Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-12 BAA MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 12, 2013 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.rn. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Green presiding. 2. Roll Call Present: Carson Green, David Pittinos, Sue Purdy, Angela Schmitz, and David Sprecace Absent: Staff: Marcia O'Brien, Torn Finn (Alternate) Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Brook Belt Planner II Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney • Chair Green stated there were six members present; therefore, five affirmative votes are required to grant a variance or appeal. • Chair Green stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part III, Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Variances granted by the Board are subject to a 30-day appeal period. Variances are effective at the end of the appeal period. Building permits for construction associated with an approved variance will not be issued until the appeal period is ended. Building permits must be obtained and construction begun within 180 days of the variance's effective date. Chair Green set forth parameters for the hearing: The case will be introduced; applicants will present their request and reasons the variance should be granted; proponents will be given an opportunity to speak; opponents will address the Board; and then staff will address the Board. Staff will give a preliminary overview of the variance before testimony is taken . ' ' • lM 3. Public Hearings Case #V AR2013-005 Central Development 3500 South Sherman St 250 East Hampden A venue Chair Green opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case stating the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required ground floor commercial space from the required 50.1 percent to a maximum reduction to zero percent to develop a residential project. This is a variance to Section 16-6-1.C.4.b of the Englewood Municipal Code. Mr. Pittinos disclosed for the record that shortly after the applicant submitted, he had a brief conversation with Mr. Records. They briefly discussed the proposal and Mr. Pittinos informed Mr. Records that the Board's decision is based on the four criteria contained within the Unified Development Code. Mr. Pittinos stated that conversation will not impact his ability to render a fair and impartial decision. • Brook Belt Planner It was sworn in. Mr. Bell provided a brief overview of the property. The property is zoned MU-B-1, as are properties to the north, east, and west. Property to the south is zoned PUD. The submitted conceptual site plan depicts approximately 40 townhome/condo units. The site is approximately 1.65 acres, which represents approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. • The variance request is specifically to eliminate the required commercial space on the ground level. l:1J Brad Cushard, Central Development, 1801 Lawrence Street was sworn in. Mr. Cushard provided a brief PowerPoint presentation. The proposed development is brownstones and condos at 3500 South Sherman Street. Mr. Cushard requested the variance not lapse within 180 days of its effective date, if granted. He requested that time period be extended to 12 months . Addressing the criteria, Mr. Cushard testified that the property is surrounded by existing commercial and retail spaces, which underperform the market. The Code is requesting something the market will not support, which makes the property unique . Various investors have expressed disinterest in the project if a retail component is • • • involved. Within a one-mile radius of the parcel, there are various office and retail properties that have been on the market for over one year. There is also a nine percent vacancy rate for office and retail space in the area. Both are strong indicators that additional development of commercial/retail is not warranted. The importance of the zone district regulations is to bring life and energy back to the community, specifically Hampden A venue. The new residents will utilize the existing, surrounding commercial and retail space, as well as the shuttle. This activity brings viability and energy back to the streets. A successful development tends to spawn additional development. The adjacent properties will be enhanced by the development. should spark additional developments and redevelopments. viability of the existing commercial and retail tenant base. The residential units It will enhance the The hardship is imposed by the market conditions, which are high vacancy rates and low rental rates. Mr. Cushard briefly discussed the economic benefit of the project. The project provides a unique opportunity to benefit much of the community. There is a shortage of housing stock currently in Englewood, and more importantly a shortage of new housing stock. One potential possibility is giving Craig Hospital one of the condo buildings for their outpatients; currently the patients are sent to the Denver Tech Center. Further, Swedish Hospital and Craig Hospital have approximately 2,000 employees. ~ In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Cushard testified they did not look at rezoning the property, but did consider an apartment complex. The same issue for required ground floor retail existed, money for apartment developments isn't available, and the parking requirement was higher. Variances would have been needed for parking in addition to the commercial space reduction. A letter from one of the top retail brokers, included m the Board's information, substantiates that there is an abundance of commercial/retail in the immediate area. There is not a present need for additional commercial/retail space. The size of the lot does not lend itself to a commercial development due to the parking situation. In downtown Denver, ground floor commercial space sits vacant. • • • [2] Jeremy Records, Central Development, 1801 Lawrence Street, was sworn in. With the nature of the neighbors, they did not obtain neighbor notifications. The notification was accomplished through the sign process . Three signs were posted on the property for 15 days . Mr. Records detailed the various uses they researched for th e property, and why the current