Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-10 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS June 10, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M . in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Barber presiding. Members present: Allen, Barber, Bode, Mcintosh, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith Members absent: None Staff present: Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid Planning Analyst Brad Denning Community Coordinator Mark Graham Community Coordinator Tricia Langon Chair Barber stated that there were seven members present; therefore, five affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. Mr. Barber stated that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to grant variances by Part Ill, Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Chair Barber set forth parameters for conduct of hearings: The Chair will introduce the case; applicants will present their request and reasons the variance should be granted; proponents will be given an opportunity to speak; opponents will address the Board; and then Staff will address the Board. II. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #3-98 Dave Kurz 3397 S. Lafayette St. Chair Barber declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication. Mr. Smith introduced the case by stating it is a request for a variance to permit an other accessory structure to exceed by 144 square feet the 200 square feet maximum floor area; to permit an existing other accessory structure to encroach 2 feet into the required 3 foot side yard setback; and to permit a home occupation to be conducted in an other accessory structure . These are a variance from Sections 16-4-4:M(3)(b ), 16-4- 4:M(3)(d); and 16-4-4:M(5) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Dave Kurz, 3397 S . Lafayette St was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Kurz presented the Chair with 2 statements from adjacent neighbors. He then directed the Board's attention 1 to the site plan. Mr. Kurz testified that he would like to build a 2-car garage on the back • of the property, and a variance is not required for building the garage since it will be built within the required set backs. He further testified that he would like to convert the existing 1-car garage to an art studio; and in order for the structure to be allowed to remain on the property following the construction of the 2-car garage, it must be reclassified as an accessory structure. For this to take place, a variance must be granted for a total square feet permitted for other accessory structures, as well as an encroachment in the side yard. Mr. Kurz further stated that the structure, as seen on the site plan, is one foot from the property line and asked the Board to take into consideration that this is a pre-existing condition dating back to 1950. He also asked the Board to consider the fact that this building is located on the side street of a corner lot as opposed to only being 1 foot away from a neighbor; it is 9 feet away from the sidewalk; and 12 feet away from the actual street. As far as the excess size for classification as an accessory structure, Mr. Kurz testified that the original garage is 12' x 20', or 240 square feet. A prior owner extended the roof line to a height of approximately 4 or 5 feet on the north side and added a dormer window in the center of the structure, creating room for a workbench in the garage and 2 little storage closets. The end result of this change is that the existing garage now has a footprint of 344 sq. ft.; inside space that is useable is approximately 258 sq. ft.; therefore, the total 344 sq. ft. exceeds the regulations for an accessory structure by 144 sq. ft. Mr. Kurz continued by stating his plan calls for the construction of a new double car • garage, resulting in 824 sq. ft. designated and used as accessory structures. He asked the Board to grant the request on the basis of total allowable square feet for accessory structures, which is 1,350 sq. ft. He stated he has no plans for additional accessory structures and would agree, if the Board deemed necessary, to a provision that no request for additional accessory structures be granted. He proceeded by stating he is well under the total allowable accessory structure guidelines. With respect to using the building as a home occupation, Mr. Kurz testified that it is his desire to use approximately 280 sq. ft. for his art studio and a small storage closet. He directed the Board's attention to a display of his art work and explained he creates original pastel paintings which are sold in galleries and art shows. In addition, he stated he has a mail order business, selling limited edition prints from catalogs and dealer networks. He further stated that inventory storage is minimal as prints are created on demand and that traffic is also minimal --seldom more than one or two visitors per month. Mr. Kurz stated that the building qualifies for use as a home occupation site if it is attached to the house and if it does not have its own outside entrance; however, the variances needed to permit such an attachment would be far greater than those represented by this request. He further explained that he considered alternative plans which would not require a variance; such as, demolishing the old garage and building an oversized 24' x 32' attached garage that has studio space in it. He stated he chose • not to pursue this alternative due to the extreme cost; that such a structure would 2 • • • dominate the property; and that it would do far more to damage the residential character of his property, as well as the neighborhood, than his current proposal. Mr. Kurz asked the Board to consider the variance on the basis of an extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of the piece property, and that the strict application of regulations would result in peculiar and undue difficulties to him as owner of the property . He further stated that his proposed use of the building does not violate the spirit of the home occupation ordinance as his business is not reflective of the type of business or customer traffic that he feels the ordinance was designed and intended to prevent from operating in a detached structure; such as, small engine repair, auto repair, etc. He explained that the request is not motivated by the need for a garage, nor is it motivated by the need for a freestanding structure. He stated he believes his business is one that reflects the spirit of the ordinance as it could be and has been operated out of the home, having done so at his previous home in Lakewood for the past 5 years. He further stated that the motivation for this request is due to the small size of the home, 800 sq . ft., and the suitability and the availability of the old garage. When these elements are combined with the obstacles present in the form of even greater variances needed to allow the structure to be attached to the home, Mr. Kurz stated he believes that permitting this use is reasonable and a just solution to the problem; therefore, it is his feeling that the variance, if granted, will observe the spirit of the ordinance, secure the public safety and welfare, and achieve substant ial justice. With regard to criteria 3 and 4, Mr. Kurz testified that his proposal would have no adverse impact on the neighborhood or the future development of adjacent property. He explained that the adjacent properties to the east and