Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-08 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS March 8, 2000 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, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby centered at 7:3s p.m.), Seymour, and Smith Members absent: None Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney 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 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: THE AGENDA BE AMENDED TO CONDUCT ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. AYES: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. Mr. Smith stated a continuance has been requested with respect to Public Hearing Case No. 2-2000 . 1 • • • Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT CASE NUMBER 2-2000, COMMUNITY CARE, BE CONTINUED TO APRIL 12, 2000. AYES: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. Chair Bode explained to the audience that the public hearing on Community Care has been postponed to April 12, 2000. Assistant City Attorney Reid volunteered to answer any questions in the hallway regarding the postponement. II. CASE #3-2000 Charles Wilson 2144-2154 West Iliff Avenue 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 3.9 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback. Charles Wilson, 10623 Clarke Farms Drive, Parker, Colorado, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Wilson testified that he is before the Board requesting a reduction in the front setback due to a mistake made in the field engineering. He stated that with regard to criterion one, there was a mistake in the field engineering in that the front setback was established incorrectly which placed the structure into the 25 foot setback by 3.9 feet on the west side and 1.9 feet on the east side. The structure is complete and ready for occupancy. Mr. Wilson t estified that with regard to criterion two, the area consists of single family homes and public safety will be maintained. There is also no line of sight hindrance and there is sufficient off-street parking. He continued; it is an existing neighborhood with a number of varied setbacks and differing architectures. The surrounding properties will not be adversely affected as the variance only intrudes into the front setback for this property. He testified that the variance will not substantially impair the use or development of adjacent property since it is already developed. Further, the requested variance is for the minimum variance of 3.9 feet which is where the existing structure already exists. Mr. Wilson reiterated that a mistake was made when the front setback engineering was done on the field and was only recently discovered . 2 • • • Mr. Seymour asked who made the error. Mr. Wilson responded that he hired a field engineer, KMD, who was present to answer questions if needed. The property corners were marked in the sidewalks with an "x" which is standard in the area, and it was mistakenly assumed that those were the property line, but there was a seven foot right of way which was not accounted for. Mr. Seymour stated that it is very common for there to be a seven foot right of way, and a surveyor should have known that. Mr. Seymour stated that "ignorance" doesn't go a long way with him. Mr. Wilson stated it was an honest mistake and it didn't look out of proportion with the other houses. The setback still blends with the ne ighborhood. Chair Bode asked when the error was first noticed. Mr. Wilson responded that it was noticed when the pins were being finalized for subdivision platting. The house was almost complete at that time. 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 3-2000, 2144 AND 2154 WEST ILIFF AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-6:I TO ENCROACH 3.9 FEET INTO THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. Mr. Seymour stated that he didn't appreciate the "ignorance" defense, but realizes that there isn't much that can be done at this point. He stated that he did look at the property and noticed that the current position of the house affords the neighbors to the east more sunlight. Ms. O'Brien stated she is impressed that the surveyor is present. Everyone has made mistakes, but it is to be commended that the surveyor showed up to support the person he was working for. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes ." It was not specifically do to the owner that the structure was misplaced, although it was his agent that made the mistake. The extreme hardship of tearing down the structure is outweighed by the granting of the variance. Public safety will not be affected due to there being sufficient off-street parking. The Fi re and Building Departments had no comments. It is an existing neighborhood with setbacks that vary. Adjacent properties are already developed and will not be affected. It is the minimum variance to afford the applicant relief . 3 • • • Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Rasby, Ms. Carlston, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Davidson, and Chair Bode voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Smith. 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. III. CASE #4-2000 K&H Windows and Exterior 4702 South Decatur Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-5:N.d.2 to encroach 5 feet into the minimum side yard setback. Dennis Platts, 5805 West 55 th Avenue, Arvada, Colorado, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Platts stated that the regulations result in a hardship to the property owner. He testified that Mr. Haefeli has emphysema and his wife is also ill. The reason for the structure is to keep snow off the driveway. A carport is usual and typical for a single family residence. He testified that he has submitted neighbors' statements which agree with the variance. The area is fully developed and only a carport will be added. With regard to interfering with a future owner's use of the driveway, he testified that it is not a problem that can properly be addressed at this time since there is no way of knowing who the future owner might be. All adjacent property is developed; therefore, the carport will have no impact on future development. The variance will create a usable, sheltered parking space for the owners. A community parking area exists now and nothing will substantially change. Mr. Seymour asked whether the carport would be enclosed in any way . Mr. Platts responded that it will be constructed of nonflammable, aluminum. The carport will not be enclosed unless required by the building official. He stated that he needs to discuss that issue with Mr. Smith. Mr. Platts testified that in his opinion, the addition of the