HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-13 BAA MINUTESBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
SEPTEMBER 13, 1989
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was
called to order by Chairm an Welker at 7:30 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Seymour, George, Lighthall, Dunn, Shaffer, Waldman and
Welker.
None .
Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor
Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney
Joyce Parsons, Code Enforcement Officer
Richard Drebenstedt, Code Enforcement Officer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 1989, BE APPROVED AS
WRITTEN.
Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion.
All members present voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the
Minutes of August 9, 1989, were approved as written.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT.
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #15-89, FOR PROP-
ERTY LOCATED AT 4876 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
Board Member George seconded the motion.
All members voted in f~vor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings
of Fact in Case #15-89 were approved as written.
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #13-89.
2280 West Evans Avenue
The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #13-89, saying the Board is
authorized to grant or deny a variance or appeal by Part 3, Section 60 of the
Englewood Municipal Code. He said he had proof of publication, and asked the
staff to identify the request.
Dorothy Romans
Assistant Director of Com mu nity Development
was sworn in for te s timony. She stated that the City had requested a
review by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the September 14, 1983
agreement entered into by the City of Englewood and the owner of the
property (Janet S. Tague) and the lessee of the property (Robert J.
Kurtz.) The City wishes the Board to determine whether or not the terms
of this agreement have been broken. She said that Richard W.
Drebenstedt, the Code Enforcement Officer assigned to the case would
present the City's evidence.
- 1 -
Richard W. Drebenstedt
Code Enforcement Officer
was sworn in for testimony. He presented photographs of the condition of
the property and showed a videotape of the condition of the property on
June 29, 1989. The videotape showed the property with the fire lane
blocked and access being used across the neighbors' land. Vehicles were
apparently being stored rather than kept merely "in process" as required
by the agreement. This agreement also required a clear fire lane, neat
stacking, a privacy fence to be erected and maintained and no vehicles to
be dismantled on the premises outside the building.
Mr. Drebenstedt stated that Mr. Kurtz has had to use the neighbor's land
to access the property because the fire lane has been blocked. As of
this date, this lane is clear.
Ms. Lighthall said that the agreement requires that inspections of the
property be made every six months by the City and that if there are any
violations Mr. Kurtz must correct them within 30 days. She stated her
belief that, while some inspections were made and letters sent, the City
has permitted the property to be used for a wrecking yard, rather than a
repair facility.
Mr. Drebenstedt said that the inside of th e bu ilding has been cluttered
with vehicles "in process", and this is in compliance with the agreement;
however the disarray and improper storage of chemicals are possibly a
danger. He stated the entire building is full of various items. The
Board noted oxygen and acetylene tanks in the building. Mr. Drebenstedt
said that the building may not be structurally sound and some of the
electrical wiring is questionable. The attic is full and a water heater
had been improperly installed. The general condition of the fire lane
has been a violation, storage of junk parts are not permitted, disas-
sembled trucks have been stored on the property, and egress and ingress
have been improper .
Mr. Drebenstedt submitted photographs (Exhibit I) taken on June 29 and
also noted three letters which had been included in the Staff Report.
The first letter was a letter restating the agreement of Mr. Tague and
Mr . Kurtz that conditions on the property would be met. After ten days
another letter was sent noting that the work had not been completed, and
littl e had been begun. On September 7 most of the conditions had still
not been met; however progress had been made.
Ms. Lighthall stated that by definition in Section 16-4-13 1 and 2, Condition -
al Uses , th is prope r ty is being used as a junk yard , whi ch is in violation of
the agreement which also required an adequate fence.
Mrs. Romans said the property had never been approved as an auto wrecking
yard. Such use is not permitted in the B-2 or R-2-C zones in which the prop -
erty is located. The us e was approved as a repair business or garage; but it
appears to now be an auto wrecking yard. She said in meeting with the owners,
it was her opinion that they wish to be in compliance, and she suggested that
Mr. Kurtz and the · Tagues be given a month to bring the property into full
compliance.
There were no further questions or statements from staff.
- 2 -
Mr. Welker asked if any one wished to respond to the staff's presentation.
