Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-08 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS September 8, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:35 P.M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Bode presiding. Members present: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Aasby, Seymour Members absent: Davidson and Smith Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Tricia Langon, Planner Chair Bode stated that there were five members present; therefore, four affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. Chair Bode stated that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to grant variances by Part Ill, Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter . Chair Bode set forth parameters for conduct of hearings: The Chair will introduce the case; 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. II. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #10-99 Noel Knittel 699 East Belleview Avenue Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication and posting. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-3:C1, Minimum Lot Area for Permitted Principal Uses, to create a new lot. The requested variance is for a reduction in lot area from 7,200 square feet to 5,369 square feet. The total area reduction would be 1,831 square feet. Noel Knittel, 70 W. Byers, Apt. 4, Denver, Colorado 80223, was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Knittel stated that the lot is 14,612 square feet which would support two lots; however, the house is a little too far south to split the lot down the middle. She stated she would like the variance in order to build another home on the south end of the lot. In fact, it has been conveyed to her that the lot would be a good lot for a new modular home . 1 Ms. Knittel further testified that the current house has two entrances. If the front • entrance were changed to the north, there is already a curb and gutter. The lot would then be addressed on Washington Street. The other lot would remain a Belleview address, where a curb and gutter also exist. The surrounding land is filled up with smaller, brick and frame homes. Further, whether the owners placed a modular home or built a brick home, she stated it would fit in with the neighborhood. She continued by stating that the new lot size would be 5,369 square feet, accounting for the 5 feet the Highway Department took off the front of the lot, and would be large enough for a new home. Ms. Knittel stated that in Denver the lot sizes are smaller, between 4,000-6,000 square feet, and have homes built on them. The only other option to split the lot would be to tear down the existing house. The owners would like to fix up the house and sell it, rather than bulldozing it and starting from scratch. Mr. Seymour stated that according to the traffic division review, the property would be subject to COOT reviews and access from Belleview could be lost. Mr. Seymour stated he agreed. Ms. Carlston asked if an appraisal had been done on the existing home. Ms. Knittel responded that it was a cash purchase, and therefore, an appraisal was not done. Ms. O'Brien asked if she owned the home. Ms. Knittel stated she did not; Jerry and Linda Hootman own the home. She further stated that she works for the Hootmans; it was easier for her to do everything because they live in Loveland. Ms. O'Brien asked for clarification on why the variance was needed if the lot was large enough to subdivide • into two lots. Ms. Knittel responded that the existing home would need to be torn down in order to subdivide it without the variance. Ms. O'Brien asked if she thought that would be a big loss. Ms. Knittel replied that she believed it would be a big loss to a home that is already existing; it really only needs some paint and a new roof. Ms. O'Brien asked if it was the homeowners' intent to subdivide the property at the time of purchase. Ms. Knittel stated that if it were allowed, they wished to subdivide; if not, they would resell it or fix up the existing home. Ms . O'Brien stated it appeared the variance would be for the homeowners ' economic advantage. Ms. Knittel stated originally she thought the new lot would be 6,200 square feet; and the plan was to sell the property, and the new owners could subdivide it. Once she realized that she had measured incorrectly, the homeowners decided to keep it and try for the variance. Mr. Aasby asked when the last time someone lived in the house. Ms. Knittel stated the previous owners moved everything out of the house by July 4. Mr. Aasby stated he lives close to the property and thought somebody hadn't lived there for a couple of years. Mr. Aasby asked if she thought that by dividing the property she would be able to maintain the same type of structures that are in the neighborhood now. She stated that 2 blocks east the houses are large, but the houses that are currently in the neighborhood are not as big; therefore, a 7,000 or 8,000 square foot lot would not be needed. Mr. Aasby asked if she knew the square footage of the house to the north. • 2 • • • She stated she did not know the square footage of the surrounding houses, but they are ranch-style houses, not two-story. Mr. Rasby stated he would guess they are close to 1, 100 square feet. Mr. Seymour stated he would concur. Mr. Seymour asked in what capacity she worked for the Hootmans. Ms. Knittel stated she works for the realtor that assisted the Hootmans in purchasing the property, and she is now working for them to obtain the variance. Further, she has been the one who has been doing the research and talking to the planning and development staff. Mr. Seymour asked if she was a realtor or working in the capacity as a realtor. Ms. Knittel stated she did not work as a realtor, but she does work for the realtor who helped the Hootmans buy the property. Since they have owned the property, she has been working with them to obtain the variance. Ms. Carlston asked if it were an option to tear down the garage. Ms. Knittel stated the garage could be