Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-11 BAA MINUTES• • • MINU TES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS October 11, 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 (en te re d m eetin g a t 7:4SJ, Seymour and Smith Members absent: None Staff present: Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Tricia Langon, Planner Ch air Bode st ate d that there were seven members present; therefore, five affirmative votes ar e required to g rant a variance . Chair Bode stated that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to grant v ariances 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. CASES #18-2000 and# 19-2000 Distinctive Builders 4020 and 4030 South Elati Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication . He introduced the cases by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-4 :G , Maximum Building Height, to exceed the maximum building height of 25 feet by 9 feet. Mike Duggan , 3670 South Huron Street, was sworn in . Mr. Duggan stated he was before the Board to request a variance for an additional 9 feet in building height. Chair Bode stated there are five criteria the Board must justify before it can grant a variance. Mr. Duggan stated he did not have a list of the criteria . Ms. Langon referred the applicant to the staff report. With regard to the first criterion, Mr. Duggan testified he purchased the three lots with the plan to build new homes on the lots . When the process was originally started , he was on the Board of the Englewood Education Fo.undation, and Dr. Wilson asked him, as a real estate expert, how more families could locate in Englewood neighborhoods and how to increase the enrollment in the schools. He stated he told Mr. Wilson that Englewood has a lot of very small two-bedroom, one bathroom houses , an aging population, and is in need of new housing . A few months after that discussion, Distincti v e Builders, LLC was formed to build on vacant lots or raise and rebuild on properties. He stated he wants to build a two-story, family house on a standard 50' x 125 ' lot. To start the process, he went to the Building Department, who referred him to 1 Community Development because the house was too tall. After meeting with Commun it y Development, he learned that 25 feet was the maximum height currently allowed for a residential structure. He stated he and his partners did not feel that was a viable option for • building a two-story house with 8 feet per floor, dead space for mechanical work, and a decent pitch to the roof. The best he could do was trim the height to 26 feet. He continued; they decided it was more important to build a house which fits into the community with similar style roof pitches and accruements-big front porch, garage in the rear, etc . Their other option was a ranch plan, and on a 50 ' x 125 ' lot with the cur.r ent setbacks it does not make for a good ranch-style house for a family. Mr. Duggan continued; the second criterion is that the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance. He stated he is going above and beyond what the ordinance intended. He plans to build a family house that matches the neighborhood, which follows the spirit of the ordinance. The third criterion is that the variance not adversely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood. The proposed house will not adversely affect the neighborhood. In fact, it will add to the neighborhood as far as aesthetics, safety, property values , etc. The City's staff report questioned the impact to the house to the north. That house would be the most affected by the variance, and Mr. Duggan stated Distinctive Builders owns that property. There should not be a problem with sun blockage for that house because it sits to the north of the property . The applicant stated that the fourth criterion is met because the house meets or exceeds all other residential requirements. There will, therefore, be no affect to the adjacent properties . With respect to the fifth criterion, Mr. Duggan testified they were at the minimum. It was a need for the neighborhood for the house to blend in and match the • other homes as much as possible rather than building the typical tract house . Mr. Duggan showed the Board pictures of other houses in the neighborhood and then explained the location of each house with respect to the proposed variance request. Referring to the submitted pictures, Mr. Duggan stated there are a number of houses within Englewood that are built o v er the 25 foot maximum, which should make it a viable option for him to build a two-story house . Mr. Seymour asked Mr. Duggan to explain why the house needs a 10/12 rather than a 4/12 roof. Mr. Duggan responded that it was needed to make the house blend in with the neighborhood. Most of the houses around the property are the 10/12 pitch roofs. Mr. Duggan referred the Board to the architect's rendering of the proposed house within their packet. The rendering shows a 1950's sty le famil y home, with a big front porch which w ill match the neighborhood. Mr. Se y mour asked how much the house would exceed the height limitation if it had a 4/12 pitch. Mr. Duggan responded that it would exceed 2 feet; and if the house was going to exceed the maximum, it should blend and match the neighborhood . Mr. Seymour stated there is a big difference between 2 feet and 9 feet. Ms . Carlston asked for the square footage of the proposed house . Mr. Duggan stated it will be 2, 188 square feet above grade with a full basement and attached