Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-10 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AN D APPEALS May 10, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Bode presiding. Members present: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith Members absent: Davidson and Rasby Staff present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Harold Stitt, Senior Planner Mr. Smith moved; Mr. Seymour seconded: TO MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DETERMINE THE ORDER OF THE MEETING AS WELL AS LEGAL OPTIONS ON CASE #2-2000. AYES: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None . ABSENT: Davidson and Rasby The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. The meeting reconvened; all Board members were present. 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 III, 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 opportun ity to speak; opponents will address the Board; and then staff will address the Board . 1 II. CASE #2-2000 Community Care, Inc. 3527-3535 South Corona Street Chair Bode stated that at the last meeting the Board asked the City and the applicant to meet and try to resolve the issue. Mr. Stitt responded that the parties met, and he distributed a statement concerning the City's position with respect to that meeting. Ms. O'Brien asked if an agreement was reached. Mr. Stitt responded that no agreement was reached. Ms. O'Brien asked for clarification as to what staff was distributing. Mr. Stitt stated that it was a memo concerning the City's position with respect to the negotiation meeting. Chair Bode clarified that an agreement was not reached. Mr. Stitt stated that was correct. Mr. Fine responded that the parties met, and from the start it was clear, at least from the City's point of view,' that no agreement with regard to resolving the matter would be reached short of coming before the Board again. It was then discussed whether the parties could submit an agreed upon "question" to the Board for its decision, but that could not be agreed to either. Mr. Smith moved; Ms. O'Brien seconded: • BOTH PARTIES SUBMIT BY MAY 19, 2000 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT. THOSE FINDINGS SHOULD INCORPORATE THE CITY'S POSITION AS WELL AS • THE APPLICANT'S POSITION. THE BOARD WILL .THEN MEET IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT. BASED ON THOSE FINDINGS, THE BOARD WILL RENDER A DECISION. THE FINDINGS CAN INCLUDE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS WELL AS FINDINGS OF FACT. AYES: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Davidson and Rasby The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. Mr. Smith stated it will put the issues in focus on both sides, and the Board can arrange an executive session to discuss those Findings either before next month's meeting or sometime before. Chair Bode stated Case #2-2000 was continued. Mr. Stitt asked whether the Board intended to establish a date for the continuance. Ms. Reid stated that a "time certain" date must be set in order to continue the case. Discussion ensued. Chair Bode announced that Case #2-2000 is continued to June 14, 2000. Mr. Fine asked if the Board wished to hear argument on June 14. Mr. Smith responded no; by that time, the Board will have reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and made • a decision. Mr. Fine asked whether the applicant should appear. Mr. Smith stated the 2 • Board will have to vote on whatever motion is made. Chair Bode stated that at the present time the public hearing is closed. Mr. Fine stated that he sent the recording secretary a transcribed portion of the May 4, 1995 Minutes. He further stated that he realizes that the Board received a copy of those Minutes, but the transcription came from the tapes. He further recognizes that the hearing is closed, but he wanted the Board to be aware that information had been submitted to Ms. Fenton. Mr. Fine stated tha t he may cite it and attach it to his submittal. If the Board does not wish to consider, it can remove that portion. III. CASE #7-2000 Mark and Sherry Olson 4 710 South Fox Street Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance from Section 16-4-2:1.1 to encroach 10 feet 7 inches into the total side yard setback, 4 feet 9 inches into the minimum side yard setback on the south, 1 foot 10 inches into the minimum side yard setback on the north, 10 feet 6 inches into the side yard setback between adjacent principal structures on the south, and 10 feet 10 inches into the side yard setback • between adjacent principal structures on the north. • Mark and Sherry Olson, 4719 South Elati Street, were sworn in. Chair Bode reminded the applicants that the Board has five criteria on which it must base its decision. Ms. Olson asked if the Board wished her to read their justification to the five criteria. Chair Bode responded that the Board needs to hear why she thinks they should grant the variance. Ms. Reid stated that as way of clarification, the-Board has a copy of the application and staff report. Ms. Olson testified that the property does _not conform to the minimum lot area requirement for the RlA property, yet it is being held to all other District standards. The property's lot area of 6,250 square feet corresponds with the lot area requirement of the RlC District. Secondly, the requested variances will allow the applicants the ability to expand the house and add a garage .. Mr. Smith interjected that Ms. Olson was reading what the Board already had. He asked if she had anything further to add with regard to the five criteria, such as why they are remodeling rather than demo lishing the house. Ms. Olson responded that the reason they wished to build onto the house was because it will improve the neighborhood. The house was built in 1937, and