project is the best viable option. The existing Masonic building is too small to utilize, and there would be problems with access and parking if the building was retained and new development built around it. Mr. Bell responded that the Flood Middle School redevelopment does not contain ground floor retail. It did not need a variance because that project went through the PUD process. This project is eligible to go through the same PUD process. Mr. Bell described the PUD process which takes approximately six months. The requirement was added to the UDC in approximately 2008. Since that time, there has been some resistance from the development community and the market has changed a few times in the last five years. There have been no recently s ubmitted proposals for ground floor retail with residential above. Staff is considering changing the UDC to eliminate that requirement. A Code change takes approximately six months. Ms. Schmitz asked the applicant to address the unique, physical conditions of the property. The Board cannot consider market conditions when ruling on the variance. Mr. Records responded that the problem with the site is the s ize and th e density of th e surrounding area. [2] Sue Ericson, owner of Erica's Skin Care, 3490 South Sherman Street, was sworn in. Ms. Ericson asked the Board questions regarding the project. Ms . Reid instructed Ms. Ericson that the Board does not answer questions; they receive te stimony. Chair Green stated the questions being asked are outside the Board's scope, and the questions are covered by the Code. The Board can only consider the request before them regarding reducing the commercial/retail requirement to zero. Ms. Ericson was urged to discuss the project with staff and Central Development. • • • Staff concurs with the applicant regarding ex tending the variance period from 180 days to a longer period of time. The UDC provides the Board with th e authority to ex tend that time frame. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Bell sta te d the motion should include both addresses -3500 South Sherman Street and 250 Eas t Hampden Avenue. The City conducted a retail s tudy a few years ago that sh owed there was an overabundance of retail in the City. In the l ast seven years, no development has come forwar d for the si te utilizing/maintainin g the cu rrent s tructure. To the best of Mr. Bell's knowledge, there has not been a similar s tudy conducted for residential units. There are two classifications of property rezonings -Planned Unit Development (PUD) a nd Base Dis trict Rezoning. Mr. Bell explained the requirements and processes for each. The current site is eligible for a PUD. The Code was changed in 2008. There are other standalone residential units in the MU-B-1 zon e dis trict. Th ere were no other persons present to te s ti fy for or against the variance. Chair Green incorporated the s taff report and exhibits into the record an d closed the public hearing. The Board discussed placing conditions on the variance to e n s u re w hat has been represented in the hearing is actually built. Discussion ensued . MOTION: TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE VAR2013-005. MOVED BY DAVID SPRECACE; SECONDED BY ANGELA SCHMITZ Vote: Motion passed (summary: Ye s =6 No=O) Yes: Pittinos, Schmitz, Sprecace, Purdy, Chair Green Mr. Cushard te s tified that the si te plan submi tted is conceptual. There could be changes when the project is presented to the City for devel opment depending on requirements from City departments, such a Public Works, Utilities, e tc. The concept s ta ys the same, but the number of units and placement could change depending upon tho se requirements. As far as a unit count 35-55 units is a reasonable number. Mr. Bell stated that in an MU-B-1 zone district, parking drives the number of units. The height restriction is 100 feet. This property's zoning does not limit the density as it would in other zon e districts . Chair Green closed the public hearing . • • • MOTION: THAT CASE VAR2013-005 3500 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET AND 250 EAST HAMPDEN A VENUE BE GRANTED A VARIAN CE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SP ACE FROM THE REQUIRED 50.1 PERCENT TO A MAXIMUM REDUCTION TO ZERO PERCENT TO DEVELOP A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. FURTHER, THE VARIANCE IS CONDITIONED ON MAINTAINING THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING --A COMBINATION OF BROWNSTONE/TOWNHOMES AND CONDOS. THE NUMBER OF UNITS SHALL BE 35-55 UNITS. ALSO, THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT AUTOMATICALLY LAPSE IN 180 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE, BUT THAT IT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY LAPSE 360 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY David Pittinos SECONDED BY Dave Sprecace Chair Green stated the development is better than what currently exists and would revitalize the area . With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes, and members provided their findings. Mr. Pittinos voted yes. The size of the parcet the density issues, and parking requirements make it a difficult project to develop. It is not feasible to redevelop the existing structure. The size and surroundings of the property are particularly unique. The variance ensures a development of the property that provides similar privileges to others in the s urrounding area. Regarding the second criterion, Mr. Pittinos found that the area is a mixed-use development and the intent of the zoning regulations is to foster mixed-use development and the urban characteristic of this particular area. Eliminating some commercial space does not present an issue because there is sufficient retail and commercial development in the surrounding neighborhood. The current design of the parcel is not consistent with other properties in the area. There are other buildings that do not comply with the zoning regulation. The additional residential capacity will foster more commercial and retail development. The variance maintains the intent of the zoning regulation in the neighborhood . • • The current building and the parking lot are not consistent with either the essential character of the neighborhood