►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment and Appeals 11 Jul 2018
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/50108?handle=1530D1CBF83543DAA2D398EABE492701
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/50107?handle=EB77505B426D4EE995FFC338C0957545
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 six membe...
2. Public Hearing:
Case VAR2018-006 Applicant: Brandis Meeks Property: 3246 S. Lincoln St. Chair Finn opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posing and publications for all three variance cases. He introduced...
Secretary's Note: (Board member Friesen was excused from the board meeting, Board member Schmitz joined the meeting to hear the remaining variance cases).
Case VAR2018-007 Applicant: Chad & Kara Matthews Property: 2921 S. Washington St. Chair Finn introduced the case stating the applicant is requesting a variance for a second story addition to an ex...
Case VAR2018-008 Applicant: Gage Enterprises Property: 3700 S. Inca St. Chair Finn introduced the case stating the applicant is requesting a variance for an 180-day extension to obtain a building perm...
3. Approval of Minutes
APPROVE THE APRIL 11, 2018 MINUTES AS WRITTEN
4. Approval of Findings of Fact
APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE VAR2018-001 3594 S. LOGAN ST.
APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE VAR2018-004 3275 S. DOWNING ST.
APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE VAR2018-005 900 E. HAMPDEN AVE .
5. Staff's Choice
6. Attorney's Choice
7. Board Member's Choice
8. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/50108?handle=1530D1CBF83543DAA2D398EABE492701
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/50107?handle=EB77505B426D4EE995FFC338C0957545
A
C
D
A
So
currently
there
are
six
members
present,
so
five
affirmative
affirmative
votes
will
be
needed
to
grant
a
variance
request
or
appeal.
The
board
is
authorized
to
grant
or
deny
a
variance
by
part
three
section
60
of
Englewood
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
for
the
Board's
decision.
Any
approved
variance
is
effective
at
the
end
of
the
appeal
period.
A
Building
permits
for
construction
associated
with
an
improved
variance
will
not
be
issued
until
the
appeal
period
is
ended,
building
permits
must
be
obtained
and
construction
began
within
a
hundred
and
eighty
days
of
the
variance
effective
date
procedure
for
the
meeting
is
that
the
case
will
be
introduced.
An
overview
will
be
given
by
staff.
Applicant
will
present
their
requests
and
reasons
the
variance
should
be
granted.
Proponents
will
be
given
an
opportunity
to
speak.
Opponents
will
address
the
board
if
they're
here
and
then,
if
needed,
staff
will
again
dress
the
board.
A
The
public
hearing
for
case
var
2018
0:06,
which
is
Brandis
Meeks,
the
properties
32
46
South
Lincoln
they're,
requesting
a
variance
to
reduce
the
required
ground
floor,
commercial
space
to
increase
maximum
front
setback
to
build
two
attached
homes,
I,
have
verification
of
publication
and
posting
of
the
subject
property.
If
staff
could
give
us
a
overview.
E
I
do
my
name
is
Brooke
Bell
I'm,
a
Senior
Planner
with
the
Community
Development
Department
good
evening,
as
as
a
chair
mentioned
tonight,
is
the
public
hearing
for
case
var,
2018,
zero,
zero.
Six
at
thirty
to
forty
six
South
Lincoln
Street,
the
applicant
is
requesting
two
variances.
The
first
is
to
reduce
the
required
ground-floor
commercial
space
from
the
required
50.1%
to
0%
to
develop
two
attached
townhomes,
and
the
second
variance
is
to
increase
the
maximum
front
setback
from
five
feet
to
15
feet
so
I'm
going
to
just
get
us
oriented
here
this
first.
E
This
first
map
is
a
zoning
map
showing
the
location
of
the
property
it's
a
little
hard
to
read,
but
this
is
in
your
packets,
so
this
would
be
Broadway
north
and
south,
and
this
would
be
Floyd
East
and
West.
The
subject
properties
at
32
46
South
Lincoln.
So
this
is
Lincoln
Street
in
terms
of
zoning.
The
zoning
for
the
subject.
