►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting May 10, 2023
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/160709?handle=A4B894AA16E6462893AC6881CDBAA84D
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/160708?handle=4E2DB9789941488C91927D3E250D37DA
1. Chair Finn approved the agenda.
2. Call to Order
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Findings of Fact
5. Public Hearing:
Case VAR2023-003 (Continued from the April 12, 2023 Meeting) Applicant: Jay Dokken Property: 2820 S. Lafayette St Request: A variance to encroach approximately five (5) feet, five (5) inches into the ...
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 to the public hearin...
Case VAR2023-005 Applicant: Jay Dokken Property: 2820 S. Lafayette St. Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach approximately seven (7) feet, eight (8) inches horizontally into the ...
7. Staff's Choice
8. Attorney's Choice
9. Board Member's Choice
10. Adjourn
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/160709?handle=A4B894AA16E6462893AC6881CDBAA84D
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/160708?handle=4E2DB9789941488C91927D3E250D37DA
B
D
A
D
F
D
Three
four
folks
that
were
present
I
believe
so
we
can
vote
one
two
I'm
having
a
problem
with
math
tonight,
one
two,
three
four
people
present.
So
we
can
vote
on
them
for
the
folks
that
were
here,
Mr
Collins
and
Miss
Schmidt
will
abstain,
since
you
guys
were
not
here
so
we'll
do
the
approval
of
minutes
from
April
12,
2023,
My
Voice
vote,
all
those
that
can
vote
and
are
in
favor,
say
aye
I
any
opposed,
no
opposed
so
approval.
D
D
So
there
are
five
members
across
six
members
present
there
for
five
affirmative
votes
are
required
to
Grant
a
variance
or
appeal.
The
board
is
authorized
to
Grant
or
deny
variants
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.
Any
approved
variance
is
effective
at
the
end
of
the
appeal
period.
D
Building
permits
for
construction
associated
with
improved
variants
will
not
be
issued
until
the
appeal
period
is
ended,
building
permits
must
be
obtained
and
construction
began
with
180
days
of
the
variance's
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
present
and
if
needed,
staff
will
again
address
the
board.
D
D
Then
there's
also
case
and
I'm,
assuming
that
we
can
hear
these
both
same
time
since
they're
related
and
they'll
deal
with
the
same
facts.
We
have
case
VAR
2023005.
This
is
the
new
one
in
front
of
us.
The
applicant
is
also
Jay
Dawkin
again,
it
has
to
do
with
the
same
property
at
2820,
South
Lafayette.
The
request
for
this
is
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
to
encroach
approximately
seven
feet,
eight
inches
horizontally
into
the
required
bulk
plane
to
convert
an
existing
structure
into
a
residence
in
the
r1a
zone
District.
D
So
we
will
have
staff
present
on
both
of
these.
We
will
talk
to
staff,
we'll
talk
to
the
applicant
and
then
once
we
get
to
the
two
motions.
We'll
do
one
motion,
a
discussion
we'll
do
the
second
motion
we'll
do
one
motion
discussion
vote
then
we'll
do
the
second
motion,
discussion,
vote
and
I
think
that'll,
that'll
wrap
stuff
up.
A
B
H
All
right
good
evening
board
members
and
Africa.
This
is
the
first
you'll
see
two
presentations
that
will
sound
suspiciously
similar,
but
let's
get
started
with
our
first
one
property
and
Zoning
location.
This
property
is
located
in
the
northeastern
portion
of
the
city
of
the
Kimball
Croft
Park
amendment
number,
one
subdivision,
property
and
all
surrounding
properties
are
located
in
the
r1a
zoning
District.
H
There
are
no
previous
variances
associated
with
this
property
and
enough
for
some
background.
The
property
came
in
with
kimballcroft
Park
to
the
city
in
1950..
It's
created
three
lots
on
this
corner
of
Bates
and
Lafayette.
Now
the
amendment
was,
there
was
Amendment
to
the
subdivision
in
2016
that
created
sewer
and
utility
easements.
So
then
we
set
ourselves
to
finding
the
building
dates
of
each
of
these
properties,
so
we
could
find
a
relative
what
they
are
to
each
other
relatively
2800.
H
H
H
Now
we'll
go
through
these
Graphics
again
to
refer
to
later,
at
your
will.
First
Criterion
is
that
a
unique
physical
conditions
exist
now
as
a
corner
Lut
and
in
the
r1a
district.
This
lot
is
actually
kind
of
large
for
the
r1a.
Even
but
despite
the
space
and
the
size,
the
structure
is
set
so
far
to
the
rear
and
north
side
of
the
property
line
that
it
creates
difficulties
to
meet.
