Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-09 BAA MINUTES• • • 1. Call to Order CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 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, Marcia O'Brien, David Pittinos, Sue Purdy, John W. Smith Ill, David Sprecace, Angela Schmitz, Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid, Brook Bell, Planner II, Audra Kirk, Planner I Absent/Excused: Jordan May. 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 . l?l) 3. Public Hearing: Case #VAR2011-001 All Recycling, Inc. 2330 South Raritan Street 1720 West Iliff Avenue Unaddressed parcel with frontage on West Iliff Avenue 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 exceed the 12 foot maximum fence height by 26 feet, 627 feet along the north property line, (properties 1, 2 and 3 on attached parcel identification map) and 134 feet along the west property line (property 3 on attached parcel ' . • • • identification map); and to the materials customarily used for permanent fencing in the Denver metro area. These are variances to Table 16-6-6 .4 and Section 16-6 -6.E.1 of the Englewood Municipal Code . Audra Kirk, Planner I, was sworn in. Ms . Kirk provided an overview of the property utilizing PowerPoint slides . Adjacent properties are zoned 1-1 and 1-2. A fence is currently installed on the north property line, which is part of the variance being requested. A portion of the fence is located on property within the City and County of Denver, which is not included in the variance request. !?] Edward Dolan of All Recycling, Inc., 1775 West Wesley Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Dolan explained the company's process of recycling metals and the layout of their site. Within the last few years , the company has added more machinery and technology to divert more waste from the landfill which created an issue of small pieces blowing onto neighboring properties on windy days . Not wanting to be a nuisance , the company worked with vendors to eliminate/mitigate the problem. The best solution was high screening to prevent materials from blowing off the property . A contracting firm was hired to do the work and to obtain all necessary permits; the firm filed for bankruptcy before the work was completed. Unfortunately, All Recycling did not verify the fence permits were obtained. Mr. Dolan reiterated that the company's intent is to be a good neighbor. They believe the chosen material is less visually imposing since it is not completely opaque and it will be easier to repair than other fence material. Also, they believe the fence height and material has been effective in preventing debris from leaving their site . Mr. Dolan responded to questions from the Board. All Recycling received a notice from the City on September 1, 2010 that a permit had not been obtained. The property has approximately a 15-20 foot elevation gain from east to west. The applicant has not received any notice from the City and County of Denver that they have an issue with the fence . Shredding operations have occurred on the property for approximately ten years. At most shredding operations, the shredder is elevated off the ground. The current shredder location was chosen to keep it at a lower profile due to the elevation change; and it is unable to been seen from Raritan looking east. There was some concern expressed by a neighboring business. All Recycling addressed it by cleaning the property and policing their property line until the fence/screening was in place. Since the fence was installed, Mr . Dolan is unaware of any complaints regarding debris leaving their property. The screening is able to 11 catch 11 everything down to approximately %" in size . Metal is being shredded to the size of a fist; the shredder is not creat ing tiny particles. The screening will not prevent dust; misting is used to mitigate dust. Other materials considered were tin sheeting and chain link; however, the concerns were maintenance, wind load, material still able to blow throw with the chain link, etc. The current material is used at landfills , recycling facilities, and tennis courts. Mr. Dolan described how the fence was constructed . Repair work could be done in-house and done quickly . [~ • • Neighbor notifications were mailed out, and Mr. Dolan hand delivered a copy to their closest neighbor -the stucco business; no responses were received. Ms . Kirk stated a complaint from a neighboring business is what brought the fence to the City's attention . The stucco business requested that All Recycling be permitted to extend the fence around their property. The Building Department commented in the staff report that a structural engineer report would need to be provided, which includes wind load calculations, during the review process. The fence must comply with all the Building Codes. The fence material being used has historically been considered plastic weaving. The Board and staff discussed fence material definitions contained within the Unified Development Code. Ms . Kirk confirmed the debris on the neighboring property was very small. The neighboring business has requested that the fence be extended . Mr. Sprecace asked the applicant if they considered putting a barrier around the shredder. Mr . Dolan responded; it cannot be placed in a permanent structure since heavy equipment needs access to it. The issue occurs during the separation process, which Mr. Dolan explained. Chair Green clarified; the current fence was erected due to a neighbor's complaint and now another neighbor has complained and would like the fence extended. Mr. Dolan stated that was correct. 