HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-13 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MIN UTES
BO ARD OF ADJUS TMEN T AND APPEALS
April 13, 2005
I. CALL TO OR D ER
The regular meeting of the Englewood Boa rd of Adjustment and A p pea ls was ca ll ed to
order at 7:30 p .m. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Carlston presiding.
Members present: Carlston, Cohn, Green, O 'Brien, Smith, Sprecace
Members absent: Shotwell (unexcused )
Staff present: Anthony Fruchtl, Planner
Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney
Chair Carlston stated there were six members p resent; therefore, five affirmative votes are
required to grant a varianc e or app eal.
Chair Carlston stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empow ered to grant or
den y 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. Bu ilding permits m u st be obtai n ed and
construction begun within 180 da y s of the variance 's effective date.
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
t he Board .
II. CASE #VAR0 5 0 3-00 0 1
Douglas Olmsted and Ma ri lyn Heidrick
3 7 15 South Bannock 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 va riance to encroach 3 feet into th e
required 25 foot front setback. This is a variance to Tab l e 16-6-1.1 of the Eng l ewood
Municipal Code.
Douglas Olmsted and Marilyn Heidrick, 3 7 15 South Bannock St reet were sworn in . Mr.
Olmsted stated the y started a project to build an addition on t hei r house, and part of the
initial p lan, which was not well defined, was a deck. They sta rted construction on the deck
and had some questions regarding some detai ls of the deck, went down to the C ity, and
learned their initial permit was voided . At that ti m e, they were to ld t o reapply fo r a pe rmit
•
•
for the deck and to submit more detailed plans. They started building the deck under the
assumption that they were building it within the limits of the setbacks, but they were
operating under incorrect information as to where their property lines were located . They
learned that their property line was closer to the house than they originally believed.
Before they did any more work on the deck, they called for an on-site inspection from the
Building Department. The Building Department came out, determined that structurally the
decked looked good, but were unsure of the dimensions of the deck. Mr. Olmstead stated
they stopped work on the deck before the Stop Work Order was issued by the City for
encroaching into the setback.
Mr. Olmstead continued; he is attempting to reach a compromise. The deck originall y
extended out much farther; he is now proposing to cut the cantilever off, which would be
cutting the deck back approximately 3.5 feet. The deck would project approximately 3 feet
into the front setback rather than the original 6 .5 feet.
Mr. Olmstead stated there were some errors made as to where his property line was
located; he built the deck too long, but he reiterated he thought he was within his property
lines when he started the project. Rather than demolish a large portion of the deck and
relocate the beams, he reiterated that he would like to compromise and cut back the
cantilever. By doing so , he doesn't believe the deck wi ll extend out any further than most
of the structures on the neighbors' properties .
Mr. Green asked how the applicants were unsure where the 25 foot front setback was
located. Mr. Olmsted responded that when they st arted the addition on the house, a City
staff member from the Buildin g Department provide them with the specifications for their
on-site plan , and they were under the assumption the y had 51 feet from their house to the
property line which they believed was close to the curb . That was the assumption under
which they started building their addition in 2001. They knew they needed to be within 25
feet of the property line; the y thought they actually had an additional foot. In earl y 2004
when they reapplied for a permit because the original permit expired, they were called by
the City to remeasure everything for the new permit. At that time, the y learned their
property line is 6 .5 -7 feet closer than the y ori gi nally thought.
Chair Carlston asked when the posts where put in. Mr. Olmsted stated the posts were
started in 2003 or 2004. The y went to the City to discuss the design of the deck, which is
when they learned the permit had been voided and reapplied for the new permit. They
provided them new drawings for the deck at that time.
Referring to the photographs, Mr. Cohn confirmed that the applicants want to cut off the
deck from the vertical beams forward. Mr. Olmsted stated that was correct.
Ms. O 'Brien stated the Board has four criteria it must consider; she asked how the request
meets the first criterion, specificall y what is unique about the property. Mr. Olmsted
responded it is one of a few houses in the neighborhood that has a driveway on a hill
• which has an "S" curve to the driveway.
2
•
•
•
Mr. Smith asked for the elevation difference between the street and the top of the
driveway. Mr. Olmsted responded; it is approximately 65 feet. It is fairly steep; the
driveway curves around an old maple tree.
Ms. O'Brien asked how the request met the fourth criterion, which is that it is not a self-
imposed hardship. Mr. Olmsted responded that they did not intentionally incorrectly build
the deck or intentionally violate City regulations. His understanding of a self-imposed
hardship is that they did something intentionally wrong. They recognize they made
mistakes, but they were operating under good faith. They thought they were building the
deck from their property line. For those reasons , he doesn't believe they imposed their
hardship. The original plan for the first permit had the wrong property line and all the
dimensions on the permit, which was approved by the City. When the original plan was
designed, it did not have a lot of detail regarding the deck but the property line information
was received from the City. Mr. Olmsted reiterated they started construction on the deck
under information they received from the City as to where their property line was located;
unfortunately the information was incorrect. Again, he doesn 't see where that would be a
self-imposed hardship.
