Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-12 BAA MINUTESMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS October 12, 2005 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 Carlston presiding. Members present: Carlston , Cohn, Green, O 'Brien, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace Members absent: None Staff present: Anthony Fruchtl, 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 111, 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 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 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. II. CASE #VAR2005-00002 Reed G. Quinn, Jr. 461 West Quincy Avenue Chair Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, stating she had proof of publication and posting. She introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 10 feet into the required 15 foot rear setback . This is a variance to Section 16-6-1: F 4e of the Englewood Municipal Code. Reed G. Quinn, Jr., 461 West Quincy Avenue was sworn in. Mr. Quinn stated his lot is only 62.5 feet deep, which only leaves him with a building area of 22 feet wide. He stated he is asking for a variance so he can encroach into the rear setback to build an addition and have a wider house to the rear . Mr. Sprecace asked if the applicant had a detached garage on the property . Mr . Quinn confirmed there is a detached garage to the north of the house. Mr. Sprecace asked why the addition could not be built onto the house toward the garage, instead of offsetting it. Mr. Quinn responded that it was in part due to aesthetics and usable backyard . If the addition were built on the rear of the house toward the garage, it only leaves him with 15 feet and no access. It also would leave him with a house that is long and narrow and with a little bit of land in the rear and some land to the front; it would bisect the lot. Ms. Shotwell stated the information in the Board's packet indicates that under the former zoning regulations, a variance would not have been necessary. She asked why the applicant waited. Mr. Quinn responded that he did think about building the addition before; the regulations have changed twice. The first time he thought about building the addition, he wanted to add to the east side of the house and also a little to the rear. He had plans drawn up for that concept with an architect. He was waiting for a low-interest loan through the City's rehabilitation loan program ; however, by the time that became available, the setback regulations had changed and he decided not to pursue the addition at that time. He addressed it again a few years later and decided against it because by adding on to the east side of the house, he would need a 25 foot setback which would put the first half of the house ahead of the addition which he didn't believe was aesthetically pleasing. This time when he went into the City , he learned the front of his lot is now considered Elati , even though the property is addressed off of Quincy and the front of the house faces Quincy. He now has a 25 foot setback from Elati Street and a 15 foot rear setback from his rear yard. Ms. Shotwell clarified that his houses faces Quincy. Mr. Quinn stated that is correct. Ms. Shotwell stated the City considers the front setback to be off Elati Street. Mr . Quinn stated that is also correct. Ms. Shotwell confirmed that the existing house is only 550 square feet which is rather small compared to other houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Quinn stated that is correct; it has one bedroom. Ms. Shotwell asked how large the house would be with the addition . Mr . Quinn stated it will be just under 1,500 square feet. Anthony Fruchtl , Planner was sworn in. Mr. Fruchtl stated when the Unified Development Code (UDC) was changed there was a provision added, Section 16-6-1 :D.2.1, as identified in the staff report, which applies the front setback to the side of the street that is on the long side of the block . In this particular case, all the houses along Elati Street are set back 25 feet. In the prior Ordinance, there was a long side and a short side provision for lots such as this property. This lot is unique because it bisects between Elati and Delaware. In the past, Quincy would have been the front and the rear would have been taken from the north lot. It was an attempt to bring all 25 foot front setbacks from the one side street. Mr . Cohn asked if that was an intended consequence when the UDC was adopted. Mr . Fruchtl responded that it was an issue that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and passed on with a recommendation to City Council. 2 Mr. Smith asked if the setbacks would conform if the property were addressed on Elati. Mr. Fruchtl responded the rear setback would conform; however the front setback technically would not because it needs to be set back 25 feet. Mr. Smith confirmed that if the property were addressed on Elati the 3 foot rear setback would not have required a variance and the front setback would have been pre-existing condition. Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct. Mr. Smith asked if the applicant would have needed a variance for the addition under the UDC if the property fronted on Quincy. Mr. Fruchtl stated that under the current zoning regulations, the property fronts on Elati Street; however, if the property were turned 90 degrees, the applicant would not need a variance . Mr. Cohn asked if the bulk plane had been reviewed . Mr. Fruchtl stated he has reviewed the bulk plane and it complies. Chair Carlston stated drawings of the addition were submitted by the applicant. She clarified for the applicant that the drawings are now considered part of the record and would not be able to be returned. The applicant had no objection . She further stated there was an additional Neighbor's Statement for 4297 South Elati Street which neighbor indicated no objection to the variance. Mr. Sprecace asked for the height of the addition . Mr. Fruchtl stated it will be under 32 feet. 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. Cohn seconded: THAT CASE #VAR2005 -00002, 461 WEST QUINCY AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION ON THE REAR OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-6-1 :F 4e OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes . Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes." The first criterion is satisfied due to the lot's odd shape and orientation to the street. The only problem with the lot is that it "faces the wrong way." It is consistent with the intent of the zone district regulations in that it allows an addition which is not uncommon in the neighborhood . It will not permanently impair the use or development of the adjacent conforming properties because they are already developed. The variance is not self-imposed since it appears to be a result of the Unified Development Code which makes the front of the lot Elati Street rather than Quincy Avenue . Mr. Green, Mr. Cohn, Ms. O'Brien, Ms. Shotwell, Mr. Sprecace, and Chair Carlston voted "yes", concurring with Mr. Smith 3 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, Cohn, Green, O 'Brien, Shotwell, Smith , Sprecace None None None The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote . The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information. Ill. APPROVAL OF TELEPHONE POLL Chair Carlston asked for consideration of the telephone poll conducted on August 10, 2005. Mr. Smith moved; Ms. Shotwell seconded: TO RATIFY THE TELEPHONE POLL CONDUCTED ON August 10, 2005 . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, Cohn, Green, O'Brien, Shotwell, Smith , Sprecace None None None Motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote. IV. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Fruchtl stated there were no cases to be heard at the November meeting; he asked if the Board wished to meet. It was the consensus of the Board to not meet on November 9 . Ms. Fenton presented the Board with the option of receiving the City Council Minutes and their meeting reminder via e-mail. It was the consensus of the Board to receive both the City Council Minutes and their meeting reminder via e-mail. Ms. Fenton also discussed electronic packets with the Board. Ms. O'Brien, Ms. Shotwell, Mr. Smith and Chair Carlston stated they wished to receive their packet via e-mail ; Mr. Cohn, Mr. Green, and Mr. Sprecace stated they wish to still receive a paper packet. Mr. Fruchtl stated at the next meeting after the applicant presents his/her case, he would like to make a brief PowerPoint presentation with three slides. The first slide would depict the variance request versus what the Ordinance requires; the second slide would be a site plan of what the applicant is proposing; and the third slide would be a colored site plan. This would give a visual perspective of what is given in the staff report. 4 ~ . Mr. Smith stated he would like to see that presentation at the beginning of the public hearing, before the applicant testifies. Staff's current position in the public hearing is somewhat vague . It would be helpful to have staff start the hearing. The other Board members agreed . Mr. Fruchtl announced that he was the proud father of a baby girl, Avery Marie, born on August 10 . The Board congratulated Mr. Fruchtl on the birth of his daughter and asked him to convey their best wishes to Mrs . Fruchtl as well. V. CITY ATTORNEY 'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VI . BOARD MEMBER 'S CHOI CE The Board had nothing further . There was no further business brought before the Board. The regular meeting was declared adjourned at 8:05 p .m. Nancy F nton, Recording Secretary 5