Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-10 BAA MINUTES• • • 1. Call to Order CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS FEBRUARY 10, 2010 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:05 p .m . in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Smith presiding. 2. Roll Call Present: Douglas Cohn , Carson Green , Marcie O'Brien , John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace . Absent/Unexcused: Miodrag Budisa . Chair Smith stated there were six members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance or appeal. [!] Chair Smith stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part 111, Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Variances granted by the Board are subject to a 30-day appeal period. Variances are effective at the end of the appeal period. Building permits for construction associated with an approved variance will not be issued until the appeal period is ended. Building permits must be obtained and construction begun within 180 days of the variance's effective date. Chair Smith 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 . 1 • • • 3. Public Hearings: Case #VAR2010-001 Brandis Meeks 3518 South Bannock Street Chair Smith stated he had proof of posting and publication . He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to encroach 24.5 feet into the required 25 foot rear setback to reconstruct a deck. This is a variance to Table 16-6-1.1 of the Englewood Municipal Code . ~ Brook Bell, Planner was sworn in. Mr. Bell provided an overview of the property and neighborhood. The property is currently a registered, legal nonconforming use since the lot is only 3,300 square feet. Four units require at least a 12,000 square foot lot. Further, the existing structure does not meet the rear setback. After the structure was built, the Highway Department widened US285 and took some of the parcel for that purpose . ~ Brandis Meeks, 12882 E Kansas Pl, #101, Aurora was sworn in. Mr. Meeks explained why the variance was necessary and answered questions from the Board . The upper deck of the building serves as the rear exit for the top two units, and there is a cement patio below the deck that is the back exit for the lower two units. The deck and patio are needed for safety in case of a fire. Mr. Meeks testified that he purchased the property as it currently exists; the variance is not self-imposed since the Highway Department took a portion of the land for US285 . When the stairwell is reconstructed , it will not encroach onto the neighboring property as it previously had. A Pin Survey was done and the property lines are clearly marked. Mr. Cohn pointed out that the City recommended the sewer iine be located . Mr. Meeks responded that he can do a locate for the sewer line if necessary, but he is not digging underground. ~ Mr. Bell provided additional information regarding the case and answered questions from the Board . Because the footprint of the building is not increasing, it is not considered an expansion of the nonconforming structure. It is considered a reconstruction. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance . Chair Smith incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. MOTION: THAT CASE VAR2010-001, 3518 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 24 .5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO 2 • • • RECONSTRUCT A DECK PER THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN . MOVED BY DOUGLAS COHN SECONDED BY CARSON GREEN [@) With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Green voted yes . The lot was reduced in size with the expansion of US285. It will not change the existing footprint, and will increase the public safety by making it a useful property with safer egress. It is essentially the same building as the neighboring building and will improve adjacent properties by not being vacant. The size of the lot was reduced due to eminent domain. Ms. Purdy, Mr. Sprecace, Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Cohn, and Chair Smith voted yes concurring with Mr. Green. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 6). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W . Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace. The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . [@) Case #VAR2010-002 Jacalyn Neuhaus 431 East Girard Avenue Chair Smith stated he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to reduce the minimum distance requirement between a small group living facility and a state -licensed child care facility from 750 feet to 715 feet ; and to reduce the minimum distance requirement between a small group living facility and another group living facility from 1,250 feet to 700 feet . These are variances to 16-5-2:A.1.b .(1) and 16-5-2 :A .1.b.(2) of the Englewood Municipal Code . Brook Bell, Planner was sworn in . Mr. Bell provided an overview of the property and neighborhood. Mr. Bell stated the vicinity map shows one child care facility and two group living facilities within the distancing requirements. The House of Hope, one of the existing group living facilities , was granted a variance in 2000 to reduce-the distancing requirement from the St. Louis School. 