Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-09 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS July 9, 2003 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: Staff present: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith, and Sprecace None Anthony Fruchtl, Planner Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Chair Carlston stated there were seven members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance or appeal. 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 the 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. Chair Carlston welcomed Mayor Bradshaw. II. CASE #7-2003 W . Andy Stephan 2975 South Ogden 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 6 inches into the required 25 foot front yard setback. This is a variance to Section 16-4-4:M 1 c Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Andy Stephan, 2975 South Ogden Street, was sworn in. Mr. Stephan stated the carport existed when he purchased the house. He would like to enclose the carport and convert it to a garage. He would prefer to have a garage rather than a carport. He stated the carport is unsafe and unstable. He would like to improve the structure and make it more of a real building which won 't "blow away" in a windstorm. He has spoken with the neighbors and they are in support of the variance. There is approximately 25 feet from the • • • back of the sidewalk to the front of the carport, but the property line is set in . There is enough room to park a car in front of the carport. Mr. Seymour asked whether enclosing the carport would obstruct the view of the neighbors . Mr. Stephan responded; the lot to the north, 2929 South Ogden, is 150 feet wide and the house is set on the north end of that lot. He stated he would not be obstructing her site line by much because her house is so far away on the north side . The obstruction would be minor. Mr. Seymour asked for the width of the applicant's lot. Mr. Stephan stated it is a typical 50 foot wide lot. It is approximately 29 feet from the south property line to the carport. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner, was sworn in . Mr. Fruchtl noted that there was an error in the suggested motion contained in the staff report. Mr. Fruchtl stated the suggested motion should read "That Case #7-2003 , 2975 South Ogden Street ... " rather than referencing Case #8-2003 , 4360 South Logan Street. Mr. Smith asked for the average setback on the block. Mr. Fruchtl responded that he was unsure; however, he spoke with the applicant who looked at the surrounding properties on the block and it would not have made a difference in the application . Mr. Smith aske d staff how they knew the applicant needed a variance if the average setback was not determined. Mr. Fruchtl stated that traditionally and due to earlier cases , staff has asked to encroach from the actual foundation line into the 25 foot required setback in the event there is any type of construction done in the future on these lots . Mr. Smith stated the Ordinance states that if the encroachment fits within a certain range of averages a variance is not required. Mr. Fructhl stated he agreed ; the option was presented to the applicant, and he felt it would not make a large difference . 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 #7-2003, 2975 SOUTH OGDEN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 8 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING 18 ' 6 " X 17' 4 " CARPORT. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-4:M1c MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. He found from the testimony that the applicant purchased the house and carport in its cur rent condition and that it is unstable, the structure should be rebuilt; enclosing the structure and converting it to a garage is not too extreme. The neighbor most affected at 2929 South Ogden Street did not object to the variance. With regard to the second criterion, he found that the variance observes the spirit of the 2 • • • Ordinance in that it enhances off-street parking which is needed. It won 't adversely affect the adjacent property because it is already developed. The affected adjacent property owners have agreed to the variance . A garage rather than a shaky carport will certainly enhance the neighborhood. It will not impact or impair the use or development of adjacent properties for the same reasons . It is the least modification necessary because it is not creating an additional encroachment from what currently exists. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Mr. Sprecace, Mr. Seymour, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith. She further noted there were no previous variances granted to the property and the applicant submitted seven neighbor statements, some of which contain comments indicating how nice the garage will look. AYES: NAYS: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien , Seymour, Smith, Sprecace None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. Ill. CASE #8-2003 Bill Breese, Palace Construction 4360 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 12 feet 2 1/i inches in the required 25 foot front yard setback . This is a variance to Section 16-4-4:H Minimum Front Yard. Bill Breese, Superintendent of Palace Construction, was sworn in. Mr. Breese stated that due to the Blizzard of 2003, the front porch on the residence collapsed, and the homeowners would like to reconstruct the porch to it's original state. Mr. Smith asked if the applicant measured the other setbacks on the block. Mr. Breese stated he did not measure any houses on the block, but it appears every house on Logan Street encroaches into the 25 foot setback . Chair Carlston stated she drove by the house and confirmed that the porch would be constructed on the concrete slab in front of the house. Mr. Breese stated that was correct. Mr. Smith asked whether or not staff knew the average setback on the block. Mr. Fruchtl stated he did not know, but according to the applicant it did not meet the criteria. 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. 3 ' • • • Mr. Bode moved; Mr. Seymour seconded : THAT CASE #8-2003, 4360 SOUTH LOGAN STREET AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 12 FEET 21/2 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT A 7' 6 %" x 11 ' 6 %" COVERED PORCH. TOTAL ENCROACHMENT INCLUDES THE EXISTING HOME WHICH ENCROACHES 4' 7 %". THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-4:H MINIMUM FRONT YARD. Mr. Bode asked Mr. Smith to clarify the block averaging. Mr. Smith stated if a property meets the average setback on the block it doesn 't need a variance. Mr. Fruchtl stated 25 percent of the homes on the same side of the street need to encroach before the averaging can be used . Mr. Smith stated he drove by the property and the setbacks on the block are varied. He stated he 's not sure if the applicants actually need variances in these types of cases . The uniqueness of the City is that every house is not built in a row. Chair Carlston stated she thinks its wonderful that the house was built in 1921, and the porch just came down. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes . Ms. O'Brien stated she voted yes. With respect to the first criterion, the exceptional circumstance present is that the house was constructed in 1921. According to the information before the Board , there was a porch attached to the home at that time . The porch subsequently became unstable during the Blizzard of 2003. The request is simply to rebuild what previousl y existed. Regarding the second criterion, Ms. O 'Brien stated the variance will observe the spirit of the ordinance and achieve substantial justice in that the reconstructed porch is simply a rebuilding of what previousl y existed. With regard to the third criterion, no one has appeared in opposition and five neighbor statements were submitted supporting the variance. With respect to the fourth criterion, the adjacent properties are already developed and they are used to having a pore on the property for some time . Regarding the fifth criterion, since the variance is for rebuilding a previously existing porch, it is the least modification necessary to grant relief to the applicant. Mr. Seymour, Mr. Sprecace, Mr. Bode, Mr. Baker, and Chair Carlston voted yes concurring with Ms. O 'Brien. Mr. Smith voted yes concurring with Ms . O'Brien. He fu rther stated the house would look naked without the porch . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien , Seymour, Smith, and Sprecace None None None 4 • • The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote . IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the May 14, 2003 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded : AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: THE MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2003 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith , Sprecace None None None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. V. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Chair Carlston stated the Findings of Fact for Case #4-2003 and Case #5-2003 were approved by a telephone poll conducted by Ms. Fenton on June 11 , 2003 . Mr. Smith mo ved; Mr. Bode seconded : TO RATIFY THE TELEPHONE VOTE CONDUCTED ON JUNE 11 , 2003. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith , and Sprecace None None None The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. VI. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated she wished to address the issue of average setback. The averaging method is used when 25 percent of the houses on one side of the street are more or less than the required setback. Typically when the calculations are done, it does not meet the setback or the setback may be less than the 25 , but it is still not enough to allow the applicant to meet the new distance . Therefore, it doesn't help the applicant, and staff has • always gone back to the 25 foot setback which was done per Mr. Smith's request 5 • • • approximately a year ago. Mr. Smith had asked that the variance be measured from the 25 foot setback not from the average which might be at 22 feet. Mr. Smith stated he didn't disagree, but unless the Board knows what the average is on the block, it can't determine whether the applicant needs a variance. Ms. Langon stated if it is established that it doesn't meet the criteria, then a variance is needed. Mr. Smith stated that can't be determined unless the properties are measured. Ms. Langon responded; the decision is based on the information provided by the applicant. Ms. Langon asked if they wanted staff to physically go out and measure every single property, it would be considered. Mr. Smith stated he is not trying to tell staff how to present its case; his concern is the applicant does not have the authority to go onto other people's properties to measure the setback. Ms. Langon stated staff does not have that authority either. Mr. Smith disagreed; City staff conducting official City business certainly has the authority to measure the setbacks. He also thought there was an aerial photograph of the City which would allow staff to determine setbacks. Ms. Langon stated staff did not have that ability. Mr. Smith reiterated; the need for a variance cannot be determined until those properties are measured. Ms. Langon responded; staff proceeds on the information provided by the applicant. The applicant is made aware of the averaging exception if there is any question that the property would meet the criteria. Often on one of the blocks, there will be one house that is an alley house that eliminates the entire averaging technique. If there is a way of using the exception and not bringing a case to the Board for a variance, staff does so. Mr. Fruchtl stated there are eight cases scheduled for the August meeting and distributed a list of the cases to the members . IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid stated if for some reason the Board feels it cannot complete all eight cases next month , the Board can continue the cases to a date certain which would not require republishing or reposting . X. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Chair Carlston stated Mayor Bradshaw was present to discuss an e-mail which City Council received. Mayor Bradshaw stated she forwarded the e-mail to the Board because e-mails are received on how people are treated by Boards and Commissions . This e-mail was not such a case; it was an observation and obviously they didn't do their homework; their Mayor is aware of the e-mail. She stated it was not to cast aspersions on the Board's job; she feels the Board does a great job. She has a lot of faith in the people who have been on the Board for a number of years; however, it is important that the Board know of the perceptions that exist. Mayor Bradshaw apologized for not contacting Chair Carlston, but she was not home . The issue was brought up by two Council members and the Mayor stated she would handle it. She apologized if she handled the matter incorrectly . 6 • • • Ms. O'Brien stated she didn't feel the Mayor handled the matter incorrectly and is delighted she shared the e-mail with the Board so they could respond. It was a difficult memo to respond to even though they were observations. She felt there was a "theme" that became apparent in the e-mail. The Board wanted to have an opportunity to answer any questions City Council might have and to convey the Board's perception that there was a "theme" which was misconstrued. Mayor Bradshaw stated she realized the people were not paying attention. Mayor Bradshaw stated if the Board is using the voting system, the name plates should be changed to reflect the Board's names rather than City Council. She asked if there was anything City Council could do to help the Board. Mayor Bradshaw reported that the City is in a budget "crunch " and has asked every department to cut their budget by 10 percent in the event the Occupational Privilege Tax does not pass in November. Mr. Seymour stated Englewood's fireworks show was the prettiest he has ever seen; he was impressed. Mayor Bradshaw stated she would pass the complement along to City Council. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8 :20 p.m . 7