P. Arthur Tague
420 South Marion Parkway
was sworn in for testimony. He said he was representing Janet Tague, the
owner of the property for 20 years. She has $250, 000 invested and is
very interested in the case; however she works at night and was unable to
att end. Mr. Tague said that Janet Tague had been assured by Mr. Kurtz
that the property would be brought into compliance, and she had accepted
that assurance. Mr. Tague; however, has become aware of the problem, and
will keep in much closer contact with Mr. Kurtz in order to assure that
the property is cleared, and kept in compliance. He stated that he and
several other people have worked long hours for three days to clean the
property, and have made a great deal of progress. There have been in-
juries to Mr. Kurtz and to himself, he said, and it takes time to remove
the accumulation of years. Car parts have been removed; the fire lane
has been cleared; many things have been removed or neatly stacked. Much
of the area in the back has been cleaned.
Mr. Tague assured the Board that he would personally supervise the prop-
erty and that it would not be allowed to fall into such a condition
again. He would a 1 so continue to work to see that it is brought fully
into compliance. Tires have been stacked or removed. He noted that his-
torically this property had been a repair service even before it was an-
nexed into the City. The zoning line runs through the building, with the
front of the property in a 8-2 zone and the rear in an R-2-C. He said
that Mr. Kurtz is not really running a wrecking yard, but is rebuilding
cars, and is making progress toward meeting the requirements of the Code
Enforcement Officer.
Ms. Lighthall stated Mr. Kurtz had been aware of the requirements. His
attorney in 1983 had assured the City that Mr. Kurtz would not dismantle
vehicles outside, and this has been done; the fence is not in compliance
with the agreement, and the fire lane should not have been permitted to
be blocked.
Mr. Tague said that Mr. Criswell had been testifying about a variance or
interpretation of a variance, and that the agreement was reached after
that testimony. He did agree, however that dismantling should only take
place inside the building, but said Mr. Kurtz had not been able to move
vehicles into the building easily, and had needed better access to the
building so the dismantling can be done inside. They are trying to cor-
rect this problem.
Ms. Lighthall said she needed convincing that there will be a change in
Mr. Kurtz's behavior. Mr. Tague said the Code Enforcement Officer under
Dorothy Romans will maintain close supervision of the property in the
future. He said that the Tagues would also be more closely involved, but
they needed an additional month. Ms. Lighthall noted that the Code En-
forcement Officer had contacted Mr. Kurtz in June, and that was plenty of
time; even Mr. Tague had been aware of the problem in August, but work
was not begun until September.
There were no other speakers responding to the City's request, and the Chair-
man asked if there were any person present who wished to argue against the
respondent's statements.
- 3 -
Gerald Capesius
2350 West Warren
was sworn in for testimony. He said he had opposed the agreement in 1983
because he thought the property would turn into a junk yard, and it has.
There are trucks being junked, and the junk has been stored on neighbor-
ing property. There is no legal access to the lot except from Evans, but
Mr. Kurtz has been going across neighboring property. The business is
noisy and motors ar e running at all hours of the day and night. Dogs
escape through the fence and have killed pets and neighbors are concerned
about their children. Road testing of trucks has been carried on in the
neighborhood even though the trucks have no 1 icenses or 1 ights. Mr.
Capesius said Mr. Kurtz is running a junk yard, and it is not confined to
the building. He said he is opposed to any continuation since every rule
has been broken.
Cary Strauss
3385 West Powers Circle
was sworn in for testimony. He stated he is the owner of ABZ truck
parts, a legal wrecking yard. He and 8 other owners of legal wrecking
yards were present. He said that Mr. Kurtz maintains the facade of a
repair service, but is really a wrecking yard in competition with the
legal wrecking yards in the City. The wrecking yards are required to
obtain licenses, acquire at least an acre of land, and to keep their
property in a neat condition. This is costly, and they should not be
forced to be in competition with businesses which do not have to meet
these standards. Repair shops should remain repair shops and wrecking
yards should be wrecking yards.
·Mark Apodaca
2351 West Warren
was sworn in for testimony. He stated he lives across the field from Mr.
Kurtz's property. He testified that he has to fight rats, ·the dogs ha-
rass his pets and the entire neighborhood is afraid for the children. It
is not a healthy environment. He had talked to Mr. Kurtz 3 years before
and gotten little response. Mr. Kurtz is definitely, in his opinion,
affecting the quality of life for the neighbors. He said he had con-
tacted the dog warden, but was not aware of an agency to call about rats.
