Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-09 BAA MINUTES• . . ,. • • • El 1. Call to Order CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2011 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: Carson Green , David Sprecace, Jordan May (entered at 7:30 pm), David Pittinos , Sue Purdy, Angela Schmitz, John W. Smith, Ill Absent/Excused: Marcie O'Brien Staff: Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney ; Audra Kirk , Planner I 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 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 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. e 3. Public Hearing: Case #VAR2011-006 Elizabeth Brogan 4535 South Huron Street Chair Green opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication . He introduced the case stating the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 2 feet 1 . ' • • • into the required 5 foot side setback to construct a detached garage . This is a va riance to Table 16-6-1.2 of the Englewood Municipal Code . Audra Kirk, Planner I, was sworn in. Ms. Kirk provided a brief overview of the property. The property is zoned R1A as are all surrounding properties. The neighbor notifications supplied by the applicant are from 4533 S Huron St., 4510 S Huron St., and 4510 S Inca . The project was reviewed by seven City departments. There are no previous variances on the property. E1 Elizabeth Brogan, 4535 South Huron Street, was sworn in. Ms. Brogan has lived at the residence for approximately 7 years. The property previously had a one-car garage which was converted to living space . There is limited space on the property to construct a two-car garage . There is no alley access which creates even more difficulty to build a garage on the property. A two-car garage is typically 20 'x20 ' on the small size or 24 'x24' for an extended garage . Other properties in the neighborhood have detached garages . A number of those owners pushed the garages to the rear of the lot. There are two problems in doing that on her lot. One is a drainage issue and the second is the sewer. The sewer line is approximately 30 feet north of the south property line . With a 5 foot setback, the garage would be 25 feet off the south property line. There needs to be room for equipment to access the sewer line . Further, because there is no alley at the rear of the property, the drainage on the lot is split. Part of the drainage flows to the front to the street , and the other flows to the rear. Since there is no alley , the water runs down the rear property lines . The neighbors ' water drains onto her property , and it continues through her rear property down the hill which is to the north. By putting a structure in at too low of an elevation , it would be flooded. Ms . Brogan proposes to build the garage closer to Huron Street , more to the center of the lot. She is requesting a variance for 2 feet into the side yard setback, which is similar to other lots which are smaller . She has discussed the variance with the rear yard and side yard neighbors, in addition to the neighbor directly across the street. None of the neighbors have concerns and have submitted letters in support. Mr. Smith asked where the sewer was located. Ms. Brogan approached the dais and drew a line on the drawing indicating the location of the sewer. Mr. Smith distributed the drawing to the other Board members. Ms. Schmitz commented that an oversized , single-car garage would fit and still comply with the setback requirements . Ms. Brogan is proposing a 20-foot wide garage , which is narrow for a two-car garage , which requires the two foot variance . She could fit a one- car garage, but does not believe it is asking too much to construct a two-car garage on a large lot, similar to her other neighbors . 2 • • • Chair Green asked about the driveway and whether it was shared wi t h the neighbor. The appl icant responded that the driveway is entirely on her property and is not shared. The edge of the garage will be in line with the house. The distance between the house and the garage is approximately 24.5 feet. Chair Green stated it seemed a reasonable request and is a minor change. It will assist with drainage . Mr. Smith stated that it will provide off-street parking , which is consistent with the UDC . EI 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. e MOTION: THAT CASE VAR2011-006, 4535 SOUTH HURON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 2 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO TABLE 16-6-1 .2 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUN ICIPAL CODE. MOVED BY DAVID SPRECACE SECONDED BY JOHN SMITH With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members ' votes . Mr. Smith voted yes. The topography of the site with the drainage issues requires the garage to be built as presented by the applicant. The variance is consistent with the intent of the zone district regulations in that it provides for off-street parking . It will not impair or affect the use of the adjacent properties as they are already developed. It is not self-imposed because the topography dictates the location of the garage in order to allow the applicant an amenity others in the neighborhood enjoy . Ms. Purdy, Ms . Schmitz, Mr. Sprecace , Mr . Pittinos , and Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith . Vote: Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 6) Yes: Sue Purdy, John Smith , Carson Green, David Pittinos , David Sprecace , Angela Schmitz The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additio nal or necessary information . E1 4. Public Hearing: Case #VAR2011-007 Ronald and Sha ri Wynkoop 4819 South Ban nock Street 3 • • • Chair Green opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication . He introduced the case stating the applicants are requesting a variance to exceed the 3 foot maximum fence height by 3 feet within the front setback for a length of 95 feet 6 inches along the east lot line . Th is is a variance to Table 16-6-6.2 of the Englewood Municipal Code. El Audra Kirk, Planner I, was sworn in . Ms . Kirk provided a brief overview of the property . The property is zoned MU-R-3-A , Low Dens ity Residential. The adjacent properties to the north and south are also zoned MU-R-3-A. Adjacent properties to the east are zoned MU-R-3-B . Due to the nature of how the house is situated on the lot, the request is for a side yard variance . Seven City departments have reviewed the request. A neighbor statement was submitted from 200 West Layton , which is directly to the north of the property. Chair Green asked for clarification on the request be ing a side yard setback rather than a front yard setback . Ms . Kirk read the definitions of "front yard " and "side yard" from the UDC . The front door of the house faces south ; therefore, the portion of the house that faces Bannock