Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-12 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS March 12, 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: Secretary 's Note: Alternate member: Staff present: Baker, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith William Bode One vacancy David Sprecace Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Chair Carlston stated there were five members present; therefore, four affirmative votes are required to grant a variance . Chair Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or den y variances by Part Ill , 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 #2-2003 Brian and Tracie Bleile 4201 South Clarkson 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 exceed the combined maximum total floor area of all garages and carports of 1,000 square feet b y 500 square feet. This request is a variance to Section 16-4-4 :M 1 f Maximum Total Floor Area of the Englewood Municipal Code. Brian Bleile, 4201 South Clarkson Street, was sworn in . Mr. Bleile stated the hobbies and lifestyle he and his wife currently have don 't fit within their current space . He wants to increase the square footage of their garage to 1,500 square feet, which is the minimum that would allow them to easily work on their hobbies with the least amount of inconvenience. • • • Currently, they utilize relatives ' houses, garages and other storage lots. The y would like to consolidate everything into one garage. Ms. O 'Brien asked the applicant to define his hobbies . Mr. Bleile responded their hobbies are automobile collecting and woodworking. His wife and family do antique furniture restoration. They currently do the woodworking on the back porch, but weather can be uncooperati v e at times . Chair Carlston asked the applicant how many automobiles would be stored in the garage. Mr. Bleile responded four automobiles and a boat would be stored in the proposed garage. Currently the boat is outside at a storage lot. Chair Carlston asked for the width of the garage. Mr. Bleile stated the width of the garage is 25 feet, which would not be altered. Ms. O 'Brien confirmed that all the cars would be inside the garage and there wouldn't be any stored in the back yard or on the street. Mr. Bleile responded; nothing would be stored in the back y ard. Tw o vehicles would be stored on the street, an old truck and a 4-door long bed truck. Ms. Reid asked if the two vehicles were licensed . Mr. Bleile stated all the automobiles are currentl y licensed. Chair Carlston asked if he plans to use the same materials as the present garage . Mr. Bleile stated they are looking into brick or possibl y a half brick and stucco or siding. The brick ma y be cost prohibiti v e. The main goal is to keep it at least half brick. Chair Carlston stated the Building and Safety Di v ision noted in the staff report that a one-hour separation wall is required between the furniture repair and the vehicle storage. Mr. Bleile stated he was aware of the requirement. David Brereton, 4185 South Clarkson Street, w as sworn in. Mr. Brereton stated he lives two houses directly north of the property. He testified that he has nothing personal against the applicants; they have never met. He wished them all the best in whatever the y do with the exception of seeking the variance . Mr. Brereton stated he is not anti-growth; he has neighbors at 4175 and 4155 South Clarkson who have built garages on the order of approximately 750 square feet. He found both of those garages acceptable. He has a neighbor directly to the west who is in the process of building an addition onto the house which will probably triple the size of the house. He finds the addition acceptable. Mr. Brereton stated he was at the meeting to request the Board to deny the variance for several reasons . There is nothing unique about the property which warrants a variance. There is no exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, or topographic conditions which would require a variance. In short, there is nothing about the property that makes strict application of the Ordinance inappropriate. Mr. Brereton stated he assumes the variance request is based on lot size . It is a 9,500 square foot lot, which is approximately one and a half times the size of other lots on the block. Mr. Brereton pointed out that the Ordinance as it pertains to accessory buildings requires a maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet irrespecti v e of lot size . There is no condition in the Ordinance for the size of the lot. 2 • • • Mr. Brereton testified that the proposed garage is 20 % larger than the house . It is larger than any garage or home on the block. It would be the largest structure on the 4200 block of South Clarkson. Mr. Brereton submitted an analysis of the 4200 block of South Clarkson stating Figure 1 shows the proposed garage is 1.5 times the size of the average house on the block, which he finds to be excessive . Another consideration is the property is a corner lot. Although the lot is larger than normal, it is an aggravating factor from the standpoint that the garage will be visible from both South Clarkson and East Princeton . It will be a large garage which will be more visible by the virtue that it is on a corner lot. Mr. Brereton stated that by strict application of the Ordinance, no hardship exists. There are other storage options available. Figure 2 shows 10 different Englewood storage locations where one can store boats and cars . To sum up, Mr. Brer eton testified that the proposed building is too large. There is no reasonable basis for the variance . He believes it will be an eye sore that will harm the neighborhood, and the owners are not harmed by strict application of the Ordinance. He requested the Board to deny the variance. Ms. O 'Brien stated she is trying to understand Mr. Brereton 's concern . There will be a house in the center of the yard which will take up a portion of the v iew from the front. From the side, there will be a side view of the garage . She stated she is unclear why he feels it will be so apparent that it is lar ger and how it will impact him. Mr. Brereton responded ; he can easil y see the area where the proposed gara ge is expected to be built from his backy ard. It is easil y visible from East Princeton and is now visible from South Clarkson. He stated he believes the garage is too large and doesn't fit the neighborhood. It would be the largest structure on the block. Ms. O 'Brien asked if he talked with any of the neighbors and do they feel the same . Mr. Brereton stated he has not talked to the neighbors. Mr. Seymour asked Mr. Brereton if the garage would block any view from his property. Mr. Brereton stated it wouldn 't block an y view, but he would be able to see it from his backy ard. Chair Carlston asked the applicant if he wished to make a rebuttal. Mr. Bleile stated Englewood is not a large community with multi-million dollar lots and different housing sizes . It is mostly single-story ranch type dwellings. He does not intend to break that spirit or to dishonor Englewood's type of architecture. To the contrary, some of the surrounding houses are adding on hundreds of square foot additions which is just changing with the times. They are not out to cause anyone a hardship or block anyone's view. They have talked to the neighbors surrounding the property and they have no objections. The proposed garage will provide a better lifestyle for them , which is what the Ordinance allows . Mr. Seymour stated the lot is oversized, 11,3 75 square feet. The District allows 40 percent lot coverage, and with the new garage and the house, the lot coverage is under 25 percent. Mr. Bleile stated the lot coverage would be 24.6 percent. 3 • • • Mr. Baker stated he had a question regarding the one-hour separation wall between the woodworking shop and the car storage. He stated he didn 't see the wall on the Plan. Chair Carlston stated it is mentioned in the staff report within the Building and Safety Division comments . Mr. Smith stated it is a building permit issue, as opposed to a variance issue. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in . Ms. O'Brien asked whether a condition could be placed on the variance that the lot not be split. Ms. Langon stated the property could not be subdivided because there would not be sufficient lot area. 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 #2-2003 , 4201 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE COMBINED MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL GARAGES AND CARPORTS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET BY 500 SQUARE FEET TO CONSTRUCT A 9 75 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 525 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE MAKING THE TOTAL GARAGE FLOOR AREA 1,500 SQUARE FEET WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THAT THE EXISTING 8'X20 ' CARPORT LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE EXISTING GARAGE BE REMOVED UPON COMPLETION OF THE GARAGE EXPANSION ; AND 2. THAT THE EXISTING 100 SQUARE FOOT SHED LOCATED BEHIND AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE EXISTING GARAGE BE REMOVED UPON COMPLETION OF THE GARAGE EXPANSION . THIS IS A VARIANCE TO 16-4-4:M 1 f MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Seymour stated he visited the property and doesn't see where the garage will block anyone 's view. Garages can be seen up and down the alley, so the proposed garage will be consistent with the neighborhood . Ms. O'Brien stated the oversized lot with the house and the proposed garage total under 25 % of the lot coverage when 40 % is allowed. She stated she is concerned when a neighbor shows the interest to address the Board ; however, she balances that against the five neighbor supporting statements which are in more direct line of vision. The existing garage structure is located closer to Princeton than would be the addition so it should not be an additional eyesore . The addition will make the garage longer along the back property line but not wider. The lot is large enough to support the proposed garage without looking unduly obtrusive. 4 • • • Mr. Smith agreed with Ms. O'Brien; the profile of the garage will not change much. Chair Carlston stated she also agreed with Ms. O'Brien. When she went down the alley, she observed some very large garages on the alley. Due to the size of the lot, the garage should not impact the neighborhood. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. The first criterion was met because of the exceptional size of the lot; it is oversized as opposed to most lots in the R 1 C zone. The second criterion was also met. The addition provides for less cars on the street. It observes the spirit of the Ordinance by allowing the applicant an amenity which most people would like to have. The third criterion was met because it does not adversely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood . The adjacent property owners support the variance and the adjacent properties are already developed. It is the minimum variance and modification because it supports what the applicants want to do. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith and also for the reasons she stated earlier. Mr. Se y mour stated he voted y es , concurring with Mr. Smith . He sees no problem with the addition; it fits with the other lar ge garages in the neighborhood . Mr. Baker and Chair Carlston stated they voted y es, concurrin g w ith Mr. Smith . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, O 'Brien , Se y mour, and Smith None None Bode The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 v ote. 111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the Minutes from the January 8, 2003 public hearing. Mr. Se y mour mov ed ; Mr. Smith seconded: THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2003 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, O'Brien, Se y mour, Smith None None Bode 5 • The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote. • • Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the amended Minutes from the December 11, 2002 public hearing. The Minutes were amended to reflect Ms. Davidson's absence . Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11 , 2002 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. Baker, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith None None Bode IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #1-2003, 3280 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith None None Bode The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote. V. ELECTIONS Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: THAT JILL CARLSTON BE ELECTED AS CHAIR AND MARCIA O'BRIEN BE ELECTED AS VICE CHAIR BY ACCLAMATION . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Baker, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith None None Bode Motion carried . 6 • • • VI. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon introduced David Sprecace, the new alternate member to the Board. The Board has a one-year residency requirement; therefore, Mr. Sprecace will be appointed as a regular member of the Board when he has been a resident of Englewood for one year, which is the end of April. Mr. Sprecace should be able to participate at the May meeting. Ms. Langon stated there was one case for the April meeting. The property is located at 3900 South Galapago Street for a variance to encroach into the rear setback. VII. CITY A TIORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VIII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Seymour stated he attended the City Council meeting on March 10 where Mr. Fruchtl presented a proposal to increase the fees for Planning and Zoning, as we ll as the Board of Adjustment. A study of 15 municipalities was conducted, and average fees were developed. Mr. Seymour stated a couple of City Council members questioned the proposed variance fee, $225, which is above the average, $189. Mr. Seymour suggested $100 is a more reasonable fee. Mr. Seymour stated he didn't believe applicants should have to pay for their justice. Ms. O'Brien asked for the range of fees for the municipalities surveyed. Ms. Langon stated she didn't bring the fee survey. The average for a variance was $189, as Mr. Seymour stated. To provide some background, Ms. Langon stated every City department was directed to re view fees and to bring forward new fee schedules. The last time any of the land development fees were raised was in the mid-1980's. Every fee has been raised at some level and with the update of the Unified Development Code there will be new procedures which are also included in the fee schedule. The fee schedule encompasses all land use related items and does not affect permit fees within the Building Department. One of the reasons to increase the fees is because the City was not close to the Metro average; also, the Council directed the departments to look at some cost recovery. Ms. Reid stated a fee must reflect a cost; otherwise it becomes a tax . All the proposed fees have to be rationally related to the cost of the process. When staff presents the proposed fees to Council, they provide justification for increasing those fees, which was done in this case. Discussion ensued . 7 • • • Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE VARIANCE FEE NOT EXCEED $125 AND THAT STAFF COMMUNICATE THAT INFORMATION TO CITY COUNCIL. FURTHER, THAT CHAIR CARLSTON WRITE A LEDER TO CITY COUNCIL CONVEYING THE BOARD 'S RECOMMENDATION . Baker, Carlston , O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith None None Bode Motion carried. Chair Carlston thanked the City for sponsoring Mr . Se ymour and her attendance at the ICBO Conference last week. She attended Mr . Stitt 's Zoning and Land Use class and it was ver y good. She stated the Board would still like to schedule Mr. Stitt for a presentation to the Board. Ms. Langon stated Mr. Stitt has a conflict on Wednesday evenings, but perhaps the Board could meet on a different night to hear the presentation. Ms . Langon stated she would attempt to schedule an evening for Mr . Stitt to make his presentation to the Board . There was no further business brought before the Board . The meeting was declared adjourned at 8 :25 p.m . 8