Joe Stengel
10202 West Frost
was sworn in for testimony. He stated the following:
"I have a simple phone book here and I think Mr . Strauss indicated that
these people are skirting the issue --unlicensed wrecking yards. If
you 'll t urn to Used Parts you'll see a lot of people in Englewood that
are operating under a facade as a repair business and they're actually in
the automobile wrecking business. They buy and sell used parts, just
like I do, just li ke my competitors except we 're all in it together. But
we buy a license, operate under the rules of the City of the Englewood
and you've got them, I heard you read them from the list tonight. You
know the rules and we know the rules. They operate outside of the rules
because they can't get a license and this is the problem that we have.
We're unhappy; it's not just Mr. Kurtz or the land owner, it seems like
we have to go by the rules and they don't. That's basically what I'd
like to bring to the Board. There's a problem that you need to address,
it's unlicensed wt ·ecking yards." Mr. Waldman said, "Are you saying they
have an ad under Used Parts?" Mr. Stengel replied, "Absolutely, it's
- 4 -
right here in yellow and black. It's there. That's really all I have to
bring up. It's here, it's in print. You can't deny that they're operat-
ing a wrecking yard. When you sell used cars, it's a wrecking yard, sal-
vage yard, junk yard, used parts yard, whatever description or clas-
sification you want to call it."
The Secretary asked that the Yellow Pages be submitted as an Exhibit.
Mr. Stengel said he might need it. It was agreed that the City would
copy the information from its own Ye l low Pages.
There were no other speakers who asked to speak against the continuance.
Mrs. Romans said Planning had been responsible for Code Enforcement only since
the first of May. Notices have been given in the past, but have not been
properly enforced. There has been a lack of communication. She stated that
notice has now been given, and the owner and lessee need more time to comply.
Continual inspection wlll be provided at least monthly. Mr. Tague will also
inspect the property. The use will become a good neighbor.
In response to a question from Ms. Shaffer, Mrs. Romans said she would check
to see if Mr. Kurtz has a sales tax license. After Mr. Welker asked about the
dogs, the fence, and the east gate, Mrs. Romans said that Mr. Kurtz believed
he had permission to access through the gate. The fire lane has been cleared,
and the gate will not be used in the future. The animal control officers have
given notices about the dogs.
Mr. Tague said the gate will be locked and egress will be only through the
fire lane. He said he had only seen one dog which was very friendly. He said
rats don't live in metal and the field may be harboring the rats. Mrs. Dunn
asked where the dogs are kept during the day.
Joyce Parsons
Code Enforcement Officer
was sworn in for testimony. She stated that Mr. Kurtz has a business
license and can charge and pay taxes through that. He does not have a
dealer license or a wrecking license. A dealer's license would be re-
quired if he is selling the refurbished vehicles. She said there are at
least three dogs kept on the premises. One belongs to Mr. Kurtz's son.
They do go across the field. Rats are attracted by dog feces and dog
food kept outdoors. There is no agency in the City which will deal with
rats.
Ms. Shaffer asked Mr. Drebenstedt if it was permissible to stack tires. Mr.
Drebenstedt said nothing can be stacked higher than the fence. She asked how
a vehicle is moved onto the property if it is not in working order. Mr.
Drebenstedt said a wrecker is used, and said the vehicles will not, in the
future be stored outside. Mr. Waldman asked why Mr. Drebenstedt believed Mr.
Kurtz when he has not kept to the agreement in the past. Mr. Drebenstedt said
progress has been made; all cars are gone, and Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Tague are
continuing work on clearing the property. He said enforcement would now be
diligent.
Mr. Waldman asked what action can be taken against Mr. Kurtz if he does not
keep the property in compliance in the future. Dan Brotzman, Assistant City
Attorney said Mr. Kurtz could be taken to the Municipal court for fines and a
- 5 -
jail sentence, or the City could take the matter to District Court to obtain
an order for the City to clear the property at the owner's expense.
Ms. Shaffer asked if the size of the lot would permit a wrecking yard, and she
was told it is not that large. Mr. Tague said that given time, Mr. Kurtz will
comply with the agreement.
Mr. We l ker asked if the proposal wa s to take evidence now and postpone the
decision. Mrs. Romans said that was the proposal.
