Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-14 BAA MINUTESMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL.5 FEBRUARY 14. 1996 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Clayton at 7:35 p.m. Members present: Seymour, Christman, Smith, O'Brien, Barber, Kuhlman, and Clayton. Also present: Mark Graham, Community Coordinator Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Jim Blumenthal, Community Services Manager Chairman Clayton announced that with a quorum of seven members present, five affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. He stated the Board is authorized to grant a variance by Section 16-2-8 of the Englewood Municipal Code. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • January 10, 1996 Seymour moved: Smith seconded: That the Minutes of January 10, 1996 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Seymour, Christman, Smith, Kuhlman, Barber, and Clayton. None. None. O'Brien. Chairman Clayton ruled the Minutes approved as written. ELECTION OF O~""FICERS: Chairman Clayton made a motion to elect Mr. Smith for Chairman and Ms. Christman as Vice- Chair. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Upon the call of a voice vote all seven members voted in the affirmative. Mr. Smith assumed the Chair . 1 PUBLIC HEARING -CASE 1-96; 3787 South Broadway Chairman Smith set forth the parameters for conduct of the Hearing. Mr. Smith stated that anyone aggrieved by a decision rendered by the Board may appeal that decision to a court of record; however, such appeal must be made within 30 days of the Board's decision. Chairman Smith asked that staff present the case. Mark Graham, Community Coordinator, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Graham stated the case before the Board was a continuation from the January 10, 1996 public hearing, resulting from an application by Mr. Brian Cook, owner of B.C Autos, requesting a variance to permit the installation of a Class 2 ornamental iron fence along the street side of the property and to exceed by 18 inches, the maximum fence height of 30 inches. This is a variance from Section 16-4- 17:D. l. Fences in the B-2 Business District of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Graham explained that the Fence Regulations permit only masonry type fencing with a maximum height of 30 inches along the street side of any property located in the Business Zone District. He summarized that the variance request is two-fold: to permit a Class 2 ornamental iron fence, and to exceed the permitted height of 30 inches for a fence, by 18 inches. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Dale Coplan, Burg and Eldridge, P.C., stated he was present as a representative for the applicant, Mr. Brian Cook, owner of B.C. Autos. Mr. Coplan stated the request for an increase in fence height is due to numerous incidents of vandalism to vehicles parked on B.C. Autos car lot. He explained several cars have been stolen from the lot, and other cars have been damaged from vehicles jumping over the curb and the existing fence and into the car lot. He stated that the proposed 48 inch fence would provide security for the property and vehicles. Mr. Coplan entered into the record several exhibits. Exhibit #1 was a rendering of the proposed placement and type of fencing. He pointed out that a wrought iron fence would allow perspective customers to see the vehicles on the lot from Broadway, and that the height of 48 inches would provide security for the cars on the lot. Exhibit #2 was a group of 6 photographs illustrating the openness and lack of security with their current fence : poles 30 inches high connected with chain. Exhibit #3 was a group of photographs illustrating numerous businesses along Broadway in Denver with wrought iron fencing on top of retaining walls. Exhibit #4 was B.C. Autos current fence along Lehigh and Broadway. 2 •• • • •• • • Mr. Coplan summarized that the spacing of the wrought iron fencing would allow for prospective customers to easily view the vehicles on the B.C. Autos car lot from Broadway, and the requested increase in height would increase security for the property and the vehicles. Mr. Coplan discussed the criteria for granting a variance. He stated the property is exceptional because it is a corner lot, and because to the North of the property is a retaining wall approximately 4 feet higher than the subject property. He added the new fence would have a more pleasing site line because it would connect to the retaining wall. He stated the request meets the spirit of the Ordinance and is the minimum variance that will afford relief to his client. Mr. Coplan submitted for the record five statements from business owners in the neighborhood. He stated that those statements verify that the proposed variance would not affect the neighbors or the neighborhood. Mr. Clayton questioned how the request meets the exceptional circumstances, challenging that B.C. Autos is similar to other car dealerships along Broadway. He stated that in his opinion the Board should not over-ride the intent of the Ordinance, adding that if the car dealerships in Englewood, particularly those along Broadway, want to change the current regulations that the process would be to go to City Council explaining their concern. Mr. Smith stated that he considered the request for a 48 inches high fence excessive . Mr. Clayton stated the purpose of the 30 inch mason wall is to prevent a "fortress-like" screen for the businesses along Broadway. He added that to permit B.C. Autos to have a 48 inch high fence would neither be consistent with the spirit of the Ordinance nor the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Graham, Community Coordinator, explained that there are provisions in Title 16 that outline the process for changing regulations to the Ordinance. He stated that there may be a need to update the current regulations, suggesting that perhaps a recommendation to review the current fence regulations be submitted to City Council. He discussed the case before the Board stating that the question is does the applicant meet the criteria, particularly is the property exceptional. He added that when he visited the property he noticed the lack of landscaping . Mr. Coplan approached the podium. He referred to the rendering of the proposed construction, pointing to the flower boxes to be included in the project. 3 There were no further speakers present for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved: Mr. Clayton seconded: THAT FOR CASE #1-96, MR. COOK OWNER OF B.C. AUTOS AT 3787 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF A CLASS 2 ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE ALONG THE STREET SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT OF 30 INCHES BY 18 INCHES. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-17:D,l., FENCES IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Discussion ensued. Mr. Barber moved for a division of the question. With the concurrence of Mr. Seymour, Mr. Clayton agreed to the amended motion. The question was divided as follows: 1. AND THAT FOR CASE #1-96, MR. COOK, OWNER OF B.C . AUTOS AT 3787 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-17:D,l. FENCES IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF A CLASS 2 ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE. 2. THAT FOR CASE #1-96, MR. COOK, OWNER OF B.C. AUTOS AT 3787 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-17:D,l. FENCES IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE BY 18 INCHES. Discussion ensued. Mr. Clayton reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance clearly state what is permitted. Mr. Seymour stated the request for the increase in height is excessive, almost two feet. The Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes for the first question on type of fence, and give their findings of fact. The motion passed unanimously with each Board member giving their findings of fact. When the votes were displayed, all seven members present voted in the affirmative. The Chairman announced the motion as granted, 7-0. 4 •• • • • • The Chairman called for a vote on the second part of the question. When the votes were displayed, all seven members voted in opposition to the motion. The Chairman announced the request to increase the height of a fence to 48" was denied. A recess was called from 8:25 to 8:35. The meeting reconvened with all seven members present. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #2-96. 720 West Jefferson Avenue The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting. Mr. Graham, Community Coordinator, introduced the case. He explained the applicant, Mr. Timothy Shipley for Colorado Homes is requesting a variance to encroach 4 feet into the required 25 foot side yard setback, for the purpose of constructing a single-family residence. This is a variance from Section 16-5-13:A.2.a. of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Mr. Tim Shipley, Colorado Heritage Homes, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Shipley explained his company, Colorado Heritage Homes, acted as the general contractor for the new housing development between the 3600 block of Galapago Street and Huron Street. The master plan was for twelve (12) single-family homes, and two 3-unit townhouses to be placed on the north of the site on Jefferson Avenue. In order to streamline the review process, the agreement between Colorado Homes and the Building Department was to submit a master plan for a detailed building code review and would be used for each house within the development. Mr. Shipley stated the property north on the site where the two 3-unit townhouses were originally to be built, was changed to four single-family homes. He stated this change resulted in an oversight in the building review process because placement of the subject house, 720 West Jefferson Avenue, was treated as an interior lot. The comer lot regulations were not applied. According to the comer lot regulations the side yard setback on South Galapago Street should have been 25 feet, instead the structure was placed with a 26 foot front yard setback, and a street-side yard setback of 21 feet; therefore it was the side yard of 21 feet that encroached 4 feet into the required 25 foot setback . 5 Mr. Shipley explained the building permit was issued by the City in December of 1995 and the foundation work completed. When a building inspector stopped at the job site in January (1996) he issued a Stop Work Order, documenting that the foundation placement failed to meet the required side yard setback zoning requirements. He further explained that he contacted Jim Blumenthal, manager of Community Services, because of his concern of the unsafe conditions created by not being able to backfill around the foundation. He said he received a call from Mr. Blumenthal informing him that the Stop Work Order had been rescinded due to unsafe conditions, and recommended that he apply for a variance. Mr. Shipley stated both Mr. Stitt and Mr. Blumenthal forewarned him that applying for the variance was not a guarantee that it would be approved. He pointed out that he was obligated to complete the construction because the buyer was committed to vacating their present home and planned to occupy the new house. In conclusion, Mr. Shipley stated that the request meets the criteria for granting a variance: that it will have no negative impact on any of the neighbors or neighborhood because the neighborhood is residential; that the variance will not affect or impair development of adjacent property which is residential; and it is the minimum variance which will afford relief to the owners. Mr. Barber and Mr. Clayton questioned why construction continued after receiving the Stop Work Order. They requested Mr. Blumenthal, manager of Community Services, to come forward for testimony. Mr. Blumenthal, Manager of Community Services, was sworn in for testimony. He used an easel to illustrate the development of the site. He illustrated how the site was developed, how it was divided, and pointed out how the north portion of the site was originally planned for townhouses. He explained that the property lines changed when Colorado Homes decided to construct singles-family homes instead of townhouses. He further explained that the building department was not familiar with the corner lot regulations and that the oversight occurred during the permit review. Mr. Blumenthal stated he shared in the responsibility for the oversight during the building department's review. Mr. Blumenthal stated he rescinded the Stop Work Order after conferring with the City Attorney. Their concern was the safety issue in leaving the foundation open and therefore unsafe. He added that leaving the foundation open left the contractor and the City at risk. He concluded stating that with the safety issue in mind, he contacted Mr. Shipley advising him to complete the landfill work around the foundation, and to continue construction. There were no further persons present for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report and closed the public hearing. 6 • • •• • • Mr. Seymour moved: Mr. Clayton seconded: THAT FOR CASE #2-96, THE APPLICANT, MR. SHIPLEY FOR COLORADO HERITAGE HOMES, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-5-13:A,2.a. OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ENCROACH 4 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. The Chairman asked the members of the Board to lock in their votes and give their findings of fact. When the votes were displayed, all seven members present voted to grant the variance request. The motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: (At the Board's direction at the April 10, 1996 meeting, the following is a verbatim transcription). Mr. Barber said:" I have a question. I think the City should encourage the owner of 780 East Jefferson (secretary's note: correct address is 780 West Jefferson Avenue) to come in for a variance. I think that they should come in and as a counesy bring it in so that we can get a legal nonconforming use, and I think it was inappropriate that the staff granted variances, and put the Board into such a position. It was rather interesting that the City staff gave us our handbook, and there's something about official misconduct in the back. " STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Graham stated there were no cases to be heard for the March 13th meeting. Mr. Barber stated "maybe we'll have 780 West Jefferson". With no further business to come before the Boara, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p .m . 7 Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary 8 •• • •