Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-13 BAA MINUTES• • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS May 13, 1999 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 Bode presiding. Members present: Bode, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, Smith Members absent: None (Secretary's Note: One vacancy) Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Harold Stitt, Senior Planner Chair Bode stated that there were six members present; therefore, five 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 #4-99 Austin Ray Revels 4400 South Bannock Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback between adjoining structures from 10 feet to 8.25 feet. This is a variance from Section 16-4-4:1.1, Minimum Side Yard of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Austin Ray Revels, 4400 South Bannock Street, was sworn in for testimony. Chair Bode stated the Board has five criteria it must justify and asked the applicant to explain how his variance request meets those criteria. Mr. Revels testified that he wants to add more cabinet space and interior kitchen space. The addition is located in the rear of the house and will only be seen by the neighbors to the south. Ms. O'Brien asked if both his house and his neighbor's house were moved to the location. Mr. Revels stated that was correct. Ms. O'Brien asked if the neighbor's house was placed closer to his house than would normally be the case. Mr. Revels stated that • was also correct. Mr. Smith asked when the garage was built and if it is within the setbacks. Mr. Revels replied the garage was built in approximately 1981 and is within the setbacks. Mr. Smith asked if he knew whether or not his neighbor had a variance allowing the house to be so close to his property. Mr. Revels responded that he did not know. Harold Stitt, Senior Planner, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt testified that as a point a clarification, setbacks for garages are separate from setbacks for principal structures. The garage setback in this particular zone district is 3 feet on the side and while it is not dimensioned, he believes the garage is in compliance. In terms of the adjoining house, Mr. Stitt further testified that the house was conforming when it was placed on the lot, as was the applicant's house. Prior to 1985, the side yard setback requirements in this particular area did not include a distance between adjoining structures. Therefore, up to 1985, the house could have been placed 3 feet away from the property line as is the neighbor's house. It wasn't until approximately 1985 that the provision was added in the setback requirement to maintain a minimum of 3 feet and a total of 1 O feet for both sides, and 10 feet between adjoining structures. Mr. Stitt stated that it is the ten feet between adjoining structures which imposes the hardship in a lot setback cases. Mr. Seymour clarified that the standard setback is 3 feet. Mr. Stitt replied that for this zone district, 3 feet is the minimum requirement. Mr. Smith asked whether there • would be a problem with fire in the reduced area. Mr. Stitt replied that the fire department has indicated in the past that accessing the side of the house within 6 feet is generally sufficient. Further, the Building Code has requirements for the type of construction when the structure is less than six feet from a property line; and hence fire fighting requirements are a little different but are satisfied by the construction methods. In most residential areas within Englewood, there is access on 2 sides which is usually sufficient. In this particular case, there is access on 3 sides. 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. Rasby seconded: THAT FOR CASE #4-99, AUSTIN RAY REVELS, 4400 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN ADJOINING STRUCTURES FROM 10 FEET TO 8.25 FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:1.1, MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. 2 • • • Mr. Aasby stated with regard to the first criteria, the plans are already laid out and he doesn 't see a problem with it encroaching into the adjoining lot setback requirement. Mr. Aasby asked if the Chair would come back to him. Ms. O'Brien stated she believes it meets all five exceptions. With regard to the first criteria, the applicant's house and the adjoining house were moved onto the location and the adjoining house is not in the standard position which makes for an exceptional situation. She further stated that the public safety and welfare is secured because there is no problem with fire, especially since this house is accessible from 3 directions. It will not adversely affect the adjacent property. The variance will not substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent properties because it is developed. She further stated that she believes it is the minimum variance necessary to afford the relief requested. Mr. Seymour stated the adjoining neighbor signed a neighbor's statement indicating she had no objection to the variance request. With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour, Ms. Davidson, Mr . Aasby, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes" for the reasons stated by Ms. O'Brien during discussion. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "yes" based on her previous comments . Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes". The exceptional circumstances are created by the neighbor's house being 3 feet from the property line. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 6-0 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #5-99 Juanita S. Rogers 3912 South Logan Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open , stating he had proof of publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance for a reduction of the minimum lot area from 6,000 square feet to 5,812.5 square feet and a reduction of the minimum lot frontage from 50 feet to 46.5 feet. This is a variance from Section 16-4-4:C.1, Minimum Lot Area and Section 16-4-4 :F.1, Minimum Lot Frontage of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Jim Roedema, 2007 W. Hyacinth Road, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Roedema stated he was a friend of the owner as well as a real estate agent. Chair Bode stated the Board has 5 criteria that must be met and asked him to explain how the variance request met those 5 criteria . 