
it
satisfies
either
of
those
a
is.
This
property
does
not
have
a
practical
or
I'm
saying
this
property
does
not
have
a
practical
difficulty
or
unusual
aspect
of
the
site
not
shared
by
landowners
in
general.
There's
nothing
unusual
about
this
site.
I
It's
a
nice
wide
lot
and
an
r1
zone
where,
where
there
are
many
other
lots
wider
than
50
feet
and
for
b,
the
proposed
admin
adjustment
is
not
for
an
alternative
or
innovative
design
practice
that
achieves
the
same
or
better,
to
the
same
or
better
degree.
The
objective
of
the
existing
design
standards
sought
to
be
modified.
I
The
zoning
change
would
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
of
single-family
homes,
with
decent
side,
lots
and
front
lots
and
back
lots,
and
for
all
the
reasons,
I
already
stated
I'd
like
to
note
that,
as
I
was
one
of
the
13
citizens
to
write
in
against
this.
In
my
query,
I
asked
a
couple
straightforward
questions.
My
questions
were
ignored.
I
received
no
response
from
staff.
I
don't
know
if
they
responded
to
anyone
else.
C
I
H
A
J
C
J
J
J
So
I
find
that
puzzling
also.
I
I
do
think
it's
important
to
the
discussion
to
note,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
letter,
that
the
topography
of
the
houses
on
that
side
of
grant
street
is
unusual
and
those
houses
are
built
on
the
side
of
a
bluff,
and
so
construction
that
takes
place
has
a
much
greater
potential.
J
In
my
opinion,
to
create
structural
problems
for
neighboring
properties,
particularly
in
particular,
there's
a
retaining
wall
between
between
the
two
properties
right
now,
that's
between
seven
and
eight
feet
tall,
and
so
I
I
anticipate
potential
problems
there
and
I'm
not
sure
you
know
who
is
going
to
be
liable
or
responsible
for
any
potential
damages
short
or
long
term.
That
may
come
as
a
result
of
excavating
a
new
property
closer
to
this
one.
J
I
also
want
to
just
echo
what
carson
noted
the
idea
that
you
know
there
was
a
window
of
time
given
for
people
to
voice
their
feelings
about
this,
and
13
people
stepped
forward
all
in
the
negative,
and
I
I'm
just
not
certain
why
there
was
even
a
an
exercise
in
opening
this
up
for
comment.
If
those
comments
are
are
going
to
be
ignored
and.
C
A
C
C
A
C
F
Okay,
I
just
would
like
to
express
my
appreciation
for
carson,
greene
and
john
lane.
I
totally
agree
with
what
they're
saying
one
thing
I
do
want
to
add
about
this
property.
Is
it
has
a
very
unusual
topography,
meaning
that
the
lot
is
not
very
deep
and
the
houses
adjacent
to
the
lot
as
well
as
the
house
are
on
stilts.
F
So
in
regards
to
one
of
the
statements
about
the
health
of
I'm
not
exactly
sure-
and
I
don't
have
it
verbatim-
but
one
concern
is
the
runoff.
It
sounds
like
the
building.
It
can
be
two
buildings
and
I'm
not
sure
about
setbacks.
I
know
there
has
to
be
five
foot
setback
and
I've
talked
to
eric
about
it.
F
To
the
lot
I
mean
it's
steep
and
it's
hard
to
imagine
someone
in
a
parking
their
car
in
the
alley
and
then
walking
up
a
steep
flight
of
stairs.
So
I
think
the
building
will
certainly
increase
density
depending
on
how
many
people
live
there.
We
have
a
really
quiet,
neighborhood
single
family
homes,
and
I
just
think
that
this
is
a
duplex
type
of
thing
and
I
think
it
sets
up
a
precedent
for
the
rest
of
the
community
and
again
it's
r1
and
it's
appearing
like
we're
in
r2
with
a
duplex
configuration,
duplex
type
configuration.
C
I
I
will
grant
mr
cars,
mr
carson,
green,
more
tom
and
and
real
quick
while
we're
on
it.
The
setbacks
for
this
house
would
be
max.
Height
is
32
feet.
The
minimum
setbacks
front
is
25
feet
the
side.
Setbacks
are
5
feet
and
the
rear
setback
is
20
feet
according
to
the
code.
So
I'm
assuming
that's
what
staff
provided
miss
hill,
but
I
wanted
to
restate
it
here
just
in
case
mr
green.
I
will
grant
you
a
little
bit
more
time.
I
Yeah,
actually,
all
I
wanted
to
do
is
state
that
there
is
a
way
for
people
to
raise
their
hand
if
they're
dialed
in
I
mean
knowing
that
there's
25
people
on
the
line
that
have
not.
You
know
you
haven't
iterated
through
them
to
ask,
and
it
could
very
well
be
people
who
are
not
familiar
with
zoom
and
how
to
raise
their
hand.
