Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-11 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS September 11 , 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 member: Staff present: Baker, Bode, Carlston , O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith Davidson Secretary 's note: Thi s po sition is currently vacant. Tricia Lan gon , Senior Planner Anthon y Fruchtl, Planner I Na nc y Reid , Assistant City Attorne y Chair Carlston stated there were six members present; therefore, five affirmati ve votes are requ ired to grant a variance . Chair Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or den y 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 #7-2002 Don Doubleday 951 East Bates Avenue Chair Carlston stated the case was continued from the August hearing. Chair Carlston re- opened the public hearing by stating 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. Michael I. Thynne, 901 East Bates Avenue, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Th ynne thanked the Board for continuing the case. He stated he has spent time talking to Mr . Doubleday; the contractor hired to construct the garage on the property. Mr. Thynne stated his home is located at 901 East Bates Avenue . A subdivision occurred several years ago. When he applied for a new address for the adjacent lot, he asked that 951 East Bates be assigned . The City informed him that 951 East Bates could not be assigned to that lot. 1 • Some of his documents show that lot as 905 East Bates Avenue . He is unclear whether the vacant lot is addressed 905 or 951 East Bates Avenue. • • It is a little difficult to characterize a second garage as a hardship. He stated he didn't know much about land use planning, but the Board will decide whether or not the presented facts amount to a legal hardship. Mr. Thynne stated the property where he lives is a walled and secured property. The two properties function as a single entity regardless of whether it is 901 or 951 East Bates Avenue. The adjacent lot is combined with the lot on which his home is built. It appears to be a single property from the street. If a variance were granted to allow him to build a second garage, it would continue to look like a single property. As to the affect on the neighborhood, Mr. Thynne testified that he would maintain the integrity of the property and continue to treat his neighbors, as he always has, with a lot of consideration. To that extent, he directed the Board's attention to the statements he submitted on behalf of his neighbors closest to his property. In talking with Mr. Doubleday, it appeared there was a concern at the August hearing regarding a financial burden should the variance be denied. Mr. Thynne stated financial burdens are relative. The costs associated with conjoining the property -reversing the subdivision and reverting the two lots back into one -is not very great. The larger burden, as it relates to finances , is because the property is subdivided there is a mortgage on one piece of property and the undeveloped lot has an existing line of credit for his business. If the properties were conjoined, he would have two secured creditors which would be unhappy with cross collateralizing. He would then need to refinance both pieces. What he would incur for expenses, he stated he didn 't know. There is no question there would be a couple thousand dollars in terms of having the properties surveyed and platted in addition to points and refinance charges. His guess would be a cost of $5,000 -$10,000 to conjoin the properties . He stated that would be a financial burden to him. There also would be an associated delay of having to undue the subdivision and thereafter obtaining the permits. He would not be able to have the garage constructed until after winter. This would be inconvenient, but whether that rises to the level of a hardship, Mr. Thynne deferred to the Board. If the variance were granted, there would not be an y violation to the spirit of the ordinance . The second garage would not be easily visible from the street because the property is walled and gated. The original garage cannot be seen from the street. Mr. Thynne stated the property is configured such that if he sold the adjacent lot with only the garage, it would still look like the same property as it does now. As a practical matter, the property is larger and bigger than most building lots. The market for a piece of land is such that it would be unlikely someone would purchase the property with just a garage on it without subsequently building a house. If he were on the Board of Adjustment, he would be concerned that the garage might be used for purposes which are not consistent with the neighborhood . As a practical matter, that is highly unlikely. If he were to sell the ground, which he doesn't plan to do in the foreseeable future, a subsequent buyer would by necessity feel they needed to build a house. 2 • The same architect who designed his house is involved in the design of the garage. The garage will blend in and be the type of building which works in the neighborhood. The setbacks at the location are such that a garage built within the Building Code would not affect light, noise, or other concerns neighbors might have. In fact, he has met with his neighbors and discussed the proposed garage. • • Mr. Thynne continued; he stated he didn't know what variance or what change could be made to allow him to construct the garage which would be less of a modification. The design of the house and where the garage is built at present do not allow for an expansion of the garage. Any expansion would interfere with setbacks, easements, or right-of-ways; therefore, it is not feasible. Conjoining these two lots would not solve all the problems. As he understands it, the Code only allows 1,000 square feet of garage. When he constructed the house, he wasn't thinking in terms of a second garage. The current garage is approximately 660 square feet. If the properties were conjoined, he would only be abl e to add 340 square feet. That doesn't solve his problem; the minimum size of a double garage is approximately 400 