south are zoned R-3, high density apartments and a nursing home. He further stated that, at the very least, his proposal blends in with those uses to the south and east while still remaining private and out of public view. He pointed out that the site plan shows that the building's outside entrance would remain shielded from the side street by an existing 6 foot privacy fence, and the overall residential appearance of the property would remain unchanged. He further stated that with the exception of the removal of the overhead garage door, the external appearance would remain unchanged and that the structure in consideration matches the construction and design of the home, as well as the character of the neighborhood it immediately adjoins to the north and west. He stated that since his use does not include significant customer traffic and the external appearance would not change, aside from the removal of the garage door, it is probable, in his opinion, no one would even notice a change in the use of this building for many years to come. Mr . Kurz contended that the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the adjacent property or neighborhood, nor will it substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. He concluded by stating that the structure qualifies for use as a home occupation if it is attached to the home; but since such attachment would require variances more extensive than this request, it is his contention that the variance, if granted, is the least modification possible of the existing ordinance . 3 Mr. Allen asked the current zoning of the property. Ms. Langon stated that the property • is zoned R-1-C. Mr. Allen stated that he is concerned with the volume of cars parked on the street in that area and asked if that was normal. Mr. Kurz responded that he has only owned the property for 3 weeks but has observed a tremendous amount of cars parked in the neighborhood. It is his feeling that the nursing home is not providing adequate parking for its employees and is in some way violating an existing ordinance. He stated that he has off-street parking for 3 cars behind the property, but that the parking issue is a concern for him as well. He further stated that in the evening it appears that the apartment residents are parking on the street rather than in their parking lot. He continued by stating that in the 3 weeks he has resided at the property, it appears nursing home employees are parking on the street. Mr. Smith asked if it would be a 2-car garage. Mr. Kurz replied "yes"; the new garage would be a 2-car garage. Mr. Bode requested that Mr. Kurz clarify whether or not he currently resides at the property. Mr. Kurz replied that he does reside at the property . Chair Barber asked whether in the future he intended to add any restroom facilities to the garage area. Mr. Kurz replied that he had no such intentions. Tricia Langon, Community Planner, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the proposal was submitted to various City departments, and no department stated any opposition. Mr. Seymour asked how staff derived the 1,350 sq. ft. figure for total lot • coverage. Ms . Langon replied that in the R-1-C zone district, garages and carports are allowed up to 1,000 sq. ft.; storage sheds are allowed 150 sq . ft; and other accessory structures are allowed 200 square feet, totaling 1,350 sq . ft. Mr. Seymour asked for an explanation on "other." Ms. Langon explained that it is one of the categor ies in the accessory building and permitted accessory use categories within the ordinance ; garages , carports, sheds, and other type of structures. Chair Barber asked if Ms. Langon could explain the intent of the home occupation and the reason the ordinance requires it within the residential structure rather than an outlying accessory structure. Ms. Langon replied that she believed the orig inal intent was to keep the home occupation within one structure to prevent a car repair business in a back garage, home offices, or other businesses that would confl ict with the residential image of the area. Chair Barber stated that in this case there is an outside entrance and a detached accessory structure being used for a home occupation. He further inquired whether the Building Department commented on any unusual building code requirements that are required because of the close proximity to the property line. Ms . Langon stated that the only comments she received from them were regarding dra inage when Mr. Kurz builds the new garage. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance request. Chair Barber incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. • 4 • Mr. Smith suggested that the request be separated into 2 variances; exceeding maximum floor area and the encroachment as the first variance , and the home occupation as a second variance . He stated that the first 2 requests are variances in the true sense, and the third request is a variance from the use ordinance rather than the property , and is temporary rather than permanent. The remainder of the Board concurred. • • Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT FOR CASE #3-98 , DAVE KURZ , 3397 S. LAFAYETTE , THAT THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO: 1. PERMIT AN OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO EXCEED BY 144 SQUARE FEET THE 200 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:M(3)(b) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE; AND 2. PERMIT AN EXISTING OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH 2 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 3 FEET SIDE YARD SET BACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4 :M(3)(d) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Smith stated he would like to get cars off the streets in that neighborhood , and agreed that the cars appeared to belong to employees of the nearby nursing home . With regard to the existing garage, Mr. Smith stated that it was probably grandfathered in. Mr. Smith stated that allowing Mr. Kurz to construct a new garage with the existing privacy fence would not damage the residential character of the neighborhood . Mr . Seymour stated that it is a "180" from the home occupation provision ; it has to be in the house with no outside entrance . Ms . O'Brien countered it is a whole separate building that is already in existence and is not bothered by the request. She further stated that she has a neighbor w ith an art studio in her garage and that it works out wonderfully. Mr. Allen stated he had looked at the area and was concerned with the traffic problems; and since Mr. Kurz testified he would only have 1 or 2 customers coming to the studio per month , he didn't think it would make much of a difference . Mr. Bode stated that he was in favor of the request since he had to walk 2 blocks in order to look at the house; he had never seen a neighborhood that crowded. He further stated that he is in favor of getting cars off the street. Mr. Bode asked Staff whether Mr. Kurz would have to do anything to comply with Fire Code . Mr. Barber stated that was the same question he had regarding whether the Building Department had any comments ; he believes that if it becomes a commercial structure, which is detached , 5 there are a number of code requirements that would need to be met. Mr . Smith inquired whether the applicant would need a use variance if all he did was paint in the garage • and never had a customer. Discussion