R1A
setback
lot
coverage
both
plane
requirements
if
the
structures
to
maintain
has
a
principle.
H
Second,
the
variance
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
Zone
district
and
granting
these
variances
would
bring
the
property
into
compliance
with
the
r1a
district's
dimensional
requirements
and
enable
the
owners
to
apply
for
a
building
permit
Ford's
renovating
the
structure
for
use
as
a
single
unit
dwelling,
which
is
the
base
use
for
this
District
third
Criterion,
is
that
the
variance
will
not
permanently
impair
or
the
use
of
development
adjacent,
conforming
properties.
These
variances
are
determination,
do
not
impair
adjacent,
performing
Properties
or
alter
essential
neighborhood
character.
H
Fourth,
Criterion
is
the
variance
is
not
a
self-imposed
difficulty
or
hardship.
Now
it
was
incorporated
in
1950,
as
we
excuse.
Incorporated
in
the
past,
as
we
mentioned,
the
structure
is
original
construction,
the
Kimball
cross,
some
division,
Amendment
and
the
addressing
request
were
all
conducted
by
previous
owners.
So
the
current
owner's
request
for
these
variances
represents
an
acknowledgment
of
the
property's
existing
non-conformities
and
a
good
faith
intention
to
bring
the
property
into
compliance.
H
We've
received
two
letters
in
support
and
one
letter
in
opposition
I'll
be
looking
through
your
packets
and
I.
Do
not
see
why
the
letter
of
opposition
wasn't
uploaded.
I
can
read
and
refer
to
it
if
you
want,
but
this
one,
the
opposition
is
from
2800
Lafayette
and
the
green
arrows
diamonds
denote
the
in
favor
and
because
it's
not
in
front
of
you
I
will
read
what
the
neighbor
notification
objection
is
coming
from.
2
800
self
Lafayette.
We
heavily
opposed
the
cities
of
inglewood's
stance
of
converting
this
I
apologize.
H
D
H
Seems
to
be
the
that's,
that's
the
stance.
We
heavily
approach
the
city
of
inglewood's
stance
of
converting.
This
next
word
is
unledgeable
and
structure
to
be
torn
down
period.
It
should
be
grandfathered
in
or
labeled
as
a
historic
property
I
think.
Unfortunately,
the
the
writer
might
not
have
that
all
the
important
effects
but
I
understand
the
the
will
and
desire
to
label
as
historic
property
and
preserve
the
sense.
I
think
that
I
get
is
a
sense
of
trying
to
preserve
the
property
rather
than
tearing
it
down.
H
D
H
D
H
H
I
think
the
barn
per
se
was
still
perceived
was
still
in
use
or
to
that
2800
to
the
North,
or
at
least
it
was
accessory
or
or
it
was
owned
by
someone
who
didn't
just
own
that
one
piece
of
property
and
after
it
was
addressed,
then
it
was
sold
off
I,
believe
that's!
That's
the
narrative
that
I
have
it
was
over
the
course
of
decades.
These
were
parceled
out,
and
then,
in
the
past
decade
the
address
was
assigned
to
this
structure
and
then
sold
off.
I
H
H
I
A
A
K
I
I
H
H
D
So
staff
I
have
a
question
for
you.
If
we
Grant
this
variance
and
it's
the
intent
of
Mr
Dawkin
to
have
this
be
a
resident
can
at
some
point
in
the
future.
Could
this
become
an
accessory
structure
if
he
builds
or
an
Adu
I,
don't
know
if
their
Adu
as
they're
allowed
in
here
if
he
tries
to
build
something
in
front.
H
My
unmuted
am
I
still
heard.
Yes,
yes,
okay,
it's
a
good
what-if
question
because
to
me
it
comes
down
to
design
it's
it's
possible
with
good
design.
You
know
what
and
again
maybe
I
have
to
tag
in
Brian.
It's
us
I'm!
Sorry,
it's
a
solid
Maybe
off
the
top
of
my
head.
The
Brian!
Do
you
have?
Can
you
be
more
clear
on
it?
I
think
it
really
comes
down
to
you're
not
permanently
signing
this
principal
structure.
Necessarily
this
could
be.
J
J
J
I
H
J
D
D
I
I
H
I
H
H
B
I
I
mean
thought
the
process
was
I
was
just
I
would
be
concerned.
If
we
said
if
a
president
was
said
of
oh
hey,
I
built
a
barn
and
then
sell
the
property.
If
it's
already
existing
over
there,
then
oh
hey,
it's
probably
getting
a
grandfathered
in
I'm,
just
thinking
kind
of
the
the
potential
long-term
implications,
gotcha
gotcha.
