Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-10 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO NOVEMBER 10, 1993 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chair Cohn at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Seymour. Smith, Clayton, Welker. Waldman, and Cohn. George. Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney The Chair stated that with six members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Seymour moved that the minutes of October 20, 1993, be approved as written. Board Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on the motion, six members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chair ruled the Minutes of October 20, 1993, approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT: Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #7-93, Wallace Claridge for the property at 2355 West Hillside Avenue, and Case #9-93, Jenna Penn for Kent Village Townhouse Association, 3400 South Race Street, be approved as written. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on the motion, six members voted in favor of the motion. The Chair ruled the Findings of Fact approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING 18-93: 2201 West Warren Avenue The Chair explained the procedure, stating that the appeal would be addressed first by City Staff, and then the appellant would present their case . The Chair asked the staff to come forward and present their case. Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the appellant, Nita Gonzales, resides at 4882 Elm Court, Denver. and is the property owner for 2201 West Warren Avenue. Mr. Stitt explained the appellant is appealing the Correction Notice from August 12. 1993, issued by the Department of Public Works and the Division of Building and Safety, referring to violations of the Housing Code, in reference to electrical, plumbing and mechanical. and general violations. Becky Baker, Chief Building Inspector. was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Baker stated that she had representatives from the Building and Safety Division conduct several inspections at the subject property. As a result of their findings, Correction Notices were sent to the property owner. Ni ta Gonzales. pertaining to el ectri cal . plumbing, mechanical. and general structural violations. Ms. Baker concluded that the violations as referenced by Title 9. Housing Regulations. of the Englewood Municipal Code. were listed in the Correction Notices and that the repairs to the house were necessary to permit continued occupancy of the house. Jim Morrison, • Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector was sworn in for test i many. Mr. Morrison explained that the first • inspection resulted from a former tenant who contacted the Building and Safety Division regarding living conditions of the house. Mr. Morrison stated that on March 24, 1992. Tom Rusk. the residential inspector for the Division of Building & Safety, conducted an inspection of the premises. The viol at i ans noted from that inspection were listed in a Correction Notice dated March 25, 1992 and sent to the property owner. Ms. Nita Gonzales. Ms. Gonzales was given thirty (30) days in which to comply and/or have permits for the repairs. and was notified that the house could not be rented until repairs were completed. Mr. Morrison entered into the record a copy of the March 25. 1992, Correction Notice sent to Ms. Gonzales. When Mr. Rusk did a follow·up inspection three months later, he was unable to gain entry to the house, and documented the house was unoccupied. Mr. Morrison stated when he was advised by Tom Rusk that the gas pipe had not been repaired. he contacted Public Service to have the gas turned off and they put a lock on the meter. Mr. Morrison stated that Mrs. Gonzales called him two days later. on June 18, 1992, to inform him she had secured the services of Apple Plumbing to repair the gas pipe. She also stated she intended to apply for an appeal for other violations listed on the Correction Notice. Mr. Morrison stated that Apple Plumbing contacted him requesting information on repairing the gas pipe. got a permit, and repaired the gas pipe. 2 • • • • Mr . Morrison explained that another inspection of the premises was conducted by Mr. Rusk and at that time some of the violations had been corrected , while others remained to be repaired . That inspection resulted in the August 12 , 1993 Correction Notice sent to Ms. Gonzales. Mr. Morrison addressed the plumbing and mechanical violations stating that life safety concerns were: the enclosed water heater, combustion air supplied for the attic furnace, the attic access is too small, and the lock on the gas meter had been broken and gas turned on without benefit of a perm i t . The Chair asked the app l icant to come forward for testimony. Nita Gonzales , 4882 El m Court Denver , Colorado was sworn in for testimony. Ms . Gonzales testified that she is the property owner for 2201 West Warren Avenue and has owned the house since purchasing it in 1972 . She stated in 1978 they were able to get a Rehab loan for $8 ,000 to bring the house up to code . Ms. Gonzales submitted for the record copies of the work receipts from the Housing Division: electrical , heating, plumbing, and ventilation permits were pulled and the work was performed . Ms. Gonzales stated that she resided in the house until 1985 when she purchased her present house . The house was occupied by fam il y members. in 1988 under the Section 8 Program the house was rented to an elderly couple , and later rented to a tenant who was evicted due to lack of paying the rent. Ms. Gonzales stated that it was that particular tenant (who was evicted) that called the City to file a complaint on the conditions of the house . Ms. Gonzales stated that it was her understanding that the house was up to code after the 1978 rehab work was performed , and that she assumed the furnace, which was i nsta 11 ed as part of that project , was safe and adequately installed. Ms. Gonzales explained that after service to the house was shut off , she contracted Apple Plumbing to repair the gas pipe , contacted Public Service to have the gas service turned back on , hired an el ectri cal contractor , and that new gutters were i nsta 11 ed in June of 1992. Ms. Gonzales stated a majority of the items on the August 12 , 1993 Correction Notice have been corrected, adding that several of the vi olations resulted from renting the house. Ms. Gonzales stated that her appeal was : that they wanted to be ab l e to do the work themselves: that she disagreed with some of the violations: and that it was too costly to use licensed contractors for work she and her husband could do. Ms. Gonzales agreed to bring the following items into compliance: they would clean out the gutters. seal the windows, replace the siding cap, seal the eaves and open area in the roof, repair the bathroom window , and repa i r and replace screens. Ms. Gonzales added she was not aware a crack in the l i ving room window , or holes in the ceiling . 