Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS November 13, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:50 p.m., Vice-Chair O'Brien presiding. The Chair directed to the applicants and those in the audience an apology for starting the meeting late. Members present: Barber, Clayton, Fowler, O'Brien, Seymour. Members late: Smith. Members absent: Kuhlman. Vice-Chair O'Brien announced that with five members present, four affirmative votes will to be required to grant a variance. She stated the Board is authorized to grant a variance by Section 16-4-8 of the Englewood Municipal Code . II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Seymour made a motion: Mr. Clayton seconded the motion: That the Minutes for October 9 , 1996, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Barber, Clayton, Fowler, O'Brien, Seymour. None. None. Kuhlman, Smith. The motion carried. ID. REHEARING FOR CASE #6-96: 3201 South Sherman Street The Chair opened the public hearing stating she had proof of publication and posting of the property. Mr. Stitt, was sworn in for testimony. He explained the case under consideration is a rehearing requested by the property owner for Sherman Apartments, 3201 South Sherman Street. H:IGROUPIBOARDSIBOAIBOA.NOVMINSDOC Mr. Jim Vissar was sworn in for testimony stating he would testify on behalf of his father, Mr. David Vissar, owner of the Sherman Apartments. He began his testimony stating he apologized that neither he nor his father had been present at the initial public hearing heard on June 12, 1996. He stated they have posted the property twice; once for the June meeting and again for this meeting, and there has been no opposition to the variance request. He added at the initial hearing, Mr. Pearson (from Four Seasons Awning) submitted statements from three neighbors in favor of the proposal. Mr. Vissar stated that the awning would provide protection for their tenants and would also alleviate their concern about liability should one of the tenants slip from ice accumulation on the steps. The Chair reminded the Applicant that the rehearing was granted based on new evidence , and questioned what that new evidence was. At this time Mr. Vissar referred to his contractor, Mr. Jim Pearson. Mr. Pearson was sworn in for testimony. He stated that it was his understanding that the initial decision from the Board was to deny the variance in part because the awning was not wide enough to provide protection for the tenants. He stated he has revised the blueprints, increasing the width of the awning, from 6 feet to 7 feet. Mr. Vissar answered questions in reference to the blueprint drawing included in the packet. He affirmed the awning would extend from the face of the building to the City sidewalk, and would cover the steps. Mr. Barber directed a question to Mr. Vissar about the liability issue , asking what the age of the residents are and if anyone has been injured from slipping on the stairs. Mr. Vissar answered that although no one has been injured, the awning would decrease their insurance liability. He explained that most of the tenants at Sherman Apartments are his father 's age ; 81, that the tenants are mobile, and can easily maneuver the steps. He concluded the awning will help keep the steps dry during the winter months. With no further testimony to be heard , the Chair closed the Public Hearing incorporating the staff report into the record. Mr. Seymour made a motion: Mr. Clayton seconded the motion: THAT THE REHEARING FOR CASE #6-96, THE APPLICANT , MR. DAVID VISSAR PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SHERMAN APARTMENTS AT 3201 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 15 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF AN AWNING. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-S:K ,3 . MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK. Discussion ensued regarding if the proposed width of the awning would be adequate to eliminate snow from blowing on the steps and if ice would accumulate at the bottom of the steps. 2 H:IGRO UP\BOARDS\BOAIBOA.NOVMI NS .DOC • • • • With no further discussion the Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes and give their Findings of Fact: Mr. Barber voted yes stating the request meets the five criteria: the variance will not impact or impair the adjacent properties or the neighborhood, that the strict application of the regulations would result in peculiar and undue difficulties for Mr. Vissar, the variance is the least modification of the Ordinance, and will benefit the Sherman Apartment tenants. Mr. Smith , Mr. Seymour, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Clayton, and Ms. O'Brien voted in favor of the request, concurring with the reasons stated by Mr. Barber. When the votes were displayed, 6 members voted in favor of the variance request with no votes in opposition. At the suggestion of Ms . Reid , the assistant City Attorney , a recess was called at 8:30 p.m. IV. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #10-96: 4268 South Logan Street The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. with six members present. Mr. Smith assumed the • Chair and opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting. • Mr. Stitt stated the applicant, Mr. Robert Hecht , property owner of 4268 South Logan Street, was requesting a variance for an increase in the square footage of a storage shed from 150 square feet to 294 square feet. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-4:M,2-b. Maximum total floor area for a storage shed. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Mr. Hecht was sworn in for testimony. He submitted for the record statements from three neighbors stating they were in favor of the request. He explained his proposal is to retain the existing detached garage to serve as a storage shed and workshop. He stated instead of tearing down the existing garage, building two structures: a shed , and an accessory structure, it would be more effective to leave the existing detached garage. He further explained he is allowed 150 square feet for a shed, and 200 square feet for an accessory building, for a total of 350 square feet. The existing garage is 294 square feet , less than the permitted total square footage for a shed and an accessory structure. Mr. Hecht answered questions from the Board members. Mr. Seymour stated when he visited the property it looked like there were numerous accessory structures. Mr. Hecht responded there is an existing shed that is very small where they store a freezer, with a dog pen attached . Ms. O'Brien questioned what is exceptional about the property. She stated you have a new double-car garage , the house, one storage shed , and one detached garage. Mr. Hecht responded that the storage shed is very small , and the detached garage in the rear is older, which why the new two-car garage was build. H:IGROUPIBO ARD S\BOA\BOA.NOVMIN S.DOC At this time Mr. Barber asked staff to discuss accessory structures. Mr. Stitt stated you are allowed one attached garage and one detached garage, for a total floor area of 1,000 square feet. Mr. Hecht currently has a new 576 square foot two-car garage, and an older garage in the rear of the property that is 294 square feet; therefore he is within the maximum square footage allowed for garages. He is also allowed to have one 150 square foot shed, and one accessory structure of 200 square feet. Mr. Stitt explained the proposal under consideration is whether to allow the existing 294 square foot detached garage to serve as a storage shed and workshop or build two structures. While the existing garage (294 square feet) is in excess of both the maximum square footage for a storage shed (150 square feet), and other accessory structure (200 square feet), it is below the 350 total square feet allowed for both uses in combination. Mr. Stitt further explained that there is nothing definitive in the Ordinance on what an accessory structure is, that when the Planning Commission added "accessory structures" to the zoning regulations, it was decided to leave it undefined. Additionally, combining the square footage for a shed and accessory structure into one structure was not discussed. He stated the crucial issue under consideration is what impact in the neighborhood will the property make with one structure, or with two structures on it. Mr. Clayton read into the record Section 16-4-3:M-3. Other Accessory Structures, "One other accessory structure shall be pennitted and shall confonn to the following • requirements: shall be a maximum total floor area of 200 square foot, maximum height • of 12/eet ... ". He continued stating that the regulations state one shed of 150 square feet, and one accessory structure of 200 square feet. Mr. Hecht responded that he is not asking for a storage shed larger than 150 square feet. He stated he wants to have the use of a storage shed and workshop in one structure instead of two separate structures, and that it can be accomplished by leaving the existing detached garage. There was no further testimony to be heard for or against the request. The Chairman incorporated that staff report into the public record, and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour made a motion, Mr. Clayton seconded the motion: THAT FOR CASE #10-96, THE APPLICANT, MR. ROBERT HECHT, PROPERTY OWNER OF 4268 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A STORAGE SHED FROM 150 SQUARE FEET TO 294 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-4:M,2-b.MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF A STORAGE SHED. Discussion ensued. Mr. Clayton stated having one structure instead of two seems like a good solution, but the small shed in the southeast corner should be removed. 4 H:IGROUPIBOARDS\llOAIBOA.NOYMINS.DOC • • • • Mr. Clayton amended the motion: THE VARIANCE IS CONDITIONAL THAT THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE SMALL SHED, AND WAIVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ANY OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. Mr. Seymour agreed to the amended motion. The Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes and give their findings of fact; Mr. Seymour voted in favor of the motion stating that leaving the existing garage to serve two purposes is a better solution than two separate structures. Mr. Barber voted in favor of the motion stating that it allows the applicant to keep an existing building , that the amendment to tear down the small shed will leave the property with one accessory structure, and by granting the variance it provides the applicant to keep an existing structure. Mr. Fowler stated he voted in favor of the motion stating the first criteria is difficult to interpret how the property is unique but to have the applicant put up two structures instead of using the existing structure would cause undue practical difficulties; and that the variance may not be the letter of the law, but is in the spirit of the Ordinance. Ms. O 'Brien stated she agreed with previous reasons stated. Mr. Clayton stated he also voted in the affirmative , that having the applicant tear down an existing structure would cause peculiar and undue practical difficulties. Mr. Smith concurred. When the votes were displayed, all six members present voted in favor of the variance request. VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT: Mr. Seymour made a motion: Mr. Clayton seconded the motion: THAT FOR THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #7-96, MR JACK YORK 15 EAST QUINCY A VENUE, AND CASES #8-96 and #9-96 FOR WORLD SAVING, 5095 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN . All members voiced approval, with no one in opposition. H:\GROUP\BOARDS'J!OA'J!OA.NOV?.llNS.DOC VII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE: None. VIII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None . IX. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: The Chairman reported he made several call to Mr. Kuhlman, that Mr. Kuhlman had not returned his calls. He stated he will write a letter to City Council recommending removal of Mr. Kuhlman, and request the position be filled. X. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9: 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary A)O Sc:Ml,j (!quN 0 6 H:\GRO\JP\BOARDS\BOA\BOA. NOVMINS.DOC • • •