H
D
D
M
Think
the
early
1900s
I
don't
know
of
an
exact
date
so,
and
you
guys
were
talking
earlier
about
like
which
was
the
first
house
in
there.
As
far
as
I
know,
this
was
the
first
structure
in
the
whole
kind
of
area
and
it
initially
served
an
orchard
that
was
around
there
before
the
subdivision
got
put
in.
M
I
M
G
L
A
A
N
A
A
D
N
I'm
against
this,
hey
from
what
I
can
tell
is
there
used
to
be
a
house
on
that
property
that
I
just
pulled
up
and
at
2820
South
Lafayette
I'd
like
to
know
where
the
house
went
the
developer
or
Builder
bought
it
in
October
of
22
for
400
000.,
and
there
is
no
house
and
I'd
like
to
know
where
the
house
is
a
be.
You
know
once
again
the
poor
people
of
Inglewood
are
having
to
deal
with
another
massive
structure.
N
That
is,
you
know,
potentially
being
looked
at,
and
you
know,
based
on
all
of
the
the
circumstances
within
Englewood
right
now.
I
believe
that
you
know
my
friends
and
acquaintances
have
had
enough
of
these
large
structures
and
that
this
does
not
serve
the
purpose
other
than
to
line
the
pockets
of
the
developer
and
his
brother
who's.
Also
on
this
paperwork
is
the
real
estate
agent,
so
I
am
definitely
against
this.
Thank
you.
B
D
O
P
A
P
P
The
variance
is
contingent
on
the
existing
structure
so
that,
if,
in
the
future
the
barn
is
torn
down
and
a
new
structure
is,
is
placed
on
that
property
that
we
feel
that
any
new
structure
should
conform
to
existing
setbacks
to
make
it
fit
with
with
the
neighborhood.
You
know
we
like
the
character
of
the
barn,
but
we
don't
want
a
new
structure
set
that
far
back,
because
it's
basically
across
the
driveway
from
our
property.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Dawkins,
oh
and
sorry,
one
other
comment:
we're
not
doing
this
to
make
money
by
the
way.
Whoever
said
that,
you
know
we're
this,
this
is
if
it
was
to
make
money,
we
would
scrape
the
structure
and
build
a
house
for
today's
family,
so
we're
trying
hard
and
we're
spending
extra
money
to
keep
it,
as
is.
A
R
A
S
S
S
This
applicant
seeks
for
you
to
approve
three
significant
precedent:
setting
variances
based
solely
on
a
desire
by
the
applicant
to
develop
an
existing
outbuilding.
There
is
no
existing
barrier
or
impediment
to
its
building,
a
residential
home
else,
Elsewhere
on
the
11,
730
square
foot
property
and
based
solely
on
his
desire
to
use
this
existing
outbuilding.
On
the
back
of
the
lot,
he
is
seeking
a
variance
to
allow
an
encroachment
of
seven
feet:
eight
inches
vertically
into
the
bulk
plane,
a
variance
to
allow
an
encroachment
of
five
feet.
Six
and
a
half
inches
into
the
minimum.
S
Seven
foot
side
yard
set
back,
leaving
only
a
one
foot:
five
and
a
half
inch
side
yard
and
a
variance
to
allow
and
a
32
foot
encroachment
into
the
maximum
front
yard.
Setback
and
I
also
want
to
express
my
alarm
and
concern.
The
Community
Development
brought
this
case
forward
with
the
recommendation
for
approval,
despite
easy
options
for
the
owner
and
opposition
from
the
neighbor
directly
north,
who
will
experience
direct
impact
by
the
development
to
the
residential
to
this
residence
through
those
three
significant
variances.
S
As
the
client
admitted
on
4
12
23,
he
could
very
easily
scrape
the
outbuilding
and
build
a
resident
Elsewhere
on
the
property,
with
full
compliance
of
all
existing
final
16
law
is
applicable
to
r1a
and
again
tonight
the
developer
indicated
they
could
easily
make
a
standard
residential
property
on
this
site.
One
of
the
reasons
this
client
expressed
as
to
wanting
a
last
meeting
as
to
wanting
to
keep
the
existing
out
building
was
the
Planck
Force,
but
I
have
no
doubt
he
could
reclaim
the
output
building
wood
floors.
S
He
admired
and
used
them
in
his
new
structure.
Elsewhere
on
the
lot.
I
am
not
clear
whether
the
existing
structure
would
prohibit
building
a
residential
structure
on
the
site,
with
the
existing
out
building
remaining
as
an
out
building
on
that
property.
It
is
a
huge
lot
if
variance
2023-004
is
approved.