torn down to make the lot size equal. When she talked to the staff in planning and development, they informed her that it would make another strange shaped lot and recommended that the property be split down the middle. Tricia Langon, Planner, was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Langon stated that when the applicant came in for an initial discussion Ms. Knittel had erroneous numbers and thought she had a larger lot. As stated in the staff report, the property could be subdivided and would meet lot frontage and the lot size requirements; but it would create a "zig-zag" property line. The City would prefer not to subdivide properties in that manner because it only creates conformity issues later for future property owners. Ms. Langon further testified that if the variance is granted and the garage remains as it is, a nonconforming use would be created. With addressing the lot with the house on Washington, the zone district requires a 25 foot setback for the garage and the garage would be not meet that requirement. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved; Ms. Carlston seconded: THAT FOR CASE #10-99, 699 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE, A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM 7,200 SQUARE FEET TO 5,369 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4- 3:C1, MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Ms. O'Brien stated that the applicant did a very nice job of presenting. She continued by stating she believes the owners bought the property with the intent to subdivide it for profit. She stated that was not a reason to grant a variance. When she looks at the letters from the neighbors, she believes that people in the neighborhood do have the 3 right to expect, and are right in expecting that when infill occurs --going back and building extra houses in places already developed --that the zoning requirements will • be met. Mr. Seymour stated he concurred with Ms. O'Brien and believes it is not in the character of the neighborhood to create a postage stamp sized lot and then build a house on it. Mr. Seymour stated he thinks of the neighborhood as ranch-styled houses on "normal" sized lots. Ms. Carlston stated she believed the variance is for financial gain and also the current landscaping is conducive to the neighborhood. Mr. Aasby stated he didn't believe it was conducive to the neighborhood to create a lot that is 25% smaller. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "no." The second criteria is not met in that the variance, if granted, will not observe the spirit of the ordinance. The spirit of the ordinance is to create a low-density residential district by preserving large lots, and a lot 25 percent smaller than standard A-1-B lots is not in the spirit of the ordinance. The third criteria is not met in that the variance if granted will adversely affect the adjacent property owners. Neighbors have objected to the variance request and the proposed house would be smaller. The fourth criteria is not met in that the variance if granted will • permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. The surrounding property owners correctly expect that infill development will adhere to all zoning standards, including minimum lot size. With respect to the fifth criteria, she stated that she doesn't believe it is the modification that will afford relief. Mr. Aasby stated he voted "no" concurring with Ms. O'Brien. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "no". Further, he stated that it also didn't meet the first criteria in that the property can be used as is --either use the existing house or build a new one. There is no difficulty in using the property. Splitting the lot is strictly for financial gain, which is no consideration for granting a variance. Ms. Carlston and Chair Bode stated they voted "no" concurring with Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Seymour. The Chair announced the variance as denied by a 0-5 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. Ms. Knittel asked for copies of the opposing neighbors' statements. The recording secretary stated she would mail the letters to Ms. Knittel. 4 • • • • Ill. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #11-99 Al Castelo 3701 South Clarkson Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of publication and posting. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to permit two off-street park ing spaces in a residential district within ten feet of the property line adjacent to the street. This is a variance from Section 16-5-S :J, Private Off-Street Parking Spaces in Res idential Districts, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Al Castelo, 19 South Franklin Circle , Littleton, Colorado 80121, was sworn in for test imony. Mr. Castelo stated the application reflects the reasons for the variance request. He testified that the property is un ique and he is trying to develop a first-class medical facility , which will be beneficial to the community. The reason for the two park ing spaces is due to the unique situation of the street. He views it as an easement rather than a street; it accommodates one address which is 777 East Kenyon. Further, the traffic is very low. If the variance is granted, he stated he believes it will not harm the community but would rather be beneficial to the people using the facility. Mr. Seymour asked the applicant why he was back seeking another variance. Also, he asked what was so critical about these two parking spaces. Mr. Castelo responded that 3601 South Clarkson currently has 142 parking spaces , not 162; however, 162 spaces is what the Code requires for both properties . That means 11 O parking spaces for 3601 South Clarkson and 52 for 3701 South Clarkson. He continued ; when a property is developed that accommodates patients , it should be developed to accommodate them the best way possible. If medical space were built per Code, the majority of patients would not be able to find a space to park. He stated that if a doctor occupies