HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-12 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
July 12, 2000
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to
order at 7:35 P.M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Bode presiding.
Members present: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith
Members absent: Davidson
Staff present: Nancy Reid, Ass istant City Attorney
Kate Newman, Planning Technician
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 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 the i r 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. CASE #10-2000
Charles L. Willingham
4233 South Sherman Street
Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and
publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-
4:M.3.b to exceed the maximum total floor area of 200 square feet for other accessory
structures by 40 square feet.
Chair Bode stated that staff wished to address the Board before the applicant presented
their case.
Kate Newman, Planning Technician was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Newman stated
that i n addition to exceeding the variance for maximum floor area, the applicant would
like to request a variance to exceed the maximum height for other accessory structures .
This would be a variance from Section 16-4-4:M.3.c to exceed the 12 foot maximum
height for accessory structures by 3 feet. In speaking to the applicant, Ms. Newman
stated that the original plans for their workshop, as submitted to the Board, shows a
height of 13 feet for the structure. Ms. Newman further stated that she did not notice
1
the height of the structure and neglected to inform the applicant to include it in the •
variance request. After talking to the contractor, Tuff Sheds, she believes the applicant
would like to have the height at 15 feet, which would require a 3 foot variance.
Mr. Smith asked the City Attorney whether the publication and/or property notice would
require that the code sections be sited. Ms. Reid stated that she believes it does. It
would require a second application for the second variance. Mr. Smith asked if the
applicant could repost and republish, rather than submitting another application. Ms.
Reid stated they could. Mr. Smith stated he didn't know how the Board could grant a
variance that was not initially requested, posted, or published.
Chair Bode asked if the applicant understood what the Board was discussing. Ms.
Willingham stated that it meant they would have to come back next month. Chair Bode
stated that was correct. Both variances would need to be posted on the property. Ms.
Willingham stated that it was her understanding, after speaking to Ms. Newman, that
the Board would be able to hear both at the meeting. Mr. Smith responded that their
application only requests a variance for a 12'x20' workshop. It does not address the
height issue. Ms. Willingham stated that they were unaware that there was an issue
with the height, and it was not noticed until they received their paperwork from the
City. Mr. Smith interjected that if Ms. Willingham wished to speak she would need to
come to the microphone and be sworn in.
Barbara Willingham, 4233 South Sherman Street, was sworn in for testimony. Ms.
Willingham stated that she didn't know that there was a height limit and the paperwork
that was originally submitted to the City in March for the original permit stated that the
building was 13 feet high. What made her notice the height was that the drawing
submitted stated 6.5 foot side walls, and the building that was ordered actually has 8
foot side walls. From that information, she assumed the building would be taller, and
she called Ms. Newman this morning to discuss that matter.
Chair Bode stated that the Board follows the city attorney's legal advice, which is that
the Board can only hear the variance that was posted. Chair Bode informed the
applicant that the Board could hear the initial variance, or she could wait until next
month and the Board would hear both variance requests. The variance will need to be
reposted and republished with both requests. Mr. Smith stated that the Board could
continue the case until the next hearing to allow proper posting and publication. Ms.
Willingham clarified that the Board would then hear both requests at the same time.
Mr. Smith stated that was correct.
Mr. Smith moved;
Ms. O'Brien seconded:
•
THAT CASE #10-2000 BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 9, 2000 TO ALLOW FOR •
PROPER PUBLICATION AND POSTING.
2
• Ms. Reid stated that rather than continuing the applicant might want to withdraw the
application and then start over. Mr. Smith asked whether that could be accomplished
within a month. Ms. Newman stated that there was sufficient time for the variance to
be posted and published.
Mr. Smith stated that he didn't understand why the applicant had to start all over rather
than amending the variance request. Ms. O'Brien verified that if the applicant posted
the second request, since the first request was already posted, could the Board
continue the initial request. Ms. Reid stated that was fine.
Mr. Seymour stated that he thought the applicant was going to have problems with the
Building Code. He thought it best to continue the hearing so he could hear more
information on how the structure was going to be built.
AYES: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Davidson
The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved.
• III. CASE # 11-2000
Steve Lammermann
•
2730 South Ogden Street
Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and
publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance for a detached garage to
encroach 4.5 feet into the required 5 feet side yard setback; 3 feet into the required 5
feet rear yard setback; and to exceed the maximum height by 1 foot. This is a variance
from Sections 16-4-2:M.1.d.2, 16-4-2:M.1.e.1, and 16-4-2:M.1.b of the Englewood
Municipal Code.