S
This
would
set
an
alarming
and
significant
precedent
to
the
use
of
this
board
of
adjustment
and
appeals
by
both
applicants
and
Community
Development
as
a
means
to
Simply
avoid
existing
law
by
seeking
multiple
variances
to
build
a
desired
structure
without
any
concern
for
impact
on
Neighbors
and
as
a
preemptive
action
and
possibly
as
a
preemptive
action
in
anticipation
of
hoping
to
get
approval
for
adus
in
the
future
and
developing
the
remaining
large
front
yard.
With
another
structure
in
the
future.
S
T
A
T
T
T
Oh
next
is
a
big
deal
here
in
the
city
and
if
these,
if
Mr
dotkin,
both
of
them,
if
they
are
from
Denver,
they
are
developers
and
I
doubt
very
much
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
If
they
are
going
to
move
into
this
property,
I
would
imagine
that
they're
going
to
build
this
and
then
sell
it
for
over
a
million
dollars
or
up
to
a
million
dollars.
T
We
are
trying
to
get
affordable
housing
into
our
city.
This
is
not
going
to
work
and
I
would
just
ask
that
the
board
also
consider
the
setbacks.
You
know
they're
going
to
be
two
and
a
half
feet
for
me.
That's
not
enough
room
for
privacy
and
I
also
believe
it's
a
fire
hazard,
so
I
would
ask
you
to
please
deny
these
variances
and
I
also
believe
that
they
could
have
done
some.
They
could
have
built
something
much
more
suitable
to
that
Community
into
that
neighborhood.
So
thank
you.
K
U
Yeah
I
happened
to
come
home
by
this
sign
the
other
day.
It
was
kind
of
Bittersweet
that
I
would
take
that
route
for
something
totally
unrelated
to
this.
But
here
we
are,
and
then
I
saw
it
and
I
was
like
okay.
Why
would
they
need
a
variance
for
this
building
and
then,
of
course,
that's
when
I
started
reading
the
sign,
as
many
of
you
are
aware.
U
Yes
yeah.
This
is
not
going
to
work
on
the
computer
screen
because
it
barely
works
with
my
Hawkeyes
I
am
referring
to
the
city.
Zoning
map
updated
in
2016.
I
realize
there's
newer
revisions,
probably
on
everybody's
desk,
except
for
mine
right
now,
but
with
that
said,
I
do
understand
that
this
is
to
to
be
an
r1a
situation
right
here
and
I
see
see
the
house
and
where
it
is
now
and
as
many
are
aware,
including
anybody,
that's
bought
a
property,
including
this
property.
U
Seven
foot
is
a
setback
in
R1
and
if
they
go
five
foot
seven
into
that,
that
leaves
less
than
two
foot
five
in
R4,
the
minimum
setbacks
three
foot,
so
this
can't
be
approved
I
would
be
totally
against
it.
It's
not
allowed
in
the
most
dense
of
situations,
including
my
zoning
in
this
city,
so
puds
have
minimum
set
foot
setbacks
on
sites
for
three
foot
and
it's
it's
that's
inadequate.
This
can't
be
allowed.
U
U
That
would
probably
be
approved
under
normal
circumstances,
as
the
bulk
planes
and
stuff
allows,
and
just
the
side
setbacks
in
forward
and
back
setbacks.
This
is
the
everybody's
seen
this
before,
and
I
have
to
believe
that
if
the
bulk
plane
was
on
a
very
sloped
lot,
like
the
one
I
was
potentially
going
to
work
on
in
2020
that
this
could
be
an
undo
in
on
do
the
term
we
used
the
earlier
that
everybody's
used
a
burden,
so
this
is
hardly
a
burden.
U
I
can't
see
the
elevation
change,
even
though
this
is
trapezoid
from
front
left
right
to
back
to
rear
at
the
site
triangle
with
the
prior
photo
up
here
being
more
than
three
foot
in
deviance,
so
I
the
this.
This
can't
go
through.
As
requested
like
this,
there
has
to
be
no
way
that
this
goes
through.
It's
an
extremely
tall
ask:
it
would
not
go
through
an
R2
as
prior
history
that
I've
experienced,
so
it
definitely
shall
not
happen
in
R1.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
C
B
H
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
me
to
reiterate
that
this
is
not
about
new
construction
that
this
the
variance
is
referred
to
the
prop
the
structure
as
it
is
the
variances
allow
for
the
structure
to
exist,
as
it
is
right
now.
It's
nothing
to
me.
It
is
wood,
concrete
metal.
It
cannot
be
used
for
anything.
It
is
r1a
we're
not
changing
zoning
we're,
not
re-designating
zoning.
It
is
in
r1a.
It
has
been
in
r1a
as
long
as
it's
been
in
the
city,
it's
only
ever
qualified
for
residential
use.
