Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-11 BAA MINUTES• • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS December 11, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of th e 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, Bod e, Carlston, O 'Brien , Seymour, and Smith Davidson Secretary 's note: This position is curr e ntly vacant. Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Anthony Fruchtl , Plann er I Chair Carlston stated there were six members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance. Chair Ca rlston 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 c onduct 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 #18-2002 Mark Tunstead 4898 South Galapago 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 7 foot minimum side yard setback, and 2 feet 7 inches into the total setback of 18 feet between principal structures. This is a variance to 16-4-2:1 1 Minimum Side Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Mark Tunstead, 4898 South Galapago Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Tunstead stated he would like to add on to his existing gar age. He would not be exceeding the current side setbacks. He would like to construct a master bedroom, additional bathroom, and a family room because he has run out of room in the house . 1 • • Ms. O'Brien clarified that he would not be encroaching any further on the side. Mr . Tunstead responded that he would not be encroaching any further than where his existing garage sits. Chair Carlston clarified that he would like to add on to the front and back of the house. Mr. Tunstead stated that was correct. Ms. O'Brien asked for the address of the neighbor closest to the garage. Mr. Tunstead stated it is 4868 South Galapago Street. Ms. O 'Brien clarified that the neighbors at 4868 South Galapago Street had no objection to the variance. Mr. Tunstead stated they signed a neighbor's statement supporting the 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. Seymour moved; Mr. Bode seconded: THAT CASE #18-2002 , 4898 SOUTH GALAPAGO STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 2 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK AND 2 FEET 7 INCHES INTO THE TOTAL SETBACK OF 18 FEET BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, AND CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE INTO HABITABLE SPACE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-2:1 1 MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE . Mr. Smith stated that it is a simple case of whoever builds first sets the setback for the neighbor. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. The exceptional circumstances are that the house has existed for quite some time, and it was built in a time when regulations were looser . In addition, the setback is due to the neighbor building first. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it allows the applicant to convert the garage into habitable space which will accommodate his family. It will not adversely affect the adjacent property because it is already developed. It will not impair or impact the use or development of the adjacent property since it is already developed. Remodeling the existing garage and not changing the site line is the minimum variance for the applicant to achieve more habitable space. Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes , concurring with Mr. Smith. He also stated that it is in the spirit of what the Board has been recently discussing. The neighbor who builds first sets the setback for neighboring properties. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O'Brien, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. 2 • • 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. Ill. CASE #19-2002 Larry L. Cameron 4501 South Galapago 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 6 inches into the required 5 foot minimum rear yard setback. This is a variance to 16-4-2:M 3e Minimum Rear Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Chair Carlston distributed photos of the property to the Board which were submitted. Larry Cameron, 4501 South Galapago Street, was sworn in. Mr. Cameron stated that the variance is due to his ignorance. He demolished an existing structure and replaced it. The new structure is not any closer to the alley or property line than the previous structure. He testified that he was never aware of a stop work order being issued. When he was told that he needed a permit, he came to the City the following day. He was instructed he needed to purchase a demolition permit, which he did. When trying to obtain the construction permit, he was told he needed a variance . He stated he was never asked to stop construction, which is why the structure is completely built. Anthony Fruchtl was sworn in. Mr. Smith asked why the applicant would not have needed a variance if he had obtained the necessary permits. Mr. Fruchtl responded that the applicant would have needed a variance regardless because of the location of the shed. The comment in the staff report is in reference to if the applicant had submitted a site plan prior to the time of construction, the encroachment would have been seen in the building review process. Staff then would have been able to advise the applicant to move the structure to the proper location. 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 #19-2002, 4501 SOUTH GALAPAGO STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 3 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPLACING A PRE- EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-2:M 3e MINIMUM REAR YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. 3 • Mr. Bode asked what prevented the applicant from building additional structures to the same setback if the variance is granted . Mr. Seymour stated the applicant is limited to 200 square feet for an accessory structure; a shed is even more limiting. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith offered a friendly amendment to the motion, and Mr. Seymour accepted the amendment. THAT CASE #19-2002, 4501 SOUTH GALAPAGO STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 3 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE EXISTING 12' 6" x 15 ' 2" ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-2:M 3e MINIMUM REAR YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Chair Carlston stated she appreciated the site plan showing the addresses of the property owners who signed Neighbors' Statements. Ms. O 'Brien suggested staff add the addresses of the properties that signed Neighbors' Statements to the location map staff attaches to their staff report. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes . The applicant met all the criteria. It is unfortunate that he was unaware that he needed permits. It meets the spirit of the ordinance. The existing structure is not any larger than the previous structure so it is the least modification. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted yes. There are exceptional conditions or circumstances present in that the 1955 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance did not contain any requirements regarding "other structures." The variance will observe the spirit of the ordinance. The requested variance will allow the applicant to keep the new "other structure" in the same location that a pre-existing shed was located. The variance does not adversely affect adjacent properties or neighborhood as reflected by the neighbors' statements and also by the fact that the neighborhood is already developed . The variance will not impact or impair the use or development of adjacent property as previously stated. The variance is the least modification necessary to grant the relief of the applicant which is to replace an pre-existing shed with a very attractive structure. 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, O 'Brien, Seymour, and Smith None None Davidson • The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote . 4 • • IV . CASE #20-2002 Mario J. lmola 3205 South High 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 4 inches into the required 3 foot minimum side yard setback, and 2 feet 4 inches into the minimum 10 foot total side yard setback. This is a variance to 16-4-4:1 1 Minimum Side Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Mario J. lmola, 3205 South High Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. lmola testified that the variance request is due to h is need for increased living space and his desire to have a garage. In reviewing all the options, two things stood out; it is a corner property with approximately a 15 foot right-of-way on the Eastman side and it has a very large, mature maple tree. His initial plan was to minimize the impact to the property and the neighborhood by encroaching a bit into the setback which would not affect the neighbor immediately to the south of the property. He planned to access the garage from Eastman. After some correspondence with Mr. Fruchtl, the Public Works' staff felt it wasn't advisable to have access from Eastman because of the tendency to park on the driveway which would require a 20 foot setback from the sidewalk. Therefore, he amended the plan and turned the garage 90 degrees to allow access from the alley. By encroaching into the setback, he is able to save the maple tree which is immediately to the south of the living space addition . Mr. Seymour asked how the landscaping on the alley would be affected. Mr. lmola responded there is one semi-mature coniferous tree on the northwest corner of the property which may need to be removed. However, his landscaping plan on that side will be a row of arbor vitae. Mr. Seymour clarified that the tree would need to be removed. Mr. lmola stated he wasn't completely sure, but suspects that it will need to be removed. Mr. Seymour asked if there was concern with the 10-foot site line requirement. Mr. lmola stated that his architect spoke to someone who indicated that the site line was not as much of an issue as was the need to have a driveway that can hold a car, which is a 20-foot setback from Eastman if he wished to access the garage from Eastman Avenue . With the garage turned the 90 degrees, he can come closer to the property line as it would be amended by the variance and not have that problem. There will not be a site line issue because he would be accessing the garage from the alley. Chair Carlston confirmed that there were two existing trees on the property. Mr. lmola stated there are actually four trees on the property. Three are coniferous trees and one is a deciduous tree. Chair Carlston stated when she drove by she saw two trees on the alley side of the property. Mr. lmola stated there are two coniferous trees on the alley side. One is a pine and the other is a spruce. Mr. lmola stated he was going to do his best to save all the trees on the property . 5 • • Ms. O'Brien confirmed that the house adjacent to the side of the property where the variance is being requested is located across Eastman Avenue, which is approximately 125 feet away. Mr. lmola stated that was true. The neighbor statements submitted are from the properties on either side of his home. Chair Carlston clarified that a garage does not currently exist. Mr. lmola stated that was correct; he does not currently have a garage. Chair Carlston stated the staff report indicates that the house and garage were built in 1957. It also indicates that the house was constructed without a garage. Mr. Baker asked how the garage and addition could be built over a utility easement. Mr. Baker asked if the Utility Department had any objections. Mr. Fruchtl stated that during the development review of the variance, the Utilities Department had the opportunity to review the request and site plan. They stated at that time there was not a problem with the proposed location. If there were any problems, they will be caught during the building review. For clarification, Mr. Fruchtl stated there was no garage built in 1957. 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 #20-2002, 3205 SOUTH HIGH STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 4 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 3 FOOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND 2 FEET 4 INCHES INTO THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-4:1 1 MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. It is a corner lot and the requested variance affects mostly the street so he sees no problem allowing the applicant to encroach on that side of the property. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it allows the applicant to build a larger house and a new garage which provides additional off-street parking. It will not impact the adjacent property owners. The closest property is across the street. The remainder of the properties are already developed. It is the least modification necessary to allow the applicant to build his garage in the most logical location and still be able to save the trees. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Seymour, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith . AYES: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith 6 • • NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None None Davidson 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 November 13, 2002 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Bode seconded: THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2002 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith None None Davidson The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved . VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #15-2002, 3736 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, CASE #16-2002, 2987 SOUTH CHEROKEE STREET, CASE #17-2002, 4308 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith None None Davidson The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Fruchtl provided the Board with information on the variance to be heard at the January meeting. He also reminded the Board of the Holiday Open House on Thursday, December 19 in the Community Room . 7 • • VIII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Smith stated that after the November meeting, the Board discussed moving the lectern back to the middle of the room. Ms. O'Brien stated she has had trouble hearing the applicants since the lectern was moved. Other board members agreed. Ms. Langon stated staff would research the possibility of moving the lectern for the Board's meetings. There was no further business brought before the Board . The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:20 p.m . 8