they wish to update it to a modern home. Mr. Smith again asked why they were remodeling rather than tearing it down and starting all over. Mr. Olson stated he thought about that, but decided to remodel because he felt that to have the type of house he wanted - 3 bedrooms --he wouldn't be able to fit the house on the lot without maintaining where the house currently sits and adding on to it. 3 Ms. Carlston asked when they purchased the property. Ms. Olson responded that they • bought the property in March and planned to turn it into a rental house. The more they looked at the house the more repairs they felt it needed. They decided since it needed so many repairs that it would be better to make the house "nice." Since they live across the alley from this house, it will help their property value, as well as the neighbors'. She further testified that they are now considering moving into the house at 4710 South Fox if the variance is granted, and the remodeling can be completed. Mr. Seymour clarified that they wish to demolish part of the structure. Mr. Olson stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour further asked if the existing property, as a whole, was sound. Mr. Olson responde d that it was not, and that was why he was planning on demolishing approximately two-thirds. The house had been added onto two or three times; and there isn't really a footing pad, it is cinder block. Mr. Seymour clarified that the part not being demolished was structurally sound. Mr. Olson responded that the house has no foundation; the main part of the house sits on a slab. Further, his intentions are that the part that is rebuilt will have new footings and foundation underneath it. Mr. Seymour asked if the house would block the sunlight to the north neighbor's house. Mr. Olson stated that he went to all the neighbors with a rough draft of the drawing, and he received no opposition to the variance. The neighbors felt it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Seymour stated he understood that, but again asked if the sunlight would be blocked for the neighbor to the north. • Mr. Olson stated that it will partially block some sunlight on the north side. Mr. Seymour asked if they understood that there was no opening for the fire department on the south side of the house. Mr. Olson stated that the house currently sits very close to the property line, 2.3 inches. He doesn't know at this time whether that part of the house will stay or will have to be demolished. If it is not structurally sound, it will force him to move the house to the 3 foot minimum. The home will have a brick facade. Mr. Seymour asked if anyone had looked at the house for structural integrity, especially the portion on the slab. Mr. Olson responded that no one had looked at it yet, but an engineer will inspect the structure. He will also invite the Building Official to look at it. Ms. Olson stated that it is already 2.3 feet from the property line. If it is not structurally sound, then it can be moved over to maintain the 3 foot setback and will not drastically change their plans for the house. Chair Bode stated that the applicant submitted numerous neighbors' statements in favor of the variance. He asked if there was anyone present in opposition of the variance. 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 . 4 • • •• Mr. Seymour moved; Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #7-2000, 4710 SOUTH FOX STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 10 FEET 7 INCHES INTO THE TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK, 4 FEET 9 INCHES INTO THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE SOUTH, 1 FOOT 10 INCHES INTO THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE NORTH, 10 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN ADJACENT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE SOUTH, AND 10 FEET 10 INCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN ADJACENT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE NORTH. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:!.1 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Seymour stated that he was concerned about the slab with no footings, but didn't know what the Board could do about that. Ms. Carlston stated that a lot of houses in that neighborhood appear to have been upgraded. The proposed house would fit in nicely. Mr. Smith stated that he had some problem with the total of the variance. He understands why he wants to keep the wall on the south side. Nothing on the north side encroaches now, and he has a problem allowing that encroachment in addition to the continuance of the old encroachment. Ms. Carlston clarified that the north side is the garage area. Mr. Smith stated that was correct. Ms. Carlston stated that the applicant cou ld construct a one car garage, but it appears that they are proposing a two car garage to build the master bedroom over it. Ms. O'Brien stated that she would want a two car garage. Mr. Smith stated that it will be far better for the neighborhood than what is there now. Chair Bode asked what happens if the concrete slab turns out to be no good. Mr. Smith stated the variance could be conditioned. Mr. Seymour stated that would be a good idea. Mr. Smith proposed that the variance is granted only if it is a remodel. If the applicant does in fact have to tear down the existing walls or pour a new slab, that he come back to the Board. Ms. O'Brien stated that they have proposed a lot of demolishing already, so it might be clearer to make it contingent upon the structural integrity of the slab on grade. Chair Bode stated that when you look at the house you really have to use your imagination to call it a slab. Mr. Smith stated that he understood why the applicant didn't want the expense of a structural engineer