one-hour fire wall on the property line would be more of a problem in the future for a person concerned about parking. He stated that the proposed carport is very unobtrusive. It will be functional, non-enclosed. Mr. Seymour stated he would not support an enclosed structure. Mr. Seymour asked where the posts would be located. Mr. Platts stated that the posts would be set in six inches from the property line which will place the gutter on the property line. Mr. Platts explained that the drainage from the gutter would be such that it stays on the property. Mr. Smith asked if the carport could be placed on the rear of the property. Mr. Platts responded that there would be no access to parking in the rear. Mr. Smith suggested extending the driveway. Mr. Platts st ated he couldn't answer that question; it was his understanding that the proposed location was the only workable solution. Mr. Platts 4 • • • stated he went to the house and measured between the two units, but he didn't go into the backyard. Dorothy Haefeli, 4702 South Decatur Street, was sworn in. Ms. Haefeli stated she is the property owner requesting the variance for the carport. She testified that her husband has emphysema and is legally blind, and she has a lung problem. Each owner in the Columbine West unit has a two-car driveway. There is a small yard in the rear, and there are small garages across the street in the rear. She is requesting a small, attached carport. She continued by stating she has improved her house by installing steel siding, a patio in the rear, and has kept up the appearance of the house. She stated the carport is a necessity for her and her husband. Neighbors have signed statements supporting the variance. Any future neighbor will still have their driveway; the carport will not affect their driveway. Mr. Seymour asked how far the driveway went to the rear. Ms. Haefeli stated that it would start at the kitchen window and end at the front of the house. Mr. Seymour clarified that the driveway didn't go any farther than the kitchen window. Ms. Haefeli stated that the driveway goes to the fence at the end of the house. Mr. Seymour asked if she objected to putting the carport in the rear because it would block the kitchen window. Ms. Haefeli stated that was correct. Mr. Smith asked why the fence couldn't be torn down to place the carport in the rear of the property where there would be some setback, rather than the zero setback. Mr. Haefeli explained that it would still be close to the neighbor's property. The fence runs on the property line. Mr. Smith stated the carport could be placed on the back property line and it would be 5 feet from the fence. Ms. Haefeli responded that there wouldn't be enough room to maneuver and get into the carport. There are existing sheds on the rear of the property as well. Mr. Smith asked for clarification as to what was in the backyard. Ms. Haefeli stated that there are flowers, bushes, two storage sheds, and a patio. Mr. Smith asked where the patio was located. Ms. Haefeli stated it was connected to the back of the house. Mr. Seymour stated it appeared there was 48 feet from the back of the house to the back fence line, which would be enough space to maneuver. Ms. Haefeli explained that it isn 't enough space, because the patio is back there and the area would need to be concreted, which is an added expense. Mr. Seymour asked for clarification on the size of the patio. Ms. Haefeli responded that the patio covers the entire length of the house and does not know how far it extends from the house. Ms. O'Brien interjected that the neighbor is present and has indicated by raised hand that she wishes to speak. Further, Ms. O'Brien stated she believes Ms. Haefeli has answered the questions to the best of her ability . 5 • • • Ms. Carlston asked if the proposed location of the carport provides better access to the house than if it were located in the rear . Ms. Haefeli replied that was correct. Ms. O'Brien asked if it was difficult for her to walk distances. Ms. Haefeli stated it was more difficult for her husband due to his emphysema and eyesight. Esperanza Guerrero, 4710 South Decatur, was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Guerrero stated that with regard to the rear patio, it extends from the back of the house 20 feet, and at the corner of the patio there are also posts. The patio would need to be redone in order to move the sheds to accommodate the carport in the rear. Mr. Rasby asked if she had any concerns regarding backing vehicles in and out of the driveway. Ms. Guerrero responded that she didn't have any concerns. Her son currently drives, but he parks his vehicle on the street. Mary Putnam, 4720 South Decatur Street, was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Putnam stated the Haefeli's driveway is a little wider than others in the neighborhood and does not object to the carport. She clarified a statement by Mr. Smith regarding a garage in a photograph. She asked if he was perhaps noticing a neighbor's garage on West Union. Mr. Smith stated he was looking at a structure that had a basketball hoop attached. Ms. Putnam clarified that it is a shed in Ms. Guerrero's yard. She stated she supports the Haefeli's request for a variance . 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 4-2000, 4702 SOUTH DECATUR STREET, BE GRANTED ~ VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-S:N.d.2 TO ENCROACH 5 FEET INTO THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK. Mr. Seymour stated he understands the owner doesn't want to block the kitchen window, and the carport in the proposed location provides better access for them to the front door. Mr. Smith stated he had a problem with the zero setback; however, the neighbor most affected by the carport does not have a problem which alleviates his concerns. Chair Bode asked if another variance would be needed to extend the carport further into the back yard. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith stated he believed the variance, if granted, would only be for the carport. If not, the motion should be amended to reflect that condition. 6 • Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: • • TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REFLECT A MAXIMUM 9 FEET BY 22 FEET CARPORT. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes". He stated the first criteria was satisfied because of the narrowness of the property, and any alternatives would result in peculiar and undue difficulties for the present property owners. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it increases the public safety and welfare of the owners. The only neighbor to be adversely affected has agreed to the request. It will not substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property because the neighbor has no objection. It is the least modification possible to afford relief. Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Rasby, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Davidson, Ms. Carlston, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes" concurring with Mr. Smith. 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 . IV. CASE #5-2000 Deanda Building 3080 South Downing Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-2:1.1 to encroach 4 feet 6 inches into the total side ya rd setback, 2 feet 6 inches into the minimum side yard setback, and 7 feet 3 inches into the side yard setback between adjacent principal structures. Anthony Deanda, 9039 Black Mountain Drive, Conifer, Colorado, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Deanda stated the lot is zoned RlA but does not conform to the lot requirements of RlA. The property meets RlC lot area requirements of 6,250 square feet. The proposed setback reduction would conform to RlC setbacks. He testified that complying to the RlA setback requi rements would be a hardship. With regard to the second criteria, Mr. Deanda testified that granting the variance will observe the spirit of the ordinance since the house addition provides an amenity to the property owner that is usual and typical for single family residences. The variance will not interfere with the safety and welfare of the adjacent properties and neighborhood. He stated he had signed statements from the surrounding neighbors. Further, the adjacent properties are already developed with single-family homes and the variance will not hamper or 7 • impair the use or development of adjacent properties. The existing structure already projects into the side yard setback requirements. The variance only allows the owner to fill in along the outline of the house. Mr. Seymour asked why the addition was already started. Mr. Deanda responded that when the job was initially started last summer, the homeowner was led to believe that she resided in unincorporated Arapahoe County and has been paying taxes that way. When the project was started, he stated he went to the County to submit his paperwork for a permit. He continued; he discovered at a later date that the residence was located in Englewood. During that time frame, he proceeded with portions of the construction due to the owner's work schedule and the weather; he stated the structure needed to be enclosed due to weather. He stated he understood he shouldn't have started the addition. Mr . Seymour asked if he has done prior work in Englewood . Mr. Deanda testified that the majority of his work is in Jefferson County, Douglas County, and unincorporated Arapahoe County. Mr. Seymour asked if the homeowner was present. Mr. Deanda stated that she works evenings so she was unable to attend. Mr. Seymour asked how long the property owner has lived at this address. Mr. Deanda stated he believed she has lived there for approximately 18 years and has informed him that she has been paying unincorporated Arapahoe County taxes. • Kate Newman, Planning Technician, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Smith asked how the house was built without other variances. Ms. Newman testified that the house was built in approximately 1952 before t he current zoning regulations were in place. Ms. Newman further testified that the Building Department issued a Stop Work Order when it was discovered they were proceeding without a permit. Mr. Seymour asked when the situation was discovered. Ms. Newman stated the Building Department discovered the illegal building approximately 5 weeks ago. • 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 5-2000, 3080 SOUTH DOWNING STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM 16-4-2:!.1 TO ENCROACH 4 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK, 2 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND 7 FEET 3 INCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN ADJACENT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES. Ms. Carlston stated she thought the addition blended with the house . 8 • • • With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes." The smallness of the lot and the fact that the lot size requirement changed after the building of the house is not the owner's fault. To force the owner to comply with the current setback requirements would create a hardship. It observes the spirit of the ordinance since it adds room to the inside of the house which benefits the house and surrounding property values. It will not affect the safety and welfare of the adjacent properties in the neighborhood. The adjacent properties are already developed and the variance will not hamper or impair the use of those properties. The existing structure already encroaches into the setback. It is the least modification necessary. Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Rasby, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Davidson, Ms. Carlston, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Smith. 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. The Board took a short recess. V. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Smith moved; Ms . O'Brien seconded : THAT WILLIAM BODE BE RE-ELECTED CHAIR. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith None None None The motion carried. Mr. Seymour moved ; Mr. Smith seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: THAT DAVID RASBY BE ELECTED AS VICE CHAIR. Bode, Carlston, Davidson , O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith None None None 9 • The motion carried . VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the January 12, 2000 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved, Mr. Seymour seconded: THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2000 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VII. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; • Mr. Seymour seconded: • THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #14-99, WESTERN ARAPAHOE COUNTY HOMELESS ALLIANCE, 3301 SOUTH GRANT STREET, AND CASE #1-2000, COUNTRYSIDE BUILDERS, 4775 SOUTH CHEROKEE STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved . VIII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Newman stated she had nothing further. IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further . 10 • • • X. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Seymour stated he is enjoying the ICBO Conference. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Nancy enton, Recording Secretary H:\GROUP\BOARDS\BOA\2000 Cases\3-2000\Minutes.doc 11