Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-10 BAA MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2010 1. Call to Order [t] The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m . in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Green presiding. 2. Roll Call Present: Douglas Cohn, Sue Purdy, John W. Smith 111, Dave Sprecace, Carson Green Audra Kirk, Planner I; Brook Bell, Planner II; Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Absent: Jordan May, Marcie O'Brien (Excused) Chair Green stated there were five members present; therefore, four 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. [~ 3. Continued Hearing: Case #VAR2010-009 Chateau Des Mons Care 3426 South Marion Street Chair Green introduced Case #VAR2010-009 by stating the case was continued from August 11, 2010 and the public hearing was closed . Since the August hearing, the applicant has withdrawn the case; therefore, Case #VAR2010-009 is officially closed . • • • Smith moved; Cohn seconded: THAT CASE #VAR2010-009 BE CLOSED. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes= 5). [j] Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, John W. Smith 111, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace Absent: Marcie O'Brien, Jordan May 4. Public Hearings: Case #VAR2010-010 Stacy Denbow 4609 South Pearl Street Chair Green declared the public hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case by stating the applicant is requesting variances to encroach 1 foot into the required 5 foot north side setback, and to encroach 10 inches into the maximum allowed projection for an eave in the required north side setback, and to extend 6 feet 2 inches beyond the maximum allowed north bulk plane, and to extend 2 feet 3 inches beyond the maximum allowed south bulk plane, in order to construct a two story addition. These are variances to Table 16-6-1.1, and section 16-6-1 :F.5.b.(1 ), and section 16-6-1 :G.3 of the Englewood Municipal Code . Brook Bell, Planner I, was sworn in. Mr. Bell provided an overview of the property and neighborhood. Referring to Exhibit A-0, Mr . Bell stated the site plan shows the existing residence and the proposed additions. The existing house is 4 feet from the north property line; the R-1-C zone district has a 5 foot requirement. The existing structure is considered a nonconforming structure and any additions or expansions must comply with the current Code . Mr. Bell provided a brief explanation of the bulk plane. The existing structure protrudes into the bulk plane on the north side. Exhibit A-3 shows the existing structure encroaching into the side setback, but the proposed addition extends approximately 6 feet 2 inches into the north bulk plane and then 2 feet 3 inches into the south bulk plane. Mr. Bell stated eaves are permitted to extend into the side setback 4 inches for every foot of setback, which in this case would be 20 inches. However, the applicant is requesting an additional 10 inches for a total of 30 inches . Mr. Smith clarified the specific eaves to which Mr. Bell was referring. Chair Green asked Mr. Bell to explain the alternative of a hip roof mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Bell stated that a hip roof would follow the line of the bulk plane on the north and south. Kirsten Denbow, 4609 South Pearl Street, was sworn in. Ms. Denbow testified that they wish to expand their house; they do not want to move. Mr. Smith asked if the house was three stories, or if the dormers were actually in the attic. Ms . Denbow responded that the dormers are actually on the attic level and are purely for aesthetics. • • • Michael Eltrich, 2435 South Newton Street, of In.Vision Architecture, was sworn in. Mr. Eltrich testified that he did numerous variations of the design, including hip roof designs . With a hip roof, the effect on the north side would be that the second floor would have to be setback in from the first floor. That design cuts back on the living space on the second floor. The dormers are in character with the neighborhood. The elevations do not show the ceiling line of the second floor. The ceiling is actually higher than the eave on the front of the house. Chair Green stated the neighbor to the north did not return a neighbor notification, which is the property to be most affected by the variance. Ms. Denbow responded that the owner is currently not residing in the home. Mr. Eltrich stated any shadows cast by the house will be mitigated somewhat by the fact of the distance that 4601 South Pearl is setback from the north property line. Dianna Mellott-Yost, 4608 South Pearl Street, was sworn in. Ms. Mellott-Yost testified that she moved into the neighborhood in July and is very supportive of the variance. Her master bedroom looks out onto the applicant's house. It is exciting to know there are property owners wanting to reinvest in the community. Troy Schwartzkopf, 4616 South Pearl Street, was sworn in. Mr. Schwartzkopf testified he has lived at the property all his life. The lots provide room to build, and the existing houses are cramped for space for young families. He is supportive of the variance and it is what the neighborhood needs . Mr. Bell directed the Board's attention to Exhibit A-3; the drawing in the lower left has a "top of wall" elevation which shows how the eave line goes below the top of wall, which is the ceiling . The other city departments reviewed the request and had no objections. The Building Department commented that because the north wall is located within the 5 foot setback, there may be some wall and opening protection required. That issue will be resolved at the building permit phase. Regarding the other considerations put forth in the applicant's application, staff agrees with the intent of that portion of the Code . 