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. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Reid if the Board could grant the variance contingent upon an agreement between the City and the lessor/lessee permitting the variance only as long as a recycling operation is in business at that location. Ms. Reid stated the Board may always place conditions on a variance . MOTION: THAT CASE VAR2011-001, 2330 SOUTH RARITAN STREET, 1720 WEST !LIFF AVENUE AND PARCEL 1971-28-3-00-083, BE GRANTED VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE TWELVE (12) FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT BY TWENTY-SIX (26) FEET, SIX HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN (627) FEET ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, (PROPERTIES 1, 2 AND 3 ON ATTACHED PARCEL IDENTIFICATION MAP) AND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR (134) FEET ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE (PROPERTY 3 ON ATTACHED PARCEL IDENTIFICATION MAP); AND TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE MATERIALS PRESENTLY IN PLACE. THESE ARE VARIANCES TO TABLE 16-6-6.4 AND SECTION 16-6-6.E.1 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. THESE VARIANCES ARE CONDITIONED UPON AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE LESSOR, AND THE LESSEE THAT THE VARIANCES BE PERMITTED ONLY SO LONG AS THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR RECYCLING . • MOVED BY JOHN SMITH SECONDED BY DAVID SPRECACE • • • The Board discussed the case . The property is located in a heavily industrial area; the fence is not an eyesore. The existing fence seems to be keeping debris off the neighboring property, and now another business is requesting the applicant extend the fence. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted yes. It is due to the topography and the prevailing north winds that materials are spread to properties to the south . It is for the safety and benefit of the neighboring properties that the materials do not blow onto their properties. The property is located within an industrial district with other industrial uses located in the area. Adjacent properties are already developed. It is not self-imposed because the use is permitted in the zone district. The imposition is due to wind and the nature of the shredding operation. Ms. Purdy, Mr. Sprecace, Ms. O'Brien, Ms. Schmitz, Mr. Pittinos, and Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Mr. Smith. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7. Yes: Carson Green, Marcia O'Brien, David Pittinos, Sue Purdy, John W. Smith 111, David Sprecace, Angela Schmitz The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information. @] 4. Approval of Minutes November 10, 2010 Motion: APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 10, 2010 MINUTES AS WRITTEN . Moved by David Sprecace, Seconded by John W. Smith Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Carson Green, Sue Purdy, John W. Smith Ill, David Sprecace Abstain: Marcia O'Brien, David Pittinos, Angela Schmitz 5. Findings of Fact Case #VAR2010-10, 4609 South Pearl Street Case #VAR2010-11, 4124 South Grant Street Motion: APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #VAR2010-10, 4609 SOUTH PEARL STREET, AND CASE #VAR2010-11, 4124 SOUTH GRANT STREET AS WRITTEN. Moved by John W. Smith 111 , Seconded by Sue Purdy Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Carson Green, Sue Purdy, John W. Smith Ill, David Sprecace Abstain: Marcia O'Brien, David Pittinos, Angela Schmitz • • • [t] 6. ELECTIONS Mr . Smith called for elections of Chair. Motion: TO ELECT CARSON GREEN AS CHAIR. Moved by John W. Smith Ill, Seconded by Sue Purdy. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Carson Green, Marcia O'Brien, David Pittinos, Sue Purdy, John W. Smith 111, David Sprecace, Angela Schmitz Mr . Smith called for elections of Vice Chair. Motion: ELECT DAVID SPRECACE AS VICE CHAIR. Moved by John W. Smith 111, Seconded by Sue Purdy . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes= 7). Yes: Carson Green, Marcia O'Brien, David Pittinos, Sue Purdy, John W. Smith 111, David Sprecace, Angela Schmitz 7. Staff's Choice Mr. Bell welcomed the new members. There are two cases scheduled for March; also the Englewood Superintendent will be present to speak to the Board regarding the upcoming bond issue. 8. Attorney's Choice Ms. Reid welcomed the new members. 9. Board Member's Choice Board Members introduced themselves. 10. Adjourn The Board had nothing furthe . The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m . "'. 2 OH;> , . . , .. i ! . " · .. -5 ©.80 ·0s1 II) l,,'5 w:WES.s-Y ii 076 012 ·011 ... 7S /. . lifi " '• ,. '