two car garage. Ms. Carlston asked how many bedrooms the house would have . Mr. Duggan responded that the proposed house has four bedrooms, a study, and three bathrooms. Ms. Carlston further asked if he had any architectural plans . Mr. Duggan stated he had one extra copy if • the Board wished to review the plans. Ms . Reid interjected that if the Board looks at the plans , they would be evidence and would need to remain with the Board. Ms. Carlston stated she did not need to look at the plans; she was only wanting to know if they had 2 • • • worked out the architectural plans . Mr. Duggan stated they had the full p lans ready when he went to the Building Department applying for the permit. Mr . Smith asked what the space at the top of the house would be used for. Mr . Duggan stated it is attic or dead space . Referring to the rendering, Mr. Smith asked for the height of the second peak. Mr. Duggan responded that it was approximately 27 feet. Mr. Smith asked for the height of the top of the house . Mr. Duggan stated it was 34 feet from grade. Mr. Smith stated that with regard to fitting in the neighborhood, a number of houses on the block north of this property have 4/12 or 5/12 pitched roofs. Mr. Duggan responded that a lot of surrounding houses are the 10/12 pitch . Mr. Smith stated Mr. Duggan produced pictures of 2 or 3 houses in the neighborhood with a 10 /12 pitch , and he is curious how many in the neighborhood do not. Mr . Duggan stated that the neighborhood boundaries would need to be defined. There are four houses , which are the closest to the proposed house , that have the 10/12 pitch. Ms . Carlston asked if the house to the north is for sale. Mr . Duggan stated it is. Ms. Carlston clarified Distinctive Builders currently owns that house. Mr. Duggan responded that they bought the property as a package; all 6 lots. The first 3 lots, or 75 feet, were with the house on 490 West Nassau ; 430 South Elati had the other 3 lots. He decided to build 2 new houses on standard 50 foot wide lots rather than having two 75-foot wide lots. The property was subdivided into three 50-foot lots . Ms . O'Brien stated that Mr . Duggan testified that he would only need a 2 foot height variance if the house had a 4/12 pitch . She asked Mr. Duggan if he had an objection to amending his request to two feet and changing the pitch to 4/12. Mr. Duggan stated he called the architects in California and was told that if the proposed house had a 4/12 pitch roof, it would have structural problems . The house would need a complete redesign, which he originally did not oppose but later felt it would take away from fitting into the neighborhood . Mr. Duggan continued ; he would need to go back to the architect to see what could be done if the Board only granted a 2 foot variance. Referring to the rendering, Mr . Smith asked for the pitch on one of the roofs . Mr. Duggan responded that the pitch was 10 /12. The porch roof has a 4/12 pitch. Ms . Davidson asked if Mr. Duggan was aware there were several flat roof ranches in the neighborhood. Mr. Duggan stated that to comply with the spirit of the ordinance, he could build a very nice two story, California , contemporary house with a flat roof that would not blend into the neighborhood at all and still comply with the ordinance. Ms. Davidson stated she was having trouble justifying the request on the basis that it blends into the neighborhood. That neighborhood is very eclectic and there are flat roof ranches in the neighborhood. Mr. Duggan stated that he did not want to see it become drastically more mixed and throw in something that does not blend at all. In his opinion, if a 25 foot, flat roof house was built, it would not blend into that neighborhood . Mr . Smith clarified that Mr. Duggan only considered a 10 /12 pitch and 4/12 pitch . The architect informed him that the 4/12 pitch would create structural problems. Mr. Smith stated it doesn 't seem that the applicant has consi d ered anything in between. Mr. Duggan stated that to build with a 4/12 pitch the structure would need to change. The master 3 bedroom on the second floor would be adversely affected . The extra pitch would be lost. Mr. Smith stated that his point is there is nothing showing options with a 6/12 pitch or 8/12 . It appears to be all or nothing. Mr. Duggan stated he did not go back to the • architect to redraw a new set of plans to show various options. It was not something he felt they could afford . The more costs built into the project the more he will need to increase the price of the house. Mr. Smith again asked if Mr. Duggan investigated any other pitches - 6/12 or 8/12 , and what impact those pitches would have on the house. Mr. Duggan responded that he did not. Mr. Seymour clarified that the ridge line was 34 feet. Mr. Duggan stated that was correct. Mr. Se y mour asked what the height of the chimney would be. Mr. Duggan stated that the chimne y is included on the architectural rendering but will not be built on the house . The house will have a direct vent gas fireplace . Ms. Carlston clarified that the architect was from California . Mr. Duggan stated that was correct. Ms. Carlston asked why he didn 't hire a local architect who could visit the neighborhood and perhaps design a house that met the code requirements . Mr. Duggan stated the architects designed the house based on what he told them. There were several phone consultations, and the architects were provided photos of the neighborhood. The architects then produced a design that worked