Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-14 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS August 14, 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, Bode, Carlston, Davidson, Seymour, and Smith O'Brien Ferber Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Anthony Fruchtl, Planner Dan Brotzman, 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 Ill, 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 #7-2002 Don Doubleday 951 East Bates Avenue Chair Carlston stated the case was continued from the July hearing and that the applicant is requesting 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 Permitted Accessory Uses of the Englewood Municipal Code. Due to a family emergency, Mr. Thynne is unable to attend the meeting as requested by the Board . Staff submitted a letter from Mr. Thynne requesting a continuance to September 11 . Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT CASE #7-2002, 951 EAST BATES AVENUE, BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER • 11, 2002. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, Davidson, Seymour and Smith None None O'Brien The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. Ill. CASE #8-2002 John and Deborah Dawson 707 East Stanford 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 encroach 5 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. John and Deborah Dawson, 707 East Stanford Avenue, were sworn in for testimony. Mr. Dawson stated he wants to add a roof over the front porch which encroaches into the setback. The current porch is basically a wooden deck; a roof would make it a safer entry. • A roof will also add curb appeal. Mr. Seymour asked why he did not have a neighbor's statement from the property owners on either side of his property. Mr . Dawson responded that his property is located on the corner and an alley . He approached the neighbors who would have the best view of the porch. Because the house sits on the end of the street, there are neighbors on Washington Street and Clarkson Street. Mr . Seymour stated that it still would have been nice to ask the two neighbors on either side of his property whether or not they objected to the variance. Mr. Smith stated he thought he knew Mr . Dawson. Mr. Dawson stated that they met at the Englewood Men's Club at the golf course. Mr. Smith stated that association will not affect his vote. 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 #8-2002, 707 EAST STANFORD AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 5 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. 2 • • With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members ' votes. • • Mr . Smith stated he voted yes . The uniqueness of being on an alley facing south justifies var ying the setback. It does not appear that the setback of the porch will be much different than the setback of the house immediatel y to the west. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because porches are amenities owners should have . The ordinance does not have an y bias against porches. It will not ad versely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood . It will make the neighborhood and the house look nicer . The variance will not substantially or permanentl y impair the appropriate use or development of the adjacent property because it is already developed. The porch is not oversized and therefore is the minimum variance to afford relief to the applicant. Mr. Baker, Mr . Bode, Mr . Se ymour, Ms . Davidson , and Chair Carlston voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Smith . AYES: NAYS: Baker, Bode , Carlston , Da vidson, Se ymour, and Smith None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: O 'Brien The Chair announced the motion appro ved by a 6-0 vote . IV. CASE #9-2002 Dougl a s Co x 4570 South Washington Street Ch a ir 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 exceed the maximum number of one detached garage by one, and to exceed the maximum combined total floor area of 1,000 square feet for all garages by 490 square feet. This is a variance to 16 -4- 4 :M 1 a (2 ) and 16-4-4:M 1 f Accessor y Buildings of the Englewood Municipal Code. Chair Carlston stated that photos were submitted as evidence and circulated the photos. Douglas Cox, 45 70 South Washington Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Cox stated he needed the variance because he has old vintage cars stored at a different address . He w ould like to mo ve them to his property. There is also a vintage motorcycle and oth e r items which he works on every night. He needs extra space. Mr. Se ymour asked if he was using the current garage. Mr. Cox responded that he was utilizing the current garage as a "garage." He and his wife park their cars in that garage . Mr. Seymour asked if an elm tree was being removed . Mr . Cox stated it was not. Mr. Seymour confirmed that the garage would be accessed from the rear of the property. Mr. Cox stated that was true; the entrance will be from the alley . Mr . Smith asked the size of the current garage . Mr . Cox stated it is 490 square feet. Mr. Smith asked what the next owner of the property would do with the garage. Mr. Cox 3 stated he did not know. Mr. Smith stated that the garage would have no purpose if the • owner didn 't own four cars . Mr. Cox responded that there are a number of people who currently own four cars, especially vintage cars . Chair Carlston asked the applicant how long he has owned or lived in the house. Mr. Cox responded that he moved to the house in 1997. Chair Carlson stated that according to Exhibit A, he indicated the items he needs to store were approximately 584 square feet, but he is asking for a 990 square foot garage. Mr. Cox stated he needed to be able to walk around. Chair Carlston asked if he had a neighbor's statement from the neighbor on the south. Mr. Cox stated he owned that property. Mr. Bode asked if the garage would have its own power source . Mr. Cox stated that it would not. He has 200 amp service coming into the house now. He will feed the proposed garage with a 100 amp service coming off the existing house. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Ch air 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 #9-2002, 4570 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET, BE GR A NTED A • VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ONE DET A CHED GAR A GE BY ONE, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM COMBINED TOTAL FLOOR ARE A OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET FOR ALL GARAGES BY 490 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-4:M 1 a(2 ) AND 16-4-4:M 1f ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Smith stated the garage will not be used to take parking off streets; it is a shop to w ork on cars. Mr. Seymour stated there would be cars located in the building which makes it a garage. Chair Carlston stated it seems excessive, but at the same time, there are a lot of garages being constructed in the City . Chair Carlston stated perhaps there was a condition the Board should impose on the variance -require vacation of an old variance. Mr. Smith stated it covers under 40 percent of the lot. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes. The lot is large enough to handle the extra garage ; the lot will onl y be covered 32 percent. It observes the spirit of the ordinance. It will not affect the adjacent property since he owns the property to the south . It will not substantially or permanently impair the use or development of the adjacent property. For the storage he • needs, it is the minimum variance. 4 • • Ms . Davidson, Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Seymour. Mr. Bode stated he voted no. It does not observe the spirit of the ordinance. Since the variance goes with the property, not the owner, he is concerned a future owner will use the garage as a workshop. He also believes the variance will affect the adjacent property owner. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, Davidson, Seymour, and Smith Bode None O'Brien The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-1 vote. V. CASE #10-2002 Brad and Valerie Homan 4500 South Inca 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 10 inches into the required 7 feet side yard setback and to encroach 3 feet 10 inches into the required 18 feet separation between principal buildings on adjoining lots. This is a variance to 16-4-2:M 1 d (1) Accessory Buildings and 16-4-2:1 1 Minimum Side Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Ms . Davidson asked if the posting was removed prior to the hearing. The applicant responded that he took the sign down at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Smith asked why. Mr. Homan stated he was leaving for soccer practice. Brad Homan, 4500 South Inca Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Smith stated he went by the property at 7:00 p .m. and there was no sign posted. Mr. Smith asked whether the posting met the requirements of the ordinance. He understands the sign is to be posted until the hearing. Mr. Brotzman stated that was correct. Mr. Smith stated the only choice is to either table the case or continue it to the September meeting. The applicant would then need to ensure that the posting is in place at least 15 days prior to the meeting. Chair Carlston moved; Mr. Smith seconded: AYES: NAYS: THAT CASE #10-2002, 4500 SOUTH INCA STREET, BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT POSTING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE . Baker, Bode, Carlston, Davidson, Seymour, and Smith None 5 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None O'Brien The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. Chair Carlston instructed the applicant to return on September 11, 2002. The applicant stated he didn't understand why the case was continued. Mr. Smith responded that the sign must stay posted until the time of the meeting. Mr. Homan stated the sign was posted 15 days prior to the hearing, and he didn't think he was going to get home after soccer practice, so he took the. sign down before he left and set it to the back of the fence . Mr. Smith stated that the requirement is that the property be posted up to the time of the hearing. Mr. Homan confirmed that his case would be heard on September 11 . Chair Carlston stated that was correct, and if he had any further questions he should contact staff. Mr. Homan argued that it met the spirit of the law since the sign was posted until 4:30 p.m . Mr. Smith responded that it did not; anyone driving by the property should be made aware of the public hearing until the hearing has occurred in case they would like to attend. VI. CASE #11-2002 Innovative Remodeling Systems 4058 South Lincoln 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 5 feet into the • required 25 foot front yard setback. This is a variance to 16-4-6 :1 Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Chair Carlston stated she drove by the property at 5:00 p.m. and the sign was not posted . Mr. Seymour stated that he drove by the property at 7:10 p.m., and the sign was still posted. Mr. Smith agreed with Mr. Seymour that the sign was still posted shortly after 7:00 p.m. Chair Carlston stated that perhaps she had the wrong address. Chair Carlston stated the Certification of Posting was notarized so the Board should proceed with the hearing. Danny Kaiser, 4305 Ann Drive , Fort Collins , Colorado, was sworn in for testimony. Mr . Kaiser stated the owner would like the variance because the existing porch protrudes out approximately 7 feet from the house. The house was built in 1923, and someone covered the existing porch with stone sometime in the 1950's. There are only two or three homes on the block without a front porch; the property owners are trying to enhance their property. The owners are installing a new roof and felt it was good time to cover the porch. Mr . Seymour asked the applicant to describe the support system for the roof. Mr. Kaiser stated the owners originally wanted the supports to sit on the existing porch . Not knowing what is under the porch, the applicant stated he decided to take the supports to the outside. The supports will be post and pier. 6 • Mr. Smith inquired as to whether the porch roof would continue at the same angle as the house. Mr. Kaiser responded that it will be a 3.5 /12 pitch. The existing roof is approximately a 5.5/12 pitch. In order to obtain the necessary head room, the front edge needs to be brought up. The roof material will be the same on the house and porch. 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. Bode seconded: THAT CASE #11-2002, 4058 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK . THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-6:1 MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Smith stated a roof on the porch will enhance the neighborhood. Chair Carlston stated she thought it would look nice since a lot of the houses on the block have a similar type porch. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. • Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. The uniqueness of the property is that there currentl y is an existing porch, and it should be co v ered consistent with the current roofing material. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because porches are an amenity property owners should have . The variance will not adversely affect adjacent properties or the neighborhood because a roof over the porch will be an improvement to the neighborhood. It will not substantially or permanentl y impair the use of adjacent properties since it is already developed. Because it is only covering an existing porch, it is the minimum variance that affords relief. • Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms . Davidson, Mr. Seymour, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes , concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , Davidson, Seymour, and Smith None None O 'Brien The Chair announced the motion approved b y a 6-0 vote. VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the July 10, 2002 public hearing. 7 Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THE MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2002 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston , Davidson, Seymour, Smith None Bode O'Brien The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved. VIII. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #5-2002, 4012 SOUTH GRANT STREET AND CASE #6-2002, 4146 SOUTH PEARL STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, Davidson, Seymour, Smith None Bode O'Brien The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved . IX. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon introduced Anthony Fruchtl, the new planner in Community Development who will be working with the Board . Mr. Fruchtl informed the Board of the three new variance cases scheduled for the September meeting, in addition to the two continued cases. Ms. Langon reminded the Board of the Boards and Commission Appreciation Reception on August 26 in the Community Room . She asked the members to inform the recording secretary whether or not they would be attending. Ms. Langon stated she is preparing a memo for City Council regarding their meeting with the Board on August 19 in the Community Room. Ms. Langon inquired as to what the members would like to discuss at the study session. Mr. Smith stated he would like to discuss appointing an alternate member or members to the Board who can "fill in" when a • regular board member is absent. Mr. Smith stated that he would also like to discuss • expanding the jurisdiction of the Board rather than limiting them to strict criteria . It is difficult for the applicant and the Board to justify "undue hardship " on a property. He 8 • • further stated that he would like realistic standards established that reflect justice. Mr. Seymour agreed. Discussion ensued . Mr. Smith asked if the Board could limit a variance to a specific purpose rather than the entire property line. For instance, could the variance for the porch encroachment that the Board granted be limited to the porch rather than the entire front yard. Ms. Langon stated it can be limited by the wording of the motion. Mr. Brotzman agreed; framing the motion is the key to that issue. Mr. Smith stated he doesn't object to a "suggested motion" from staff as long as it is in the affirmative. Discussion ensued. Ms. Langon stated she would add a suggested motion to future staff reports. Ms. Langon stated she spoke with Samara Ferber, the Board 's alternate member, and Ms. Ferber will be submitting her resignation to City Council. Staff will prepare a letter to Council asking them to reappoint an alternate at their earliest convenience . X. CITY AITORNEY'S CHOICE Mr. Brotzman asked staff if there was any information on the timing for the Unified Development Code (UDC). Mr. Brotzman stated the UDC would begin going in draft form to Council. The important timing for this Board is when it goes to Planning an d Zoning Commission . The current Title 16 is being revised which will affect the Board. Mr. Brotzman stated City Council wants the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission to begin addressing hobby/derelict vehicles, now modified to operable/inoperable vehicles, parked in the front yard, side yard, and back yard and visibility of those types of vehicles . They also want those two boards to look at outside storage, as well as temporary garages. As those Boards begin looking at those issues and making recommendations and moving on through the adoption process, the Board will be impacted. The Board hears a large number of garage requests currently. If that issue is not addressed in the UDC, as well as those modifications at the same time, the Board receives more requests. The other way the Board is affected is philosophically, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will begin looking at how much of the lot is covered and the way we look at setbacks . Council's philosophy needs to be transmitted to the Board. Mr. Brotzman recommended that the Board keep track of the process . Mr. Smith stated he would like a copy of the draft UDC. Ms. Langon stated that the current schedule has the first hearing scheduled for the first of November. That allows time for staff to have study sessions with Council and with Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Langon suggested that the Board discuss Council's basic philosophy regarding the UDC. If they are trying to strengthen or tighten the Ordinance and the Board is discussing loosening the standards, what philosophy do you want for the City's policy? Mr. Smith stated the Board should have input whenever the Zoning Ordinance is being revised. As a matter of protocol, those issues should be referred to the Board so it can recommend or comment on any changes. Ms. Langon stated when the UDC is to that point, the Board will see those changes . City Council has fast tracked the project. The document will not be black-lined; the current Zoning Ordinance format is out and a new format is being developed. It will be difficult to cross out and show the changes 9 from one document to a very different format. When the Board continues to hear the same variance request, such as a porch, it is time to look at a change to the Ordinance. Mr. Smith asked if the proposed changes would be posted on the City's web site. Mr . Brotzman stated the "cleaned up" version would be on the website. The study material given to Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as to Council, is more important and more valuable to the Board because it will break it into pieces and highlight the major changes. Mr. Brotzman urged staff to communicate those proposed changes to the Board because it will not be on the website. XI. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Smith asked whether or not Ms. O'Brien 's absence was excused. The recording secretary stated Ms. O'Brien called and only stated she would be unable to attend the meeting. Ms. Davidson suggested asking Ms. O'Brien at the September meeting why she was unable to attend the meeting. The Board agreed . Chair Carlston stated she inadvertently forgot to circulate the photos for 4058 South Lincoln. Mr. Smith stated it didn 't matter because the Board granted the variance without reviewing the photos. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:50 p.m . ~J'i~ Nancy Fe6ton, Recording Secretary 10 • •