Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-08 BAA MINUTESI > • .• MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSMENT AND APPEALS August 8, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 pm. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Carlston presiding. Members present: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith Members absent: Rasby Staff present: Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Bill Donnelly, Planner I Chair Carlston stated there were six members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance. Chair Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part 111 , Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. • Chair Carlston 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. CASE #8-2001 Glennwood and Cynthia Searfoss 3297 South Downing Street Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of posting and public a tion. She also stated that the case was c on tinued from Jul y 11 , 2001. She introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 22 feet into the required 25 feet front yard setback. This is a variance to 16-4-4:H, Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Glennwood Searfoss, 329 7 South Downing Street, was sworn in. Mr. Searfoss testified that the property is located at the corner of Floyd Avenue and Downing Street, and the house was built in 1901 ; 40 years before the Ordinance was in place. The house is located on the east side of an oversized lot, approximately 3 feet from the sidewalk. Water and sewer utilities are located on the south portion of the property; there are old growth trees to the northwest; there is a garage on the west side of the property. This only leaves a small area on the north side of the property to build out on the house. The variance would permit construction of an addition on the north side. The applicant testified that as the current plan exists, the variance will not affect adjacent • properties and will not impact or impair any use or development of adjacent properties. It also will not cause any visual obstruction of the intersection. There is 25-30 feet on the south side, which is the front yard. On the north side, there is an area which only has access from the rear yard. Mr. Searfoss continued; the house is a single family dwelling and will stay as such; there is no intent for commercial use of the property. Mr. Searfoss testified that the 22 feet is the least amount of modification he feels is necessary to construct the addition on the existing house; the house already encroaches 22 feet. The 22 feet would prevent encroachment on the root base of the old growth trees on the north side, and it will provide the best utilization of the available space . Chair Carlston stated that according to the submitted plans, windows would be removed and asked if the applicant had thought through his floor plan . Mr. Searfoss stated that he will be working with the City to ensure everything is in compliance. Kevin J. Farrell , 3301 South Downing Street, was sworn in . Mr. Farrell stated he was present to speak as a concerned neighbor in favor of the variance . Mr. Farrell stated he has been in the back yard of the property, and there is a number of old growth trees which cover the back yard. Those trees would have to be removed in order for the addition to be built in the back . The proposed area of construction is in a "dead space" which cannot be accessed without going through the trees. The entrance of the house is on Floyd Avenue, not Downing Street. Mr. Farrell testified that he has seen the renderings, and they make • sense stylistically. Given the age of the house and the renderings, the variance would create the best look. Further, the construction is not a "pop up ", and as the addition is designed , it will lend something to the community. He is also familiar with the contractor's work; once the addition is complete it will look as if it was designed as part of the original house . Mr. Farrell testified that the variance will not negatively impact him as a neighbor. The addition will increase the value of the house, which in turns increases the property values in the neighborhood. Further, it will not affect him because the addition will not be an eye sore. He believes the variance is the least restrictive alternative; it is not a commercial development. Frances E. Marick, 3285 South Downing Street, was sworn in. Mr. Marick stated he submitted a letter in favor of the variance; he is the neighbor on the north side of the property . He stated that it makes sense to utilize the front portion of the property because the old house, built in 1901, is establishing the front line of the house. The addition would only extend the existing line. The addition will increase the owners ' taxes, and the City of Englewood could enjoy that benefit. Tricia Langon , Senior Planner, was sworn in. Ms. Langon directed the Board's attention to page two of the staff report, specifically the comments under Community Development. Ms. Langon stated the applicant is requesting an encroachment of 22 feet into the front setback; that encroachment would