Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-14 BAA MINUTES• 1. Call to Order b?l1 2. Roll Call CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS JANUARY 14, 2009 Present: John Smith 111, Marcia O'Brien, Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Staff-Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid (Not voting), Staff-CD Planner Brook Bell (Not voting). Absent/Excused: Miodrag Budisa. Chair Sm ith stated there were six members present; therefore, f ive affirmative votes are required to grant a var iance or appeal. • Chair Smith stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appea ls 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 appea l period . Var iances are effective at the end of the appeal period. Building permits for construction associated with an approved var iance will not be issued until the appeal period is ended. Building permits must be obtained and construction begun w ithin 180 days of the variance's effective date. • Chair Smith set forth parameters for the hearing: The case w ill be introduced; app li cants will present their request and reasons the var iance shou ld be granted; proponents will be given an opportunity to speak; opponents will address the Board ; and then staff wi ll address the Board . Staff wi ll give a preliminary overview of the variance before testimony is taken. 3. Public Hearing: Case #VAR2008-014 Ron Darling 2935 South Logan Street Chair Smith stated he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to extend 8 feet 3 inches beyond the maximum all owed so uth bulk plane and 3 feet 2 inches beyond the maximum all owed north bulk plane in order to • • • construct a two-story dwelling unit. This is a variance to Section 16-6-1 :G.3 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Brook Bell, Planner was sworn in. Mr. Bell provided a brief overview of the variance request and the property. The property is zoned R-1-C, Single-Unit Residential, as are surrounding properties. The proposed house is approximately 2,400 square feet with a detached garage. Referring to the site plan, Mr. Bell explained that the bulk plane forms a building envelope on the site. The bulk plane is determined by finding the mid-point on the property line. Chair Smith asked for the Code citation for calculating the bulk plane. Mr. Bell responded that he could provide it during the staff presentation. From the mid-point, go up vertically 12 feet and then at a 45 angle towards the middle of the site. The calculation is the same on the other side of the building. There is a maximum height restriction of 32 feet. The proposed structure is approximately 29 feet. The intent of the bulk plane restriction is that the house not protrude through it, although there are some exceptions for dormers, eaves, and gutters. On the south side, the roof projects through the bulk plane approximately 8 feet 3 inches. On the north side, it projects through approximately 3 feet 2 inches. The south side protrusion is 2 7 feet 6 inches horizontally. On the north side, the protrusion is 34 feet horizontally. The request is to extend through the bulk plane . Mr. Cohn asked how the proposed house compared to the house to the south in reference to height. Mr. Bell responded that he was unable to determine the height of the south house. He guessed the neighboring house might be 20 feet in height. Mr. Cohn asked for clarification on determining the bulk plane. Mr. Bell provided further clarification. Mr. Green asked for clarification on determining the mid-point. Mr. Bell responded; using the finished grade, determine the mid-point of the property, then measure up 12 feet. There will be some properties where the bulk plane is "more friendly." Mr. Green asked if the main reason for the bulk plane rules was for sun exposure for the neighboring properties. Mr. Bell stated that was correct. Chair Smith stated that according to the Code the reasons are to provide adequate light and privacy for neighboring properties, and to assure greater design compatibility in terms of building mass and scale within the neighborhood. ~ Ron Darling, 11319 Bear Creek Drive, was sworn in. Mr. Darling testified he was before the Board requesting a variance to the bulk plane requirements. The mid-point is the half- way point between the front and back of the property line. In Englewood, the bulk plane goes up from the side line at the mid-point 12 feet and then takes a 45 degree angle towards the inside. Nothing is to penetrate that invisible bulk plane . • • • Chair Smith asked the applicant to address the criteria. The property sits below street level. Codes change overtime. House is below grade. The lot slopes. It will enhance the character of the neighborhood. The applicant worked in good faith with the documents given to him by the Building Department which did not mention the bulk plane requirements. The north and south neighbors were notified regarding the variance request; and they agreed to the variance. The only comment received was from one neighbor to the north who was concerned about her property taxes. Mr. Darling stated he has been working with the Building Department to determine the rules and regulations. One document, entitled "City of Englewood Plan Submittal Requirement for Residential Plan Review", which is included in the packet, marked September 22 , 2008 does not mention the bulk plane requirements . It does mention providing landscape plans. Further, that