3 Discussion ensued of the item: "attic access is too small", Section 9-3E-• 6, and 7. of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Ms. Gonzales objected on t he basis that the opening has been adequate for the furnace to be serviced, and that she objected to the cost to adhere to code that would be between $1,000 to $2,000. Ms . Gonzales concluded stating she was trying to adhere to the codes. that it was her intention to have a safe and comfortable house, but that financially it would be difficult to have licensed contractors perform the work for every item on the Correction Notice. Ms . Gonzales added that the house is currently unoccupied, she has no intention of renting it, and that i t is on the market for sale. The Board requested the Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector to approach the podium. Jim Morrison, Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector answered questions from the Board. He responded that repairs should be done by whomever owns the house, and whether the house is sold or not is not a factor of cons i deration. Mr. Morrison stated the attic access issue is that the furnace cannot be removed, replaced, or adequately serviced with the current opening at 14" x 19" and that code requires a minimum of 30" x 30 ". Mr. Morrison discussed the electrical violations out l ined in the Correction Notice stating that because of exposed wires and unacceptab le grounding , most of the violations were hazardous . could be life threatening , and perhaps result in a fire . He concluded Colorado State Statues require the work must be performed by licensed electrical contractors. Mr . Morrison stated the chips in the bathtub could be touched up porcelain sealer. Mr . Morr i son concluded that the most hazardous violations that need to be corrected are: 1) two attic vents need to be cut to correct the lack of air supply in the attic; 2) the pegboard enclosing the water heater area needs to be removed; 3) and the attic access needs to be enlarged to the 30" code requirement. Mr. Morrison concluded that most of the items listed under general violations could be corrected by the owner such as repairing the screens. unopenable windows, roof eaves. window cracks, and ceiling holes. There were no further speakers present for or against the appeal. The Chair i ncorporated the Staff Report, and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT AN APPEAL BE GRANTED FOR 2201 WEST WARREN AVENUE , FROM THE CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE DIVISION OF BUILDING AND SAFETY, ON AUGUST 12, 1993, REFERRING TO VIOLATIONS OF THE HOUSING CODE, TITLE 9, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE , PERTAINING TO ELECTRICA L, PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL, AND GENERAL VIOLATIONS. 4 • • • • • Board Member Clayton seconded the motion . Chair Cohn entered an amendment that the issue of "attic access", i tern #6 - Plumbing and Mechanical, must be corrected with all other items agreed to by the appellant, to be performed according to appropriate building codes. Board Member Waldman agreed to the amended motion, and Board Member Clayton seconded the amended motion. The members voiced in agreement to the amended motion. Chair Cohn restated that the motion is: THAT AN APPEAL BE GRANTED FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUED ON AUGUST 12, 1993, FOR ITEM 6, PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL, ATTIC ACCESS TOO SMALL , SECTION 9-3E-6, FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 2201 WEST WARREN AVENUE. Discussion ensued. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Welker voted "no" stating that it should not be difficult to modify the space for access to the attic, that the issue is a safety one, and that the cost should not be circumvented over safety. Board Member Waldman voted "no" stating that the basis of the appeal should not be one of undue hardship, that the opening should be taken care for the health and safety of future tenants. Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating that the opening is too small and should be repaired according to the required code. Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating that in his opinion the opening does not present a hazard. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating the small opening is a health and safety issue. and should be corrected according to the required code. Chair Cohn voted "no" stating that the appellant has shown concern in correcting the violations, but that the opening is less than the required minimum which creates a health and safety issue. When the votes were displayed, one member voted in the affirmative with five members voting against the appeal request . The Chair announced the decision as denied, 1-5, advising the appellant that any person aggrieved by the Board's decision has the right to have the decision reviewed by the District Court of Arapahoe County and must file within thirty (30) days from the date of their decision. The Chair called for a short recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m . 