E
Property
is
mu,
b1,
which
is
our
mixed-use
central
business
district
zoning,
and
that
is
in
the
red
just
on
the
other
side
of
Lincoln
is
mu,
B
2,
which
is
mixed-use
general
arterial,
business
district
and
then
behind
the
subject.
Property
is
the
MU
r3b,
which
is
a
mixed-use
high
density
residential
zone,
but
it
happens
to
have
what's
called
a
neighborhood
preservation
overlay
over
it,
which
limits
limits
development
in
here
to
multi,
multi
unit
developments
of
two
or
under
so
duplexes
are
allowed.
E
E
E
So
that's
just
a
little
bit
on
the
zone.
Districts
that
are
in
that
area.
This
next
slide
is
showing
an
aerial
of
the
property.
This
is
the
subject
property.
This
is
Lincoln
Street
Floyd
to
the
south,
and
this
shows
the
subject
property
as
well
as
properties
that
provided
neighbor
notifications
in
blue
they're
a
little
hard
to
read.
But
it's
this
property
up
here
and
these
neighbor
neighbor
notifications
were
all
in
favor
of
passage
of
the
variance.
E
E
This
is
just
an
exhibit
of
the
an
existing
survey
of
the
house
that
exists
there.
Here's
a
couple
of
photos
of
the
of
the
house
that
currently
exists
on
the
property.
It's
currently
boarded
up,
and
then
this
is
the
site
plan
of
what
is
proposed
by
the
applicant.
As
you
can
see,
it's
a
duplex,
much
like
you
would
see
in
any
of
the
r2bees
own
districts
or
mu
r3b.
E
E
Instead
of
having
a
minimum
front
setback
like
you
would
in
most
residential
districts,
it
has
a
maximum
front
setback
or
or
a
build
to
line.
So
in
fact-
and
it
was,
it
was
intended
for
commercial
districts
like
Broadway,
where
you're
trying
to
bring
the
buildings
to
the
street
to
kind
of
create
this
pedestrian
experience
for
retail
and
that
kind
of
thing
a
much
more
urban
experience.
So
that
is
required
in
the
MU
B,
b1
and
b2.
E
In
this
particular
case,
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
not
have
to
push
the
building
up
to
the
street,
but
rather
to
have
a
maximum
front
setback
of
15
feet
from
the
front
property
line,
and
he
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
that.
But
in
essence,
it's
to
match
the
adjacent
properties
residential
properties
more
closely,
because
since
these
are
much
older
homes,
they
are
not
pushed
to
the
street.
They
have
a
greater
setback
than
the
0
to
5
maximum
that
the
b1
and
b2
zone
district
require.
E
So
that
is
the
site
plan
with
the
two
units
it
does
meet
all
the
other
dimensional
requirements
other
than
that
front.
Setback
of
the
MU
B
1
zone
district
in
terms
of
lot
coverage,
landscape
area,
those
types
of
things:
side,
setbacks,
rear
setbacks,
parking
and
then
there
are.
These
are
rear,
loaded
garages
off
the
alley
which
is
typical
in
the
neighborhood.
E
This
is
a
just
some
photos
of
the
proposed
duplex
that
would
go
there,
and
then
this
is
a
aerial
that
the
applicant
provided,
showing
the
subject
property
and
then
some
other
duplexes
and
a
four-plex
that
are
on
that
same
block
shown
here.
The
rest
of
these
properties
are
all
single-family
residences
as
well
as
this
and
this
this,
these
two
properties
across
the
street
are
kind
of
a
medical
office
type
use.
F
E
E
E
As
you
know,
this
case
came
before
this
board
in
March,
with
a
little
bit
different,
two
different
variant.
Well,
one
variance
was
the
same.
It
was
to
remove
the
commercial
requirement.
The
second
variance
was
for
a
dimensional
requirement
on
a
driveway,
but,
as
you
know,
that
proposal
had
five
townhomes
and
so
the
that
did
not
Pat.
E
Zoning
Commission
knows
it's
going
to
come
back,
we're
gathering
other
information
and
some
different
information
to
take
to
Planning
and
Zoning,
and
as
of
yet
it
hasn't
gone
back
to
them.