approximately 2 ,000 square feet and he has a minimum staff of 3 people , they occupy 1,200 square feet. That only leaves 800 square feet for 2 parking spaces. The doctors would have a difficult time surviving; therefore, he believes he must accommodate the maximum spaces that is allowed. Due to the unique situation of the area , he testified that asking for the variance would not harm the community. The way the parking lot is des igned to flow for the proposed building does not harm the traffic on the street. In fact the traffic flow is m inimal. It w ill increase once the new building is built , but it will not increase to the point that it will be a negat ive towards East Kenyon Avenue. Mr. Castelo stated when he requested the first variance in March, 1998, he didn't think he would need another variance and apologized for having to come before the Board again . Mr. Seymour again asked why the two spaces were critical at the 3701 address and could not be placed at the 3601 South Clarkson parking lot. Further, Mr. Seymour stated that he has never seen the 3601 South Clarkson parking lot even close to being full. Patients parking in the parking garage for Swedish do not seem to have a problem cross ing the street. Mr. Castelo countered that the parking at Swedish is a negative in the community . When he purchased the property, the parking situation was an appealing factor . He continued by stating that he is building a 23,000 square feet 5 building instead of a 35,000 square feet building, which he could have under Code. He • feels that a larger building would be doing harm to the community and has chosen to balance out the project. He testified that 198 parking spaces will be provided, which is more than what the Code requires; however, those parking spaces are very needed. In his opinion, if a facility is provided with good parking, it is a project that will stay in the community for years to come. Mr. Seymour stated that he believes he does have a great project, but still wasn't convinced as to why these two parking spaces are needed on that site. Mr. Castelo agreed that the two parking spaces would not "kill" the project, but it is something he believes doesn't create any harm also. Mr. Seymour stated that if it doesn't "kill" the project , then it is moved off the critical list. Mr. Seymour stated he had trouble with the word "critical" in the justification of his application. Mr. Aasby asked what study or publication Mr. Castelo was basing his figures on regarding parking spaces needed per doctor. Mr. Castelo stated that he was basing it on his experience, not a nationwide study. He continued by testifying that the 3601 South Clarkson building is 50 percent occupied by dentists which do not move patients out as quickly as medical doctors. His belief is medical facilities would not survive if the parking were built to Code. Mr. Aasby clarified that was a business decision. Mr. Castelo replied that it was a business decision that turns into an successful project for the City. His proposed project will be of benefit to the City, and he has taken extraordinary steps to make sure it is a first-class medical facility. Ms . O'Brien stated that when he came before the Board in March, he requested a reduction in the amount of minimum space. Mr. Castelo stated that was correct. Ms. O'Brien continued that the Board granted that variance based on his application and his testimony that he would be able to meet all the building and zoning requirements. Mr. Castelo responded that was also correct. Ms. O'Brien asked why he didn't request for the two parking spaces in his first variance request. Mr. Castelo replied that the building was originally designed to be three stories with space under a portion of the building for parking. It was decided that it was not economically feasible to build a three story building and so he changed the plans and added a fourth floor. He also purchased 3601 South Clarkson from his business partner, which gave him the additional parking that he needed. He continued; when he came before the Board in March, he was not the sole owner of 3601 South Clarkson. He was able to raise the building an additional story to make it economically feasible to build it. Ms. O'Brien clarified whether the parking spaces would still be under the building. Mr. Castelo stated that the building would still have parking spaces underneath; the building will only be an additional story taller. Ms . Carlston stated she wanted to get the numbers straight for parking spaces required by zoning. She stated that there are 142 standard-sized spaces at the 3601 South Clarkson. Mr. Castleo stated that was correct. For the location at the 3701 South • Clarkson, Ms. Carlston clarified that the applicant needs 52 spaces. Mr. Castelo stated • 6 • • • that was also correct. Mrs. Carlston stated that there were 34 on site as planned. Mr . Castelo stated that was correct. Mrs . Carlston continued by stating that zoning requires 110 parking spaces at the 3601 address , which gives him an additional 32 extra spaces; therefore , he has more parking spaces than are required by zoning, even without the two extra requested spaces. Mr. Castelo stated that was correct. Mr. Castelo reiterated that he could build a large r building if he wanted, but chose not to do that in orde r to maximize the parking. He also re iterated t hat granting the variance will not harm the community . Aga in , Kenyon Avenue only exists to accommodate 777 East Kenyon Ave ; otherwise , it would be an alley or an easement. Ms. Carlston stated the Traffic Division recommended his changing the traffic flow to clockwise rather than counterclockwise . If t he variance were granted, she stated she thought that would be a difficult intersection. Mr. Castelo responded that his reasoning for the traffic flowing counterclockwise was due to having the traffic f low away from Little Dry Creek. He believes that makes more sense. Mr. Seymour asked staff what the requireme nt would be if the property were not located within a residential district. Ms . Langon stated if the property were located within a bus iness or indus t rial district , the two parking spaces would probably be allowed. Mr. Seymour stated he felt the use had changed in the area to more businesses rather than residential. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved ; Ms. O'Brien seconded: THAT FOR CASE #11-99, 370 1 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET , A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO PERMIT TWO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE STREET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-5- S:J , PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Ms. O'Brien asked what was locat ed across from Kenyon Avenue . Mr. Seymour stated it was a church. Ms. O 'Br ien asked where the nearest residences were located. Mr. Seymour stated that he believed the nearest residences were south on Clarkson, approximately a block away. Ms. O'Brien stated that she d idn't believe the two parking spaces were critical, bu t she didn 't see where it would be harmful to the community either. She believes parking is important. Mr. Seymour stated that if the property weren't located within a residential district, the parking spaces would be permitted. Ms. Carlston stated she considered the apartment buildings as residential. She stated that she visited the site and the 3601 South 7 Clarkson parking lot had a lot of construction vehicles in it; therefore, a number of vehicles were parked on the street rather than in the parking lot. • Mr. Seymour stated he travels by the property a lot and the traffic on that intersection is usually pretty calm. Mr. Rasby stated that he believes the parking spaces are not critical and feels that the request is for business/financial purposes. Mr. Rasby stated that it is currently zoned residential regardless of the number of businesses nearby, and that is what the Board must consider. Ms. O'Brien asked if the two spaces would interfere with the line of sight of people entering and exiting the parking lot. Chair Bode stated he didn't believe it would. Chair Bode stated when he looked at the property and reviewed the Board packet , he didn't believe the variance was warranted ; however it's only two parking spaces, and he now agrees with Mr. Castelo that more parking spaces is better. He believes that elderly people have a difficult time staying within the "parking lines" and take up more than one space at a time . Mr. Rasby stated that he wasn't convinced. He clarified that there were sufficient parking spaces. Chair Bode stated that between the two parking lots, 3601 and 3701 South Clarkson Street, there was currently adequate parking with 12 extra spaces. Discussion ensued. Mr. Rasby stated that the staff report does not reflect any "pros" for the variance, only "cons." He is using the staff report and their experience as a guideline. Chair Bode and Ms. O'Brien agreed it should be used as a guideline , but the Board has the discretion to vary from those guidelines . With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes. Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes." Ms . Carlston stated she voted "yes." With respect to the fifth criteria, she stated she believes it would be the least modification and it is only two parking spaces. It will be of value. Ms. O'Brien states she voted "yes." The special circumstances are the ill and elderly visiting the medical facility who need as many close parking spaces as possible. With regard to the second criteria, she stated she believe it meets the intent. With respect to the third criteria, there is very little residential close by and there is a parking lot adjacent to the property. With respect to the fourth criteria, the adjacent properties are developed. Mr. Rasby stated he voted "no." He stated he didn't believe it met the second criteria. • It is zoned residential and doesn't meet the spirit of the ordinance . • 8 • Chair Bode stated he voted "yes" concurring with Ms. Carlston and Ms. O'Brien. • • The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 4-1 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the August 11, 1999 public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved, Mr. Rasby seconded: THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 1999 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour None Bode Davidson and Smith The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved . v. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Seymour moved; Ms. Carlston seconded: THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #9-99, 4664 SOUTH MARIPOSA DRIVE, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby and Seymour None. Bode Davidson and Smith The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VI. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated she wished to continue the discussion on the Board retreat. She referred the Board's attention to the memo listing various topics. She asked if the Board had any additional areas it wished to cover and when they wished to meet. Discussion ensued. The Board decided to meet prior to the October 13 meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the City will provide dinner. 9 Mr. Seymour asked if Ms. Carlston had received her initial orientation. Ms. Langon • stated that she had not. The Englewood Charter states that a member of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals cannot be on any other Board or Commission; Ms . Carlston was on two additional Commissions. Ms. Carlston informed the Board that she chose to remain on the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Langon stated she would be contacting Ms. Carlston to schedule her orientation. VII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VIII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Ms. O'Brien expressed her appreciation to Ms . Carlston for staying on the Board. There was no further business brought before the Board . The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:55 p.m . ,7 10 • •