H
Now
granting
the
variances
I've
heard
the
word
precedent.
I
won't
necessarily
go
there.
Every
variance
is
considered
on
its
own
merits.
They're,
not
a
you
know,
that's
enough!
That
I'll
say
right
there
other
than
that.
That
was
a
lot
to
kind
of
remember,
but
I
think
those
are
important.
Details
I
want
to
reiterate
that
the
variance
is
referred
to
the
structure
that
is
already
on
there,
which
I
have
no
I
uncovered
no
evidence
of
another
structure,
another
house
being
on
this
property.
H
D
And
then
also
Mr
Harrison.
So
in
order
for
a
structure
to
conform
to
all
the
variances
on
this
lot
and
to
build
a
home
that
the
owner
would
have
every
right
to
build
in
essence,
he
would
have
to
scrape
this
building
and
then
conform
to
the
variants,
but
he
could
still
build
a
fairly
big
structure.
Could
you
not.
H
Conceivably
and
again,
that
is
another
thing
to
denote
is
that
variance
is
carry
with
the
land
traditionally,
unless
you
otherwise
specify.
So
that's
an
important
thing.
A
lot
of
people
have
raised,
you
just
say:
here's
the
variance
it's
on
the
land
and
30
years
from
now.
When
we
look
at
it
they'll
just
say:
hey,
we
have
a
variance
here.
So
if
you
want
to
specify
that
this
is
as
conditions
and
stipulations
now
is
the
time
to
do
it.
G
H
H
D
I
M
Yeah
I'm
fine
with
I,
mean
obviously
anything
that
kind
of
limits.
Your
options
in
the
future,
you
know,
could
be
a
bad
thing,
but
I'm
I'm,
fine
with
that
and
I,
actually
assumed
that
if
you
know
we
were
to
build
anything
else
on
there,
it
would
have
to
adhere
to
current
zoning
and
building
regulations.
L
H
Yeah
I
think
I
would
reiterate
that
from
another
Direction,
because
it
was
a
common
concern
that
that
that
there
would
be
some
large
bulking
Edition
or
something
that
what
we're
granting
here
is
to
the
existing
structure,
for
it
to
be
operable
as
an
as
it
is
as
a
residence.
If
not
granted,
then
you
get.
Who
knows
what?
Then,
if
you
don't
get
this
variance,
then
you
know
the
owner
has
to
come
up
with
a
new
solution
and
that's
the
possibility
of
where
you
can
get
well,
something
that
conforms
to
code.
I
H
In
addition,
could
conceivably
be
made,
but
I
would
put
it
on
the
side
of
the
building
that
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
one
of
these
variances.
So
yeah
yeah,
you
could
you
know
I.
My
answer
is
always
it
comes
down
to
design
yeah,
it's
possible.
If
you
show
me
the
plan,
the
paper
yes
I
can
see
it.
I
can
see
a
world
where
you
know
there's
some
expansion
here
or
there,
without
a
variance,
maybe
but
I
need
context.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
I
I
D
J
Structure
current
state
site
plan
that
was
submitted,
they
could
potentially
do
additions,
but
only
in
areas
that
don't
encroach
into
any
setbacks
as
long
as
they
meet
100
of
our
code.
If
they
chose
to
add
some
kind
of
addition
that
would
encroach
in
any
way
shape
or
form
anywhere
else,
we'd
be
right
back
here,
I'm
going
through
the
same
process
perfect.
Thank
you.
G
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
case
VAR
2023-003,
to
approve
a
variance
to
encourage
five
feet:
five
inches
into
the
required
seven
foot,
minimum
side
step
back
and
to
exceed
the
maximum
allowed
residential
front
yard
of
one-third.
The
depth
of
the
lot
by
32
feet
contingent
on
the
variances
only
applying
to
the
existing
structure
at
2820,
South
Lafayette
Street
ceasing
to
be
in
effect
if
the
existing
structure
is
demolished.
V
D
K
D
C
V
D
D
Yeah
and
and
in
some
respect,
it's
actually
more
controlled
this
way,
because
if
the
landowner
has
every
right
to
come
in
and
raise
it
and
then
he
could
build
a
house,
that's
a
lot
bigger
than
this
one
and
max
out
the
size.
I
I'm,
somewhat
encouraged.
Whenever
people
are,
or
at
least
considering
some
of
the
history,
that's
in
the
area
to
try
to
save
it
and
and
reuse.
It
I
think.
D
Yeah,
correct
and
and
I
think
Mr
Collins
we've
had
the
discussion
about
like
self-imposed
difficulty
and
hardship
before,
especially
when
someone
buys
a
property
and
the
building
is
like
this
and
and
we've
struggled
with
some
of
them.