5 PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #10-93 2231 East Dartmouth Place The Chair opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of publication and that the applicant would be responsible for providing proof of posting after the meeting for the file. Harold Stitt. Planning Administrator was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicants. Carol Hamilton and Stacy Beakes. for the subject property at 2231 East Dartmouth Place, are requesting a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-2:H, to encroach ten feet into the required twenty-five foot front yard setback, and Section 16-4-2:1, to reduce the side yard setback from eighteen feet to twelve feet, in order to construct an attached two- car garage. The Chair asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Carol Hamilton, 2231 East Dartmouth Place • was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Hamilton stated that they were proposing to convert the existing garage into living quarters, and construct a two- car garage at the southwest corner of the house. Ms. Hamilton stated they considered placing the garage in the back of the house with a driveway • along the west side but two deterrents prevented that idea: 1) the ten (10) foot utility easement in the rear of the property; and 2) that there would not be sufficient clearance on the west side of the property. Ms. Hamilton stated the only alternative was to attach the garage onto the southwest corner of the house, which would require encroaching into both the front yard setback. and the side yard setback. Ms. Hamilton added that vi sua 11 y the front yard is deeper because of the ten foot area between the front property line and the sidewalk. Ms. Hamil ton entered into the record statements from two neighbors, residing on each side of the subject property, stating they did not oppose the proposed two-car garage. Ms. Hamilton concluded that the proposed garage would allow for storage by enclosing the existing one-car garage, and would allow protection for their cars from the weather and remove them from the street. There were no person(s) present who wished to speak for or against the variance request. The Chair incorporated the Staff Report into the record and closed the public hearing. 6 • • • • BOARD MEMBER SMITH MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #10-93, FOR CAROL HAMILTON AND STACY BEAKES, PROPERTY OWNERS FOR 2231 EAST DARTMOUTH PLACE, THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FROM SECTION 16-4-2:H, TO ENCROACH TEN FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TWENTY-FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SECTION 16-4-2:I, TO REDUCE THE TOTAL REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM EIGHTEEN FEET TO TWELVE FEET. IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion ensued with several board members questioning whether the property was exceptional and/or unique. Harold Stitt Planning Administrator entered the podium. He stated that the majority of the lots/properties in the Hampden Hills neighborhood are substandard relative to the current R- 1-A zone district. He explained that a typical R-1-A lot would be 75 feet by 125 feet; the applicant's property is 84' x 103' making it 22 feet shorter but 9 feet wider. Mr. Stitt concluded that based on that criteria the subject lot is exceptional. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating that the request meets the criteria for granting a variance. Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating that the request meets the criteria for granting a variance, and that there was no opposition from their immediate neighbors. Board Member Smith voted "yes" for the previously stated reasons. Board Member Clayton voted "yes". Board Member Welker voted "yes" stating that the property is unique because of the ten foot utility easement. location of the structure on the lot, and size of the lot. Chair Cohn voted "yes" stating she agreed for the reasons previously stated by board members. When the votes were displayed, six (6) members had voted in favor of the variance request. The Chair announced the request as granted and advised the applicant to apply for the appropriate building permits . 7 PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #11-93: 1430 East Cornell Avenue The Chair opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of publication and posting, and asked the staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt Planning Administrator stated the applicant's request is for a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Section 16-4-2:H . Minimum Front Yard, to encroach 17 .5 feet into the required twenty-five foot front yard setback for the purpose of constructing an attached two-car garage. The Chair asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. William Scott 1430 East Cornell Avenue was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Scott explained that their house was built in 1956. with a one-car garage and a long driveway. He stated that the they currently own three cars and frequently have to move, re-park . park on the street . and generally are inconvenience with having three cars and a one-car garage. Mr. Scott explained that their proposal was to build a two-car garage • using the present driveway for half of the foundation for the proposal . • and ultimately be able to house/park two cars in the proposed 2-car garage. Mr. Scott stated the request for the variance was to build out toward the frontage of the property. approximately 17. 5 feet into the existing 25 foot frontage . Mr. Scott stated their plans were to convert the existing garage into a study/guest room. opening into a courtyard placed behind the new garage. Mr. Scott entered into the record several exhibits of photographs to assist in illustrating the frontage of their property, the limited parking area. and to illustrate the area for placement of the proposed garage . Statements from neighbors on each side of their house were submitted for the record as evidence that they did not oppose the proposal . Mr . Scott entered into the record a letter from the "design review committee for Arapahoe Acres" stating the undersigned recommended support of the variance contingent on design conditions concerning materials , roof pitch. garage door guidelines. and general architectural conditions. Mr. Scott concluded stating that in his opinion the 2-car garage would enhance the over a 11 appearance of their property. would not affect adjacent neighbors as evidenced by statements submitted. and that the design would replicate the house. and other architectural details. Discussion ensued with questions from several board members concerning other options/alternatives for the placement of the garage. 