square feet. Maintaining the properties is a huge task. There is approximately 14,000 square feet of grass and a driveway 150 feet long. The maintenance has necessitated equipment such as a riding mower, plow, etc. All of the equipmen t is outside under tarps, and Mr. Th ynne stated he believes it would aesthetically enhance the neighborhood if these items were in a garage. Mr. Smith stated this lot could not only be sold, but it can be developed by relatives. What is to prevent someone from wanting to construct a house but they can't because the garage is already on the lot. Mr. Smith stated he was concerned with it transferring to another owner with a pre-existing structure which does not conform. Mr. Smith state d it previously was one lot, and Mr. Thynne subdivided it for some reason. Mr. Smith stated the Board continued the case to determine why he didn't put the lots back together. Generally the Board favors garages because it promotes off-street parking. However, in this instance, Mr. Smith stated he had a reluctance in granting the variance. Mr. Thynne stated he had attempted to address that issue. He stated there is the financial aspect. Lenders have a problem with conjoining two pieces of collateral as security for a loan when the lenders loaned a certain amount of money and have a security interest in a particular lot. Mr. Smith stated that it appeared to be a self-imposed hardship. There is no hardship on the property which was not created by Mr. Thynne. If the lots were still one, a variance would not be needed. Mr. Thynne responded that it was his understanding that if the lots were rejoined, he would still not be able to build a double car garage. In any event, the suggestion that the hardship is self-imposed is difficult to defend against. When he had the house designed and build, he did not anticipate being before the Board seeking a variance. He stated he does accept responsibility of where he placed the house and the fact that he spent a significant amount of money to install a separate water tap and sewer tap to preserve his options. Mr. Smith stated it is a very attractive house and property . Mr. Thynne stated Mr. Smith indicated at the August hearing that they had a controversy a number of years ago. The record should reflect that Mr. Thynne sees no appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. Mr. Smith responded that he had put that in the record 3 • • • at the August hearing stating the matter was resolved amicably and their last meeting was when Mr. Thynne was City Attorney in Aurora. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in for testimony. Ms . Langon stated the legal address of the property is 951 East Bates Avenue which was determined when the property was subdivided by Mr. Thynne a couple of years ago . The 905 address was the address that would have been used if the property had been divided north and south . When the property was finally subdivided, it was divided east/west. The north lot became 901 and the south lot became 951 so there wouldn't be a confusion on what was 905. The official address is 951 East Bates Avenue . Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Thynne would need a variance if the lots were still one. Ms. Langon responded that for the size of garage he would like to construct, a variance would still be needed. The maximum allowed on a lot is 1,000 square feet, and 336 square feet would be the maximum he could add. At the size he would like to build, there would be a variance needed for approximately 100 square feet. Mr. Smith asked for the length of process time to recombine the properties. Ms. Langon stated that to combine the properties is a simple procedure done by the County. It is called a combination request, which is a form requiring the legal description and the two property identification numbers. As long as the two properties are owned under the same name, are contiguous, and are in the same taxing districts, the County can combine the lots . The two lots become one property with a new identification number. It is a one day process. Mr. Smith stated in spite of the eight different steps listed in the staff report, it only takes a couple of days. Ms . Langon stated those eight steps were to subdivide the property. Mr. Smith clarified that the difference is that there is only one step to combine the properties . Ms . Langon reiterated that the property owner only has to meet the requirements for Arapahoe County. The City has no requirements to combine property. Mr. Seymour asked if the property would need to be resurveyed. Ms. Langon stated it would not. Mr. Smith clarified that combining the property is all done through Arapahoe County and only takes a matter of a couple of days. Ms. Langon stated that was correct; a temporary tax identification number would be issued until the next taxing sequence. To the best of her knowledge, this process only takes a day or two and there is a $5.00 processing fee for the combination request. Mr. Seymour clarified that there would still be a problem with size even if the lots were combined. Ms. Langon stated that was correct; he would need a variance for more than the allowable 1,000 square feet on a single lot. 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: 4 • • • THAT CASE #7-2002 , 951 EAST BATES AVENUE, 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. Bode stated he was not present at the August hearing, but he has read the previous Minutes and information. He, therefore, feels qualified to vote on the variance. Mr. Smith stated he hated to vote against a garage; it is a nice looking piece of property. He still has concerns that it will be sold to a different owner and need a number of variances to construct a principle building, as well as an easement to access the property. He stated there has to be exceptional circumstances and something which is an undue difficulty that is not the fault of the owner. He stated he would not have a problem approving a garage this size or larger if the property were one lot. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted no; it is a self-imposed hardship . The practical difficulties of combining the lots are not i nsurmountable and are not any more difficult than obtaining a variance. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O 'Br i en , Mr. Se y mour, and Chair Carlston stated they voted no, concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Baker, Bode, Carlston , O 'Brien, Seymour and Smith None Davidson The Chair announced the motion denied by a 0-6 vote . Ill. CASE #10-2002 Brad and Valerie Homan 4500 South Inca Street Chair Carlston stated the case was continued from the August hearing, and she had proof of proper posting. Chair Car lston re-opened public hearing by stating the applicant is requesting 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 minimum 18 feet separation between principal buildings on adjoining lots . These are variances to 16-4-2:M 1 d(1) Accessory Buildings and 16-4-2 :1 1 Minimum Side Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Brad Homan, 4500 South Inca Street was sworn in for testimony. Ms. O'Brien stated that she was absent for the August meeting, but it appears that nothing substantive was discussed ; therefore, she feels qualified to participate in the decision of the case. 5 • • • Mr . Homan stated he bought his house seven and half years ago. There were a couple of items he wished to change immediately. One was off-street parking and removing the lean- to shed on the side of the house. He is now at the point where it is feasible to accomp lish those tasks. He continued; he would like to attach a two-car garage to the south side of the house . Because of the slope on the north side of the backyard, the south side is where the swing set, tether ball, and trampoline are located , which is where his children play. If he placed a detached garage on that side, there are issues with building code regard ing openings. He would have to set it back six feet, which would mean he would have to set it back a total of 11 feet. By attaching the garage and not pushing it back, it will provide a separation between his deck and the neighbor's deck. If the garage is moved back 11 feet, he would have to bring in fill to level the garage with the house. Mr . Baker asked whether Mr. Homan and his neighbor have talked about drainage between the proposed garage and the property line. Mr. Homan responded that his neighbor's house is approximately 4 feet higher; it might slope down to the back and to the front. If it is required, Mr. Homan stated he would drain it out to the street; however, he has not discussed the issue with his neighbor. Mr . Homan stated even though there is a six foot privacy fence between the properties, he can look over the fence. Ms. O'Brien asked if he would have a problem making a condition of the variance be that the nonconforming shed be removed. Mr. Homan stated he would love to remove the shed; therefore, he has no objection to that condition . Mr. Bode asked Ms. Langon if the drainage issue would be addressed when the applicant obtains a permit to build the garage. Ms. Langon responded that it is addressed when he applies for the permit, and the issue before the Board is the variance not how drainage is addressed. 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. Seymour seconded: THAT CASE #10-2002, 4500 SOUTH INCA STREET, BE GRANTED 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 MINIMUM 18 FEET SPEARATION BETWEEN PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS ON ADJOINING LOTS, CONDITIONED UPON THE REMOVAL OF THE NONCONFORMING SHED. THESE ARE VARIANCES TO 16-4-2:M 1 d(1 ) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND 16-4-2:1 1 MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes. It appeared to be a good plan . A hardship exists due to the slope of the land. It will be good to remove the shed. 6 • Ms. O'Brien stated she voted yes, concurring with Mr. Seymour. In addition, the second criterion has been met in that it will allow the applicant the ability to add an amenity to his property that is usually associated with a residential use. The variance does not adversely affect adjacent property or the neighborhood for the reasons stated in the staff report. The variance will not impact or impair the use or development of adjacent property. The variance will be the least modification necessary to grant relief to the applicant since it is an attached garage. Mr. Bode, Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Seymour and Ms. O'Brien. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Davidson The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote . IV. CASE #12-2002 Michael and Heather Hunt 4920 South Inca Drive • 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 7 foot side yard setback and one-half foot into the required 18 feet separation between principal buildings on the same or adjoining lots. This is a variance to 16-4-2:1 1 Minimum Side Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code . • Heather Hunt, 4920 South Inca Drive, was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Hunt stated she was proposing to construct an addition on the house that would connect the existing outbuilding structure to the main house. The outbuilding structure has existed since 1952 and apparently was annexed into the City in 1953 . Even though the lot is rather large, the house sits on the northwestern corner. There are mature trees in the back. She has tried to come up with a plan that would enable her to add on, was financially feasible, and preserved as many trees as possible. Any addition to the house would be built to Code. The proposed addition does meet the required setback. She has spoken to both her south neighbor and the north neighbor. The north neighbor is the closest to her property; they see no problem with the variance. It would enable her to create more privacy because the closest neighbor would be more blocked off from the property. Ms. Hunt continued; the neighborhood would not be adversely affected since the building has existed for approximately 50 years. The variance will not adversely affect the adjacent property; it will actually provide more privacy for both her and her neighbor. With regard to criterion five, she stated she wants to improve the house in a way which is affordab le and still preserves the mature trees on the property. 