be across the full frontage of the property. • Since the applicant is planning to build on the north side of the existing structure, staff suggested the Board condition the variance to construction on the north side and not allow 2 '< • • • construction within the first 25 feet on the south side. Potentially, if the variance is granted for the full 25 feet, someone in later years could build 22 feet into that setback. There would then be vision and site triangle issues. Other city departments who reviewed the case suggested that limiting the variance to the north side would be a good alternative. It would allow the applicant to build on the north side, while protecting the City's interest on the south side of the house. Mr . Smith asked for the side yard setback. Ms. Langon stated it was 7 feet. Mr. Smith clarified that if the addition were built on the side of the house, it would encroach 4 feet. Ms. Langon stated that was incorrect; it would still have to be 25 feet. Mr. Smith clarified that Ms. Langon was referring to Downing Street, rather than Floyd. Ms. Langon stated that was correct; the alignment is determined by the remainder of the houses along Downing Street, provided by a corner lot exception. Mr . Smith asked that if a house is located on a corner, the setback is 25 feet of each street. Ms. Langon stated that it depends on the depth of the lot. Mr. Smith asked how close the owner could build to Floyd Avenue if the property were addressed on Downing. Ms. Langon responded that as a corner lot, addressed on Downing, the owner can build no closer than 25 feet. Mr. Smith asked if the owner had to be 25 feet from each street on a corner. Ms. Langon stated that was correct on the Downing Street side. Ms. Langon stated that if the house were addressed on Floyd Avenue, what once was the front when addressed on Downing now becomes the side lot on Floyd Avenue and still requires a 25 foot setback. If the house fronts on Floyd Avenue, it is 25 feet unless the exception is applied. Mr . Smith asked how close the owner could build to Floyd Avenue with the property addressed on Downing Street. Ms . Langon responded that it would be a side yard and the owner could build to 7 feet of the property line. Mr. Smith asked why the same rule didn 't apply if the property were addressed on Floyd Avenue, and the side yard would be on Downing. Ms. Langon stated that the alignment would be the same as the remainder of the block, and on Downing it is 25 feet. Mr. Smith clarified that if the owner changed his address to Floyd Avenue, he would only be permitted to build in the back little corner of the lot. Ms. Langon stated that whether the house is facing Downing or Floyd, as a corner lot the side setback for Floyd or the front setback for Downing is 25 feet. Ms. Langon stated the orientation determines the setback. It changes; one is a front yard setback, and the other is a side yard setback. Ms. O'Brien asked under what circumstances the setback could be less than 25 feet from either Downing or Floyd. Ms. Langon responded that it could not; if the house is facing Floyd , it is a 25 feet front yard setback. If it is facing Downing, it is a 25 foot side yard setback due to the alignment of the other houses in the block. Ms. Langon stated staff looked at all the exceptions, and this case didn 't meet any exceptions. Chair Carlston clarified that regardless of which way the house faced , it would still require a variance. Ms. Langon stated that was correct; and therefore, there was no need to change the address. If there were an opportunity to avoid the variance by changing the address and reassigning the alignment, staff would have suggested it to the applicant. 3 There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston • incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Ms. O'Brien moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #8-2001 , 3297 SOUTH DOWNING STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 22 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED . THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-4:H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Ms. Davidson suggested inserting the word "only" into the motion, limiting the construction to the north side of the residence . Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Smith accepted the friendly amendment. The amended motion reads: THAT CASE #8-2001, 3297 SOUTH DOWNING STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 22 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FRONT YARD SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE ONLY OF THE RESIDENCE AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-4 :H, MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes ; the extraordinary and peculiar circumstances are that the house was built in 1901 . It will observe the spirit of the ordinance because it will improve the property values of the neighborhood by increasing the size of the house and the design is compatible with the design of a 1901 house, which is beneficial. The variance will not affect the adjacent property anymore than a hedge . It will not have any adverse impact on the appropriate use or development of the adjacent properties because it is not close enough to the lot on the north to affect that lot. It is the least modification possible; constructing the addition further back on the lot would make the house a lot uglier and would reduce the older trees currently on the property. Mr. Bode, Mr. Seymour, Ms . Davidson, Ms. O'Brien, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes , concurring with Mr. Smith . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Ras by The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. The Board took a short recess ; upon reconvening, all Board members were present. 4 • • • • • Ill. CASE #9-2001 Scott McAleer 4495 South Grant Street Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of posting and publication. She introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 3 feet into the required minimum 3 feet side yard setback. This is a variance to 16-4-4:1 1 of the Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Scott McAleer, 4495 South Grant Street, was sworn in. Mr. McAleer stated he wished to build a garage; and if the variance is granted, the fence line would line up with the garage. If the variance is not granted, he will need to set the garage back 3 feet. He stated he drives a truck which is 23-25 feet long; and if he looses the 3 feet, the truck will not fit in the garage. He stated he believes the variance is keeping with the spirit of the ordinance; he is not creating any problems with the site triangles. It will cause him hardship if the variance is not created for the 3 feet; the truck will not fit. He already has received a ticket from the city ; he cannot park in front of his house. He must park on Stanford Street, which puts the truck in the site triangle and people cannot see to make the corner. The neighbors closest to his property have agreed to the variance. Mr . McAleer further testified that his truck has been broken into several times; and he is afraid that it will continue to be broken into if he cannot get his truck off the street. The garage and its size are based on the size of his truck. Mr . McAleer stated that the City's staff report indicates that he will not be able to park a vehicle on his driveway facing the garage. He testified that he would be able to park a vehicle "side ways" on the driveway, since the driveway is 30 feet wide and 9 feet deep. Mr. Smith asked why the garage could not be moved back 3 feet. Mr. McAleer responded that there is an existing cottonwood tree. Also, if the garage were moved back, it would not align with the back door and would cover the kitchen windows. Mr. Seymour asked why the garage couldn't be constructed west and to the back. Mr. McAleer stated the guy wires prevent that option. There are guy wires on both the west and south sides of the house, which hold up one of the main telephone poles. He testified that he cannot enter from the alley or Stanford Street. Mr. Smith asked why the side yard setback was 3 feet; in the last case it was 25 feet. Ms. Langon responded that the side yard setback for the R-1-C zone district is 3 feet because the house is facing the long street, Grant Street. The front setback is currently 32 feet from Grant Street; the side is Stanford and the setback is only 3 feet. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing . 5 Mr. Seymour moved ; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #9-2001, 4495 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 3 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 3 FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK. Mr . Seymour stated he was confused with the guy wire situation, and asked why the guy wires couldn't Q.e moved. Ms. Davidson stated the house is surrounded by guy wires on two sides. Discussion ensued. • Ms. Davidson clarified that the applicant testified that the driveway would be 30 feet wide. Ms. Davidson stated that in the staff report, Public Works indicated the maximum driveway width is 20 feet, and asked if the Board should address that issue. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith stated that if it were a problem, it would have been added to the variance request. Ms. Davidson asked if the variance should be conditioned on the width of the driveway. Ms. Reid stated the variance request is only for the setback. The applicant can ask for a variance or an appeal based on the requirements . The Board can either trust Public Works to enforce their requirements or add it is a condition. Mr . Smith asked why the Board would do an y more than what the applicant is requesting . Ms. Reid stated the Board could restrict the variance by addressing the requirements, or simply trust Public Works to enforce the ordinances regarding curb cuts and driveways . Discussion ensued. Mr . Smith stated that every variance is granted with the expectation that the applicant will obey the • remaining City ordinances . With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr. Seymour voted yes ; the variance will allow the applicant to get his vehicle off the street. It will not be an inconvenience or safety issue to the neighborhood. Ms. Davidson voted yes; the existing tree and guy wires create exceptional conditions for the lot. The variance observes the spirit of the ordinance; it allows the applicant to add an amenity to his property which is usually associated with a residential use. It will not affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood; a fence currently exists . The adjacent property is already developed. It is the least modification to grant the applicant relief to park his truck in the garage . Ms. O 'Brien , Mr . Bode , Mr . Smith, and Chair Carlston voted yes , concurring with Ms. Davidson . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston , Davidson , O 'Brien , Se ymour, and Smith None None Ras by The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote . 6 • • IV. CASE #10-2001 • • K-Mart 200 West Belleview Avenue Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of posting and publication. She introduced the case by stating it is variances to the Sign Code to exceed the maximum permitted number of 5 signs by 1 sign, to exceed the maximum permitted sign area of 700 square feet by 184 square feet, to exceed the maximum permitted single sign face of 100 square feet by 157 square feet, and to exceed the maximum permitted single sign face area of 100 square feet by 257 square feet. These are variances to 16-4-19- 1 O:A, Permitted Maximum Number, and 16-4-19-1O:B1 a, Permitted Maximum Sign Area of the Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Terry Thompson, 932 Valley Oaks Road, Badness Heights, Minnesota was sworn in. Mr. Thompson asked that the architect of record speak on K-Mart's behalf. Mark Odom, of DesignWorx, Ltd., was sworn in. Mr. Odom testified that he is the architect for the project. Mr. Odom stated that K-Mart is presently in the process of a major construction project to expand and renovate their store, a large portion of which will be adding a grocery store to the existing building. In doing so, K-Mart has a sign package which it typically uses for their stores that displays the many different functions and options available within the store . The number of signs and the total area exceed the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Odom testified that the front of the building is approximately 650 feet from Broadway, has a narrow view corridor due to the out parcels in front of the building, and due to the grade sits below the street level. Therefore, he believes a certain amount of signage is warranted to obtain the exposure needed, and the requested signage is not excessive. Approximately 3.5% of the entire frontage would be covered in signage, which is a relatively low number. Mr. Odom continued; K-Mart would like one sign on the north side of the building, which faces Belleview, since it is a major thoroughfare. With regard to the criteria, Mr. Odom directed the Board's attention to a letter within their packet which outlines the justification for the criteria. Mr. Odom testified that the setback from Broadway creates a special condition. With regard to the second criteria, Mr. Odom stated the signage would be maintaining the character of the commercial district. Further, the proposed signage is not overly aggressive and does not set a precedence for other businesses; it also does not harm the neighborhood since it is a commercial district. Mr. Seymour noted one objection from a neighboring property. The owner is objecting to the S 1-B sign being excessive and being too close to the road. Mr. Seymour commented that until the sign is installed and lit it is difficult to determine whether or not it is excessive. Mr. Odom responded that the existing sign is lit. Ms. Davidson asked what the difference was between the proposed sign and the existing sign . Mr. Odom stated that it is approximately 200 square feet. The existing sign is a big 7 "K" with a swoop on it, and that sign is 123 square feet; the proposed sign is 357 square • feet. Mr. Seymour asked how bright the sign would be. Mr. Odom responded that it will be illuminated and does not know the luminance level. It is not a sign that will emit enough light to light the street; it is illuminated in order to see it at night. Ms. Davidson asked how the proposed sign compared to the sign at the Arapahoe Road K- Mart. Mr. Odom responded that he was not familiar with that building. Ms. Davidson asked if the proposed signage was a standard size for the Super K-Mart stores. Mr. Odom stated it was. Mr. Odom stated the store manager also feels the sign on the side is warranted because people traveling east bound on Belleview do not recognize that the K-Mart is there until they are almost pass the entrance; they then brake suddenly which is a potential traffic hazard. Ms. Davidson asked why there weren 't any comments from the multi-family housing complex directly behind K-Mart. Mr. Odom responded that there were no signs on that elevation . Ms. Davidson confirmed that the illuminated sign on the front will not be taller than the building and will not impact those apartments. Mr . Odom stated that was correct. Mr . Odom stated that none