Roger Bunyard
2480 South Raritan
was sworn in for testimony. He said that this is only the first of many
problems that the City will see if this proposal is accepted. He said
other people want to obtain small pieces of property to operate as junk
yards with half the overhead that legal junk yards have. He noted that
he is required to pay insurance and obtain licenses. He warned that
others will come in and claim to be repair shops and would rea 11 y be
parts and wrecking lots.
Dennis Kelley
2393 West Warren
was sworn in for testimony. He said that if Mr. Kurtz uses five vehicles
to make two, what does he do with the other three. He said it seemed to
him that those three vehicles put Mr. Kurtz in competition with the other
junk yard dealers. He doubted that they were all shredded, especially if
there were reuseable parts. He noted that Mr. Kurtz had claimed he would
have only trucks and 4-wheel drive vehicles, but he has expanded. Mr.
Kelley said he believes Mr. Tague, but questions Mr. Kurtz who has broken
the agreement from the day it was signed.
There being no other persons who wished to address the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE BOARD FIND THAT THE AGREEMENT RATIFIED BY
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1983, BETWEEN MRS. TAGUE,
MR. KURTZ AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD HAD NOT BEEN BROKEN, AND COULD CONTINUE IN
EFFECT .
Board Member Dunn seconded the motion .
Discussion fo 11 owed. Ms. Li ghtha 11 doubted that a month's continuance would
permit the clearing of 6 years of accumulation. The City would also go to
great expense in continually inspecting the property. Mr. Waldman agreed, and
Ms. George said there has been something wrong at the property for six years
and it should have been cleaned long before. Mr. Welker said inspecting the
proper t y should not be only the City's responsibility, the owners are also
responsible. Ms. Shaffer said the property has been in violation and does not
. currently conform.
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows:
Mr. Seymour said that Mr. Kurtz has broken the agreement, and testimony indi-
cated that he is advertising in the yellow pages as a seller of used parts,
which indicates he is running a junk yard. Therefore, Mr. Seymour said he had
voted "no".
- 6 -
Ms. George said she had voted "no" because Mr. Kurtz has not met the
agreement.
Ms. Lighthall said she voted "no" because there are not proper licenses, Mr.
Kurtz is using an illegal gate and is advertising that he sells used parts;
the operation is harmful to the neighbors and competitors object to the con-
tinuance of the agreement.
Ms. Dunn concurred with the other members, saying the agreement had been
broken by Mr. Kurtz.
Ms. Shaffer concurred with Ms. Lighthall.
Mr. Waldman voted "no" based on the rules of the Board which permit no adverse
effect on the neighbors, and Mr. Kurtz had had a bad effect on the
neighborhood.
Mr. Welker said that despite the City and Mr. Tague he had voted "no". He
said he did not believe it is the City's responsibility to enforce the
agreement.
When the votes were displayed , all seven members had voted in the negative,
and the Chairman ruled the agreement had been broken. It was noted that there
is a 30 day appeal period, and Mr. Welker suggested that Mr. Tague work with
the City to see what steps were open to him.
A recess was declared at 10:00 p.m.
·The meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. with the same persons present.
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE NO. 14-89
2970 South Tejon Street.
The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #14-89 for property owned by
Monte Sanders, Jr. and Carol A. White and located at 2970 South Tejon Street.
The Chairman stated he had proof of publication and posting and asked that the
staff identify the request.
Dorothy Romans
stated that the applicants have filed an application for a variance from
Section 16 -4-14 B 9 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which section
requires a minimum lot area of one and one-half acres (65,340 square
feet) for an automob i le wrecking yard business. The applicant requests a
variance to the r eq ui rem~n t of a minimum area of one and one-half acres,
in order to operate an automobi l e salvage parts business on a site which
he believes to contain 33 , 900 square feet. The staff is not able to
verify this figure .
. Monte Sanders
7263 West Hoover Avenue
was sworn in for testimony. He stated that his operation, if approved,
would not be a blight on the neighborhood. He proposed to run a refur-
bishing and restoration business almost exclusively for antique Mustangs.