well. Mr. Duggan stated that from the beginning he was looking for this type of house because he knew it would fit into the neighborhood . Ms. O'Brien asked if prior to having conversations with the architect whether or not Mr. Duggan looked at the code requirements. She asked if Mr. Duggan was guided by the code requirements or just what he wanted. Mr. Duggan responded that he thought he was being guided by the code. Apparently more than one person in the process o v erlooked the maximum building height. There was more concern with the limitation of the 40 foot width of the house than the 25 foot height. Steven Hoelter, 4460 South Elati Street, was sworn in. Mr. Hoelter testified that he lives four blocks awa y from the proposed variance, but it is an example of something he wouldn 't want in his neighborhood. He stated he does not have a problem with the redevelopment within Englewood but the 25 foot height limitation is very reasonable . Coloradans rely on the southwest sunlight in the winter. His house would be in the shade if a house such as the one proposed was built next to his house. It also takes away the view. He continued that the proposal is not keeping with the neighborhood. There are a number of two story houses within Englewood that meet the 25 foot requirement. He stated he was out of town when the house on Delaware and Oxford was built; therefore, he did not have a chance to voice his opinion on that house. If he had, he would have voiced opposition on that house . Englewood is a surrounded, middle income town, and he believes nice moderate housing can be built. He stated he does not oppose the older homes being torn down, but there is a building code which needs to be followed . Mr. Hoelter stated he had a petition signed by a number of neighbors opposing the variance . Chair Bode stated that if they weren 't present to speak, the Board would be unable to accept the petition. Mr. Hoelter responded that was a shame because a number of people work who can 't attend the meeting. The applicant's sign was made out of poster board which is curled up . People have to get out of their vehicles to read the sign. People in his 4 • • • • • neighborhood are concerned about the request, and he would l ike to submit the list to the Board . Chair Bode asked the City Attorney whether the Board could accept the petition. Ms. Reid responded the Board could look at the petition ; it would go to the weight of the evidence. The Board accepted the petition . Carmen Rubino, 4036 South Elati Street, was sworn in. Ms. Rubino testified that she came to the meeting to voice a few concerns. She stated she owns the lot to the south of the subject property. She owns a one story house, and she appreciates that the applicant wishes to. stay within the 10 foot limit. She asked the Board to consider the effect of a 34 foot house 10 feet from her house . Her living space is mostly on the north side of the house . She recognizes that the applicant has put a lot of time and money into this effort, but she also put a lot of thought into the purchase of her home. One of the reasons she bought in the neighborhood was because the house is older; there is a yard; and the houses next to her house have wonderful y ards. She stated she has grown up in the area, and she loves Englewood. She stated her biggest concern is having something that tall 10 feet north of her house . Most of the winds come from the north. She does not have a swamp cooler or air conditioning in her house. The cross ventilation has been fine, and a house that tall will hinder that. She asked the Board to take her concerns into consideration and make the best decision for the neighborhood. Mr. Se y mour clarified that she lives next to the property . Ms. Rubino responded that she lives in the first house south of the property . Don ald Roth , 2830 South Sherman , was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Roth testified that he lives quite a distance from the subject property, but that large houses on small lots have been built close to his property. A 20 foot eave, which he assumed was approximately where the eave line on this house would be. . . Mr. Duggan started to respond. Ms. Reid interjected that Mr. Roth is testifying before the Board and ma y not ask questions of the appl icant or the Board . Based on his assumption, Mr. Roth testified that on a 20 foot eave line on the first day of spring would cast a 16 foot shadow to the north even with a 10 foot setback . The eave line is more important than the peak because the eave line is what will cast the shadow . During the winter months, that same eave line will cast a 3 7 foot shadow, which means anything to the north will be in perpetual shade throughout most of the winter. Gardens become impossible; ice and snow will impact the house to the north. Mr. Roth stated he liked the design of the proposed house, but it is too big for the neighborhood. Tim Walger, 4031 South Elati Street, was sworn in. He stated he lives one house down and across from the subject property. He asked the Board how many members have been down the 4000 block, where the properties are located, and looked at the neighborhood. Mr. Walger asked for a show of hands. Chair Bode reminded Mr. Walger that he was not allowed to question the Board. Mr. Walger stated that the applicant testified the houses would benefit the neighborhood. There is not one home between Nassau and Oxford on Elati that is over one story. Two 2-story homes on the corner will look out of place . It will not