Chair Carlston asked the applicants whether or not the y would be requesting a variance if
the y did not already ha ve the posts in the ground. Mr. Olmsted responded that he would
more than likel y still request a va riance ; in an ideal situation they would have kno w n where
their property line was located and would have requested the variance properly for the
entire length of the deck before the y started the construction .
Anthony Fruchtl , Planner was sworn in. Chair Carlston stated the staff report indicates the
house was constructed 38.5 feet from the front property line. Chair Carlston stated that is a
generous setback. Mr. Fruchtl stated that is correct.
Mr. Smith asked if staff knew the ave rage front setback on the block. Mr. Fruchtl stated he
did not; however, the average techniqu e was not carried over into the new zonin g
ordinance .
There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Carlston
incorporated the staff report and ex hibits into th e record and closed the public hearing .
Mr. Smith moved;
Mr. Cohn seconded:
THAT CASE #VAR0503-0001, 3715 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, BE GRANTED A
VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 3 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT
SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DECK. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO TABLE 16-6-1.1 OF
THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE .
Mr. Smith stated he believes the property is very unique. It has a steep front yard. The
house sits up on the hill . In the same block, there are a number of large houses . The tree is
3
•
•
•
an amenity that should not be disturbed and seems to hide the deck from any visible
aesthetic value that might be disturbed. The hill and the "S"-shaped driveway make the
property unique. The difference between property line and curb line makes it difficult for
owners to know where to start measuring. In this case, there is a 38 foot property line and
a 13 foot curb line in front of that. When people drive down the street, they don't know
where the property line is, they notice how things look from curb line or the sidewalk.
Mr. Smith continued; the variance is consistent with the intent of the ordinance because it
allows the applicants an amenity which a number of people have and it allows them to
cover the driveway. It won't impair the use or development of the adjacent properties
because the properties are already developed. He does not believe it is a self-imposed
hardship. In reviewing Ms. Reid's memo of last year, it states that a self-imposed hardship is
one that is created by the ordinance as opposed to self-created that is imposed by the
applicant. Some of the examples attached to the memo are that it is an unnecessary
burdensome or unreasonable in light of the purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated he
believes the purpose of the ordinance is to keep things away from the street. He does not
believe the deck is burdensome on the ordinance. There are some exceptional
topographical conditions. After reviewing all the self-imposed criteria in Ms. Reid's memo,
Mr. Smith stated he didn 't believe the applicant's fit the criteria. It is a condition on the
property because of the 25 foot setback and the 38 foot front property line and 13 foot
curb line.
Chair Carlston stated she still has difficulty with the fou rth crite rion ; removing the posts
would create a financial hardship for the applicants.
Ms. O'Brien stated she believes it was due to an inadvertent oversight; for her it comes
down to intent.
Mr. Cohn appreciates the difficulty the applicants had in determining their property line.
Most people assume their property line is at the sidewalk and fences are on property line.
He would also argue against the request being a self-imposed hardship.
Mr. Green stated it also seems the City made it harder since they accepted the original
plans drawn at the wrong property line. It appears that the applicant's intent was not to go
over the allotted setback. Ms. O 'Brien agreed, but she is not sure what obligation the City
had to verify their property line.
Discussion ensued.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
Mr. Smith stated he voted yes for the reasons he stated earlier.
Mr. Green, Mr. Sprecace, Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Cohn, and Chair Carlston concurring with Mr.
Smith.
4
•
•
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Carlston, Cohn, Green, O 'Brien, Smith, Sprecace
None
None
Shotwell
The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote.
The Chair instructed the applicants to contact the Planning staff for any additional or
necessary information.
Ill. CASE #VAR0503-0002
Andy and Rachel Shields
4298 South Lipan 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 maximum
allowed height of a solid fence within the front setback. This is a variance to Table 16-6-6.2
of the Englewood Municipal Code.
For the record, Mr. Green stated he is acquainted with the applicants. He has met them on
one occasion, but he has no personal or financial interest in their variance. He believes it
will not affect his decision in their case .
Andy and Rachel Shields, 4298 South Lipan Street, were sworn in. Ms. Shields testified
they purchased the property in Jul y 2004. They have two dogs, one large and one small.
The y originall y wanted to replace the fence on the property because the property is worn
down. It is a unique property that has two side yards as opposed to a front yard and a back
yard. It has a side yard on the north side, the house and the garage, and then another side
yard. Their only private back ya rd is an 8-foot breezeway between the house and garage
and to the back neighbor's fence. Ms . Shield stated they do not have a lot of privacy.
Ms. Shields further testified the y are requesting a 4-foot solid fence . They assured their
neighbors they would provide the sight triangle so they would be able to see when they
back out of their driveways. They are also requesting to build a 6-foot enclosed kennel
area inside the yard 4 feet from the garage. They are also replacing the fence along Quincy
Avenue with a 3-foot fence.
Mr. Shields stated they also want a fence between the house and the garage, which is an 8-
foot section that is 6 feet tall.
