Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-08 BAA MINUTES• • • UNAPPROVED MINUTES BOARD OFF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO JUNE 8, 1988 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, George, Doyle, Waldman, Shaffer and Welker. Members absent: Lighthall. Also present: Dorothy Romans , Staff Advisor Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner The Chairman stated the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. He said that with six members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant a variance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 11, 1988 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Doyle seconded the motion . All six members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Mi- nutes of MAY 11, 1988, be approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES 12-88, 13-88 , AND 14-88, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. All six members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Find- ings of Fact were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE NO. 15-88. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case No. 15-88. The Chairman stated he had proof of publicat i on and posting, and asked that the staff iden- tify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler Planner for the City of Englewood. was sworn in for testimony. She stated the applicant, Robert Firth, was requesting a variance for property located at 4391 South Jason Street to permit an 8 foot solid wood fence along the side and rear property lines which abut the Rotolo Park drainage way. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-17: C 2 and 3, which sec- tions state that side yard fences and rear yard fences shall not exceed a height of six feet. • • • Mr s. Rothwe i ler said that on page 2 of the staff report where an 18 foot fence is indicated, the "18" is incorrect, and the report should state 11 8 11 feet. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Robert Firth 4391 South Jason Street was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he and his family live next to a Rotolo Park, and he submitted pictures of their back yard as Exhibit 1. He said people using the Park go into their back yard, and dogs stray into it, and there is no privacy in their back yard. They would like to install an eight foot fence on the sides and across the back of their yard to provide that privacy. There are no neighbors on any of the sides where a fence is proposed. Mr. Firth said that the pictures showed the lack of privacy in the back yard, and where people walk along the wall along the back of the property. Mr. Seymour asked which came first, the house or the park. Mr. Firth said that the park was there first, but they had obtained the house from his father-in-law. Ms. Shaffer asked whether the current fence belongs to the City or to Mr. Firth. He said it is the City's fence, but he wishes to attach the new fence to the current fence. He said he is aware that a building permit would be required, and the fence would have to meet building requirements. Mr . Welker said it would be required that the fence be on Mr. Firth's property, not the City's. Ms. Shaffer asked if the eight foot fence would be about as high as the garage. Mr. Firth did not know. He said the fence would be cedar. Mr. Welker asked if the fence would be about even with the fence as it is in the rear, or four feet higher. Mr. Firth said it would be higher, but would taper toward the front. Mr. Welker said that then the fence would be higher than the garage. There were no further questions from the a.o~rd. The Chairman asked if anyone else would '.like to speak in favor of the variance. Tony Firth 4391 South Jason Street was sworn in for testimony. She said that she had lived in the house before she was married, and there had been a field behind the house be- fore it was developed into a park, and there had been a fence. When the City put the greenbelt in, they tore down the original fence, and she said she be 1 i eved the fence goes with the property. She said she had four neighbors who signed papers saying the tall fence would be accept- able to them. She submitted them to the secretary for exhibits. Mrs. Firth said that if you are standing in the park, looking at the garage, the fence would be eight feet high if it is built on the retaining wall. The retaining wall would make the fence seem about the same height as the garage. Even small children can go into the back yard easily, and chil- dren tease their dog. She recently found a dart in the back yard. There are children who go into their yard and climb the tree to the very top. There were no questions of Mrs. Firth. • • • There wer e no other speakers in favor of t he variance, or opposed to it. There were no further comments from the staff. Mr. Welker asked where the fence would be built, and whether the location should be addressed in the wording of the variance. Mrs. Rothweiler said she had talked to the Parks Superintendent about the retaining wall, and whether a fence could be placed on top of it. Mr. Kavin- sky said the retaining wall is a flood control measure, and is on the City property, and he said that the fence should be put only on the applicant's property, and that it could not be installed on the retaining wall. The ap- plication asks for an eight-foot fence, which would have to be measured from the grade of the property of the applicant. Mr. Waldman said the Building Department would require certain requirements to be met for an eight foot fence. Mr. Welker said the variance would permit such a fence, but would have to meet the Building Department's requirements. Mr. Firth said that when he made the application he assumed he could build on the top of the retaining wall. Eight feet from the bottom of the retaining wall would not improve his situation. Mr. Welker said the request is to allow construction on Mr. Firth's property, which is, apparently at the base of the retaining wall. Mrs. Firth said they don't care whether or not they build on the retaining wall, but they want to begin at that elevation. She said that she had under- stood the Parks Superintendent to say that that would be no problem. Mr. Welker said that in Departmental Comments the Superintendent said that the fence could not be put on the City's property. Mr. Welker said that they would have to assume that the lower side of the wall is the applicant's prop- erty. Mrs. Firth said that the fence is already about eight feet high from their grade level. The Chairman closed the public hearing. -.. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT ROBERT FIRTH BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPER- TY LOCATED AT 4391 SOUTH JASON STREET TO" PERMIT AN 8 FOOT SOLID WOOD FENCE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR LINES WHICH ABUT ROTOLO PARK DRAINAGE WAY. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-17: C 2 AND 3, WHICH SECTIONS STATE THAT THE SIDE YARD FENCES AND REAR YARD FENCES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF SIX FEET. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING CODES AND OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. The motion was seconded by Mr. Waldman. Discussion followed. Mr. Waldman said that the request could be amended to permit a fence that is, in effect, eight feet above the retaining wall. Discussion followed. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE FIRST SENTENCE TO READ:. 8 FOOT SOLID WOOD FENCE, MEASURED FROM THE GROUND LEVEL ON THE APPLICANT'S SIDE, ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR LINES ... ETC . Mr. Waldman seconded the motion. • • • The Chairman called for a voice vote for the amendment, and all six members present agreed to the amendment . Mr. Wa 1 dman wanted to amend the motion to make the fence measured from the park side. Ms. Reid suggested the motion be voted on before the next amendment is made. Mr. Welker said that if the Board approves the motion, there will be no fur- ther question, but if the Board disapproves it, further amendments might be offered, and the applicant can apply again. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings on the motion as amended. Mr. Seymour said that he voted for the variance as stated, because the fence did not seem abnormally high, and would not present a problem to the neighbors. Ms. George stated that she voted for the variance because of the exceptional topographic conditions. Mr. Doyle said that he voted for the variance because, after he inspected the property, a fence seemed advisable. Ms. Shaffer said that she voted "yes" because it would give relief to the owners of the property and it would not adversely affect the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Wa 1 dman said that he voted for the variance because it would not affect the public safety or welfare. He said he hoped the people could work out some way of getting what they really want. Mr. Welker said there are exceptional conditions on the property, and the spirit of the ordinance will not be harmed., The height measured as stated is a minimum variance that affords relief. When the votes were displayed, a 11 six members present had voted for the variance as interpreted by the Board. Mr. Welker instructed the applicant to apply for building permits for an eight foot fence measured on the applicant's side of the retaining wall. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #16-88. The Chairman opened the public hearing on Case #16-88 for property located at 2915 South Corona Street. He stated he had proof of posting and publication, and asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Andrews Romans Assistant Director of Community Development was . sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, Mindy L. Bethel, was requesting a variance to permit the addition of an attached garage, carport, and porch which extend 2 1/2 feet into the required three foot setback on the south side property line. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-4: M 1 c, which establishes the minimum side yard setback in the R-1-C, Single-Family Residence District. • • • Mindy L. Bothel 2915 South Corona Street was sworn in for testimony. She said her house is very small, with no storage. The garage would come off her very small kitchen area where the laundry facilities are located . The laundry facilities would be moved out to the garage right next to the house. She presently has a dirt driveway which she would cement, and she plans a front porch and cover. Ms. Shaffer asked where the carport would be. Ms. Bothel said it would be in the front of the one-car garage. Mr. Welker said that one-hour construction on the wall along the side property line would be required if the variance were granted. Ms. Shaffer asked if there would be a rea- son why the garage could not be off the alley. Ms. Bothel objected to having to go through the alley in the winter time. She wants the garage close to the house. There were no further questions from the Board. The Chairman asked if there were any other speaker for the variance. Frank Rozek 2921 South Corona was sworn in for testimony . He said he had no objection to having the garage six inches from the property line, but would like to know if a survey would be required, and if the six inches included the eaves. He said that he is concerned about the builders going on his property while the garage is being built . He said the garage would be about six feet from his carport . Mr . Doyle asked about the overhang and gutters. Mr. Welker said the ap- plicant would not be all owed to have anything over the property line, although the eaves might go closer than the six inches, unless the Board makes a statement not permitting that. Mr. Rozek said that he is con- cerned that if the eaves are too close, he might have problems selling his property later, and he is COJ'lCern.ed that they may not know precisely where the property line is. · The Chairman asked if there were other people wishing to speak for or against the variance. There were none. The staff report was made a part of the record. The Chairman asked if staff had any further comments. Mrs. Romans said the staff recommended denial because of its concern that there be ten feet of space between buildings for light, air and for emergency access. The garage could be located on the rear of the property with access of of the al- ley, and inasmuch as there is another place on the lot where the garage could be constructed, it should be located in that area. The principal purpose for a garage is the storage of vehicles. Laundry facilities are really an addi- tion to the house, and while staff recognizes that this would be convenient, constructing a garage within six inches of the property line, even with fire construction, could present problems with access and drainage. Concerning the overhang, Mrs. Romans was of the opinion that the Building Division would per- mit no overhang if the wall of the garage were six inches from the property line. The Chairman closed the public hearing . BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE 16-88, MINDY L. BOTHEL BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2915 SOUTH CORONA STREET TO PERMIT THE ADDI- ~ TION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE, CARPORT AND PORCH WHICH EXTEND 2 1/2 FEET INTO THE • • • REQUIRED