document is dated "Revision 4/07." At that meeting the staff person handwrote in additional requirements. He gathered all those documents, prepared the necessary calculations, and resubmitted to the Building Department. When the final plans were submitted and he applied for the building permit on October 21, Ms. Montanez indicated the bulk plane diagram was needed . She showed him the same Submittal Requirement sheet which now showed a bulk plane diagram was needed . Both documents have the same revision date of "4/0 7. "The plans were prepared and submitted before they were aware of the bulk plane requirement. ~ The designed house is a modular home, built to the Uniform Building Code requirements . The plans have been approved by the City. The only issue is the bulk plane. Once the plans have been submitted the builder submits them to the State of Colorado engineering department, who then signs off on the plans. Chair Smith stated the Board must decide the variance based on the four criteria set forth in the Code. He asked the applicant to please address the criteria . Mr. Darling stated the property sits below street level, which is approximately two feet above the mid-point of the property. The house will be sitting below street level, which makes it even less visible. The house will fit in well with the neighborhood; it is below the height requirement. There is a slight drainage slope. Mr. Darling discussed the solar angles and shadows. He presented a chart to the Board showing the potential shadowing of the neighboring property. The house will enhance the character of the neighborhood and the adjacent properties are already developed. The property to the south does not meet the current zoning regulations; it is approximately three feet from the property line rather than five feet. The existing structure also would not meet the bulk plane requirement. It is not a self-imposed hardship because he worked in good faith with the documents given to him by the Building Department which did not mention the bulk plane. • • • The home manufacturer built the house even though a building permit was not obtained and even though the builder was not given the order to proceed . The home is built and sitting at the factory. Mr. Darling stated that in his opinion the bulk plane should have been identified in the original documents he received from the Building Department. The home is smaller than what is permitted on the lot. Mr. Green asked if the contract with the builder requires a permit before construction begins. Mr. Darling responded that the contract does not state that; however, the company policy states that before a home is put into production, a 15 % production deposit is required. Mr. Darling has not provided that deposit, and informed the builder he would not do so until he obtained a building permit. The builder, in good faith, reviewed the documents which had been signed off by the State of Colorado 's engineers and were trying to save time. He did not authorize the build without the permit. Mr. Green stated he is attempting to gain perspective on the situation. A house is built without a permit, and if a variance isn't granted, what is the alternative. Mr. Darling stated he didn 't know the answer; hopefully the builder could find someone else to buy it. He does not have the financial means to purchase another piece of property to relocate the house. Mr. Green confirmed that the builder is not assuming any responsibility for having built the house without a permit and without funding. Mr. Darling stated that was correct; however, it is not his position . Mr. Bell stated the citation for measuring from the mid-point is 16-6-1 :G .3 { e ). The plans were distributed to seven City departments. There was a standard engineering comment regarding the 100-year flood, but it does not affect the bulk plane. His analysis regarding the criteria is contained within the staff report. The Building Department plan submittal checklist has been discussed. The checklists are to assist applicants; they are not the actual Code. Since the house was manufactured offsite, it was not "caught" before it was built. Ms. O 'Brien asked if the applicant was correct in that the bulk plane requirement was not originally on the checklist. Mr. Bell stated that was correct; it was not on the checklist but was added later and the revision date was not changed. Mr. Green asked what happened to cause the bulk plane requirement to be added to the form. Mr. Bell stated he did not know. Chair Smith asked if anyone went out to determine the mid-point of the property. Mr. Bell stated that since the house is not on the property, it cannot be measured up. Chair Smith asked if it could be measured from the lot line. Mr. Bell stated it is the house relative to th e side lot line. At the plan review stage, staff reviews only the drawings. Chair Smith asked • • • for clarification; the drawings don't comply, but the house might. Mr. Bell stated it is presumed that the house will be built per the drawings. There are final inspections done after the house is built. The drawing should match what is on the site. Chair Smith and Mr. Bell discussed measuring bulk planes and how each side could be different. Mr. Green stated he is not clear on the process of why this case is different because it is a manufactured home built in a factory rather than built on site. In both cases, the review is based on plans. Mr. Bell