Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS November 13, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:35 pm . in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Carlston presiding. Members present: Members absent: Alternate member: Staff present: Baker, Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien (ente red at 7 :40}, Seymour, and Smith None Secretary 's note : This position is currently vacant. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Anthon y Fruchtl, Planner I Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Chair Carlston stated there were seven 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 #15-2002 Jeff and Jenifer Pinar 3 736 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 2 feet into the required 5 foot side yard setback. This is a variance to 16-4-6 :M 1 d Minimum Side Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Jeff and Jenifer Pinar, 3 736 South Lincoln Street, were sworn in for testimony. Mr. Pinar stated he had a garage which was falling down; it had approximately a 10 percent list on it. The garage was on the property for approximately 60 years . As a safety issue, he demolished the garage. He was led to believe by the person at Tuff Shed that they could construct a new garage in the same location as the previous garage. The permit was issued, and he learned that the garage would be 5 feet over from the property line rather 1 • • • than 3 were the previous garage was located. The 5 feet was not measured very accurately and after the foundation was poured, the garage was behind the house so if you were to back straight out of the garage you could hit the house on one side. It was not a practical situation so they were advised to file for a variance. Mr. Pinar stated he talked to his neighbors and they are disappointed that it has taken so long to get something done. The neighbor most impacted by the garage encroaching does not have a problem with the variance . The neighbor across the street is happy to have the old garage gone. It is an older, established neighborhood; there is not a lot of new construction going on. It does not appear that it will cause a problem now or in the future . Mr. Pinar stated he is asking to construct a new garage in the same location as the previous garage. Mr. Smith clarified that the garage would not be sitting on the property line. Mr. Pinar stated that was correct; the garage would be three feet from the property line. Chair Carlson confirmed that the garage was already demolished . Mr. Pinar stated that was correct. It was demolished in July; he then learned about the problem with the permit; and then he was out of town for the Board hearing date in October, which explains why it has taken so long. Chair Carlston asked whether or not the materials on the garage would match the house. Mr. Pinar stated the Tuff Shed would be constructing the garage . Mrs . Pinar stated it would be a wooden construction with a concrete floor. Mr. Pinar stated the new garage would be constructed much better than the previous garage. 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 #15-2002 , 3736 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 2 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A FUNCTIONAL GARAGE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS A PRE-EXISTING DILAPIDATED GARAGE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-6:M 1 d MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Ms. O 'Brien stated she came in late to the meeting; however, she has read the application, materials supplied by staff, and heard a portion of the testimony. She stated she feels she is in a position to vote on the request. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted yes . The slope of the lot and the age of the structure are hardships not created by the owners. Any other configuration of a garage would increase 2 • • • the hardship on the owners. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it provides off street parking. The property will not affect the adjacent property in the neighborhood nor will it impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent properties since it is already developed . It is the minimum variance because a different configuration would not afford the relief which is being requested. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O'Brien, Ms. Davidson, Mr. Seymour, and Chair Carlson stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: Baker, Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien, Seymour and Smith None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote . Ill. CASE #16-2002 Cyndi Krieger and Robert Herberg 2987 South Cherokee Street Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of posting and publication. She introduced the case b y stating it is a variance to exceed the 6 foot permitted maximum fence height by 4 feet 6 inches. This is a variance to 16-4- 1 7:Residential District Standards, Figure G-1 :R-2 Rear Yard Setback Permitted Maximum Height of the Englewood Municipal Code. Cyndi Krieger and Robert Herberg, 2987 South Cherokee Street were sworn in for testimony. Ms . Krieger submitted a photograph and a letter from the Wyman Fence Company to the Board. Ms. Krieger stated they have built a garage on the alley with a pad in front of the garage for parking. A wooden privacy fence currently exists. In order to access the garage and to preserve the privacy, security, and screening of the yard , they would like to build a 22 foot gate. The gate will be too heavy to move by hand. If the gate is installed on a track and debris accumulates, the gate could jump the track and ruin the mechanism. Initially, when they started construction on the garage, they thought they could move the gate with a pulley with a track. After some investigation, they learned that was not possible. The fence existed prior to demolishing the previous garage . They would like to have the capability of enclosing the yard again. The gate consists of two poles and an overhead 1- beam, which will be six inches by six inches . The posts will be four inches around. It needs to be at least ten feet six inches for the RV and truck to pull underneath the structure . The fence itself will only be six feet, which complies with the Zoning Ordinance. It was determined that the support structure for the gate is part of the fence; therefore, a variance is needed for 4 feet 6 inches. The only way to make the gate work is having it supported from above. 