Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-12 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO SEPTEMBER 12, 1990 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. Shaffer, Cohn, 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 August 8, 1990 be approved as written. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of August 8, 1990, were approved as written . APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Board Member Lighthall moved that the Findings of Fact for the annual review of the variance granted for car repair at 3229 1/2 South Lincoln Street, be approved as written. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact approved. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #12-90: 4000 South Bannock Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #12-90, stating the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance 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. Dorothy Romans, Planning Administrator, was sworn in for testimony. Mrs. Romans stated that Shanna Duke, owner of 3996 South Bannock Street, had filed a request for a variance from the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code, from Section 16-4-4 B, Permitted Principal Use, in order to construct a private greenhouse on the 25 by 125 foot vacant lot at 4000 South Bannock Street. - 1 - The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Shanna Duke 3996 South Bannock Street was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she and her fiance, Rick Lauri ent i, purchased the lot across the street to the south of their present residence about six weeks ago with the idea of building a greenhouse. Initially they had entertained the idea of erecting a greenhouse in the back of their present residence at 3996 South Bannock Street, but the greenhouse would exceed the maximum 40% lot coverage. Ms. Duke explained their intention of purchasing the lot was twofold. She explained it had been a dream of hers to have a greenhouse and that the size and location of the lot was ideal for fulfilling her dream. The second reason, Ms. Duke explained, was that the substandard lot was not a suitable size to build a single-family house, and therefore had remained vacant for years, thus creating an eyesore in the neighborhood . Ms. Duke said they would maintain the lot by mowing and keeping the weeds under control. Ms. Duke concluded that she felt the lot had always been a "weed plantation" and that the proposed greenhouse would be an improvement to the property and neighborhood. Ms. Duke said her long range plan was to eventually sell produce grown in the greenhouse to the public. • Ms. Duke submitted statements from three neighbors for the record • verifying that they had no objection to the proposed greenhouse. . The Chairman asked if there were further. speakers for or against the appeal . Ruth Houpt 4001 South Acoma Street was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Houpt stated that she had lived at 4001 South Acoma for 24 years, and was elated that something was going to be done with the vacant lot. She testified that the vacant lot had always been a weed problem in the neighborhood and that she was encouraged by Ms . Duke's purchase of it so that it would be maintained. She added that she was of the opinion that the greenhouse as proposed, would be an improvement to the neighborhood and to the property. There were no other speakers in favor of the request. The Chairman asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak in opposition to the application. Charles Egloff 3837 South Acoma Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Egloff testified that his wife owns and rents the house at 4015 South Bannock Street. He stated that both he and his wife were in opposition to the request for numerous reasons . - 2 - • • • • Mr. Egloff briefed the Board on the issues of why, in his opinion, the request should not be granted: 1) That the request was not harmonious to the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. 2) That the greenhouse would not be in conformance with the Single-family zoning for the R-1-C Zone District. 3) That there would be an increase in pedestrian and vehicle traffic generated by the proposed business. 4) That the greenhouse would lower real estate value. 5) That there were be an increase in the consumption of water. 6) That the use of pesticides would have an environmental impact. 7) That the parcel of 1 and is substandard and does not meet the requirements for a building. Ms . Lighthall, after Mr. Egloff's testimony, addressed him stating that in her opinion, some of the issues he discussed were beyond the consideration of the Board, such as water consumption, and the environmental issue of pesticides. The Chairman asked the applicant to approach the podium for further discussion. Shanna Duke approached the podium to answer some of the Board's concerns. She answered that she was aware that if she sold produce from the greenhouse that the business would be considered a Home Occupation. Ms. Duke described for the Board, the proposed designs of three diffe r ent greenhouses being considered. Ms. Duke pointed out that the dimensions would be 15 feet wide , 70 to 75 feet long, and 10 feet high. In reply to the Board 's concern about aesthetics and materials used, Ms. Duke said the greenhouse would be aesthetically pleasing, and the construction would be of high quality materials such as redwood and acrylic plastic. The three greenhouse designs, Exhibits l, 2,and 3, considered by Ms. Duke, were circulated for the Board's review. Ms. Duke