Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS March 13, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was cai'led to order at 7:30 pm. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Carlston presiding. Members present: Baker, Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith Members absent:: Alternate absent: Staff pr esent: None Ferber Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Bill Donnell y, Pl anner I Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Chair Carlston stated there were se v en members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are req u i red to gr ant a var iance . C hai r Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or den y variances by Part Ill, Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Ch air Carlston set forth parameters for conduct of hearings: The case will be introduced; 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 st aff will address the Board . II. CASE #14-2001 Mayflower Congregational Church 3001 South Acoma Street Ch air Carlston introduced continued Case #14-2001. The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 8 .5 feet into the required minimum 10 feet setback for a ground sign for a non- resid ential use in a residential zone district. Chair Carlston stated two board members, Mr. Se y mour an d Ms. O 'Br i en , must recuse themselves. (Secretary 's Note : Mr. Seymour and M s. O 'Bri en l eft Chambers.) Mr. Smith stated that the reason for the recusal should be on the re c ord . Chair Carlston stated she believed the two members had information which the y felt made it difficult for them to be part of the hearing. Robert Kelle y, 5860 Woodsorrel Drive, Littleton, Colorado, was sworn in. Mr. Kelley testified that he is a member of the Mayflower Church and is authorized to represent the church in this matter. Mr. Kelley stated the application includes a photo of the sign posted on the property informing the public of the variance request. Mr. Kelley submitted photos 1 • of the sign in question to the Board. Mr. Kelley stated he could probably limit his comments to the justification contained in the application without going through all the details . Mr. Kelley stated the building was constructed approximately 95 to 100 years ago. Unfortunately it was built close to the corner; the front building wall is about 8 feet from the property line on Acoma Street. The sign should have been placed 10 feet back from the property line, but it was placed only 1.5 feet from the property line . The request is for a 8.5 foot variance in order to leave the sign were it is currently placed. It would not be as effecti v e if it were moved back against the wall, which will still not be in compliance. Mr. Kelley reiterated that the church would like to leave the sign in its current location. • Mr. Kelley stated that the special circumstance is that the building has been there a long time, and the sign was erected approximatel y 12 years ago . It was constructed as a memorial to one of the church 's former members, Mr. Bigelow's wife. Mr. Bigelow, who is present, w ould like to see the si gn remain and not ha v e it taken down or moved since it is a memorial to his wife . If the sign w ere moved south of the church , it would not be an effecti v e sign for the church to draw people into the church. Mr. Kelley continued; the second criteria is met because the sign is within reasonable proportion to the building. It is small and meets all other requirements. Nothing exists which would weaken the general purpose of the ordinance or the regulations prescribed for the zone district. Addressing the third criteria, Mr. Kelley testified the zone district is R- 3, High Density Residential which permits uses other than residential, including religious institutions; therefore, the building is a permitted use . Three signs are permitted on the property, and the church currently has three signs on the property, including the sign for which the variance is requested. The church is well below the permitted maximum sign area of 27 5 square feet; there is onl y 30 square feet in the two signs . The request would not alter the essential character of the district. Neighbor statements which were submitted indicate no objection to the request. One neighboring owner, Mr. Burton, indicated that the sign looked nice and made the area look nice. Mr. Kelley further testified that the variance would not hurt the use of adjacent conforming properties. 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; Mr. Bode seconded: THAT CASE #14-2001, 3001 SOUTH ACOMA STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 8 .5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 10 FEET SETBACK FOR A GROUND SIGN FOR A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT . THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-19-9:C1, PERMITIED SIGN TYPES OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. • Mr. Smith stated the sign keeps with the character of the neighborhood and the structure . With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. 2 • Mr. Smith voted yes; the special circumstances are the age of the structure. It is less than 10 feet from the property line. There are three small signs on the property which are smaller than the allowable amount. It adds to the character of the district. The sign has existed for approximately 12 years so it will not impair the use of adjacent properties. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. Davidson, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , Davidson, and Smith None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote. Secr etary 's note: Mr. Seymour and Ms . O 'Brien re-entered Chambers . Ill. CASE #2-2002 W . Da v id Penland 3555 South Ogden 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 convert an existing garage to a dwelling unit that is detached from the principal dwelling unit and to reduce the required minimum floor area of 640 square feet to 400 square feet. This is a variance to 16-4-5:B3, Permitted Principal Uses and 16-4-5:D3a, Minimum Floor Area of the Englewood Municipal Code . • • William David Penland, 777 East Kenyon Street, Apartment 411, was sworn in. Mr. Penland stated he was requesting a variance to convert the garage on South Ogden Street, which he and his wife own, into a fully handicapped accessible living quarters for himself. He testified that he has secondary progressive Multiple Sclerosis . When he purchased the house 10 years ago, he walked in and now he is confined to a wheelchair . Because of the nature of the disease , the potential for disability exists. Mr. Penland clarified that when he talks about modifying for handicapped accessibility, he is not talking about wide doors and lower counters. He stated that in his particular situation it goes beyond those modifications . He will need weight bearing beams in the garage to withstand a lift which will hoist him in and out of the wheelchair, and other modifications which will allow him to live independently. The alternatives are slim. Mr. Penland continued; there really is no hardship on him with regard to the variance. One of the reasons he and his wife moved to Englewood was its proximity to the Multiple Sclerosis Center at Swedish Hospital. He is within the geographical center of a community which is able to provide support services to him on an ongoing basis. The adjacent properties are already developed. His property is one of four single family homes on the 3 • • • block; the remainder are multi-family . Mr . Penland presented a photo of a neighboring property showing a garage converted to living space. The neighborhood has favorably supported the variance request as evidenced by the neighbors' statements submitted to the Board . Mr. Penland testified that gathering the neighbors' statements was difficult because he is restricted from approaching someone's door to ask for the statement. He had to schedule time so his son could accompany him to the neighbors' houses. The Board has the sole authority to grant him the ability to live in the garage. He stated he understood the law does not currently allow him to do so, and therefore, he is asking for a variance to convert the garage to living space. The variances are two separate and distinct requests. The architect feels comfortable that 400 square feet is enough space to meet his needs. The structure would be an efficiency unit. The bathroom would be the only room completely enclosed for privacy. The variance would afford him the opportunity to be independent and allow him to be a productive member of society. He also would not have to be a burden on anyone. Mr. Smith clarified that the structure would only contain a bedroom and a bathroom. Mr. Penland responded that it would contain one bedroom, a bathroom, and a very small kitchen. Mr. Baker asked if new gas and water lines would be required. Mr. Penland stated that according to the Public Works Department, new taps would be required . The variance is the path of the least resistance . Mr. Bode asked who lived in the main house. Mr. Penland stated that his wife and son occupied the main house. Mr . Bode clarified that Mr. Penland does not live at 3555 South Ogden Street. Mr. Penland stated that was correct; the reason he is living on East Kenyon Avenue is for accessibility. The main house was built in 1911 and is less than 800 square feet. Modifying the bathroom and the features within the existing structure for his needs would require substantial remodeling. Mr. Seymour asked Mr. Penland if he would have a problem with the Board terminating the variance should he move to another location and sell the house. Mr. Penland stated he would not; his intention is to live the remainder of his life at that property. He is not concerned with what happens to the property after he is gone . Mr. Smith asked the City Attorney whether or not the owner could agree to the restriction and make it be binding for future owners of the property since variances generally run with the land. Mr. Brotzman stated the property is owned by Mr . Penland and his wife; therefore , both parties would need to stipulate to the restriction. Chair Carlston stated the diagram shows a ramp to the deck on the back of the house and asked if that provided Mr. Penland access to the house. Mr. Penland responded that it provides him access into the house only; he cannot maneuver once he is inside the house. Chair Carlston asked if he had considered enlarging the garage to meet to 650 feet minimum . Mr. Penland stated he understands the request is for two distinct variances. The encumbrance to expanding 250 square feet would be taking up a portion of the driveway 4 • • • to make the foundation compatible with the current foundation. The driveway is slab and the Building Department requires a 12 inch foundation. The garage could be modified with no problem, but the extra space is not required. If the Board requires the additional 250 square feet, he will certainly comply. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston incorporated the staff report and exhib its into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Se y mour moved; Mr. Smith seconded : THAT CASE #2-2002 , 3555 SOUTH OGDEN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE TO A DWELLING UNIT THAT IS DETACHED FROM THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING UNIT AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 650 FEET TO 400 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-5 :B3 , PERMITIED PRINCIPAL USES AND 16-4-5:D3a, MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. FURTHER, THAT THE VARIANCE RUN WITH THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP ONLY AND BE TERMINATED WITH CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. Mr. Smith offered a friendly amendment that the variance terminate upon either Mr. Penland changing residence or upon the transfer of the property. Mr. Seymour accepted the amendment. Mr. Smith stated there are no ex ceptional circumstances to the property; the exceptional circumstance is Mr. Penland 's condition . Ms. Davidson suggested that the exceptional circumstance is the age of the hou se and that it cannot realistically be modified to accommodate Mr. Penland 's needs. Chair Carlston stated that the request is in accordance with the ADA which encourages people to live independently. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes . Due to the restrictions placed on the property, the variance will not cause any harm. Ms. Davidson stated she voted yes. The exceptional circumstance is that the main house cannot be modified without a large amount of remodeling. The zoning district permits two dwelling units. Because of Mr. Penland's condition and it being a conditional variance, the Board should grant lenience. There are already houses in the neighborhood which have smaller structures behind the ma i n house. It is a limited variance to Mr. Penland's residence in the structure. The adjacent properties are already developed. It is the least modification to grant Mr. Penland relief. Ms. O 'Brien , Mr. Baker, Chair Carlston voted y es concurring with Ms . Davidson . 5 • Mr. Bode stated he voted yes, concurring with Ms. Davidson and also that there are exceptional circumstances because the property is located close to Swedish Medical Center. • • Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. He asked the City Attorney to draft a document binding the property owners to the conditions placed on the variance. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. IV. CASE #3-2002 Randall R. Curl 4202 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 8 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback . This is a variance to 16-4-4:H, Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code . Randall Curl, 4202 South Grant Street , was sworn in. Mr. Curl stated he is requesting a variance in order to construct a roof over his existing front porch. Water damage is occurring in the basement and water is also leaking into the attic and running down the joists into the living room . The easiest wa y to fix the problem is to cover the front porch, which will ch ange the existing roof line and allow him to direct the water around the front porch across the front yard . The front porch alread y exists ; he is asking only to cover it to keep the ice and snow off the porch, as well as redirect the water. Mr. Curl testified that he contacted the surrounding neighbors and they have no objections . He would like to continue to improve the appearance of his property. The adjacent properties are already developed so they will not be adversely affected. Encroaching eight feet into the front setback will not make the neighborhood any less safe. Mr. Smith asked if the porch would be enclosed. Mr. Curl responded that it would not be enclosed; he is only asking to construct a roof over the porch. Mr. Bode confirmed that the porch would not be enlarged. Mr. Curl stated that was correct. Ms. Davidson asked whether or not the roof would be the same size as the porch . Mr. Curl stated that it would be the same size; he doesn't want to cover the windows on the side of the house . 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. 6 • • Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT CASE #3-2002, 4202 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 8 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. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes; the exceptional circumstance is that the porch already exists. It does not encroach any more than the current porch. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it improves the porch. The adjacent properties are already developed. It is the minimum variance because it is only covering the porch. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Davidson, Ms. O'Brien, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the February 13, 2002 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Bode seconded: THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2002 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith None Carlston, Davidson None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved . 7 • • VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Bode seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #1-2002, 3837 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode , O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith None Carlston, Davidson None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated there are no cases for the April meeting. Ms. Langon asked if the Board wished to meet and hold a study session . Ms. Carlston suggested that Mr. Stitt conduct a study session on the material he presented at the ICBO conference. Mr. Seymour stated he attended Mr . Stitt's class , and it was an excellent class . Mr. Seymour provided a brief overview of the class . Ms . Langon stated she would check Mr. Stitt's schedule . Ms. Langon reminded the Board to recycle their tabs , and apologized that the maps were left out the case reports. Ms. Langon noted two students in the audience. VIII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Mr. Brotzman stated he had nothing further . IX. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Ms. Da vidson apologized for not attending the February meeting. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:20 p.m . 8