Street is actually the side yard of the property . E1 Ronald Wynkoop , 5667 South Louthan Street, was sworn in . Mr. Wynkoop testified that he is asking for a variance to install a 6-foot , cedar privacy fence along the side lot. The orientation of the house is unusual as it sits in the northwest corner of the lot. There is no backyard or alley. The lot line along Bannock Street is concerned the side . The yard is in the south and east of the front of the house. The only visual to the east of the property is a large parking lot for an apartment building. There is a lot of vehicle and foot traffic along Bannock. People stop and "hang out" by their cha in-link fence and smoke. It is his desire to have privacy by installing a noise barrier in the manner in which the entire yard can be utilized. The cedar fence would be located in the same location as the existing chain-link fence . The new fence would block the noise and there would be more privacy for use of the yard . Mr. Wynkoop stated 200 West Layton is the only property he could find that is occupied by the owner, which is why there is only one neighbor statement. I n response to questions from the Board , Mr. Wynkoop stated there are existing bushes which have not filled out well enough to create the sound barrier and privacy he is seeking . The proposed fence would have a gate; the main entry would be at the end of the driveway on Bannock Street. The driveway would be outside the fence . T he applicant further testified that personal safety is an additional concern. Chair Green stated the fence , from his observation , is out of character for the neighborhood . Mr. Wynkoop responded that he drove around the neighborhood and there are other homes with six-foot fences along the side and front. 4 • • • Ms. Kirk clarified that if the applicant built to Code at the 25 foot front yard setback, the fence would be 3.5 feet to the west of the driveway. The applicant would also lose half of the yard . Chair Green clarified that a six-foot fence is permitted 25 feet back from the property line . Ms . Kirk stated that was correct. If the variance is granted, an Encroachment Agreement would be required . A large right-of-way exists on the property ; the property line is 11 feet from the sidewalk . A three-foot fence would still need a variance and an Encroachment Agreement. B 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 VAR2011-007 , 4819 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 3 FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT BY 3 FEET WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK FOR A LENGTH OF 95 .5 FEET ALONG THE EAST LOT LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO TABLE 16-6-6 .2 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. MOVED BY JOHN SMITH SECONDED BY SUE PURDY The Board discussed the case and the criterion. Chair Green maintained that the fence would be out of character for the neighborhood. Mr. Sprecace stated there are other alternatives , such as hedges, which would not require a variance . Ms . Schmitz argued that this property is unique compared to other properties in the City. Mr. Smith countered that it is a unique property in that it is situated across from an apartment house with 150-200 residents who create a lot of traffic . In addition, there is no privacy . Mr. Smith also agreed with Mr. Sprecace that landscaping is a good alternative. Chair Green pointed out that the property was purchased as it is currently configured ; and therefore, is a self-imposed hardship. e With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members ' votes . Mr. Smith voted no . There are other alternatives that will not create the fortress-like appearance . Further, none of the criteria were met. Ms. Purdy voted yes . Ms. Schmitz voted no . It is not a unique property . Mr. Sprecace voted no . The property is not unique and it is a self-imposed hardship . Mr. Pittinos voted no . The property is not unique in depriving the applicant from privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity ; it is the neighbors who are causing the issue. Further, it is a self-imposed difficulty . 5 • • • Mr. May voted yes . There is a unique physical condition of the property by the loca ti on of the house on the lot; there is a multi-family dwelling next door. In addition, there is significant amount of traffic from the apartment residents coming and going . The applicant did not have a say in the location of the house on the property; therefore , it is not self-imposed . Chair Green voted no, concurring with Mr. Sprecace and Mr. Smith. Further, the fence would alter the character of the neighborhood . The property was purchased as it currently exists; therefore , it is a self-imposed hardship . Vote: Motion failed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes= 2 No=5) Yes: Sue Purdy , Jordan May No: John Smith, Carson Green , David Pittinos , David Sprecace, Angela Schmitz The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information. 5. Staff's Choice There are no cases scheduled for December. El 6. Attorney's Choice Ms. Reid updated the Board on the effective date of granted variances , based on her research. The variance is effective 30 days after the written approval of the Board 's decision . Mr. Smith asked that the Board 's Bylaws be updated with that language . The Board and Ms. Reid discussed the City 's interpretation on Board and Commission term limits . Mr. Sprecace stated he believes the terms should be counted from the date the initiative passed. Colorado legislative terms limits are not retroactive . Other board members agreed . Ms. Reid encouraged Board members to write City Council with their interpretation. El 7. Board Member's Choice Ms . Purdy will organize the Board 's holiday dinner. Chair Green requested the September 19, 2011 City Council Minutes be amended to reflect that the Board did not provide recommendations regarding recreational vehicles, as was stated in the Minutes. Mr. Smith suggested staff remove the other City department comments from the staff report since they are not within the Board 's pervue . He believes the comments cloud the issue and are redundant. Other Board members appreciate the comments . 6 ··, • • • Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Board to leave the comments in the staff report . Mr. Sprecace attended a CML workshop on quasi-judicial procedures. He stated it was very well done and believes the Board is doing a good job. Ms. Reid offered a copy of the PowerPoint slides used at the workshop. Chair Green thanked Mayor Penn for attending the meeting . Mayor Penn stated City Council will be discussing the Board/Commission term limits on November 21. He encouraged Mr. Smith to email Council with his intepretation prior to November 21. Mayor Penn thanked the Board for volunteering their time . 7