of the signs extend above the building parapet, and the side of the signs are solid; the illumination cannot be seen from the side . Mr. Smith asked if the owner was willing to vacate the previous sign variances. Mr. Odom • stated they were. Mr . Smith asked what business was located at 5100-5198 South Broadway, and if the entire block was owned by one person. Ms. Langon responded that it is Brookridge Shopping Center. Chair Carlston stated the Sign Ordinance states that illumination shall not exceed 40 watts per bulb . Chair Carlston asked how that requirement compared with the requested signage. Mr . Odom stated he did not know; there are no exposed bulbs. An acrylic face covers any of the light source. Chair Carlston clarified that there are light bulbs under the surface rather than neon . Mr. Odom stated that he will ensure that the signage meets the requirements . Ms. O 'Brien asked how the sign on Belleview faces; will it be able to be seen from both eastbound and westbound traffic ; is it perpendicular or parallel to the road. Mr. Odom responded that the sign is parallel to the road. Mr. Smith stated that sign is not part of the variance request; it is the joint identification sign which is not a problem. Mr . Smith asked if that sign were the only freestanding sign. Mr. Odom stated it was . Mr . Smith confirmed that the variance request is only for the signs on the building. Mr. Odom stated that was correct. Ms. Carlston asked if the Western Union sign was necessary. Mr. Odom stated it is a 2 foot by 4 foot sign , and its purpose is to alert the public that that service is provided by K-Mart. 8 • • • • Ms. Davidson asked Ms. Langon whether or not she was familiar with the K-Mart on Arapahoe Road. Ms. Langon stated she was not. Ms. Carlston confirmed that if other retail businesses were located in the same "strip", there would be more signage because those businesses would be allowed their own signage. Ms. Langon stated that if there is a single use on the property, it is based on the street frontage. When there are multiple uses in the building or on the property, signage is based on the frontage of the building. Every use is guaranteed a minimum of 3 signs. With two businesses , there would be at least 6 signs. Four uses in the building would permit 12 signs. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Ms. Davidson seconded: THAT CASE #10-2001, 200 WEST BELLEVIEW AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO THE SIGN CODE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED NUMBER OF 5 SIGNS BY 1 SIGN, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED SIGN AREA OF 700 SQUARE FEET BY 184 SQUARE FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED SINGLE SIGN FACE OF 100 SQUARE FEET BY 157 SQUARE FEET, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED SINGLE SIGN FACE AREA OF 100 SQUARE FEET BY 257 SQUARE FEET. Ms. O'Brien offered a friendly amendment to include a rescission of two previous sign variances granted in 1966; specifically Case #66-29 and Case #86-66. The amendment was agreed to by Mr. Seymour and Ms. Davidson. The amended motion reads: THAT CASE #10-2001 , 200 WEST BELLEVIEW AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO THE SIGN CODE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED NUMBER OF 5 SIGNS BY 1 SIGN, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED SIGN AREA OF 700 SQUARE FEET BY 184 SQUARE FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED SINGLE SIGN FACE OF 100 SQUARE FEET BY 157 SQUARE FEET, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED SINGLE SIGN FACE AREA OF 100 SQUARE FEET BY 257 SQUARE FEET. THAT SIGN VARIANCES GRANTED IN CASE #66-29 AND CASE #86-66 BE RESCINDED. Mr. Smith stated the request is reasonable, and is a better reaction than leaving the city. The store has a nice, pleasing appearance; it sits back from Broadway; and it is below grade . Mr. Smith stated it is a well designed concept. Ms. Davidson stated that if it is a standard sign, similar to the K-Mart on Arapahoe Road, it will not be brightly illuminated nor will people find it obnoxious. 9 With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes; the special circumstances are that it is below grade and has a large setback from Broadway. It is a highly commercial district, and does not weaken the general purpose of the Ordinance, which is to reduce clutter. It will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties, nor will it substantially or permanently impair the use of the adjacent properties. Mr. Bode, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Davidson, Ms. O'Brien, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Rasby The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. V. CASE #11-2001 John Lum 4268 South Fox Street • Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of posting and • publication . She introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 1 foot 6 inches into the required 3 feet side yard setback, to encroach 3 feet into the required 3 foot rear yard setback, and to exceed the maximum total floor area of 1,000 square feet for all garages and