benefit the value of his home because when a realtor does comparables, he will not go across the street to these two properties . It will not benefit the neighborhood . His other concern is that the applicant is not building these homes for himself. He and his neighbors will have to suffer with what gets built, and he is hoping the Board will take a serious look 5 at the request. All the houses on the block are bungalows, approximately 1,000 square feet. Some are even under 900 square feet. A 2,000 square home will look out of place. He testified that he has lived at 4031 South Elati for 22 years. There isn 't a home on Elati • between Nassau and Oxford that has been on the market more than 90 days without selling . It is not a case of building a home that the public wants. Ms. Carlston "hit the nail on the head"; a California architect drew up the plans. The homeowners on Delaware behind these homes currently have a view of the mountain·s. If these houses are built, their view will be gone. If there were homes on the block that were close to 25 feet in height or that were two story, he woulG! agree that the Board should consider approving the request. Mr. Walger reiterated that the homes on Elati are one story houses. Chair Bode asked the applicant if he wished to make a rebuttal statement. Mr. Duggan stated that he is not wanting to ruin the neighborhood. He is trying to comply with what is the best possible, acceptable means of getting the job done. He believes that is building a larger home for a family within Englewood. There are some very big two-story houses within Englewood. He, in fact, was told that he could build this house with this plan if there were a little more side y ard area . It is not a matter of the size of the house, rather it is the size of the lot that is holding him back. The price per square foot of the house will sell for much lower than the average price in the neighborhood. The smaller houses tend to have a much higher price per square foot. He believes the houses will increase values in the neighborhood . Mr. Smith stated that both variance cases have been addressed within this case. He suggested combining the two public hearings and closing the evidence on both cases. He asked the applicant if he had any objection. Mr. Duggan stated he did not. Chair Bode asked the City Attorney if that could be done. Ms. Reid stated that it could be done if • there was a consensus from the Board to join the two cases . Mr. Smith moved; Ms . O 'Brien seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CASE #18-2000 AND CASE 19-2 000 BE COMBINED. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby , Se y mour, and Smith None None None The motion carried. Tricia Langon was sworn in. Ms. Langon stated that Mr. Duggan , the Board, and those who testified covered all the matters. The only issue she wished to address is that the lot is 50 feet wide, and that the house would have fit on the original 75 foot lot. Community Development is trying to promote development and move-up housing for the community, but it has to work with the ordinance which does not permit that type of development. Ms . O'Brien clarified that the house would have fit on a 75 foot lot, and that a height • exceeding 25 feet would have been acceptable. Ms . Langon stated that was correct; there is a height extension w ithin the ordinance . Ms . O 'Brien stated that the applicant bought the two lots and then subdivided those lots into three 50 foot lots. Therefore, the applicant moved from being able to legally build a higher structure to having to build a shorter 6 • • structure, and is now requesting a variance to avoid that limitation. Mr. Smith stated that they would have only been able to build one house rather than two. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. They are now trying to build two houses . Ms. O'Brien stated that it is the applicant's economics. Mr. Seymour asked Ms. Langon to clarify the height exception. Ms. Langon stated the ordinance states 25 feet for height, but there also is a height extention rule within the general regulation that allows for every extra foot of side yard, the property owner is permitted to "go up" one foot in height. For the applicant to build the house at 34 feet, 9 additional feet, he would need an additional 18 feet of side yard setback. 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 for Cases 18-2000 and 19-2000. Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded : THAT CASE #18-2000, 4020 SOUTH ELATI STREET, AND CASE #19-2000, 4030 SOUTH ELATI STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:G, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 25 FEET BY 9 FEET. Mr. Smith stated he had serious problems with the request. The applicant has not considered an y option between the 4/12 pitch and the 10/12 pitch . The Board could force him into 4/12 by amending the motion and granting a 2 foot variance, but that creates a number of problems. Mr. Smith stated he would rather the applicant consider a different option. The second problem he has with regard to 4020 South Elati, is that the applicant testified it would not affect 490 West Nassau because Distinctive Builders also owns that property, but Mr. Duggan also testified that the property is for sale . It will in fact affect that lot, and the Board has no way of knowing what the affect will be on the purchaser if three weeks after the property is purchased a large structure is built next to their property'. The third problem is that there is