3 • • • Mr. Seymour asked for a clarification on why a cantilevered gate would not work, as indicated in the letter from Wyman Fence Company. Mr. Herberg responded that a cantilever "overhangs." They would need twice the distance to make a cantilevered gate. The gate would be one-third , and the other two-thirds would be the supporting structure on the rear side. There is not enough distance to support a cantilevered gate; it takes a lot of room. Mr. Smith confirmed that the support structure only be on the fence line itself; nothing projects into the alley or yard . Ms. Krieger stated that was correct. Mr. Herberg stated it is an I-beam that runs overhead and supports the gate . Mr. Smith asked if they were planning on covering any portion of the driveway. Ms . Krieger responded that they were not. Richard Coy, 2990 South Delaware Street, was sworn in . Mr . Coy testified that he lives directly west of Mr . Herberg's house. He understands the project and agrees with it 100 percent because it will provide security for the property. He has had a lot of vandalism to his property. He installed security lights and a fence last summer to try to prevent additional vandalism. He stated that Mr. Herberg's plan is the best route for security reasons . The fence will still be six feet. Mr. Smith confirmed that Mr. Coy is directly west of the subject property. Mr. Coy stated that was correct. Jimmy Craig, 3000 South Delaware, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Craig stated he lives southeast of the subject property . When he looks out of his house, he looks at Mr. Herberg's garage. Mr. Craig testified that he is in support of the variance request. It will only be two supports and will not be unattractive . Mr. Herberg has improved the neighborhood by the improvements he has already done to 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. Anthony Fruchtl , Planner I, was sworn in. Mr. Smith stated it appeared from the staff report that staff is not completely confident that the applicants need the variance. Mr . Fruchtl stated that was not the intent he wished to convey through the staff report. Staff spoke with the Building Department, and the reason the structure is considered part of the fence is because the two posts that will extend vertically will be attached to the existing fence . Mr . Smith asked if it would upset staff if the motion were changed so that it only allows two poles to exceed the six foot height limitation, rather than to allow a fence. It seems that the proposed motion would allow a 10 foot fence. Mr . Fruchtl responded that the proposed motion is stated to allow an open-air support structure, which is the two extending poles and the I-beam across. Mr. Smith stated rather than stating "open-air support structure", he would like the motion to state "two poles to support an open-air support structure ." He stated he wanted to limit the motion to two poles. Mr. Fructhl stated that staff had no objection to the change. 4 • • • From the audience, Ms. Krieger stated that the I-beam is also needed. Mr. Smith stated two poles, plus the I-beam should take care of the variance request. Chair Carlston asked Ms. Krieger to come forward for a rebuttal to staff's comments. Ms. Krieger stated that the I-beam, as well as the two posts, are needed. The I-beam is actually what supports the gate. Ms. Langon stated that an "I-beam" is a type of construction. 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. Seymour seconded: THAT CASE #16-2002, 2987 SOUTH CHEROKEE STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXTEND TWO POLES AND A CROSS BEAM 4 FEET 6 INCHES ABOVE THE 6 FOOT FENCE HEIGHT LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A SUPPORT STRUCTURE FOR AN AUTOMATIC SECURITY GATE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16- 4-17:RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STANDARDS, FIGURE G-1 :R-2 REAR YARD SETBACK PERMITIED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes. neighbors support the variance. It appears to be the only practical solution. The Ms. O 'Brien stated she voted yes. The intended use is specific to the property and unique in the fact that it does not fall within a specific guideline for the definition of a fence. The variance will allow the applicants the ability to construct a 10 foot open-air structure that will support a gate that is 6 feet tall which is necessary for protection of vehicles and which meets the neighbors' approval. The proposed variance will have no impact on the adjacent property owners. The adjacent properties are developed, and the construction of the gate and supporting open-air structure will not impair the adjacent properties. The requested variance will not increase the permitted fence height allowed within the zone district. Ms. Davidson, Mr. Bode, Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith, and Chair Carlston voted yes, concurring with Mr. Seymour and Ms. O'Brien. 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 . 5 • • • IV. CASE #17-2002 Jason Bloomquist 4308 South Pennsylvania 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 6 inches 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. Jason Bloomquist, 4308 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Bloomquist stated he purchased the property in July. The house was built in 1901 and was not in good shape when he bought it, but he is fixing it up . Part of the fix-up is adding an addition on the north side of the house . Part of the addition is a new entryway into the home and the other part will be a stairway that will lead to the upstairs which he plans to build over the house . The existing front porch encroaches 6 feet 6 inches. He testified that the porch has existed for a long time. Mr. Bloomquist continued; he would like to tear down the existing porch and build a new porch which will not encroach any further than the existing porch. The new porch will extend the length of the house and wrap around to the new entryway. The new porch would also be covered. Mr. Bloomquist asked if the Board wished to see his plans . The Board declined; Chair Carlston stated the plans would become part of the permanent record, and the Board would not be able to return them. Mr. Smith asked if there were other porches in the block which extend as far out as his porch . Mr. Bloomquist stated that he hadn't measured any other properties to know for sure , but directly across the street, the porch is definitely closer than his existing porch. Mr. Smith asked whether or not his porch sticks out any more than other porches on the block. Mr. Bloomquist stated he didn't think so. Chair Carlston asked for the depth of the existing porch. Mr. Bloomquist stated it is 6 feet 6 inches . The home was built to the 25 foot setback so to have any porch at all , it would encroach. Susan Sanders, 4300 South Delaware Street, was sworn in . Ms. Sanders stated she resides at the property directly to the north of the applicant's home. On behalf of the neighborhood, they couldn't be more delighted that the applicant has purchased the property and is improving it. It is a very old and dilapidated house, which has not had good care in many years . She has owned her property for 20 years . The applicant's porch has been in existence at least that amount of time, and it has not been a problem. Ms. Sanders urged the Board to grant the variance. Referring to the staff report, Chair Carlston stated that it indicates that once the porch is removed the applicant could construct a porch which would adhere to the district's front yard setback requirements. Chair Carlston asked for clarification. 