Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-09 BAA MINUTES• • • e 1. Call to Order CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 9, 2010 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7 :05 p.m . in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Green presiding. 2. Roll Call Present: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Jordan May (entered at 7:10 pm). Chair Green stated there were seven members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance or appeal. Chair Green 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 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 Green 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 . Staff will give a preliminary overview of the variance before testimony is taken. 0 3. Public Hearings: Case #VAR2010-004 Best Built Garages 2750 South Lincoln Street Chair Green declared the public hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication . He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to reduce the minimum required 40 foot lot width to 37 .5 feet for the purpose of establishing dimensional requirements for an addition to an existing one-unit dwelling. This is a variance to Table 16-6-1.l of the Englewood Municipal • Code. Brook Bell, Planner was sworn in . Mr. Bell provided an overview of the property and neighborhood using PowerPoint slides . l@ Robert Erickson of Best Built Garages, 2497 West Fairplay Way, was sworn in. All the requirements are met for open space and setbacks. The hardship is that the lot is 2.5 feet too narrow. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Erickson responded that construction has not begun and that the addition would not be built over the sewer line. Mr. Bell stated there are currently no dimensional standards within the UDC for lots with less than 40 feet of frontage . The variance request is to use the standards for a 40 foot lot. Any expansion in the R-2-B zone district on a lot smaller than 40 feet requires a variance. El Mr. Smith clarified ; the only reason the Board is being asked to consider a variance is because the lot is not 40 feet. Mr. Bell stated that was correct. Mr. Smith inquired how many such lots were in the City. Mr. Bell responded that there are approximately 100 lots with 37.5 feet of frontage within the City. • Discussion ensued regarding 37.5 foot lots. Mr. Bell explained any construction on 37.5 foot lots require a variance. The lots are nonconforming; not the structures. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Bell responded there have been discussions at Council regarding nonconforming lots. Further, it only affects the R-2 and R-3 zone d istricts. The City only registers non-conforming uses; it does not register non-conforming lots or structures. Discussion ensued regarding non-conformities. Motion: TO RECOMMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REFUND THE APPLICANT HIS APPLICATION FEE . Moved by John W . Smith Ill, Seconded by Douglas Cohn. Mr. Smith stated he doesn't believe a variance is needed. Chair Green agreed; especially if it is going to cause every property owner with less than 40 feet to file for variances when they want to expand their house . It is an issue that needs to be addressed in the Code. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7). • • e Yes: Douglas Cohn , Carson Green, Marcie O 'Brien, John W. Smith Ill , Sue Purdy, Dav id Sprecace , Jordan May. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance . Cha i r Green incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. MOTION: THAT CASE VAR2010 -004, 2750 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 40 FOOT LOT WIDTH TO 37.S FEET FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE -UNIT DWELLING. MOVED BY JOHN SMITH SECONDED BY MARCIE O'BRIEN Mr. Sm ith stated it meets all requirements under the Ordinance . The size of the lot is less than anything the City considered when it passed the Ordinance. City Council didn't cons i der lots smaller than 40 feet . It doesn't create any public health, safety, and welfare issues . It will not impair the development of any properties in the neighborhood . It is not a self-i mposed difficulty because the lot existed prior to the zoning code regulations. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. • Mr. Smith voted yes for the reasons he previously stated . • Ms. Purdy, Ms . O'Brien, Mr. Sprecace, Mr. Cohn, Mr. May, and Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Jordan May The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . ~ Case #VAR2010-006 Julie and Andy LeRoy 2919 South Ogden Street Chair Green declared the public hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication . He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to exceed the maximum allowed driveway width of 20 feet by 8 feet within the front yard and extending to the intersecting street. This is a variance to Section 16-6-10:B.5 .d.(6)a.4 and Section 16-6-3 :F.3.b .(l)(a) of the Englewood Municipal Code . Brook Bell , Planner was sworn in. Mr. Bell provided an overview of the prope r ty and • neighborhood using PowerPoint sl ides . El Julie LeRoy , 1313 South Clarkson Street, #408, was sworn in . They wish the house to look aesthetically like the adjacent houses ; therefore, they pushed the house back an addit ional 10 feet from the 25 foot front setback so it would be flush with the neighboring houses . The other unique feature is the property slopes to the south of the lot. Additionally, there is no rear access for a garage. The plan is to construct a 3-car garage . Alternative materials were considered, but they believe concrete is aesthetically more p leasing . The lot is unique in that the majority of lots in the neighborhood average 50 feet of frontage . Their frontage is approximately 97 feet . Ms. LeRoy testified that a 20 foot driveway on 50 feet of frontage covers approximately 40 percent of the lot. They are request i ng an additional 8 feet, which makes their front lot coverage only 