no footprint for the building on 4030 South Elati , so he can 't determine what affect it will have on Ms . Rubino 's property or the property at 4020 South Ela ti . Mr. Rasby stated he agreed with Mr. Smith. There were no other options presented. Ms . O 'Brien stated she had a lot of trouble with the request. The applicant started with two 75-foot lots. He then subdivided those lots into three 50-foot lots for his economic benefit. She stated the Board is not permitted to grant variances for the owner's economic benefit. The applicant is requesting a variance to place a house on a 50-foot lot that would have fit on a 75-foot lot. It is not keeping the community in mind; it is keeping his economic benefit in mind. That may not have been his intent; he was probably try ing to create an economically viable project, but the result is that he is trying to squish a large house onto a small lot. It will impact others . She stated she did not believe it was the minimum variance necessar y, and she will vote no . Ms . Carlston stated she agreed with Ms. O'Brien. The applicant is trying to "call the shots " because they issued the direction to the architect as to what needs to be built. The 7 applicant testified he wants to build something that fits into the neighborhood, but the architect did not look at the neighborhood. The applicant further testified that he could design something within the guidelines which would not be attractive. Ms. Carlston stated she didn 't agree . Ms. Carlston stated that she does not agree that a hardship exists for the applicant. It does not flow with the general guidelines of the ordinance. Ms. Davidson stated she had similar concerns. The applicant has not met the first criteria; he has not proven any exceptional circumstances or conditions which would result in needing a variance. She stated she also had a problem with the fourth and fifth criteria . It will impact neighboring properties; one of those property owners testified that she was concerned about the impact the variance would have to her property. It is not the least modification necessary to grant relief to the applicant. The applicant admitted the house could be built with a 4/12 pitch . Mr. Seymour stated all five criteria must be met, and this case does not meet any of the criteria . Mr. Smith stated that the mere height of the building will probably have little impact on the neighborhood; there are numerous trees there are over 34 feet tall. With no further discuss ion , the secretar y polled the members ' v otes . Mr. Se y mour stated he voted "no ." There are no exceptional conditions; it does not meet the spirit of the ordinance; it will adversely affect the adjacent property; and it is not the least modification necessary to grant the applicant relief. The applicant didn 't try to design • the building closer to the 25 foot height restriction. The applicant failed to meet all five criteria . Ms . Davidson stated she voted "no ." She agrees with Mr. Se y mour with the exception of the second criterion . She stated she believes the applicant is trying to encourage single famil y dwellings . Ms. Carlston stated she voted "no" concurring with Mr. Seymour. Mr. Smith stated he voted "no." The applicant failed to meet the criteria . Mr. Rasb y stated he voted "no", concurring with Mr. Smith. Ms. O 'Brien stated she voted "no." The applicant did not meet any of the criteria based on the reasons she stated during discussion . Chair Bode stated he voted "no " concurring with Ms. O 'Brien AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith None None The Chair announced the case denied by a 0-7 vote. 8 • • • Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the September 13 , 2000 public hearing . Mr . Smith moved , Mr. Se ymour seconded: THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13 , 2000 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: Bode , Carlston , Davidson , O 'Brien , and Se ymour None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rasby and Smith None Th e motion carried. The Chair announced the motion appro ved. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith mo ved ; Mr. Se ymour seconded : THE FI NDI NGS OF FACT IN CASE #14-2000, 2250 SOUTH ZUNI STREET AND 23 77 WEST ILIFF AVENUE , AND CASE #17-2000, 4710 SOUTH FOX STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: Bode, Carlston, Davidson , O 'Brien, and Seymour None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rasb y and Smith None The moti o n ca rried . Th e Ch a ir a nnoun ced the motion ap p ro ved. V. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon announced that Kate Newman had a bab y boy, Nathaniel Scott Newman , on September 20; 8.5 pounds, 22 inches long . Mr . Se ymour asked Ms . Langon to extend the Board 's congratulations to Ms . Newman . Ms . Langon reported that there were no cases for November. She also stated that the holid ay dinn e r is tenta tivel y scheduled for Decemb e r 14, and invitations will be mailed to the Bo a rd . The next study session w ill be in January, and asked the Board if there was an ythin g in pa rticular the y wished to discuss at the study session. Mr . Seymour asked for a copy of the He ight Extension regulation. VI. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid stated she had nothing further. 9 v ' VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE The Board had nothing further. • There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared ~i;Bii~ . N;cy Feton, Recording Secretary • • 10