HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-09 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
April 9, 2003
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to
order at 7:40 pm. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Carlston presiding.
Members present: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien (e ntered at 7 :45 p .m .), Seymour, and
Smith
Members absent: None
Secretary 's Note: On e vacancy
Alternate member absent: David Sprecace
Staff present: Anthony Fruchtl , Planner
Tricia Langon, Senior Planner
Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney
Chair Carlston stated there were six members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are
required to grant a variance. Chair Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part 111 , Section 60 of the Englewood
City Charter.
Chair Carlston set forth parameters for conduct of hearings: The case will be introduced;
applicants will present their request and reasons the varianc e should be granted;
proponents will be given an opportunity to speak; opponents w ill address the Board; and
then staff will address the Board .
II. CASE #2-2003
David Brereton
4201 South Clarkson Street
Chair Carlston stated a Request for Rehearing has been filed by David Brereton in Case #2-
2003. Chair Carlston introduced the case by stating the applicant is requesting a rehearing
of Case #2-2003 which was a variance to exceed the combined maximum total floor are a
of all garages and carports of 1,000 square feet by 500 square feet. The variance was to
16-4-4:M 1 f, Maximum Total Floor Area of the Englewood Municipal Code .
Chair Carlston continued; in the applicant's letter, dated March 14, 2003, Mr. Brereton
requested the rehearing due to the fact that the applicants, Brian and Tracie Bleile,
indicated in their written justification that their property was 11 ,3 75 square feet and also
•
•
•
provided a site plan dimensioning their property at 11,830 square feet. Mr. Brereton has
indicated the correct dimension of the subject property is 9,500 square feet as recorded
with the Arapahoe County Assessor. Since the actual lot size was overstated in the
application by 20 percent and 25 percent respectively, Mr. Brereton is requesting a new
hearing to address the variance request. Staff has verified that the recorded property
dimensions are 76 feet by 125 feet, producing a lot area of 9,500 square feet.
Ms. O'Brien moved;
Chair Carlston seconded:
THAT CASE #2-2003 , 4201 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A
REHEARING.
Ms. Reid stated the rules of procedures for the Board are that if someone asks for a
rehearing, the Board votes on whether or not there will be a rehearing. It takes a simple
majority to grant a rehearing. If a rehearing is granted, the Chair will set a specific date and
time for the rehearing . The policy normally is that the Board considers information re ce ived
at the first hearing and any additional evidence.
Mr. Bode confirmed that if a rehearing is not granted, the variance is official. Ms. Reid
stated that was correct. Ms. O 'Brien asked if anyone from the audience could make a
presentation. Ms. Reid stated the Request for Rehearing is in the paperwork, but if the
Board wishes the applicant to also testify as to the facts , the Board can do so. Ms. Reid
stated the only decision to be made this evening is whether or not there will be a rehearing.
The Board can base that on the documentation submitted or on testimony limited to the
same information.
Chair Carlston asked the Board if they wished to hear testimony from the applicant. The
Board stated it did not.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Carlston, O'Brien
Baker, Bode, Seymour, Smith
None
None
The Chair announced the motion denied by a 2-4 vote.
Ms. Reid stated the Chair asked her whether or not Mr. Bode could vote on the rehearing
since he was not at the March meeting. Ms. Reid stated it would be helpful for the record
if Mr. Bode clarified whether or not he feels he can make a decision on the rehearing based
on the Minutes of the March meeting and the information. Mr. Bode responded; he read
the entire Board packet, understands the information, and feels he can vote on the
rehearing objectively.
2
•
•
•
Mr. Smith stated he didn't see why Mr. Bode couldn't vote on the Request for Rehearing .
Ill. CASE #3-2003
Arvid and Barbara Anderson
3 900 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 1 O feet into the
required 20 foot rear setback. This is a variance to 16-5-9:1 Rear Yards for Shallow Lots of
the Englewood Municipal Code .
Arvid Anderson, 3900 South G alapago Street, was sworn in. Mr. Anderson testified he and
his wife have resided at 3900 South Galapago Street for more than 30 y ears. The house
was built 32 years ago; the y are the second o w ners of the house . When the y pur chased
the house, everything existing on the house w as in place until the recent snowstorm . A
wrought iron, fiberglass, aluminum patio cover which existed went down with the storm .
The patio cover was 35 feet by 12 feet; it covered a slab whi c h was poured at the time the
house was built. Unbeknownst to them , the patio co v er was in v iolation and did not
appear on any City documents. However, they did not install the structur e; it was done
prior to their purchasing the house.
Mr. Anderson continued; the y would like to construct a three-season sunroom on the same
footprint. It will not extend an y further than the patio cover; in fact, it will b e a bit sm aller .
The sunroom will be 24 feet instead of the 35 feet.
Mr. Anderson stated they are requesting a variance to the setback so they ma y install a
three-season sunroom on the back. The structure which was on the back of the house is
totally gone and the back of the house has a ga ping hole . Basicall y, the y are asking for
leniency in putting on the sunroom. Letters from the surrounding neighbors, submitted to
the Board, indicate they have no objection to the sunroom being built. Their house was the
last home to be built in the subdivision. It is on a narrow lot with an incline . There is not
much that can be done to the house . The house sits on the far rear corner of the property
with the rear of the house eight feet from the ground, and the front of the house 16 feet
from the ground.
Mr. Anderson reiterated that they are seeking a variance to construct a three-season ,
completely enclosed, glass and aluminum sunroom on the same footprint as the patio
cover which was destroyed .