if the Board wasn't going to grant the variance. Mr. Smith stated he saw two choices: Continue the case and ask the applicants to hire an engineer or grant them a variance contingent upon it being a remodel. The Board would then have to trust City staff to determine whether it is a 5 remodel or a rebuild. If it is a rebuild, the applicants would need to come before the • Board again. Mr. Stitt stated that the variance must be acted upon within 6 months of its granting or it becomes null and void unless the Board extends it another 6 months. Work must commence 6 months after the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Stitt asked for the Board's definition of "rebuild" and "remodel." Mr. Smith stated that the key is the south wall. Chair Bode stated the applicants are asking for a variance with regard to where the wall is presently located. If that wall is torn down, the applicant could build the house to the correct setbacks. Mr. Seymour stated that it is his understanding that the applicant has an RlC lot in a RlA zone district. Normally, it would require 75 foot frontage, but it only has 50. Discussion ensued. Chair Bode stated that he wouldn't consider the house a "remodel" if the south wall is torn down; he would consider it a rebuilt. Mr. Stitt clarified that if the entire existing structure were removed, the Board would consider it a rebuilt. Mr. Smith stated that if the wall on the south has to be removed, then the Board wants to hear the case again as to why the wall should still encroach. Chair Bode also stated that if an engineer determines that the slab is not good and that part of the wall is torn down, there is no "start" place. Mr. Smith moved; O'Brien seconded: TO AMEND THE MOTION BY ATIACHING THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: THAT • THE SOUTH WALL NOT BE TORN DOWN. Chair Bode stated that if the amendment passes, he will mark the south wall on the plan so it is clear which wall the Board is discussing. The amendment to the motion was approved by a 5-0 vote. Chair Bode stated the amendment was approved. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes on the original motion with the condition attached by the amended motion. Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes." The criteria are generally met. The lot is irregularly sized, which is not the owners' fault. It observes the spirit of the ordinance by providing upgraded housing. It will not adversely affect the adjacent property. The wall is already in place. It will not substantially or permanently impair the use of the adjacent property since it is already developed. The homes in the neighborhood appear to be in substantially better shape than the subject property. He stated he had some problems with it being the minimum variance, but because a two-car garage is almost a necessity, it would appear it is the minimum variance. Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Seymour, Ms. Carlston, and Chair Bode stated they voted "yes" • concurring with Mr. Smith. 6 • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Rasby, Seymour, and Smith None None Davidson and Rasby The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 5-0 vote, and directed the applicant to contact the planning division staff for any additional information. A short recess of the Board was declared by the Chair. The meeting reconvened; all Board members were present. IV. CASE #2-2000 Grace Lutheran Church and Academy 3055 South University Boulevard Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and pub li cation. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to. reduce the minimum lot frontage from 200 feet to 155 feet. This is a variance from Section 16-4-2:F(2) of the Englewood Municipal Code . Reverend Robert Macina and Michelle S. Clark, representatives of Grace Lutheran Church, 880 Fairfax Street, were sworn in. Reverend Macina testified that the variance is needed to proceed with the construction of the church and school. Mr. Seymour asked if the entire church and school would be moved to the University location. Reverend Macina stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour asked how many people attended the church and how many children attended the school. Reverend Macina responded that there are currently 20-25 attending the church regularly. Ms. Clark stated that the current school enrollment is 6 children. Mr. Seymour asked that they clarify their posit ions with the church. Reverend Macina stated he was the pastor, and Ms. Clark stated she was the principal of the school. Mr. Seymour asked for the seating capacity of the proposed church and the maximum number of students at the school. Reverend Mac i na responded that the church was planning on building a facility which would hold 100 people and would be very delighted if it could fill it. Ms. Clark responded that there would be 4 classrooms with a maximum of 16 students in each room for a total of 64 students. Mr. Seymour asked what the grade levels of the school would be. Ms. Clark stated that the school would be K-8. Mr. Smith stated that the site plan didn't show the 15 feet the City was going to require along University. Ms. Clark stated that when the drawing was submitted, they had not met with the City's development review committee. After that meeting, they told the committee the 15 feet would not be a problem. 