Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-09 BAA MINUTES• • • El CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES JULY 9, 2014 1 • Call to Order The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Green presiding. 2. Roll Call Present: Absent: Staff: Randal Friesen, Carson Green, Marcia O'Brien, David Pittinos, Angela Schmitz, and Tom Finn Sue Purdy, David Sprecace Audra Kirk, Planner I Brook Bell, 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 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 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 . • • • e 3. Public Hearings Case VAR2014-003 Gary W. Smith 4895 South Huron 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 increase the maximum allowable floor area for a detached garage from 1,000 square feet to 1,300 square feet. This is a variance to Table 16-6-1.2 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Audra Kirk , Planner, was sworn in. Ms. Kirk provided a brief overview of the property . The property and surrounding properties are zoned R-1-A. The lot is 13,500 square feet, and the maximum lot coverage in a R-1-A zone district is 35 %. The current lot coverage is approximately 18 %. The proposed garage addition would increase the lot coverage to 22 %. Habitable space is not permitted in the garage. Ms. Kirk answered questions from the Board. The property's lot size is approximately double the size of a regular City lot. The maximum size of 1,000 square feet for a garage is determined by the Unified Development Code (UDC) and does not change depending on the lot size. The size limit is for both attached and detached garages . e Gary Smith , 4895 South Huron Street , was sworn in. Mr. Smith testified that he has owned the property for approximately one year. He was unaware of the 1,000 square foot size limitation for garages . At the time of purchase, the intention was to add on to the garage. The lot is double the size of surrounding lots. The exception is the size of the lot. If the lot were subdivided, two garages of 1,000 square feet could be built; one on each lot. The neighbor most affected by the addition signed a neighbor statement supporting the variance. The extra space is needed for workspace and additional parking. Mr. Finn asked for further clarification on the size of attached garages versus detached garages . Ms. Kirk responded that it is staff's interpretation that the maximum square footage of garages listed in Table 16-6-1.2 is for both attached and detached garages. le 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 VAR2014-003, 4895 SOUTH HURON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR A DETACHED GARAGE FROM 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO 1,300 SQUARE • • • FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO TABLE 16-6-1.2 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Moved by Dave Pittinos Seconded by Tom Finn The Board discussed the criteria. e With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Pittinos voted no. The first criterion is not met; no unique physical conditions exist that deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity . The current property and surrounding properties are able to construct 1,000 square foot garages . The fourth criterion is not established; the reason for the variance is self-imposed . It is designed to accommodate the owner of the property and is not a variance that is driven from something unique to the property. Ms . Schmitz voted no for the reasons stated by Mr. Pittinos with regard to the first criterion . Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Friesen voted no , concurring with Mr. Pittinos. Mr. Finn voted yes. The lot size is larger than an average-sized lot, which makes the property unique. There are no public health or safety issues. It will not impair the development in the neighborhood and the garage will not be visible. It will not be granting any special privileges; there are Englewood citizens with like-sized lots that also have larger garages . Further, the lot coverage would be under 35 percent which is the maximum lot coverage permitted. Chair Green voted no , concurring with Mr. Pittinos. He agrees with Mr. Finn that it seems unreasonable that a lot this large with less coverage than permitted should not be allowed to have a workroom on the garage. However, he cannot find a way to justify the criteria . Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: Motion failed. Motion failed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =1 No=5) Finn Pittinos , Schmitz , O'Brien , Friesen, Chair Green Purdy , Sprecace None The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . • • • e Case V AR2014-004 Gemstar Properties, LLC 3500 South Sherman Street 250 East Hampden Avenue Chair Green opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case stating the applicant is requesting variances to reduce the required ground floor commercial space from the required 50. 1 percent to zero percent to develop a senior housing project; and to increase the maximum allowable front setback from 5 feet to 10 feet to include detached sidewalks. These are variances to Section 16-6-1.C.4 and Table 16-6-1.1 of the Englewood Municipal Code. 0 Brook Bell, Planner 11, was sworn in. Mr. Bell provided a brief overview of the property. To the south of the proposed property is the Safeway retail center which is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). The subject property is zoned MU-B-1. Properties to the north, east and west are also zoned MU-B-1. Properties to the east of Logan Street are zoned M-2 . The property is approximately 1.6 acres. The property at 3490 South Sherman Street submitted a neighbor notification opposing the project. Based on the submitted site plan, all of the parking is underground and accessed via Grant Street. The sidewalks are detached, which was requested by the City, to create a better pedestrian experience and to allow for landscaping next to the curb. The M-2 zone district, which is adjacent to the subject property, has a zero to 10 foot setback. The zero to 5 foot setback applies to the MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 zone districts, which are primarily properties along Broadway. The current property was before the Board last year for a variance to reduce the required commercial space from 50.1 percent to zero. That variance was granted; however, the variance has expired and was for a different project. Staff has been working with the developer to activate the street with pedestrian traffic in order to resemble commercial space. A number of their amenities - clubhouse, movie theater, etc. -are on the first floor. The major entry to the building is 2-stories with a second story outdoor patio space. The art shuttle also stops in front of the property. Mr. Bell answered questions from the Board. The zero to five foot setback requirement was implemented in 2004. The primary reason for the change was to prohibit property owners building parking lots close to the street and setting the buildings back from the street. In approximately 2008, regulations were developed for the M-1 and M-2 districts; those setbacks were set at zero to ten foot maximum • • • because of the character of the neighborhood. The subject property is located very close to the Medical District. An "attached" sidewalk is where the sidewalk abuts the curb. A "detached" sidewalk has a landscape strip between the curb and the property. The applicant is proposing detaching the sidewalk by five feet in order to plant trees and a lawn. The property was previously subdivided in 2007 and will need to be combined into one lot before any construction begins . The M-1 zone district does not permit any retail , but retail is permitted in the M-2 district. The Terraces at Pennsylvan i a is senior housing and is located at Pennsylvania and US285. The requirement for the 50 percent commercial space went into effect approximately five years ago. Staff is researching whether the requirement is inhibiting development. The Kent Place development was originally proposed as a vertical mixed use , but was changed to a horizontal mixed use. There can be lending issues with a residential/ commercial development . CityCenter is an example of vertical mixed used. The SullivanHayes report indicates that the surrounding commercial space is underperforming which means there is an above average vacancy rate in the area. The City's retail study indicates that , per capita , Englewood is "over retailed." G Keith James , 2304 South Meadow View , Green Acres , Washington , was sworn in. Mr . James provided an overview of Gemstar Properties, the applicant. The unique physical condition of the property is the surrounding area . The current commercial vacancy rate is important. He believes the intent of the 50 percent commercial requirement is to activate the street. The project achieves that i ntent by outside balconies and the larger setback which creates the pedestrian friendly streetscape. The property is also unique with the senior amenities that are within walking distance of the site -medical facilities, grocery store, recreation center, etc. Mr. James believes the development will revitalize the neighborhood by adding residents , which in turn will benefit the commercial uses in the area. The development will not impair surrounding businesses or properties ; the development benefits the neighborhood. It is not a self-imposed hardship. For lending purposes, there is typically a limit of 10 or 15 percent commercial for multi-family lenders ; lenders prefer no commercial in residential projects. If commercial space is added , parking becomes an issue. The financing and underwriting issues create a hardship. Mr. James responded to questions from the Board. The SullivanHayes report is more about locations recommended to their clients for commercial/retail space ; South Broadway is encouraged , not Hampden . Discussion ensued regarding the SullivanHayes report. • • • Mr. Pittinos disclosed that his firm represents the property owner at 300 East Hampden; however, it will not influence his decision. Robert Goolesby, 371 Adams Street, Denver, was sworn in. Mr. Goolesby is co-owner of Erica's Skin Care located at 3490 South Sherman Street . Mr. Goolesby testified that the neighboring businesses are not doing well because they are dumps. There is a high vacancy rate because the City is developing the area for senior and assisted living, rather than commercial. The biggest asset in the area is parking; it would be a pity not to develop the site in a retail fashion to create a better tax base and improve the community. He lives in Cherry Creek, where there is no parking. If developed wisely, Englewood could be a retail mecca. Senior housing is an exhausted dynamic and the City needs to head in a different direction to increase tax revenue and vitality in the community. The City is overdeveloped in health, medical, assisted living, senior, etc.; it is in desperate need of good retail that can contract a consumer that wants a place to shop and park. The City is sitting on a gold mine of parking. Mr. Goolesby answered questions from the Board. There are vacancies in the area, but he disagrees the vacancy is 10 percent. He would not oppose a residential project that wasn't for seniors. A non-senior development brings the right kind of people and businesses into the area. The demographic he would like to attract are those that earn between $40,000 and $300,00 annually, young, one or two children, consumers, life-style and community conscience, etc. Seniors do not spend money. His clientele are from Cherry Creek and south of Englewood. His business would fail if it was dependent upon Englewood residents. He supports a mixed-use development project with a vibrant mix of people and businesses. The current project has no "multiplier" effect; it only services a certain group of people -seniors. Sue Erickson , 371 Adams, Denver, was sworn in. Ms. Erickson is also a co-owner of Erica's Skin Care Center located at 3490 South Sherman Street. Ms. Erickson testified that Sherman Street is very wide and suggested the City permit diagonal parking. The City has a huge opportunity to bring new retail into the area. She was looking forward to CityCenter having $350,000 