I
They
can
do
a
star
nine
if
they're
called
in,
and
you
know,
or
I
think
it
would
be
in
the
city's
best
interest
if
they
were
iterated
through
and
asked
and
given
a
chance
to
speak
in
case
they're
having
trouble
doing
that.
That's
all
I
was
going
to
say,
and
just
thank
you
to
mr
lane
and
ms
hill
for
what
they
said.
I
I
think
strongly
that
this
would
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr.
C
C
C
A
C
C
E
G
G
C
C
G
G
B
B
G
H
C
E
D
H
D
D
E
E
H
C
H
C
H
Wade,
burkholder
planning
manager
in
the
community
development
department-
and
I
just
provided
clarification
that
per
code.
The
board
of
adjustment
appeals
is
not
permitted
to
hear
variances
that
would
grant
additional
dwelling
units
per
the
zoning
code
maximum
for
a
lot.
So
the
variance
if
it
were
to
come
back
would
have
to
occur
after
the
subdivision
is
approved
and
granted,
and
it
would
be
for
that
width
variance
on
the
lot.
C
C
So
I
I
would
just
so,
while
mr
taylor's
working
on
it,
I
would
ask
that
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
reopen
the
public
hearing,
and
we
can
ask
mr
burkholder
a
couple
questions.
The
the
thing
I'm
interested
in
is
how
they
can
subdivide
this
without
the
variance,
because
without
the
minimum
lot
width
coming
into
play-
and
I
don't
understand
how
that,
because.
C
H
C
H
Right,
so
you
you,
they
would
somehow
need
to
have
the
subdivision
before
the
variance,
because
otherwise
you
would
be
approving
two
houses
on
one
lot
and
there's
no
there's
no
variance.
It
appears
that
would
allow
that
at
this
point,
so
my
point
being,
is
there
wouldn't
automatically
be
a
variance
option
if
the
administrative
adjustment
were.
H
H
H
D
C
I
I
I
just
think
I'm
I'm
reading
this
differently.
I
don't
understand
how
we're
we
would
be
considering
a
variance
to
subdivide
the
lot
and
there
could
be
no
houses
built
on
the
lot
whatsoever.
It
could
be
a
vacant
lot,
we're
not
considering
to
add
any
houses
permitted
by
zone
district
standard
for
lot
area
and
lot
width,
but
that's
that's
here
there
I
guess
that'll
be
that
can
be
decided
later.
If
need
be
all
right,
I
assume
shelly,
there's
still
no
other
hands
up.
C
I
I'm
not
sure
if
I
understand
everything
that
just
occurred,
I
tried,
but
it
appears
to
me
that
if
this
was
not
being
done
through
an
administrative
adjustment,
then
it
you're
all
acknowledging
that
it
wouldn't
even
be
possible
to
separate
this
into
two
lots,
because
it's
against
the
zoning
rules-
and
I
would
just
like
to
point
out
as
a
citizen
that
that
sounds
crazy
to
me-
that
you
guys
would
approve
an
administrative
adjustment
to
split
this
into
two
lots
in
an
r1
zone
where
the
minimum
lot
width
is
not
met.
Thank
you.
C
C
J
C
Yeah,
mr
line,
so
the
way
the
public
hearing
works
is
the
board
cannot
have
a
discussion
until
we
close
the
public
hearing
and
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table
and
then
at
that
point
the
board
can
have
a
discussion.
So
that's
why
it
probably
seems
to
you
like.
We
have
not
discussed
it
at
this
point.
Okay,
well,.
J
J
C
C
A
A
C
C
D
So
I
my
perception
is
that
we're
looking
at
the
criteria
that
staff
looked
at
and
seeing
I
mean
one
thing
we
can
do
is
see
if
we
agree
or
disagree
with
their
analysis
and
most
of
it,
I
I
think
is
correct
the
one
that
doesn't
quite
get
there
for
me,
or
at
least
it's
on
the
line,
is
shows
up.
In
page
three
of
the
staff
report
d,
it's
neces,
the
adjustment
is
necessary
to
compensate
for
some
practical
difficulty
or
some.
D
B
Well,
I
guess
I'll
go
on
that.
Just
to
respond
to
that
I
mean
it
happenstance
the
way
the
lots
worked
out
way
back
in
the
day
that
block
is
1.4
feet
short
of
having
25
lights.
There's
no
way
around
that,
so
normal
use
would
would
normally
have
allowed
that
to
begin
with,
so
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
it,
I
mean:
that's
that's
exactly
what
staff
needs
to
be
looking
at,
and
I
guess,
while
I'm
going
on
here.
D
B
I
pretty
much
agree
with
staff's
analysis.
I
know
that
public
health,
safety
and
welfare
is
kind
of
ambiguous
and
a
lot
of
people
don't
want
growth
and
change,
and
I
understand
all
that,
but
I
really
feel
like
staff
has
done
exactly
what
is
required
of
them.
The
other
thing
I
might
add,
since
I'm
an
architect
from
work
in
a
lot
of
different
jurisdictions.
B
C
C
E
C
E
D
E
And
I
I
agree
with
that
is
that
you
know
I
think
it
was
1899
or
something
like
that
that
it
was
divided
originally,
and
we
had
that
extra
street
in
there
I
mean
the
lots
happened.
You
know,
since
that
time
you
know
removing
the
street,
you
know
putting
it
back
and
then
trying
to
essentially
put
back
together
a
puzzle
that
never
quite
fit
in
the
first
time
first
place,
and
I
think
that
again
in
my
mind,
that's
where
that
allotment
is
allowed
by
planning
to
kind
of
even
things
up.
If
you
want
to
call
it.
C
C
D
D
B
E
To
concur
with
actually
the
three
previous
you
know
previous
comments
and
basically
verifications
of
the
code,
and
I
I
I
concur
that
also
too
having
people
come
up
is
they're
right.
You
know
there
might
be
some
hesitation
of
having
you
know
this
process
go
through
its
normal.
You
know
means,
but
at
the
same
time
that's
just
as
as
ms
smith
said.
That's
why
we're
here.
D
C
C
C
I
understand
some
of
the
frustration
that
they
they
feel
like
their
voices
aren't
being
heard.
If,
if
you
don't
hear
anything
back
from
staff
and
also
make
sure
that
there
was
an
indication
that
there
might
be
a
bird
of
prey
nest
that
everything
that
is
done
appropriately
for
that,
if,
if
it
is
a
bird
of
prey,
it
might
be
protected
under
the
migratory
bird
act
and
care
needs
to
be
taken
with
that
as
well.
C
A
I
G
G
G
G
So,
community
development
routed
this
variance
application
to
the
applicable
city
departments,
including
building
engineering,
fire
parks
and
rec
and
utilities.
All
departments
approved
of
the
variants,
with
parks
recommending
that
the
debris
be
collected
from
the
fence
and
be
removed
on
a
regular
basis
for
aesthetic
purposes.
G
For
the
criteria
regarding
the
fence,
four
criteria
need
to
be
met.
The
first
criteria
is
that
unique
physical
conditions
exist
on
the
site,
such
as
size,
shape,
location,
topography
or
surroundings,
which
are
peculiar
to
the
land
or
structure
involved
which
deprive
the
applicant
of
privileges
enjoyed
by
other
properties
in
the
vicinity.
G
The
second
criteria
is
that
the
variance
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
zone.
District
regulations
to
secure
public
health
safety
and
welfare
and
staff
feels
that
this
various
requests
will
help
alleviate
potential
adverse
impacts
to
public
health
and
safety
by
keeping
loose
trash
on
site
and
out
of
the
trail
system
and
out
of
the
south
flat.
K
B
G
C
All
right,
I
don't
see
any
other
questions.
Shall
I
assume
the
applicant
for
this
case
is
here
someone
representing
waste
management?
Yes,
all
right.
So
if
the
applicant
could
please
come
forward
to
testify
in
the
case,
please
state
your
name
and
address
to
the
secretary
who
will
administer
the
oath
and
we
have
what
you
submitted
to
the
city
and
our
packets.
We've
reviewed
that.
K
K
K
C
C
K
The
the
location
of
the
fence
is
is
based
on
where
the
management
of
the
waste
takes
place.
The
the
area
of
the
facil
of
the
property
further
further
to
the
north
is
our
hauling
facility
and
that's
basically,
where
the
trucks
are
staged
and
where
they're
parked
and
so
we've
we've
focused
on
the
area
where
we
have
the
the
greatest
the
greatest
potential
for
for
fugitive
litter.
B
K
The
current
fence,
I
believe
right
now,
is
six
feet
and,
and
that
has
demonstrated,
maybe
not
to
be
as
effective
as
it
as
it
could
be,
and
so
we've
we
we
have
it's
installed.
Fences
at
various
heights
at
a
number
of
our
landfills
and
20
feet
seems
to
seems
to
be
a
pretty
especially
for
a
facility
like
this,
where
the
the
transfer
station
is
at
ground
level
and
basically
at
the
similar
elevation
is,
is
where
the
fence
will
be
erected.
C
C
D
C
C
D
D
H
A
H
C
C
C
H
C
C
Thank
you
again
so
much
for
your
participation.
I
know
at
times
it
can
get
a
little
trying
when
we
start
going
down
rabbit
holes,
but
I
appreciate
it
so
I'll
send
that
email.
I
promise
I
hope
everyone
stays
safe
and
healthy
and
take
care
of
each
other
and
hopefully
we'll
have
beer
and
ice
cream
soon.