7 Mr. Smith asked if the proposal maintained all other setbacks. Reverend Macina stated • it did. Ms. O'Brien asked if there were any planned playground facilities for the children. Ms. Clark responded that there was not; they are an educational facility and do not provide recreational classes. Ms. O'Brien asked whether or not the school would have recess. Ms . Clark stated the courtyard would be the area where the children could play outside. Ms. Carlston asked if an architect had been hired to plan the space. Reverend Macina responded that an architect had not been hired yet, but the church was in the process of interviewing architects. Two of the architects the church have seen the size of the property and are familiar with what the church is requesting. Chair Bode asked if anyone was present who wished to speak in favor or opposition to the variance. A member of the audience stated he was not in opposition or in favor of the variance. He knows nothing about the proposal, but there are homes that border the property; he is present with information about the neighborhood and to gather information. He stated he would be in opposition if it gave him a -chance to address the Board. Chair Bode stated the Board has five criteria that it must justify. If the gentleman wished to speak to those criteria, then he should come forward. The gentleman asked for the five criteria. Michael Newbury, 3042 South Race Street, was sworn in. Mr. Seymour asked in what • city he lived. Mr. Newbury responded that he lived in Denver. There were a number of people in the audience from both Denver and Englewood. Chair Bode explained that the applicant went to the City with its plans and was told it would need a variance. It does not conform with the rules of the City. The applicant has posted a sign and the case has been published in the paper stating the variance would be requested. Chair Bode further explained that the meeting is for the Board to either grant or deny the variance request. Chair Bode directed Mr. Newbury's attention to the five criteria before him which is what the Board bases its decision on. Chair Bode reviewed the five criteria for the audience. Mr . Newbury stated that there are a number of concerned people at the meeting who would like more information. He stated he is the president of the neighborhood association to the north of the property. There are presently three churches in the neighborhood. Adjacent to the property there are people who live in the homes, and what goes in on the proposed property will impact their daily lives. The neighborhood has a number of concerns that may or may not adversely affect the area. The neighbors have not had a chance to review any site plan or landscaping plan for the church. Mr. Newbury stated that the neighborhood association feels it is critical to look at a plan, and he assumed the Boa·rd would want to see one as well. The ingress and egress of vehicles to the property may or may not impact the neighbors. Mr. Newbury asked if variances were for the land or the specific owner. Chair Bode responded that • all variances ran with the property. Mr. Newbury continued; there is a concern with the 8 • • • feasibility of the church. Again, the neighbors have a number of questions. The association's annual meeting is next Tuesday at the Hillcrest Church at 7 p.m., and the neighbors would like to invite the church to that meeting. An agenda item for that meeting is the development plans for that lot. Normally, 60 to 90 people attend the annual meeting. Not knowing much about the church's plan, it is difficult to say the variance will not adversely affect the neighborhood and adjacent property. Mr. Smith pointed out that the variance is not to grant a church; a church is a permitted use. The variance is only for the issue of reduction in the frontage. Mr. Newbury stated he understood. He reiterated that the neighborhood had a number of questions, and again invited the church to the neighborhood annual meeting to answer those questions. Mr. Seymour asked if there was a set of information, which the Board has, available for Mr. Newbury. He stated that the Board has information which speaks to the changing of the regulations since 1985. Prior to 1985, the church would have been permitted on 125 feet of frontage. Mr. Stitt provided Mr. Newbury with the information for his review. Mr. Stitt stated he could point out a few facts that might help clarify some of the issues . Mr. Stitt stated that as Mr. Smith pointed out, religious institutions are permitted uses in the RlA Zone District. The question before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is only to consider a variance to reduce the required lot frontage from 200 feet to 155 feet. The issue of the use, access or other issues are not under consideration by the Board. This particular proposal has been reviewed by the Development Review Team and several conditions have been placed on the development itself. One such condition is the acquisition or dedication of additional right-of-way along University for an accel/decel lane. The Public Works Department has indicated that the access on University will be right in, right out. There may be a secondary access onto Dartmouth Avenue. Utilities will be provided from Dartmouth Avenue. There is a "flag pole" extension on this lot. There may be some additional easements necessary to provide enough space for the water and sewer lines. In all other ways regarding the RlA zone district, this proposal meets and even exceeds the requirements. The lot area is almost twice the required lot area. The RlA zone district requirements were modified in 1985; at that time the requirement was for only 125 feet of lot width. That was modified to 200 feet and the minimum lot area was 24,000 square feet. By doing the math, that particular combination anticipated a lot 200 feet wide by 120 deep. This particular piece of property is 155 feet wide and 250 feet deep. It is double the size of a typical required RlA lot for a non-residential use. Based on those facts, it appears the only issue before the Board is whether or not the applicant has met all the conditions for the variance for a reduction from 200 to 155 feet. Mr. Smith asked if