Chair Carlston asked for a definition of a "three-season room." Mr. Anderson responded; a
four-season room means a person will utilize it for all four seasons. This room is an
extension of the patio which they can use during warm weather; it will not have built in
heating. It will have double paned glass which will retain heat. Chair Carlston clarified that
the concrete pad is still in place . Mr. Anderson stated the concrete pad currently exists and
supports will need to be installed. Chair Carlston asked when the existing structure was
3
• removed . Mr. Anderson stated it was removed three days after the storm; it was leaning
like an A-frame on the back.
Mr. Seymour stated the sewer runs to Mansfield; he asked how the sewer exits the house.
Mr. Anderson stated the neighbor behind his house replaced his sewer line last summer
and had to dig up his driveway. He stated he thinks his line runs down a hedge row on his
property and goes straight out. The water and gas lines come in from Galapago. The
electrical comes in from the public ditch. Mr. Seymour stated he was attempting to
determine why an utility easement existed.
Debbie Lathram, 3925 South Galapago Street, was sworn in. Ms. Lathram stated she lives
across the street from the applicants. She stated she wanted to show her support for the
variance. It will be a nice addition to their property and to the neighborhood.
Anthony Fruchtl, Planner, was sworn in . Mr. Fruchtl clarified that the three-season structure
will not be built in the exact same footprint as the concrete that extends one foot into the
10 foot easement. Rather, it will be extend 10 feet so it will not encroach into the
easement. There will be a one foot gap of concrete between the structure and the
easement. Mr. Smith asked for the type of easement. Mr. Fruchtl stated that according to
the plat, it is an easement used for public utilities; it is not specific as to who has the rights.
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 #3-2003, 3900 SOUTH GALAPAGO STREET, BE GRANTED A
VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR
SETBACK TO REPLACE AN EXISTING PATIO COVER WITH AN ENCLOSED
ROOM, PROVIDED SUCH STRUCTURE DOES NOT EXTEND INTO THE
RECORDED 10 FOOT EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY
LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-5-9:1 REAR YARDS FOR SHALLOW LOTS OF
THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE.
Mr. Smith asked why the Board should be concerned whether or not it projects into the
easement; he sees it as a legal issue much like a Building Code issue. Ms. Reid responded;
it is a fact of the situation. The Board cannot grant the applicants a variance to encroach
into an easement.
Mr. Smith offered a friendly amendment to the motion to remove the phrase "provided
such structure does not extend into the recorded 10 foot easement that runs along the rear
property line . 11 Ms. Langon stated the clarification was added because the existing
foundation already encroaches. By adding the clarification, the structure cannot encroach;
it is a safety feature for the City. Mr. Smith stated it didn't have anything to do with the
variance; the easement may be vacated at some point. Ms. Langon stated the motion was
4
•
•
•
written in that fashion to ensure the structure was not incorrectly built. If it was incorrectly
built on the existing pad and encroaching, the only recourse would be to remove it. Mr.
Smith stated conformance with the law is assumed with every variance granted . Discussion
ensued .
Messrs. Seymour and Bode accepted the amendment.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
Mr. Smith stated he voted yes . The uniqueness of the property is the slope which limits
where structures can be built. A patio is an amenity that is acceptable in the neighborhood.
It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it allows the applicants to use the structure
as a patio and it replaces a structure which was unsafe. It does not adversely affect the
adjacent property because it is slightly smaller than the previous structure and the adjacent
property is already developed . The neighbors support the variance. It will not impact or
impair the appropriate use or development of the property because it is already developed .
It is the least modification necessary to grant relief because it replaces a pre-existing
structure.
Ms. O'Brien thanked Ms. Lathram for coming out to support the variance.
Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Mr. Seymour, Ms . O'Brien, and Chair Carlston concurring with Mr.
Smith .
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Baker, Bode, Carlston , O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith
None
None
None
The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the March 12, 2003 public
hearing.
Mr. Smith moved;
Mr. Seymour seconded:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
THE MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2003 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN.
Baker, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith
None
Bode
None
5
• The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote.
. V. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT
•
•
Mr. Smith moved;
Mr. Seymour seconded :
THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #2-2003 , 4201 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE
APPROVED AS WRITIEN .
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Baker, Carlston , O 'Brien , Seymour, Smith
None
Bode
None
The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote .
VI. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE
Ms . Langon reminded the Board of the open house on residential design standards within
the Unified Development Code scheduled for Wednesda y, April 16 in the Community
Room at 7:00 p.m .
Mr. Fruchtl stated there would be two variances for the May meeting; one located at 4596
South Broadway and the other at 3000 West Monmouth Avenue.
Chair Carlston asked about an agenda item on the April 7 City Council agenda which
showed an ordinance being considered on first reading amending the Englewood
Municipal Code to reduce the number of da y s prior to a public hearing that a notice must
be published . Ms. Langon stated staff is requesting City Council reduce their notification
time from 15 days notice to 10 days, which would be consistent w ith the Board and
Planning Commission. Since the official newspaper publishes once a week and City
Council generally meets every 14 days , the 15 day requirement automaticall y forced an y
public hearing to be a month from first reading. City Council felt that moving it forward
expedites City business and makes it uniform across the City. It will proceed to second
reading on April 21.
VII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further .
VIII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE
Ms. O 'Brien apologized for being late; she was feeling ill .
6
•
•
•
Chair Carlston thanked City Council for accepting the Board 's recommendation for the
variance application fee not to exceed $125 . Chair Carlston reminded the Board to
purchase tickets for the Englewood Jubilee II dinner on May 9 at the Gothic Theatre.
There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared
adjourned at 8:10 p.m .
~n~cretary
7