Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-12 BAA MINUTES'•, .. • • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS November 12, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 8:00 P.M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Bode presiding. Members present: Allen, Bode, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith Members absent: Mcintosh (Secretary's Note: One vacancy) Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Harold St itt, Senior Planner Lance Smith, Ch ief Building Official Chair Bode stated that there were five members present; therefore, four affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. Chair Bode stated that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to grant variances by Part Ill, Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Chair Bode 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 #10-98 Matthew Heffernan 3434 and 3436 South Downing Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication. He introduced the case by stating it is an appeal of Section 317.8 of the 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code. Matthew Heffernan was sworn in for testimony. Mr . Heffernan stated that he is a landlord within the City of Englewood and prior to 2 weeks ago, he was also a resident. He provided the Board with the following background: He attended the University of Denver where he was a resident manager and was allowed to live free in exchange for managing the property for the university. This gave him the idea of owning rental property and being a landlord. A law school friend and he purchased property in Pueblo , remodeled it, and sold it. He continued by stating that he then bought the 1 subject property on Downing Street. At that time, the property was in disrepair; one apartment was uninhabitable and trash was everywhere. He stated that he has since remodeled the apartment, and while being a landlord may have a negative connotation, he believes he is different. He further stated that he gives his residents turkeys on Thanksgiving in appreciation for paying their rent. If a problem arises, he solves it within 24 hours. Mr. Heffernan testified that in May of 1998, a tenant called him complaining that the furnace didn't work. He investigated the problem and called Bartels Heating and Air Conditioning, who determined the igniter was inoperable. Upon further investigation, the contractor discovered there were small cracks in the heating element which can cause carbon monoxide poisoning. Mr. Heffernan stated he was advised to install a new furnace, and he immediately instructed the contractor to do so. The contractor then applied for a permit on May 26 with the City of Englewood. The furnace was installed on June 10, and on August 26 the City inspected the furnace. Mr. Heffernan continued by stating that it was at that time the City inspector informed him that dual furnaces are not allowed under the City Code of Englewood. He testified that he was unaware that dual furnaces were not permitted ; the building was built in 1953 and was designed to have one furnace heating two units. Mr. Heffernan submitted pictures to the Board. He explained that the duplex is an "up and down" rather than a "side by side"; the furnace is in the lower unit and the heating ducts are contained in the ceiling of the lower unit and floor of the upper unit. The inspector informed him that the furnace was against Code, and he would need to install two furnaces; one in the lower unit and one in the upper unit. Mr. Heffernan explained that since he had already expended $2,000 for the existing furnace, he decided to appeal the inspector's decision. He expressed his frustration regarding how the contractor could apply for a permit, be granted permission to install the furnace, and yet upon inspection, be told it doesn't meet Code and would need to be "ripped out." Mr. Heffernan stated he investigated the matter by pulling the permit completed by Bartels Heating, a copy of which he submitted to the Board. He directed the Board's attention to the permit and pointed out under "Classification of Structure", the box checked is "Single family detached or duplex." He explained that the Building Department was unable to determine from the permit whether the property was a duplex or a single family home. The address listed for the job is 3436 South Downing; the duplex has two separate addresses. The top unit is known as 3434 South Downing, and the bottom unit is 3436 South Downing. The permit lists number of units as one. Mr. Heffernan testified that it appears the Building Department determined the property to be a single family home installing one, new heating element at 3436 South Downing. He continued; at the same time, he requested to see the permit file on his duplex to determine the history of the property. He was informed by Building Department staff that two permit files exist for his property, one for each address; and the files are not cross referenced. Mr. Heffernan presented copies of both permit files to the Board. Mr. Heffernan stated he inquired why the files were not cross referenced and was informed that perhaps at one time the units were owned separately. He testified that to the best of his knowledge, both units were owned by the same person until he purchased the 2 •' -• • • • • • property. He stated he now understood how the permit was approved, the furnace installed, and then deemed to violate the Code because there are two separate files in the Bu ilding Department which are not cross referenced, and the permit does not distinguish between a duplex and a single family home. He then expressed concern that his duplex is not the only piece of property on the block. There are several duplexes built by the same builder, at the same time, who may encounter the same