Steve Lammermann, 2730 South Ogden Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr.
Lammermann testified that the garage was built in 1937, prior to the current zoning
requirements. He is not planning to change the character of the neighborhood and
single-family use garages are a permitted use in that zone district. With regard to the
third criterion, the applicant stated that the garage currently exists and will not
adversely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood. Further, the surrounding
property is already developed. He will not be exceeding the maximum size of 1,000
square feet; the total will be 970 square feet. Also, the height will remain the same,
which is 19 feet. He stated that he is extending the garage in order to have room to
walk around the vehicles .
Mr. Seymour asked for clarification on the roof height. Mr. Lammermann stated that he
is constructing a new wall in the front which extends 5 feet. He also plans to tear off
half of the roof, leaving the back roof the same. He will then go up at an angle to
3
rematch it. Mr. Seymour asked if he was going to remove the dormers. Mr. •
Lammermann responded that he will be replacing the existing dormers. Mr. Seymour
clarified that the house will still have the character of an old carriage house. Mr.
Lammerman stated that was correct; it will look the same but will extend an additional
5 feet. In order to accomplish that, the front section of the roof has to be redone. Mr.
Seymour asked if the space would be used as living space. Mr. Lammermann replied
that it would not be used for living space.
Ms. O'Brien asked if he had any neighbor statements. Mr. Lammermann stated he did
and presented those to the Board. He further stated that none of the neighbors were
opposed. The garage sits back on the property, and the neighbors can barely see the
garage.
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 CASE #11-2000, 2730 SOUTH OGDEN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE
FOR A DETACHED GARAGE TO ENCROACH 4.5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 5
FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK; 3 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT REAR YARD •
SETBACK; AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BY 1 FOOT. THIS IS A
VARIANCE FROM SECTIONS 16-4-2:M.l.d.2, 16-4-2:M.l.e.1, and 16-4-2:M.l.b
OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE.
Mr. Smith stated that it would be an appropriate increase to the property. It is not out
of character with the neighborhood.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. Because the house was built many years ago, the basic
structure of the house has been there for some time. The addition will improve the
neighborhood and the appearance of the subject property. Because of the grown trees,
it will not be noticeable. It observes the spirit because in fact it makes it a nicer
residence. It won't affect the adjacent property because it is already developed and
between the fence and the greenery, most people won't notice the addition. It won't
substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of the adjacent
property because it is developed. It is the minimum variance that will afford the
applicant relief.
Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes." It will be a nice addition and will not be noticeable .
Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Rasby, Ms. Carlston and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes",
concurring with Mr. Smith and Mr. Seymour.
4
•
•
•
•
AYES:
NAYS:
Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Davidson
The Chair announced the case approved by a 6-0 vote.
III. CASE #12-2000
Sharon Heideman
4428 South Pennsylvania Street
Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and
publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a from Section 16-4-4:1.1 to
encroach 13 i nches into the total side yard setback and 5 inches into the side yard
setback between adjacent principal structures.
Sharon Heideman, 4428 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in for testimony. Ms.
Heideman testified that she tore down an existing addition which was built on prior to
her purchasing the house in 1969. That addition was built on back to the east from the
existing house and in line with what was originally the garage on the north side. The
garage has since been converted to a bedroom. Those two rooms were built on the
back with a flat roof and they couldn't be heated. She installed a solar panel on one
room and used it as a laundry room and the other room was a den. The garage,
currently a bedroom, which was on the north side encroaches and does not meet Code.
It was built that way originally in 1942. That room still exists, but the two back rooms
have been demolished. Upon tearing them off, she was informed she must meet Code
in order to construct the new addition.
Mr. Smith clarified that the addition was merely an extension of the existing wall. Ms.
Heideman stated that was correct. The rooms on the back were approximately 22 feet
by 9 feet on the north and 41 feet on the south side; it "jogged" off. Ms. Heideman
submitted photos to the Board.
Ms. O'Brien asked when the structure was built. The applicant responded it was built in _
1942. Ms. O'Brien asked if she had any statements from surrounding neighbors. Ms.
Heideman submitted neighbor statements to the Board.
Ms. Heideman also submitted a statement from the owner at 4418 South Pennsylvania
Avenue indicating that the owner agreed with the variance as long as the addition did
not extend further north than the house. Ms. Heidemman stated the owner was
concerned about the addition blocking her light.