I
think
the
bottom
line
is,
we
don't
know
what
the
time
frame
could
be
going
through
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
again
and
as
well
as
council,
and
so
the
applicant
has
brought
this
forward
to
to
try
and
do
something
with
with
the
site,
which
is
obviously
and
not
in
good
condition.
F
Thank
you.
So
your
response
raised
another
question
for
me.
You
said
that
this
the
exact
request
had
been
before
us
before
and
it
did
not
pass
with
the
vote
of
four
to
two
I
guess:
I'm
wondering
how
many
bites
at
the
Apple
does
the
applicant
get
there's
no
problem,
isn't
his
process
and
appeal
as
opposed
to
bringing
back
the
exact
same
request,
hoping
he
gets
a
different
composition
of
the
board
to
pass
the
variance
it's.
E
It's
a
different,
it's
a
different
project.
What
he's
proposing
granted
it
does
is
asking
to
remove
the
commercial
requirement,
but
the
scale
of
the
projects
been
reduced
down
from
the
five
unit
townhome
to
the
two
I'm,
not
aware
of
any
provision
in
the
code
that
would
limit
somebody
from
coming
back
with
a
proposal
like
that.
A
G
Okay,
so
really
you
know,
we've
obviously
we've
met
before
and
before
our
proposed
plan
was
to
build
five
townhomes
and
I
didn't
go
over
very
well
and
we
simply
want
to
go
ahead
and
get
a
project
started
and
get
it
done
and
sold,
and
so
we've
dropped
five
down
to
simply
a
duplex
you've
seen
the
duplex.
If
you
look
on
the
actual
map,
you'll
see
that
there's
already
three
residential
duplexes,
as
well
as
a
four-plex
on
the
same
block,
we've
talked
to
the
neighbors
we've.
Actually,
we
actually
did
go
to
every
every
home.
G
On
the
on
this
on
the
block,
but
most
people
weren't
home.
There
was
actually
one
person
whose
family
member
was
part
of
council,
and
so
they
couldn't
sign
anything.
We've
I
mean
everybody.
We
talked
to
is
definitely
an
agreement
that
they'd
love
to
see
just
simply
a
duplex
right
there
versus
what's
there
now,
which
is
a
you
know
like
a
70
80
year,
old,
boarded-up,
Shack,
and
so
that's
pretty
much.
It
I
mean
you
know
with
the
zoning.
You
know
we're
requesting
that
you
give
us
an
opportunity
to
build
a.
G
You
know
build
a
duplex
versus
you
know
having
to
build
commercial
and
I.
Just
don't
think
that
if
I
mean
for
force
to
build
commercial,
we're
gonna
have
to
I
mean
we
can't
just
continue
to
carry
debt
service
on
a
on
the
property.
So
but
I
just
don't
think
that
anybody
on
the
block
wants
to
see
a
commercial
building
there.
G
When
we
can
easily
just
build
a
duplex,
you
know
it'll
be
a
beautiful
duplex
that
falls
in
line
with
other
duplexes
that
are
being
built
throughout
the
city,
and
you
know
one
thing
to
consider:
is
you
know
once
this?
If
they
do
decide
to
go
back
and
change
the
code
later
and
we're
still
waiting?
Well,
then
we
can
build
what
people
don't
want
us
to
build
there.
So
I
just
think
it's
easier
just
to
pass
the
duplex
and
we
can
just
go
ahead
and
get
this
thing
built.
D
G
To
me
it's
that
I
mean
it's
not
necessary
for
me
personally.
If
we,
if
we're
that
far
up,
then
I
can
just
build
a
bigger
building,
which
is
not
a
problem.
However,
I
definitely
like
for
the
neighbors.
It's
a
big
deal,
because
you
know
they
want
the
street
to
be
in
linemen.
So
we
want
all
the
houses.
I
mean
it's,
you
know
as
much
as
possible.
G
I
mean
obviously
there's
you
know
a
couple
houses
to
the
far
north
that
are
pushed
back
even
further
than
everything
else,
but
you
know
you
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
street
isn't
in
alignment,
especially
when
you
know
driving
down
the
street.