problem as him. When a furnace is replaced in one of those duplexes, the owner will be unaware that the Code requires dual furnaces because they also have separate addresses for each unit. He stated that his duplex has had one furnace heating two units since 1953 with no history of health problems. He asked the Board to grandfather the building since the problem has been solved--his tenants had no heat; they now have heat and have had a capable and working furnace for the previous five months. Mr. Allen asked who paid the utility bill. Mr. Heffernan responded that his tenants split the heating bill and hasn't had a problem with tenants arguing over the bill. Lance Smith, Chief Building Official with the City of Englewood, was sworn in. Mr. Smith testified that the 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code does not permit return air from a single system to be used for a duplex. This is because airborne pathogens, odors, etc. can circulate from one unit into another. He believes that the Code permitted a single furnace when the house was originally constructed; however, the Code is constantly changing to improve health, life, and safety. He stated that the Code recognizes that sharing a common return air is a health issue . Mr. Seymour asked for a solution. Mr. Smith responded that he has encountered similar situations where an attic type, inline furnace was installed or the furnace is on the upper level with electric baseboards. He explained that this situation is not unique. Mr. Seymour asked about the other items on the correction notice. Mr. Smith stated he believed the applicant was only appealing the "return air" portion of the appeal. The applicant stated that was correct. Mr. Smith stated that the Code does address the use, maintenance and repair of existing furnaces, but when a furnace is replaced, the property must be brought up to Code. Mr. Smith asked why a permit was issued for the replacement. Mr . Smith stated that the property has two different addresses for the two dwellings; there was no way of knowing that each address didn't have its own furnace. Ms. O'Brien asked what the applicant should have done. Mr. Smith responded that it is really the responsibility of the contract. The contractor is responsible for knowing their own individual Codes ; and this job was done by a mechanical contractor that should have informed the applicant that the property needed to be brought up to Code . 3 Mr. Allen asked if the original builder presented a plan to the City . Mr. Smith replied that the Building Department is only required to keep records, such as plans and drawings , for three months. The only information in the files are old permits, which indicate a single furnace for the two units. Mr. Seymour asked when the Code changed . Mr. Smith stated he researched back to 1973, and the Code had the same provision for separate return; this isn 't a recent change . Ms. O'Brien asked if the subject contractor is licensed to do business in Englewood. Mr. Smith responded, yes. Board member Smith asked if he was still licensed, Mr. Smith responded, yes . Ms. O'Brien asked what, if any steps , have been taken aga inst the contractor who sold the applicant an improper furnace for use when the Code had not just recently changed. Mr. Smith reiterated that this situation is not unique for duplexes . Ms. O'Brien expressed that she is not concerned how often the situat ion occurs; rather she is interested in know ing what action will be taken against the contractor. Mr. Smith responded that the correction notice was issued to the contractor, not the home owner ; however, the contractor or the home owner have the right to appeal. Ms. O'Br ien asked if the contractor responded to the correction notice . Mr. Smith stated that the City has not taken any action pending the decision of the Board. '' -• There were no other persons present to testify for or against the appeal. Chair Bode • incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Ms . O'Br ien seconded: THAT FOR CASE #10-98, MATTHEW HEFFERNAN, 3434 AND 3436 SOUTH DOWNING , THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED AN APPEAL TO SECTION 317.8 OF THE 1994 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE . Mr. Smith stated he wanted to know why the contractor wasn 't at the meeting. He stated that this situation is outrageous and wants to know why the contractor didn 't advise the applicant of the current Code regulations . He stated the City is partly to blame for not cross referencing duplexes and granting permits without determining the type of bu ild ing, but the contractor should know the Code . Ms. O'Brien stated the contractor is licensed in the City of Englewood and yet no action has been taken against him. The contractor still has his license , and the City advises the Board that he is reputable. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Heffernan how long he has owned the property . Mr. Heffernan responded that he has owned the property since January of 1996 . Mr. Heffernan stated 4 • . ' • • • he had "before and after'' pictures of the property . Chair Bode stated that the Board did not need the pictures. Mr. Smith stated that he had some trepidation as to why the property was healthy three or four months ago, and it isn 't healthy now; however, he realizes that the Code takes precedence. He expressed his outrage w ith the contractor. Discussion ensued regarding continuing the hearing to December. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded : THAT CASE #10-98 , MATTHEW HEFFERNAN, 3434 AND 3436 SOUTH DOWNING, BE TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 1998. Mr. Sm ith asked if the Board could demand that the contractor attend the December 9, 1998 hearing. Ms . Re id repl ied that the owner could request the contractor to attend. Mr. Heffernan stated that he called the contractor several times, gave him the address and t ime of the hearing , and asked him to attend. Ms . Reid stated that she didn 't bel ieve the Board had any subpoena powers, but she will research the matter and contact Cha ir Bode w ithin a week. Mr. Smith stated as a follow-up , he would ask the City to send out a notice to the contractor asking him to show why his license shouldn't be suspended or revoked . Mr. Allen recommended that the owner make the correct ion instead of working around it. Mr. Sm ith stated that he d idn 't disagree , but he didn't believe it is the applicant's total financial responsibility to remedy the problem. He continued by stating that Mr. Heffernan , under the adv isement of a licensed contractor, already purchased a furnace to remedy the problem. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to continue the case to next mont h to determine what type of expenses will be incurred and what the contractor is will in g to due to resolve the problem. He further stated that if he had to vote this eve nin g, he would vote "no" because it is a health hazard . Ms . O'Brien stated that she hopes the City now understands that clear steps need to taken to hold the contractor accountable . Chair Bode adv ised voti ng on the mot ion to table and asked the City Attorney to research whether or not the Board can require the contractor to attend next month. With no further discussion, the Board voted 5-0 to table Case No. 10-98 to December 9, 1998. The Chair announced the motion carried unanimous ly . Ill. PUBLIC HEARING · CASE #11-98 Gary M. Frederics 3954 South Pennsylvania Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open , stating he had proof of posting and publication . 5 ' ' Chair Bode stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 13.7 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback. This is a variance from Section 16-4-4 :H, • Minimum Front Yard of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Gary M. Frederics, 2961 E. Wyecliff Way, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Frederics testified that he purchased the property with the setbacks that are currently in existence; he acquired a building permit to remodel the interior of the residence; remodeled the residence completely; and sold the property. He further testified that while he was waiting for a Certificate of Occupancy, he ordered the necessary inspections and was advised that the property set too close to the street. He then discussed the issue with the appropriate City departments and received a temporary Certificate of Occupancy subject to tonight's hearing. Mr. Frederics stated that the situation is unusual in that when he purchased the property he was unaware of a minimum setback requirement that would affect the property during the remodel process. He submitted statements from neighbors on either side of his property and stated there are properties within the neighborhood that have similar setbacks . Hence, he didn 't become alarmed when he purchased the property because his property's front setback didn 't appear different than the neighboring properties. Mr. Smith asked the extent of his remodeling. Mr. Frederics testified that he fully remodeled the interior. When he purchased the property , it was a home that had been placed on a new foundation and then he remodeled the inside. Mr. Smith clarified that • a different owner moved the house onto the foundation. Mr. Frederics stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour asked if the previous owners had a permit for the foundation . Mr. Frederics stated that they did have a permit when they put the foundat ion in the ground and apparently the setback error was not caught. Mr. Seymour asked if the porch showed on his remodel permit. Mr. Frederics stated that the porch was in existence at the time he purchased and remodeled the property. The deck under the porch was part of his remodeling, but the existing roof is part of the original porch. Harold Stitt, Senior Planner, was sworn in for test imony. Mr. Stitt testified that the foundation permit and the plans that accompanied the permit showed a 25 foot setback. The Department of Neighborhood and Business Development does not inspect properties; usually the Building Department inspects the property or the contractor will have the property inspected and provide the Building Department with the information. Mr. Stitt continued by stating that one of the unique circumstances in this case is that there is approximately 20 feet from the curb line to the front of the house and suspects that the foundation was installed by someone who "eye balled" it. Mr. Stitt testified that the error was not discovered until the final inspections were made and actual measurements were taken. 6 • .. • • • Mr. Seymour stated that he concurs that surrounding properties appear to also encroach into the front setback. Ms . O'Brien stated the applicant remodeled the property and asked if it was that inspection that showed the error. Mr. Stitt responded that when Mr . Frederics requested his final inspection for a Certificate of Occupancy, the setback error was discovered . Ms. O'Brien inquired whether the applicant expanded the front of the house toward the street. Mr. Stitt stated he had not. Ms. O'Brien asked why the inspector would then measure the distance from the property line to the front of the house. Mr. Stitt replied that it is one of the items that must be checked for a final inspection . Ms. O'Brien asked for clarification --when the foundation was laid, did an error occur and not get caught? Is the applicant now getting caught with the error due to remodeling that didn't change the size of the encroachment? Mr. Stitt stated that was correct. Mr. Smith asked if an