Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-08 BAA MINUTESMINUTES. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO OCTOBER 8, 1986 )Jo 9 The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals began at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Fish presiding. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Seymour, Hallagin , Brown, Gage, Light hall , Wel ker, Fi sh . None. Dorothy A. Romans , Staff Advisor. Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney. Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I The Chairman stated that with seven members present, five affirmati ve vot es would be required to grant a variance. He stated that the Boa r d i s au t hor i ze d to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Engle wo od Mun ici pal Code. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1986, BE AP- PROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Welker seconded the motion. All seven members present voted in the affirmative, and the Ch airm an r ul ed the motion had passed. * * * * * BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES #23-8 5, 24-85, 25-86, and 26-86 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board member Brown seconded the motion. Upon a vote, a 11 seven members voted in the affirmative, and the Cha; r man ruled the motion had passed . * * * * * The Chairman said the Board would discuss a request for reconsider ation of Case #24-86, for property located at 3124 South Downing Stre et. Ms. Re id described the procedure for a reconsideration, and said it is the staff's position that no new evidence is being offered, but that some inform ation presented at the Public Hearing on September 10, 1986, should be clarified. Mr. Seymour objected to a reconsideration, saying that it should be a rehearing. BOARD MEMBER WELKER MOVED TO RECONSIDER CASE #24-85. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion . -1 - \. i 1 ),. '( . I •/ Upon a vote, five members voted to reconsider the case and two members, Ms. Lighthall and Mr. Seymour, abstained. Ms. Lighthall explained that she had discussed the case in some detail prior to the meeting with the applicant and felt she should withdraw from the discussion and the vote on the matter. The motion carried. Mrs. Romans, the Staff advisor for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, stated that at the preceding meeting the Board considered a request for a variance to permit the construction of a garage on the East and South O' lot 1 ines. It seemed that during the Public Hearing there were some questions relative to measurements and the status of the adjoining property; and staff believes that clarification is necessary. As to the adjoining property, Mrs. Romans said that the property behind the Slack's property is not an alley, but a desig- nated lot owned by the City. Mrs. Romans said that following the September 10th meeting, Susan King, the Senior Planner, and Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I, were asked to visit the Slack property to determine whether or not the garage could be constructed for two cars if the setbacks were met. A copy of a memorandum to Mrs. Romans in which the staff reported their findings was included in the Board packet. As a result of the staff findings, it was suggested that the Slacks might request reconsideration, which they did on September 24. Mr. Brown noted that access to the garage would be difficult if it were set in three (3) feet, and that there is no development other than the Barde Park to the east and south of the property. Mr. Welker said that there was less space available for a garage than he had believed, and that clearance is a difficulty. Mrs. Rothweiler presented a copy of the Arapahoe County Permanent Parcel Iden- tification map to show that the property is not considered by the County to be an alley, but is a designated lot owned by the City. Mr. Seymour stated that he did not consider this map as evidence that the land behind the subject site is not an a 11 ey. Mrs. Rothweiler was sworn in for testimony as an employee of the City of En- glewood. She said that the covered patio in the rear of the property would make access to a garage set in three feet on two sides very difficult. A corner post on the patio and a juniper tree would have to be removed, and there would be only 22 feet of clearance. It would be necessary to back and turn at the same time when exiting the garage, and this would be difficult. There is also a small patio light which would have to be avoided entering and 1 ea vi ng by the driveway. She said that moving the garage forward and north would greatly increase the difficulty of utilizing the garage for two cars. There were no questions. Mr. Seymour repeated that he believed there should be a new hearing. Mr. Welker said that clarification is not presentation of new evidence. Mrs. Romans said that according to Roberts Rules of Order, reconsiderations can be heard at the same meeting or at the following meeting, but with no intervening meeting between the original consideration and the reconsideration. -2 - • • • Mr. Fish noted that voting rules for the Board remain the same whether there are six or seven members present and that five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance . MR. FISH MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO GERALD SLACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3124 SOUTH DOWNING STREET TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON THE 0 LOT LINE FOR THE REAR AND SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINES RATHER THAN ON THE RE- QUIRED 3 FOOT SETBACK LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTIONS 16.4-m (1) (c) AND (d) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Brown seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said he had abstained from voting. Mr. Hallagin voted "yes" saying there is a hardship, and because the neighbor- ; ng property is a park, meeting the setbacks would be a waste of 1 and. He said granting the variance would give the applicant good access to a garage. Mr. Brown voted "yes'', saying the five conditions were met and there were let- ters of approval f r om the neighbors. Mr. Gage voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Brown and Mr. Hallagin. Ms. Lighthall abstained pursuant to her earlier statement. Mr. Welker said that the access question had not been made sufficiently clear at the previous meeting, and with the additional clarification, it is clear that the five conditions necessary to grant a variance were met. Mr. Fish said that the clarification proved hardship, and this is the minimum variance which would grant relief. He noted that the Code would not be weakened or the neighbors harmed by granting the variance. When the votes were displayed, five members had voted in the affirmative, and two members, Mr. Seymour and Ms. Lighthall, had abstained. The Chairman ruled the variance was granted. * * * * * The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #27-86, for property located at 2269 East Floyd Place. The Chairman noted that the Board has authorization to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Sect i on 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. He said he had proof of posting and publication. Dorothy Romans, St aff Advisor, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, Louise Myers, was requesting a variance for property located at 2269 East Floyd Place, to permit construction of a two-car carport which would be 3 1/2 feet from the west side property line rather than the required five feet. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-2m (1) (c) (ii), Minimum Side Yard for detached accessory structures in the R-1-A, Single-Family Residence District . The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony . Louise Myers, 2269 East Floyd Place, was sworn in for testimony. She said the back - 3 - • yard is very small and if the carport were to be set in five feet, it would be difficult to utilize it for two cars. She stated that putting the garage in the proposed location would make it possible to get in and out of the two-car carport. " Mr. Brown asked if she now parks two cars on the street. Ms. Myers said she does. Mr. Brown noted that the pl ans describe an open carport. Ms. Myers agreed, saying that she does not want it enclosed. The roof will be of the same material as the house; and the shed, which will enclose the rear of the carport, will be finished with the same siding as is on the house. She in- tends to landscape to camouflage the carport. Ms. Lighthall observed that there is no other place on the lot where two cars can be accommodated, partially because there is no alley. Ms. Myers agreed. Ms. Myers presented two letters of approval from her neighbors to the west and to the north. Mr. Welker asked how close the carport would be to the house. Ms. Myers said it would be set in from the rear property line by five feet, the side would be 3 1/2 feet which would put it about six or seven feet from the patio corner. Mr. Seymour asked about the shed in the rear of the carport. Ms. Myers said that it would be fully enclosed and from the floor to the ceiling of the car- port. Mrs. Rothweiler noted that the UBC would permit the entire carport to be enclosed. There were no further questions, other speakers or comments from staff. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record, and he closed the public hearing for Case #27-86. BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT IN CASE #27-86, LOUISE MYERS BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2269 EAST FLOYD AVENUE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-CAR CARPORT WHICH WOULD BE 3 1/2 FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING OR- DINANCE, SECTION 16.4-2 m (1) (c) (ii), MINIMUM SIDE YARD FOR DETACHED ACCES- SORY STRUCTURES IN THE R-1-A, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. Ms. Lighthall seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes" because there was a hardship and no opposition. Mr. Hallagin voted "yes'' because the neighbors should be pleased to have cars removed from the street, and the five conditions necessary to grant a variance were met. Mr. Brown voted "yes" because the UBC would be met, the five conditions were met and the neighbors had no objections. Mr. Gage voted "yes" because the five conditions were met and there were two letters of approval from neighbors. Ms. Lighthall voted "yes" because the five conditions were met, and there is no other place to put two cars which are presently being parked on the street. -4 - .· • • Mr. Welker noted that the site is very tight, there was no opposition and the five conditions were met. Mr. Fish concurred with the other members, saying this is the minimum variance that could be granted, and there will be no adverse effects to the neighbor- hood or the spirit of the Ordinance. When the votes were displayed, all seven members had voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the variance was granted. * * * * * The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #28-86 for property located at 900 West Tufts Avenue. He stated that he had proof of posting and publica- tion, and that the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. He asked that the staff identify the request. Mary Al ice Rothweiler stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of a detached garage which would be 8 feet from the east side property line instead of 25 feet. This is a variance from the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.5-13 a (2) (b), Minimum Side Yard on Corner Lots. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. John Piet- rus, 900 West Tufts was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he and his wife had bought the subject property in May. They bought because they liked the large backyard. The lot is 67 1/2 feet wide by 150 feet long. He said their problem with the lot is that it is narrow. Because they are on a corner lot they have to meet a 25 foot setback in both their front yard and side yard. There must also be 18 feet between structures on the neighboring lot, so he cannot put the garage at the back of the lot. Mr. Pietrus said he and his wife had measured and tried to find other loca- tions for the garage, but the proposed plan seems best. The garage would be 17 feet behind the s i dew a 1 k, and 8 feet from the property 1 i ne. The p 1 an would preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. He noted that he would also build a 42" fence, 50% open around the side and back of the property. He sub- mitted five letters of approval from his neighbors. Ms. Li ghtha 11 said that the new owners had made good progress s i nee they bought the property. Mr. Hallagin asked why they do not want to meet the set- backs. The garage as proposed would stick out on Inca more than the other houses on the block. Mr. Pietrus said they had considered other locations on the property, but the location which was requested in the application would preserve the back yard, eliminate expensive paving, preserve existing trees and reduce the amount of shoveling necessary in the winter. He said if he put the garage on the west side of the property, the driveway would be long and it would bisect the back yard. Mr. Seymour said that he could justify a variance to build the garage in line with the house, but not one that would have a smaller setback than the house. Mr. Pietrus said that if the garage were in line with the house, it would hide the back yard from the house, and would reduce the usability of the yard for -5 - " • small children. It would also eliminate the kitchen windows and the patio if the garage were attached to the house. Mr. Fish noted that meeting the Code would make the driveway 34 feet in length . There were no further questions. Jennifer Pietrus, 900 West Tufts, was sworn in for testimony. She said that they had tried many different designs and locations for the garage, and the proposed location is best. She asked the Board to consider the difficulty of carrying groceries and children from a garage placed far from the house. There were no questions. There were no other speakers for or against the variance. Mr. Pietrus said that he had been in close contact with staff, and no one had given him a better suggestion for a location. The Chairman incorporated the Staff .Report into the record. There were no further comments from staff. Mr. Seymour asked why the setback for the garage is larger than the setback for the house. Mrs. Romans said the house had been built before the current zoning ordinance was in effect, but any new construction would have to meet current codes . The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE APPLICANTS, JOHN AND JENNIFER PIETRUS, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 WEST TUFTS AVENUE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WHICH WOULD BE 8 FEET FROM THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE INSTEAD OF 25 FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16.5-13 a (2) (b), MINIMUM SIDE YARD ON CORNER LOTS. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said this is not the minimum variance possible to solve the appli- cant's problems . Mr. Ha 11 agi n agreed there were other options, and the variance would permit the garage to protrude too close to the street. Mr. Brown voted "yes" because the garage had been carefully planned to fit the lot and the family, and there were letters of approval from the neighbors. Mr. Gage voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Brown. Ms. Li ghtha 11 voted "yes", agreeing with Mr. Brown, and saying the lot is a difficult lot. Mr. Welker voted against the variance because this is not the minimum variance and other locations are possible. Mr. Fish s t ated there is a hardship because of the siting of the house, the corner lot and the narrowness of the lot; therefore, he voted for the variance . -6 - • • When the votes were displayed, four members---Brown, Gage, Lighthall and Fish---had voted for the variance and three members---Seymour, Hallagin and Welker---had voted against it . The Chairman ruled that the variance was denied because five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance when seven members are present. * * * * * DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans presented a picture sh owing the planned design for the fence along the south side of the new Floyd alighnment between Broadway and Lincoln. She promised a landscape plan soon. She said staff would be meeting with the neighbors of the Pitler building to discuss problems they have identified. BOARD'S CHOICE. Mr. Fish asked Ms. Reid to provide outlines for reconsiderations. Mr. Hallagin introduced his grandson and a friend who were attending the meet- ing to satisfy a requirement for Scouts. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p .m. Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary - 7 - .,.