Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS October 13, 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 pres idin g. Members present: Carlston, Cohn, Shotwell, Smith , Sprecace Members absent: Bode, O 'Brien . Staff present: Anthony Fruchtl, Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Chair Sprecace stated ther e were fi ve members present; therefore, four affi rm ative votes are required to grant a variance 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-day appeal period. Variances are effective at the end of the appea l period. Building permits for construction associated with an app roved 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 wi ll be intro duced; applicants wi ll present their request and reasons the va ri anc e should be granted; proponents will be given an opportunity to speak; opponents wi ll address the Board ; and then staff w ill address the Board. II. CASE #2004-30 Louis Underbakke 4363 South Cherokee Chair Sprecace declared the Public Hearing open, sta tin g he had proof of pos tin g and publication. Chair Sprecace also stated the applican t submitted additiona l neighbor's statements and placed those into the record. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroa ch 12 feet 8 inche s into the required 25 foot front setback. This is a variance to Table 16-6-1.1 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Louis Underbakke, Attorney at Law, Registration Number 34805, 400 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 was sworn in. Mr. Underbakke t estified he submitted th e justifications in writing and wou ld summarize them briefl y for the Bo ard. There was a snowstorm in 2003. Prior to 2003, there was a 5 foot porch on the subje ct property which is owned by Mrs. Ruth Maynard, who is in the audience. The snow caused the porch cover • • • to collapse. A picture of the porch was included in the Board 's packet; he has the originals if the Board wishes to see them. After the snowstorm, Mrs. Maynard received an estimate from Alsco and couldn't pull a permit because the house and porch encroach into the front setback. The initial plan review summary states the house encroaches 10 feet into the front setback. He measured it with a ruler; from the front of the house to the beginning of the sidewalk it comes out 24 feet 1 inch. From the front of the house to the end of the sidewalk, it comes out 26 feet 1 inch. According to property owner, the property line ends at the fence; therefore it is not encroaching 10 feet but rather 12 feet 8 inches. Because of the property line starting so far from the sidewalk, it is actually fairly close, within a foot, of where it is supposed to be because the porch can encroach 5 feet into the setback. If the porch cover cannot be reconstructed, the patio cement slab still encroaches . . When the water hits the cement porch, the water shoots into the sill of the door, and it is rotting it out. When the cover was up, the water would just run off. Additionally, the cement porch can become icy in the winter which becomes a safety issue for the homeowner. The porch cover will make the porch safer in the winter. The porch is exactly the same size as what previously existed. It will be two poles with a cover. Last month 's case which th e Board approved is very similar with the exception of the encroachment and Mrs. Maynard's porch was pre-existing. The previous case was not a pre-exis ting porch; Mrs. Maynard is only asking to replace what was previously existing before the snowstorm . Mr. Underbakke stated the president of Alsco was present and could speak to the issue of the design of the porch cover and how it would blend into the neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated that most of the Board members have probably driven by the neighborhood. Chair Sprecace asked if there were any plans available of the porch. Mr. Underbakke submitted a brochure from the Mason Corporation on carport and patio cover into the record . Mr. Underbakke stated he also has a photograph showing the patio cover after it collapsed. Ms. Carlston stated the photograph was included in the packet. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner was sworn in. Mr. Fruchtl stated that Mr. Cohn contacted staff regarding right-of-way widths along Cherokee Street and within the City of Englewood. The right-of-way width along Cherokee is a 60 foot right-of-way. On the 4200 block, 4300 block, and 4400 block of South Cherokee, the paved width is 30 feet and is not centered . The 4500 block of South Cherokee has a larger paved width of right-of-way which is 39.5 feet. 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; Ms. Carlston seconded: 2 • • • THAT CASE #2004-30, 4363 SOUTH CHEROKEE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 12 FEET 8 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO REPLACE A PATIO COVER. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO TABLE 16-6-1.1 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Ms. Carlston stated she drove through the neighborhood and there are a number of homes on the same side of the street that have covered porches similar to what existed on the owner's house. Mr. Cohn stated that most of the houses on the west side of the street are approximately the same distance back from the sidewalk. Mr. Smith stated it will certainly improve the appearance of the house. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes . . Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. The surroundings of the neighborhood are a unique physical condition since most of the homes have covered porches. Denying the variance would deprive th e homeowner of that privilege. It is consistent with the intent of the zone district regulations to secure the public health, safety, and welfare because it will protect the front of the house, porch and sidewalk and assist with the ice and snow problem. It will not permanentl y impair the use or development of the adjacent conforming properties because they are already developed. It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is not a self-imposed hardship because the cover was destroyed by a snowstorm and was not caused by the homeowner . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, Cohn, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace None None Bode, O 'Brien The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote and instructed the applicant to contact the Plannin g staff for any additional or necessar y information . Chair Carlston commended the applicant on a thorough packet submittal. Mr. Underbakke thanked the Board for their kindness and consideration. Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Sprecace asked for consideration of the Minutes from the September 8, 2004 public hearing. Mr. Smith moved; Ms. Shotwell seconded: THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 BE APPROVED. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: Carlston, Cohn, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace None None 3 • • • ABSENT: Bode, O'Brien Motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved; Ms. Shotwell seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #2004-25, 3837 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, Cohn, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace None None Bode, O 'Brien The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-0 vote. V. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Fruchtl stated a case was scheduled for November; it is located at 3715 South Bannock Street and is a variance to encroach 6.5 feet into the front setback and 2 feet into the side setback. Mr. Smith stated a variance was granted to encroach 12 feet 8 inches into the front setback; thereby granting a variance for a nonconforming use for the first 8.8 feet of the variance . Mr. Smith stated he didn 't mind granting the homeowner the variance for the porch, but if the house was destroyed he wouldn 't want the house to be rebuilt into the setback . Mr. Fruchtl stated in the past there have been variance cases brought to the Board where the house has encroached 8 .8 feet and the proposed porch encroaches additional feet that way it covers everything. That way if the house were to be destroy ed it can be rebuilt into the setback . With regard to the nonconforming use, Mr. Fruchtl referred the question to Ms . Reid . Ms. Reid stated the Board can always impose conditions on the variance for just the porch . If there is an issue, the Board can state as part of its motion that it is conditioned upon the nonconforming encroachment and if the nonconforming use actually disappears than the variance goes away. Mr. Smith stated he would really like staff to consider it because it should be their policy as to how they are handled . From the current case , the Board granted a motion to 12 feet 8 inches into the required 25 foot front setback to replace a patio cover. If that house is destroyed, he is not sure the homeowner couldn't build a house that goes up to the 12 feet 8 inches. He's not sure that is what the City would want; he would think the City would want them to rebuild within the setback. If that is true, he is asking staff to rephrase the motion . Mr. Fruchtl stated one of the options staff can do is present the variance with conditions for the Board to approve. 4 • • VI. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she was asked by the Board to conduct research regarding self-imposed hardships. She distributed a memo to the Board of her research with a definition attached from a zoning handbook. Discussion ensued. She asked the Board to review the research and proposed it be discussed further at a future meeting if necessary. VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Smith stated the Board received the information staff provided to Council for the study session . He is curious as to what happened in the case that caused such concern and was it just because it was painted blue. Ms. Reid stated Council had some concerns regarding what was granted; the fact tbat the applicant painted it blue made everyone notice it more. Mr. Smith stated what is not in the material was the outcome. Ms. Reid stated it is her understanding that the matter has not been resolved; the applicant built it taller than the variance allowed and it is still on appeal. Discussion ensued . Mr. Fruchtl stated the applicant constructed the garage based on his plans and it is currentl y being measured to ensure that it meets the height limit. Mr. Smith stated he would like to know what was built and whether it was consistent with what the Board granted, or whether what the Board granted somehow created the controversy in the neighborhood . Mr. Simpson stated Mr. Bleile constructed a garage after the Board granted the variance; it is an oversized garage . There was concern regarding the measurement of the height of the structure, but staff has signed off with the condition that the temporary structures on the property be removed. Mr. Simpson stated the garage is generally constructed to 18 feet. Ms. Shotw ell asked what the outcome would be if the Board granted a variance and the applicant built the structure 5 feet taller. Mr. Simpson stated staff would not grant the permit and the applicant would either need to bring the structure into compliance or return to the Board to seek another variance. If the Board denied the variance, the applicant would need to remove the 5 feet. Mr. Smith stated that in the Bleile case, the variance was to the footprint of the garage, not the hei ght. Mr. Simpson stated that was correct. Discussion ensued. Ms. Carlston pointed out that the anal y sis section of the staff report should be corrected to reflect four criterion rather than five. Further Ms . Carlston asked for clarification on the numbering of cases . Mr. Fruchtl responded that all departmental cases are now contained in one location and are numbered as they are received in the department regardless of what ty pe of file it is -variance, subdivision, encroachment, etc. The case is assigned the next sequential case number. Mr. Smith asked if the case summary the Board receives at the end of the year will reflect all the cases , including Planning Commission. The recording secretary responded she will summarizes all the cases received and reviewed b y the • department for the Board 's review. Also , the City will be migrating to a new permit tracking 5 • • • software the first quarter of 2005 which will again change the case numbers . Mr. Fruchtl further explained the permit tracking software and its features. There was no further business brought before the Board . The regular meeting was declared adjourned at 8 :30 p.m. --;//t/4 · ~ Nancy~ton , Recording Secretary 6