Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-09 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO SEPl'EMBER 9, 1992 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairperson Cohn at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Seymour, George, Smith, Cohn, Clayton, and Waldman. Welker. Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator The Chairperson stated that with six members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. She stated the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Seymour moved that the minutes of August 12, 1992, be approved as written. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. All six members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of August 12, 1992, be approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT: Board Member Waldman moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #13- 92, Dan Fout for 4185 South Huron Street; Case #14-92, David Brandon for 550 East Eastman Avenue, and Case #15-92, Brice Mercord for 3028 South Pennsylvania Street, be approved as written. Board Member George seconded the motion. All six members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact be approved as written. REHEARING FOR CASE #11-92: Chairperson Cohn stated she had proof of publication and posting . Ms. Cohn explained that the reason for the rehearing was to give Mr. Johnson the opportunity to introduce new evidence other than the testimony and evidence heard at the June 10, 1992, Public Hearing. Robert Johnson 4675 South Inca Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Johnson submitted for the record twelve (12) letters from his neighbors stating they have no objection to his oversize shed. Mr. Johnson submitted photographs to assist in illustrating that the basement was utilized for sleeping quarters, recreation, and laundry; and stated that because the basement was used for living quarters by his family, there was not space for storing his power tools and garden tools. Mr. Johnson concluded that using the basement for .storage is not an option; that in his opinion the shed would not be detrimental to the neighborhood as reflected by his neighbors statements; and that he would remove the metal shed. Harold Stitt Planning Advisor was requested by the Board to approach the podium. Mr. Stitt stated that the proliferation of sheds on single family lots • was not monitored until the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a provision limiting storage sheds to one per single · family lot, and that the floor area not exceed 100 square feet. Mr. Stitt stated it was the intent of the ordinance to monitor use and size of accessory buildings in the rear of the property for single family lots, and that there was nothing in the ordinance relative to oversize lots. Mr. Stitt advised the Board that their consideration for the variance request was to determine if Mr. Johnson is allowed to have twice the floor area for a shed that other properties in that particular zone would not be allowed. BOARD MEMBER SMITH MADE A MOTION THAT ROBERT JOHNSON FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4675 SOUTH INCA STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION l6-4-2:M,2,b. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES, IN ORDER TO PERMIT AN OVERSIZED SHED WITH TWO CONDITIONS: 1. THAT NO GARAGE BE ALLOWED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS LONG AS THE SUBJECT SHED IS PRESENT. 2. THAT THE METAL SHED BE REMOVED. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. 2 • • • • Discussion ensued with questions concerning the definitions of accessory uses and accessory structures, and the building requirements and differences for sheds and garages. In order to allow the staff advisor to consult the Uniform Building Code for answers to the questions from the Board, the Chairperson called for a short recess at 8:20 p.m. The Chairperson reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. with the same persons present. Mr. Stitt Staff Advisor approached the podium. Mr. Stitt stated according to the U.B.C. a permit is required for any shed in excess of 120 square feet. Mr. Stitt explained that the U.B.C. addresses construction differences for sheds and garages, stating that garages require fire rated walls and that floor surfaces shall be of non-combustible material, whereas sheds do not. There were no further speakers for or against the variance request. Discussion ensued. Board Member Clayton made a motion to amend the original motion to include a third condition: 3. THAT THE SHED MEET BUILDING CODES. Board Member Smith agreed to the amended motion to include the third condition. The Chairperson incorporated the Staff Report, photographs, and neighbors statements into the record and closed the Public Hearing. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact: Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating there was neighborhood solidarity in having no objection to the variance request. Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating that in his opinion allowing the oversized shed will not adversely affect the neighborhood, and that requiring Mr. Johnson to remove the shed would create peculiar and unpractical difficulties. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating in his opinion the request presented an exceptional situation, and that he concurred with the conditions attached to the motion. Board Member George voted "yes" stating in her opinion the request meets the five conditions for granting a variance . 3 Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating in his opinion the property is exceptional. Chairperson Cohn voted "yes" stating she agreed that approving the request meets the criteria for granting a variance. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted in the affirmative 6-0. The Chairperson announced the variance as granted and directed the applicant to proceed with applying for the appropriate permit with the Building and Safety Division. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE fl6-92: 3731 South Cherokee street The Chairperson opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of publication and posting. Harold Stitt Planning Administrator was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt identified the request stating the applicant, Steve Hamlin, for the property at 3731 South Cherokee Street, was requesting a variance from Section 16-4-4:M,1. c. Accessory Buildings and Permitted Accessory Uses, in order to construct a carport which would encroach · into the side yard setback. Steve Hamlin 3731 South Cherokee Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Hamlin testified that he was requesting an encroachment into the south side yard setback in order to construct a carport which would abut three feet into the side yard of the property, and that at the same time he would repair the deteriorating retaining wall. Mr. Hamlin explained that initially he had planned to utilize the retaining wall on the south property line as support for the proposed carport but after further information concerning encroaching onto his neighbor's property, he revised his plans. Mr. Hamlin submitted for the record ~n exhibit to assist in illustrating his proposal. Mr. Hamlin entered into the record statements from two neighbors stating they have no objection to the proposed carport. Mr. Hamlin concluded that there is a garage in the rear of the property but that it is too small to house his truck, and that the proposed carport would allow for housing his truck from the elements. 4 • • • •• • • Brent Ward 3755 South Cherokee was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Ward stated he is the property owner to the south of the subject property. Mr. Ward stated his concern about drainage from the proposed carport roof, and falling onto his driveway which abuts the retaining wall. With no further speakers for or against the request, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing incorporating the staff report, exhibit, and neighbor's statements into the record. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #16-92, THAT STEVE HAMLIN FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3731 SOUTH CHEROKEE STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4- 4:M,1. c. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED CARPORT WHICH WOULD ENCROACH THREE FEET INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. Board Member George seconded the motion. Discussion ensued as to whether or not alternatives were available for the applicant. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor was asked by the Board to explain the reason for side yard setbacks. Mr. Stitt stated the reasons for side yard setback requirements is two-fold: one is to allow for a visual break between structures, and the other reason is to provide fire protection between structures. The members locked in their votes and gave their Findings of Fact. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating in his opinion the lot is not exceptional, and that testimony from the owner of the adjacent property showed concern about the drainage from the proposed carport to the adjacent property. Board Member George voted "yes" stating in her opinion the request does .meet the five requirements for granting a variance. Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating he concurred with the reasons stated by other Board Members. Board Member Seymour stated he voted "yes" because of the response from the neighbors stating they had no objection to the request. Board Member Waldman voted "no" stating in his opinion there is nothing exceptional about the property, that there are alternatives, and that the applicant could not guarantee snow would not drift onto the neighbors driveway . 5 Chairperson Cohn stated she voted "no" because in her op1n1on there could be a problem with snow drifting off the carport roof, and that the setback requirement should be observed. When the votes were displayed, three meinbers voted in the affirmative, with three members voting against the motion. The Chairperson announced the variance request as denied. STAFF ADVISORS CHOICE: Mr. Stitt explained that Case #17-92 was included on the agenda but had been withdrawn. CITY ATTORNEYS CHOICE: None. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: None. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary 6 • • •