Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-10 BAA MINUTES• • • e CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 10, 2015 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 Pr e sent: Abse nt: St aff: Angela Schmitz, Carson Green, Randal Friesen, Tom Finn, Sue Purdy, Writer Mott Jedidiah Williamson Audra Kirk, Planner I Dugan Comer, Deputy 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 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 . Ce 3 . Slate Communications Kim Newcomer of Slate Communications gave a brief presentation on the City's brand ing process . Board members provided input on their perception of Englewood today and 20 years in the future . e 4 . Public Hearing VAR2015-007 4196 South Pennsylvania Street • • • Chair Green opened the public hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication . He introduced the case stating the applicant is requesting three variances: 0 1. A variance to exceed the required maximum front setback from 10 feet to 48 feet. This would exceed the maximum setback by 38 feet. This is a variance to Table 16-6-1.1 a of the Englewood Municipal Code . 2 . A variance to reduce the minimum lineal street frontage from the required 75% to 30%. This would be a reduction of 45%. This is a variance to Section 16-6-1- C.6.d of the Englewood Municipal Code . 3 . A variance to reduce the required zone of transparency from 60% to 0% of the linear frontage of the building . This would be a reduction of 60%. This is a variance to Section 16-6-1-C.6.e of the Englewood Municipal Code . Audra Kirk, Planner I was sworn in. Ms. Kirk provided a brief overview of the property, and the applicant's variance requests . One previous variance was granted on the property in 2014 for distancing between group homes; the variance expired since a building permit was not issued . Ms. Kirk answered questions from the Board. 0 Thomas Swinehart, Trustee of Lone Star Trust, 950 East Harvard, Suite 630, Denver, was sworn in . Mr. Swinehart requested Dr . Swinehart, the physician who would be occupying the building, present first. 0 James Swinehart, MD, 950 East Harvard, Suite 630, Denver, was sworn in . Dr. Swinehart provided the Board with his medical education, background and practice . Chair Green asked that he present facts that address the variance criteria . The practice needs to expand and they wish to construct their own facility. Due to the nature of his practice, he needs a lot of light, as well as privacy . The requested setback provides the privacy . He would occupy the second floor for the following reasons: 1. Privacy 2 . Free of exhaust from Hampden Avenue 3 . A view that patients would enjoy 4 . Prevent the need for a lift station Dr. Swinehart approached the dais with plans . The recording secretary directed Dr . Swinehart back to the podium so his testimony could be heard for the record . Dr. Swinehart returned to the podium and answered questions from the Board. Dr. Swinehart gave the Board a history of the property . 2 • • • Thomas Swinehart, previously sworn in, returned to the podium. Mr. Swinehart apologized for the quality of the site plan and elevations . Mr . Swinehart addressed why the Board grants variances and the purpose of variances. Photos were submitted of surrounding properties and incorporated into the record. Mr. Swinehart explained why there were pertinent to the case, mainly setbacks and transparency . Mr. Swinehart addressed the four general criteria. A survey of the property was distributed to the Board. Consolidating the lots makes the most sense; however, street frontage still needs to be addressed. The majority of the property fronts US285; from the lowest point to the highest point there is a difference of 14-16 feet, sloping to the north . The vacant property to the west does not face the same challenges; it is level and the sewer line is easily accessible . The surrounding properties are already developed with the exception of the property to the west. El Chair Green asked the applicant to focus on the three specific variance requests. Regarding the zone of transparency, Mr. Swinehart testified he does not believe the requirement was intended to apply to a medical office; it appears to apply to new ground floor retail. The building will have windows, approximately 28% of the frontage will have windows. For aesthetics, the first and second floor need to look the same. The request is to be reduce the transparency from 60% to 20%. Chair Green asked the applicant if he would agree to 25%; Mr. Swinehart stated he could. El The setback variance is needed due to the topography and access. The bu ilding can only be located on the northern portion of the property; a curb cut is impossible on US285 . The applicant answered questions from the Board regarding access to the property and parking . It is not economically feasible to build to the 75% required street frontage; it also creates access issues to the property. The plan is to consolidate the two lots and reduce the requirement to 30%. Mr. Swinehart answered questions from the Board regarding zone of transparency, number and style of windows . Mr. Swinehart addressed the issue of the setback and why the driveway could not be moved. Ms . Schmitz asked for clarification on the zone of transparency variance request. Mr. Swinehart responded that the request is for 25%; six, 3-foot windows . El Ms. Kirk answered additional questions from the Board. If the lots are not combined, the building, as proposed, would be built over property lines which is not permitted. Either Jefferson or Clarkson can be the front of the property for the zone of transparency. John Coates, attorney for the applicant, stated there was no objection to the requirements set forth in the staff report by Engineering and Traffic. 3 • • • e 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 VAR2015-007, 3560-3590 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK OF 10 FEET BY 38 FEET TO A MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK OF 48 FEET. Moved by Tom Finn Seconded by Randal Friesen The Board discussed the request and the criteria . The use of the structure cannot be a consideration for the variance requests. The use can always change. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. e Mr. Friesen voted no . 1. There are no physical conditions preventing the building from being constructed at the correct setback. 2 . It will impair the use or development of adjacent properties if current zoning codes are not followed . 3. It is a self-imposed hardship . Ms. Schmitz voted no, concurring with Mr. Friesen . Mr. Finn voted yes . 1. The property has unique physical conditions . It is "L" shaped; the two properties must be combined; US285 is a major highway; and the property has a large slope . 2. The variance is consistent with the intent of public safety. Plac ing the curb cut at the top of the lot will not provide any hindrance to public safety. 3 . There is nothing in the design or construction that will impair adjacent properties since the adjacent properties are already developed. 4 . While the applicant is choosing where to locate the building, the lot is such that it does not provide many options on placement. Mr. Mott voted yes, concurring with Mr. Finn . The access needs to be located where the applicant has indicated due to the shape of the lot. Due to the nature of the lot, it is not a self-imposed hardship . Ms . Purdy and Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Messrs. Finn and Mott. Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Motion failed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes=4 No=2} Carson Green, Tom Finn, Sue Purdy, Writer Mott Randal Friesen, Angela Schmitz Jedid iah Williamson 4 • • • Abstain: None Motion failed . MOTION: THAT VAR2015-007, 3560-3590 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LINEAL STREET FRONTAGE 45 PERCENT FROM 75 PERCENT TO 30 PERCENT. Moved by Tom Finn Seconded by Writer Mott The Board discussed the request and the criteria . With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes . e Mr. Friesen voted yes . 1 . Because of the slope of the site and the requirements, there are unique physical conditions . 2 . It meets the intent of the zone district and does not create any health or safety issues . 3 . It will not impair the use or development of surrounding properties . 4. It is not a situation the applicant has created. Ms. Schmitz voted yes, concurring with Mr. Friesen . Further, auto access is not available from US285 accommodation needs to be made on Clarkson Street. Mr. Finn, Mr. Mott, Ms . Purdy, and Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Mr. Friesen and Ms. Schmitz . Vote: Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes=6 No=O) Yes: Randal Friesen, Angela Schmitz, Carson Green, Tom Finn, Sue Purdy, Writer Mott No: None Absent: Jedidiah Williamson Abstain: None Motion passed . MOTION: THAT VAR2015-007, 3560-3590 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED ZONE OF TRANSPARENCY FROM 60 PERCENT TO 25 PERCENT. Moved by Tom Finn Seconded by Angela Schmitz The Board discussed the case and the criteria. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. 5 • • • El Mr. Friesen voted no . 1. The physical condition of the property does not affect the zone of transpa re ncy . There is no reason why the applicant cannot provide the required 60 percent. 2. It is a self-imposed hardship by the applicant. Ms . Schmitz voted no, concurring with Mr. Friesen . Mr. Finn voted yes . 1. The lot's unique physical condition is its location next to US285 . 2 . There is no interference with public safety. 3 . The variance request does not permanently impair the use or development of adjacent properties . 4 . Applying the zone of transparency to a medical building is a wrong application, and not a self -imposed hardship. It is meant to be applied only to ground, retail space . Mr. Mott, Ms. Purdy, and Chair Green voted yes, concurring with Mr. Finn . Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Motion failed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes=4 No=2) Carson Green, Tom Finn, Sue Purdy, Writer Mott Randal Friesen, Angela Schmitz Jedidiah Williamson Abstain: None Motion failed. The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information . El 5. Approval of Minutes May 13, 2015 Mr. Mott stated the Minutes needed to be amended . Under Approval of Minutes for the April 8, 2015, it should read "Motion passes ." MOTION: TO APPROVE THE MAY 13, 2015 MINUTES AS AMENDED Moved by Writer Mott; Seconded by Tom Finn Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =4 No=O) Randal Friesen, Tom Finn, Sue Purdy, Writer Mott None Jedidiah Williamson Angela Schmitz, Carson Green 6 • • • Motion passed . 6. Approval of Findings of Fact MOTION: Moved by Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: MOTION: Moved by Vote: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: 0 7. Staff's Choice TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE VAR2015-005, 4196 South Pennsylvania Street Writer Mott; Seconded by Tom Finn Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =4 No=O) Randal Friesen, Tom Finn, Sue Purdy, Writer Mott None Jedidiah Williamson Angela Schmitz, Carson Green TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE VAR2015-006, 4260 South Elati Street Writer Mott; Seconded by Tom Finn Motion passed by a roll call vote (summary: Yes =4 No=O) Randal Friesen, Tom Finn, Sue Purdy, Writer Mott None Jedidiah Williamson Angela Schmitz, Carson Green One case is scheduled for July 8, 2015. 0 8. Public Forum John Coates, attorney for Mr. Swinehart, stated he enjoyed the presentat ion by Slate Communications . He provided a few ideas . 0 9. Attorney's Choice Deputy City Attorney Comer reported that City Council passed the Ordinance amending Administrative Adjustments . 10. Board Member's Choice 7 • • • Mr. Finn asked if the Board could have recessed into executive session to obtain legal counsel. Mr. Comer responded yes, and the Board can ask his legal opinion. The procedure for executive session was reviewed . The Board and Commission appreciation event is June 22 . 11. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9 :00 pm . 8