Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS August 13, 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 for the hearing: 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 stated there was a change to the agenda; the applicant for Case #10-2003 had a prior, mandatory commitment and asked to be moved to the end of the proceedings . II. CASE #11-2003 Paul 0. Webster 3075 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 6 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback and a variance to encroach 1 foot into the required 3 foot side yard setback. These are variances to Section 16-4-4:H Minimum Front Yard and Section 16-4-4:11 Minimum Side Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Paul Webster, 3075 South Grant Street, was sworn in . Mr. Webster testified that he has been an Englewood resident for 19 years and rather than moving he has decided to "dig his roots in deeper." The foundation is crumbling and has to be removed. In doing that, he decided he wants to make the space more usable and enclose the front porch to make a • • • foyer . He stated he is not going beyond what is normal in the neighborhood . He took measurements of the 10 houses along the block. One house sits 41 feet 9 inches from the property line. He averaged the front setbacks of the houses, subtracted the large setback since it has the farmer's canal going through the front yard . He would like construct the addition 2 feet closer to the setback which would change the average from 19.7 feet to 19.5 feet which does not really change the overall average of the street. He has talked with the neighbors, and they are very supportive of the plan. Regarding the side yard variance, Mr. Webster stated his house already encroaches 1 foot into the setback, and would like to take the addition to the same width as the existing house. Mr. Seymour asked for clarification on the front porch. Mr. Webster responded ; the porch would be built into the corner of the house. The overhang will be on the southeast corner. Mr. Seymour asked if the overhang would go toward the street or go toward the driveway. Mr. Webster stated it would be within the same footprint; he would set the door in at an angle . 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 #11-2 00 3, 3075 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 6 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VARIANCE TO ENCRO A CH 1 FOOT INTO THE REQUIRED 3 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK . TOTAL ENCROACHMENT INCLUDES THE EXISTING HOME WHICH ENCROACHES 4 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK . THESE VARIANCES ARE TO SECTION 16 -4-4 :H MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE AND SECTION 16-4-4:11 MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE . With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes . The lot is small and there is no good way to expand the house. It does not alter existing building lines significantly. The encroachment is at the front of the applicant's house and will not adversel y affect adjacent properties or the neighborhood. It will not impair or impact the use or development of adjacent property since it is already developed . It is the least modification necessary to grant the relief requested because it does not extensively change the building footprint. Mr. Seymour stated he voted y es . It is a slight encroachment and an improvement to the neighborhood . 2 • • • Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O 'Brien, Mr. Sprecace, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith and Mr. Seymour. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith, and Sprecace None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. Ill. CASE #12-2003 Patrick Workman 3985 South Huron 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 into the required 25 foot front yard. This is a variance to Section 16-4-4 :H Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Patrick C. Workman, 3985 South Huron Street, was sworn in . Mr. Workman testified he bou ght the house 13 y ears ago and would like to make his home a beautiful pl ace to li v e. No drainage problems exist. There are no exceptional topographical conditions that gi v e them an y re ason for the v ariance . How ev er, sinc e he is planning on living in Engle w ood for a long time and his famil y spends most of their time in the living room, he would like to enlarge the living room. The space would not be wasted ; it would be livable space as permitted for a single family dwelling. With the encroachment of 8 feet, he doesn 't belie v e there will be any adverse effect on the Ordinance. He continued; with the encroachm e nt of 8 feet on the property, there would be no adverse effect on either side of the property . The encroachment is only on the front of the property. The neighborhood is alre ady est ablished so there would be no impairment or infringement upon adjacent prop erties. With the encroachment of 8 feet into the 25 foot front setback, ther e would be a minimum modification to the Ordinance . It will preserve the absolute minimum of the variance . Ms . O 'Brien stated the staff report indicates he has the ability to add an addition to the rear of the property . Mr. Workman stat ed he did; howev er, the living room is in the front part of the house . If he expanded off the back, it would be off the kit c hen . He is try in g to increase the living room and not the size of the kitchen. Chair Carlston asked for the square footage of the house. Mr. Workman responded that it is approximately 1,080 squar e fe et. Chair Carlson asked if there was an y way to expand to the northeast corner rather than going into the front. Mr. Workman stated there isn 't; he just wants to add to the front part of the living room . There were no other person s 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. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #12-2003, 3985 SOUTH HURON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 8 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A 8'X13', 104 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE FRONT OF THE HOME . THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-4:H MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Ms. O'Brien asked how the request met the first criteria . Mr. Bode stated he didn't feel it met the second criteria. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Ms . O'Brien stated she voted no. She could not find any exceptional circumstances. She agreed the second and fifth criteria were not met. The difficulty she has with the case is that it is possible to add a room on the rear of the house. Mr. Sprecace stated he voted yes . Mr. Seymour, Mr. Bode, Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith, and Chair Carlston stated they voted no, concurring with Ms. O 'Brien . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Sprecace Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith None None The Chair announced the motion denied by a 1-6 vote . IV. CASE #13-2003 Matthew and Rebecca Allen 3029 South Sherman 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 into the required 25 foot front yard . This is a variance to Section 16-4-5:J Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code . Matthew and Rebecca Allen , 3029 South Sherman Street, were sworn in. Chair Carlston stated the applicants submitted photos and distributed the photos to the other members . Mr. Allen stated they bought the house approximately a year ago. In May a car lost control at the top of street and took out their porch. The porch had existed since the 1950's. He continued; the y would like to rebuild the porch in exactly the same footprint. The house currently encroaches 5 feet into the 25 foot setback, and the porch covering would encroach another 7 feet. Currently the concrete slab exists as well as some of the supports 4 • • • from the old porch. Those will stay and be built onto. Ms. Allen stated the crash actually happened in March, and it has been 5 months that they haven't had a porch. She reiterated they are looking to replace the porch which existed when they bought the house. Mr. Smith asked if they would be keeping the same roof line under the eave. Mr. Allen stated they would . Ms. O 'Brien clarified that the prior porch had existed since 1950. Mr. Allen stated that was correct. Many of the other houses in the neighborhood sit at approximately the same place as the new porch would sit. Chair Carlston confirmed that the porch would be built in the same style as it previously existed. Mr. Allen stated that was correct. He stated it is a porch covering supported by three beams, and materials will be the same bead board under the eaves and for the ceiling. 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 #13-2003, 3029 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 12 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT A PRE-EXISTING 7'X24' COVERED FRONT PORCH . TOTAL ENCROACHMENT INCLUDES THE EXISTING HOME WHICH ENCROACHES 5 FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-5 :J MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Ms . O 'Brien stated the porch has existed since the 1950's, and the applicants are just trying to reconstruct the porch to the same footprint. Also, they had no control over the accident. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted yes . He took into consideration the age of the home, and that they are merely replacing an amenity the y had before . It observes the spirit of the Ordinance; it fits in with the neighborhood to have the porch . It won 't affect the adjacent property. The neighbors would probably want to see the porch restored rather than the current hole. It won 't impact or impair the use or development of the adjacent properties which are already developed. It is the least modification necessary to grant them the porch they had prior to the accident. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O 'Brien, Mr. Sprecace, Mr. Seymour, and Chair Carlston voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith . AYES: NAYS: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith, and Sprecace None 5 • • • ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. V. CASE#14~003 Bill and Laura Bartnick 2775 South Delaware 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 13 feet into the required 25 foot front yard. This is a variance to Section 16-4-5 :J Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Bill and Laura Bartnick, 2775 South Delaware Street, were sworn in. Mr. Bartnick stated he has been an Englewood resident for 25 years and is employ ed at Craig Hospital. Ms. Bartnick stated they requested the variance because they also need living room space. She measured the homes on the block and there are 3 homes which encroach the same distance as their house would with the variance. Their street does not have any consistency in style. The variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance because it improves functionality and also accessibility within the property. It will not be a solid visual barrier because there will be a lot of windows . Ms . Bartnick stated they could not build to the back because there are electrical lines across the back yard. Their house is situated strangely on the block. Their neighbors are situated between two major streets instead of an alley, which creates a disadvantage for them. Elati Street is very bus y and the y would not like to build closer to that street. Mr. Seymour asked for the size of the lot. Ms. Bartnick stated she didn't know and asked if staff knew the size of the lot. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner was sworn in. Mr. Fruchtl stated he did not have a map with him which would indicate the size of the lot, and was unaware of the square footage of the lot. Mr. Bartnick stated the house is approximately 1,600 square feet. Mr. Seymour stated he is interested in the size of the actual lot. Mr. Fruchtl stated he would verify the size of the lot as soon as the land use map was obtained. Mr. Sprecace asked for clarification on the request: a porch currently exists; they want to enclose the porch and add an addition next to the porch . Ms. Bartnick stated they just want to extend the same distance as the front porch extends. Mr. Sprecace confirmed that they wish to enclose the current porch and then build another porch next to it. Ms. Bartnick stated that was not their intent; however, until Mr. Fruchtl mentioned that in the staff report she had not thought of doing a porch to the south. She stated they could construct a porch since it was brought up. Mr. Sprecace indi c ated that from the staff report that seems to be what is requested. Mr. Fruchtl stated the staff report is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants . 6 • • • Ms. Bartnick stated the site plan was from previous construction; their variance is for 7 feet towards Delaware Street and 26 feet across which would be enclosed. Chair Carlston stated she was confused as to how much of the structure would be the porch . Ms. Bartnick stated they do not have plans for a porch; she plans a 6 foot wide entryway. If the variance is granted, they may extend the living room and then build a porch on the south . She has not submitted plans to the architect because she wanted to obtain the variance first. Mr. Smith asked if a porch currently exists. Ms. Bartnick responded that there was currently a porch; however, the purpose is not to have porch . The purpose of the variance is to enclose the porch to use as living space. Chair Carlston asked the applicants to review a copy of the site plan which was submitted to the Board and asked them to outline what they are requesting. Ms. Reid presented the applicants with a copy of the site plan. The applicants submitted the revised site plan to the Board. The Board reviewed the drawing. In response to Mr. Se y mour's question regarding lot size, Mr. Fruchtl stated the lot is 50 feet wide and 125 feet long. Mr. Smith clarified they would not be extending out any further than the present porch. Ms . Bartnick stated that was correct; the y would not be coming any closer to the street than the current porch . Mr. Smith stated he doesn 't know what they want to build. Ms. Bartnick responded ; they wish to enlarge the size of their living room 7 feet and the size of the bedroom on the side 7 feet. Chair Carlston ad v ised the applicants that the Board can only evaluate the variance request they have submitted . If there is any added space on the plan they just submitted, then it is a different issue and they would need to seek another variance. Ms. Bartnick stated that everything she did was submitted to the City. Mr. Seymour stated they want to extend out 7 feet, no farther than the current porch and the north wall will be a straight line, and from that point to the south of the new addition, which would include any new porch, would be 26 feet. Ms. Bartnick stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour stated it appeared to him that the plan showed 3 or 4 feet south of the original existing house . Ms. Bartnick stated it was three feet. Chair Carlston asked if a neighbor's statement was received from 2767 South Delaware. Ms. Bartnick stated that statement was signed by Royal English who indicated he had no comment. Subsequently, he has indicated that once he saw the other houses were closer to the street, he didn 't object. 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 . 7 • • • Ms. O 'Brien moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #14-2003, 2775 SOUTH DELAWARE STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 13 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONVERT AN EXISTING FRONT PORCH INTO HABITABLE SPACE AND ADD A NEW COVERED FRONT PORCH. TOTAL ENCROACHMENT SHALL INCLUDE THE EXISTING HOME WHICH ENCROACHES 6 FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-5 :J MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE . Mr. Seymour stated it looks fine. Mr. Smith stated part of the request indicates they are going to convert an existing porch. It appears they are planning to tear down the existing porch and construct a new porch and a new room . Chair Carlston stated she was uncomfortable; the applicants were not clear on how they are going to use the space and how they were going to design it. Mr. Smith agreed; typically he would not have an objection since they aren 't extending any further than the current porch. However, he is unsure as to what exactly the applicants are planning on constructing. He stated he would prefer to table the issue and allow the applicants to submit more specific plans . Ms. O'Brien agreed ; she stated she would also