29 percentage, which is significantly lower. Safety issues were also considered , such as keep i ng cars off the streets and children in the neighborhood. They want the ab il ity to have a driveway that is straight in and out, rather than flaring the garage out from the 25 foot setback. Aesthetically, the flared garage does not fit with the neighborhood. Mr. Smith countered that a 28-foot wide slab of concrete is not aesthetically pleasing, and it would be the only such driveway in the neighborhood . Ms . LeRoy pointed out that the neighbor's driveway was gravel. Ms. LeRoy reiterated that the lot can accommodate a larger driveway and still have landscaping in the front. Mr. Smith asked if alternatives such as a Hollywood driveway, landscaping between the single and double car garages, had been considered. Ms. LeRoy responded it had not. The square footage of the driveway is 980 square feet; 780 square feet is permitted by Code. The lot is 13,368 square feet, which is cons iderably larger than other lots in the neighborhood. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Bell stated the 20 foot maximum driveway width is within the front 25 foot setback. Behind the front setback, the driveway can be wider. There is a limit on total lot coverage. The applicants' plan does not exceed their allowed lot coverage . Their lot coverage is appproxi mately 31 percent; 40 percent is the allowed maximum . Regarding safety, Ms. LeRoy stated it is very difficult to maneuver a vehicle from 20 feet into a third garage w ithin that last 10 feet . Placing the house further back on the lot, increases drainage issues . A stra ight in/out garage is safer. Mr. Smith reiterated that the neighborhood does not have other 28 foot driveways. Mr. Smith asked the applicant if she would consider flaring the driveway at 10 feet. The Board could • • • • • consider amending the variance; he is not convinced the applicants are requesting the minimum variance. Ms. Purdy asked if 20 feet of the driveway could be concrete and then 8 feet of a different material , such as pavers . Mr. Bell stated there are some options; however, gravel is prohibited. Also , Hollywood driveways are prohibited by the Code ; however, what Mr. Smith was referring to would be permitted by Code -landscaping in between the two car garage and the single car garage. Further, only the house is under construction . The plans that have been submitted shows a 20 foot driveway. The applicants were not attempting to obtain a 28 foot driveway prior to obtaining a variance . The plans show a flared driveway after the 25 foot setback. Mr. Smith suggested a 20 foot wide driveway and then at 10 feet flare out wider for the third garage . Chair Green stated it would address the safety issue. Ms. LeRoy reiterated that the City permits property owners with SO foot lots 20 feet of concrete . She is asking for 28 feet on a 97 foot lot. Mr. Smith responded that she is also the only person asking for a 28 foot driveway in the City of Englewood. Patrick Quinney, 7901 East Belleview, was sworn in. Mr. Quinney testified that he is a civil engineer and assisted with the site layout. The original layout with the 20 foot driveway and then flaring out to the 28 feet created a driveway which was extremely difficult to maneuver. The concern was the safety of making a turning maneuver when backing out of the garage, rather than backing straight out. It would be less difficult if the transition could be moved closer to the street. If the transition could begin at 10 feet from the street, it would provide 25 feet of maneuvering. The primary reason was the safety issue. They considered paver blocks and other materials adjacent to the concrete to meet the Code; however, Mr. Smith's suggestion of moving closer to the street had not been considered. Mr. Quinney testified that the flare could not be a 45 or 90 degree angle. To blend in and look pleasing, it would need to be an "S" curve. To begin the flare at approximately 10 feet from the street makes it more manageable . It would need to be drawn out; however, the closer to the street the better for the transition. If the transition began 10 feet from the street, it would not be complete until 18 feet from the street. Mr. Smith suggested continuing the case; the applicant has not considered all the alternatives. Mr. Smith asked the applicant if she would consider coming back next month after she and Mr. Quinney had time to meet and consider other alternatives such as the "S" curve or the 10 feet. Mr. Quinney and Ms. LeRoy took a few minutes to confer. Chair Green stated the variance is effective 30 days after the variance is approved . Ms. LeRoy reiterated that there are safety concerns. She would prefer not to delay another month . Mr. Smith stated that as presented he can't vote for the request because he doesn't believe all • the alternatives have been considered ; however, he doesn't want to vote against it if there are going to be safety issues. He wants to hear the alternatives. ~ The Board and Ms . Reid discussed the process and order of making and voting on motions, amendments, and reopening the public hearing after it has been closed. Mr. Bell stated a new house cannot be constructed beyond the first one-third of the lot. In this case, the house could only go back an additional 13 feet. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance . Chair Green incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. MOTION: THAT CASE VAR2010-006, 2919 SOUTH OGDEN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 20 FEET BY 8 FEET WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND EXTENDING TO THE INTERSECTING STREET . MOVED BY MARCIE O'BRIEN SECONDED BY DAVID SPRECACE Ms. O'Brien stated she had no issues with the request . Mr. Sprecace stated there are special circumstances; the lot is very large. The variance of 8 feet is not extraordinary under the • circumstances . Mr. Cohn stated it would be a lot safer. Ms. Purdy stated it makes it a lot easier to maneuver. Chair Green stated the driveway is extensively wider than anything else in the neighborhood. He surveyed the neighborhood . Additionally, there are no other three car garages in the neighborhood . Mr. Smith argued that it is self-imposed. Mr. May stated the applicants do not have alley access. Given the safety issue, the variance is the best solution. Discussion ensued. G With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith voted no. It is a self-imposed hardship. Ms. Purdy voted yes. Ms. O'Brien voted yes . The width of the property is 96.45 feet, which is 46.45 feet greater than the 50 foot minimum required for a one-unit dwelling in the R-1-C zone district. Further, with regard to safety, backing out of the driveway straight is the safest. None of the neighbors opposed the variance . The additional 8 feet will not impose public health, safety, and welfare issues . In fact, it should prevent any from occurring . No one spoke in opposition of the • • • • variance . There are 8 supporting neighbors' statements and the surrounding properties are already developed . The variance is not self-imposed; the subject property does not have alley access . Mr. Sprecace voted yes , concurring with Ms. O'Brien. With respect to the fourth criterion, the site plan shows a 20 -foot driveway. As it currently ex ists, the hardship has not been imposed . Messrs . May and Cohn voted yes , concurring with Ms. O'Brien. Chair Green voted no, concurring with Mr. Smith. Further, it does not meet the first criterion . There are no unique physical cond itions existing that warrant the additional width at the street. There are alternatives that satisfy the safety issue which do not create more width at the street, which is far beyond what exists in the neighborhood. Vote: Motion passed (summary : Yes= 5, No= 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Marcie O'Brien, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Jordan May. No: Carson Green, John W. Smith Ill. The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information. e Case #VAR2010-007 Melissa Bow-Richardson, DCC Architects, LLC 4775 South Pearl Street Chair Green opened the public hearing and introduced the case by stating it is a request for variances to exceed the maximum allowed lot coverage of 40 percent by an additional 36 percent, and to reduce the required 200 feet lot width to 187.5 feet, and to encroach 2.5 feet into the required 25 foot rear setback, in order to construct an addition. These are variances to Table 16-6-1.1 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Brook Bell, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Bell stated the applicant requested that the hearing be continued . The property was not posted because the church had not yet been able to have a meeting to review the latest plans. Motion: CONTINUE CASE #VAR2010-007 TO JULY 14, 2010. Moved by John W . Smith Ill, Seconded by Douglas Cohn. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W . Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Jordan May. Chair Green stated the public hearing is continued to July 14, 2010 . El 4. Approval of Minutes e a. February 10, 2010 Motion: APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 10, 2010 MINUTES AS WRITIEN. Moved by John W . Smith Ill , Seconded by Marcie O'Brien . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Douglas Cohn , Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Jordan May. 5. Findings of Fact a. Case #VAR2010 -002, 431 East Girard Avenue Mr. Smith recommended the Findings be amended to reflective of findings by the Board rather than by individual members . Motion: APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #VAR2010-002 , 431 EAST GIRARD AVENUE, AS AMENDED . Moved by John W . Smith Ill, Seconded by Douglas Cohn. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W . Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Jordan May. e 6. Staff's Choice Mr. Bell stated there will be the one continued case in July and possibly two cases in August. 7. Attorney's Choice Ms. Reid had nothing further. E1 8. Board Member's Choice Mr. Cohn stated that a citizen spoke at City Council that she was having difficulty selling her house because her property was nonconforming. Mr. Smith stated that is a different issue. Nonconforming uses cannot be modified; he believes. nonconforming uses should be allowed to have variances. Ms. Reid stated small lots are not nonconforming uses. The Board cannot affect nonconforming uses . Mr. Smith responded that the Board should be able to grant some changes to nonconformities. Ms. Reid clarified; the Board feels it is unnecessary for citizens to obtain variances for nonconforming lots. '· • • • • • • Motion: THAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOP AND PRESENT TO CITY COUNCIL, ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS, A METHOD OF BUILDING ON NONCONFORMING LOTS. FURTHER, THAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT ON THEIR PROGRESS AT THE JULY MEETING. Moved by John W. Smith Ill, Seconded by Douglas Cohn . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Jordan May. Chair Green noted that in Case #VAR2010-001, 3518 South Bannock Street, the applicant testified that a large justification for the variance was safety. He needed egress for the upper units and would build a staircase from the upper deck to the ground. It appears the units are completed; however, there is no stairway. Chair Green stated that Mr. Meeks also testified his project was funded by a City program . Chair Green would like the property reviewed. Chair Smith agreed. Motion: ASSISTANT CITY ATIORNEY REID REVIEW CASE #VAR2010-001, 3518 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET TO DETERMINE IF A STAIRWAY WAS REQUIRED FROM THE UPPER DECK. Moved by John W . Smith Ill , Seconded by David Sprecace . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, Jordan May. 9. Adjourn The Board had nothing further. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m .