the property were address on Dartmouth if a variance would be needed. Mr. Stitt responded that there is not enough lot frontage on Dartmouth. The 9 lot has to be addressed on University. The access from Dartmouth is by a narrow "flag . pole;' that is 15-20 feet wide. Mr. Seymour asked if it was an easement the church could use as a driveway. Mr. Stitt stated it was part of the property. Mr. Newbury clarified that the variance would run with the property. Chair Bode stated that was correct. Mr. Newbury also clarified that the permitted uses within the RlA zone district were single family housing, churches, and educational institutions. He stated he also noticed offices were permitted. Mr. Smith stated that it was public buildings and facilities, such as City Hall. Mr. Newbury stated he was concerned that if the variance is granted and the church is unable to complete its project, another use would be able to build on that property. Mr. Smith stated that the project must be started within 6 months of granting the variance, or the variance is null and void. Chair Bode also stated that the variance must be acted upon within 6 months. • Ginger Hecht, 3089 South Vine Street, was sworn in. She stated that she was the Vice President of the neighborhood association. In reviewing the five criteria, she stated the third and fourth criteria speak to not adversely affecting the adjacent property. Upon seeing the site plan submitted, Ms. Hect stated an ingress/egress is proposed off University, which is a very busy stre.et, into a parking lot with only a five foot buffer between the houses directly adjacent to the property. Those houses do have fences, but there would only be the fence and a 5 foot buffer between the houses and the parking lot. She stated that the ingress/egress does adversely affect the properties. • There is no opposition to church use; they are only concerned that there is no adverse affect to the property values or the neighbors' lifestyles. She stated if the variance is granted, the neighborhood would like to know what the next step is so they can receive some consideration when the project is built. Chair Bode directed her to the City staff. Mr. Newbury stated the biggest concern is the ingress/egress: There is apparently two ingress/egress; one from Dartmouth and one from University. He stated that he didn't feel that anyone in the audience would have a problem with the ingress/egress being from Dartmouth. Presently, there is a church adjacent to this property which has its ingress/egress from Dartmouth. University Boulevard is a very busy street, and it would be nice for the City to consider allowing ingress/egress only on Dartmouth to avoid problems. There is a church at Cornell and University and the person running late for church parks on the corner, which makes visibility difficult. George Bodley, 2300 East Columbia Place was sworn in. Mr. Bodley stated his property is directly behind the proposed development. With respect to the first criteria, the applicant is not the current property owner. In the previous case the Board heard, the applicant had a plan and answered the Board's questions. As an adjacent property owner, he has had to deal with problems with the lot for a lot time. He hasn't seen any plans, but yet the applicant wants everything approved tonight. There are no architectural drawings, only a plot layout. It is hard for him to consider the variance • without further information. He doesn't see that there are any exceptional conditions or 10 • • circumstances to the property owner, because they are not the property owner. With regard to the second criteria, he understands that the lot is large and in that sense meets the spirit of the ordinance. However, to consider addressing the property on the 10 foot piece of property on Dartmouth does not seem to be in the spirit of the ordinance. With respect to the third criteria, without an opportunity to review plans there is no way of knowing whether it will adversely affect adjacent property or neighborhood. With any other proposal for that lot, which has been turned down, there have been actual drawings and plans for review. The neighbors have not been contacted or informed about this proposal. With respect to the fourth criteria, all the property is already developed so he couldn't speak against that criteria. He stated that his neighbor told him that a few years ago when the house was moved, $80,000 was paid to have a berm constructed for drainage. He asked Mr. Stitt if he was familiar with that situation. Mr. Stitt started to respond; Ms. Reid interjected that the gentleman is present to testify before the Board and it is not proper procedure for him to ask staff questions. She directed Mr. Bodley to direct all questions to the Board; and if the Board wished to pursue it with Mr. Stitt, they would do so. He asked the Board to inquire about the situation, but it is his understanding that there was money that changed hands for the berm. The reason the berm is important is because the lot has always had drainage problems. Mr. Smith asked what that had to do with the variance. Mr. Bodley responded that the applicant is asking for a variance that does not meet the requirement as the law stands. The berm certainly impacts his property because it has been piled up against his fence and rotting it out. So, what will happen to the berm if the variance is granted? He asked the Board to address his concerns and represent him even though he doesn't live in Englewood. He further stated that he didn't know it to be true that the variance is the least to grant relief. Based on the information he has, he cannot support the variance. J.B. Kennedy, 3225 South Race Street was sworn in. Mr. Kennedy testified that he lives in Englewood and is fascinated by the procedure