reported to the Board that she was an organic gardener and would not being using pesticides. She added that she would be using the "drip water" method of watering plants to conserve water. There were no other speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report in to the record of the Public Hearing. Discussion followed pertaining to the change of ownership of the property if the variance were granted. The Board requested a member of the staff approach the podium. - 3 - Dorothy Romans • Planning Administrator approached the podium. Mrs. Romans answered the Board's concern about the Variance should the owner/applicant Shanna Duke move, sell the property, or become unable to maintain the greenhouse. Mrs. Romans said that normally the variance goes with the property; but that if the Board wished to, they could specify that the variance runs with the owner as a condition in their motion. Mrs. Romans indicated that the Board could make a provision in the condition that the greenhouse be dismantled, if Ms. Duke discontinued use of the greenhouse. Mrs. Romans was asked to define the Home Occupation regulations. She answered that there cannot be other employees, that Ms. Duke would be the only individual selling produce grown in the greenhouse or on her premises . Mrs. Romans added that only a one square foot sign is permissible for advertising the Home Occupation. Mrs . Romans cl ari fi ed that the 25 foot lot was a substandard single-family lot since houses can not be constructed on less than a 37 1/2 foot lot. Mrs. Romans noted that Ms . Duke had stated she would abide by the requirements for the R-1-C Zone, observing the total side yard setback of 10 feet, with 5 feet on either side, and the 25 foot front and rear yard requirements. Mrs. Romans clarified for the Board that the issue to be decided for th i s application, as it was filed, was whether or not a greenhouse could be • permitted as a principal use on the vacant lot at 4000 South Bannock Street; not if a Home Occupation is permitted on that site. In response to a question Mrs. Romans stated that in her opinion, a variance would not have been necessary if a residential garage were built on the lot by the owners. Since the lot is not contiguous to their residence, it was determined in conversation with the Assist ant City Attorney, that the variance was necessary to construct the requested greenhouse . There was no further test i many. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing for Case #12-90 . BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #12-90 AT 4000 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FROM THE 1985 E.M.C., SECTION 16-4-4 B, PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A PRIVATE GREENHOUSE ON THE 25 FOOT BY 125 FOOT VACANT LOT, AND TO SELL PRODUCE THEREFROM. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion fo 11 owed, with confusion expressed by some of the Board members concerning what the variance exactly entailed. Mr . Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney, approached the Board, clarifying the request before them. Mr. Brotzman advised the Board that the consideration at hand was whether or not to grant a variance for a greenhouse to be constructed on the lot, which structure is other than what the property is zoned for. Mr. Brotzman explained to the Board that they were considering the question of: "will - 4 - • • • • you allow a greenhouse which is other than a Permitted Principal Use for that zone, on that lot?". Mrs. Romans Planning Administrator reiterated that because the property is a substandard 25 foot lot, that a single-family dwelling would not be allowed on the parcel, and the consideration for the Board was to determine if a greenhouse would be permitted, given the circumstances that have been established. Discussion continued focusing on what the primary use of this property would be. Board Member Welker questioned whether or not by permitting development on this 25 foot lot would preclude in the future combining this 25 lot with the three adjoining lots to the south to make two 50 foot building sites. Board Member Welker stated, that in his opinion, if the variance was allowed, that the property would be principally used as a commercial business in a residential zone district. Board Member Cohn stated that allowing the greenhouse in a residential area would not be a permitted use, since the concern present was one of introducing a business into a residential neighborhood. Ms. Cohn added that the greenhouse was not the only apparent use for the property, adding that the property could be used as a playground or a garden. Board Member Seymour read the 5 factors 'from Section 16.2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, stating that if the variance was allowed, he was of the opinion that the Board would virtually be changing the zoning by allowing a greenhouse business in a residential neighborhood. Board Member Shaffer commented on the area being a conglomeration of mixed uses with the different lot sizes, and the block comprised of both apartments and single-family. After lengthy discussion, the Chairman suggested that the motion be amended. Board Member Waldman agreed to amend the motion for Case #12-90 to read: THAT A VARIANCE FROM THE 1985 E.M.C., SECTION 16-4-4 B, PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE, TO CONSTRUCT A GREENHOUSE ON THE VACANT LOT AT 4000 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, BE GRANTED TO SHANNA DUKE OF 3996 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCE rs GRANTED ONLY TO