But
you
know
ultimately
for
for
us
and
the
discussion
it
kind
of
comes
down
to
the
you
know
the
hardship
he
didn't
build,
the
building
where
it
was
even
when
he
did
buy
the
property.
F
And
the
way
I
look
at
it
too
again
the
building's
been
there
since
1900
and
everything
else
is
developed
around
it.
Lots
have
been
divided,
lots
have
been
changed.
That
thing
has
not
changed
in,
let's
say
100
years,
so
I
think
that
keeping
that
historical
and
I
don't
want
to
use
that
term,
but
I've
heard
it
thrown
around
a
couple
times,
but
a
lot
of
the
older
but
yeah
in
order
to
keep
it
the
only
way
we
can
do
it
is
by
granting
the
variances.
I
B
I
V
E
I
would
add
the
I
believe,
based
on
the
information
presented,
the
location
of
the
existing
structure
was
really
frankly
defined
when
the
initial
property
was
subdivided
in
1950.
did
an
existing
property
being
zoned
r1a
and
allowing
for
single
family
residents
also
enjoyed
by
neighboring
parties.
I
believe
the
first
criteria
is
met
and
I
voted.
Yes
for
the
reasons.
D
All
right,
so
this
case
is
closed
and
we're
going
to
go
on
to
public
hearing
for
case
VAR
2023-005
for
Jay
Dawkin.
The
property
is
2820
South
Lafayette.
The
request
is
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
to
encroach
approximately
seven
feet,
eight
inches
horizontally
into
the
required
bulk
plane
to
convert
an
existing
structure
into
a
residence
in
the
r1a
zone.
District.
D
A
H
Let's
share
the
screen
one
more
time
and
for
the
Public's
benefit.
I
will
reiterate.
This
is
on
the
same
case.
I
apologize
for
confusion.
This
is
a
variance
on
it's
the
same
as
a
physical
variance
that
regards
bulk
plane.
The
reason
why
we're
having
two
different
cases
for
them
is
because
I
didn't
have
enough
information
for
the
time
of
the
last
meeting.
To
put
it
in
and
notice
it
now
I
have
I
would
have
wished
to
do
it
all
at
once,
but
it
is
the
same
nature
of
variance
all
right.
H
H
All
right,
approximately
11,
000
square
foot
parcel
in
the
r1a
came
into
the
city
in
1950.
Property
owner
intends
to
convert
the
existing
structure
into
single
family
residence,
which
is
the
reason
for
the
variance
all
right
analysis.
First,
Criterion
unique
physical
conditions
parcel
is
large
for
an
r1a,
but,
let's
start
despite
the
large
size,
difficulties
are
created
due
to
the
proximity
to
other
structures
due
to
when
the
when
they
were
built,
creating
difficulties
meeting
both
claim
requirements.
H
Second
Criterion
is
that
it's
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
Zone
District
granting
to
this
District
would
bring
the
property
into
compliance
with
our
one
zone,
District
Dimension
requirements
and
enable
owners
to
apply
for
the
building
permit
towards
Renovations
of
the
structure
for
single
use,
dwelling,
which
is
the
base
use
for
the
Zone
District.
These
variances,
if
granted,
would
not
create
any
public
health
safety
or
welfare
issues.
The
third
Criterion
is
that
the
variance
will
not
permanently
employer
the
use
or
development
of
adjacent
component
Properties
or
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
H
Granting
the
variance
would
not
compare
this,
the
user
development
or
informing
properties.
The
fourth
Criterion
is
the
variance
is
not
a
self-imposed
hardship.
They
do
not.
We
argue
they
do
not
constitute
a
self-imposed
hardship
over
the
subject.
Parcel
was
incorporated.
Excuse
me,
the
building's
const
construction
date
could
not
be
confirmed
for
the
city
through
our
records
or
the
county
records.
However,
the
subject
parcel
was
incorporated
into
the
city
in
1950
as
part
of
the
kimballcraft
subdivision,
the
owners
when
the
owners
purchase
the
problems
of
property
in
2022.
H
graphic
of
the
bulk
plane
is
Shield
here
now.
For
those
who
might
need
a
refresher,
this
is
an
imaginary
envelope.
Okay,
you
go
to
your
side
setback
and
you
come
up
to
your
building
height
and
then
you'll
till
kilter
in
at
45
degree
angle,
and
that
line
is
denotes.
The
Outer
Perimeter
of
your
the
upper
limits
of
your
structure.
H
H
I,
don't
know
how
much
should
we
really
want
to
know?
Yes,
so
the
measurements
are
off
were
taken
from
site
plans
from
the
plans
provided
by
the
by
the
applicant
we've
verified
them.