that the Board has information that those living in Englewood do not. Due to that fact, no one in the audience can address the five criteria either pro or con. Ms. O'Brien asked for a copy of the property posting. Marilyn Sthang, 3050 South University, was sworn in. She stated she lived directly across the street from the proposed property, and she and the other neighbors are tired of the dust. She also pointed out the width on Dartmouth is approximately 25 feet, which would accommodate a driveway. Mr. Seymour stated he would like to ask the applicant a few more questions. Mr . Seymour clarified there would be 4 classrooms, with a total of 64 students. Ms. Clark stated that was correct. Mr. Seymour stated he was bothered by there being no 11 playground or sports field with a K-8 school. Ms. Clark referred the Board to the site plan and stated that there is sufficient property for the students to go outside and do activities, but an actual built playground was not planned at this time. Mr. Seymour asked how tall the brick fence would be. Reverend Macina responded that it would be built to meet the City's regulations. City staff directed them to draw a site plan that would also show what the church had in mind for the property. They informed the City that the church didn't have a site planner in place yet. Staff told them that was alright, but the church still needed to draw up something that would give the Board an idea of what was being proposed. The church didn't realize that the drawing would be used as official information. Reverend Macina continued; the church plans on following all City regulations. Mr. Seymour asked whether the fence was meant to be a sound barrier. Reverend Macina stated it could be. Ms. Clark clarified that they met with the City's Development Review Team and showed them the site plan and was told all the issues that would need to be addressed when the plan was formalized --the acceleration/deceleration lane, parking between the two buildings, and other issues. Once the variance was granted, they would be working with the committee, and the plans would have to be approved by that committee. The church felt confident that by working with them the site would be developed properly. Mr. Seymour clarified that the parking would be between the two buildings. Ms. Clark stated that was correct; the sketch the Board has was made prior to the meeting with the City. After meeting with them, they informed • the church that it would need the aceljdecel lane; therefore, the entrance would be on the south end. Mr. Smith asked staff if there was public input on the development of the property. Mr. Stitt stated there was not. Again, the use is a use by right and the applicant is only requesting a variance for lot frontage. If that is granted, the church would submit their building permit application, like any other property owner, and it would go through a review by all the necessary departments -Fire, Public Works, Building, Utilities, Community Development, etc. Those departments would note all requirements that would need to be meant. Mr. Smith asked if the neighbors would have an opportunity to review those plans and provide input. Mr. Stitt responded that the neighbors could make their concerns known to the Building Department. The plans would be available for review. Mr. Stitt also pointed out that the property notice clearly states that "Anyone interested in this matter may be heard at the public hearing at Englewood City Hall. For information on this variance request, contact the Community Development Department at 303-762-2342." This application was on file and available for public review for the last month. Ms. O'Brien asked if anyone requested to review the file. Mr. Stitt answered that no one, to his knowledge, had requested to review the file. Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. Stitt to clarify the procedure for neighbors to have input on the development review process. Mr. Stitt replied that if it is a use by right and the public • is aware of it, they have an option to present their concerns. It is a development that is 12 • • • permitted; the applicant could voluntarily decide to meet with adjacent property owners regarding placement of the structures and other issues, but it is not part of the review process. Ms. O'Brien asked Ms. Reid if the Board could make it a condition that the applicant meet with the neighbors and come to an agreement. Ms. Reid responded that it could not. A woman in the audience asked if the applicants were the property owners. Chair Bode stated they were not, but the owners are listed on the application. Ms. Reid made a point of order that the purpose of the meeting was not to answer questions. She stated she would be more than happy to meet with her to answer any questions after the meeting and the variance procedure. The purpose of the public hearing is for the Board to take testimony so they can render a decision. Legally, a notice is placed on the property as well as published in the paper . The publ ic has an opportunity to investigate and receive information prior to the hearing. At the hearing, the public can then present any issues it may have. Whether or not everyone had the information ahead of time or not, it was available and the public was informed by the appropr iate notices. The woman again started to ask questions; Ms. Reid informed the woman she was not testifying and may not testify from her seat. If she wishes to speak to any of the City staff after the hearing, they would be happy to speak with her or anyone else . 