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 -010, 4609 SOUTH PEARL STREET, BE GRANTED VARIANCES TO ENCROACH 1 FOOT INTO THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT NORTH SIDE SETBACK, TO ENCROACH 10 INCHES INTO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED PROJECTION FOR AN EAVE IN THE REQUIRED NORTH SIDE SETBACK, TO EXTEND 6 FEET 2 INCHES BEYOND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED NORTH BULK PLANE, AND TO EXTEND 2 FEET 3 INCHES BEYOND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SOUTH BULK PLANE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION. THESE ARE VARIANCES TO TABLE 16-6-1.1, AND SECTION 16-6-1:F.5.b.(1), AND SECTION 16-6-1:G.3 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. MOVED BY JOHN SMITH SECONDED BY DOUGLAS COHN • • • ~ Mr. Smith stated it presents a good fa~ade; they hired an architect, and two neighbors visually impacted by it testified in support of the variance. It will not impair the adjacent properties, and he personally likes their other considerations in Section 5. Chair Green stated it makes good sense; it fits in with the character of the neighborhood and is an improvement. Also the house is oriented toward the north, and the applicant is continuing straight up the existing wall which existed before the bulk plan regulations. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith voted. The house was originally built in its current location before Zoning Codes were in place. It is consistent with the intent of the zone district regulations to secure the public health, safety and welfare due to the factors in 16-6-1O.b.7(c) of the Code with the articulation of the street facing building fa~ade, which expresses the intent of the zone district regulations. It will not permanently impair the use or development of adjacent conforming properties or alter the essential character of the neighborhood since they are already developed. It is not self-imposed because the hardship is created due to the nature of the zoning process and zoning laws. Ms. Purdy, Mr. Sprecace, Mr. Cohn, and Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 5). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, John W. Smith 111, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . Mr. Smith thanked the neighbors for attending. ~ Case #VAR2010-011 Shane B. Stroup 4124 South Grant 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 1000 square foot maximum total floor area by 287 feet for a detached garage. This is a variance to Table 16-6-1.2 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Audra Kirk, Planner I, was sworn in . Ms. Kirk provided an overview of the property and neighborhood. The proposed addition is approximately 784 square feet. The entrance of the garage will be from the alley. The lot is wider than most average Englewood lots. Shane Stroup, 4124 South Grant Street, was sworn in. Mr. Stroup stated he would like to put all his vehicles in a garage. The size of his lot can accommodate a larger garage. He wants to maximize his • • • garage space. Mr. Stroup stated he wanted the maximum height allowed by Code. Mr. Stroup testified that the maximum 1,000 square foot permitted by Code is too small for the vehicles he owns. Responding to questions from the Board, Mr. Stroup stated that he liked the design of having the garage roof slope from 16 feet to 12 feet, and it didn't require trusses. It also sheds water and snow better. Ms. Kirk stated the maximum lot coverage for the R1 C zone district is 40 percent. With the proposed garage, the lot coverage will only be 27 percent lot coverage. The garage height of 16 feet on the applicant's drawing is measured to the bottom of the roof; the UDC permits the height to be measured to the top of the roof. Chair Green asked if the other departments reviewed the variance. Ms. Kirk stated they had and did not have any comments. Mr. Smith asked if workshops were permitted within garages. Ms. Kirk responded they are permitted. Garages are not allowed to be habitable space, and businesses are not permitted within garages in residential districts. 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 VAR2010-011, 4124 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TOTAL FLOOR AREA BY TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SEVEN SQUARE FEET FOR A DETACHED GARAGE PROVIDED IT CONFORMS TO THE 16 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AS CONTAINED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOVED BY JOHN SMITH SECONDED BY DOUGLAS COHN Mr. Cohn stated the Englewood Comprehensive Plan envisions having less cars on the street; this is one way to accomplish that goal. Mr. Smith stated the lot is large and there is minimal lot coverage. Discussion ensued regarding garage and parking space sizes. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes . There is minimal lot coverage and the larger garage will not overload the lot. It is consistent with the zone district regulations; the garage provides off-street parking. It will not impair the use or development of adjacent properties because they are already developed. The variance is not self-imposed; it is consistent with the parking which overrides his concerns . Mr. Sprecace voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith. In addition, it is not a self-imposed hardship. The applicant has inherited cars and is keeping cars off the street. Ms. Pu rdy and Mr. Cohn voted yes, concurring with Mr . Smith. Chair Green voted no. The request did not meet the criteria . • • • Vote: Motion carried by roll call vote (summary: Yes= 4 No= 1) . Yes: Douglas Cohn, John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace No: Carson Green The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . llll 5. Staff's Choice There are no cases scheduled for December . 6. Attorney's Choice Mr. Brotzman had nothing further. 7. Board Member's Choice The Board holiday dinner is scheduled for November 30 at Steakhouse Ten. 8. Adjourn The Board had nothing further. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m .