MS. DUKE, AND ONLY AS LONG AS SHE RESIDES AT 3996 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET. All members voted in favor of the amendment, and the Chairman ruled the motion amended as read. The members locked in their votes, and gave findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted ''no" stating the variance did not meet all the requirements as stated in Section 16.2 and that there was a protest from a neighbor. Ms. George voted "yes" stating that the proposed greenhouse would be a reasonable use and an improvement versus the weeds on the vacant lot. - 5 - Ms. Lighthall voted "yes" stating anything over the weeds would be an improvement and the greenhouse would eliminate the eyesore. Ms. Shaffer voted "yes" explaining she voted for the variance for the greenhouse because due to the unusual size of the lot, it appeared the greenhouse would be the most appropriate use and would probably upgrade the neighborhood. Ms. Cohn stated she voted "no" on the merit that granting the variance would increase traffic, that there are other uses for the property, that it would be less attractive for developing the adjacent lots, and that it is not a reasonable use to put a commercial greenhouse in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Waldman voted "yes" stating the proposed greenhouse appeared more as a hobby venture and not as a commercial greenhouse, and that it would not create that much traffic with one person operating the business. Mr. Welker voted "no" stating he realized the lot was an eyesore for the neighborhood but that the condition of granting a variance to one particular person with the stipulation that should the owner become uninvolved with the property, could turn into a degenerative situation. When the votes were displayed, 4 members voted for the motion, and three members voted against the motion. The Chairman ruled the appeal was denied . The Chairman called for a short recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with the same persons present. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #13-90 3396 WEST GRAND AVENUE The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #13-90, ~tating he had proof of publishing and posting, and asked the staff to identify the request. Dorothy Romans Planning Administrator reported that Mr. Ronald J. Steen of 3396 West Grand Avenue, filed a request for a variance to construct a garage which would encroach four (4) feet into the minimum side yard setback and to reduce the total side yard setback from 18 feet to 14 feet. The request is a variance from Section 16-4-2-1,1 of the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code, as amended. Ronald J. Steen owner of 3996 West Grand Avenue. was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Steen explained that he has resided at the residence for 32 years, and is the original owner of the house. He expressed his desire to enclose his carport and convert it into a garage to take some of the cars off the street and protect them from the weather. Mr. Steen stated that he would build the garage so it would be harmonious with the other houses in the neighborhood. - 6 - • • • • • • There were no further questions, and no speakers for or against the variance . The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO MR. RONALD J. STEEN OF 3996 WEST GRAND AVENUE, TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE WHICH WOULD ENCROACH FOUR ( 4) FEET INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED . SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TO REDUCE THE TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 18 FEET TO 14 FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2-I, 1 OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, AS AMENDED. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating the proposed garage seemed like an improvement for the applicant in order for him to house his miscellaneous vehicles. Ms. George voted ''yes" explaining that the variance met all the conditions for granting a variance. Ms. Lighthall voted "yes" for the reasons previously stated. Ms. Shaffer voted "yes" for the reasons previously stated. Ms. Cohn voted "yes" for the reasons previously stated . Mr. Waldman voted "yes" stating the variance would not jeopardize the spirit of the neighborhood and that the proposed garage would give the applicant some relief for housing his vehicles. Mr. Welker voted ''yes" stating the variance meets the conditions for granting a variance. When the votes were di sp 1 ayed, a 11 seven members had voted in favor of the motion. The Chairman announced the variance was granted, with a reminder to Mr. Steen that he must file for a permit and begin work within the 6-month time frame. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans announced to the Board that the Director of Community Development, Rich Wanush, feels that funds are available to send three (3) members of the Board to a training seminar offered by DRCOG and the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association on November 17th. Chairman Welker advised the members to consider attending and that three members will be decided upon at the October 10th meeting. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE None . - 7 - BOARD'S CHOICE Board Member Lighthall express concern about the status of previous cases coming before the Board, having a variance granted, and then not doing the work. The staff will keep the Board up to date on the status of the cases. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon Recording Secretary - 8 - • • •