ensued. Ms . O'Brien stated that when she drove by the property she could not see an entrance into the accessory building. She further stated that the applicant made an excellent point; he could do his proposal without a variance by demolishing the exist ing garage and constructing a larger building that would change the nature of the neighborhood. She commended the applicant for proposing something aesthetically pleasing and believes his request is reasonable . With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr. Seymour voted "no "; he stated that it was too much of a variance. Ms . Mcintosh voted "yes." Mr. Smith voted "yes ", stating the encroachment for the ex isting garage has been there for a number of years; it observes the spirit of the ordinance and protects the publ ic safety and welfare. He further stated that the proposed construction will not vary the residential character of the neighborhood and will get cars off the street. He continued by stating it does not adversely affect the adjacent property; it will not impair or impact the use or development of adjacent property since it is already developed; and the variance is the least modification necessary to grant relief . Ms . O'Brien, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bode, and Chair Barber voted "yes ", concurring w ith Mr. Smith. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 6-1 vote , and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. Mr . Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT FOR CASE #3-98 , DAVE KURZ , 3397 S. LAFAYETTE , BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO: PERMIT A HOME OCCUPATION TO BE CONDUCTED IN AN OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4- 4:M(5) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Seymour stated that he voted "no ", because it is a complete reversal of the spirit of the ordinance . Ms. Mcintosh stated she voted "yes". 6 • • • • Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes " it is a use for the current owner and is only temporary . With regard to the criteria, he stated that the request is not a typical home occupation, such as a hairdresser, nail salon, daycare center , etc.--customers will not be coming and going from the property . He continued by stating that he is not convinced that the variance is even necessary. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "yes ", concurring with Mr. Smith and because the applicant applied for the variance out of caution. Mr. Allen stated he voted "yes"; the traffic and congestion in that area is a concern . Mr. Bode and Chair Barber voted "yes ", concurring with Mr. Smith and Ms. O'Brien. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 6-1 vote , and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid stated that at times correspondence arrives after the Board receives their packets and are usually introduced to the Board during Staff presentation. Since the order of the meeting has changed, she asked when the Board would like those items presented . Discussion ensued. The Board directed the secretary to present such items prior to the public hearing. Ms. Reid further stated that these items would need to be admitted into the record . Ill. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #4-98 Marlys I. Lester Stickney 4350 S. Delaware Street Chair Barber declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publ ication. Chair Barber stated that the applicant is propos ing a 21-foot front yard where a 25-foot front yard is required. The applicant seeks relief from Zoning Ordinance requirements in 16-4-4:H, Minimum Front Yard , to permit building an enclosed ramp from the front door to a new garage. The request is also to permit construction of a new garage with a 21-foot front yard so that it can be accessed via the new ramp. Marlys I. Lester Stickney, 4350 S. Delaware St., was sworn in for testimony . Ms. Lester Stickney presented the Chair with 3 statements from neighbors. She testified that the main reason she applied for the variance was to build a garage . Her elderly mother, who is 83 years old and legally blind , lives with her and must be helped in and out of vehicles. Further, it has become an increasing problem to get her mother from the car into the house when there is snow or ice. Ms . Lester Stickney continued by stating that while it does not impact the safety of the community, she feels that there is reasonable cause based on her mother's health. She further testified that she sustained an injury last year, partially due to assisting her mother into the house, and feels that it impacts 7 both her and her mother's health. She directed the Board's attention to the site plan • and pointed out that her house would not be the only house on the block that encroaches into the 25-foot front set back. She stated she would like to get her mother safely in and out of the house. While her mother is not currently in a wheelchair, she is becoming increasingly weaker. Ms. Lester Stickney directed the Board's attention to the diagram showing the current back entry. It has a 32" back door and the first step to the basement is exactly 34" from the threshold of the back door, which does not allow her enough room to support her mother and get her into the house safely. She further testified that if her mother does become wheelchair bound, it would be impossible to get through that entry way. Also, there is a 24" distance between an existing cabinet and a wall that support a stairway to the basement. Mr. Smith interjected and stated that the variance is permanent, whereas the residents of the house are temporary. He directed the applicant to address the five criteria. Ms. Lester Stickney continued by stating that the character of the neighborhood would be preserved and would not adversely affect any of the adjoining neighbors. She testified that her proposal would improve the current visual aesthetics of the neighborhood and possibly increase property values. Mr. Allen asked if she had a drawing showing the finished product. Ms. Lester Stickney replied that she did not. Mr. Allen stated that the house looks good now, but is concerned what it will look like once the garage is built. Ms. Lester Stickney stated that she did not feel she could afford to have the plans drawn if the Board was not going to grant the variance. She testified that the front wall would not extend pass the existing roof line. The roof line is approximately 4' in front of the house, so it would be a matter of enclosing it and including windows. She reiterated that she didn't believe it would change the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Mr. Allen asked if the roof line would be a straight plane down to include the new garage or would it be 2 slopes. Ms. Lester Stickney replied that she believed it would be part of the existing roof line, because if the ground is leveled out at that point there should be enough room to put a garage door. Ms. O'Brien asked if an architect would draw up plans if the variance was granted. Ms. Lester Stickney stated that was her intent. She stated she has already spoken with a couple of companies who will be submitting bids on the project, and both have architects in their firms. Chair Barber asked if she had a doctor's statement on the condition of her mother. Ms. Lester Stickney replied she did not. Chair Barber stated he believed it would be important to have due to the fact there might be a question regarding the American Disabilities Act. Mr. Smith stated that the ADA does not apply to residential structrures. Discussion ensued. 