Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-11 BAA MINUTES• BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO OCTOBER 11, 1989 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, George, Lighthall, Dunn, Shaffer, Waldman and Welker. Members absent: None. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1989, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. All members present voted in favor of th e motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of September 13, 1989, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES #13-89, #14-89, #16-89, AND #17-89 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact for Cases #13-89, #14-89, #16-89, and #17-89 were approved as written. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN INTRODUCED A MOTION THAT THE ORDER FROM THE CITY OFFICE BE CONSIDERED CONCERNING CASE #13-89, IN REFERENCE TO THE BREAKING OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY; ROBERT KURTZ, LESSEE; AND OWNER, JANET TAGUE; IT WAS MOVED: That the property at 2280 West Evans Avenue shall revert back to the original zoning, that being the property legally described as: Lots 6 and 7, Block 14, Evans Park Estates, except the South 161 feet of Lots 6 and 7, Block 14, Evans Park Estates Subdivision, shall be B- 2, Business, and the property legally described as: the South 161 feet of Lots 6 and 7, Block 14, Evans Park Estates Subdivision, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, shall be R-2-C, Medium- density Residence. - 1 - Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. The Board issued a vote of 7 -0 with the determination that the agreement had been broken. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #18-89 2925 WEST CHENANGO AVENUE • The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #18-89, stating 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 posting; and asked the staff to identify the request. Dorothy Romans Assistant Director of Community Development was sworn in for testimony. She explained that this case has been filed by Mr. Robert Hudson, of 2925 West Chenango Avenue, for a variance to Section 16-4-3 H, Minimum Front Yard in the R-1-B, Single-family Residence Zone District, which variance would permit a front yard setback of 14 feet, 10.5 inches, instead of 25 feet. The variance has been re- quested in order for Mr. Hudson to construct an addition to the existing roof which would provide protection for a wheelchair ramp which will ac- cess the front entrance to the house. Entered into the record were four (4) certifications from adjoining/or adjacent neighbors as evidence informing they had no objection(s) to the ramp proposed by Mr. Hudson. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Robert "Bobby" Hudson 4936 South Prince Street, Apt. #105 Littleton, Colorado was sworn in for testimony. He stated he had purchased the house from HUD, with the intention of renovating it, and plans to reside at 2925 West Chenango as an Englewood resident. Mr. Hudson disclosed he was requesting a variance so that he could have a covered ramp for entrance to, and exit from, the house. The ramp would be a safeguard for him against snow and rain. There was expressed concern from some of the Board members as to the structure of the proposed roof, regarding position, angle, and pitch. Mr. Hudson replied tha,t his plans were designed by an engineer, that the pitch would be 2/12, and that the roof angle would be sloped to provide a two(2)foot overhang for drainage. The position of the roof would connect to the driveway in a "switchback" manner. Mrs. Romans concluded that Mr. Hudson is anxious to make the improvements on this property, and that he intends to live permanently at 2925 West Chenango. She also added that the Englewood Housing Authority staff who work with the Rehab Program, and the Building & Safety Department, were working very closely with Mr. Hudson to meet the necessary requirements for obtaining a building permit for the proposed ramp, and for other remodeling necessary to retrofit the house for Mr. Hudson's use. - 2 - • • There were no further speakers for or against the variance . BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #18-89 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2925 WEST CHENANGO AVENUE, THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-3-H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD IN THE R-1-B, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 14 FEET, 10.5 INCHES. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour commented he had no objections , especially since surrounding neighbors had responded in a positive manne r , and that the ramp is deemed a "necessity". Ms. George concurred. Ms. Lighthall commended Mr. Hudson for his effort to be independent and viewed the granted variance as a positive action to assist him in his lifestyle. Ms. Dunn concurred. Ms. Shaffer concurred and al so viewed the granted variance as a necessary verdict. Mr. Waldman took the stance that the variance would have no adverse effect on other properties, and would resolve Mr. Hudson's dilemma. Mr. Welker agreed with the other members. He addressed Mr. Hudson that with the granted variance, he could now pr oce ed to file for a building permit When the votes were displayed all seven members had voted for the variance, and the Chairman ruled the variance granted. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #19-89 The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #19-89 and asked the staff to identify the request. Dorothy Romans Assistant Director of Community Development stated that Mr. & Mrs . Risch have filed for a variance to Section 16-4-2 H of t he Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Minimum Front Yard in the R-1 -A, Single -family Residence District in order for a garage to be constructed on the northwest side of their house, which garage would have a front setback of approximately 6 feet at the point closest to the property line rather than the required 25 foot front setback. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Deborah Risch 4780 South Mariposa Drive was sworn in for testimony. She stated they were requesting a variance for construction of a two-car garage because currently they are parking on the street. The placement of the garage is proposed in the front area -3 - of the original garage, which was converted into a family room by pre- vious owners. She said the present site for consideration was determined for a number of reasons. The first was that financially they found that location more feasible due to the present landscaping. The second reason was, aes- thetically, the plan as proposed, would give the property a better ap- pearance; and overall look better within the neighborhood. Discussion followed as to why a design of the garage was not submitted, the possible obstruction factor of the garage for pedestrians and drivers, and exiting onto a busy street. Three statements were entered into the record from neighbors. Two of the three had no objection, but a third was entered as opposing the variance. Anthony Risch 4780 South Mariposa Drive was sworn in for testimony. In response to the possible obstruction of traffic because of the garage, Mr . Risch said the design of the garage would be level wit h the street , have a flat roof, and meet the drainage requirements. He responded to the concern about the proposed placement of the garage by commenting that it was more cost-effective versus an alter- native location on the property. Chairman Welker asked if there were any further speakers for or against the variance. Mrs. Romans stated that the resident at 4801 South Lipan Street had called her to express an objection to the proposed project/garage. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-2 H OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, MINIMUM FRONT YARD IN THE R-1-A, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITH A FRONT SETBACK OF 6 FEET AT THE POINT CLOSEST TO THE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK . Ms. Shaffer seconded the motion. Further discussion continued when Board member Waldman expressed his concern about acting on the req uest at this time and suggested a postponement of the case until the applicant submitted a plan of the garage . His suggestion was made so visual aspects co uld be considered as to how the placement and con- struction of the garage would affect drivers and pedestrians. Upon the motio n by Bo ard member Waldman to table the case, no second wasver- bal ized, and the Chairman proceeded with the vote on the original motion. Board Members were asked to lock in their votes and to give their findings. Mr. Seymour voted against the request because it did not meet any of the five(S) requirements of Section 16.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Ms. George concurred . - 4 - • • • Ms. Lighthall objected, stating the corner of Layton and Mariposa was a poten- tially hazardous corner due to a blind spot for both driver and pedestrians . Ms. Dunn voted no because the variance failed to meet the requirements for public safety and welf~re. Ms. Shaffer voted yes stating the minimum variance possible would grant the applicant relief. Mr. Waldman voted no maintaining the proposal would not adequately secure the public safety and welfare. Mr. Welker voted yes taking the stance that the variance would not adversely affect the property or neighborhood. When the votes were displayed, the decision was 5 members against the variance, and 2 for the variance; the Chairman announced the request was denied. DIRECTORS CHOICE Mrs. Romans introduced Cathie Mahon to the Board members as the new Recording Secretary. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary -5 -