3 • • • Jacalyn Neuhaus, 431 East Girard Avenue was sworn in. Ms. Neuh aus testified that she has met seniors who do not want to live alone but still want to live in a home environment . She believes seniors, capable of taking care of themselves, do better when they have more contact with people and are encouraged to get out. Her house is close to the Malley Center and Swedish Medical Center . She was previously a childcare provider, and the group home will not cause any problems in the community. Derek Bell , 3396 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in . Mr. Bell testified that the neighborhood is currently a high density area . He and his neighbors question how the proposed group living facility would i mpact parking in the neighborhood, which is currently re stricted . If the variance is granted, there is the potential of 9 extra cars on the street which impacts parking and increases traffic in the neighborhood. When he and his wife purchased their home 5 years ago, they chose a neighborhood that was zoned single-family residential ; it was very appealing to them . Adding more people in the house next to him will negatively impact his quality of life. He asked the Board to deny the variance request based on the fact that the neighborhood is already very dense; it will only increase traffic; and it will increase parking. Adding a parking lot to the rear of the applicant's lot, changes the feel of the neighborhood. Mr. Bell stated he is also concerned about his property value should he ever decide to move and sell his home. In addition to the 8 individuals living in the home, there is the potential of visitors which increases the traffic in and out of the neighborhood . Mr. Cohn asked if Mr. Bell has reviewed the Swedish Small Area Plan. Mr. Bell responded that he has received some information and that there are some capital improvements being discussed to the south. Ms . Neuhaus responded that a parking area for 5 cars could be constructed in the back yard . Further, not all of the senior residents would be driving. The City shuttle could transport residents, and she would use her personal vehicle as well. The Malley Center is within walking distance, and the light rail station is fairly close. There are a lot of elderly who do not drive. A lot of elderly do not have contact with their families, which is why a group living arrangement is advantageous . Cha i r Smith asked if she would be willing to limit the number to no more than 5 residents . Ms . Neuhaus stated she was willing to be fle x ible . 4 • • • Mr. Green asked how many employees there would be . Ms . Neuhaus stated it would just be her; and if she wasn 't there, one of her family members would cover for her. Ms . O'Brien asked if she was the only person who currently resided in the home. Ms. Neuhaus responded that she lives in the home along with a roommate. Mr. Green reviewed the parking layout with Ms. Neuhaus. [?lJ Mr. Bell stated the property has 100 feet of frontage; only 50 feet is required in that zone district. According to County records, the house is 1,844 squar e feet and there is a 2-car garage . Garages are counted as parking spaces . Mr. Green's parking ratios are correct. Mr. Green asked how the distance is calculated. Mr. Bell responded it is the nearest point of each property in a straight line . He also included the distance if a pedestrian walked along the street, which is longer in each of the three cases . Mr. Cohn stated he appreciated the extra perspective . Mr. Cohn asked how the Small Area Plan impacted this neighborhood. Mr. Bell discussed the Medical District Small Area Plan. The original scope of the Plan did include the subject property. As that Plan was moving through the public input phase, it changed. Ultimately there was a rezoning of the area , which is the new M-1 District to the south of the subject property. The subject property was not included in the rezoning which occurred approximately a year ago . Discussion ensued regarding the Medical District Small Area Plan . Mr. Green clarified that the use is allowed within the zone district. The issue is that the house is too close to other group living facilities . Mr. Bell stated that was correct; group living facilities are permitted uses within each zone district except the 1-1 and 1-2 districts . It is a matter of distancing between the facilities . Mr. Green asked if the off-street parking regulations required the space be accessible at all times. Mr. Bell responded that it does; parking spaces are required to be 19 feet by 9 feet. They must also comply with any sight distance requirements imposed by the Traffic Division and be paved with a hard surface . The Board and staff further discussed various methods of measuring distances between two properties. Ms. Reid stated that traditionally distancing is measured from the nearest point of one property to the nearest point on another property. Distancing is the closest point of any two lots . 5 • • • Mr. Green asked if the home were sold, would the new owner need to reapply for a group living facility . Ms. Reid responded that the variance for the facility runs with the property. The new owner would need to apply to the State for a license to operate a group living facility. Mr. Bell stated group living facilities must also register with the City . There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Smith incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. MOTION: THAT CASE VAR2010-002, 431 EAST GIRARD AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREtv.JENT BETWEEN A SMALL GROUP LIVING FACILITY AS DEFINED IN C.R.S . 