allow them to submit another statement from the neighbor to the north since he changed his mind. Going 26 feet across the front of the house can change the character of the house and have an impact on the neighborhood . Mr. Smith moved: Ms . O'Brien seconded: TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY TABLING CASE #14-2003 UNTIL THE APPLICANTS, BILL AND LAURA BARTNICK, DECIDE THEY WISH TO HAVE THE CASE PLACED BACK ON THE AGENDA. Mr. Smith stated he would consider the request more favorably if the Board had more detailed plans . He also would like to see another neighbor's statement from the neighbor who changed his mind. Chair Carlston stated it was in the best interest of the applicants to table the issue . Ms. O'Brien confirmed that the public hearing was closed and any additional information could not be accepted at this point. Ms . Reid stated that was correct. Chair Carlston asked for clarification on the procedures for tabling a case. Ms. Reid asked if Ms . O'Brien had an objection to amending the original motion. She indicated no . Ms . Reid stated the Board needed to vote on the Motion to Table the case. Staff asked if the case was being tabled or continued. Ms. Reid stated the motion is to table the case. If the case is continued, it automatically is placed on the agenda for the next hearing. If the case is table, it stays there until a board member moves that it be removed from the table . Mr. Smith stated that is fine; as soon as the applicants are prepared to have the case placed back on the agenda, 8 • • • he will move to reopen the public hearing. Chair Carlston asked if the applicants would need to republish and repost. Ms. Reid stated they did not. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith , and Sprecace None None None The Chair announced the motion to table Case #14-2003 approved by a 7-0 vote. The case is tabled until the applicants are better prepared to come before the Board. VI. CASE #15-2003 Joseph and Melinda Hetherington 4635 South Mariposa Drive 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 combined maximum total floor area of all garages and carports of 1,000 square feet by 824 square feet. This request is a variance to Section 16-4-4:M 1 f Maximum Total Floor Area of the Englewood Municipal Code. Joseph and Melinda Hetherington, 4635 South Mariposa Drive, were sworn in . Mr. Hetherington stated they applied for the variance because the topograph y sloped east to west. The footprint of the garage will only be 912 square feet, but the y want to place a foundation under the garage to raise it up so the slope of the driveway can be eliminated . The current slope makes it difficult in the winter. The garage itself will only be 912 square feet, but in order to build it up and remove the slope the additional 912 square feet will be storage underneath the garage . Mr. Sprecace asked the applicants to describe the current slope and whether or not the y were going to excavate and build a two-story building. Mr. Hetherington stated it would be a walkout ranch garage which will look like the house. They will build a foundation and fill in with dirt up to the garage . From the front of the house, it will look like a one-story garage; the foundation will not be seen . Mr. Sprecace confirmed that from the street it would look like one level. Mr. Hetherington stated that was correct. Mr. Smith asked if it was going to be a garage with a basement. Mr. Hetherington stated that was correct. Mr. Smith asked if the basement would have access from the house. Mr. Hetherington stated the garage would not be attached . Chair Carlston stated she drove by the property and asked if the garage would border the fence. Mr. Hetherington stated the rear of the garage will become the fence and the fence will then extend from the house to the garage and the garage to the property line. Mr. Hetherington stated the garage will be even with both the front and the back of the house . 9 • • • Chair Carlston asked staff whether or not they verify slopes on the properties. Mr. Fruchtl stated staff does not do a technical analysis of the exact slope. Staff does, however, do a site visit and a slope does exist on 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. Ms. O 'Brien moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT CASE #15-2003, 4635 SOUTH MARIPOSA DRIVE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE COMBINED MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL GARAGES AND CARPORTS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET BY 824 SQUARE FEET TO CONSTRUCT A 1,824 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY GARAGE PROVIDED THE PROPOSED LOWER STORAGE AREA OF THE GARAGE SHALL NOT BE CONVERTED TO HABITABLE SPACE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-4 :M 1 f MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Smith stated he would like to clarify in the motion that it is 912 square foot per story . Ms . O 'Brien accepted the clarification. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. The slope of the property and the configuration justifies the variance allowing the applicants to build a street-level garage . It observes the spirit of the ordinance because the variance will allow an enclosed garage and provides further off- street parking. It will not adversely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood . The off-street parking will help the neighborhood and the adjacent property is developed. It won 't impact or impair the use or development of adjacent property because it is developed. It is the least modification necessar y to allow the applicants to build a street- level garage . Mr. Se y mour stated he voted yes. The entire neighborhood has unusual topographic conditions. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O 'Brien, Mr. Sprecace, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston , O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith, and Sprecace None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote . 10 • • • VII. CASE #16-2003 Holly B. Garnsey 3199 South Vine 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 6 inches into the required 25 foot front yard setback. This is a variance to Section 16-4-2:H Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Holly and William Garnsey, 3199 South Vine Street, were sworn in. Mr. Garnsey testified that they "love" their neighborhood and want to stay in the neighborhood. They have a growing family and have decided to add on to the house for that reason. The additional bedroom also functions as the laundry room . They considered building to the rear, but based on the way the lot sits on the corner there is a lot of space in the front yard with a very small back yard . If they built to the rear, they would still need a variance and would be left with a very minimal back yard. They considered building another story, but the neighborhood has covenants which prevent second stories until 2012 . Mr. Sprecace asked if they received any negative comments from the neighbors. Mr. Garnsey stated they have not received any personally. They have heard from other people that there may be a couple of people against it, but at the same time there has been a lot of support for the request as well. Mrs. Garnsey stated she has spoken with a lot of neighbors who are interested in knowing what is being planned . She stated she has received a lot of positive feedback from the neighbors. Mr. Garnsey stated the y are committed to keeping the standard of the home the same. He submitted a photo of a neighbor's house showing how they built on to the front of their house a y ear ago which is a foot closer to the sidewalk than his proposed addition. Mr. Sprecace asked if they would be keeping the tree in the front yard. Mr. Garnsey stated the y are planning on keeping both trees . Mr. Seymour stated it would have been helpful if the applicants had put in about 7 stakes in the ground so the Board could visualize what was being planned. The site plan is confusing. Referring to the site, Mrs. Garnsey stated they are adding 7 feet to the north as shown on the site plan . The farthest part east is 16 feet from the existing house which would encroach 12 .5 feet. Mr. Garnsey stated it is 2 7.5 feet from the farthest northeast point on the addition to where the concrete meets the asphalt. Mr. Seymour confirmed they are building out 7 feet to the north and 16 feet east. He asked how wide the portion is that projects 16 feet out. Mrs. Garnsey stated that portion is approximately 13 feet 3 inches. Mr. Seymour reiterated that stakes on the property would have been helpful. Mr. Garnsey stated when they first measured there were stakes out for two weeks . Mr. Seymour stated it makes it very hard to try to imagine what is being planned and how it will look in relation to the neighbors' houses. 11 • • • Chair Carlston asked for the size of the existing home. Mr. Garnsey stated it is 1,330 square feet. Chair Carlston confirmed that the request is for an additional bedroom. Mrs. Garnsey stated the house currently has 3 bedrooms, but one of the bedrooms has a washer and dryer in it with a gas connection . They don 't feel it is safe to put a child in that room, so they would like to add a laundry room, some extra storage space, and a bathroom and closet. Chair Carlston asked if they were working with an architect. Mr. Garnsey stated they were . Barbara Florey, 3114 South Vine Court, was sworn in. Ms. Florey stated she is a neighbor to the northeast of the applicants. She emphasized that the neighborhood is losing a lot of young families; it has been an established neighborhood since 1952. Young families are moving out because the houses are not large enough. There are currently 11 rentals and 3 group homes in the neighborhood. In order to re-establish the tradition of the neighborhood, she is very much in favor of any variances which would allow people to expand their square footage so they can stay in the neighborhood . 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. Sprecace moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #16 -2 003 , 3199 SOUTH VINE STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 12 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A 463 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE FRONT (NORTHEAST) CORNER OF THE HOUSE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4- 2:H MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Se y mour reiterated he found the site plan very confusing . Ms. O 'Brien stated she found the site plan illustrative of what is planned; she didn 't ' have any trouble visualizing. She found it helpful that the applicants brought in a photo of the neighbor's home that had been expanded which was one foot closer to the front setback than their proposal. Discussion ensued . Chair Carlston stated she is having trouble justifying the fifth criteria. She appreciates keeping people in Englewood, but she doesn't see how the request is the least modification . Mr. Seymour stated it is unfortunate the applicants can't "pop" the top. Mr. Smith stated he would rather them encroach into the front yard than add another story. He feels it is the least modification to give them the square footage they need. It is very similar to other cases the Board has granted . Chair Carlston appreciated the fact they applicants hired an architect. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes . Ms. O'Brien stated she voted yes. The first criterion is met due to the unusual shape of the yard. The variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance, secures the public safety and 12 • • • welfare, and achieves substantial justice. The variance will not adversely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood; rather it will be enhanced . The variance will not substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent properties since they are already developed. It is the minimum variance that will afford relief with the least modification possible because of the unique shape of the land and the way the proposed addition will fit on the land. Mr. Sprecace, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Bode, Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith and Chair Carlston voted yes concurring with Ms. O'Brien. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith, and Sprecace None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote . VIII. CASE #17-2003 Douglas and Nancy Garrett 825 West Quincy Avenue 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 foot 6 inches into the required 5 foot rear yard setback. This is a variance to Section 16-4-2:M 1 e Minimum Rear Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Douglas Garrett, 825 West Quincy Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Garrett testified that the requested variance is approximately 1.5 feet on the very rear of the property. Because of the odd shape of the wa y the parcels were subdivided when Cottonwood Subdivision was created, there is very tight space on that particular side of the property. He pointed out that the 1.5 feet he is encroaching is not a constant line; it is only the corner that will encroach to make sure the extension to the garage is long enough for cars to fit. After the extension is built, the square footage will be greater than 10 percent less than the permitted square footage for a garage in the R 1 A zone district. One of neighbors statements is from an adjacent property owner behind the house who will be directly affected by the variance. He did not get a statement from the other adjacent property owner because they are approximately 40 yards away on the west side of the property and will not see the extension . The other property owner who did submit a neighbor's statement is across two driveway s and a fence, but from the angle he would have the ability to see the extension. Mr. Garrett continued; he spoke with staff regarding the Utilities Department's comments in the staff report which refers to a sewer line and a water line. Pearl Street is on the east side of Broadway so there was an error in the staff report; there is no water/ sewer line or alley between his property and the property to the rear. The Utilities Department has no issues . 13 • • • Mr. Seymour asked for the total square footage of the encroachment. Mr. Garrett stated he did not know the exact square footage of the encroachment; it is a very small triangle. He tried to work it so there wouldn't be an encroachment but it made the garage 1 7 feet deep which is not enough for a standard car. Mr. Fruchtl concurred with Mr. Garrett's statement regarding Pearl Street and the alley. Additionally, staff spoke with the Utilities Department and noted there are no obstructions within that area . Any issues that would need to be addressed would be done at the time of the building permit. 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 #17-2003 , 825 WEST QUINCY AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 1 FOOT 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A 1 O' 5 " X 18' 9 " ADDITION ONTO AN EXISTING GARAGE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-2:M1e MINIMUM REAR YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. The unusual shape of the lot and the buildings on the lot more than justify the variance. It observes the spirit of the Ordinance because it provides for off-street parking. It provides an amenity typical to the neighborhood which will not adversely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood. It won 't impact or impair the use or development of the adjacent property since it is already developed. It is the least modification necessary to expand the garage and appears to be less than a 5 square foot encroachment. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bode, Ms. O 'Brien, Mr. Sprecace, Mr. Seymour, and Chair Carlston stated they voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith, and Sprecace None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote . 14 • • • IX. CASE #10-2003 Matthew Bednorz 4508 South Pearl 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 Section 16-4-4:H Minimum Front Yard of the Englewood Municipal Code. Chair Carlston distributed a letter provided by the applicant to the other members. Matthew Bednorz, 4508 South Pearl Street, was sworn in. Mr. Bednorz thanked the Board for allowing him to move his case to the end of the meeting. He is a seventh grade teacher at Flood Middle School and it was back to school night. He stated he is requesting a variance for 6 feet 6 inches into the front yard setback. He moved into the house as a first- time homeowner in March 2003 and immediately began to seek ways to improve upon the home. One item that became apparent as an improvement was a front porch. Within the neighborhood there are a number of porches. With the addition of a porch, the house value will increase and will take its place among numerous other houses in the neighborhood with porches. He is asking the Board to grant the variance on the basis that it will increase the value of his house and the neighborhood. Twenty-five percent of the houses on the block share similar characteristics of having a porch in the same manner he would like to build his porch. Included in the Board's packet are copies of digital photos demonstrating what he has explained . Mr. Bednorz continued; his neighbor to the north, Patricia Mueller, of 4500 South Pearl Street had planned to be present and speak in favor of the request; however, she had a prior obligation. She provided a very generous letter in favor of the porch. Mr. Sprecace asked if a porch had previously existed. Mr. Bednorz stated there was not; there was a stoop. At the beginning of the summer, he was not aware of the restriction s and had already framed the porch and poured the concrete. If he does not receive the variance, he will be happy with the way it is now. Mr. Seymour confirmed that the concrete is the width of the porch. Mr. Bednorz stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour asked the applicant to describe the roof design. Mr. Bednorz stated he will take some of the top shingles and bring it out with four posts in the front. Mr. Seymour asked if it would be similar to a shed roof. Mr. Bednorz responded yes. 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: 15 • • • THAT CASE #10-2003 , 4508 SOUTH PEARL STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 6 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A 32 FEET 2 INCH X 6 FEET COVERED PORCH. TOTAL ENCROACHMENT INCLUDES THE EXISTING HOME WHICH ENCROACHES 6 INCHES. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-4:H MINIMUM FRONT YARD OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes. Ms . O'Brien, Mr. Sprecace, Mr. Bode, and Mr. Baker stated they voted yes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted yes. It meets all the conditions . Mr. Smith stated he voted no . Chair Carlston stated she voted yes. When the home was constructed in 1947 it was constructed 6 inches into the required 25 foot front yard setback which was established in 1940 b y the Zoning Ordinance. It observes the spirit of Ordinance because porches are common in the neighborhood. The home was constructed in 1947 in violation of the front yard setback. The porch is an amenity that is typical to the neighborhood. Adjacent properties are developed with similar covered porches that encroach into the required front yard setback. It is the least modification to grant relief; the applicant has already poured the concrete and it will look odd if the Board restricts the modification . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien , Seymour, Sprecace Smith None None The Chair announced the motion approved b y a 6-1 vote. X. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the July 9, 2003 public hearing. Chair Carlston stated the vote on the Findings of Fact shows Mr. Sprecace both "aye" and abstaining. The Minutes should reflect an "aye " vote. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Bode seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: THE MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2003 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith, Sprecace None None None 16 • The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. • • XI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #7-2003, 2975 SOUTH OGDEN STREET AND CASE #8-2003, 4360 SOUTH GALAPAGO STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 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. XII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated there was a memo in the Board 's packet that the picnic generally held every yea r for employees and Board/Commission members is not being held due to budgetary constraints . Last month when Mayor Bradshaw was in attendance, the acting recording secretary displayed the Board's vote on the voting panel. Mayor Bradshaw noted that the Board 's names were not on the voting panel and asked if the Board wanted name plates made for the voting panel. Historically, the Board has not used the voting panel. Ms. Reid stated that when the Board uses the voting buttons it shows the recording secretary when the members have completed voting. Ms. O 'Brien stated that due to the current budget constraints, the money could be used elsewhere. Ms. Langon stated the Planning and Zoning Commission came to the same conclusion. The Board agreed to continue their normal practice and not use the voting panel. The roll call vote is sufficient. Ms. Langon stated the next meeting is September 10. One case for a 25 feet encroachment into the 25 foot setback for a porch at 2931 South Washington Street is scheduled . The tabled case will also be heard if the applicants provide sufficient information for the hearing. Ms. Reid stated if the applicants supply sufficient information, staff should place it in the Board 's packet. Mr. Smith can then reopen the public hearing. Mr. Smith stated it is up to the applicants to provide the information. If not, the y can wait until October. XIII. CITY A TIORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further . 17 XIV. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE • The Board had nothing further . brought before the Board. The meeting was declared • • 18