Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-11 BAA MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS July 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Secretary 's Note: Proposed new wording of the oath to be administered was discussed by Assistant City Attorney Reid and the four members present (Smith , Bode, O'Brien and Carl- ston ) prior to the arrival of Ms. Davidson. The consensus of the four members present was that the new wording shall be used when swearing in persons presenting testimony to the Board. I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to or- der at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Jill Carlston presiding. Members present: Members absent: Staff present: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Smith Rasby, Seymour (with previous notice from Seymour) Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid Senior Planner Tricia Langon Planner I Bill Donnelly Chair Carlston announced that there are five members of the Board present; four affirma- tive votes will be needed to grant a variance or an appeal. Ms. Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is authorized to grant vari- ances from existing zoning or housing regulations as set forth in Section 16-2-8 and Section 9-1-9-3 of the Englewood Municipal Code. The Board is also authorized to grant appeals from, and to review any order, requirement, decision, or determination by, the Chief Build- ing Official or any employee of the City of Englewood. All applicants must meet criteria as set forth in the Englewood Municipal Code. Ms. Carlston set forth parameters for conduct of the public hearing, noting that the appli- cant shall present the request, staff will be heard, and members of the audience will be granted an opportunity to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the request. II. RONALD I. BAILOR CASE #6-2001 3 760 South Bannock Street Ms . Carlston declared the Public Hearing on the appeal field by Ronald J. Bailor, 3760 South Bannock Street, open. Ms. Carlston stated that the appeal request to be heard is an appeal from the Englewood Municipal Code (EMC ) requirement regarding a minimum basement ceiling height of 6 feet 8 inches to create habitable space in an existing base- ment. Ms. Carlston stated that she does have in hand proof of publication of the notice of public hearing, published in the Englewood Herald on June 29, 2001. • • • Lance Smith , Chief Building Official of the City of Englewood , was sworn in. Mr. Smith tes- tified that the Englewood Municipal Code, Section 9-3A-2, has a minimum required ceiling height for habitable basement area of 6 feet 8 inches. The applicant has proposed a ceiling height of 6 feet 2 inches . Mr. Smith stated that he has determined that the proposed 6 feet 2 inch height is unsafe for habitable space, and unsafe for emergency personnel should they have reason to be in the basement. The home was constructed in 1915 according to Arapahoe County records. Mr. Smith stated that records dating back to issuance of the original Certificate Occupancy were researched; there is no record of a building permit ever being issued to finish two bedrooms in the basement. The applicant, Mr. Bailor, has stated that he purchased the home as a three-bedroom home, with 2 bedrooms in a "fin- ished " basement. Repairs have been done to repair water damage, and these two bed- rooms were deleted; the basement is now in a 100 % unfinished state. Mr. Smith testified that whenever any alterations are made to existing structures, they must conform to current code requirements. Mr. Smith further testified that basement ceiling height minimums have not changed much over the years, and reiterated that no record has been found of a permit authorizing finishing of two bedrooms in the basement. Mr. Smith also addressed the issue of the stairs leading down to the basement. He stated that there are uneven risers and runs , which are hazardous. There is also low headroom clearance at the base of the stairs. Mr . Smith stated that the stairs in existence are similar to what one would expect to lead to a "cellar" -not a habitable basement. Ronald J. Bailor, 3 760 South Bannock Street, was sworn in. Mr. Bailor testified that they purchased the site as a three-bedroom house. There has been a flooding problem in the house, and they have repaired the water damage. He wants to finish the basement to allow the two bedrooms that were there prior to water damage repair. Mr. Bailor stated that he will install escape windows in the basement, and if necessary, will repair the stairs as well. Ms. O 'Brien asked about the safety concerns cited in the staff report. Mr. Bailor stated that he will install the escape windows, which should address the safety issue . He stated that he is 6 feet 2 inches tall, and the low ceiling height does not bother him walking around in the basement. Mr. Bailor stated that the appraisal and real estate listing for the property indi- cated a three-bedroom home, with two bedrooms in the basement. Ms. O 'Brien asked if this is part of the public record . Mr. Bailor stated that he has not sub- mitted the appraisal or listing as part of the appeals file . Ms. Carlston asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the appeal. No one spoke in favor. Ms. Carlston then asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal. No one spoke in opposition. Ms. Carlston asked that the staff report be made part of the public record of the Hearing. Ms. Carlston declared the Public hearing on Case #6-2001 closed. She asked the pleasure of the Board . 2 • • • Smith moved: Bode seconded: The appeal to Section 9-3A-2 of the Englewood Municipal Code, to allow a reduction of the minimum basement ceiling height from 6 feet 8 inches to 6 feet 2 inches, be granted. Members of the Board discussed the case. Mr. Bode expressed concerns about safety of the residents as well as emergency personnel who might be in the basement. Ms. O'Brien agreed that the safety issue is a big concern, and stated that in her opinion, the Chief Build- ing Official applied the correct standard for ceiling height and was correct in denial of issu- ance of a building permit to finish the basement. Mr. Smith stated that the 6 feet 8 inch minimum height has been imposed for a reason, and that he could not imagine fire person- nel trying to do their job in a basement with ceiling height of only 6 feet 2 inches. Ms. Carlston stated that she also has concerns about occupancy in the basement, and fire fighter safety. The question was called; members cast their votes. Four members voted in opposition to the motion; one member voted in favor of the motion; two members absent. Ms. Carlston asked that members give their Findings. Mr. Smith stated he voted no; he supported the decision regarding minimum ceiling heights by the Chief Building Official, and stated that it is not only safety of fire personnel that is of concern, but other individuals who may have reason to be in the basement may also be placed at risk because of the low ceiling height. Mr. Bode stated he voted no, and that he agreed with Mr. Smith. Ms. O 'Brien stated she voted no . She stated that the safety codes do apply, and reiterated her earlier statement that the Chief Building Official did correctly interpret and determine the minimum ceiling height for the basement. Ms. Davidson stated she disagreed; she voted in favor of granting the appeal. Ms. David- son pointed out that two bedrooms had existed in the basement until the applicant made repairs caused by water damage. The applicant will address the safety issue by installation of escape windows. She finds that extenuating circumstances do exist. Ms. Carlston stated that she voted no, and stated she agreed with Mr. Smith's reasons. Ms. Carlson ruled the appeal has been denied by a vote of four in opposition to one in fa- vor; two members absent. 3 • • Ill. GLEN CARY CASE #7-2001 2 1 75 W est A dri ati c Pl ac e Ms. Carlston stated that th e requested varianc e is to encroach 5.3 feet into the required 14 feet side yard separation between principal structures on adjacent lots. This is a variance to §16 -4-6 :J 2 Minimum Side Yard of the EMC. Ms. Carlston declared the Public Hearing open ; she noted that she does ha v e i n hand certi- fication of posting, and certification of publication of the Notice of Hearing published in the Englewood Herald on June 2 2, 2001. She asked that the applicant present the case . Glen Cary, 9588 W est Vandeventor Drive, was sworn in . Mr. Car y stated that this property is zoned R-2-C , Medium Density Residence, which allows construction of single-family at- tached dwellings . The specific lot is 25 feet in width; it is very difficult to design a single- family home that will meet setback requirements, be compatible with the neighborhood, and not have it app ear to be a "trailer". A varian c e allowing encroa c hment of 5 feet 3 inches into the minimum separation requirement of 14 feet will allow construction of a house that will be "livabl e", and compatible with th e neighborhood. The property to the east was developed in 195 2, and the principal structure is only 3.5 feet from the side prop- erty line . The variance, if granted, will not impact this adjacent property. Mr. Cary noted that there are two large maple trees on the subject site, and the development of the at- tached single-family homes on the subject ownership will not require removal of the trees. Parking will be to the rear of the property; a singl e-car garage and one out-side parking space for each