31-23-303 (2)(B}, AND A STATE-LICENSED CHILD CARE FACILITY FROM 750 FEET TO 715 FEET; AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENT BETWEEN A SMALL GROUP LIVING FACILITY AND ANOTHER GROUP LIVING FACILITY FROM 1,250 FEET TO 700 FEET; WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT VACATE THE 1995 VARIANCE TO PERMIT MANICURING AS A HOME OCCUPATION. Moved by Douglas Cohn, Seconded by Chair Smith Ms. O'Brien stated there are different methods of having these facilities. She believes the applicant wishes to have the type of home wherein the residents are capable of independent living. There is a large difference between caring for children and the elderly. One example is when an elderly person falls, you must be trained in how to let them fall down the side of your body onto the floor safely. It is not the same with children. Ms. O'Brien stated she believes it is a good idea, but not in the proposed location. The City clearly does not want group living facility congregated in one location. There are 10 out of 13 in one area of the City. It makes sense for the applicant, but not for the neighborhood. Mr. Green stated he believes the location makes sense; it is across from the hospital, near the senior center, near a shuttle stop, etc. The house is close to the meeting the distance requirements. There is no issue with the zoning. The parking has been addressed; and the lot is large enough that it could be subdivided which could increase the parking and number of people anyway. MOTION: TO AMEND THE MOTION BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: THAT THE PREMISES HAVE NO MORE THAN FIVE GROUP HOME RESIDENTS . Moved by Mr. Green, Seconded by Mr. Cohn. Chair Smith called for the vote on the Motion to Amend . 6 • • • Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 6}. Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W . Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace . The Motion to Amend carried . With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes on the Motion as amended. Mr. Green voted yes . The subject property is located adjacent to, and north of, the M-1 Mixed- Use Medical, Office and High Density Residential District . The distances the Board is offering a variance to are very minimal. There are unique physical conditions because the property is well suited for a group home . If it were not for the distance restriction, a variance would be not required. The property has a unique condition in that it can handle a lot of on-site parking . The variance is consistent with the intent of the zone district regulations to secure public health, safety and welfare . It will add more housing for people who can live independently, yet who want to live with other people which will also add to the neighborhood . It will not permanently impair the use or development of adjacent conforming properties. The neighborhood is already high density with the hospital close by. There are other high density uses nearby . The property could be subdivided into two lots which would crea_te a similar impact to the neighborhood. The variance is not a self-imposed difficulty or hardship. Ms. Purdy voted no . It reduces the distance between group homes by 550 feet. The intent of the regulation was to keep group homes further apart so they were not grouped together in one neighborhood. Mr. Sprecace voted no. It does not meet the four criteria . The measurement regulations go to the heart of the Englewood Development Code. There are no unique physical conditions. It would increase density in an already dense neighborhood. It would permanently impair the use and development of adjacent conforming properties. The other properties are conforming. Mr. Cohn voted yes; he believes the 1,250 foot distance restriction is an arbitrary impos ition . It would be a good use of the property. Ms . O'Brien voted no . The subject property's location does not appear to have any unique physical conditions that would nullify the practical distance or access between the child care facility and House of Hope group living facility. The intent of zoning assumes that all new development adheres to the r equirements of the UDC. The adjacent properties' single unit residential zoning classification of R-1-C is intended to provide property owners with a 7 • • • reasonable expectation of density and intensity levels. One purpose of the distances requirements, as mentioned earlier, is to prevent a concentration of group living facilities. There are currently 10 of 13 group living facilities within Englewood located north of US 285 and east of Broadway. The subject property could pursue other uses by right that are permitted by the UDC. Chair Smith voted yes; concurring with Mr. Green. Vote: Motion failed (summary: Yes= 3, No= 3, Abstain= O). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, John W. Smith Ill. No: Marcie O'Brien, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace. Chair Smith stated 5 affirmative votes were needed for the Motion to pass; therefore, the variance was denied. The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information. 4. Approval of Minutes Motion: APPROVE THE DECEMBER 9, 2009 MINUTES AS WRITIEN. Moved by Marcie O'Brien, Seconded by Carson Green . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 6). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace. 5. Elections a. Chair and Vice Chair Chair 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 roll call vote (summary: Yes= 6). Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W. Smith Ill, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace. Mr. Green assumed the position of Chair . 8 • • • Chair Green 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 roll call vote (summary: Yes= 6}. Yes: Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Marcie O'Brien, John W . Smith 111, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace. 6. Staff's Choice Mr. Bell stated there are no cases for March. 7. Attorney's Choice Ms. Reid had nothing further . [?lJ 8. Board Member's Choice Mr. Smith inquired about the Board's letter sent to City Council. Ms. Reid responded that it would be included in this week's Council's packet. 9. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm 9