Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-13 BAA MINUTES• MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS October 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, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby Centered the meeting at 7:4o p.m.), Seymour, and Smith Members absent: Davidson Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Kate Newman, Planning Technician Chair Bode stated that there were six members present; therefore, five affirmative votes would be required to grant a variance. Chair Bode stated that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to grant variances by Part III, 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. • Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: To amend the order of the agenda by approving Minutes and Findings of Fact first and then holding the public hearing. Motion carried. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the September 8, 1999 public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved, Mr. Smith seconded: THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Davidson ABSENT: Rasby The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. 1 III. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Seymour moved; Ms. Carlston seconded: AYES: THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #10-99, 699 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE, AND CASE #11-99, 3701 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. NAYS: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, and Seymour None. ABSTAIN: Smith ABSENT: Ras by The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. IV. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #12-99 Tim Egle 4746 South Lincoln Street • 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-S:N.l.e.2, • Minimum Rear Yard for Accessory Buildings and Permitted Accessory Uses, to encroach 4 feet into the required 6 foot rear yard setback. Tim Egle, 4746 South Lincoln Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Egle testified he is asking to encroach into the setback because his house is deep on the lot; 27 .5 feet from the alley is where the house starts. Further, 3 feet away is where he can build which would give him a little less than a 20 foot garage. He stated he would like to encroach 4 feet into the setback because the house was built back on the property because of an existing foundation that was covered up in 1985 when the house was built. Mr. Egle continued by stating he didn't want to construct the garage in the front because there are no garages in the front within the neighborhood. He stated he didn't believe it would be good for the neighborhood because the neighbors would hear his vehicle every time he came in or out of the garage with his vehicle. It would not look good for the spirit of the neighborhood. There are many garages that have been grandfathered which are built closer to the alley than what he is proposing. He further testified that the existing garages in the neighborhood are off the alley. Mr. Egle stated that his variance would not affect his neighbors. He spoke to the neighbor across the alley who would be most affected by the variance, and she has no problem with the variance. She was unable to provide a signed Neighbor's Statement due to her work hours. Mr. Egle submitted a Neighbor's Statement for the neighbor • adjoining his property. The applicant further testified that the reason the entrance to the garage couldn't face the side of the property is because it is only a 50 foot wide lot 2 • • • which wouldn't give him room to turn. It also wouldn't allow him to park his trailer in the back. He would have to move the trailer each time he came in and out of the garage. Further, he wouldn't be able to have a three-car garage; rather, he'd only have enough space to build a small two-car garage. He stated that he would like to construct a 23 feet deep by 30 feet garage. Mr. Egle continued; he would like to build a "mirror image" of the garage across the alley, except a little shallower and shorter garage. He stated that the traffic is slow through the alley and didn't feel it would be a problem for him to back into his garage. The garage would be three feet away from the house and two feet away from the property line. Mr. Seymour asked the size of the garage. Mr. Egle responded that the garage would be 23 feet by 30 feet. Mr. Egle stated that if the variance wasn't granted, he would have to build the garage at 19 feet and that wouldn't accommodate his truck. Mr. Seymour asked how long his truck was. Mr. Egle stated that it was approximately 19 feet. He would like the garage to accommodate the truck as well as door space to allow him to walk around the truck . Mr. Seymour asked if he was referring to the truck parked on the rear of his property. Mr. Egle stated no; he was referring to his 1999 Ford truck with the extended cab. Mr. Rasby asked if he planned to build a three-car garage. Mr. Egle stated that was correct, with one 16 foot door and one 9 foot door. Mr. Rasby asked what type of garages were located within the neighborhood. Mr. Egle responded that the other garages vary. One is very long and tall, approximately 24 feet and 35 feet. To the south of his property, there is a garage that is approximately 1 foot off the alley which was probably grandfathered. That garage is approximately 24 feet by 24 feet. The other garages in the neig hb orhood are approximately 20 feet by 24 feet. Ms. Car lston asked if he had considered placing the door so that it didn't face the alley. Mr. Egle stated that he had, but his 16-foot trailer would have to be parked in front of the garage and would need to be moved each time he wanted to come in and out of the garage. It would also give him access to a very small two-car garage, rather than the three-car garage he wished to build. He further stated that he wouldn't be able to get the storage space he needed if he built it parallel to his house. Mr. Seymour asked him to clarify his statement of backing into the garage. Mr. Egle stated that he plans to back into the garage so that when he drives out he wouldn't be "sticking out" as much before he could see traffic in the alley. Mr. Seymour stated that he thought that was an excellent idea. 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 . 3 Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT FOR CASE #12-99, 4746 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO ENCROACH 4 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 6 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-S:N.1.e.2, MINIMUM REAR YARD FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Seymour stated that he initially believed the garage should be built in the front, but the landscaping in the front is very well done and he would hate to see that disrupted. He stated that there is currently good visibility from the property to see up and down the alley. Ms. Carlston stated she was concerned by the Building and Safety Division's comments in the staff report. She stated that the garage appears close to the house and she didn't want any safety issue to crop up due to that. Mr. Smith stated that the garage has to be at least three feet from the house; it cannot be built any closer without a variance. Ms. Carlston stated she drove by the property and she is concerned that by • building the garage on the rear, it will be blocking the windows on the rear of the • house. She stated she thinks it would be better to have the opening on the side of the garage so that when you enter the alley it would be safer. Mr. Smith stated that the majority of the garages in the neighborhood are built on the rear of the property. He stated that he wondered how often the applicant would be backing into the garage, especially during inclement whether. He further stated that traffic in the alley shouldn't be a problem. His only real concern is whether it is the minimum variance. Mr. Smith asked if the garage was larger than a standard garage. Mr. Seymour stated that Mr. Egle could get by with a smaller garage, but it wouldn't provide him with the space he needs to park his truck and store his trailer. Mr. Smith stated that if the garage was a reasonable size, he didn't have a problem. Ms. O'Brien stated she had concerns over the comments by the Public Works Department in the staff report. She stated that the applicant will be approximately 3 feet into the alley before he will see another vehicle. Mr. Smith stated that even with a 6 foot setback, fences built to the alley still block a person's view; the person is still in the alley before they can see another vehicle. Discussion ensued. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes." The position of the house on the lot indicates there is • a problem with the piece of property. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it provides for off-street parking which is needed in the city. It will not affect the adjacent property because it is on the alley and the neighbor's ability to use their property will 4 • • • not be affected. It is not an unusually large garage and will provide the applicant a more useful garage; therefore, it is the least modification necessary to afford the applicant relief. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "yes." The property will look better having things stored inside. Mr. Rasby, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Carlston, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Smith. 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. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Newman stated that prior to next month's public hearing, staff would like to meet with the Board to review the various Codes. She asked which Code the Board would like to cover first. The Board stated they would like to have an overview on all three Codes --Housing, Building, and Zoning. Ms. Newman stated that the three Codes could not be covered in the hour and half scheduled and asked the Board to choose which Code they wished to cover first. The Board directed staff to schedule an overview of the three Codes and would leave the prioritizing to staff. The Board doesn't have a preference as to which is covered first, as long as all three Codes are eventually covered. Ms. Newman reported that one case is scheduled for November. The property is located at 3154 South Vine Court and is a variance for a setback to build a garage and a house addition. VI. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE The Board had nothing further. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8: 151p.m. /;/ ,_/'. 0· ~~. I/' 1(/' / · /U f.1-'> I~/./{(,, l/ -·~ ;/~,/, '/.-,/· Nancy renton, Recording Secretary 5