8 • • • • Sarah Scott 1430 East Cornell Avenue was sworn in for testimony. Mrs. Scott stated that she was of the opinion that the possibilities for the garage were limited, and that the proposal would conform with the architectural design of the house. The Chair asked if there were any further speakers for or against the variance. Robert Zimmerman 2915 South Lafayette Drive was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Zimmerman stated that in his opinion the proposed garage does not meet #5 of the conditions for granting a variance as being the least modification possible. Mr. Zimmerman continued stating, that in his opinion the garage would impinge on the front of the property and affect the site architecturally. Mr. Zimmerman directed to the Board that in his opinion granting this variance would set a precedence within the neighborhood, explaining that he knew of residents in the neighborhood interested in expansion in a similar manner as the proposal under consideration. Mr. Zimmerman added that it was his opinion that if the variance is granted that it would kindle momentum for others to apply for expansion on their property such as the proposal being considered. Mr. Zimmerman concluded by reiterating that his objection is whether the two· car garage would conform architecturally within the neighborhood, and if it mets the condition of being the least modification possible . Virginia Hofferber 2949 South Lafayette Drive was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Hofferber stated she was before the Board three years ago applying for a two·car garage on the subject property. Ms. Hofferber stated she understood the di 1 emma of the app 1 i cants, affirming that when the houses were built in the 1950's, one car garages was the norm, but today it is not uncommon to have sever a 1 cars. Ms. Hofferber concluded by stating that she supported the variance under consideration because the proposed garage would provide the applicant's protection for their cars from the weather and keep them off the street. Harold Stitt Planning Administrator addressed the Board on several issues. Mr. Stitt refuted Mr. Zimmerman's assumption that if the variance were to be granted to the Scott's that it would begin an onset of similar variance requests, by emphasizing that each case is considered principally by its own merits and not by precedence. The second point Mr. Stitt discussed was one in the staff report reminding the Board that the letter from the Arapahoe Acres design review committee should have no bearing on the Board's deliberation with this case; that neither the City nor the Board are empowered to enforce private covenants . 9 With no further speakers present wishing to testify in favor or against the variance request. the Chair closed the Public Hearing incorporating the staff report, photographs, and exhibits into the public record. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #11-93, THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-2:H, FRONT YARD SETBACK, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE WHICH WOULD ENCROACH 17.5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TWENTY-FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK. Board Member Welker seconded the motion. Discussion ensued . The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: The Chair recognized a resident who entered the chambers and requested to be heard. The Chair made a motion to re-open the Public Hearing and all members voted in the affirmative. Ken Fisher 1337 East Cornell Avenue was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Fisher apologized to the Board for being • late but had car problems. Mr. Fi sher expressed concern about the variance request stating in his opinion the garage should not be permitted because the lot sites in the neighborhood are too small. that the front • setback should be observed , and that the garage encroachment would be a "sore thumb ". Mr. Fisher concluded that the proposed two-car garage was inappropriate for the neighborhood. and that the encroachment was excessive. The Chair closed the Public Hearing, and renewed the previous motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating if the proposed garage were permitted . that the proposed two-car garage would result in the largest percentage of the structures would be placed within the front of the property. Board Member Sm i th voted "no " stating he agreed with testimony that it would result in a "sore thumb" and that the proposal did not meet the condition of being unique. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating that in his opinion there were other alternatives . and that the front yard setback should be observed. Board Member Welker voted "no" stating that in his opinion the request does not meet any of the conditions for granting a variance, that permitting the garage placement in the frontage would impact the neighborhood , and that the applicant 's sho uld consider an alternative plan. 10 • • Board Member Waldman voted "no" stating that the request did not meet any of the five points for permitting a variance. Chair Cohn voted "no" stating that the request does not meet the minimum variance requirement. When the votes were displayed all six members had voted against the variance request. The Chair announced the request as denied, 0-6. and informed the applicant that if aggrieved, a review of their decision could be filed in District Court. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE: None. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: None . With no further business to come before the Board. the meeting was adjourned at 10 :32 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, • Cathie Mahon. Recording Secretary 11