7 • • • Mr. Seymour stated he assumes the proposed garage and workshop have nothing to do with the variance. Ms. Hunt responded that was correct. Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. Seymour to clarify his statement. Mr. Seymour stated that the proposed garage and workshop has nothing to do with the variance; those are future plans. Ms . Hunt stated she is planning on constructing everything at once; however, with the house being attached to the current outbuilding it won't be a violation of Code. Mr. Seymour stated there was no North arrow on the site plan . The original site plan indicated that the existing structure is highlighted; however, when copies were made for the Board the highlighted areas didn't show up. Mr. Seymour stated that the proposed addition is what is marked family room, kitchen, study. Ms. Hunt stated that was correct and that is what will be between the two buildings. Ms. Hunt stated that the mas t er bedroom is what is currently existing. Ms. Reid asked if there was a highlighted copy of the site plan. Ms . Hunt stated she did not have a highlighted copy. Chair Carlston distributed the staff's highlighted copy to the Board . Ms. Hunt stated that the addition will not be visible from the street. Mr. Baker asked if the existing block structure would be renovated or removed. Ms . Hunt stated it would be renovated . Mr. Seymour asked about the shed. Ms. Hunt stated that would be removed and a patio will be constructed in its place . The equipment currently located in the shed will be moved into the new garage. Anthon y Fruchtl, Planner I was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Fruchtl apologized for not providing the Board with highl i ghted copies of the site plan. Also , the property parcel identification map located in the Board 's packet erroneously shows the location of the property. 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. Bode moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT CASE #1 2-2002 , 4920 SOUTH INCA DRIVE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED SEVEN FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK AND ONE-HALF FOOT INTO THE REQUIRED 18 FEET SEPARATION BETWEEN PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS ON THE SAME LOT OR ADJOINING LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATIACHING AN EXISTING GARAGE/OUTBUILDING TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND CONVERTING THE EXISTING GARAGE/OUTBUILDING INTO HABITABLE SPACE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16- 4-2:1 1 MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. 8 • • • Mr. Smith asked if a variance was needed to change the use to habitable space. Mr. Fruchtl responded that a variance is not needed to convert the space into habitable space; it was placed in the suggested motion to make it specific for this case. With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. It is an exceptional property; it is large and the conglomeration of buildings on the lot look confusing. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it does allow the owners to increase the size of the house and to make it more habitable. It will not adversely affect the adjacent properties because most of the addition will not be seen . The six inch encroachment into the eighteen feet setback between principal buildings is minimal and is just another case of whoever builds first gets to tell the neighbor where he can build. It will not substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent properties because it is already developed. It is the minimum required because there is no increase in the existing encroachment. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O 'Brien , Mr. Se y mour, and Chair Carlston voted yes , concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , O'Brien, Se y mour, and Smith None None Da v idson The Chair announ c ed the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. V. CASE #13-2002 Peter M anl y 3 2 64 South Logan 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 4 inches into the required 22 foot 2 inch front yard setback as established utilizing a block average technique under 16-5-9:A (Existing Alignment). Peter Manly, 3264 South Logan Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Manly stated he was before the Board to ask for a variance to construct a front porch on his house. The house was built in 1910 and was constructed before setbacks were instituted by the City. The house currently sits 15 feet 10 inches from the property line . The house does not have an existing porch ; it is open to the elements. The porch would allow him to have a covered entry into the house from the street and would provide shade on the west side of the house. A porch is very typical in the neighborhood, and many do not conform to the 25 foot setback . The age of the house and how it already encroaches into the setback create an undue hardship for him . He is only asking for an additional 4 feet into the front yard, which is 9 • • reasonable size for a front porch . The only way it will affect adjacent property is that the neighbors wouldn't be able to see as far north or south because the porch would stick out a little farther towards the street. The neighbor to the south has signed a statement indicating no objection to the variance. The neighbor to the north does not currently reside at the residence; unfortunately she has some major health issues. He, therefore, was unable to obtain her signature. The variance will not adversely affect the development of adjacent properties because the properties are already developed; they are all old houses. He stated he is seeking a variance for a reasonably sized porch to provide relief from the elements. Ms. O'Brien stated he submitted three neighbors' statements and two of the statements are from people on Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Manly stated they are the neighbors across the alley. Mr. Seymour asked that Mr. Manly explain the nature of the porch . The applicant responded; it is a gable house . The porch would blend into the house and he would try t o match the neighborhood as much as possible. Chair Carlston asked if he had done any remodeling or construction on the house. Mr. Manly stated he has replaced all the windows and siding on the house. Mr. Smith asked staff if the measurements were to foundation or other porches. Mr. Fruchtl asked if he were speaking specifically to the averaging technique or this property. Mr. Smith stated the chart indicates the measurement is to foundation, which means the porches aren't being counted so it is probably closer than 22 feet. Mr. Fruchtl stated he did not go out and measure the property. Mr. Smith stated the measurement should go to the 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. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #13 -2002, 3264 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 8 FEET 4 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 22 FOOT 2 INCH FRONT YARD SETBACK AS ESTABLISHED UTILIZING A BLOCK AVERAGE TECHNIQUE UNDER 16-5-9:A (EXISTING ALIGNMENT) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A 4 FOOT BY 12 FOOT PORCH. Mr. Smith stated there was no evidence supporting a 22 foot 2 inch front yard setback. He suggested the Board amend the motion because the 22 foot 2 inches goes to foundation. As he understands the Ordinance which makes this a variance from 25 feet, it goes to • whatever encroaches, including porches which wasn't counted. Discussion ensued. 10 • • • Mr. Fruchtl stated to use the averaging technique all the properties were measured from property line to foundation throughout the neighborhood to establish the actual distance for the setback requirement. Once the average has been determined, anything projecti ng further into the front yard needs a variance, as does the proposed porch. Therefore, the 4 feet encroachment is actually into the average 22 feet 2 inch front yard setback, rather t han a 25 feet front yard setback. Ms. Reid clarified with staff that the Ordinance allows the adjustment to 22 feet 2 inch es. The Ordinance itself requires this particular zone district to have a 25 foot front yard setback for newer construction. Since the majority of these houses in the neighborhood are nonconforming, staff has done an average, which Section 16-5-9:A allows. Th e applicant's house is already in violation of the 25 foot, as well as the 22 foot averaging. The question the Board is asking is whether or not there is any additional benefit to the applicant to give him a variance up to the current 25 foot setback so that he has a complete variance in case the 16-5-9 :A goes away. Would it be better if the motion is couched in the terms of the 25 feet which is currently required in that zone district. Mr. Smith stated the Yard Exceptions state that whenever 25 percent or more of the lots on the same side of the street have a front yard depth more or less than the required 25 feet, principal buildings thereafter may conform to the average. The exception refers to principal buildings, which includes porches, and does not measure to foundation. There is no evidence as to what the actual setback on the block since it wasn't measured to porches . Ms. Langon stated that historically the policy has been to measure from property line to foundation. The reason is because a number of the properties on this block are nonconforming. Porches have been added over time, often illegally or even prior to the Ordinance. If the measurement is to the porch, that is not the established portion of the principal structure. The porch is an amendment on to the principal structure . Mr. Smith asked why he would need a variance to build a porch. Ms. Langon stated a variance was needed because the applicant is already encroaching into the 22 feet 2 inc h averaged setback. Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid suggested the Board might want to amend the motion to cover their concerns so the front part of the house and the porch would be a valid variance from the current 25 foot setback. Mr. Smith offered a friendly amendment to Mr. Seymour's motion. THAT CASE #13-2002, 3264 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 11 FEET 2 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A 4 FOOT BY 12 FOOT PORCH. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-4:H MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE . 11 • Mr. Seymour agreed to the amendment. • • With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes . A tree exists on the north side of the front yard which blocks everything in . A four foot porch will not cause much problem . The hardship is that the house already encroaches into the front setback. Ms. O 'Brien stated she voted yes . The house was built in 1910 and there are a number of nonconforming houses in the neighborhood. The variance will observe the spirit of the Ordinance by allowing the property owner to have a standard amenity on his property. The variance will not adversely affect the neighborhood because as previously stated most of the houses in the neighborhood are already nonconforming. The adjacent properties are already developed. It is the minimum variance that will afford the applicant relief to build the 4 foot by 12 foot porch. Mr. Bode, Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith , and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes , concurring with Ms. O 'Brien. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Se y mour, and Smith None None Davidson The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote. The Board con v ened for a short recess at 8:55 and reconvened at 9:05 with all previous Board members present. VJ. CASE #14-2002 Robert Matuschek 2 709 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 2 feet 6 inches into the required 3 foot side yard setback. This is a variance to 16-4-4:M 1 d Minimum Side Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Robert Matuschek, 2709 South Grant Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Matuschek stated he wishes to build a garage where an existing garage is currently located. The existing garage is damaged and completely useless . The property slopes, and his property drops off approximately 5 feet down to the alley. The south wall of the garage doubles as a retaining wall for the neighboring property to the south, which is 272 7 South Grant. There is also a telephone pole in the alley. He stated he would like to construct a two-car garage, and the telephone pole would be directly in the way of the door. Even if he constructed a one-car garage, the telephone pole would still be in the way. 12 • • • Mr. Matuschek continued; if he uses the existing location, the existing retaining wall would not need to be removed and rebuilt. If the variance is not granted, he will need to build his garage further north which would require moving the telephone pole. The existing structure has existed for approximately 30 years and has not impacted the adjacent property. Furthermore, the existing garage acts as a nice manmade barrier between the neighbor to the north and his house; it separates the two yards very nicely. Mr. Seymour stated Mr. Matuschek does not have a telephone pole in his backyard; it is a power pole . Mr . Matuschek stated that was correct. Chair Carlston asked where the retaining wall was located. Mr . Matuschek stated it is on the south side of his property. Chair Carlston asked if he had a neighbor's statement from his neighbor on the south. Mr. Matuschek stated that Dee Ann Metzger lives in Los Angeles . He has spoken to her by telephone and has had trouble with faxes and e-mail; therefore, he wasn't able to receive an actual signed statement from her . He, however, did receive her verbal approval via the telephone, which is the statement he submitted to the Board. Ms . O'Brien stated that the two neighbors' statements she has are from South Sherman rather than Grant Street. She asked the applicant to explain . The applicant responded that the property slopes downward from Grant towards Sherman. He felt the most pertinent neighbors' statements should come from those who have the most visibility of the garage. The two neighbors on Sherman would have the most visibility of the garage. Mr . Fruchtl directed the Board's attention to the site map and correctly located the subject property on the map for the Board. 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. Bode moved; Mr . Smith seconded: THAT CASE #14-2002, 2709 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 2 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 3 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMOLISHING A DILAPIDATED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTING A FUNCTIONAL GARAGE IN THE SAME LOCATION. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-4:M 1 d MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr . Bode stated the suggested motion stated "utilizing the existing sub-structure"; he removed that from the motion because no one knows what the existing sub-structure looks like under the garage. He stated he couldn't see it when he went by the property . Discussion ensued. 13 • • • Mr. Smith stated anything the applicant does to the backyard would be an improvement. The garage will only be seen from Sherman Street, and garages gets cars off the street. With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr . Smith stated he voted yes . The exceptional conditions and circumstances are the age of the property and the existence and location of the present garage, which also functions as a retaining wall for the property to the south. It makes imminent sense to build the structure where the present garage is located. It observes the spirit of the ordinance, particularly those sections that deal with parking because it will create additional off-street parking. The neighborhood and adjacent property is currently developed. The variance is the least modification to afford the applicant a two-car garage . Mr. Baker, Mr . Bode, Ms. O 'Brien , Mr . Se ymour, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes , concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , O 'Brien , Seymour, and Smith None None Davidson The Chair announced the motion approved b y a 6-0 vote . VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cha ir Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the August 14, 2002 public hearing. Mr . Smith mo ved; Mr . Se ymour seconded : THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 200 2 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ba ker , Carlston , Se ymour, Smith None O 'Brien Davidson The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved . 14 • VIII. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT • • Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #8-2002, 707 EAST STANFORD AVENUE, CASE #9-2002, 4570 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET, AND CASE #11-2002, 4058 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, Seymour, Smith None O'Brien Davidson The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved. IX. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated no cases would be heard at the October meeting; however, staff is planning a study session with the Board on the Unified Development Code, which is the rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance. There will not be a complete document for the Board, but an overview will be provided . The Board will meet in a conference room on the third floor. X. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid stated she had nothing further. XI. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Ms. O'Brien asked whether or not she needed to explain her absence at the August hearing so the Board could determine if it was an excused absence. Ms. Reid stated the issue of excused/unexcused absences came up at the Planning and Zoning Commission. The definition for an excused absence is that Board members give notice of their absence prior to the meeting. Mr. Smith asked that the policy be reviewed at the October study session. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ton, Recording Secretary 15