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, Mr. Smith seconded: THAT CASE #8-2000, 3055 SOUTH UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE FROM 200 FEET TO 155 FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4- 2:F(2) OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Seymour stated that the property has twice the amount of required lot size. There are two ways in which to access the property, and he believes the church would be better than the weeds and dirt. He believes it would be a good use for the property. Mr. Smith stated it appears that the lot has been abandoned for a period of time. It doesn't appear to be suitable for residential development, which could also be done. The lack of a playground is an issue for the parents who send their children to the school. The only issue for the Board is the frontage. Ms. O'Brien stated she was going to take the opposite position. She stated that the applicant has not met either the second or third criteria. In particular, she believes the spirit of the ordinance does assume that development conforms to the zone district provisions for minimum lot frontage. There must have been a logical reason for the 13 increase in the frontage, and the Board should observe it. She has heard no reason • why the Board shouldn't. She stated she also is not convinced that the applicant has met the burden of proof on the third criterion, in that it could adversely affect the neighborhood. She clarified that she was not opposed to a church or education facility. She stated applicants usually present architectural drawings and have thought out a concept. She stated she feels that is lacking in this case, which causes her concern for the adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Seymour stated he agreed that the plan could have been more accurate, such as the parking being shown in the correct location. Ms. Carlston stated that with computers it doesn't take much time and effort to make a professional plan for people to review. With the size of the buildings and cost of the project, it needs to have more planning associated with it rather than the plan that was submitted to the Board. Ms. Carlston stated that she thought the State would require a playground. In response to Ms. O'Brien's comments, Mr. Smith stated that the variance is only for a reduction from 200 to 155 feet of lot frontage. The lot is large and has few other uses, which the property doesn't appear to be suitable for. It is either too large or too expensive for someone to build a house. The variance doesn't affect the neighborhood; • the use might affect the neighborhood. However, if the frontage were 200 feet wide, the church could build without a variance and the neighborhood would still have traffic, kids, and people parking on the street. It is the minimum variance because the lot size isn't changing. Mr. Seymour stated the proposed church and school are small. Ms. O'Brien stated she was concerned with the lack of necessary planning. She is also concerned that the neighborhood association appears at the hearing without having called and pursued their line of information. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Smith stated he voted "yes." Th~ narrowness of the property on University presents practical difficulties for the development of the property. It appears too large for a single family dwelling and too small for any other use. The church is an allowed use. It observes the spirit of the ordinance because it allows the property to be developed for a use consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The variance does not affect the neighborhood. The adjacent property is already developed. It is the minimum variance because the lot size is not changing. 14 • • Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "no." The second criterion has not been met. The spirit of the ordinance assumes development conforms to the zone district provisions for minimum lot frontage. The third criterion has also not been met. • • Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes." When the required lot frontage changed to 200 feet it assumed the lot would only be 125 feet deep. The church has twice the lot size as required. Ms. Carlston stated she voted "no." The variance will affect the adjacent properties and neighborhood. Chair Bode stated he voted "no." It does not meet the third criterion for the previously stated reasons. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Seymour and Smith Bode, Carlston, and O'Brien None Davidson and Rasby The Chair announced the case denied by a 2-3 vote . v. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Bode asked for consideration of the Minutes from the April 12, 2000 public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved, Ms. O'Brien seconded: THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2000 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Seymour, and Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None · ABSENT: Davidson and Rasby The motion carried. The Chair .announced the motion approved. VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Smith moved ; Mr. Seymour seconded: 15 THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #6-2000, LAWRENCE MOSKOW, 1170 EAST • AMHERST AVENUE, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. AYES: NAYS: Bode , Carlston , O'Brien , Seymour, and Smith None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Davidson and Rasby The motion carried. The Chair announced the motion approved. VII. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt stated he had nothing further. VIII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. IX. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE Mr. Smith asked if the next meeting would be held in Council Chamber or Court Chambers. Ms. Reid stated the Board would meet in the Council Chambers at the new • city hall. There was no further business brought before the Board. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 16