Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-09 BAA MINUTES,. • • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO July 9, 1986 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, Lighthall, Gage, and Fish. Welker. Dorothy A. Romans, Acting Director of Communi- ty Development. Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney. Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I. The Chairman stated that with six members present, five affirma- tive votes would be required to grant a variance. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1986, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN . Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all six members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the motion had passed. * * * * * BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES 7-86, 8-86, 9-86, 10-86 AND 11-86 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all six members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled that the Findings were approved as written. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #17-86, for Wheelchair House Ltd., 3501 South Clarkson street. He stated the Board has the authority to grant or deny a variance or an appeal based on Part 3, Section 60, of the Englewood Municipal Code. He said he had proof of publication and posting and asked that the staff identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, Patrick Cody, is appealing a Fire Code Violation Notice issued by Fire - 1 - 9 c-- Prevention Officer Rasmussen, requiring two separate basement exits. This is a variance from the Uniform Building Code (1982), Section 3303 (a), Exits Required. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Patrick Cody, 3501 South Clarkson Street, was sworn in for tes- timony. He said that the building which houses his business is 50 years old. He has been in business at this address for two years and three months. He started with three people, and the business has grown to 21 employees. He sells and services medi- cal equipment to Swedish and Craig and to individuals. He does plan to move soon, and is negotiating for a lease at a new loca- tion. He said it is not possible to put in an extra door in the basement, but he has put in a window which he feels serves as an escape window. In the past he has made every effort to meet all Fire Codes, and spent $5,000 to bring various violations up to code. Mr. Gage asked how many employees work in the basement. Mr. Cody said there are three salespeople who are in and out of the off ice and upholstering is also done in the basement. None of the work- ers are in the basement all of the time, and none are handicapped . Miss Lighthall asked if the business could be confined to the upstairs. Mr. Cody said that it cannot. He said that the Fire Department had inspected the building before and had not objected to the use of the basement. Mr. Hal lag in asked how long it would take to escape from the basement in case of fire. Mr. Cody thought it would take about 10 seconds. He said the window in the upholstery room is a push window and is easy to use for escape. Mr. Seymour said that there was no bench under the window, and it would not be possible for him to escape out the window. Mr. Cody said there is usually a bench under the window. Mr. Fish asked if a fire drill had ever been held. Mr. Cody said there had not. Mr. Fish asked what machinery is used. Mr. Cody said everything is run on 110 V; the largest device is a 2-3 h.p. compressor. They use a drill motor~ jig saw, and air hoses for staples. Glue is stored under the benches in spray cans. He said the bars , on the windows are not bolted on; a sign saying "Fire Escape, Push Bars Out--Not Attached" is on the wall near the window. He said the window would accommodate all the people in his employ. He said if he were turned down for the variance he would have to go out of business until he could relocate. He said he could not relocate in less than 50 days plus time for the installation of phones. It was noted that the date of the citation was 3-26-86. He said he began negotiations for a new building before that time. There were no further questions or speakers in favor of the variance. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers opposed to the variance. - 2 - ., • • • • • • Walter Groditski, Code Administrator for the City of Englewood, Division of Building and Safety, was sworn in for testimony. He said he is of the opinion that there was a procedural problem with this case in that the applicant has only 30 days in which to appeal a notice of violation. The Board decided that, because the case was already before it, it would be heard. Mr. Groditski said that Mr. Rasmussen had been following up on another Fire Inspection which was made on February 14. There were nine violations discovered and the business had corrected the other eight by March 28. Plans and permits for a second exit were required. The "escape" window was put in without permit and is not adequate. A door would be required in a business, and this window is only 30" by 20 11 , and would not be accepted as an exit under any conditions. He said he had not previously been aware that the business used spray glue which is a further hazard. He recommended closing the basement because a basement is more dangerous in case of fire than ground level floors. Mr. Brown asked why new violations were discovered after two years. Mr. Groditski said that the basement may not have been in use at the previous inspection, the inspector may not have been aware of the use of the basement, or the previous inspector may not have been properly trained, but in any case, the violations were dealt with when observed • Mr. Cody said he had complied two years before when the basement was also inspected. After some discussion, the Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record and asked if the staff had any further comments. There were none. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE 17-86, PATRICK CODY BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE FIRE CODE VIOLATION NOTICE ISSUED BY FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER RASMUSSEN, REQUIRING TWO SEPARATE BASE- MENT EXITS. THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1982, SECTION 3303 (a), EXITS REQUIRED. Board Member Gage seconded the motion. The Chairman asked that the Board Members lock in their votes, and give their findings of fact. Mr. Seymour voted against the appeal because the basement situa- tion constitutes a definite hazard. Mr. Hallagin voted "no" because the Building Code should be sup- ported for the safety of the employees. Mr. Brown concurred • Mr. Gage voted "no" because he supports the Building Code and would not want anyone to be injured. - 3 - Ms. Lighthall voted "no" because the normal appeal procedure was not followed. She concurred with the reasons of the other members. Mr. Fish voted "no" because granting the appeal would weaken the code and might cause injury to an employee. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted against granting the appeal, and the Chairman ruled that the appeal was denied. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing on Case #12-86, for prop- erty located at 2750 South Emerson Street. He said he had proof of publication and posting, and that the Board has authority to grant or deny a variance based on Part 3, section 60 of the En- glewood Municipal Code. He asked that the staff identify the request. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that the applicant, John w. Van Seiver, is requesting a variance to permit construction of a carport cover over an existing concrete pad, which cover would come within one foot of the south property line. This is a variance from Section 16.4-2 i (1) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which section establishes the minimum side yards in the R-1-A at 18 feet total, and no less than 7 feet on either side. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. John w. Van Seiver, 2750 South Emerson Street, was sworn in for testimony. He said that he has had a concrete pad for parking since 1978. He would like to cover it. He has a single car garage, but owns two cars which he prefers not to park on the street. To put the garage in the back would require the removal of trees, would have a steep driveway, and destroy a play area. The garage will be set back so far from the street that it will not be noticeable. The neighbors have no objection, and he will meet the requirements of the Building Division, although he would prefer not to close in the side wall. He will match the rest of the house with materials. There were no further speakers for or against the variance, and the Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record and asked if the Staff had any further comments. Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector for the Division of Building and Safety, was sworn in for testimony. He said that it would not be necessary for the side wall to be enclosed, but all materials within three feet of the property line must be of one- hour fire resistant materials. The Chairman closed the public hearing for Case #12-86. BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT IN CASE #12-86, JOHN W. VAN SCIVER BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2750 SOUTH EMERSON STREET TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT COVER OVER AN EXISTING - 4 - • • • • • • CONCRETE PAD, WHICH COVER WOULD COME WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16.4-2 i (1) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH SECTION ESTABLISHES THE MINIMUM SIDE YARDS IN THE R-1-A AT 18 FEET TOTAL, AND NO LESS THAN 7 FEET ON EITHER SIDE. ALL OTHER CITY CODES MUST BE MET. Board Member Gage seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes" because there was a no other place in which to locate a garage, necessary to grant a variance were met, objections. hardship, there was the five conditions and there were no Mr. Hallagin voted "yes" because the cars should be protected, the neighbors didn't object and the five conditions were met. Mr. Brown voted "yes", saying there was a hardship in the way the house is placed on the lot, there was no opposition from the neighbors, and there was a letter from a neighbor supporting the variance. Mr. Gage voted "yes", saying the applicant met the five condi- tions and there was a letter from the neighbors. Ms. Lighthall voted "yes", concurring with the other members and saying there would be no problem with future development of ad- joining property. Mr. Fish concurred with the other members, saying this was the minimum possible variance to solve the problem. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the variance was granted and instructed the applicant to apply for a building permit. The meeting recessed at 8:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. * * * * * public hearing for Case #13-86, requested The Chairman stated he had proof of post- and asked that the staff identify the The Chairman opened the by Michael M. Mueller. ing and publication request. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that the applicant is requesting a variance for property located at 4185 South Pennsylvania Street to allow construction of a 4' by 8' canopy over the north side door which would extend to 7 inches from the north property line. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Sec- tion 16.4-4 i (1), Minimum Side Yard in the R-1-C, Single-Family - 5 - Residence District, and Section 16.5-10 b, which states that ar- chitectural features such as canopies may not project into a re- quired side yard more than four inches for each foot of width of side yard. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Michael Mueller, 4185 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in for testimony. He said that his house has a front and a side door. There is a 4 '7" side yard. He is requesting a canopy over the north side door. Without the canopy rain seeps in the door. This door is close to the neighbor's yard. He would meet the requirements of the Building Codes. He said he did not think it would be necessary to go completely to the lot line. He would put posts into concrete, and there will be a fence so the dogs can enter the house at this entrance. He said he hadn't read the staff report, but agreed to meet the conditions. Mr. Mueller said there was no other entrance to his house from the rear yard, and said that the distance to his neighbor's house is closer to 14 than to 12 feet. There were no further speakers for or against the request. The Chairman made the staff report part of the record and asked if the staff had any further comments. Mrs. Romans said that staff had no comments. The Chairman closed the public hearing on Case #13-86. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4185 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 1 BY 8 1 CANOPY OVER THE NORTH SIDE DOOR WHICH WOULD EXTEND TO 7 INCHES FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SEC- TION 16.4-4 i (1), MINIMUM SIDE YARD IN THE R-1-C, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AND SECTION 16.5-10 b, WHICH STATES THAT AR- CHITECTURAL FEATURES SUCH AS CANOPIES MAY NOT PROJECT INTO A RE- QUIRED SIDE YARD MORE THAN FOUR INCHES FOR EACH FOOT OF WIDTH OF SIDE YARD. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes", saying there was a hardship, the appli- cant met t he five conditions, the neighboring property won't be hurt, and this is the minimum variance possible to protect the entrance. Mr. Hallagin voted "yes". He said there were no objections, the property would be improved, the five conditions were met, and the people will be protected from the weather. Mr. Brown voted "yes", saying the five conditions were met. Mr. Gage voted "yes", saying there was a hardship, and the five conditions were met. -6 - • • • • • • Ms. Lighthall voted "yes", concurring with the other members. She said the entrance will be hidden from the street and neighbors . Mr. Fish concurred with the rest of the members, saying the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed and the use of the neighboring property will not be impaired. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted for the variance, and the Chairman stated the variance was granted and the applicant could apply for a building permit. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #14-86, stating the Board has authority to grant or deny variances based on Part 3, Section 60, of the Englewood Municipal Code. He stated he had proof of posting and publication and asked that the staff identi- fy the request. Dorothy Romans, Acting Director of Community Development, was sworn in for testimony. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant, Current, Inc. is requesting a variance for property located at 3609 South Inca Street permitting a delay of the final surfacing of the parking lot at the subject property until after March 1, 1987; and to delay complying with the landscaping requirements until June 30, 1987. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.5-3, Drainage, Surfacing and Main- tenance of parking areas; and Section 16.4-18 c (2) (e), Minimum landscaping requirements in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Randy Stempsey, 1005 East Woodman, Colorado Springs, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that current, Inc. is in the direct mail business. They have leased 3550 South Inca for a factory outlet with discount prices. Because there is little parking available on that site, they have also leased the property at 3609 South Inca Street for parking. They intend to test the feasibility of a factory outlet store in this area. He said that to finish the parking lot will cost $18,000 if they are required to completely surface the property, but with a four-inch road base surface, the cost would be only $11, 000. Landscaping had been estimated to cost $6, 000 plus water tap fees and the sprinkler system, for a total of about $8,000. Mr. Hallagin asked if the applicant would be satisfied with a variance for the parking surface and having the Board require that the landscaping requirements be met. Mr. Stempsey replied that they would not be satisfied, but would have to accept such a decision. Mr. Stempsey described the proposed outlet as a store containing leftover stationery supplies. They do not intend to be open all year around, but for one month to six weeks at a time during the - 7 - summer, between Thanksgiving and Christmas, March and June. He said that one such store has already been opened in Colorado Springs by Current, Inc. There were no further speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman asked that the Staff Report be included in the record of the public hearing and asked if the staff had any fur- ther comments. Mrs. Romans said that the focus of the City is now in the south- west section of the downtown district near the subject property. The Buyer's Club is being developed, and the City will landscape the public property in its part of the area, in an effort to up- grade the development in the area. The staff feels that it is important that the landscape requirements be met. Ms. Lighthall asked about the realignment. Mrs. Romans said that the Inca/Ithica alignment has been designed to improve access to the Buyer's Club and the City will provide extensive landscaping along the new roadway. The Buyer's Club development will also be well-landscaped. There were no other persons present who wished to address the Board relative to this application. The Chairman closed the public hearing for Case #14-86. BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT CURRENT, INC., BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3609 SOUTH INCA STREET, TO PER- MIT A DELAY IN THE FINAL SURFACING OF THE PARKING LOT AT THE SUB- JECT PROPERTY UNTIL AFTER MARCH 1, 1987; AND TO DELAY COMPLYING WITH THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS UNTIL JUNE 30, 1987. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.5-3, DRAINAGE, SURFACING AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKING AREAS; AND SECTION 16.4-18 c (2) (e), MINIMUM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN THE I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Board Member Gage seconded the motion. The Board discussed the possibility of not permitting the delay in compliance with the landscape ordinance. It was decided that the motion would contain the request to delay the compliance with the landscape requirements. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes", saying $11, 000 is enough gambling for the company to do, and saying the growing season will soon be over. He said there were no objections from nearby owners. Mr. Hallagin stated meeting all the requirements would be a hard- ship for people who are only leasing, who should not have to spend that much money. He said the five conditions necessary to grant a variance were met. - 8 - • • • • • • Mr. Brown voted "yes" because this will be for the test period only. He said the road base will be sufficient, and will improve the property, and there were no objections . Mr. Gage concurred with the other members. Ms. Lighthall said she voted "no" because the applicant should meet the landscape requirements. The City will be putting in landscaping, and by doing so, will be improving the applicant's property. She said there is still plenty of time to plant during this growing season. Mr. Fish said that there is a hardship because the applicant is testing the market. He wants to encourage new business. Grant- ing the variance will not damage the spirit of the Ordinance, this is a minimum variance for a stated term, and there will be no adverse effects from granting the variance. When the votes were displayed, five members had voted in favor of the variance, and one member, Ms. Lighthall, had voted against it. The Chairman stated that the variance was granted. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing on Case #15-86, for Ken Hurley for property located at 2222-2254 West Hillside Avenue. He stated that he had proof of publication and posting and asked that the staff identify the request . Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of three single-family attached dwellings which would encroach nine feet into the rear yard setback. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-6 k, Minimum rear yard in the R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence District. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Ken Hurley, 3100 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in for tes- timony. He stated that the lots in question are more shallow than other lots i n the neighborhood. He is requesting a variance so that he can build what he feels is a better structure, which will conform to the topography of the lots. With a variance, he said, he can build a structure with more square feet of living space, wider side y ard setbacks and walk-out basements. The duplexes would not be square, and there would be a feeling of more space because there would be more space between the residences. He said there would be a six foot slab at the rear and he would put privacy fences on the side and the rear of the sites. There were no questions. The Chairman asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the variance. There were none. He asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the variance . - 9 - Susan Beaver, 2243 West Hillside Avenue, was sworn in for tes- timony. She said that she is concerned about parking. She said that Hillside can't accommodate more cars, and each of the units could have four cars. As it is, people are using areas reserved for landscaping for parking. Ms. Beaver said that it is her understanding that there are ten Federal Housing units on West Baker Avenue, and they are unoccu- pied. These lots are small already. Children play on the streets. The side yards will, in her opinion, be used for park- ing. Property values will be reduced and more problems will be caused for the neighborhood. Mr. Hallagin suggested that children can play in the park on the south side of West Vassar Avenue, and that development will im- prove the appearance of the neighborhood by getting rid of the dirt and concrete on the subject property. Ms. Beaver said that children are not allowed to play unsupervised in the park and that the concrete and dirt do not cause parking problems. Mr. Fish observed that the issue is not one of density, the builder can build similar units on the lot; only the rear yards are under consideration. Ms. Lighthall said that any building will overcrowd the streets and the neighborhood, and that fact cannot be separated from the variance consideration. Mr. Fish said that the zoning may not be correct. He asked if there were any further speakers opposed to the variance. Steven Puryear, 2320 West Harvard Avenue, was sworn in for tes- timony. He stated that the children do not go to the park alone to play, they play in the yards. Decreasing the rear yards will make the front more crowded and increase playing in front and on the street. Mark Tenbensel, 2223 West Hillside Avenue, was sworn in for tes- timony. He said he is a general contractor, and has been for nine years. He works in Denver and Boulder, doing custom residential and light commercial development. He said he would have no objection to reasonable setback adjustment, but the building should be made to accommodate the site, instead of using stock plans. He said their property values have already gone down in the neighborhood, and this design, in his opinion, would further devalue the property. He said it would be easy to design a building to raise values and to fit the requirements. Mr. Brown said that property values are going down in the metropolitan area. Mr. Tenbensel said that a builder would charge $79,000 