THREE FOOT SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.4 -4: M 1 c, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE R-1-C, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said that he voted aga i nst the variance because no variance is really necessary. They can enter the garage differently, and it could be placed in a different location on the site. Ms. George said that she voted against the variance because the garage could be made smaller or the laundry fac i lity located elsewhere. Mr. Doyle said that he voted "no" because there is a possibility of drainage problems and the structure could be built in a different area. Ms. Shaffer said that she voted "no" for the same reasons . Mr. Waldman stated that he voted "no" because none of the conditions for granting a variance were met. Mr. Welker said there are other options, there is potential damage to the neighborhood, and future neighbors might object. There do not seem to be ex- ceptional circumstances . When the votes were di sp 1 ayed, a 11 six members present had voted against granting the variance. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE NO. 17-88. The Chairman opened the public hearing, stating he had proof of publication and posting, and asking that the staff identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler Planner for the City of Englewood stated that applicant, James Ramos, was requesting a variance for proper- ty located at 3073 South Elati Street to permit the construction of a so 1 id six-foot fence on the property 1 i ne para 11e1 to West Dartmouth Avenue. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Sec- tion 16-4-17: C 3, which states, "if a rear yard of one property abuts the side yard of an adjoining property, the height of a fence constructed in front of the front building line of the house on the adjoining proper- ty shall not exceed 42 inches." The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. James Ramos 3073 South Elati Street was sworn in for testimony. He said his house is located on the northwest corner of South Elati Street and West Dartmouth Avenue, and a taller fence is needed to keep his children in his yard, and to protect his children from passersby. His yard is small, and he wants to put the fence about a foot behind the sidewalk along Dartmouth from the rear of his house. • • • Mr. Seymour said that there is already a fence there. Mr. Ramos said he had begun the work when he was told that he would have to get a permit. Then he was denied the permit because of the height 1 imitation to 42 inches. He does not want people to be able see his children in the back yard, and the bedroom and bathroom windows are visible from the sidewalk which goes along West Dartmout h Avenue. He did get letters of agreement from the neighbors. The Chairman asked if there were other speakers for the variance. Edward E. Payne 1900 East Girard Place was sworn in for testimony. He said he is in favor of granting the variance. He said he does not know the app 1 i cant, but is a property owner in the same block . The house is well built, and the fence is also well built. The site line is adequate for seeing traffic approaching. There is no public nuisance here, in his opinion . He owns property at 3066 South Fox. There were no questions. The Chairman asked if there were other speakers for the variance. Connie Young 509 West Dartmouth was sworn in for testimony. She said they live right behind the Ramos' yard. They 1 i ke the fence because it gives them more privacy and cuts down on the noise. There were no further speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman asked that the staff report be made part of the record, and whether there were further comments from Staff. Mrs. Romans said there were not. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER DOYLE MOVED THAT IN CASE N0 .· 17-88, JAMES RAMOS BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3073 SOUTH ·ELATI STREET, TO PERMIT THE CON- STRUCTION OF A SOLID SIX-FOOT FENCE ON THE-PROPERTY LINE PARALLEL TO WEST DARTMOUTH AVENUE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-17: C 3, WHICH STATES, "IF A REAR YARD bF ONE PROPERTY ABUTS THE SIDE YARD OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE CONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE OF THE HOUSE ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 INCHES." Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said he voted "no" because the variance does not seem necessary. It cuts down on the visibility along Darthmouth, in his opinion, and is not necessary for privacy. Ms. George said there is no hazard to the public. This fence would provide privacy to the occupant . Mr. Doyle stated that he voted "yes" because it will afford the family priva- cy, and it will be a credit to the neighborhood. • • • Ms. Shaffer said she voted "yes'' because the visibility in both directions was clear when she checked it . Mr. Waldman stated that he voted "yes" because the lot is of exceptional shape and size and privacy would be afforded. There were no neighbors who objected. Mr. Welker said that he voted "yes" because of the shape and shallowness of the lot. The neighborhood and City would not be adversely affected, and the site line was adequate. The spirit of the Ordinance would be observed. When the votes were displayed, there were five votes in favor and one (Mr. Seymour's) which was opposed. The Chairman said the variance was granted, and Mr. Ramos should obtain a building permit. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans introduced Mr. Wanush who is the new Director of Community Development. He will be attending occasional meetings of the Board. The Board welcomed Mr. Wanush to the City. Mrs. Romans reminded the Board there would be a special meeting on the 22nd of June on the Trolley Square project. Only Ms. Lighthall is unable to attend. Mrs. Romans noted that the house in the last case was one of the houses relo- cated by the Urbana Renewal Authority. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE . Ms. Reid said she had cautioned the Board in amending the first case because the difference between eight and ten foot fences is so great that staff might have made different comments, and this change would have gone to the "heart of the application". The applicant does have a basis for corning back to ask for a change because there was a misunderstanding as to whether the fence would be constructed on the applicant's property or .. on the retaining wall which is City property. BOARD'S CHOICE. Ms. George asked if the special meeting would be at 7:30. Mrs. Romans said it would. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. S~ecretary