These cars are between 20 and 24 years old and it is increasingly dif-
ficult to obtain parts from salvage dealers. When the Zoning Officer
classified the business as a wrecking yard, he considered dropping the
- 7 -
idea, but believes there is a need for the service and a need for hard-
to-get parts. He emphasized that this is not general salvage, but would
specialize in antique Mustangs. When he learned that he needed 1.5
acres, he did acquire more land, up to the present amount of about 29,300
square feet. He said his business would be an addition to the Engle-
wood's automotive community, and his business is compatible with the
zoning and the neighborhood. He would properly fence the land with a
cedar fence which would be attractive. If the Board required he would
refuse any work that was not on Mustangs. He agreed to land scape. He
noted there is no residential use nearby; it is an industrial area.
Mr. Sanders emphasized that Mustangs are becoming rare. He hoped to pro-
vide a service to people who like Mustangs and he is unable to buy enough
land to meet the ordinance, because there is no more land available at
this time. He expects between 15 and 25 cars to be stored on the proper-
ty at any time. He said he would mostly work outdoors.
There were no further speakers in favor of the variance. The Chairman asked
if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the variance.
Cary Strauss
returned to speak. He said that "parts are parts and junk yards are junk
yards." He repeated that he has to comply with strict requirements
made by the City. If other people do not have to comply with those re-
quirements, they have an unfair advantage. Denver does permit wrecking
yards on small lots and they have many problems which Englewood has
avoided. He said Mr. Sanders should find a site with enough land if he
wishes to run a wrecking yard. He emphasized that he is not trying to
cut competition, but to have everyone play by the same rules.
Don Braun
1831 West Harvard
was sworn in for testimony. He stated that if the variance is granted,
he will come before the Board to specialize in Hondas. He applied for a
variance after the City took part of his land for right-of-way and it was
discovered that he did not have enough land to have a wrecking yard. His
application for a variance was turned down. He said he would be back
before the Board to request a variance if this variance is passed.
Roger Bunyard
returned for testimony. He said granting the variance would open a can
of worms. If he can live by the zoning ordinances, others can also. He
had been required to spend a lot of money to acquire land, his competi-
tors should have to do so, too.
Mr. Stengel noted that Mr. Braun does sell used parts according to the phone
book .
. There were no further speakers for or against the variance.
was made part of the record. Mrs. Romans asked that if the
ted, the Board impose a maximum number of cars to be on the
Sanders be required to meet all other regulations.
The Staff Report
variance is gran-
site and that Mr.
Mr. Welker read the five conditions necessary to grant a variance and closed
the public hearing.
-8 -
BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT MONTE SANDERS, JR. AND CAROL A. WHITE BE GRAN-
TED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2970 SOUTH TEJON STREET. THIS REQUEST
IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-14 B 9 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING OR-
DINANCE, WHICH SECTION REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF ONE AND ONE-HALF ACRES
(65,340 SQUARE FEET) FOR AN AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARD BUSINESS. THE APPLICANT
REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM AREA OF ONE AND ONE-HALF ACRES, IN ORDER TO
OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE SALVAGE PARTS BUSINESS ON A SITE WHICH CONTAINS APPROXI-
MATELY 29,300 SQUARE FEET.
Board Member Dunn seconded the motion.
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows:
Mr. Seymour said he had voted against the variance because the applicant had
less than 45% of the required land.
Ms. George said the applicant had not met any of the requirements for granting
a variance, and she had voted against the motion.
Ms. Lighthall said she had voted against the variance, but hoped the applicant
would be able to acquire more land.
Ms. Dunn said the variance is too large, and she had voted against it.
Ms. Shaffer concurred.
Mr. Waldman said he had voted against the motion because there was not suffi-
cient reason to grant a variance and the request was not a minimum variance.
Mr. We 1 ker said the app 1 i cant had good intent i ans but granting the variance
would not be just to other wrecking yard owners. In addition the ordinance
would be damaged if such a large variance were granted.
When the votes were displayed all seven members had voted against the motion,
and the Chairman ruled the variance was denied, and the applicant must meet
all codes.
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #16-89
1430 East Cornell Avenue
The Cha i rman opened th e public hearing for Case #16-89, saying he had proof of
posting and publication . He asked that the staff identify the request.
Dorothy Romans
stated that the applican t , Robert R. Larson, representative for Ms. Tem-
borius and Ms . Hofferberger, was requesting a variance to Section 16-4-2
M 1 b and c of th e 1985 Englewood Municipal Code, in order to construct a
two-car garage adjoin i ng the northwest corner of the existing house.
