Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-10 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO OCTOBER 10, 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 September 12, 1990 be approved as written. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of September 12, 1990, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Board Member Lighthall moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #12-90, Shanna Duke of 3996 South Bannock, and Case #13-90, Ronald Steen of 3396 West Grand Avenue, be approved as written. Board Member Shaffer seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #14-90: 1102 West Oxford Place The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #14-90, 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 that the staff verified the posting. The Chairman asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Romans, Planning Administrator, was sworn in for testimony. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs . Leonard Bei rl e, owners of the property at 1102 West Oxford Place, request a variance to construct a carport adjoining an attached garage, which would encroach two (2) feet into the minimum required side yard setback and reduce the total side yard setback from 10 feet to 9 - 1 - • feet. This is a variance from Section 1~-4-4-I,1 of the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code, as amended. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Leonard Beirle, 1102 West Oxford Place was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Bei rl e stated that the variance was requested so that he could construct a carport adjoining his existing, attached garage. Mr. Bei rl e stated that the proposed carport would be approximately 1 foot, 8 inches from his east property line, and there would be 7 feet, 6 inches between his house and the neighbors house, for a total of 9 feet 2 inches between the principal dwellings. Mr. Beirle described the proposed carport, stating the dimensions would 10 feet by 18 feet, it would have a Fiberglass top, and there would be an 8 inch trim around the edge of the rooftop. Mr. Beirle stated three 4 X 4 columns would be spaced approximately 7 feet apart to support the Fiberglass top. The issue of the requirement of fire-rated walls was discussed if the carport was enclosed. Mr. Beirle explained the carport would be open on three sides, but that he would do whatever was necessary to comply with the U.B.C. requirements. Mr. Beirle submitted statements from three neighbors for the record verifying that they had no objection to the proposed carport. There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or against the variance; The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #14-90, THAT LEONARD M. AND DOROTHY M. BEIRLE OF 1102 WEST OXFORD PLACE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT ADJOINING AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, WHICH WOULD ENCROACH TWO (2) FEET INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF THREE (3) FEET AND TO REDUCE THE TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 9 FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4-I,l OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE . Board Member George seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating that with no opposition from the neighbors and other conditions being met, the variance should be granted. Ms. George voted "yes" stating her concern had been that the proposed carport would be too close to the neighbors east of the property line; and that with their approval given by signing the statement stating they have no opposition, it seemed sufficient for granting the variance . Ms. Lighthall voted in favor of the variance stating it met the conditions necessary for granting a variance. Ms. Shaffer voted "yes" stating that the variance would not have any adverse effects on the neighborhood. -2 - • • • • • • Ms. Cohn voted "yes" because the neighbors affected by the encroachment of the carport into the sideyard, did not object . Mr. Waldman voted "yes" stating he concurred with the reasons the other Board members stated. Mr. Welker voted "yes" also concurring with reasons previously stated . When the votes were displayed, a 11 seven members had voted in favor of the variance. The Chairman announced the variance was granted, with a reminder to Mr. Beirle that he must file for a permit and begin work, within the 6-month time frame that the variance is active. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #15-90: 4646 South Mariposa Drive The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #15-90, stating he had proof of publishing and posting and asked the staff to identify the request. Dorothy Romans Planning Administrator stated the app 1 icant, Mr. Arvi d Rhoads, requests a variance to Section 16-4-2,M,2-d of the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code, which Section establishes the maximum total floor area of a storage shed at 100 square feet, in order to install a 288 square foot Tuff Shed in their rear yard, which shed exceeds the maximum square footage. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony . Arvid Rhoads, owner of 4646 South Mariposa Drive was sworn in for testimony. He began by explaining that the shed was contracted with the Tuff Shed Company, that it was installed in June, and that he has paid Tuff Shed in full. In August when he went to the Building Department, he was told that Tuff Shed had failed to obtain the necessary permit for the work. At that time he was told by Planning and Zoning and the Building Department, that his shed exceeded the allowable footage as defined in both the Uniform Building Code, and the Englewood Municipal Code. Mr. Rhoads stated he was not aware that the maximum total floor area for a shed was 100 square feet when he contracted with Tuff Shed for the 288 square foot shed. Mr. Rhoads stated during this procedure he was advised that to avoid tearing down the new shed, he could apply for a variance from the requirements of the Englewood Municipal Code by appearing before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mr. Rhoads stated the structure of the shed met with Building Department; but that the Building Department permit until approval for the variance was documented. that the plans were stamped by an engineer. approval from the would not issue a He further cited Mr. Rhoads submitted for the record the statements of three (3) neighbors documenting no opposition to the variance . -3 - Discussion followed. There were no speakers present for or against the request for a variance . The Chairman made the Staff Report part of the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #15-90, ARVID RHOADS OF 4646 SOUTH MARIPOSA DRIVE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2,M,2-d, OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH SECTION ESTABLISHES THE MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF A STORAGE SHED AT 100 SQUARE FEET, IN ORDER TO INSTALL A 288 SQUARE FOOT TUFF SHED IN THE REAR YARD. Ms. Lighthall seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating that the lot was three times the normal lot size and that the shed did not look out of place or overbearing; and that there were no objections from neighbors. Ms. George voted "yes" for the variance stating that allowing the over-sized shed would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Ms. Li ghtha 11 voted "yes" stating the size of the shed was in proportion to the enormous lot and noted that with the 75 foot frontage and fencing around the lot, that the shed is out of view, and cannot be seen from Mariposa Drive. Ms. Shaffer voted "yes" stating the shed structurally met with the building codes and that granting the variance would afford minimal relief to the applicant. Ms. Cohn voted for the variftnce stating consideration for allowing the over-size shed was practical and observes the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Waldman voted "yes" stating he concurred. Mr. Welker voted "yes" stating the larger lot is consistent with allowing the over-size storage shed and that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood. When the votes were displayed, a 11 seven members had voted for the motion. The Chairman announced the variance granted. DIRECTORS CHOICE: Mrs. Romans directed the Board's attention to several attachments that were included in their packet: a copy from the City Council on the ordinance changing the required ceiling heights, and a copy of the draft of the Housing Task Report which is proposed to go into the Comprehensive Plan. Applications for reappointment were distributed to Ms. Cohn, Mr. Seymour, and Mr. Welker, whose terms expire in February of 1991. -4 - • •• • • • . . • Mrs. Romans announced to the Board that no applications were received for review in November. This being the case, the members of the Board agreed that the meeting scheduled for November 14th would be canceled. Mrs. Romans concluded by informing the Board that she had talked with Shanna Duke's fiance, Mr. Laurienti, concerning Case #12-90, pertaining to a greenhouse being built on the vacant lot at 4000 South Bannock. Mr. laurienti said they needed more space for their hobbies so they are considering making arrangements to reside in the mountains, and will rent their house at 3996 South Bannock Street. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: The DRCOG seminar, November 9, 1990, was discussed and the three members expressing an interest in attending were: Ms. Cohn, Ms . Shaffer and Mr. Seymour. Mr . Welker said he would be an alternate if anyone of the three were unable to attend. Mrs. Romans approached the podium to address inquiries on the status of the "derelict vehicle" ordinance proposed by the City Council. She stated that the ordinance is currently being reviewed considering legal technicalities by Mr. Brotzman. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m . Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary -5 -