inspection is done when a foundation is laid. Mr. Stitt responded that , as he understands it, sometimes the building inspectors do the actual measurements and sometimes the contractor is requested to verify that the foundation is placed properly on the lot. Mr. Smith clarified that sometimes the Building Department checks; sometimes they don 't; this time they didn't; and now the residence encroaches 13 feet. Mr. Stitt stated that he could not respond to that. Mr. Seymour asked if a detailed plan is submitted with a permit application. Mr. Stitt replied that a site plan was attached that clearly showed the property boundaries and a 25 foot setback. Mr. Seymour asked if he was say ing the plan was incorrect. Mr. Stitt responded that from his examination of the documents, he believes the foundation was not put in accurately. The plan was accurate; it showed a 25 foot setback from the property line. Mr. Allen asked if the porch would be open or enclosed. Mr. Frederics responded that the current owners plan to keep it as an open porch . There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance request. Chair Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded : THAT FOR CASE #11-98, GARY M. FREDERICS AND PROPERTY OWNERS, PAIGE YEARICK AND CHARLOTTE CREWS, OF 3954 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 13.7 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Seymour stated he understood how the error occurred and other houses in the neighborhood are in the same condition. Mr. Seymour that perhaps a loophole needs 7 to be closed wherein foundations are always checked for accurate placement. He cited • a previous case where a garage pad was erroneously placed on the lot. Ms. O'Brien stated that she was struck by the fact that the applicant remodeled the interior of the home, didn't increase the structure toward the sidewalk, and then the inspectors measured the front setback in order to give the applicant the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Smith agreed that when the applicant purchased the property, the house was in the wrong place, and the City didn 't catch the error until he finished his remodeling. He continued by stating that someone had a permit to put in a foundation; someone had a permit to move the house; a house was put on top of the foundation and no one inspected it. He stated he believes those facts make it an extraordinary situation and allows the Board to grant the variance. Mr. Allen stated that he doesn 't believe the variance will affect the neighborhood. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes"; it will not change the nature of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes"; the current owner is not at fault. The extraordinary and exceptional situation is the failure of the Building Department to measure the setback at the time the foundation was laid and the failure of the prior owner to place the foundation on the lot properly. It will secure public safety and welfare and achieve substantial justice because there is no reason to cause the owners to move a house • they didn't erroneously place on the lot. It will not adversely affect the adjacent property or neighborhood because the setback on this house is similar in nature to the other houses in the neighborhood. It will not impair the use or development of the adjacent properties, either on the north or the south, because those setbacks are probably within 3 feet of the applicant's. It is the minimum variance that can be afforded. Ms. O'Brien , Mr. Allen, and Chair Bode stated they voted , "yes" concurring with Messrs. Seymour and Smith. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 5-0 vote , and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. IV. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #12-98 4 756 South Clay Court Chris A. Blakely Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication. Chair Bode introduced the case by stating the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 17 feet into the required 25 foot setback adjacent to South Clay Street. This is a variance from Section 16-4-5:J of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. • 8 • Chris A. Blakely, 4756 South Clay Court, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Smith informed the Chair he had a preliminary question. He stated that regarding the posting he did not see a sign on Clay Court, rather he found a posting on Clay Street. He · inquired if the posting was sufficient. Mr . Smith asked the applicant if the sign was posted on Clay Street rather than Clay Court. The applicant replied the sign was posted on Clay Street under the advisement of City staff. Staff advised such placement since the proposed garage would be built on the rear of the property which faces Clay Street. Mr. Blakely further testified that he felt such placement would notify the most affected neighbors. Chair Bode asked the City Attorney if the posting was legal. Ms. Reid replied that the Board has the authority to deem whether the posting is sufficient. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith stated that his concern with the location of the sign was the neighbors on Clay Court may not have known that the variance was being considered. Mr. Blakely submitted neighbor statements to the Board. Mr. Smith moved; Ms . O'Brien seconded THE POSTING FOR CASE # 12-98, CHRIS BLAKELY, 4756 SOUTH CLAY COURT BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT . • The Chair announced the motion approved 5-0. • Mr. Blakely stated that his proposal is to build a garage on the back portion of his property. Upon applying for a permit, he was informed that he has a through lot, which gives him two frontages which requires a 25 foot setback. He further testified that the property does not give him adequate area to move inward to the property due to power lines. He stated that if he moved the garage within the required 25 feet it would not only affect his patio but it would also affect his entire backyard; he doesn't have the room. He further testified that he believes when the house was built the builder intended to construct a garage in the front but decided against it due to windows being located on that side of the house. He continued by stating that he is allowing an 8 foot easement behind the garage and the rear fence; a 10 foot easement on the south side; and 8 foot easement on the north side. He stated he may use the garage for a workshop rather than a garage. Regarding the five criteria, Mr. Blakely stated that he has an irregular shaped lot and is unable to build the garage elsewhere on the lot; and he is keeping it within the spirit of the ordinance for land use. He purchased one of the only houses in the cul de sac that didn't have a garage. He continued by stating that his garage will not impact access on Clay Street which is currently an unpaved street and which may be developed in the future. An 8 foot easement exists between the street and his property line, and there will be 8 feet from his property line to garage, which allows 16 feet from the street. Mr . 9 Blakely stated that he will be constructing the garage with the same architectural design of the house; the pitch of the roof and the siding will be consistence with the house. Mr. Seymour asked the applicant to clarify that he has two frontages; one on Clay Street and the other on Clay Court. Mr. Blakely stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour asked if the 8 foot easement, as indicated on his drawing, was east or west of his board fence. Mr. Blakely stated that particular easement is west of his fence. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Blakely's drawing and property lines. Mr. Smith stated that the lot is certainly irregular. Mr. Seymour asked for clarification on the 8 foot and 10 foot easements. Mr. Blakely responded that the 8 foot easement is a water drainage, and the 10 feet easement is power lines for Public Service. Mr. Seymour asked for an explanation of the 3 foot easement on the north. Mr. Blakely stated that it is a setback rather than an easement. Mr. Seymour suggested constructing the garage by the pond and creek. Mr. Blakely stated that there are windows on that side of his house . If the garage where constructed in that location it would eliminate 90% of his yard, would cover his windows, and diminish his light source. Further, he stated he believes it would also affect the homeowner to the southwest of his property. In fact, he would be still be encroaching into the setback at that location. -• Mr. Smith asked staff what the setback would be if Clay Street were considered the rear of his property. Mr. Stitt responded that 25 feet is required on a through lot. If the property were not a through lot, the rear setback for a garage is 6 feet. If the garage exited into the alley, the setback is 3 feet. Mr. Smith clarified that, assuming Clay Street were an alley rather than a street, leaving 8 feet would be well within the rear setback. • Mr. Stitt stated that was correct. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance request. Chair Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT FOR CASE #12-98, CHRIS A. BLAKELY , 4756 SOUTH CLAY COURT, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 17 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK ADJACENT TO CLAY STREET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-5:J. Mr. Smith stated that the lot shape is extremely irregular and the placement of the houses on the lots in the neighborhood are in "tight" relationship to each other. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "yes." She stated that the first criteria is met in that the property is probably one of the most irregularly shaped lots she has seen. Regarding the second criteria, she believes the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance. • 10 • • • The third criteria is met due to the fact that the adjacent properties are developed . Regarding the fourth criteria that the variance will not impact or impair the use or development of adjacent property, she believes it will not for the reason previously stated. She believes the variance is the least modification necessary to grant relief to the applicant due to the fact the proposed garage observes existing drainage and utility easement and attempts to balance the need for a garage with the need for usable open space . Mr. Allen stated he voted "yes" because he does not believe it will change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Seymour, Mr. Smith, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes", concurring with Ms. O'Br ien and Mr. Allen. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 5-0 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. A short recess of the Board was declared by the Chair. The meeting reconvened; all Board members were present. v. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #13-98 Bishop Commercial Properties 3384 South Broadway Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication. He stated that the applicant is requesting a variance in required off-street parking from 9 spaces to 5 spaces; a reduction in parking stall length from 19 feet to 18 feet; and a reduction in drive aisle width from 24 feet to 22 feet. This is a variance from § 16-5-5: Private Off-street Parking Standards. Mr. Eddie Bishop, 808 E. Boulder, Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sworn in for testimony. Chair Bode stated that the posting is not notarized and asked Mr. Bishop to swear that the sign was posted for the required amount of time. Mr. Bishop testified the sign was posted for 18 days . The Board declared the posting sufficient. Mr. Bishop stated while he is the applicant in the case, he is not yet the owner of the property; however, he has put the property under contract subject to the Board's ruling on the parking issue. He testified that the lot is small, 40 x 125 feet or approximately 5,000 square feet; and if he were to conform to the parking requirement of 9 spaces, it would diminish the available retail space and would make the deal economically unviable. Mr . Bishop stated that he asked the Planning Department for guidelines and balance between his development needs and the City 's requirements. He considers himself fortunate to be able to acquire the lot because there are not many opportunities in which to acquire a site in the middle of a block. He is proposing approximately 2,600 square feet of retail space on the bottom level, which is a building footprint of 11 •' approximately 40 feet wide and approximately 65 deep. This would allow him 60 feet in .- the rear for 5 parking spaces, one of those being handicapped. On the second level of the building, he is proposing 3 loft-style apartments. The site, therefore, will be a mixed-use structure. He continued by stating that he does not currently have tenants in mind for either the retail space or the lofts. He stated he would like to construct the building within the character of Downtown Englewood --brick and block-type construction and a facade that would blend into the neighborhood. Mr. Allen asked what type of business would be on the property and the number of people it would employ. Mr. Bishop responded that it is a speculative building and does not have a tenant in mind . He did, however, receive a list of what uses were not permitted such as tattoo parlors, body shops, etc. but a lot of choices are still available. Mr. Smith asked how deep the buildings were adjacent to his property. Mr. Bishop replied that the building on the corner of South Broadway and Englewood Parkway, the Catholic Bookstore , takes up approximately 80% of its lot. Mr. Smith stated he was concerned with the rear wall of his building --will it be deeper or closer . Mr. Bishop stated that the Catholic Bookstore is on the south and on the north of his property is the Huffman property , 3372 S. Broadway , which is an aquarium . His building would not extend beyond either of those two buildings; in fact , his building would not be as deep. He is proposing to extend back 65 feet. Mr . Smith asked if he could estimate how deep those two buildings were . Mr. Bishop stated that he believes the lots are 125 feet from Broadway to the alley; the Catholic Bookstore is close to 90 feet deep and the aquarium • store is probably 70-75 feet deep. Mr. Allen stated that he is requesting a reduction from the required 9 to 5 spaces with a 22 foot turn in and park area. He asked if Mr. Bishop believed all the vehicles would be compact since the turn is short. Mr. Bishop stated that it is tight and that is why he has come to seek relief. Due to the lot only being 40 feet wide, he needs a drive aisle , a turn around area , and the parking spaces, which is why the variance is a dual request to reduce the number of spaces as well as reduce the size of the driving lane and the spaces themselves. He stated that he is asking for approximately a foot reduction from each requirement. He continued by stating that one of the property 's appeal to him is that it is located on a transportation corridor for buses, and hopefully soon, mass transit. He stated he expects that each of the loft tenants would have a car which would be 3 spaces dedicated to the residential units ; the Code requires 1 Yi spaces per unit. He expla ined the residential un its will be approximately 800 square feet. With a 2,600 square foot footprint, taking into consideration stairwells , etc., he believes that he will have units of approximately 750-800 square feet. The units, therefore, will not be large, family-style unit; these are efficiencies or one bedroom units. Mr. Allen asked if he had the required number of parking for the residential units. Mr. Bishop stated that if he receives the 5 spaces, then yes, he has the required spaces for the residential units. Mr. Allen asked what he proposed for the business parking. Mr. Bishop responded that he would dedicate the 3 spaces for the residential, leaving 2 spaces for the retail unit. He believes off-street parking is available . Mr. Allen asked if • 12 • he was speaking about the Malley Center parking lot. Mr. Bishop stated he wasn't aware if public parking was permitted in that lot. Mr . Allen stated it appeared that he would have no parking for the business. Mr . Bishop reiterated that was the reason he was before the Board seeking relief. Chair Bode asked what was on the east side of the property. Mr. Bishop responded that he believed it was the senior center. Chair Bode asked if that was City parking. Mr. Seymour stated that it is not City parking; the parking lot is strictly for the Malley Center. Mr. Allen stated that he believes that is the area people would park. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Bishop had explored the possibility of asking the Malley Center for help with parking. Mr. Bishops stated that he has not directly approached them, however, he has had some discussion with City staff that perhaps that is another approach. He continued by stating that he believes his proposal will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and statements from surrounding business indicate there would be no adverse impact to their business if the Board granted the variance. Ms. O'Brien asked staff why no comments from the Traffic Division were contained in the staff report. Mr . Stitt responded that the Traffic Division's indicated they had no objection to the variance if it was approved by Neighborhood and Business Development; and since it isn 't NBD 's place to approve the variance, the comment was not placed in the staff report. • Mr. Smith asked the number of businesses located in the 3300 and 3400 block of South Broadway that have parking that complies with the Code . Mr. Stitt replied that very few businesses in that area have adequate parking for first floor or second floor uses. Mr. Smith asked if staff concurred with Mr. Bishop's estimate of the buildings on either side of his property; he had paced the buildings and believes the applicant's estimates are correct. Mr. Stitt responded that the building to the south takes up at least 75% of the lot; the bu ilding to the north is not quite as large. He pointed out that the building to the south conta ins upper office or apartment space; and therefore, in terms with complying with the parking requirements, it is in a worse situation than Mr. Bishop's request. • Mr. Smith clarified that in order for Mr. Bishop to meet parking requirements for the proposed building he would need an additional 4 spaces and another 36 feet. Mr. Stitt stated that was correct. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposal is consistent with what the South Broadway redevelopment activity and is also consistent with the Downtown Development Authority is attempting to accomplish in that area. While the area is not part of the South Broadway Action Plan , which is a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the design of the proposed building and the proposed uses are consistent with what the City hopes to achieve on the remainder of South Broadway . Chair Bode clarified that if full-size parking spaces are required , the applicant would be limited to building a 32 foot building. Mr. Sm ith stated he concurred . 13 There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance request. Chair Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the • public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT FOR CASE #13-98, BISHOP COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES , FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3384 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING FROM 9 SPACES TO 5 SPACES, A REDUCTION IN PARKING STALL LENGTH FROM 19 FEET TO 18 FEET, AND A REDUCTION IN DRIVE AISLE WIDTH FROM 24 FEET TO 22 FEET . THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-5-5: PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS. Mr. Smith asked if variances expire with in 6 months if the building is not bu ilt. Ms. Re id stated that it expires if a building perm it is not applied for with in 6 months. Mr. Sm ith stated that if any other footprint were developed on the property , he wo ul d li ke to have it reviewed. Since the variance runs with the property , someone else could buy the property and build a different building . Mr. Smith suggested amending the motion . conditioned upon the footpr int submitted with the application. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded : TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: THAT FOR CASE #13-98 , BISHOP COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES , FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3384 SOUTH BROADWAY , BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING FROM 9 SPACES TO 5 SPACES, A REDUCTION IN PARKING STALL LENGTH FROM 19 FEET TO 18 FEET, AND A REDUCTION IN DRIVE AISLE WIDTH FROM 24 FEET TO 22 FEET CONDITIONED UPON CONSTRUCTION NOT EXCEEDING THE FOOTPRINT ATTACHED TO THE VARIANCE APPLICATION. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-5-5: PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes . Mr. Seymour stated he voted "no ." The applicant is requesting a 45% reduction in the number of parking spaces. • Mr . Sm ith stated he voted "yes". It is a small lot. In addit ion, it would achieve substantial justice because it is the same as the other lots on the block. It will not adversely affect the adjacent property. He believes the lot would be paved unlike some of the neighboring properties. It will not substantially impair the development of the • 14 , . • adjacent property since it is already developed. It appears to be the least modification consistent with the proposed development. Mr. Allen stated he voted "no." He would like to see it developed, but there is barely enough parking for the upper tenants. An undue burden will be placed on surrounding businesses to handle his parking. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "yes." This variance will be the minimal variance to allow reasonable development along the Broadway Corridor. She stated that she was persuaded by the City staff's comments that it was consistent with the development the City seeks to have on South Broadway . She stated she also felt it compelling that the Traffic Division did not make a negative comment. Further, it is consistent with the amount of parking currently available in that area. Chair Bode stated he voted "yes" concurring with Mr. Smith and Ms. O'Brien. The Chair announced the variance as denied by a 3-2 vote. VI. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #14-98 Thomas M. and Elizabeth M. Long 2090 East Eastman Avenue • Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication. The applicants are requesting a variance to construct an addition that encroaches 4. 79 feet into the required 7 foot side yard setback. This is a variance from Section 16-4-2:1(1 ), Minimum Side Yard, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. • Thomas Long, 2090 East Eastman Avenue , was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Long stated he is seeking to add a small addition to the rear of his house, specifically a bedroom. He pointed out that the house has an existing addition that was constructed prior to his purchasing the house which encroaches into the setback. He further testified that his desire is to add a 10 foot addition in the rear which would encroach an additional 1.9 feet into the setback. He stated that he and his architect have looked at other options to gain additional space but have been unable to find an alternative . He informed the Board that his architect was available if they had questions. Mr. Long stated that he has sought to encroach as minimally as possible in order to maintain the spirit of the ordinance. He feels that it does not affect his neighbor's property because a driveway, garage, and small vegetated area exist next to the proposed addition. She, therefore, would not be able to build to that side unless she eliminated her garage. Mr. Seymour asked if he thought the addition would make a "solid looking" building, like a wall with no air or no view. Mr. Long responded that if you stand in Ms. Ramus's driveway you currently view the side of his house and a large tree. Mr. Seymour pointed out that currently there is space between the tree and the house, and it is a nice open view for the neighbor. With his proposal, the neighbor will be looking at a wall 15 which will cut down air, view, and perhaps late day sunlight. Mr. Long stated that it • would cut down the view of his backyard. Mr. Long pointed out that Ms. Ramus indicated no objection on the neighbor's statement she signed. Mr. Allen clarified that he would have a 2.2 foot setback on the east side. Mr. Long stated that was correct. Mr. Allen asked where the neighbor's garage was located. Mr. Long responded that the distance from the corner of the proposed addition to the garage will be approximately 12 feet. Ms. O'Brien asked if Ms. Ramus 's house was attached to the garage. Mr. Long replied that it was not. Ms. O'Brien asked if he knew the distance between his addition to her house . Mr. Long submitted drawings to the Board. He indicated that the red line on the drawing is his proposed addition. Discussion ensued. Mr. Long pointed out that the houses in the neighborhood sit "sideways" on the lots . Mr. Allen asked if he had approval from the neighbor on the east. Mr. Long responded t hat he had statements from the neighbors on the east, west , north and south. Mr. Seymour clarified that the reason he is already in violation is because there had been a previous addition . Mr. Long stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour pointed out that no previous variances had been granted on the property and wondered how the encroachment came about. Staff had no comments . There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance . Chair Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and • closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded : THAT FOR CASE #14-98, THOMAS M. AND ELIZABETH M. LONG, 2090 EAST EASTMAN AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THAT ENCROACHES 4.79 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:1(1), MINIMUM SIDE YARD, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE . Mr. Smith stated it appears that conformance with the side yard setbacks in this neighborhood is the exception rather than the rule . He noted that the neighbor's house to the side is at 4 .7 feet. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes" primarily because the neighbor to the east had no opposition. Mr . Smith stated he voted "yes" due to the extraordinary placement of the house on the lot. It is not against the spirit of the ordinance, at least as it is applied in this • 16 ... ' ' • • • neighborhood. Further, it will not adversely affect the remainder of the neighborhood since the other houses are also encroaching. It will not substantially or permanently impair the use or development of the adjacent property which is already developed. It appears to be the least variance possible to afford the applicant relief. Mr. Allen stated he voted "yes" because the addition will not have an adverse affect on the neighborhood. The neighbor on the east is the most affected, and she has no objection. Ms. O'Brien and Chair Bode stated they voted yes concurring with the other Board members. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 5-0 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the October 14, 1998, public hearing. Smith moved, Seymour seconded: THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 1998 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Allen, Bode, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Mcintosh The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #9-98, JAMES C. HERDENER, 4386 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Allen, Bode, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None. None Mcintosh The motion carried. 17 IX. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Staff reminded the Board of the holiday dinner scheduled for December 17, 1998 at the Englewood Golf Course. Mr. Stitt asked that the Board RSVP. Messrs. Allen and Seymour stated that they would be attending, each bringing a guest. X. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Mr. Smith directed the City Attorney to explore the possibility of City Council appointing an alternate member to the Board . When a vacancy occurs or someone is unable to attend , the alternate could sit in to achieve a quorum as well as prevent the Board from having to unanimously approve or deny a request. Mr. Seymour stated not havi ng a full Board makes it difficult for the applicant. Ms. Reid stated that she would look into the matter, but it may be difficult because the way the Charter is written. XI. 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. Nancy GJ enton, Recording Secretary f:ldeptlnbdlgroup\boardslboal 1998 cases lease I 0-98\mi nu tes.doc 18 l • ;_ • • •