responded that the only difference is that the current house was built off-site. A permit is not required to build something in a factory in another City. A permit is required, however, before it is delivered to the site . In most cases when a structure is built on site, it would not have progressed to this stage. Mr. Green asked if the City had any perspective on solar effect on the house to the north. Mr. Bell responded that a study has not been done. Chair Smith stated he believes the primary purpose of the bulk plane was so that houses do not appear out of place and do not take up too much space. It seems in this case that playing with the side lot lines, measuring it from the front or the street level makes it appear that it is fairly arbitrary. Council picked an arbitrary point which is the mid-point. In this case, where the street is higher and because of the topography that the impact of the bulk plane regulation and looking at the house from the street is minimal. It is not near as drastic as depicted on the drawing. Mr. Bell stated the bulk plan works to someone's advantage if the lot is on top of a hill and the mid-point is the top of a hill. The bulk plane works to your disadvantage if there is a ravine in the middle of the lot. There are portions of the City that it affects more than others. Mr. Green asked if the foundation walls that will go in on the property go straight up from the north/south edges. Mr. Bell stated he would guess there is an offset. Mr. Darling stated the hole is over excavated, and is 2-4 feet wider than the foundation. ~ There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance . Chair Smith incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Motion: THAT CASE VAR2008-014 FOR 2935 SOUTH LOGAN STREET BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXTEND 8 FEET 3 INCHES BEYOND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SOUTH BULK PLANE, AND 3 FEET 2 INCHES BEYOND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED NORTH BULK PLANE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY DWELLING UNIT. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-6-1 :G .3 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Moved by Marcie O'Brien Seconded by David Sprecace • • • Mr. Green stated it does not appear that the house will affect the north house if they would want to add solar panels to their roof. Chair Smith stated the house is not being built to the full 32 feet maximum height. Chair Smith stated he is not sure how the measurements were reached. What happens if when the house is built it is 3 feet 4 inches rather than 3 feet 2 inches. The mid-point rule appears to be an arbitrary and capricious decision that was presented to City Council. It significantly affects how much intrusion there is in the bulk plane. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Green voted yes. There are unique physical conditions that exist due to the street elevation is higher than the lower elevation of the mid-point. The south house is within the setback. The house will fit within the style of the neighborhood and will be a vast improvement over what was previously there . It will not utilize the maximum size permitted on the lot under the Code. There is no affect on the public health, safety, or welfare other than the improvement of the neighborhood. The house will not affect the use of either adjacent properties. The owner of the north house is agreeable to the variance, and there appears to be plenty of space between the new house and their house. The street is higher than the point from which the bulk plane is calculated which causes it not be a self-imposed hardship . Ms . Purdy voted yes, concurring with Mr. Green. Mr. Sprecace voted yes, concurring with Mr. Green. He further emphasized that the property does have a unique physical condition in that it slopes from east to west. The Ordinance is not scientific in the manner in which it deals with properties that have unique physical conditions . Mr. Cohn, Ms . O'Brien, and Chair Smith voted yes concurring with Mr. Green and Mr. Sprecace . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 6). Yes: John Smith 111, Marcia O'Brien, Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace. The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . • • • 4. Approval of Minutes a. Case #VAR2008-013, 3233 South Logan Street Motion: APPROVE THE DECEMBER 10, 2008 MINUTES AS WRITIEN . Moved by Carson Green, Seconded by Doug Cohn . Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes= 4, No= 0, Abstain= 2 ). Yes: Carson Green, David Sprecace, Douglas Cohn, John Smith Ill. Abstain: Marcia O'Brien, Sue Purdy. 5. Approval of Findings of Fact rtl] a. CASE #VAR2008-013 , 3233 South Logan Street Motion: APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #VAR2008 -013 , 3233 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, AS WRITIEN. Moved by Carson Green, Seconded by Douglas Cohn . Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes= 4, No= 0, Abstain= 2). Yes: Carson Green, David Sprecace, Douglas Cohn, John Smith Ill. Abstain: Marcia O'Brien, Sue Purd y . 6. Staff's Choice Mr. Bell stated there were no cases scheduled for February . Elections for Ch air and Vice Chair will be held at the next meeting. 7. City Attorney's Choice Ms. Reid had nothing further. 8 . Board Member's Choice The Board had nothing further. ~ 9. Adjourn brought before the Board. The regular meetin g wa s