Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-09 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO JUNE 9. 1993 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment an Appeals was called to order by Chair Cohn at 7:34 p.m. Members present: Members absent; Also present; Seymour, George, Clayton, Welker, Waldman, and Cohn. Smith. Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney Harold St i tt, Planning Administrator The Chair stated that with six members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. · PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #5-93: 3301 South Emerson Street The Chair opened the Public Hearing stating the procedure for the meeting would be that the variance request would be identified by City Staff, and the applicant and those that wish to speak would then have the opportunity to be heard. The Chair stated she had proof of publication and not proof of posting. She requested the applicant to be sworn i n to verify that t~e sign had been posted on the subject property for the requ i red fifteen (15) days. William King 3305 South Clarkson Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. King stated that the sign had been posted on the subject property for the required fifteen days. The Chair asked that the request be identified. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt identified the request stating the applicant, Mr. King for the property at 3301 South Emerson Street, was requesting a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16- 4-4:M, l,c, Minimum Side Yard, in order to encroach two feet into the required three (3') feet side yard setback, for the purpose of a garage . 1 The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Wi 11 i am King 3305 South Clarkson Street approached the podium for testimony. Mr. King stated that he was the property owner of 3301 South Emerson Street and that the subject property was one of his rental properties. He explained that it was his intention to upgrade the property by demolishing the existing garage because of its age and dilapidated condition, and was proposing to erect a two-car brick garage in its place. Mr. King stated his reason for the encroachment request was to place the proposed garage closer to the side yard property line so that the area between the side yard and the proposed placement of the garage would be less of an area to maintain than the required three foot setback. Mr. King summarized that in his opinion that the requirement of a three foot side yard setback was a waste of land: that the three foot side yard setback was "dead space~. and that decreasing the area would require less maintenance. Mr. King entered into the record statements from three neighbors stating they had no objection to the proposed variance request. Mr. King answered the Board's concern about the neighbor south of his • property, who would be most affected by the encroachment, stating that the • . property owner had signed a statement stating they have no objection to the proposed garage. He added that the closest structure to the proposed garage would be thirty feet (30'). Mr. King concluded that he would not consider building the garage if the variance request was denied: that in his opinion the proposed garage would not affect public safety; and that granting the variance would afford relief for his situation. There were no further speakers present for or against the variance request. The Chair incorporated the Staff Report into the record and closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #5-93, THAT MR. WILLIAM KING, PROPERTY OWNER OF 3301 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-4:M,l,c, MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, IN ORDER TO ENCROACH TWO FEET INTO THE REQUIRED THREE FOOT SIDE YARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF A GARAGE. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. 2 • The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows; • Board Member Waldman voted "no" stating that in his opinion the property is not exceptional or unique. • • Board Member Welker voted "no" stating that granting the variance would be going against the spirit of the Ordinance, that the codes have been adopted for many years and been adhered to, and that the request did not meet the minimum variance requirement. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating that it was the purpose of the Board to adhere to the codes and that granting the variance could affect future use of the property adjacent to the subject property. Board Member Seymour voted "no", stating he concurred with reasons previously stated by Board members. Board Member George voted "yes" stating that in her opinion granting the variance would not affect adjacent property. Chair Cohn voted "no" stating she concurred with reasons previously stated by Board members. · When the votes were displayed, one member voted in the affirmative. with five members voting in opposition. The Chair announced the variance request as denied. Chair Cohn advised the applicant of his right to appeal the decision. CASE #11-92: 4675 South Inca Street A review of the conditions placed on the variance granted to Robert Johnson that the metal shed be removed, that the shed meet building codes, and that no garage be allowed on the subject property as long as the subject shed is present. were attested to by Staff Advisor Stitt. STAFF ADVISORS CHOICE: Mr. Stitt read a letter from Mr. Richard Harding, owner of Highwood Auto Body at 4822 South Broadway, explaining that Mr. Harding was requesting another six month extension for his variance. Case #9-92, stating that negotiations for purchasing the adjoining property were not completed and that alternative plans were in the process for expanding to the rear of the building . Discussion ensued with concern that at the November 12, 1992 meeting a six month extension had been granted until June 10, 1992. After further discussion it was decided that because there was new information to be heard that Mr. Harding attend the next meeting, July 14, 1993, to inform the members of his change in plans and to show cause for an extension . 3 Mr. Stitt advised the Board that no cases were filed for the next meeting, but that the staff would be contacting Mr. Harding to appear before the Board to • explain the circumstances of his extension request, and that a review of the conditions placed on Case #2-93 for H & K Automotive at 3211 South Broadway would also be scheduled. CITY ATTORNEYS CHOICE: Mr. Dan Brotzman informed the Board that the current City Manager, Roger Fraser, had submitted his res.i gnat ion, effect the end of June, and that his new post would be as City Manager for the City of Loveland. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: None. Board Member George made a motion to adjourn the meeting with Board Member Seymour seconding the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~- Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary 4 • ••