Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-12 BAA MINUTES.. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 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: Randal Friesen, Carson Green, Angela Schmitz, Sue Purdy, David Sprecace, and Tom Finn Absent: Staff: Marcia O'Brien, David Pittinos Brook Bell, Planner II 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 Ill, 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 . • 3. Public Hearing Case VAR2014-006 Andrew DuPree 2709 South Sherman 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 raise the beginning point of the bulk plane by 3 feet 6 inches resulting in the bulk plane beginning at a point 15 feet 6 inches above the midpoint of the side property lines . This is a variance to Section 16-6-1 :G.3.a of the Englewood Municipal Code. Brook Bell, Planner II , was sworn in . Mr. Bell provided a brief overview of the property and surrounding properties. The property is zoned R-2-B as are surrounding properties. The applicant is proposing a two-unit dwelling on the property. Mr. Bell explained the bulk plane regulation. It is measured from the two mid-points of the property. The subject property has a fairly large slope from the front property pin to the rear property pin at the alley . There is five feet nine inches of drop from front to back. There is three feet six inches of drop from the front property line to the mid -point. The applicant is requesting to level the playing site as if it were a flatter lot. Mr. Bell pointed out that the 15-foot wide dormers that protrude into the bulk plane are a permitted exception . Mr. Bell answered questions from the Board. The City has initiated amendments to the Bulk Plane regulations which will be considered by City Council in December. Staff and Planning Commission recommended raising the bulk plane to 17 feet for the R-2 and R-3 zone districts, and potentially the R-1-C district. e Andrew DuPree, 1544 South Washington Street, was sworn in. Mr. DuPree testified the house meets the bulk plane regulation when it is measured from the front. The issue arises when it is measured from the center. He attempted numerous times to contact the resident of 2701 South Sherman, and no one answered the door. No one lives in the house to the east of the subject property; it is currently being renovated. Mr. DuPree answered questions from the Board. Mr. Finn expressed concern that the slope is not unique just to the subject property since the hill begins at Iliff and goes past Dartmouth; therefore, each property .along Sherman has the same issue. Mr. Du Pree responded; the property is zoned R-2 and a functional duplex cannot be built within the current bulk plane regulations with the slope of the property. The slope is pre-existing and was not created by the property owner . Mr . Bell responded to questions regarding maximum height of the building and reviewed the calculations . .... Mr. DuPree testified the slope deprives him of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, specifically the lot to the east. Alternative designs were considered that would meet zoning regulations bu.t there would be no backyard. The proposed design fits in with the character of the neighborhood . Building the existing design within current regulations eliminates a functional second story. Dropping the foundation down far enough creates drainage issues and then the house is accessed by steps down from the sidewalk which could create public safety and ADA issues . .... Jeff Malec, 1133 Clayton Street, was sworn in. Mr. Malec stated he is the architect for the project. The project is designed to enter the first story at a level plane with the sidewalk, rather than going down steps. While dropping the house and going down steps to enter fits within the regulations, it is not an ideal design. Putting the house level with the sidewalk, the bulk plane needs to be raised to have a second story. The City is proposing amending the regulation to 17 feet which is higher than the variance request. The property has been surveyed and the property cannot be "filled" at the property line; the grade cannot be changed to make the bulk plane work. Mr. Bell stated that was correct. The mid-point is approximately 4 feet lower than at the front. Mr. Bell reviewed lot coverage and existing bulk plane calculations. The duplex at 2700/2704 South Sherman slopes from the alley down to the street which causes the bulk plane to be higher. · .. 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 VAR2014-006, 2709 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO RAISE THE BEGINNING POINT OF THE BULK PLANE BY 3 FEET 6 INCHES RESULTING IN THE BULK PLANE BEGINNING AT A POINT 15 FEET 6 INCHES ABOVE THE MIDPOINT OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-6-1:G.3.a OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Moved by Angela Schmitz Seconded by Dave Sprecace The Board discussed the variance request and the criteria. Mr. Finn stated he does not believe; it meets the first criterion; numerous properties in the area have slopes; therefore, this property is not unique. Mr. Sprecace responded the Board exists to find variances to "one size fits all." Not all of Englewood is on a hill; this area is one small section of the City. The majority of the City is flat; therefore, he believes the slope makes the property unique. Ms. Schmitz stated there are other properties in the vicinity -on the east side of the street-that are able to build two-story duplexes. Regarding the second criterion, Mr. Friesen stated the project meets the intent of the bulk plane regulation. Chair Green stated it is in a zone district that is intended for duplexes . .... With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. Ms. Schmitz voted yes . The uniqueness of the property is the slope. There are other properties in the vicinity that are not impacted by the bulk plane in the same manner as to restrict a two-story duplex from being built. The variance will not cause any public safety issues. The surrounding properties are already developed. Other duplexes are being built in the area. It is not a self-imposed hardship; the applicant did not create the slope in the property. Mr. Finn voted no. There are six blocks in the area where the west side properties have the same slope as the subject property; therefore, the property is not unique . Mr. Friesen voted yes, concurring with Ms. Schmitz . Further, the topography is unique ·and the regulations were established for flat lots. Mr. Sprecace and Ms. Purdy voted yes, concurring with Ms . Schmitz and Mr. Friesen. Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Ms. Schmitz and Mr. Friesen. Further, public health, safety and welfare is improved by not creating stairs that go down to access the house . It fits in within the character of the neighborhood better than some of the other new construction in the area. Vote:· Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: Motion passed . Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =5 No=1) Schmitz, Friesen, Sprecace, Purdy, Green Finn Pittinos, O'Brien None The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . 4. Staff's Choice Mr. Bell stated there are no cases for December. El 5. Board Member's Choice Mr. Sprecace stated that he is term limited and his term expires February 2015. 6. Adjourn The Board had nothing further. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm.