Tangletown apartment reapproved after adding parking

The interior of this proposed four-story apartment near Fuller Park in Tangletown has been redesigned to take out five dwelling units and add eight parking spaces. The garage exit has been moved closer to the center of the building than is shown in this image. Submitted rendering

Plans for a four-story apartment in Tangletown are back on track after the developer removed five units from the building and added eight new parking spaces on the second floor.

The Fullertown Flats project, at 4736–4740 Grand Ave., will now have 18 units and 18 indoor parking spots, bringing it in line with a rule in the city’s zoning code requiring at least one parking space per unit in areas without access to high-frequency transit.

Developer Joshua Segal’s initial plan for the site, located a half block north of the 48th & Grand commercial intersection near Fuller Park, called for 23 units and 10 parking spaces. The Planning Commission signed off on a parking variance for the project in October, but a month later a group of more than 30 neighborhood residents successfully appealed the variance.

Segal, the co-founder of the fitness studio Urban Cycle and a first-time developer, told the Southwest Journal that he felt like “we got bullied,” but he and his team went back to the drawing board and brought their building in line with the city’s zoning code.

Segal’s revised designs call for a mix of five studios, 10 one-bedrooms and three two-bedrooms. The lobby has been shrunk and a fourth-floor community room/coworking space has been scrapped.

Since the Planning Commission had already approved the project’s site plan and the revised plans complied with the parking minimum, city staff were able to approve Segal’s new proposal directly in early April.

The group of neighborhood residents appealed the staff decision, saying that the addition of a new vehicle entrance to the building through the rear alley and other site changes meant the project should return to the Planning Commission. Car lights would now shine into a neighbor’s bedroom because a garage door was moved, said Erik Takeshita, the lead appellant. 

Staff responded that the changes to the building’s site plan were minor since they did not alter the building’s height, bulk, setback, footprint or, for the most part, its facade.

A city zoning board rejected the appeal in a 5-2 vote on May 21. The neighborhood residents are discussing whether to appeal the zoning board’s decision to the City Council.

“I think the changes proposed actually make the building a lower density than what was approved,” Zoning Board of Adjustment member Richard Sandberg said. “I have no reason to believe the Planning Commission would not continue to approve it.”