You
know,
we've
gone
back
and
forth.
We've
edited
this
graphic,
measured
and
re-measured
yeah
we're
confident
in
the
numbers.
Okay,.
D
G
D
M
M
D
All
right,
no
questions.
Thank
you,
Mr
Dawkin!
Thank
you.
So
if
there's
people
who
wish
to
speak
in
favor
or
opposition,
please
come
forward.
I'm
gonna
hold
these
comments,
any
comments
to
two
minutes
or
less,
and
they
can
only
be
to
the
block
plane
issue
because
we've
heard
heard
your
other
concerns.
But
if
there's
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
to
the
bulk
plane
issue,
please
let
us
know.
J
A
S
I
looked
I
am
less
concerned
about
this
development
as
a
result
of
listening
to
you
guys
and
also
I
realize
that
when
I
read
the
third
neighbor
comment,
what
I
focused
on
was
we
heavily
opposed
this
and
I
didn't
really
try
to
read
the
rest
of
it.
I
assumed
it
was
heavily
opposite
due
to
impact,
so
that
was
my
presumption
and
listening
to
the
dialogue
on
that
they
were
just
concerned.
It
was
going
to
be
torn
down.
S
It's
a
large
lot,
so
I
simply
don't
comprehend
how
that
is
not
true,
but
I
do
believe
what
I
heard.
That
is
also
reassuring,
and
the
second
thing
that's
reassuring
to
me,
or
the
third
thing
is
that
I
do
appreciate
the
idea
that
these
adjustments
have
been
made
specific
for
this
purpose.
I
I
hope
that,
because
one
of
my
fears
as
I
was
using
the
word
setting
a
precedence
that
helps
identify
that
they're,
this
isn't
precedent
setting.
S
This
is
specifically
for
this
structure
and
every
separate
thing
that
comes
before
you
in
the
future
will
receive
similar
similar
full
consideration,
like
you
guys
did
so
I
appreciate
this
board.
I
always
have,
and
it's
generally
one
of
the
few
boards
I
still
trust,
so
it
was.
It
was
good
to
hear
this.
I
may
I
may
be
the
only
one
in
my
group.
Who's
can
come
away
any
any
sort
of
with
any
sort
of
a
feeling.
S
First,
because
that
benefits
the
rest
of
us
and,
as
you
know,
r1a
has
been
like
a
frog
and
a
Sandstorm
with
different
things
that
have
been
approached
to
it
by
originally
the
city
and
then
polish,
so
I
think
we
are
a
little
bit
hypersensitive,
and
this
was
one
of
the
things
I
was
suddenly
caught
and
concerned
about.
So
thank
you
for
listening
to
me
and
thank
you
for
being
so
eloquent
and
clear
in
your
comments.
I've
learned
something
and
I
appreciate
that.
D
S
A
D
U
U
D
D
And
and
that's
not
we're
not
considering
that
but
but
understand,
yeah
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
what's
in
front
of
us
is
this
is
an
existing
building
and
if
it's
not
granted
it'll
be
raised.
So
there
is
a
difference
of
the
two
cases
and
there's
we
don't
set
presidents.
We
take
every
case
and
we
look
at
each
case
and
the
facts
that
it
presents.
U
Sure,
but
they
I
have
to
believe
a
person
would
know
if
they're
in
this
residential
1A
that
they
know
they
wouldn't
have
the
32
foot
height
or
anything
above
18.
as
it
as
it
relates
to
this.
So,
if
they're
using
an
812
pitch
roof,
which
the
renderings
didn't
say,
but
it's
assumed
by
the
side,
setbacks
and
the
bulk
plane
unless
there's
some
clarification
on
that
this
is.
This
is
egregious
towards
other
zoning
districts
as
well
as
r1a,
especially
itself.
Maybe
that's
not
the
case.
Could
you
clarify.
D
T
More
super
brown,
2980,
South,
Sherman,
Street,
Inglewood
I,
will
use
Aaron
reads
particular
word
egregious
because
that's
what
I
find
that
this
is
egregious.
Regarding
the
ball
claim
and
I'm
very
unhappy
that
all
of
you
just
went
ahead
and
okayed
those
variances
prior
I'm.
Sorry,
someone
laughing
there
I
thought
I
heard
a
laugh
I,
don't
think
this
is
funny.
If
you
are,
it
just
seems
to
me,
and
I
have
been
to
boa
meetings
before
that.
T
T
A
R
What
what
you're
saying
is
happening?
Is
it's
been
hard
for
me
to
look
and
I
did
look
before
I
got
on
here.
