Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-10 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS July 10, 2002 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: Members absent:: Alternate absent: Staff present: Baker, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith Bode Ferber Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney 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 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 staff will address the Board. II. CASE #5-2002 Donald Richards 4012 South Grant Street Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of posting and publication. Chair Carlston introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 6 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. Donald Richards, 4012 South Grant Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Richards stated that the staff report contained incorrect information . He clarified that his variance request is to build a front porch on top of an existing concrete pad because the cement is narrow and is starting to sink . He is proposing a redwood porch in front of his house, but it will not have a roof as indicated in the staff report. Mr. Richards worked with Mr. Donnelly and is unclear how the request was changed to include a roof. The proposed porch will make access to the house easier. Another reason to construct the porch is in the future, Mr. Richards may need to allow for wheelchair access. 1 • • • Mr. Seymour asked for clarification of the four-foot deck. Mr. Richards responded that the deck would be on the side of the porch, and it would not have a roof. Mr. Smith asked for clarification on the roof issue. Mr. Richards reiterated that the roof issue does not pertain to his variance request; it is an error in the staff report only. The request is for a step-off porch on the front of the house. Mr. Smith asked whether a variance was needed since there was no roof. Mr. Richards responded that the porch would still encroach into the front setback . The porch will be level with the entrance to the house, which is 18 inches above ground. The porch will project out 6 feet. Ms . O 'Brien clarified that there was existing concrete in front of the door and it extends 4 feet. Mr. Richards stated that was correct. Ms. O 'Brien asked whether or not the 4-foot decks currently existed . Mr. Richards stated they did not. Ms. O'Brien clarified that Mr. Richards is increasing the porch by two feet which will extend 6 feet out from the house, and adding the 4 foot decks on the side of the porch. Mr. Richards stated that was correct. Mr. Smith asked whether a variance was needed for the 4 foot decks. Mr. Richards clarified that the request is for 6 feet. Chair Carlston indicated that was a question for staff. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in for testimony. A variance is still required because the house is at the required 25 feet front yard setback. Any structure, such as a porch or deck, that encroaches into the setback that is larger than a 20 square foot area, which is allowed by exception, requires a variance . Regarding Mr. Smith 's question on a variance for the 4 foot decks, Ms . Langon responded that the 4 feet is included in the request for 6 feet. The Board, however, can limit and condition the variance that it only be 4 feet for the deck area and 6 feet for the porch. The simpler solution is to determine that the deck falls within the 6 feet variance. 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. Se y mour moved; Mr. Smith seconded : THAT CASE #5-2002, 4012 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 6 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. Chair Carlston stated the porch would be a nice improvement to the property. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. The exceptional condition is that a concrete pad already encroaches into the setback. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it allows the applicant an amenity other neighbors have on their property. It will not adversely affect the neighbors or adjacent property since they are already developed . The porch will enhance 2 • • • the neighborhood . It will not impact or impair the use or development of the adjacent property since it is already developed. It is the least modification necessary; anything less than 6 feet is not a porch. Mr. Baker, Ms. O'Brien, Ms. Davidson, Mr. Seymour, and Chair Carlston voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour and Smith None None Bode The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. Ill. CASE #6-2002 Donald Shaffer 4146 South Pearl 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 6 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. Chair Carlston also stated that photos, submitted by Mr. Shaffer, had been received and would be reviewed by the Board. Donald Shaffer, 4146 South Pearl Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Shaffer stated he would like to remove the existing concrete and install new concrete, 6 x 1 7.5 feet, from the door to the corner of the house and then cover it to make the house look more presentable. 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; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #6-2002, 4146 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 6 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. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes. The porch will blend with the neighborhood since other properties have porches. It will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. The adjacent properties are already developed. Six feet is the least modification necessary. 3 • • • Ms. Davidson , Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith , and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Seymour. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston , Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Bode The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote . IV. CASE #7-2002 Don Doubleday 951 East Bates Avenue 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 construct a 588 square foot garage accessory structure without a princip a l structure on the lot. This is a variance to 16-4-2:M Accessory Buildings and Permitted Acces sor y Uses of the Englewood Municipal Code. Don Doubleday, 2850 South Clarkson Circle, was sworn in for testimony . Mr. Smith asked whether Mr. Th ynne, the property owner, was an attorney. Mr . Doubleday stated he was . For the record , Mr. Smith disclosed th a t he knew Mr . Thynne ; Mr . Thynne was a defendant in a lawsuit Mr. Smith brought approximately 25 years ago. It was resolved amicably, and he has no feelings one way or the other regarding Mr. Thynne. In addition , Mr. Thynne was a prosecutor in the Aurora Municipal Court, and he was a prosecutor in at least one case Mr. Smith was involved in . Mr. Smith stated he did not feel he needed to recuse himself from the case. Mr . Doubleday stated he currently holds a Class C license in Englewood, and he builds detached garages as a living. He and Mr. Th ynne met to discuss the staff report. As Mr. Thynne 's representative, Mr. Doubleday stated that the properties are contiguous. A security wall currently exists around both properties, which makes it appear that the properties are one. Ms. Da vidson stated there is a wood fence next to the security wall ; Ms. Davidson asked if the wood fence was part of Mr. Th ynne's property. Mr. Doubleday stated the fence is located to the property west of Mr. Th ynne's property. Ms . Davidson clarified that Mr. Th ynne 's property stopped at the end of the w a ll . Mr. Doubleday stated that was correct. Ms . Davidson asked w here the garage would be located on the property. Mr. Doubleday stated the proposed structure would be at the east end of the property where gates have been installed in the wall. Mr. Doubleday continued; the garage design is compatible with the existing house. The existing attached garage is located on the north side of the house. Mr. Doubleday stated that Mr. Thynne believes it will be an economical waste to combine the property. Sewer and water taps have been installed on the property. It is not practical to expand the existing garage. 