8 • • • • Charles Stickney, 4350 S. Delaware , was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stickney testified that alley in the rear of the property is dirt and if they built the garage back there , they would be incapable to get to it in the winter or in heavy rains . He reiterated that his mother-in-law is ill and, if required, could obtain a doctor's statement that she does need a way to get from the house to the car. He also reiterated that the garage would be built by a professional. Ted Lewarchick, 4356 S. Delaware St., was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Lewarchick stated that he agreed with Mr. Smith; a medical condition should have no bearing in this matter. He testified that the zon ing laws were made for a reason , and believes this request would be a big infringement. Furthermore, it would change the characteristic of the neighborhood . He stated that there are very few houses in the neighborhood with enclosed garages , attached to the front of the house . He believes that 95% of the houses that do have garages are in the rear of the house. He stated that he had spoken with neighbors and believes that when the garage is built , the slope of the garage will cause him dra inage problems and will block his view. Mr. Lewarchick further stated that he has a 3 year old son whom he watches out the front yard; and perhaps with this structure , he wouldn't be able to see him. Mr. Smith asked how the garage would stop him from seeing his son. Mr. Lewarchick replied that his son doesn 't always stay in the front yard . Chair Barber asked where his house was located with respect to the property in question. Mr. Lewarchick stated that his property is one house to the south. Chair Barber asked Mr. Lewarchick if his house set unusually far back from the street; Mr. Lewarchick replied yes. Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. Lewarchick if he would change his position if the Engineering Division of the City reviewed the drainage plans as part of the building permit application and inspected the lot drainage after the construction. Mr. Lewarchick stated that after construction there isn't much that can be done if they do find a drainage problem. Ms. O'Brien stated that the problems would be fixed. Mr. Lewarchick stated he would still oppose the variance . Mr. Lewarch ick continued by stating that if he were building this structure for whatever reason he would make his plans and designs within the City's zoning regulations. He stated that health was not an issue ; and, as Mr. Smith stated , this structure is permanent. He reiterated that most of the homes in the neighborhood have garages in the backyard, and there is enough room in the Stickney 's backyard to build this garage. He further stated that this proposal could reduce the value of his home , due to the fact it will be in violation of the zoning; it will look odd; and the majority of the homes have detached garages in the rear. Chair Barber incorporated Mr. Lewarchick 's letter of opposition into the record. Christian Masarik , 4356 S. Delaware St., was sworn in for testimony . Mr. Masarik stated he resides at the house with Mr . Lewarchick. He testified that the subject house 9 has a side entrance under a carport; therefore, it isn't exposed to the elements. He • further stated that it would be more cost effective to remove the cabinets, which Ms. Lester Stickney referenced, than build another structure that will obstruct the view and decrease the value of Mr. Lewarchick 's house. He agreed with Mr. Lewarchick that the majority of the homes in the neighborhood have garages off the alley. Staff had no comments. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance request. Chair Barber incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Ms. O'Brien seconded: THAT FOR CASE #4-98, MARLYS I. LESTER STICKNEY 4350 S. DELAWARE ST. BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 21-FOOT FRONT YARD SET BACK TO PERMIT BUILDING AN ENCLOSED RAMP FROM THE FRONT DOOR TO A NEW GARAGE AND TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE THAT CAN BE ACCESSED VIA THE NEW RAMP. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Seymour stated that he didn 't feel the proposal would be a detriment to the neighborhood and is in favor of making the residence handicapped accessible. Mr. Smith stated he feels that he is being asked to make a decision "in the dark" since there are no elevation drawings showing the garage and the enclosure. He suggested tabling the matter until drawings were submitted. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith stated he would prefer to approve the variance on the condition of the submittal of drawings within 30 or 60 days, and said drawings being reviewed and accepted by the Board. Further discussion ensued. Assistant City Attorney asked for clarification on whether there was a motion to table the motion. The Chair responded the Board wishes to amend the motion to include the condition of acceptable drawings being submitted within 60 days. Assistant City Attorney stated that legally she has problems with conditional variances. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith explained that if the motion was amended it would not require another public hearing; the plans would be submitted to the Board, neighbors, and any other interested parties for the August meeting. If more information was needed, the Board would request the applicant to return again; if not, the Board would approve the plans as presented. Ms. O'Brien asked how the neighbors and other interested parties would have a chance to review the plans. Mr. Smith stated that it would be the responsibility of the applicant to provide copies to those who spoke in favor or opposition of the variance at tonight's hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Bode seconded: 10 • • • • • TO AMEND THE MOTION TO: THAT FOR CASE #4-98, MARLYS I. LESTER STICKNEY 4350 S. DELAWARE ST., A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO PERMIT A 21-FOOT FRONT YARD SET BACK TO PERMIT BUILDING AN ENCLOSED RAMP FROM THE FRONT DOOR TO A NEW GARAGE AND TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE THAT CAN BE ACCESSED VIA THE NEW RAMP, CONDITIONED UPON PLANS BEING PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AND NEIGHBORS, AND SAID PLANS BEING APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT THE AUGUST 12 MEETING. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes"; it will only require a small change, and it will work for not only the current owners, but future owners. Ms. Mcintosh stated she voted "yes." Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes"; it is a minimal change to the existing zoning ordinance. It observes the spirit of the ordinance; a number of other houses in the neighborhood are as close as 19 feet to the street; there are several other garages that open up into the street. He stated he didn't believe it would adversely affect the adjacent property; however, the plans the applicant submits in August will clarify any questions he may have in that regard . It won't impair the use or development of the adjacent property because it is on their property, and the adjacent property is already developed. It is the least modification to grant relief. Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Allen and Mr. Bode voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Smith. Chair Barber stated he voted "no" because he does not have adequate information at this time on the structure. Chair Barber announced the motion as amended was approved by a 6-1 vote. He directed the applicant to submit an elevation plan for the proposed structure to the Board and interested parties by the August 12 meeting. He also recommended the applicant address the drainage issue with the appropriate City department. A short recess of the Board was declared by the Chair. The meeting reconvened; all Board members were present. 11 IV. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #5-98 3162 S. Gaylord Roger W. and Deborah J. Perry-Smith Chair Barber declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication. Chair Barber introduced the case by stating the applicant is proposing no side yard where an 11 foot side yard is required. This is a variance from Section 16-4-2:1 , Minimum Side Yard, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . The applicant is also seeking relief for an allowance to increase lot coverage by 200 square feet. This is a variance from Section 16-4-2:E, Maximum Percentage of Lot Coverage, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Deborah J. Perry-Smith, 3162 S. Gaylord St., was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Perry- Smith stated that she would like to reduce her request for an increase in lot coverage from 200 sq. ft. to 164.5 sq. ft. She also stated that she was unaware of the previous variance for lot coverage. • Ms. Perry-Smith testified that she is proposing to expand the house, remodel the inside, dig a basement, and add an addition over the garage. She stated she had looked for other houses in Englewood to move into but was unable to locate a house with the square footage she was looking for. She directed the Board's attention to the elevation • drawings she had submitted and stated the drawings were completed prior to making the decision to file for the variance for extra square footage. · She stated the plan was to increase the single-car garage to a 2-car garage and feels it would be impossible to place the garage in the rear --7 ft. on one side and 6.5 ft. on the other side, as well as a utility easement that runs across the rear of the property. Ms. Perry-Smith submitted 7 photographs of neighboring houses to the Chair . She stated that numerous houses in the neighborhood have encroachments in this setback. Ms. Perry-Smith stated the proposed change would now give 23.5 ft. between structures rather than 21 ft. Mr. Smith stated that the information he has indicates a proposed distance between 3162 S. Gaylord and the property to the north of 21 ft. He asked is she was saying property line or structure. Mrs. Perry-Smith clarified that she was discussing structure. Mr. Smith clarified that with the original request there would be zero distance between the property line and the ~tructure, but with the proposed change there would be a 2 ft. Ms. Perry-Smith rep li ed that there would be 2.5 feet between the property line and the structure. Ms. Perry-Smith stated that the owner of the house to the north had mailed a letter in opposition to the variance. She further stated that the house is a rental and recently learned that the house will be going on the market within the next 2 weeks. Ms. Perry- Smith addressed Ms. Kennedy's concerns by stating that the second-story addition will 12 • • • • set back from the edge of the structure, approximately 3.5 feet, as indicated in the elevation drawings. Chair Barber asked Ms. Perry-Smith to confirm that she is requesting a 2.5 ft. set back from the north property line, the garage setback; inset from that another 3.5 ft. is the second story; and from the second story to the property line on the north is approximately 6 ft. Ms. Perry-Smith stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour asked if she was proposing a double car garage . Ms. Perry-Smith replied yes; they currently have a double car garage, but they are proposing to extend the kitchen into the garage for a larger eating space which will reduce the size of the existing garage. Mr. Seymour further asked if she had considered the impact to the house to the north regarding sunlight and shading . Ms. Perry-Smith stated that currently there is a large tree that shades the property . Chair Barber questioned the effect in the winter. Ms. Perry-Smith stated she didn't know , but the second story addition is not at issue. Staff had no comments. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance request. Chair Barber incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT FOR CASE #5-98, ROGER W. AND DEBORAH J. PERRY-SMITH , 3162 S. GAYLORD ST., A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO ENCROACH 8.5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 11 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TO INCREASE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BY 164.5 FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:1, MINIMUM SIDE YARD, AND SECTION 16-4-2:E, MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF LOT COVERAGE, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Allen stated he inspected the property and surrounding neighborhood and believes that the proposal would be an improvement. Mr. Smith stated that he had a problem with a such a close setback and believes it impacts the neighbor to the north by not allowing them to develop. He suggested using half the existing garage, tearing down the other half, and building a garage in the rear. He stated he was surprised that the fire department didn't have concerns regarding the zero setback, especially if the neighbor to the north has a car or some other item on their lot. Mr. Smith stated that a variance already exists that increases the lot coverage, and he would not support another. Ms. O'Brien stated that the plans are beautiful, but feels it is important to maintain distance between residences and that 2.5 feet is unacceptable. 13 Chair Barber stated that, if he recalls correctly, Building Code requires a 1-hour wall • and no opening along the side of the building. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "no" due to the reduced side setback. She reiterated that the plans are very aesthetically pleasing and hopes the applicant is able to modify their home, without a variance, to meet their needs. Mr. Allen stated he voted "yes." He stated it would be an improvement to the neighborhood and a 2-story house is permitted within the City of Englewood. Mr. Bode stated he voted "no " because it does not meet the first criteria , in that there are no exceptional conditions or circumstances; nor does it meet the third criteria in that the variance will adversely affect the neighbor. Mr. Seymour, Ms. Mcintosh, and Mr. Smith stated he voted "no" concurring with Mr. Bode and Ms. O'Brien. Chair Barber voted "yes ". The Chair announced the variance as denied by a 5-2 vote. The Chair stated that he wished the applicant well in developing a plan that would not require a variance or one • that would be acceptable to the Board . Ms. Perry-Smith asked the Board whether the pictures she submitted indicating zero lot line throughout the neighborhood made a difference. Chair Barber replied that in those cases the zero lot line was for fences rather than residential structures . Mr. Smith stated that the vote of the Board speaks for itself and objects to the Chair trying to explain the vote. Mr. Smith stated that he would like the meeting procedures changed to incorporate the Staff report into the public hearing of every case so that it wouldn 't need to be done each time. He asked Ms . Reid for ass istance. She replied that she would look into the matter. V. PUBLIC HEARING · CASE #6-98 Jon Hindelmann 2916 S. Lafayette Drive Chair Barber declared the Public Hearing open , stating he had proof of posting and publication. He stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a new two-car garage addition that encroaches between 2 .5 feet to 4 .6 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback. This is a variance from Section 16-4- 2:H, Minimum Front Yard of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . 14 • • • • Jon Hindelmann, 1228 Monroe St., was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Hindelmann presented the Chair with 10 statements from neighbors. He stated he is the architect representing the property owners , Mr. and Mrs . Scott Woodward . He further stated that the issue involves encroaching into the front setback of the property. Due to the curvilinear streetscape, wh ich is one of the main attributes of the neighborhood, the house is squared off to the curb ; therefore, there is a range in terms of the encroachment --2.5 feet to 4 .5 feet. He further testified that the 4 .5 ft. setback exists to the west side of the garage --the softer side or the yard side of the property itself. The 2.5 ft. encroachment is to the east property line . Mr. Hindelmann stated that when the Woodwards approached him a few months ago regarding the project, they had a goal to construct a 2-car attached garage. He continued by stating a number of years ago the garage was converted to living space ; and currently the homeowners park their cars on the driveway. Mr. Hindelmann further stated that he believes it is good planning to remove the cars from the streetscape, wh ich is key to the proposal before the Board. He re iterated that one of the goals was to create a 2-car garage as a formal addition to the home . It was designed to be no larger than needed; it will not provide extra space for a woodshop or excess storage . Mr. Hindelmann pointed out that the addition will reflect the architectural character of the home, will integrate w ith the home in an inconspicuous manner, and will fit well into the character of the neighborhood . He stated that the neighborhood is a "novel" area in the City of Englewood; often referred to as "California ranch-style" architecture. In addition, the plan is cost affordable fo r the Woodwards . He further stated that some of the detailing shown in the elevation drawings are not inexpensive ; once again trying to mainta in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith d irected Mr. Hindelmann to address the five criteria necessary for the Board to rule in this matter. Mr. Hindelmann stated he was trying to establish how the proposal would not adversely affect adjacent property or the neighborhood. He further stated that the location for the addition was chosen because the garages in the neighborhood are all front load garages . Alternatives were looked at such as locating the garage in the rear; but it was deemed impossible because there would have been a tremendous amount of concrete paving along the west side of the house to gain access into the rear yard, and there also would have been rear and side setback issues. It would have also created a "turnaround" problem, therefore , the site does not lend itself to a rear-load garage. He further stated that it was decided to locate the garage on the front of the house on the east side. He also pointed out that the neighbor to the east recently enclosed a carport making it a formal garage; therefore , he felt that the chance of having more development on the front of that property was slim. It, therefore, seemed appropriate to construct the garage on that side. Mr. Hindelmann referred the Board's attention to the south elevation drawing, A2, and po inted out the side yard, which has a grade change, the retaining wall to the north, and 15 a portion of the new enclosed garage to the east. He also pointed out on the photographs within the Board's packet, that the 25-foot front setback is something that • has already been encroached upon historically in the area. As a result, the relationship between the proposed garage and the front property line is actually greater than the existing conditions on some parcels, while still being less than existing conditions on other parcels. Again, the attempt is to fit into the neighborhood's streetscape. He mentioned that with respect to the eastern boundary of the site, he has increased the side setback requirements in an effort to be a good neighbor. Also, the irregular shape, or the notch, on Sheet A2, in the garage is yet a further design consideration to provide even more breathing space between the structures, as well as additional daylight into the family room. Mr. Hindelmann referred the Board's attention to a letter received from Arapahoe Acres. He stated that the first paragraph of the letter refers to the encroachment issue and eludes to the fact that they recognize the sincere efforts that have been made and do not necessarily have a problem with the encroachment. Mr. Hindelmann presented photographs to the Chair that address some of the aesthetic questions. Mr. Hindelmann asked the Board to clarify whether the issue was setback or covenants. Chair Barber stated the Board will vote on the setback issue. Mr. Seymour asked if the two, small, green flags on the lawn reflect the corners of the proposed garage. Mr. Hindelmann replied that last week he received a call from Debby • Pool asking him to attend a meeting with a group of homeowners. He was unable to attend the meeting due to prior comments, but stated he could meet later. He proceeded to state that he met with the homeowners last Thursday or Friday. One of the concerns raised in that meeting was it would be helpful if the corner points where staked; hence the green flags which stake the front two corners of the proposed garage. Ms. O'Brien asked if Mr. Hindelmann was aware of any neighborhood review process. He stated that he was not. He stated he met with Cathie Mahon and Harold Stitt, from the City, regarding the project and that he had a concern regarding covenants. In researching the matter, it appears that the course of history has been such that the covenants have either been unenforced or disbanded until recent date. Ms. O'Brien asked if he had any personal knowledge on this matter or was it all hearsay. Mr. Smith stated that whether or not the covenants exist is not the Board's concern; the variance will be to the City ordinance. If the neighbors want to sue because of a violation in the covenants, that is the neighbors' decision. He continued by stating the Board will not enforce neighborhood covenants. Bev Bradshaw, 2910 S. Marion, was sworn in for testimony. She testified that she has resided in Arapahoe Acres for 26 years and has knowledge of the covenants. She stated that there was not and is not a homeowner's association; furthermore, the headline on the letter is erroneous; it was voted on by 8 people at a meeting. The • 16 • • • historical designation is a plus, but it is not a prescription or empowerment to neighbors to ask for a delay in