What
what
the
change
changes
are
from,
what
the
building
is
now
and
so
I'm
understanding
that
the
first
hearing
did
not
change
anything
as
far
as
the
building
itself,
I
believe
and
I.
Don't
know
if
I'm
correct
on
that
and
then
now
the
bulk
I
am
correct
on
that.
Thank
you
and
I
wasn't
clear
on
that.
I
thought
you
were
increasing.
R
D
Yeah,
what's
in
front
of
it
and
and
I
I'll
I
won't
count
this
against
your
time.
But
what's
in
front
of
us
is
a
building,
that's
non-conforming,
so
in
order
for
anything
to
be
done
to
it,
it
has
to
have
a
variance,
which
means
we
have
to
Grant
the
building
and
the
condition
that
it
is
to
say,
okay,
we're
going
to
Grant
a
variance
for
the
position
it's
sitting.
If
we
don't
then
what's
going
to
happen,
is
it
can't
be
used
as
a
residence
and
it'll
probably
be
scraped?
Okay,.
R
Thank
you
for
that,
because
that
was
not
clear
either
in
the
initial
drawings,
from
a
an
informed
person,
I
mean
I'm
I'm,
not
a
builder
I
I
can
look
at
dimensions
and
know
what
a
square
is,
but
but
it
was
not
clear
to
me
that
that
was
what
was
happening.
So
I
would
like
to
say
that
I
am
concerned
about
variances
being
made
generally,
but
I
do
feel
like
being
able
to
go
forward
with
this.
As
long
as
it's
not
increasing
bulk
plane,
then
I
would
say.
R
A
H
No
I'll
apologize
for
not
being
clear
that
yeah.
This
is
about
slices
of
the
building
that
already
exist.
These
are
about
conforming
to
the
dimensions
that
r1a
has
dimensional
requirements
that
slice
through
the
property,
invisibly
right
and
the
property
that
exists.
The
building
that
is
there
now
already
encroaches
on
those
minimal
r1a
setbacks
and
bulk
planes.
The
variances
allow
for
it
to
exist,
as
it
is.
H
H
D
G
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
case
VAR
2023-005,
to
approve
a
variance
to
encourage
seven
feet,
eight
inches
horizontally
into
the
required
bulk
plane
to
convert
the
existing
structure
into
a
residence
in
the
r1a
zone,
District
contingent
on
the
variants
only
applying
to
the
existing
structure
at
2820,
South
Lafayette
Street
ceasing
to
be
in
effect
if
the
existing
structure
is
demolished.
This
is
a
variance
to
section
16-6-1,
Point
G
book
plane
requirements
of
the
Inglewood
municipal
code.
I
I
voted
yes,
because
the
unique
physical
the
conditions
exist
and
that
the
structure
already
is
there
in
its
current
shape
and
has
it
been
existing
since
the
19
early,
1900s
intent
of
the
zone
is
r1a,
is
for
primary
single
home
residents
and
that's
exactly
what
they're
trying
to
convert
it
into.
There's
no
implication
to
public
health,
safety
and
Welfare,
and
it
doesn't
appear
to
permanently
impair
any
residents
around
it
and
they
have
come
forward
saying
so
as
well.
D
D
V
J
So
that's
where
we're
at
with
that
group.
So
we
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
pose
the
same
question
to
this
group
as
it
was
kind
of
given
to
us
I
think
originally
that
we
would
review
every
six
months
with
our
boards
and
commissions
on
whether
they
wanted
to
remain
virtual
or
go
back
to
in-person
meetings.
So
since
we
had
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
kind
of
sent
back
to
in-person
meetings,
we
wanted
to
reach
back
out
to
you
all
at
this
meeting
and
ask
your
your
thoughts
on
this
board.
J
So
we
had
a
meeting
this
Tuesday
in
council
chambers,
that
was
in
person
with
kind
of
a
hybrid
approach.
It
was
our
first
round
at
doing
everything
so
we're
trying
to
ease
the
commission
back
into
it
a
little
bit
by
the
end
of
this
month.
It
will
be
our
intent
is
to
go
fully
in
person
with
the
ability
for
hybrid
for
folks
that
may
be
ill
or
out
of
town,
but
not
necessarily
folks
that
don't
want
to
necessarily
drive
in
for
the
meeting.
F
I
R
F
D
D
F
A
A
C
V
I
A
D
D
G
D
Right
board's,
Choice
I
got
nothing.
Thank
you
guys
for
the
work.
You
do
sorry
about
I.
Try
not
to
comment
sometimes,
but
I
also
can't
help
myself
about,
because
I
I
think
part
of
our
the
nice
thing
about
part
of
our
board
is
I.
Think
we
do
have
the
chance
to
educate.
So
I
think
that
we
need
to
take
that
opportunity.