6 • • • Mr . Fruchtl responded that the applicant could construct a 20 foot square landing that could project into the front yard setback without a violating the District's standards. Any construction which would resemble the existing porch would require the variance . Mr . Smith asked whether staff measured the front setbacks in the remainder of the block. Mr. Fruchtl stated he did not physically measure all the setbacks, but he did a site analysis. There are a number of porches which do extend into the front setback. Most of those homes were constructed prior to the zoning regulations . Mr. Smith stated if there are a certain percentage of porches in the block which project into the setback, a variance is not needed. Mr. Fruchtl stated that this case does not meet that provision. Mr. Smith clarified that even though the suggested motion and request are for 6 feet 6 inches , it might be less of an encroachment if the averaging technique was used. Mr . Fruchtl stated that was a possibility; however, he did not have the averaging regulations with him. Tricia Langon , Senior Planner, was sworn in. In response to Mr . Smith 's question , at the September hearing there was a similar case and the Board changed the motion . Even though that porch qualified for the averaging technique, the Board reworded the variance to be measured from the 25 foot setback . For consistency, staff proposed the motion to measure to the 25 foot setback. Mr . Smith stated he agreed that is how the motion should be stated. On the other hand, he wanted to point out that it may not be as much of a variance as it sounds because the averaging technique could lower the encroachment. Ms. Langon stated it was possible, but due to the interpretation from the September case, staff measured it to the 25 foot setback. 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 #17-2002 , 4308 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 6 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED PORCH. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-4 :H MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Ms. O 'Brien stated it was very nice to see the neighbors come out in support of the variances. With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. The age of the property and the structure create a hardship for the owner to improve the property. A porch is an open structure; the applicant is not constructing a room on the front of the house which would block views. It will improve an eyesore and will address some safety issues; therefore it does secure the public safety and welfare . The adjacent properties are developed, and there is favorable support from the 7 • • • neighbors . It is the minimum variance because it is an old porch and trying to restructure it would be more difficult than building a new porch in the same location. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O 'Brien , Ms. Davidson, Mr. Seymour, and Chair Carlson stated they voted yes , concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O'Brien , Se y mour, 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 o f the Minutes from the September 11 , 200 2 public hearing. Mr. Smith mov ed; M r. Se y mour seconded : THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11 , 2002 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , O 'Brien, Se y mour, Smith None Davidson None The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion appro v ed. VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Se y mour seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #7-200 2, 951 EAST BATES AVENUE, CASE #10- 2002, 4500 SOUTH INCA STREET, CASE #12 -2002, 4920 SOUTH INCA DRIVE, CASE #13-2002 , 3264 SOUTH LOCAN STREET, AND CASE #14-200 2, 2709 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith None Davidson None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. 8 • • • VII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Fruchtl stated there were three cases for the December meeting. Staff provided the Board with the addresses and request for each of those cases . Community Development is planning a Holiday Open House for December 19 in the Community Room. Invitations will be mailed out. The Board confirmed that dinner and alcohol would not be served. Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct. Mr. Fruchtl stated that terms were expiring in January for Ms. O 'Brien, Ms. Davidson, and Mr. Baker . The recording secretary has applications for reappointment for those members wishing to apply for reappointment to the Board . Submittal deadline is January 3, 2003. Ms. Langon stated that on Tuesday, December 3 at 7 p.m. in the Community Room, staff is proposing a joint session with City Council, Planning Commission, and the Board for the Unified Development Code (UDC). It will be a discussion on design . It will cover a number of issues the Board has been faced with over the past couple of years -height, setbacks, bulk plane, lot coverage, etc. The date is still tentative until City Council determines if they are available. The recording secretary will confirm the date and time once it has been set. Staff is planning a design charette with an open discussion format, a lot of photos, and ideas which will provide everyone with a better understanding of what is being proposed within the UDC. Mr. Smith asked if there would be copies of the proposal available for review. Ms. Langon stated that it is still in the design phase so there is nothing to handout yet. Staff is still collecting input and ideas . Rather than holding three separate meetings and receiving three sets of ideas and comments, staff is proposing the joint session . VIII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. IX. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE The Board had nothing further. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:20 p.m . 9