this hearing. She continued to testify that the neighborhood is made up of individuals who have the right to improve their properties. Further, there are over 100 homes built in the late '40's, early '50's; some need updating, and some have already been updated. She stated that the Woodwards have a right to improve their property; the property was added to earlier and feels that some of the neighbors seem to be "hyper vigilant" about any other additions. She further stated that the Woodwards should be allowed to proceed; their design is compatible. She reiterated that the neighborhood does not have a design review committee; therefore, any such reference is inappropriate and costly to the Woodwards. Unless the opponents to this variance agree to pay for the delay, she feels that the variance should be granted. Mr. Smith asked for clarification on the existence of the Arapahoe Acres Neighborhood Association. Ms. Bradshaw replied that there is a neighborhood group and that the logo is from the neighborhood newspaper; but the first time she realized there was an Arapahoe Acres Neighborhood Association was when Mrs. Pool delivered the letter to her today . Mr. Smith asked if, to her knowledge, there was an architectural review committee. Ms. Bradshaw stated that she believes there are a few people who are interested in developing such a committee, and that a book was written about the neighborhood by Diane Ray and feels that Ms. Ray would like to have such a committee. Mr. Smith again asked if there was an official review committee. Ms. Bradshaw responded, "no." Mr. Smith inquired whether Ms. Bradshaw had ever voted in the last 26 years for a member of an architectural control committee. Ms. Bradshaw replied, "absolutely not." Chair Barber asked if Ms. Bradshaw paid any homeowner association fees. Ms. Bradshaw stated she did not. Yvonne Russell, 1551 E. Cornell, was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Russell testified that she attended a meeting at Debby Pool's house on June 8, with approximately 10-15 neighbors, all of whom were happy to see the design that Scott and Julie Woodward shared. She stated that adding the garage will improve the appearance of the house. She further stated that some minor suggestions for architectural detail were mentioned, but they should be regarded only as suggestions, not requirements. Further, whether or not the Woodwards incorporate those suggestions, the neighbors should trust and respect their decision. She further testified that she agrees with the variance. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Russell how long she has been a resident of the neighborhood, and if in that time, she has ever voted for a member of an architectural review committee. Ms. Russell stated she has been a resident for 8-9 years and that she has never voted for such a committee. John Haag, 2920 S. Lafayette, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Haag testified that the only issue is the variance; neighbors surrounding the Woodwards' property have written letters of support; and the proposed garage would most affect his property and view. 17 He further testified that he is in complete support of the design and believes it will increase his property value. He stated that he has resided in the neighborhood for 8 • years and has never voted, nor has been asked to vote, for an architectural review committee. He added that he is unimpressed with the process in which the negative comments have come forth. Chris Hoogland, 3041 W. Franklin St., was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Hoogland testified he was not in opposition to the variance; he was present to request a short continuance. He stated that there is an attempt to reformulate the neighborhood association, as well as an effort to apply for registration with the National Registry of Historical Places. He also understands that there is an attempt to reconstitute an architectural committee, and that now was a good time to find out if people where interested. Mr. Smith asked why Mr. Hoogland wished to delay this variance when it appears other variances have been granted in the neighborhood . Mr. Hoogland responded that he was not familiar with the history of variances within this neighborhood. Ms. O'Brien asked for a clarification on his statement that there is an attempt to reformulate the neighborhood association. Mr. Hoogland stated that over the last few years a number of individuals have shown a great deal of interest in the history and architecture of the neighborhood. Further as a part of that interest, it is his understanding that the homeowners association and the architectural committee might be made a live entity again. • Chair Barber clarified that Mr. Hoogland was not in opposition to the variance, rather wished to have the matter continued. Mr. Hoogland stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour inquired as to Mr. Hoogland's length of residency at his current address. Mr. Hoogland responded that he has lived in the neighborhood since 1992. Ken Fisher, 1337 E. Cornell Ave., was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Fisher testified that he has resided in the neighborhood for approximately 30 years; his garage encroaches 1.5 ft., and an architect that lived in the neighborhood, about 20 years ago, reviewed his plans. He stated he is a commercial real estate appraiser, and therefore, looks at a lot of real estate. He further testified that the neighborhood is unique; he agrees with what the Woodwards are attempting, but that there are a few small aesthetic suggestions he would like Mr. Hindelmann to review and address. Mr. Smith clarified that Mr. Fisher does not have an objection to the encroachment, rather he wishes to have "veto power" over the design. Mr. Fisher stated that was correct. Debby Pool, 1431 E. Cornell, was sworn in for testimony . Ms. Pool stated she is an original owner in Arapahoe Acres and has resided there since 1955. 18 • • • • Chair Barber asked Ms. O'Brien to make a statement regarding her contact with Ms . Pool. Ms. O'Brien stated that Ms. Pool called her yesterday; they spoke briefly; and the substance of the conversation was Ms . Pool was with Arapahoe Acres and that Arapahoe Acres had some concerns. Ms. O'Brien further stated that she directed Ms. Pool to testify before the Board at tonight's hearing, and that was the end of the conversation. Ms. Pool stated those facts were correct. Ms. Pool stated that it had been recommended to her by a member of the City Council to contact Ms. O'Brien and apologized if she was out of order. Ms. Pool stated that she has stirred up a "hornet's nest". She stated she wore a "black hat" for 16 years as a schoo l board member within the community and feels that she is once again the "bad guy." She continued by stating that a group of neighbors had agreed to ask the Board to delay action on this variance so that the process , which has started, can be finished. She stated that the group does not necessarily oppose the variance; in fact, as people have mentioned, they are highly complimentary of the proposal and of the design. She reiterated that they would like the opportunity to finish their process. She stated that "they" are a group of people within Arapahoe Acres that are trying to "get their act back together'' and have been meeting over the last 4 to 5 years. She stated that on May 15 , their nomination to be on the National Registry of Historic