You
want
all
the
properties
in
the
linemen
as
much
as
possible
and
so
I
definitely
feel
like
having
the
reason
I
asked
for
it
was
specifically
because
once
we
were
putting
the
you
know,
the
site
on
the
the
plans
on
the
site.
G
I
said:
wait
a
minute
we're
like
actually
really
far
ahead
of
the
other
properties,
and
so
we
need
to
push
this
thing
back
and
then
I
called
and
I
saw.
So
we
actually
did
push
it
back
on
the
plans.
We
sent
it
in
a
Brooke
and
Brooke
set
off
red
flag.
You
can't
because
of
the
the
code.
The
code
says
you
have
to
build
within
the
first
five
feet
and
which
is
great
for
commercial
before
residents
with
duplex
I
can
lay
said
I.
G
A
I
just
have
a
comment
and
that
I
appreciate
what
you've
done,
because
you
didn't
necessarily
have
to
come
back
much
less
come
back
with
something
that
fit
into
the
neighborhood
a
little
better,
but
I
do
appreciate.
You
I
think
you
took
some
of
the
comments
from
the
neighbors
last
time,
a
little
bit
too
hard
and
I
appreciate
that.
That's
it
I
think
for
you
right
now.
Mr.
Meeks,
thank
you
are
there?
Any
persons
present
I
think
we're
done
with
you
who
wish
to
speak
in
favour
of
this
request
in
favor.
B
H
Searfoss
3297
southbound
I'm,
one
of
the
people
that
came
and
was
vehemently
opposed
to
the
last
project
proposed
by
mr.
Meeks
vehemently
opposed
and
I've
posed.
A
lot
of
the
things
have
been
put
up
in
Inglewood
lately,
but
I
want
to
say
that
I
really
do
support
mr.
Meeks
efforts
to
continue
the
residential
nature
of
the
east
side
of
South,
Lincoln
I
think
it's
actually
very
I.
H
Consider
it
wonderful
that
a
builder
who's
concerned
usually
is
profit
per
square
foot
I
actually
paid
attention
with
the
people
of
Inglewood,
came
and
said
on
that
day,
and
then
he
wants
to
make
it
look
more
in
line
with
the
residential
nature
of
that
neighborhood
I'm
thrilled
I'm,
absolutely
thrilled
that
he's
doing
this,
and
that's
the
only
reason
I'm
here
is
to
support
him
and
say.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
really
appreciate
it.
Perfect.
A
I
I
I
A
I
A
A
D
D
D
A
A
I
mean
my
feeling
is
that
we've
granted
these
variances
before
in
areas
that
don't
have
commercial
if
we
stick
with
currently
which
by
all
indications,
seems
like
it'll
change,
but
we'll
have
one
commercial
lot
on
this
block
right
next
to
across
the
alley.
A
historic
overlay
that
to
me
doesn't
make
sense
this
to
me.
J
I'm
I'm
struggling
is
seeing
these
two
variances
together
this
time
I
can
get
through
the
first
criteria
of
I
mean
this.
Is
this
property
is
being
deprived
of
privileges
enjoyed
by
other
properties
in
the
vicinity,
but
what
I'm
really
struggling
with
still
is
the
second
criterion.
The
intent
of
the
zone
district
is
to
be
primary,
I
think
it
says
primarily
commercial
in
nature
and
I
just
can't
get
past
that,
but
that's
what
it
says
in
the
zoning
and
I
don't
feel
comfortable.
Changing
that.
K
I
look
at
it
as
we
were
created
as
a
board
to
help
with
issues
like
this
and
when
you're
looking
at
a
pretty
much
residential
block,
except
for
two
medical
offices
that
pretty
sure
you
know
we're,
probably
built
a
little
bit
after
those
homes.
You
know
in
another
30-year
cycle.
Most
of
those
homes
are
going
to
be
replaced
and
they're
not
gonna,
be
replaced
by
businesses.
They're
gonna
be
replaced
by
additional
homes.