Mr. Seymour asked whether she has added any sheds since she purchased the
property, or were both sheds existing when she bought the house. Ms. Heideman
responded that she added those sheds. Mr. Seymour pointed out that she is only
allowed one shed.
5
Ms. Heideman also stated that it appeared a number of houses in the neighborhood
were built extremely close to the property line. Mr. Seymour asked how far back the
addition extended. Ms. Heideman responded that the original was back 14 feet. She is
planning on extending 12 more feet. Mr. Seymour clarified that she would not be
blocking the sunlight to the neighbor to the north. Ms. Heideman stated she doesn't
get any sunlight currently; there is a big tree in the back, but her addition will not block
the sunlight. She is building only as high as the garage roof.
Ms. Carlston asked if she had already applied for a permit because she noticed one on
the property. Ms. Heideman stated that was a demolition permit. Ms. Carlston noted
that in the case report, the Building and Safety Division noted that the distance from
the property line was not indicated on the east side. Ms. Heideman stated that the
distance from the new addition is 44 feet to the fence line at the alley. In response to
the Utilities Department comments in the staff report, the applicant testified that the
addition will not be over the pipe. She submitted photos to the Board showing the
location of the pipe.
Mr. Smith asked staff for the total side yard setback. Ms. Newman stated that the total
side yard setback in RlC is 10 feet, and the distance between adjacent structures is 10
feet.
Ms. O'Brien stated that usually the case report includes the five criteria with pros and
cons. Ms. O'Brien asked why they were not included in this month's reports.
Ms. Newman responded that Mr. Simpson directed staff to reformat the reports. Mr.
Smith stated that would be discussed further under Board's Choice. Mr. Seymour
concurred.
There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Bode
incorporated the case report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing.
Mr. Seymour moved;
Mr. Smith seconded:
THAT CASE #12-2000, 2730 SOUTH OGDEN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE
FROM SECTION 14-4-4:!.1 TO ENCROACH 13 INCHES INTO THE TOTAL SIDE
YARD SETBACK AND 5 INCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN
ADJACENT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES.
Mr. Smith suggested a small change to the motion: The variance is encroaching 13
inches into the 10 foot total side yard setback and 5 inches into the 10 foot side yard
setback between adjacent principal structures. Mr. Seymour concurred with the
change.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
6
•
•
•
•
Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes." The exceptional circumstances are that the house was
built in 1942 and purchased by the current owner in 1969. It encroached at that time.
It will enhance the public safety and welfare since it will provide heat to the addition
and is merely an extension of a wall that exists. The adjacent property is already
developed so it will not affect them. It is the minimum variance to make the structure
usable and it enhances the entire neighborhood.
Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Rasby, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Carlston, and Chair Bode stated they voted
"yes", concurring with Mr. Smith.
AYES:
NAYS:
Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Davidson
The Chair announced the case approved by a 6-0 vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the May 10 and June 22, 2000
public hearings. Mr. Smith stated he had changes to the June 22 transcript.
Page 3, Line 11:
Page 5, Line 9:
Page 5, Line 17:
Page 7, Line 14:
Page 7, Line 15:
Page 7, Line 18:
Page 7, Line 24:
Page 8, Line 3:
Page 8, Line 5:
Page 8, Line 9:
Page 8, Line 15:
Page 8, Line 22:
Page 9, Line 2:
Page 9, Line 4:
Page 9, Line 5:
Page 9, Line 9:
Page 9, Line 13:
Page 10, Line 17:
Page 10, Line 25:
Strike the word "apparent."
Should read "Mr. Brotzman took a seat in the audience."
Insert a period after the word "issue." Delete the word "so."
Should read" ... Following a public hearing,"
Delete the word "which." Should read "after it was closed.
the city attorney advised the"
Insert opening quotation marks before the word "has"
Insert closing quotation marks after the word "commission."
Delete "pertinent"
Insert a comma after "use"; change "and" to "it"
Change "nonconformity" to "nonconforming"
Should read "halfway house, which was prohibited. There
was no defimtion of halfway house in the Ordinance."
Insert a comma after "children"
Should read "because that's true, this facility did not fall"
Change "they" to "it"
Change "they are" to "it is"
Should read "A motion has been made and is before the
Board."
Delete paragraph format between lines 13 and 14. Should
be a continuation of the same paragraph.