3 Mr. Roedema testified the original structure was built in 1923 before there were any setback requirements, and therefore, the house was built on the property line. In order to comply with current codes, setback requirements, and 1 O feet between structures, he needs to be allowed a smaller lot since it won't have 50 feet across the front. The original structure built in 1923 could then be 3 feet off the property line, and a house could be built on the other lot in compliance with the 10 feet between adjoining structures. With regard to the spirit of the ordinance, Mr. Roedema testified the new lot would be used to build a single-family structure and would be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. It will not impact the lifestyle of the neighbors in any way. He submitted neighbors' statements to the Board. He further testified that the only way to build a house on the lot without requesting a variance would be to tear down part of the original structure. Since the house is located close to Englewood High School , one of the issues affecting the property is off-street parking on Logan Street. Having the house set off to one side allows for a long driveway next to the house. If the two bedrooms currently located on the property line were moved to the other side of the house there would not be as much parking space. Since the property is located close to the high school, it would be difficult for the residents to find parking on the street. Mr. Roedema continued to testify that the variances are the minimum changes needed to build a house on the lot. Mr. Smith asked if he would be returning to seek a variance from the 10 feet adjoining • structure requirement. Mr. Roedema stated he would be able to build a house that would comply with the setback requirements . Mr. Smith asked if he had developed a site plan. Mr. Roedema stated he had not because they haven't decided on a house to build on the lot yet. He further stated that he has found a couple of houses that were built in that are 25 feet across the front. If he had a 25-foot wide house, there would be 10 feet on either side with room to spare . Mr. Seymour asked if he would need to cut down both trees . Mr. Roedema testified the problem with the large trees is that the root system goes deep; and if a basement were dug between the trees, the root system would be disrupted, and, more than likely , the trees would fall over. Ms. Davidson stated she drives by the area a lot and doesn't see that a smaller lot will be consistent with other houses in the area. It is a nice block with nice big yards and a little house crowded in will look funny. Mr. Roedema replied that the new house would be the same size as the current house . Ms. Davidson pointed out that there are some nice , big, brick houses on that block. The corner house on that block is brick and has a nice yard. She stated that her hesitation is the block will look like other areas in town where a small house was stuck in. Mr. Roedema offered to allow the Board to approve the plan before the house was built. He stated it is his understanding there are currently 37 foot lots that were grandfathered in , and this lot would be 46.5 foot lot. 4 • • • • Staff had nothing further to add . 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 #5-99, JUANITA S. ROGERS, 3912 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO 5,812.5 SQUARE FEET AND A REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE FROM 50 FEET TO 46.5 FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:C.1, MINIMUM LOT AREA AND SECTION 16-4-4:F.1, MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Smith stated he believes it is the minimum variance that can be granted. It might mean putting a small house on the lot, but there are a number of small houses on 50 foot lots in Englewood. He further stated he believed it was more important to ensure compliance with the remainder of the setback requirements. The placement of the house on the lot is unfortunate. Ms. Davidson stated she had a problem making the request fit the second and third criteria. If the spirit of the ordinance is to promote the development of low-density, single-family housing, she stated it will not be low-density; the houses will be right next to each other. She stated she believes it will affect the adjacent properties and the neighborhood. It is a nice block, and she can't picture a house small enough to fit on that small of a lot and look right compared to the adjacent housing. Chair Bode stated it would look like the house currently located on the single lot. Ms. Davidson stated that what she sees happening is a house, a house right next to that, and another house right next door; and the houses on the ends spread out with nice large lawns. She stated it will not be low density as far as she is concerned, and it will not look right. Further, it is not within the spirit of the ordinance, and it will affect the adjacent properties. Currently, it looks like a nice big yard with the house next to it. Ms. Davidson asked if anyone could help her see how it conforms. Mr. Smith stated that the easiest way to make it conform would be to make the applicant tear down the house and then build two houses. Since the lot is 100 feet, two houses would be allowed. Mr. Smith reiterated that the variance is the minimum to prevent the applicant wasting the existing structure and yet allow her to develop the property consistent with the zoning. Ms. O'Brien stated she agrees it is a very nice block, but it also located on a major street which is a detractor and it is very near a high school. There is obviously parking problems, because there is permit only parking signs posted. Ms. O'Brien continued by stating she didn't believe there would be a market for a larger home on a 100 foot lot in that neighborhood . 5 With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith voted "yes." The exceptional circumstance is the location of the house on the lot. The owner is entitled to develop the property into two lots; perhaps by tearing down the one house, but that seems to be an exceptional waste of money and time. It does not violate the spirit of the ordinance because the spirit of the ordinance clearly contemplates two houses on 100 feet of property and this is a 3.5 foot variance, which is also the minimum because it maintains the 3 foot setback from the other house. The adjacent property owners don 't seem to object and don't seem to think it affects their properties. There are houses on Lipan and Logan that are just as close together. It does not substantially or permanently impair the use of the adjacent properties since most of it is already developed. Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Aasby, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes" concurring with Mr. Smith. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes". It is a very small variance and still teaves a sizeable lot. Ms. Davidson stated she voted "no." It will adversely affect the neighborhood. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 5-1 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. IV. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #6-99 William J. Bjorlin 4470 South Grant Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 4 feet into the required 7 foot side yard setback and to encroach 6.5 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback. This is a variance from Section 16-4-4:1.2, Minimum Side Yard and Section 16-4-4:H, Minimum Front Yard of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Carl Welker, 4611 South Clarkson Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Welker stated that the applicant wants remove the present roof and restructure it with new trusses from the front to the back. He also wants to build a carport in the location as indicated in the Board's packet. The original house was built before setbacks were required in that area and currently encroaches 6.5 feet into the front setback. Further, the garage is approximately 9 inches from the property line. Mr. Welker further testified that the applicant wishes to improve the appearance of the front of the house. On the south, the applicant wishes to get from the carport into the existing garage and that was why we determined to overlap the existing garage enough so that a car could get through the carport and into the garage. 6 • • • • Mr. Welker further testified that the applicant has met with and talked to most of the neighbors in the area. He submitted neighbors' statements to the Board. The neighbors have seen the drawings and do not object to the variance. Mr. Seymour pointed out that the plot plan indicates to rear setbacks. Mr. Welker stated it was in error, the front setback is where the 25 feet are indicated. Mr. Seymour asked for clarification on the use of space between the existing roof and the proposed new roof. Mr. Welker explained that the existing roof line, which is the lower roof on the elevation, will physically disappear. The applicant is proposing a new roof line which extends from the existing north line of the present house to the line of the carport .. It will have new trusses and a new roof. Mr. Seymour asked if that would be empty attic space. Mr. Welker responded that it is not large enough for a room and is not intended for any purpose. The existing south line of the house has a footing which is approximately 12 feet into the ground; therefore, there is an issue of it really being able to support the roof. For that reason, the roof will extend the length of the carport. Mr. Welker continued; the existing house has a varying ceiling line --7 feet to approximately 8 feet. The bedrooms on the south have approximately a 7 foot ceiling height. Mr. Seymour clarified that the proposal would allow the applicant to raise everything to the same height. Mr. Welker stated that was correct. On the north, the ceiling is at 8 feet in the main rooms of the house, but they slope down on the north side so there is less than 8 feet at the walls. Part of the proposal is to straighten everything out and provide 8 foot ceilings throughout. Mr. Welker stated that the house was added on to in pieces. Mr. Smith asked for clarification on the Bjorlin Family Trust. The assessor's records indicate the property is owned by the Bjorlin Family Trust. William J. Bjorlin, 4470 South Grant Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Bjorlin testified that through his attorney , he has set up the Trust so that everything goes to the children. Mr. Smith asked how the Board knows he actually speaks for the owner; it might be someone else's trust. Mr. Bjorlin stated the Trust was his. Mr. Smith stated he would ask that a condition be put on the variance that the applicant provide sufficient evidence to the City Attorney that he is authorized to speak for the owner. Staff had nothing further to add. 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. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT FOR CASE #6-99, WILLIAM J. BJORLIN, 4470 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 4 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TO ENCROACH 6.5 FEET 7 INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICANT PROVIDING SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE. THIS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4- 4: l.2, MINIMUM SIDE YARD AND SECTION 16-4-4:H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Seymour clarified that the application should have indicated "Bjorlin Family Trust" as the owner. Mr. Smith stated that was correct. He further stated that he had concerns granting variances when people other than the owner are making the application. Since the variance runs with the property, he believes the property owner should be the party responsible for the variance request. Mr. Smith continued by stating that he feels that the proposal will make the house look a lot nicer. Mr. Seymour stated he liked the idea of "cleaning up" the ceiling heights inside the house as well. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes." The way the property was developed makes it a unique situation. There are supporting neighbors' statements. The spirit of the ordinance is being upheld. It will not affect any of the other properties since they are already developed. It appears to be the least modification. Ms. Davidson stated she voted "yes." Since the property was developed in "bits and pieces", there is a hardship for the owner. The variance will not change anything in the housing for the neighborhood; the garage is over too far already. It will not affect the adjacent properties. It will not impair the adjacent properties since it is already developed. It is the least modification to fix the property and it will significantly improve the house. Mr. Aasby , Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Smith, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Seymour and Ms. Davidson. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 6-0 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the April 14, 1999 public hearing. Seymour moved, Smith seconded: 8 • • • • THE MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1999 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: Bode, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None. The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved. VI. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Ms. O'Brien seconded: THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #3-99, RICHARD PATTY, 4600 SOUTH LIPAN STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: Bode, Davidson, O 'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None. ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried . VII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt stated he had nothing further. VIII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. IX. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Seymour stated he would not be at next month's meeting. Mr. Smith asked if the vacancy would be filled by next month. Ms. Reid replied that it would not be filled until July; therefore, the remaining 5 members will need to be at next month 's meeting in order for there to be a quorum. Ms. Davidson asked for clarification on the quorum. Chair Bode stated 5 members need to be present for a quorum, and 4 affirmative votes are needed to grant the variance . 9 There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:20 p.m. 10 • •