or adjacent conforming properties. A residential development, consistent with the submitted conceptual plan, and the proposed density is more consistent with adjacent, conforming properties and the essential character of the neighborhood than what currently exists. The size of the lot creates the need for the variance, and the economic realities of how the property will be used is not a hardship created by the applicant. It is a reality over which the applicant does not have control. The reality of the economic situation in the current market appears to be inconsistent with the intent of zoning regulations. Ms. Schmitz, Mr. Sprecace, Ms. Purdy, and Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Mr. Pittinos. Vote: Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =5 No=O) Yes: Pittinos, Schmitz, Sprecace, Purdy, Chair Green Motion passed. The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information. [!] Case #V AR2013-006 Josh Crim 4703 South Bannock Street Chair Green opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case stating the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 5 feet into the required 25 foot front setback and to exceed the maximum fence height by 3 feet to construct a sold fence 6 feet in height. This is a variance to Table 16-6-6.2 Fence Standards for Residential Zone Districts of the Englewood Municipal Code. Brook Bell, Planner II was sworn in. Mr. Bell provided an overview of the property. The property is zoned R-2-A, which permits multi-unit dwellings. The properties to the north and west are zoned R-1-C, single unit residential, and properties to the east are zoned R-2-B. An additional neighbor notification was admitted into the record. The City determines the front of a lot according to the Code. The Code states that on a long • block the long side is the front of all the homes, regardless of the property address. In • • • this case, Bannock Street is considered the front. Mr. Bell reviewed the fence regula tions for the property. Josh Crim, 4703 South Bannock Street, was sworn in. Mr. Crim submitted photos into the record. The house is a partial "b erm style" home. The front of the house faces Union Avenue. The house was built in 1938, before zoning regulations were in place. The applicant te s tified he wishes to build a fence 5 fee t into the 25 foot setback at a height of 6 feet. The eave of the house is only 3.5 feet from grade; his dog can easily jump over that. The fence would provide additional security. While he was having work done at his home, the dog was in the rear yard. He jumped the fence, and he was issued a ticket from Animal Control. He appreciates the Board's consideration so that doesn't occur again. An open-style fence limits the height to 4 feet; he would still need a variance for 6 feet. He previously built a temporary 5 foot fence to enclose the eave on the backyard and his dog jumped over tha t fence. Mr. Bell responded th at there are a number of similar situations in the City. In this case, the applicant is only asking five feet rather than the 25 feet. Often times, owners of corner lots ask to build directly on the property line, encroaching the entire 25 feet, with a 6 foot fence since it is technically their rear yard. Even if the fence were 50 percent open, the applicant would not be permitted to have a 6 foot fence in the front. ~ There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance . Chair Green incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. MOTION: THAT CASE VAR2013-006 4703 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET BE GRANTED AV ARIAN CE TO ENCROACH 5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT BY 3 FEET TO CONSTRUCT A SOLID FENCE 6 FEET IN HEIGHT. MOVED BY Angela Schmitz; SECONDED BY David Sprecace Chair Green s t ated he believes the cr iteria h as been met, and it will improve the security and safety . The fence will also enhance the p roperty. Wi th no further discussion, the secre tary polled the members' votes, and members provided their findings. Ms. Schmitz voted yes. The property h as a very unique h eight, being only 3.5 feet from grade . The house is oriented sideways from h ow the Code determines the front. There • • • ' ' is a safety issue with access due to the low roof of the h o u se, as well as containing anything in the yard. The issue is improved with the variance. The neighbors understand the look of the fence and have no opposition to the request. The fence will no t impair the adjacent properties or alter th e character of the n eighborhood. The height and orientation of the house were pre-existent and were not created by the applicant. Mr. Pittinos, Ms. Purdy, Mr. Sprecace and Chair Green vo ted yes, concurring with Ms. Schmitz. Chair Green added that because it is only 5 feet into the front se tb ack, it will not affe ct the character of the neighborhood. Vote: Motion passed by a roll call vo te (summary: Yes =5 No=O) Yes: Pittinos, Schmitz, Sprecace, Purdy, Chair Green Mo tion passed. The Chair instructed the a pplicant to contact s ta ff for any addi ti onal or necessary information. llll 4. Approval of Minutes MOTION: TO APPROVE THE MAY 8, 2013 MINUTES MOVED BY Angela Schmitz; SECONDED BY Dave Pittinos Vote: Motion passe d b y a roll call vote (summary: Yes =5 No=O) Yes: Pittinos, Schmitz, Sprecace, Purdy, Chair Green 5. Approval of Findings of Fact MOTION: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE V AR2013-004, 4775 SOUTH GRANT STREET MOVED BY Angela Schmitz; SECONDED BY David Sprecace Vote: Motion passed b y a roll call vo te (summary: Yes =5 No=O) Yes: Pittinos, Schmitz, Sprecace, Purdy, Chair Green • • • 6. Staff's Choice There are no cases scheduled for July. Staff will provide Board members with an updated Unified Development Code at the next meeting. Mr. Bell introduced Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner with Community Development. 7. City Attorney's Choice Mr. May has resigned from the Board due to moving out of the City. At the July 1 City Council meeting, Tom Finn will be appointed as a regular member and a new a lternate will also be appointed. 8. Board Member's Choice The Board had nothing further. 9. Adjourn The meeting adjourned _a t 8:35 /ltlt!t/r ~ ~ .