unit will be accessed from the alle y . Mr. Cary stated that the one single- family attached unit will compl y w ith all setback requirements; only the unit to be ad- dressed as 21 75 West Adriatic A v enue will not comply with the one setback requirement. Mr. Cary stated that the site has been used for unauthorized dumping of trash , tree limbs, and abandoned vehicles . Development of the site will alleviate an "eyesore " for the neighborhood, and enhance the neighboring properties. Mr. Car y reiterated that granting the variance would allow development of the property. Ms. Carlston asked if there were questions from the board . She asked if attempts had been made to contact the property owner at 2151 West Adriatic Place. Mr. Cary stated that at- tempts were made; he has been informed that the property owner is incarcerated and was unable to get a statement from him . Ms. Carlston asked if an y one in the audience w ished to speak in fa v or of the variance . No on addressed the Board. Ms. Carlston asked if an yone in the audience wished to speak in opposition to the variance. No one addressed the Board. Mr. Smith asked side yard setback minimums. Tricia Langon , Senior Planner, was sworn in . Ms . Langon testified that side y ard setbacks for 218 5 West A dri atic Plac e are in compli anc e; th ere is a zero setback betw een 2185 a nd 2 1 75 We st A dri atic Pl ac e b ec aus e the units w ill b e joined as sin gle-famil y attached un its ; 4 • • • the only setback not in compliance is the side yard separation on 2175 West Adriatic Place on the east property line. Ms. Carlston declared the Public Hearing closed. She asked the pleasure of the Board. Smith moved: O'Brien seconded: The variance requested by Glen Cary, to allow encroachment of 5.3 feet into the required 14 feet side yard separation between principal structures on adjacent lots be granted. This variance is to § 16-4-6: J 2 of the EMC. Brief discussion ensued. The vote was cast. Five members voted affirmatively; none voted in opposition; two members absent. Ms. Carlston asked that members give their Findings. Ms. Davidson stated she voted yes, and finds that the property to the east of 2175 West Adriatic Place is developed, and already encroaches into the required side yard between principal structures. The lot is narrow, and she finds this to be an exceptional circumstance. Development of the lot will conform to the spirit of the ordinance in all but the one set- back; the development will not adversely affect adjacent property or the neighborhood, and will in fact, eliminate an area that has been subjected to unauthorized dumping of trash. This requested variance is the least modification necessary to grant relief to the ap- plicant. Ms . O 'Brien stated that she voted yes , and is in agreement with reasons cited by Ms. Davidson. Mr. Bode stated that he voted yes; he is in agreement with the reasons cited by Ms. David- son, and is delighted that the large maple trees on the site will be saved. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes; this is a vacant lot and the adjacent structure was built too close to the side yard line years ago. He agrees with the reasons cited by Ms. Davidson. Ms . Carlston stated that she voted yes; she is also in agreement with reasons cited by Ms. Davidson, and like Mr. Bode is appreciative of the fact that the trees will be saved. Ms. Carlston stated that the variance has been granted by a vote of five to zero with two absent. IV. GLENNWOOD AND CYNTHIA SEARFOSS 3297 South Downing Street CASE #8-2001 Ms. Carlston stated that the requested variance is to allow encroachment of 22 feet into the required 25-foot front yard setback. This is a variance to §16-4-4:H Minimum Front Yard of the EMC. 5 • • • Ms. Carlston declared the Public Hearing open . Ms. Reid stated that there is an issue on the posting of the site that needs to be addressed by staff prior to proceeding with the Hearing. Ms. Langon addressed the Board, and noted that the EMC requires posting of properties for 15 consecutive days prior to a Hearing. The applicant presented the notarized certification of posting to her, the form clearly indicating that the property had been posted from June 19 to July 6 1 "; and the applicant verbally stated that the sign had been in place on the site to July 9; but it was removed on July 9 1 ". The property has been posted a total of 1 7 days; but the issue is -the sign was removed on Monday, July g t", and the Hearing is scheduled for this evening, Wednesday, July 11 th. The ordinance is not clear whether the posting must be immediately prior to and including the day of the hearing, or whether a two-day break be- tween the time the sign was removed and the date of the Hearing is cause for concern. Ms. Langon suggested that the 