4 • • • Chair Carlston stated the staff report suggests that the properties could be combined and a 336 square foot garage could then be added. Chair Carlston clarified that the property owner does not want to combine the properties due to economical reasons. Mr . Doubleday stated that was correct; but in addition 336 square feet is not practical for a two car garage . Chair Carlston asked Mr. Doubleday to elaborate on the garage design. Mr. Doubleday stated the garage would have a parapet style roof, similar to the house and the existing attached garage. He intends to duplicate the style of the house, as much as possible. Mr. Smith asked for clarification on why Mr . Thynne did not want to join the lots. Mr. Doubleday stated that the vacant lot is currently landscaped, and the two properties appear to be one lot. Mr. Doubleday stated he couldn't elaborate on the economical issue other than Mr. Thynne has already paid to install water and sewer taps on the vacant lot. It would be a financial burden for Mr. Thynne to unsubdivide the lots, and then resubdivide the lots in the future should he wish to sell them separately. Mr . Seymour asked for the height of the garage . Mr. Doubleday responded that the existing garage is 12 feet with the parapet. The proposed garage would be a maximum of 13 feet since it will have a flat roof; it has a short parapet. The neighbor facing the proposed garage has no concerns with the garage . Ms. Langon clarified that the variance request is only for placement of a garage on a lot without a principal structure; the variance does not address height. Mr. Smith asked what controlled where the garage was built. Ms . Langon responded that the Ordinance controls the location of the garage. Mr . Smith stated the garage could be located anywhere within the building footprint. Ms . Langon stated that was correct, unless the Board puts a restriction on the variance. Chair Carlston asked if the lots were subdivided by Mr . Thynne . Ms. Langon stated Mr . Thynne subdivided the property two or three years ago. If Mr. Thynne recombined the properties and then at a later date decided to sell off one of the lots , he would need to go through the full subdivision process. Recombining the lots is a simple process; a document is recorded with Arapahoe County. A minor subdivision is a more complicated process. If the property were recombined, the garage were built, and then the property resubdivided, there still would be the issue of a garage on a lot without a principal structure. Mr . Smith clarified that if the lot were sold with only the garage on the lot, the only use would be to store cars. Storing cars violates the use position of the Ordinance; it would become a storage lot rather than a residential lot. Mr. Thynne can 't sell it separately unless there is a principal structure built on the lot. Ms. Langon stated it currently is a separate lot and could be sold. If the variance is granted, Mr. Thynne could sell off the lot with only the garage. Chair Carlston asked if a house could be built on the lot. Ms. Langon responded that it could. The lot is over 9,000 square feet, and the rear setback is 25 feet; there is a 20 foot easement to the rear of the property. Ms. Langon continued; the plan is for a detached 5 • • • garage. The current Ordinance requires a 25 foot rear setback for a principal structure with an attached garage. Should the garage be placed at the 20 foot easement, Mr. Thynne is limiting himself to always having it as a detached garage unless the Ordinance changes or there is an additional variance granted. 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; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #7-2002, 951 EAST BATES, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 588 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE LOT. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16- 4-2:M, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND PERMITIED ACCESSORY USES OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Smith stated the simple solution is for Mr. Thynne to recombine the lots. Mr. Smith questioned the exceptional circumstances. Mr. Doubleday cannot speak to why Mr. Thynne does not want to recombine the lots, and Mr. Thynne is not present. Chair Carlston stated she had a problem justifying the fifth criterion; however, she is undecided. The properties can be recombined, but he has gone through the effort and expense in subdividing the properties . Ms . O'Brien asked how expensive it would be to resubdivide the property. Chair Carlston stated she didn 't know, but the public hearing could be reopened so staff could answer. Ms. O'Brien stated she would like to do that. Mr. Smith moved; Ms. Davidson seconded : TO CONTINUE CASE #7-2002, 951 EAST BATES AVENUE, AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 14, 2002 . Mr. Smith stated he wanted to reopen the public hearing to provide Mr. Thynne an opportunity to explain why he does not want to recombine the lots. Chair Carlston asked staff to prepare a short document explaining the cost and process of subdividing a property. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Bode 6 • • • The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the May 8, 2002 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Ms . O 'Brien seconded: THE MINUTES OF MAY 8, 200 2 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, Davidson , O'Brien , Seymour, Smith None None Bode The motion ca rried . The Chair announced the motion approved . VI. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon reminded the Board of the Boards and Commissions Appreciation Event on August 26 in the Community Room . Ms . Langon reported that Bill Donnelly no longer works for the City. Staff is currentl y in the process of conducting interviews and will be hir ing someone shortly. Ms. Langon provided the Board with the addresses of the four cases scheduled for the Au gust hearing. A total of five cases will be heard at that time , including the continued ca se . She stated she would prepare a short summary of the minor subdivision process. VII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VIII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Seymour announced that he has a new grandson , Daniel Alex. Mr . Smith asked whether or not Ms. Reid had researched the quasi-judicial nature of the Board . Ms. Reid stated she was unaware the Board wanted her to conduct that research. Mr . Smith stated he would like ten members appointed to the Board , and have 7 sit on a case. Discussion ensued regarding the issue of rotating members on the Board for different months. Board asked staff to contact Ms . Ferber, the Board's alternate, to determ ine if she is still interested in serving as the alternate and ask her to attend the meetings . 7 • • • There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:30 p .m . Nancy Fenton, Recording Secretary 8