carports by 120 square feet. These are variances to 16-4-4:M 1 d, Minimum Side Yard, 16-4-4:M 1 e (1 ), Minimum Rear Yard, and 16-4-4:M 1 f, Maximum Total Floor Area of the Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. John Lum, 1050 South Quitman Street, was sworn in. Mr. Lum testified that there is an existing garage on the property, and it sits back approximately 6 feet from the rear property line and 22 feet from the south property line. Consequently, the overhead door on the garage faces south and the turning radius is barely sufficient. The existing garage does not allow for 3 vehicles. It is a single width driveway and the owner must shuffle 3 vehicles to get a vehicle out of the garage, or shuffle two cars to bring the camper from the backyard. The current setup does not work. The solution is to erect a carport at the rear of the property and remove the existing carport. There is a "Z-gate" which bends in the middle, rolls into the alley, and folds against the fence in order for the owner to park his camper in the rear yard. He must turn a corner and keep maneuvering back and forth to get the camper in . The simple solution is to fence off the alley, right at the property line, and construct a carport to the property line. If the variance is granted, the owner can then back the camper straight up the driveway and park it under the carport. The pickup truck can then be parked under the proposed carport. The other vehicle can then be parked in the • garage . The owner would then have his choice of vehicles without having to shuffle vehicles. 10 • • • Mr. Lum stated that he is requesting to encroach into the rear setback 3 feet and to encroach 1 foot 6 inches into the side yard setback; this allows the owner to park two cars in a 20 foot area. Mr. Smith stated the posting indicates the sign was up through July 31; he asked if the sign was up through the date of the hearing. Mr. Lum responded that the sign is still in place; Mr. Simmons had it notarized before he left town . Mr . Lum continued; the property to the south has a storage shed which sits on the property line. There are utility and storage buildings up and down the alley that sit on the property line. Mr. Lum submitted photographs to the Board, and explained that Mr. Simmons garage is the only building that sits back off the rear property line. The property is not a corner lot. Mr. Lum testified that the variance will not adversely affect public safety; it will not affect anything in the alley or the neighbor's property. Ms. Davidson stated she had difficulty driving down the alley. Mr. Lum stated that the owner does not want to "deal" with the alle y, except to take out the trash. The variance will not adversely affect the neighborhood, because the neighborhood is not a subdivision; every house is different. The variance also will not affect adjacent properties because they are already developed. Mr. Lum also stated that it is the minimum variance needed. He stated that the company he works for has a carport "kit" which will work for the owner, and it is inexpensive. It is a simple solution for the owner's problem. Mr. Lum stated the staff report indicated the material for the carport needed to be noncombustible within the 3 foot setback. Mr . Lum testified that the entire carport is 14 gauge galvanized framework and 26 gauge steel siding; there is nothing that burns. Ms. Carlston asked for the height of the carport at the peak. Mr. Lum responded that it is less than the garage roof, and it is approximately 13 feet 6 inches to the peak. The structure is completely open. Ms. Carlston asked about drainage off the carport. Mr. Lum stated the carport is designed to drain front to back. The rear of the carport is 2.5 inches lower than the front. Mr. Seymour asked about snow buildup. Mr . Lum stated that there is 8-12 inches of clearance from the siding; no water will be held back. Mr . Se y mour asked how far down the siding came on the structure. Mr. Lum responded that the siding will come down approximately 5 .5 feet and the remainder is open. Mr . Seymour stated that was on the south side, and asked about the east and west sides . Mr. Lum responded that both the east and west sides are open; there is no siding on those sides. Ms . Carlston asked if the owner was replacing the rear fence . Mr. Lum stated that the owner will close the fence off, and install a walk gate. Ms. O'Brien confirmed that there is no intent to have access from the alley . Mr . Lum stated the owner would only need to access the alley to put out his trash . 