17 days of posting does meet the "intent" of the Ordinance even though the site was not posted on the day of the Hearing. Ms. Reid stated that the Board needs to determine if this posting with the two-day gap does, indeed, meet the intent of the Ordinance. If the Board feels that the spirit of the Or- dinance has been maintained, they can vote to accept the certification and proceed with the Hearing. Brief discussion ensued. Ms. Langon stated that the applicant was asked that the sign be posted on the property by June 20. Ms. O'Brien asked how it was determined that the sign was removed early. Ms. Langon stated that when she received the certification of posting, she reviewed it and noted the date discrepancy; she then questioned the applicant who stated that the sign was removed on Monday, July 91h. Mr. Smith stated that procedurally it is correct, but he almost wants to continue the Hear- ing. Ms. O'Brien pointed out that the sign was up a couple of days early, and considering the wording of the requirement for posting, it allows this to meet the "spirit" of the ordi- nance. Brief discussion ensued. Smith moved: Bode seconded: That the Public Hearing on Case #8-2001 be continued to August 8, 2001; the property is to be reposted a minimum of 15 consecutive days up to and including the date of the Hearing. The vote was taken; three members voted in favor of the motion; two members voted in opposition. Chair Carlston ruled that the motion carried; the Public Hearing is continued to August 3th for proper posting. Ms. Langon asked whether the notice of Public Hearing will have to be republished. The Board ruled that re-publication was not required . Reposting of the property is required. 6 . ' • • • V . FINDINGS OF FACT Case #4-2001 -2025 West Baker Avenue Case #5-2001 -3001 South Elati Street Ms. Carlston stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #4-2001 , Kevin Dennison, 2025 West Baker Avenue; and Case #5-2001 , Charles Kevin Henry, 3001 South Elati Street, were to be considered for approval. Smith moved: Bode seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #4-2001, 2025 West Baker Avenue, and on Case #5-2001 , 3001 South Elati Street, be approved as written . The vote was taken; five affirmative votes, no votes in opposition, two members absent. Chair Carlston stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #4-2001 and Case #5-2001 are ap- proved. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 27, 2001 Chair Carlston stated the Minutes of June 27, 2001 are to be considered for approval. Bode moved: Smith seconded: The Minutes of June 27, 2001 be approved as written. The vote was taken; five affirmative votes; no votes in opposition ; two members absent. Chair Carlston stated that the Minutes of June 27, 2001 stand approved as written. VII. STAFF CHOICE Ms. Langon stated that the August 8 , 2001 agenda will be full. There is the hearing contin- ued from this meeting, Case #8-2001 , a sign variance request from K-Mart, a variance for a carport at 4268 South Fox street, and a side yard variance request at 4495 South Grant Street. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid discussed the need to clarify wording on posting requirements in the revised Zon- ing Ordinance. Ms. Langon stated that in the pre-application meeting with the applicants and contractor for Case# 8-2001 , they were informed of the posting requirements, and that the certification of the posting was to be done on the "day of the hearing" . 7 . . • IX. COMMISSIONERS CHOICE Mr. Smith discussed the posting requirements, and stated that the wording should state "up to and including the date of the hearing". He suggested there is no need for the certifica- tion to be notarized; the applicant is required to swear or affirm testimony before the Board, and this would also apply to posting of the property. Mr. Bode asked how the building to the southeast of the Civic Center is being constructed in such close proximity to the Civic Center. He also commented on the fact that a "hole was chopped into the wall to put in a little window" in the Civic Center, and the new struc- ture may negate that window. Ms. Langon stated that all development in the CityCenter is done via a Planned Unit Development, which was considered and approved by the Plan- ning Commission and City Council. No setbacks are delineated in the PUD . Ms. O 'Brien asked about the change in color of the City Mark; it used to be green and white, then a gold or bronze tone was used, and it is now black and silver. She com- mented on the difficulty of reading the black and silver clock at the back of the Council Chambers . The meeting was declared adjourned at 8 :50 p.m. • ,iJ~ .. ~' ,/ d-~~ Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secretary Pro T em • 8