units; she wants to see that type of housing with surrounding retail. Their clientele is from Cherry Hills Village, Devonshire, etc. and they have nowhere to go for anything "nice." She prefers senior housing over apartment housing because seniors do not destroy everything. Mr. Bell reviewed the proposed conditions for variance. Mr. Finn stated the Alexan's occupancy rate is 95%. Mr. Bell responded that he believes that is for the residential portion only. There are some commercial vacancies in CityCenter , which could be • • • attributed to parking and visibility. Mr . Bell provided an overview of existing retail around the proposed project. There is no residential at the Safeway development; additional retail in that development would be difficult due to parking requirements. The Kent Place development was originally proposed for as a vertical mixed-used; however, the first floor retail was not required. The development went through a number of iterations . Due to the economy, the vertical mixed used was changed to a horizontal mixed use. The retail is wrapped by the residential component. The property is owned by two different developers -one residential; one commercial. 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 VAR2014-004 , 3500 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET AND 250 EAST HAMPDEN AVENUE, BE GRANTED VARIANCES TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE FROM THE REQUIRED 50.1 PERCENT TO ZERO PERCENT, AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FRONT SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO 10 FEET TO INCLUDE DETACHED SIDEWALKS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE FINAL SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL CONFORM SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD; AND 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ON ARCHITECTURE THAT IS PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AND INCORPORATES HIGH QUALITY DESIGN AND MATERIALS; AND 3. THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT AUTOMATICALLY LAPSE IN 180 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE, BUT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY LAPSE 360 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Angela Schmitz; Seconded by Marcia O'Brien Ms. Reid explained condition number three; if a building permit is not obtained and construction started within 360 days, the variance automatically expires. Mr . Finn referred to the SullivanHayes website regarding vacancy rate. Ms. Reid advised the Board that they can only consider the testimony and evidence that was presented during the public hearing. The Board's role is to receive testimony and evidence, not submitting evidence. The public hearing can be reopened, but if Mr. • • Finn wishes to provide evidence, he would need to recuse himself from the case and be sworn in. Mr. Finn stated he wanted to present evidence and to recuse himself from the case. MOTION: TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE. Moved by Dave Pittinos; Seconded by Chair Green The secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Pittinos, Mr. Friesen, and Chain Green voted yes. Ms. Schmitz and Ms. O'Brien voted no. Since four affirmative votes were needed to reopen the public hearing, the motion failed and Mr. Finn was restored to the discussion. The Board discussed existing retail and vacancies on Logan , Hampden , and Sherman Streets. Mr . Finn stated he believes the area can handle more retail. The Board discussed the difference between "commercial" and "retail." There are commercial vacancies in the area. The Board further discussed the submitted SullivanHayes report. Ms. Schmitz stated she would prefer City Council revisit the 50 percent requirement, but she believes the first criterion is met because it is a residential development surrounded by commercial space . El The Board reviewed and discussed the criteria for the two variances. El With no further discussion , the secretary polled the members' votes. Mr. Pittinos voted yes. The first criterion is satisfied because the surrounding commercial and retail properties are unique , and the intent of the 50.1 percent is to foster the development of commercial and retail space. Due to the existing commercial/retail space , the privileges that are enjoyed by other properties are being deprived to the applicant. Regarding the setback, the medical district setbacks were changed to zero to ten feet. Neither variance impacts public health, safety, and welfare . The increased setback will improve safety and welfare of the community. The character of the neighborhood will not be changed. It is not a self- imposed difficulty or hardship because the variances are being requested prior to construction and the retail/ commercial market is not within the control of the applicant. Ms . Schmitz, Ms. O'Brien , Mr. Fr i esen , and Chair Green voted yes , concurring with Mr. Pittinos. • Mr. Finn voted no. The applicant did not meet the criteria. • • • Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =5 No=1) Pittinos, Schmitz , Friesen, O'Brien, Chair Green Finn Purdy, Sprecace None The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . ~ 4. Approval of Minutes MOTION: TO APPROVE THE MAY 14, 2014 MINUTES Moved by Tom Finn; Seconded by Dave Pittinos Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =4 No=O) Pittinos, Finn, O'Brien, Chair Green None Purdy, Sprecace Schmitz, Friesen 5. Approval of Findings of Fact ,(@ MOTION: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE VAR2014-002, 3560 South Clarkson Street and 3590 South Clarkson Street Moved by Tom Finn; Seconded by Dave Pittinos Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =4 No=O) Pittinos, Finn, O'Brien, Chair Green None Purdy, Sprecace Schmitz, Friesen 6. Staff's Choice There are no cases for the August meeting. 7. City Attorney's Choice Ms. Reid provided a recap of the Board/Commission picnic and expressed City Council's appreciation for the Board's time and efforts. • • • 8. Board Member's Choice The Board had nothing further. 9. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm. /Nancy G. Fenton/