So
and
again,
with
the
overlay
on
Sherman,
you
can't
touch
it.
Yeah.
K
A
A
I,
wouldn't
want
to
live
next
door
to
a
place.
That
is
the
only
place
on
the
block
that
has
commercial.
It
could
be
a
liquor
store,
it
could
be
a
number
of
things
and
if
you
remember
correctly
last
time
there
were
also
some
gripes
from
some
of
the
neighbors
about
already
the
commercial
sites
across
the
street
and
the
noise
from
those
this
would
be
bringing
right,
I
think
just
entirely
too
close
to
a
residential
neighborhood.
A
J
D
D
K
A
Yeah
I
mean
you
know
to
me
again:
this
board
is
set
up
as
a
variance
board,
so
it's
the
you
know
the
exception
board
so
they're
to
apply
common
sense.
Otherwise
we
would
never
be
passing
anything
yeah
I
mean
that's.
Why
I
like
it,
it
it
and
and
to
me
this
is
this,
makes
common
sense
for
the
good
of
the
neighborhood.
F
And
I
ain't
done,
I
voted
for
this.
The
first
time
it
came
to
us
and
sorry
I'm
tend
to
vote
for
it
again.
I
do
think
it
meets
the
criterion
and
I
also
will
be
supportive
of
the
setback.
I
guess
I
would
just
ask
staff
to
relay
that.
I
think
you're
hearing
that
we're
imploring
Council
to
please
take
this
up
and
address
this
issue,
because
we
feel
like
we're
sort
of
in
a
tough
situation
of
I
I.
A
D
C
I
voted,
yes,
I
believe
the
first
criteria
has
been
met
since
the
MU
B
ones,
own
district
extends
north
east
floor
and
the
other
zoning
districts
are
similar
to
the
intent
that
he's
asking
for
I
believe
the
second
criteria
has
been
met.
The
variance
request
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
MU,
b1
and
I.
Don't
think
it
has
any
public
health
safety
or
welfare
issues,
I
believe
the
third
criteria
has
been
met,
since
their
surrounding
properties
to
the
north,
west
and
east
are
already
developed,
and
there
are
four
duplexes
already
on
that
law.
C
B
D
J
Voted
yes,
in
addition
to
the
reasons
stated,
the
the
first
criterion
that,
by
granting
this
variance,
we're
allowing
the
applicant
you
enjoy
privileges
enjoyed
by
other
properties
in
this
vicinity,
also
that
this
does
not
in
in
for
the
second
criteria.
This
does
not
do
anything
to
impair
the
public
health
safety
or
welfare.
B
B
B
A
A
Now,
please
that,
yet
that's
why
you
get
paid
the
big
box.
This
is
again
this
is
case
number
20,
1800,
7chad
and
Karen
Adam
and
Kara
Matthews
29
21
South
Washington
Street.
The
applicants
requesting
variance
for
a
second-story
addition
to
an
existing
one
unit,
dwelling
with
the
following
setback:
encroachments
16-foot
setback
from
the
front
property
line
and
2
foot
setback
from
the
north
poverty
line,
staff.
M
I
do
Eric
Sampson
and
I'm
a
planner
too,
with
the
city
of
Inglewood,
and
so
this
request
is
on
North
Washington
Street.
This
is
the
location
of
the
property.
All
the
neighboring
properties
in
that
area
are
r1c
zoning
district,
it's
all
single-family
residential
uses,
and
this
is
what's
existing
on
the
site.
Now
there
was
a
story.
M
Lose
or
what
so,
overall,
based
on
the
four
criteria
staff
found
that
overall,
it
would
be
impractical
for
to
require
the
applicant
to
construct
a
second
story.
That
means
setbacks,
because
that's
would
create
an
undue
hardship
in
and
of
itself
and
overall,
that
the
hardship
is
not
self-imposed
because
it
was
constructed
again
in
1951
prior
to
being
included
into
the
city
of
Englewood.
A
A
A
A
M
K
I
move
that
case
var
to
2018
zero
zero.
Seven
at
twenty
nine,
twenty
one,
South
Washington
Street
be
granted
a
variance
for
a
second-story
addition
to
an
existing
one
unit,
dwelling
to
encroach
nine
feet
into
the
required
twenty
five
foot
front
setback
and
three
feet
into
the
required
five
feet:
a
side
setback
for.
P
A
I
mean
to
me
again:
this
is
this
is
a
little
bit
common
sense
it'll
when
you
do
an
addition
in
the
neighborhood.
You
know,
I
certainly
want
it
to
look
like
it's
an
addition
and
I
think
when
you
start
making
things
go
over,
it
can
look
like
an
addition
and
I.
Think
staying
with
the
current
lines
of
the
building
makes
some
sense
and.
A
C
B
A
A
Q
Q
What
they
are
requesting
is
on
their
original
variance
was
to
exceed
the
max
lock
coverage
requirement,
I'm
original
when
the
building
had
built
they
had
intended
for
a
Phase
two
for
the
property
and
the
original
zoning
at
the
time.
What
they
had
wanted
to
do
was
was
conforming
with
the
code
as
time
went
on.
You
know
couple
things
changed
with
the
office
requirements
that
zone
district
making
what
they
had
intended
to
do
originally
not
possible,
so
they
were
applying
for
a
variance
to
exceed
that
max,
lock
coverage
to
build
a
second
building
on
the
structure.
A
A
O
O
This
again,
I'll
just
give
briefly
were
wrapped
with
this,
so
so
this
was
approved
in
John
January
10th
for
the
variance.
Frankly,
it
took
about
a
month
after
that
for
the
engineering
company
to
firmly
decide.
Yes,
we're
gonna
do
this
and
build
it,
and
we
engaged
in
architect
to
begin
drawings
and
the
planning
drawings
in
March
we
just
late
February.
O
The
draft
final
drawings
on
August,
1
and
and
our
target
is
to
have
the
drugs
completed
on
August
10
and
to
be
submitted
to
city
for
building
review
there
shortly
or
as
soon
as
we
can
thereafter
I
mean
within
a
day
or
two
I
suppose
and
see.
We've
selected
a
general
contractor
for
the
project,
we're
not
under
contract
with
him.
Yet
I
mean
we
need
to
get
past
this
meeting
tonight,
we're
working
with
the
bank
on
financing.
O
Obviously,
we
have
made
substantial
expenditures
in
all
of
this.
To
get
to
the
point
we're
at
and
in
the
in
this
extension,
I
had
I
had
just
asked
for
a
hundred
and
eighty
day
extension
really
I
would
be
just
as
happy
with
a
hundred
and
twenty
day
extension.
If,
if
that
is
something
that
matters
to
the
board,
I
have
no
idea
I,
don't.
O
F
O
O
K
A
A
Fantastic
perfect,
thank
thank
you,
sir.
Are
there
any
persons
present
who
wish
to
speak
in
favor
of
this
request?
There's
no
indication.
Are
there
any
persons
person
who
wish
to
speak
in
opposition
of
this
request?
There's
no
indication
staff,
any
additional
comments
board
any
other
questions
for
staff.
The
public
meeting
is
not
closed.
Can
I
get
a
motion.
K
A
A
G
L
J
A
A
A
A
Second,
perfect
Finn,
abstaining
voice
vote,
all
in
favor,
say
aye.
Any
opposed
all
right
need
a
motion
and
a
second
for
finding
a
fact
for
case
var:
2018:
zero,
zero,
five,
nine
hundred
East
Hampton
Avenue
so
moved
there.
A
second
Finn
is
abstaining,
a
voice
vote
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
opposed
perfect
Thank
You
staff
to
your
choice.
I.
E
A
A
A
Mr.
attorney
all
right
Ford,
anyone
here
have
even
anything
all
right.
All
right,
I
just
want
to.
Thank
you
guys,
I
I
know
you.
This
is
a
volunteer
board
and
you
guys
putting
a
lot
of
work.
I
think
we're
probably
the
best
board
out
there
so
and
I
know
I'm
being
recorded
secretary.
Do
you
have
anything
for
us
all
right?