Should read "know in the past, if they found somebody
crazy, they'd ship"
Insert quotation marks around the word "corrections."
7
Page 12, Line 4:
Page 12, Line 8:
Page 12, Lines 10-12:
Mr. Smith moved,
Mr. Seymour seconded:
Strike "General Board response." Insert "Board members
Carlston/ Davidson OrJrien Smith and Chair Bode raised
their hands. "
Strike "General Board response." Insert "Board member
Seymour raised his hand. "
Should read "The applicant's appeal of the notice and order
by the City of Englewood is successful and the Order is null
and void per se. "
THE MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2000 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. THE MINUTES OF
JUNE 22, 2000 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
AYES: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Rasby
ABSENT: Davidson
The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved.
V. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT
Mr. Smith moved;
Mr. Seymour seconded:
THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #7-2000, 4710 SOUTH FOX STREET, AND
CASE #8-2000, 3055 SOUTH UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD, BE APPROVED AS
WRITTEN.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith
None.
Ras by
Davidson
The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved.
VI. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE
Ms. Newman stated in addition to the continued case, there were three variance cases
for the August meeting. In addition to the public hearings, there will be discussion on
the update of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Smith asked if there were
copies available for the Board. Ms. Newman responded that nothing had been changed
yet. A consultant has been hired to commence the project. The consultant and staff
are looking for initial input from the Board and Planning and Zoning Commission.
8
•
•
VII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms. Reid stated City Council will be considering an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
which amends the zoning map. The Ordinance requires the map to be a 1/200 which
did not fit in the Chambers. It will be amended to leave out the scale. Staff will be
distributing new zoning maps to City Council. Ms. Reid asked the Board if they wished
to receive new copies of the map. She stated that other than PUD's there haven't been
any changes. They stated they would like new maps. Ms . Newman distributed the
zon ing maps to each Board member.
Ms. Reid also stated next month there will be a discussion on changing the Zoning
Ordinance. Clarion Associates is the consultant hired to revamp the entire Zoning
Ordinance. She informed the Board that the discussion next month is the Board's
chance to address any of its concerns. The Comprehensive Plan is also due to be
amended.
IX. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE
Mr. Smith stated he wanted to know why City staff thought it was appropriate to
change the format of the staff report without asking the Board. Ms. O'Brien clarified
that it wasn't staff; it was Mr. Simpson, the director. She urged Mr. Smith not to "lump
them altogether." Further, Ms. Newman cannot answer for Mr. Simpson.
Chair Bode stated he realized the issue was not Ms. Newman's fault and asked her not
to take it personally. He directed Ms. Newman to inform Mr. Simpson that the format of
the staff report used in previous months which listed the pros and cons to each criteria
was agreed to by the Board. Chair Bode further stated that Mr. Simpson has now
changed the format, and he and the Board are not happy with the change. Ms.
Newman responded by stating that Mr. Simpson suggested the Board call him or he
could attend the next meeting to discuss the change.
Ms. O'Brien stated that the format needs to revert for the next meeting. Chair Bode
stated that he would call Mr. Simpson. Mr. Smith stated that he had strenuous
objections to Mr. Simpson changing any report the Board receives until he talks to the
Board. He asked Ms. Newman to pass that along to Mr. Simpson. Ms . O'Brien stated
that Mr. Simpson's message that the Board could call him or that he will be present at
the next meeting adds an incendiary note that isn't necessary. Mr. Smith stated that it
is arrogant. Ms. Newman stated that she would pass the information along, and he
would also read it in the minutes.
Mr. Smith suggested that staff consistently add the total requirement in the variance
request. Such as, encroaching 8 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback. He stated he
felt that was important and should be made a part of the motion.
9
Mr. Seymour also asked Ms. Newman to pass the Boards' concerns onto Mr. Simpson. •
He wondered if Mr. Simpson thought the Board wouldn't notice, but the Board did in
fact take notice. Chair Bode stated he noticed it immediately.
Ms. Carlston stated that she enjoyed attending the Civic Center opening. It showed
strong community spirit.
Staff asked the Board if they wished Mr. Simpson to attend the August meeting. The
Board stated it was his choice, but that Chair Bode will call him to discuss the staff
report. If Mr. Simpson has a problem with changing back to the Board's agreed upon
format, Chair Bode stated he would call someone "higher up."
There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared
adjourned at 8:30 p.rn.
/1 c_,./ I
.___/,
10
•