Section 16-4-2 M I b establishes the minimum front setback for a garage
at 25 feet in the R-1-A Single-family Residence Zone District. Section
16-4-2 M I c establishes the minimum side yard setback at 7 feet in the
R-1-A, Single-family Residence Zone District.
Robert R. Larson
1700 South Ogden Street
was sworn in for testimony . He said they were proposing to build a 20' x
- 9 -
20' garage on the west side of the house. The plans show it pushed back
as far as possible, since the location of the garage is limited by bed-
room windows, a patio and a tree. This is the only side of the property
large enough for the two car garage. He said the style and siding would
match the existing house. He presented a rendering showing the house as
it would appear with the garage. He said they would no longer use the
single-car garage, and the old driveway would be removed and landscaped.
Mr. Larson said that his clients had been told by the previous owner that
the setbacks were only 5 feet on the side, and that is what the covenants
of the neighborhood require. They were not aware that the City would
have requirements different from the covenants. The owners are both nur-
ses and work late at night. They need security and warmth. Because they
are subject to emergency calls, they cannot spend the time scraping ice
from windshields. He presented letters stating the need for employment
and quick response time. Mr. Larson said that Ms. Hoffberger has de-
generative arthritis and the present access requires climbing a flight of
stairs. The new garage will not have stairs. There are no other loca-
tions on this lot that would be suitable for a two car garage.
Mr. Larson said neighbors have been consulted and this project discussed.
He noted that this home was built before the present zoning ordinance was
passed, and many existing setbacks are short. He presented seven letters
from neighbors who would be affected by the variance. He also presented
a 1 etter from a Rea 1 Estate Broker stating that it is better for the
va 1 ue of the property to have a two car garage. Mr. Larson said the
neighbors to the west would not be able to see the addition because of
the landscaping which goes out to the sidewalk which would not be
removed. The addition will not affect the vision of persons on the
street, because the landscaping already cuts it off. He noted that a 20'
x 20' garage is of minimal size for a two car garage, and if the variance
is not approved, the owners will have to sell the home and move. They
must have security to be able to respond to emergencies in the middle of
the night, and this variance seems a small thing to give to people who
serve other people.
Ms. Lighthall said small front yards are common in this unique neighbor-
hood. Mr. Larson said the developer had apparently set his own rules,
and built a nice neighborhood .
The Chairman asked if there were other speakers in favor of the variance.
Olaf Running
2927 South Lafayett e Dri ve
was sworn in fo r t e s t im ony . He stated that the variance is quite mini-
mal . The neighborh ood was developed in the late 40's and single car
gar ages and even no garages at al l were common. Today most homes have
two breadwinners and two cars, and two car garages are the norm. He said
the i nhabi tan ts of the area need larger garages and the proposa 1 seems
viable and attractive.
Linda Wellnitz
2927 South Lafayette Drive
was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she agreed that most homes
have two cars which are required for two working persons. When the
weather is 20 degrees below zero, it's the middle of the night, and there
-10 -
is an emergency; it would be hard to scrape windows and start cars.
There are other neighboring homes which do not meet the setback require-
ments. The side yard setback would be only two feet less than the re-
quired seven feet, and the front yard is only five feet less than the
required twenty five feet, and that is only at one corner of the garage.
This will not be very noticeable from the street or the neighbors'
houses. She said the neighborhood needs two car garages, the value of
the home will be increased, and this home will be similar to many homes
already in the neighborhood.
There were no further speakers in favor of the variance. The Chairman asked
if there were any speakers opposed to granting the variance.
Wade Gateley, Representative for
Ross and Peisha Crawford of 1420 East Cornell Avenue
was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the Crawfords had a long time
previous engagement and asked him to attend the meeting on their behalf.
They 1 i ve next door to the subject property and are concerned that a
garage so close to their home would limit air circulation and light. The
trees will have to be trimmed to accommodate the garage. Their master
bedroom is right next to the proposed garage and they will be exposed to
all the noise of late night traffic described by Mr. Larson. It is the
opinion of Ross Real Estate that the Crawfords' property will be devalued
by the addition of a garage so close to their home. Relaxing standards
will open the door for similar situations. He submitted a letter of op-
position signed by 80 individuals who want to keep the neighborhood
attractive.
Mr . Gateley said there is not really a necessity for a two car garage.
