Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-14 BAA MINUTES• • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS July 14, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:40 P.M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Bode presiding. Members present: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, Smith Members absent: None Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Harold Stitt, Senior Planner Kate Newman, Planning Technician Chair Bode stated that there were seven 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 #8-99 Gary L. and Judy D. Graham 3207 W. Pimlico Dr. Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication and posting. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-2:H, Minimum Front Yard, to encroach 4 feet into the required 25-foot front yard set back to add a front porch. Gary L. and Judy D. Graham, 3207 W. Pimlico Drive, were sworn in for testimony. Mr. Graham stated they were present to request a four foot variance into the 25-foot front yard set back. Mrs. Graham testified that they wished to add a front porch measuring 9 feet by 24 feet; the original porch only extends 5 feet. She further testified that they are proposing to redesign the entrance to the house to enable them to maneuver large objects into the house. They also feel the 9 feet would allow them to sit on the front porch and relax. She further stated she feels the additional 4 feet is the minimum needed to build the new porch. Mrs. Graham continued by stating that their garage is • detached, and the proposed porch would be close enough to the garage that it would 1 keep them out of the elements and grant them easier access to the house. It will also • shield the house from the sun in the afternoon. Mr. Seymour asked how long the applicants had lived at the address. Mrs. Graham responded that they have lived there for 22 years. 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 #8-99, GARY L. AND JUDY D. GRAHAM, 3207 WEST PIMLICO DRIVE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD, TO ENCROACH 4 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25- FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ADD A PORCH. Mr. Smith asked staff how they measured the set back. Ms. Newman replied that the set back is measured from the property line. Mr. Smith stated he "paced off" the applicants' porch to what he thought was the property line and it was 8 paces, approximately 24 feet. He stated he did the same thing at the neighbor's house, and it was also 8 paces. He asked if the neighboring property had a variance. Ms. Newman replied that it did not. Mr. Smith stated that 3252 and 3227 are approximately the same • distance back as the applicants; he asked if other variances were granted in the neighborhood for the same type of structure. Ms. Newman responded that she reviewed the records for the neighboring properties and did not find any variances. She continued by stating the porch on the adjacent property was built 10 years ago and did not go through the variance process. Mr. Smith asked if the back of the sidewalk was the property line. Ms. Newman stated the setback is measured from the property line, and the back of the sidewalk is usually not the property line. Mr. Smith stated that when he paced it off from the back of the sidewalk, it was approximately 1 O paces which is closer to 30 feet. He further stated there was a water meter pit approximately 6 feet from the sidewalk. Ms. Newman referred the Board to the applicants' improvement location certificate located within their packet and pointed out that it indicates 30 feet from the property line to the house. Mr. Smith clarified that the applicants are maintaining part of the right of way. Ms. Newman stated that was cor"rect. Mr. Bode reminded" staff to insert the vicinity map into the Board packets. The recording secretary apologized for her oversight and assured the Board she would insert the map in future packets. Mr. Smith stated for the record that he "walked" the property, and the porch appears to be approximately 30 feet back from the sidewalk. Further, several of the neighbors appear to have similar setbacks. He noted there was a large tree on the southwest • 2 • • • corner of the porch, and the porch would be behind the tree. Mr. Smith further stated that the tree encroaches a lot more than the porch will encroach. Mr. Seymour asked the applicant if the "drain" was a permanent solution. The applicant stated it was not; it was only a temporary solution until the porch was completed. Mr. Seymour stated he liked the look of the porch, and it would fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated there was some uniqueness to the property due to the large trees on the property. There are also other properties in the neighborhood that appear to be closer to the sidewalk than the applicants'. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes"; it will be a nice addition to the applicant's home and the neighborhood. Further, it will maintain the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Davidson stated she voted "yes"; there isn't a problem with public safety or welfare. There are neighboring properties that have similar porches. The neighbors have not indicated any objection to the porch, and it will not adversely affect the property because the porch will be behind the tree. It will not impair the development of adjacent property because it is already developed . Ms. Carlston, Mr. Ras by, Ms. O'Brien stated they voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Seymour and Ms. Davidson. Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes"; there are some exceptional circumstances --the large tree being one. A five foot porch is impractical, in his opinion. As to the second, third, fourth, and fifth criteria, Mr. Smith stated he agreed with the staff report. Chair Bode stated he voted "yes" concurring with the other board members. The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 7-0 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the June 9, 1999 public hearing. ... Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Rasby seconded: THE MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 1999 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN . 3 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Davidson, O'Brien, Aasby and Smith None Carlston and Seymour None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE # 7-99, MARK AND JOYCE BJORLIN, 4301 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Discussion ensued. Chair Bode asked for a second to Mr. Smith's motion. Mr. Aasby seconded the motion. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Davidson, O'Brien, Aasby, and Smith None. Carlston and Seymour None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. V. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt welcomed Ms. Carlston to the Board. Mr. Stitt offered to schedule an orientation session for Ms. Carlston and other interested Board members. The Board directed Mr. Stitt to schedule the orientation session and asked for a two week notice of the meeting. Mr. Seymour stated that he spoke with Gary Sears, the City Manager; and Mr. Sears indicated that the Board should meet with City Council. Mr. Stitt stated that City Council attempts to meet with the individual boards and commissions annually. Mr. Stitt stated he has not heard when Council will be scheduling those meetings, but he would check with the City Manager's office. Mr. Stitt introduced Kate Newman. • • Chair Bode stated that last month Mr. Graham indicated he would schedule a training session for the Board in the fall or winter. Chair Bode asked if that had been done. Mr. Stitt responded that he would look into the matter. Chair Bode asked if the DRCOG training in Arvada was available on video. Ms. Newman responded that she attended the seminar, and it was not available on video. • 4 • • • VI. CITY AITORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid explained that Mr. Seymour has been on the Board for 25 years and missed his second meeting last month. Discussion ensued. VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Ms. Davidson invited the Board to "Fiddler on the Roof" in which she plays the matchmaker. Mr. Smith stated that he had nothing further and needed to leave the meeting. Ms. O'Brien welcomed Ms. Carlston to the Board. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:05 p.m . 5