dollars for his property, but it was appraised at $71,000 dollars. He said the building should be designed to ac- commodate the site, and should not aggravate the problems. -10 - • • • • • • Brian Kempton, 2235 West Vassar Avenue, was sworn in for testimo- ny. He said that he is a citizen, home owner, father, and hus- band, and lives behind the subject property. He is concerned with the quality of living in the area. He said he had been im- pressed with Englewood as a community and its demonstrated excel- lence. He cited the Englewood Parks, street repairs and upkeep provided by the City of Englewood. He said the park is not used by small children in any city. His children play in the vacant lots at the back of his lot. A two-story structure on these lots will have an elevation 15 feet higher than his home, and · the second story will look into his dining room and bedroom. The rear yard setback required by the Ordinance would alleviate that problem. Ms. Lighthall said he should have considered possible development when he bought his own property. Mr. Kempton said he expected the Ordinance requirements to be enf creed; it is the nine foot reduction in the setback that makes the problem. Mr. Seymour asked what Mr. Kempton's rear setback is. He said 15 to 20 feet. (Secretary's note: Mr. Kempton's house does meet the minimum required setback of 25 feet.) The Chairman asked if there were any other speakers opposed to the variance. Ron Hansen, 2288 West Hillside Avenue, was sworn in. He said he is a builder and lives on the street. He said the proposed unit will be 300 feet smaller than any other unit on the street. The subject lots are ten feet shorter than other lots on the street. He said a house can be designed to meet setbacks, and that would help the neighborhood. He said he has landscaping, but the neighbors haven't landscaped. Children play in front of the house and in his side yard. There is no available room for park- ing on the street. He urged that a design for the lot be planned. Mr. Seymour said that the applicant thinks larger side setbacks would be better for the neighborhood, because the lots slope and children won't play there. Karen Tenbensel, 2223 West Hillside Avenue, was sworn in for tes- timony. She said that the spirit of the Code provides for priva- cy. She said they had moved to the neighborhood because of the quality of life in Englewood. The site as planned would violate her right to privacy, she believes. A privacy fence would not be tall enough for people living below the proposed units. It is not difficult, she said, to redesign the plans to meet the Codes. She said there are already problems in the area, and the Codes should be met. She said the buildings do not have to be long and thin. There were no further speakers in opposition to the variance . The applicant returned. Mr. Hurley said that he will meet the parking and landscaping requirements. He does have other plans -11 - available to him, but these plans seem to him to be ideal for the lot. He stressed he is asking for only nine feet less for the rear yard, and said that children enjoy playing on hills. He said these plans are superior because they utilize the contour of the land. The walkout basement would fit very well. He and the owner prefer these plans. The land is 10 feet shorter than the other lots, and this is a problem. He said the designs would be in line with other development in the area. Mr. Fish asked what would be in the upstairs part of the units. Mr. Hurley said the master bedroom would be on the main floor with two bedrooms upstairs. The master bedroom would open onto the concrete slabs. Ms. Lighthall said that the fence would not protect from over- views from second-story windows whether or not the nine feet were removed from the rear yard. Mr. Hurley described the units as three duplexes, with off-street parking and single-car garages, three bedrooms and basements with rough-in baths. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record of the public hearing, and asked if the staff had any further comments. Mrs. Romans said she had nothing to add. Mr. Gage asked about the utility poles. Mrs. Romans said that approximately three years ago, the staff had asked City Council if it were willing to front-end the cost of removing the poles. Council said it would have to be up to the developers to relocate the poles. In the past the Board has made the relocation of the poles a.requirement before development requiring a variance can proceed. At this time, it is the position of the City Council that the City will not pay for the relocation, she emphasized. Ms. Lighthall asked about a paving district. Mrs. Romans said it is scheduled to be included in the Paving District around 1990. All the owners must cooperate to solve the problem. She said dedications are needed from five property owners in order to open West Hillside Avenue betweeen South Zuni and South Tejon Streets. Ms. Lighthall said it would be a mistake to continue to add to the problem. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FOR PROP- ERTY LOCATED AT 2222-2254 WEST HILLSIDE AVENUE TO PERMIT CON- STRUCTION OF THREE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS WHICH WOULD ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.4-6 k, MINIMUM REAR YARD IN THE R-2-C, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. -12 - • • • • • • The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes" because the builder was trying to provide the best plan for the site. Mr. Hallagin voted "yes" because there is a problem with the shape of the property, this is a good plan, and the present dirt pile is bad. Mr. Brown voted "yes" because the applicant is trying to put in a nice house, and he could build a square house without coming to the Board. Mr. Gage voted "no" because a structure can be built that wouldn't encroach and it could still be a nice home. Ms. Lighthall voted "no", saying this is a sincere effort at quality construction, but the larger issue is that nothing should be added until the present problems are cleared up. Mr. Fish said he found no evidence of hardship. The votes were displayed, and three members {Seymour, Hallagin and Brown) had voted in the affirmative, and three members (Gage, Lighthall and Fish) had voted in the negative. The Chairman ruled the variance was denied . * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing on case #16-86, Edward Felix Borasio, 1450 East Bates Avenue. He said that the Board is authorized to grant or deny variances by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. The Chairman said he had proof of publication and posting and asked that the staff identify the request. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that the applicant is requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirement in order to con- struct a garage and a seven-foot wide deck, which addition would extend to the west property line. This is a variance from from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-2 m (1) (c) (i), Side Yard regulations for an attached garage in the R-1-A, Single-Family Residence District. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Edward Borasio, 1450 East Bates Avenue, was sworn in for testimo- ny. He stated that he does not have a garage, which is very un- usual for a house valued at $165,000. He said there are present- ly two retaining walls where he wishes to build the garage. There is presently an existing deck which floats above the park- ing area enclosed by the retaining walls. He noted that his property is unusual in that the back yard is one story higher than the front. He said that in April a car was -13 - stolen from his driveway, and he feels that the glass doors open- ing into the lower level of the house are very vulnerable to forced entry. The garage would protect this entrance. The deck above the proposed garage would be extended toward the edge of the property to within seven feet of the property line. He said that he had originally requested a variance to permit a carport in front of the garage, and the deck to extend to the property line, but the neighbors had objected, and he had modified his request in keeping with their wishes. The Chairman asked if there were any further speakers in favor of the variance. Cal Heisler, 1440 East Bates Avenue, was sworn in for testimony. He said that he and the applicant are neighbors and friends. He said that theirs is a beautifully designed en- clave. Originally he had vehemently opposed a carport because he felt it would distort the design of the house and the neighbor- hood. He said he now has no objections to the request as stated. There were no further speakers in favor of the request. There were no speakers opposed to the variance, and the applicant re- turned for testimony. He said he will try to retain the atmo- sphere of the neighborhood in planning the garage and deck. The Chairman asked that the staff report be made part of the record and asked if the staff had any further comments. There were no further comments from the staff. The Chairman closed the public hearing for Case #16-86. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT MR. EDWARD FELIX BORASIO BE GRAN- TED A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR PROPER- TY LOCATED AT 1450 EAST BATES AVENUE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE AND A SEVEN-FOOT WIDE DECK, WHICH ADDITION WOULD EXTEND TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHEN- SIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.4-2 m (1) (c) (i) I SIDE YARD REGULATIONS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE IN THE R-1-A, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. THE DECK MAY NOT EXTEND CLOSER THAN SEVEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. ALL OTHER CITY CODES MUST BE MET. Board Member Gage seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes", saying that having no garage is a hard- ship, the neighbors do not object, and the five conditions were met. Mr. Hallagin voted "yes", saying that the five conditions neces- sary to grant a variance were met. Mr. Brown said there is a hardship, the addition would make the house safer and there were no objections to the variance; there- fore he voted for the variance. Mr. Gage, Ms. Lighthall and Mr. Fish concurred with the other members. -14 - • • • • • • When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted for the variance, and the the Chairman ruled that the variance was gran- ted. He instructed the applicant to obtain the necessary permits from the Building Division. * * * * * DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans said that the Arapahoe Acres where Mr. Borasio' s property is located was originally designed by Architect Eugene Steinberg for low-cost housing. It didn't meet many of the zoning requirements for lot coverage or setbacks at the time of the construction, yet it is one of our more beautiful areas. Mrs. Reid said the Building and Safety Division will be asked to reach a consensus on building criteria within three feet of a property line, especially in regard to walls and requirements for fire-resistive materials. She said that the law requires that Fire Code violations be appealed within 30 days; however, Mr. Cody may not have been told that there is a deadline. She sug- gested that the forms containing notification of the violations should contain this information. She said the Fire Department will work with the owner to install a door because the basement is likely to be used in the future by new tenants. BOARD'S CHOICE . Ms. Lighthall asked about the landscape plan for the Post Office site that the Engineering Department was to bring to the Board. Mrs. Romans said there had been a change in jurisdiction for the Post Office and the process had to be renewed. There would be no further plans until an agreement is reached with Post Office of- ficials in Chicago. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. S~ng Secretary -15 -