The property a 1 ready contains one garage, why not put another one-car
garage on the other side which would be smaller. Or, he suggested a
smaller garage of 18' x 18' which would not intrude into the side yard
setback and could be set back a little further so it could meet the front
yard setback requirement. The tree and patio could be removed or moved,
and skylights could be added to the bedroom.
Mr. Seymour said that the noise from the garage wouldn't bother the
neighbors since there are no windows in the bedroom along that side. Ms.
Lighthall said that coming within five feet of the property line is not a
big intrusion on the ne i ghboring home. She noted that many of the people
who signed the letter were from several blocks away and would not be im-
pacted by the variance.
Mr. Gateley said that the rules for granting a variance require that
there be a nece s sity for the variance, and in his opinion there is no
such necessity. The problems could be solved without a variance. This
variance would , he said, change the character of the neighborhood .
. Jane Middlebrook
1520 East Cornell Avenue
was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she has lived in the neigh-
borhood for thirty-five years. She said that having two garages and two
driveways, as Mr. Gately suggested, would be objectionable. She said
this is a unique and beautiful neighborhood designed so that the homes
give maximum privacy . She said that the present ordinance requires 25
foot setbacks in front, and she objects to any infringement on required
-11 -
setbacks. She stated her op1n1on that drivers turning west off of
Franklin would not be able to see oncoming traffic as well if the garage
is added. The new owners should have recognized the problem when they
bought the house. She asked that the neighborhood and its atmosphere be
preserved.
Ms. Lighthall noted that the owners said they had been misinformed.
Dan Pe yton
1421 East Cornell Place
was sworn in for testimony. He said he objected to granting the variance
because he bought in the neighborhood because of its unique atmosphere.
He said he feels safe in the neighborhood and most of the inhabitants
contribute to the welfare of society and also have odd hours. He said he
believed the garage would adversely affect the neighborhood. He said he
looked in many neighborhoods before buying his home and jutting additions
make a jarring impression. He asked that the Board not set a bad prece-
dent. He said that the new neighbors would be welcomed to the neighbor-
hood, however, regardless of the Board's decision. In response to a com-
ment from Ms. Lighthall and Mr. Waldman, Mr. Peyton said that the street
curve would exaggerate the protrusion of the garage.
Linda Willis
1500 East Cornell Avenue
was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she lives directly to the
east of the property and agrees with Mr. Peyton. Her view wi 11 be a
brick wall and concrete. The trees will probably be killed. If people
keep tacking on to the houses, the neighborhood will no longer be
beautiful.
There were no further speakers in opposition.
Mr. Larson returned .
He submitted a survey showing the dimensions of the proposed garage . He
said the neighbor~ house is 19.3 feet from the front property line, which
is approximately what is being proposed by his clients. Two single car
garages, as proposed by Mr. Gately, would depreciate property values, and
and 18' x 18' garage is too small, especially for a handicapped person.
Building Codes prohibit encroaching on windows, so the garage could not
be located further back on the site. He submitted a copy of the covenant
showing that five foot setbacks were permitted. He indicated the render-
ings which show a garage which blends in with the house and landscaping.
He said that Mr . Peyton is a young man, and would naturally not be as
concerned about safety as two middle -aged women.
Mrs. Middlebrook
sa id that the ar chitect did not i ntend that houses impinge on the living
area of one another . She asked that setback requirements be maintained.
There were no further speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman made
the Staff Report part of the public hearing and asked if there were any fur-
ther comments from Staff . There were none. Ms . Lighthall asked if there had
been other variances granted in the neighborhood . Mrs. Romans said she could
only recall one .
The Chairman closed t he public hearing.
-12 -
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED IN CASE #16-89 THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FOR PROP-
ERTY LOCATED AT 1430 EAST CORNELL AVENUE, WHICH WOULD BE A VARIANCE TO SECTION
16-4-2 M 1 b AND c OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT
A TWO-CAR GARAGE ADJOINING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. SEC-
TION 16-4-2 M 2 b ESTABLISHES THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK FOR A GARAGE AT 25
FEET IN THE R-1-A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE DISTRICT. SECTION 16-4-2 M 1 c
ESTABLISHES THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 7 FEET IN THE R-1-A, SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE DISTRICT.
Board Member Waldman seconded the motion.
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows:
Mr. Seymour said there was a hardship and the five conditions necessary to
grant a variance had been met. He, therefore, voted "yes."
