Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-08 BAA MINUTES• • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS September 8, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Sprecace presiding. Members present: Bode, Carlston, Cohn, O'Brien, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace Members absent: None Staff present: Anthony Fruchtl, Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Chair Sprecace stated there were seven members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a vari a nce or appeal. Chair Sprecace 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. Variances granted by the Board are subject to a 30-da y appeal period. Variances are effective at the end of the appeal period. Building permits for construction associated with an approved variance will not be issued until the appeal period is ended. Building permits must be obtained and construction begun within 180 days of the variance's effective date . Chair Sprecace 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. II. CASE #2004-25 Susan Torkelson 383 7 South Clarkson Street Chair Sprecace declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication . He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 6.7 feet into the required 25 foot front setback. This is a variance to Table 16-6-1.1 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Susan Torkelson, 3837 South Clarkson , was sworn in. Ms. Torkelson stated the Board previously granted her a variance in February 2002, but she was unaware she only had 180 days to obtain a building permit. Due to a financial situation, she was unable to build the porch within that time frame. When she recently tried to obtain the building permit, she • was informed she would need to reapply for the variance. • • • She is requesting a variance to build a porch on the front of her house. Most of the properties on the block have porches . Looking at the front of her house, it appears she has a 46 foot deep front lawn ; however, the City owns the first 20 feet of her front yard which is more than on other blocks. Encroaching into the 25 front setback still places the porch quite a distance from the street. Ms. Carlston asked the applicant when she purchased the house . Ms. Torkelson responded that she has owned the house for approximately 14 years. Mr . Cohn stated it appears the applicant is only asking for an additional 3 foot encroachment since the house already encroaches 4 feet into the front setback. Ms. Torkelson stated that was correct; the steps will come off the north so they won't be encroaching. Mr. Cohn stated the staff report indicates that if the porch were built 30 inches off the ground , a variance would not be required. Ms . Torkelson stated she also read that in the staff report, but she was unaware that it was an option. The porch is designed so the floor of the porch is level with the step into the house . If the porch is built 30 inches above ground, she would need to construct steps into the house. Her preference is to ha ve the porch floor level with the house which is less than 30 inches above grade. Ms. Shotwell confirmed that the reason Ms. Torkelson doesn 't want to construct the porch at 30 inches is because she didn 't know about the provision that would allow her to construct a porch 30 inches above grade without a variance, and because she would have to step down into the house . Ms. Torkelson stated she would have to step up two stairs into the house, rather than it just being flat. If it is built at 36 inches the porch is at the threshold of the door. If it is built 30 inches , two steps will need to be constructed to get into the house. Currently, there is only one step. Ms. Shotwell asked if there were any other reasons why the porch couldn 't be constructed at 30 inches. Ms. Torkelson stated she has an aging mother who visits and would prefer to have as few steps as possible . Mr. Cohn asked if there would be a concrete pad and then wall in the front. Ms . Torkelson stated the porch is designed to have footers and lattice work. There is a single window in the area; and she doesn't want to use concrete in case she had to use the window for escape purposes. Ms. Shotwell asked if a person had been hired to draw the plans. Ms. Torkelson stated she already hired a contractor, and has a drawing if the Board would like to see it. Ms. Reid stated if the drawing is presented to the Board , it is entered as part of the permanent record and cannot be returned . The applicant may use words to describe the drawing to the Board if she doesn't wish to leave the drawing. Ms. Torkelson stated the porch is 3 feet off the ground with steps coming off the south side of the porch. It will have a California-style roof which will have slats spaced every 12-15 inches . It will not have a solid roof. She originally wanted a solid roof, but the pitches in her roof go two different directions. Trying to construct a solid roof on the porch would mean removing part of the original roof or building on top of the roof; the cost was 2 • • • prohibitive. She did want to have some type of covering because there is a large window in the living room and would like to have some type of shade. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner was sworn in. Mr. Fruchtl stated with regards to the height of the porch, the Ordinance states if a porch is more than 30 inches above grade and covered, the porch can encroach up to 5 feet into the front setback. The existing house already encroaches 3.7 feet into the existing setback; the applicant only has the ability to construct a porch that is only 1.3 feet. This option was not presented to the applicant because it was not a viable option with regards to her design criteria . Mr. Cohn asked Ms. Reid why the Board could not look at the applicant's drawing. Ms. Reid stated that once the applicant showed the Board the drawing it would have become part of the record since the Board would have used it to make its determination. It then becomes part of the permanent case record and cannot be returned to the applicant. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance . Chair Sprecace incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Cohn seconded: THAT CASE #2004-25, 383 7 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 6.7 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A 1 7 FEET BY 7 FEET (119 SQUARE FOOT) COVERED FRONT PORCH. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO TABLE 16-6-1.1 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Ms. Carlston stated she drove b y the property and the setback is quite substantial. A porch would not create an imposition in the neighborhood. Mr. Cohn stated there are very similar porches in the neighborhood . Mr. Smith stated the only thing that has changed since February 2002 is the Ordinance, which appears to be more liberal. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted yes . The depth of the front yard creates an unusual physical condition. It is consistent with the intent of the zone district which allows front porches . It won 't permanently impair use or development of adjacent property since the adjacent properties are developed. The essential character of the neighborhood is residential which have front porches. The need for the variance is not self-imposed . Mr. Bode and Mr. Cohn voted yes , concurring with Mr. Smith . Ms. Shotwell voted yes . It is not a self-imposed hardship ; the house is already 3.7 feet into the front setback. The variance was previously granted and nothing has changed . It fits with the spirit of the Ordinance; the porch will be an improvement and asset to the neighborhood. 3 • Ms. Carlston, Ms . O 'Brien, and Chair Sprecace stated they voted yes, concurring with Ms. • • Shotwell and Mr. Smith. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston , Cohn, O'Brien, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote and instructed the applicant to contact the Planning staff for an y add itional or necessary information. Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Sprecace asked for consideration of the Minutes from the August 11, 2004 public he aring . Mr. Bode mov ed ; Mr. Smith seconded : THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11 , 2004 BE APPROVED . AYES: NAYS: Bode, Carlston , Cohn, O 'Brien , Shotw ell , Smith , Sprecace None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried. The Chair announced the motion appro v ed by a 7-0 vote. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith mov ed ; Ms. Carlston seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #2004-20, 3911 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston , Cohn, O 'Brien , Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace None None None The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote . 4 • • • v . STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Fruchtl stated a variance at 4363 South Cherokee Street is scheduled for October. The variance is to encroach into the front setback for a porch which was destroyed in the March blizzard. VI. CITY A TIORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid distributed two case articles from the Zoning Bulletin for the Board to review. VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Smith asked how long exhibits are kept. Ms. Fenton stated the retention schedule set up by the State Archivist requires that all documents pertaining to a variance are permanent records . Mr . Smith stated it appears the fourth criterion has changed. He asked Ms. Reid to research why the criterion was changed and an interpretation of a "self-imposed hardship ." Mr . Fruchtl stated when the Ordinance was written, the intent was to make the criterion more restrictive with regards to self-imposed hardships. Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid stated she would do some research . Ms. Carlston asked if the Board 's criterion was explained to City Council at a recent stud y session . Mr. Fruchtl stated it was reviewed and approved by City Council during the UDC adoption . Ms. Carlson stated there was also a recent study session where the criterion was explained to City Council. Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct; a study session was held with Council approximately two months. Ms . O'Brien asked who presented the information to Council. Mr. Fruchtl responded that Mr . Simpson, Ms. Langon, and he were before City Council. Mr. Smith stated if staff made a presentation to Council , the Board should see the same presentation. Mr . Fruchtl stated it was not a formal presentation; staff provided Council with a staff report which he will provide the Board in their next packet. There was no further business brought before the Board . The regular meeting was declared adjourned at 8 :05 p.m . 5