Places was unanimously approved and was forwarded to Washington, D.C. She expressed appreciation to Ann Nabholz, City Councilwoman, for speaking on behalf of the City and on behalf of the Englewood Historic Society in support of the nomination . Mr. Smith asked how this information affected the applicant's request. Ms. Pool stated is has given the neighborhood an impetus to start a design review process again. She referred the Board's attention to the neighborhood covenants. Mr. Smith stated he had a copy of the covenants and expressed he was not concerned with the covenants, rather he is concerned with the City ordinances. He further stated he was perplexed as to what the nomination to the National Registry had to do with this variance. Ms. Pool stated that questions have been raised regarding the organization; it is a voluntary association with no dues and primarily social in nature. Further, when they met 2 days ago, there was agreement that an organization would be founded with a Board of Directors. Two historic preservationists, Diane Ray and a gentleman from the National Park Services, reviewed the plans, and the group heard their concerns. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Pool to clearly state whether she was opposed to the setback request. Ms. Pool stated she is not opposing the request. Chair Barber clarified that she is requesting a delay to organize the homeowners association. Ms. Pool stated that they would like a delay so that representatives of the group can meet with the architect to discuss design considerations . Chair Barber asked if, at this point, a formal association, with the power to rule on such matters, exists. Ms. Pool replied "no"; it is a group of homeowners, but felt there was a consensus group that wished her to ask the Board for a delay. 19 Chair Barber stated that, to his recollection, there were no opponents to the variance • request. Mr. Smith suggested the public hearing be closed. Brad Denning, Planning Analyst, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Denning requested that the letter from Arapahoe Acres be entered into the record and stated that there were no objections from any of the City departments. He also stated that there was an inadvertent error within the staff report with regard to the second criteria; however, it does not change the contextual nature of the report. He directed the Board's attention to Item 2. " ... The preamble of the R-1-C ... "should read "The preamble of the R-1-A Zone District states that, 'This District is composed of certain quiet, low-density residential areas of the City. The regulations for this District are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the District, except for certain conditional uses which are controlled by specific limitations governing the size and extent of such uses, and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life.' " There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance request. Chair Barber incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT FOR CASE #6-98, JON HINDELMANN, APPLICANT, AND PROPERTY • OWNERS, SCOTT AND JULIE WOODWARD, 2916 S. LAFAYETTE DRIVE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO- CAR GARAGE ADDITION THAT ENCROACHES BETWEEN 2.5 FT. TO 4.5 FT. INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Bode stated this garage is 18' 1 O" long and asked if this is the standard size for a garage. Chair Barber stated there was nothing unusual about the size of this garage. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "yes". With respect to the five criteria, she stated: 1. There are exceptional conditions or circumstances relative to the property that compliance with the regulations would result in a hardship for the property owner. Specifically, placing the garage in the proposed position is the least intrusive manner in terms of setbacks; limited access since there are no convenient alleys in this area, the potential need for a retaining wall if positioned elsewhere on the lot, and the possible demolition of part of the home's facade and mature deciduous trees. 20 • • • • 2. The variance observes the spirit of the ordinance and protects the public safety and welfare through the just application of the regulations . The proposed garage will protect the safety and welfare of the neighborhood by decreasing on-street park ing congestion and correspond similarly with the existing neighborhood style. 3. The variance does not adversely affect adjacent property or the neighborhood. The garage will benefit the neighborhood by providing off- street parking. 4 . The variance will not impact or impair the use or development of adjacent property . The adjacent properties are developed , and the construction of the garage will not impact or impair the use or future development of those properties. 5 . The variance is the least modification necessary to grant relief to the applicant. The proposed variance is a minor modification of the Zoning Ordinance in that it would allow for only a minor intrusion into the front yard. Mr . Allen , Mr. Bode , Mr . Seymour and Ms. Mcintosh voted "yes ", concurring with Ms. O'Brien . Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes ", concurring with Ms. O'Brien, and added that he drove through the neighborhood , and it appeared that many houses encroached into the 25- foot setback. Further, the lot is uniquely shaped in that it is not a rectangular lot. Chair Barber stated he voted "yes ", concurring with Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Smith . He further added that he did not see or hear any opposition to the request and delaying a matter in order to organize a homeowners association is irrelative. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 7-0 vote , and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any add it ional information . VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Cha ir Barber asked for considerat ion of the Minutes from the May 13 , 1998 , public hearing . Seymour moved , Smith seconded: AYES: NAYS: THE MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1998 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Barber, Bode , Mcintosh , O'Brien, Seymour , and Smith None 2 1 ABSTAIN: Allen ABSENT: None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VII. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved ; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #2-98 , AL CASTELO , 3575 S. CLARKSON STREET , BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: Barber, Bode , Mcintosh , O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None. ABSTAIN: Allen ABSENT: None The mot ion carried . VIII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Staff stated they had nothing further . IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid asked if the proposed procedures were acceptable to the Board . Mr. Sm ith asked that the staff report automatically be made a part of the record. Ms. Reid responded that she would investigate the matter. Discussion ensued. Chair Smith stated that he did not receive a copy of the procedures. Ms . Reid stated she would mail him a copy. X. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE The Board stated they had nothing further. There was no further business brought before the Board . The meeting was declared adjourned at 10 :15 p.m. Nanc G. Fenton , Recording Secretary f:ld ept\nbd\grou p\boards \boa\ 1998 cases lease 3-98\minu tes.doc 22 • • •