Ms. George said that the five conditions had been met and the variance would
not damage the neighborhood, so she voted for the variance.
Ms. Lighthall said the owners had a problem and the variance afforded minimum
relief.
Ms. Dunn abstained because she has been acquainted with the owners for many
years.
Ms. Shaffer said she had voted for the variance because it is minimal.
Mr. Waldman said the shape of the building and property do not allow any other
relief; the request is not outrageous and the variance is very small. He said
he had voted for the variance.
Mr. Welker said the character of the neighborhood lies in its variety. Dif-
ferences in setback are common and no adverse effect wi 11 be felt by the
neighborhood. He said he had voted for the variance.
When the votes were displayed, six members had voted in favor of the motion,
and one member (Ms. Dunn) had abstained.
The Chairman called for a recess at 12:30 a.m. The meeting reconvened at
12:35 a.m. with the same persons present.
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #17-89.
365 West Oxford Avenue
The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #17-89, saying he had proof of
posting and publication. He asked that the staff identify the request.
Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant, Dianne Wood Rehman, was requesting a
. variance to Section 16-4-17 C 1 of the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code, Fences
in Residential Districts, in order to construct a six-foot privacy fence at
the front of the property line. She noted that fences erected in front of the
front building line shall be of any class and shall not exceed a height of
three feet, six inches.
Dianne Wood Rehman
365 West Oxford Avenue
-13 -
was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she had moved into the house
six years before and had been aware of some traffic noise which she com-
bated by keeping her windows closed and not entertaining outside. In the
last two or three years traffic has increased substantially, she has mar-
ried, and she and her husband would like to have the house open and to
use the patio. She said that they have planted trees to muffle sound,
but they grow slowly. A fence would protect them from some of the noise
of the traffic. She said the fence would be about 14 feet from the side-
walk and would not present a problem to traffic. If her house faced the
other direction the fence would be permitted. She said they would be
moving from the house if the noise problem cannot be solved.
Ms. Li ghtha 11 said that because of the rising hill on the property the
privacy fence would appear to be much higher than it is. In addition, in
her opinion privacy fences are ugly unless an effort is made to create
variety. Mr. Seymour agreed. There were no further questions.
The Chairman asked if there were other speakers for or against the variance.
Ellis McCain
4061 South Cherokee
was sworn in for testimony. He stated that with the situation as it now
exists it is difficult to see children and traffic. There is already a
hedge on the north end of the alley that obstructs the view at Nassau so
he is forced to exit the alley on Oxford. He said that if the fence is
back 16 feet, it should make it possible to see oncoming traffic.
Eugene Pixler
~085 South Cherokee
was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he agreed with Mr. McCain
that the only problem would be children and traffic. He noted that be-
hind the applicant is a hill, and vision is bad at the other end of tbe
alley. He complained that the alley is overgrown and Ms. Lighthall sug-
gested contacting the Code Enforcement Division.
Ms. Rehman returned to speak.
She stated there are privacy fences along Oxford. She said the fence
would be back from Delaware. She has only an 8 foot backyard, and there
is nowhere else for patio living on the lot. She emphasized that the
noise from Oxford has become intolerable .
There were no further persons who wished to address the Board. The Chairman
stated that he had proof of posting and publication and asked that the Staff
Report be made part of the public hearing. The staff had no further comments
and the Chairman closed the public hearing .
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows.
Mr. Seymour said that this is not a minimal variance, and he voted "no."
Ms. George concurred.
Ms. Lighthall said she objected to a solid six foot fence, especially with the
trees and the hill. She voted against the variance.
Ms. Dunn said the variance would not secure public safety of the children.
-14 -
• , • #
Ms. Shaffer said she had voted for the variance because she has lived on a
busy street and the fence would not be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Mr. Waldman said he had voted against the variance because six feet is too
high for the fence at this location, and is not necessary for relief.
Mr. Welker agreed there are other alternatives which he encouraged the appli-
cant to consider.
When the votes were displayed 1 member had voted for the variance and 6 had
voted against it. The Chairman declared the variance denied.
DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mrs. Romans announced that the Secretary had accepted another position and
this would be her last meeting with the Board of Adjustment.
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m.
~4<L•-'
Sheryl R Sses, Recording Secretary
-15 -