11 Ms. Carlston asked if the existing garage has two overhead doors. Mr. Lum stated there is • only one actual overhead garage door, it was cheaper for the owner to install the second door. The owner then installed glass in front of the second door; he does not drive in on that side . The door cannot be used as a garage door. The garage door closer to the west is the overhead door the owner uses. Mr. Lum stated the property owner is a retired artist. Ms. Carlston asked how long the owner has lived in the house. Mr . Lum stated he didn 't know. Ms. Langon directed the Board's attention to the comments by Building and Safety, as well as Community Development contained in the staff report. Ms. Langon stated that the request is for a variance from three sections of the Zoning Ordinance; there has been no request to appeal or vary the Building Code requirements. The Building Code requirement is that if the carport is built in the 3 foot setback, the south side must be solid construction. The 5 foot open area indicated on the plans is not permitted within the Building Code. Ms. Langon reiterated that the variance is only to exceed the total floor area, and the side and rear setbacks. It does not address the Building Code requirements. Mr. Smith stated the applicant could come back to the Board at a later date with an appeal. Ms. Langon stated that was correct, or he could build it solid. Mr. Smith asked if it could stay open . Ms. Langon responded that it could not stay open; if it is open it does not meet the Building Code requirements. Mr. Seymour asked if the current attached carport, which is open, met Building Code. Ms. • Langon responded that it did not, but it could have been constructed prior to that requirement. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Smith moved ; Ms. O'Brien seconded: THAT CASE #11-2001, 4268 SOUTH FOX STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 1 FOOT 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 3 FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK , TO ENCROACH 3 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 3 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK , AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET FOR ALL GARAGES AND CARPORTS BY 120 SQUARE FEET. Mr. Smith stated it encourages off-street parking, and it will look better in the neighborhood . Ms. Davidson stated it is also a safer option. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr . Smith stated he voted yes; the present layout of the house and garage create an - exceptional circumstance. The existing carport will be removed, and replaced with a larger e carport which provides additional off-street parking . It will not adversely affect the adjacent 12 • • .• property or neighborhood. It will not substantially impair the use or development of adjacent properties since they are already developed. It is the minimum relief that allows a 2-car carport on that side yard. Mr. Bode stated he voted no; it is not the least modification. Mr. Seymour, Ms. Davidson, Ms. O'Brien, and Chair Carlston voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith Bode None Ras by The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-1 vote. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the July 11 , 2001 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Bode seconded: THE MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2001 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, and Smith None Seymour Rasby The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VII. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Bode seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #7-2001, GLEN CARY, 2175 WEST ADRIATIC PLACE , BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, and Smith None Seymour Ras by 13 The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VIII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon reminded the Board of the ice cream social, as well as the annual City employee picnic. Only one case is scheduled for the September meeting. The property is located at 4728 South Lincoln, and the applicant is requesting a reduction in the side yard separation. Since only one is case scheduled for September, Ms. Langon proposed a study session on corner lot regulations. Mr. Seymour asked what the deadline was for submitting applications. Ms. Langon stated September 1 is the deadline for the October meeting. IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated City Council established an attendance policy for Board and Commission members . The policy allows for individual Boards and Commissions to adopt their own attendance policy as long as it is more restrictive than the policy adopted by City Council. Ms. Reid stated that the Board's policy is more restrictive; the Board requires 75% attendance for the year. Also, the Chair shall determine what is an excused absence. Discussion ensued. Ms. O 'Brien stated that Mr. Rasby has not been present at the last two meetings, and • suggested the Chair write him regarding his absences . Mr . Smith stated the Board has only had four meetings this year. Ms. Reid asked whether or not Mr. Rasby has responded to staff's reminder calls. Ms. Fenton stated that she spoke to Mr. Rasby's wife and asked that David call if he wasn 't attending; he didn 't call. He also did not call staff in July to explain his absence. X. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr . Smith asked staff to provide him with case summaries for the years 1 998 to present. Mr . Smith also stated that Mr . Seymour's absence at the July meeting was excused since he was out of the country. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9 :4 5 p.m. 14