Mr. Cohn stated he drove by the house, and it appears there is already a fence between the
house and the garage. Ms . Shields stated there was an pre-existing chainlink fence, so they
thought the y could just replace it with the solid fence; however, a City staff person came by
and told them they needed a permit so they stopped const ruction. If the Board denies their
• variance, they will take that portion of the fence down.
5
•
•
•
Mr. Green confirmed that th e fence on the north side would have the sight triangle . Ms .
Shields responded that was correct.
Mr. Smith asked staff if the variance was only for the north side of the house.
Anthony Fruchtl, Planner w as sworn in. Mr. Fruchtl stated the variance request is only for
the north side as depicted on the site plan.
Mr. Sprecace asked why the City requires permits for replacing a fence. Mr. Fruchtl
responded that a permit is required any time any time a section of fence is replaced. If only
a few pickets are replaced, then a permit is not required. Ms. Reid stated there is currently
an amendment going through Planning Commission and City Council which will permit a
resident to replace up to a 16 foot section of existing fence without a permit. If the height
chances, a permit is still required.
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 publi c hearing.
Mr. Smith mov ed ;
Ms. O'Brien seconded:
THAT CASE #VAR050 3-000 2, 4298 SOUTH LIPAN STREET, BE GRANTED A
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF A SOLID FENCE
IN THE FRONT SETBACK AS FOLLOWS :
1. TO CONSTR U CT A SOLID FENCE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT ALLO W ED OF A SOLID FENCE BY THREE FEET AS
DEMONSTRATED O N THE ATIACHED SITE PLAN AS APPROVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPME N T STAFF AND THE CITY ATIORNEY.
2. TO CONSTRUCT A SOLID FENCE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT ALLO W ED OF A SOLID FENCE BY ONE FOOT AS
DEMONSTRATED ON THE ATIACHED SITE PLAN AS APPROVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE CITY ATIORNEY.
Ms. O'Brien stat ed she belie v es the request meets all the criteria . Mr. Cohn agreed .
With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members ' votes.
Mr. Smith stated he voted ye s. The lot is oversized; the property is also unique in that it has
two side yards rather than a normal front yard and rear yard . It is consistent with the intent
of the Ordinance which is to build fen c es to keep dogs in the yard. The adjacent properties
are developed. It is not a self-imposed hardship.
Mr. Green, Mr. Sprecace, Ms. O 'Brien , Mr. Cohn, and Chair Carlston stated the y voted yes
concurring with Mr. Smith.
6
•
•
•
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Carlston, Cohn, Green, O'Brien, Smith, Sprecace
None
None
Shotwell
The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote.
The Chair instructed the applicants to contact the Planning staff for any additional or
necessary inform ation .
IV. APPROVAL OF TELEPHONE POLL
Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the telephone poll conducted on March 9, 2005
Mr. Smith moved;
Ms. O'Brien seconded: TO RATIFY THE TELEPHONE POLL CONDUCTED ON
MARCH 9, 2005.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Carlston, Cohn, Green, O'Brien, Smith, Sprecace
None
None
Shotwell
Motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote.
V. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Fruchtl stated one case is scheduled for May 11. The request is to consider a fence in
the front setback.
VI. CITY A TIORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further.
VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE
Mr. Green asked if any progress had been made on how last month's case was reviewed by
staff regarding aesthetics. Mr. Fruchtl responded that the steps staff should have taken was
when the application came in it should have been forwarded to Mr. Simpson for a decision.
If it had been approved by Mr. Simpson, the applicant would have been able to move on
with his construction and would not have needed a variance. If Mr. Simpson had denied
the application, the applicant wo uld have appealed Mr. Simpson's decision to the Board . It
is a new Ordinance and staff is still learning all the new sections .
7
•
•
•
Mr. Fruchtl pointed out the new case numbers and stated it is due to the new permit
system which went live in March.
Mr . Smith asked that the Board be provided with bottled water at each meeting. Staff
responded that they would provide the water at all future meetings.
There was no further business brought before the Board. The regular meeting was declared
adjourned at 8 :30 p.m .
8
•
•
,L --------""'.'.' -------------------------------------11-=~---;-~---====~-======= f\_-=~-~--=--=---tl ~=
-------------------~--------·--------;--
___ -------~----------------~ ~-------
-----------------------· -----~-------~-~ 6 ~-----------·-
_______ _\\!--.. --· ·------ ----------· -· - - --' . ,; --~~ ~~ -~ --
---------------------· --------- ---~ -~ ~ -......___;'-..j --~ -
• ~ -~ <\..) ~ '-.I ""-...I
/
\ ~' '.i. \J '-.J '-) :::..... ! ~ ,... -~ ~ s:-\/\ \.
i --~ . .... ~"": \ '\.; \) \} ~
; V', \i-""'-.j " ~ ~ \..( -+--:J, . ~ !' ~ ;J Ji~~ ~':J-r<i(j ~
~ ~ /)_ ~ ~~-~
~ ""''\: --:.s ~~ ~
"1-->-~ ~ i--ll
~ ~~ o· c . J-
----lc' v
r--------~-~_,___-9-:-t---~~-=-~~-+---i~-....,,__~-~--
N ----==::L..-(5F. -J