Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-11 BAA MINUTES-' • • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO March 11, 1992 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:35 p.m. Members present: Seymour, Smith, Cohn, Clayton, Waldman, and Welker. Members absent: George. Also present: Harold Stitt, Staff Advisor Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney The Chairman stated that with six members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. He 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 January 8, 1992 be approved as written. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. Four members voted in favor of the motion, with the new members (Mr. Smith and Mr. Clayton) abstaining. The Chairman ruled the Minutes of January 8, 1992, approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for the rehearing of Case #21-91, Mr. Rafael Juarez, for 4734 South Bannock Street, be approved as written . Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. Four members voted in favor of the motion, with the new members abstaining. The Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact be approved as written. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. Upon the vote on nominations duly made and seconded, Board Member Welker was re-elected as Chairman, and Board Member Cohn as Vice-Chairman . - 1 - PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #1-92: 1045 West Stanford Drive The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting and explained the procedure of the meeting, stating that for the variances at hand, the City Staff would identify the request, and the applicant and those that wish to speak would then have the opportunity to be heard. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt identified the case stating the applicant for the subject property at 1045 West Stanford Drive, was requesting a variance from Section 16-4-2:M,l,d,2. which states that storage sheds shall be located in the rear yard of the property. Mr. Stitt explained that Mr. Kermmoade was requesting a variance to place his storage shed in the side yard of his property. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward. William Kermmoade 1045 West Stanford Drive , • was sworn in for testimony. Mr. 1 Kermmoade testified that he replaced an old metal shed with a used 8 foot by 12 foot wooden shed, placing it in the identical side yard location. Mr. Kermmoade explained he placed it in the side yard because of the City Ditch which crosses the rear of his property and because of the slope of his back yard. Mr. Kermmoade concluded that in his opinion, the rear of his property was not conducive • to the placement of the shed in that area. The Chairman asked if there were further speakers for or against the variance request. Duane Grasser 1050 West Stanford Drive was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Grasser stated that he resides directly across from the subject property and stated that in his opinion the subject shed was an eyesore, that it downgrades the neighborhood, and that having the shed in the neighborhood depreciates his property. Mr . Grasser concluded that he would not object if the shed were to be placed in the rear of the yard. Hugh Watson 1030 West Stanford Drive was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Watson testified that he opposed the variance request and was also of the opinion that the shed was an eyesore. - 2 - • • • • Verlon Creed 950 West Stanford Drive was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Creed testified that he opposed the shed and that he was of the same opinion previously expressed by his neighbors, that the shed devalues the other properties in the neighborhood. Mr . Creed entered into the record six (6) photographs to assist with illustrating the placement of the shed on the side yard of the property. William Kermmoade 1045 West Stanford Drive was asked to approach the podium to address questions from the Board. Mr. Kermmoade stated that the new 8' X 12' shed replaced a deteriorating 5' by 10' metal shed; and that the new shed was placed in the identical side yard area because of limited rear yard footage due to the City Ditch which crosses the rear of his property. The Staff Advisor was asked to approach the podium. Mr. Stitt Staff Advisor Mr. Stitt clarified that a building permit would be required if a storage shed exceeded 120 square feet; and that the Zoning Ordinance states the maximum size of a storage shed is 100 square feet. Mr . Stitt stated a building permit was not necessary because Mr. Kermmoade's shed is 96 square feet . Mr. Stitt discussed the topographical problems involved with placing the shed in the rear yard stating the rear yard depth is limited due to the sloping of the yard towards the City Ditch. There were no other speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report and photographs into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SMITH MADE A MOTION FOR CASE #1-92, THAT MR. KERMMOADE OF 1045 WEST STANFORD AVENUE BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:M,l,d,2. OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH SECTION STATES STORAGE SHEDS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE REAR OF THE LOT; IN ORDER THAT A STORAGE SHED BE PERMITTED IN THE SIDE YARD AND THAT THE SHED SHALL BE PAINTED A SINGLE COLOR. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Di scussion ensued. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating he was of the opinion that the request did not meet the conditions for granting the variance . - 3 ._ Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating that because of the abnormal configuration of the lot, the shed should be able to remain in the side yard; • and that if the shed was painted in one solid color it might not be considered an eyesore. Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating she was of the opinion that the shed should be placed according to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regulations. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating he was of the opinion that the request did not demonstrate a hardship and that the shed should be placed in the appropriate location on the property as specified by the Zoning Ordinance. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating because of the City Ditch and the limited rear yard, that enforcing the regulation to place the shed in the rear of the property would result in "peculiar and undue practical difficulties" for Mr. Kermmoade. Chairman Welker voted "no" stating he was of the opinion that there were alternatives for placing the shed other than its present location and that testimony from the opposition clearly demonstrated that it would adversely affect the neighborhood. When the votes were displayed, four members voted against the variance with two members: Mr. Smith and Mr. Waldman voting in favor of the variance. Chairman Welker announced the variance was denied and directed Mr. Kermmoade to bring the shed into compliance. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #2-92: 3211 South Broadway The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #2-92, stating he had proof of publishing and posting and asked the staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated the request was filed by Mr. Hakim Karaki, the lessee for the business located at 3211 South Broadway, and that the property owner was John Forst of 1294 South Crystal Way, Aurora, Colorado. He stated the request was for a variance from Section 16-4-12:E,3. Motor Vehicle Repair, in order to operate a non-painting automotive body shop in the B-2 Business District. Charles Zeitz Attorney for the applicant 11616 East Cedar Avenue Aurora, Colorado stated that in his opinion the body shop would have a low impact on the neighborhood because of similar use businesses in the area such as a machine shop, the sales of used automobiles, gas stations, and car washes. Mr. Zeitz added that the applicant had contacted numerous businesses within the area and found no objections to the variance request. - 4 - • • • • • Mr. Zeitz explained that any noise generated from the body shop would not affect anyone because of the separation between the subject business and the adjacent building; that the building was basically obsolete except for the use of auto repair; and that the building had been vacant since Kearns Jeep vacated the property. Mr. Zeitz concluded that in his opinion he thought it would be better for the City to have the building occupied, and generate some taxes. Harim Karaki 3211 South Broadway Lessee for H & J Enterprises was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Karaki used the drawing board to illustrate for the Board a sketch of the property, outlined the parking within the lot for his employees, and stated the building could accommodate twenty {20) vehicles. Mr. Karaki explained that the majority of their work involved framework for cars, but added that they also do detailing for resale vehicles. Mr. Karaki entered into the record the statements from six {6) owners of businesses in the area stating they have no opposition to the request. Mr. Karaki concluded by assuring the Board that there would be no outside storage; all work would be conducted within the building; and that there is ample parking within the lot for his employees cars. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor approached the podium. He answered 'questions concerning the differences between the B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts. Mr. Stitt explained that the B-1 Business District does not allow any automobile repair; whereas in the B-2 Zone District, Automotive Repair, such as the mechanical or tune-up of vehicles is permitted. He stated that major repairs, painting, body and fender work are specifically prohibited in the B-2 Zone District. Mr. Stitt stated that auto body work and collision repair are considered to be more typical of the uses in the industrial zones. Mr. Stitt concluded that testimony verified that collision repair would be conducted by H. & J. Enterprises at the subject property at 3211 South Broadway; and that the ordinance specifically prohibits that use in the B-2 Business District. There were no further speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report and the statements from adjacent business owners into the record and closed the Public Hearing . BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION THAT IN CASE 2-92, THAT THE APPLICANT, HAKIM KARAKI, LESSEE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3211 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-12:E,3. MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR, TO OPERATE A NON-PAINTING AUTO BODY REPAIR SHOP. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion . Discussion ensued as to whether or not an annual review of the property should be placed on the motion. - 5 - Chairman Welker moved that the motion be amended to include an annual review of the business. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion to amend. All members voiced in favor of the amended motion. Discussion ensued on the motion as amended. Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney approached the podium. He addressed the Board clarifying that the variance should be stated as follows: " ... granted for a period of one-year, contingent upon annual review." The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings of fact: Board Member Smith voted "no" stating in his opinion the property could be used for other uses as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating that the building is exceptional, has existed for auto repair for a period of time, and that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating that granting the variance met all the conditions such as the building being unique; that it was specifically constructed for vehicle repair use; that the business observes the spirit of the Ordinance, and that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood or impair the adjacent property as reflective of the businesses in the area and their statements of approval. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating auto body repair was the best use for the property. Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating he concurred with previous statements. Board Member Welker voted "yes" stating that the use for the property is consistent with other businesses in the area, and with the design and function of the property. When the votes were displayed, five members voted in the affirmative with one member, Mr. Smith, opposing the variance. The Chairman called for a short recess at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with all members present. -6 - • • • • • • PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #3-92: 3163 South Pennsylvania Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting. Board Member Cohn advised the Chairman that she wished to step down because of a conflict of interest in this matter. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated that the applicant and property owner, Ms. Michaela Kohler, who resides at 3427 South Emerson Street, was requesting a variance to split the existing seventy-five (75) foot lot at 3163 South Pennsylvania Street into two substandard lots measuring 40.7 feet and 34.3 feet; for the purpose of moving the house from 3427 South Emerson onto the larger of the two lots. This would be a variance from Section 16-4-4:C,l. Minimum Lot Area which states there shall be no less than 6,000 square feet in lot area in the R-1-C Single-family Residence District; Section 16-4-4:F,l. Minimum Lot Frontage which states there shall be no less than 50-foot frontage of a lot in the R-1-C Zoned District; and Section 16-4-4:1,1. which requires a total of 10 feet, Minimum Side Yard, in the R-1-C Single Family residential zone district of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony . Michaela Kohler 3427 South Emerson Street was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Kohler testified she has resided ·at 3427 South Emerson Street since 1954 but due to the extensive building and development of Swedish Medical Center, that the area is no longer a pleasant place to live. Ms. Kohler explained that Swedish Medical Center and Craig Rehabilitation Hospital owns all the property surrounding her residence. Ms. Kohler stated she recently sold the subject property to Swedish with the stipulation that she be allowed to move the house to the property she owns at 3163 South Pennsylvania Street. Ms. Kohler submitted for the record nine (9) statements from neighbors stating they have no opposition to the variance. Ms. Kohler also entered into the record photographs to assist with illustrating the subject house on South Emerson Street, the small house on 3163 South Pennsylvania Street and the vacant area adjoining it (which would become known as 3167 South Pennsylvania Street). Ms . Kohler concluded with stating that she has placed both sentimental and monetary value in the house; that she does not want the house destroyed; and that in her opinion the house would increase housing value in the area and increase taxes. The Chairman asked if there were further speakers for or against the variance. Roger Kohler brother of the applicant 3125 South Lafayette, Englewood, - 7 - was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Kohler explained they did get bids to move the house from the present location to the 3163 South Pennsylvania Street location. Mr. Kohler stated that he felt the house was worth • saving and that the total output of the move and bringing it up to housing code standards would amount to approximately $25,000. Mr. Kohler concluded that there were nine neighbors that had stated they did not oppose the variance request. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers for or against the variance in the audience. Rhoda Jungst 3175 South Pennsylvania Street was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Jungst stated that she opposed moving a house onto property that already had an existing house, and that in her opinion placing the house on the lot would create a crowded appearance within the neighborhood; that having the substandard lots would affect the property value(s) in the area, and that the placement of the house so close to her residence would be a negative factor whenever she decided to sell her house. Ms. Jungst submitted for the record sixteen (16) signatures from residents in the neighborhood stating they opposed the variance request. Five letters from residents who had originally signed statements for Ms. Kohler, were submitted for the record stating they were withdrawing their support of Michaela Kohler's application on the grounds they were not informed of the Zoning Codes, and the three variances requested. Ms. Jungst stated several of her reasons for opposing the variance(s): that moving the house on the existing lot would create a smaller than normal lot; that parking was not discussed and is an issue as there already exists parking problems; and countered Ms. Kohler's testimony that the brick house would blend into the neighborhood, when in fact most of the homes were wood-frame. Ms. Jungst concluded by stating in her opinion placing the house between two existing houses introduces unnecessary problems with fire safety; that it would adversely affect her property; and that when she tries to sell her house it would be detrimental and result in a lower value. There were no further speakers for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report, neighbors statements and photographs into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #3-92 FOR THE REQUEST FILED BY MICHAELA KOHLER, 3427 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVIDING A 75 FOOT LOT INTO TWO SUBSTANDARD LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOVING A HOUSE ONTO THE LARGER OF THE TWO LOTS, WHICH WOULD BE A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-4:C,1. MINIMUM LOT AREA, SECTION 16-4-4:F,1. MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE, AND SECTION 16-4-4:I,1. MINIMUM SIDE YARD FOR THE R-1-C SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. - 8 - • • • • • The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact: Board Member Waldman voted "no" stating the variance does not meet the conditions for granting a variance, and added that the information presented illustrates that there would be a definite adverse effect on adjoining lots. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating that creating two substandard lots did not seem conducive for the neighborhood. Board Member Smith voted "no" stating it does not meet any of the conditions for granting the variance. Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating it does not seem in the best interest of the neighborhood as evidenced by the testimony heard. Chairman Welker voted "no" stating in his opinion the subject house was nice, but having it moved to the subject lot could have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood by creating increased housing density. When the votes were displayed, all five members had voted in opposition to the motion. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE: None. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: Board Member Seymour extended his welcome to the two new members: Mr. John Smith and Mr. William (Bill) Clayton. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10.30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary -9 -