Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-10 BAA MINUTES• • • • I. CALL TO ORDER. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO DECEMBER 10, 1986 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Fish at 7:30 P. M. Members present: Seymour, Hallagin, Brown, Fish, Gage, Lighthall, Welker Members absent: None Also Present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I Chairman Fish stated that seven members of the Board are present, which will require five affirmative votes to grant a variance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Fish stated that the Minutes of November 12, 1986 were to be considered for approval . Hallagin moved: Lighthall seconded: The Minutes of November 12, 1986 be approved as written. All members of the Board voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes approved as written. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Chairman Fish stated that the Findings of Fact for Case #29-86 were to be con- sidered for approval. Brown moved: Gage seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #29-86 be approved as written. All members of the Board voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact approved as written. IV. CASE #30-86 3135 South Sherman Street Chairman Fish declared the Public Hearing on Case #30-86 open. Mr. Fish stated that he has in hand certification of posting, and proof of publication of the notice of the Hearing. Mr. Fish outlined the procedure to be followed in conducting the public hearing, and asked that the staff identify the case. -I - • • • Mary Alice Rothweiler was sworn in, and testified that she is the Planner I in the Community Development Department. The Case before the Board is a request for a variance to construct a garage at 3135 South Sherman Street, which garage will be constructed adjoining the alley with no setback at the rear property line or on the north side. This would be a variance from the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-5 n (1) (c) (i), which requires the minimum side yard to be 3 feet; and Section 16.4-5 n (1) (d) (i), which re- quires the minimum rear yard setback to be 3 feet. Mr. Fish asked that the applicant come forward fo r testi mo ny . Mr. Wendell Dick 79 South Julian Street Denver, Colorado -was sworn in, and testified that he is bu y i ng the pr operty at 3135 South Sherman Street from HUD. Mr . Dick stated that he wants to construct a 20 x 24 foot garage on the property; however the City Ditch crosses t he property and inhibits use of the backyard. Mr. Dick stated that the garage is proposed to be constructed on the north and west property lines, and will be accessed from the south through the alley. Mr. Dick stated that he has contacted the ad- joining neighbors, and they feel it will be an improvement to the property and the neighborhood. Mr. Dick stated that there are old footings on the site from a former garage structure, which will be removed and replaced. Mr. Dick stated that he has met with representatives of the Utili- ties Department regarding the easement for the City Ditch. Mr. Dick stated that the entire back yard west of the Ditch will be used for driveway and garage, and will be concrete --no gravel. There will be no windows in the sides of the garage on the property line; there will be a window in the service door, and a window will face the house. Mr. Dick stated that the type of garage he has in mind comes in a "package" and is constructed to meet codes. He has a friend who is a contractor who will be helping him on the project. Mr. Seymour asked the proximity of the garage to the ditch. Mr. Dick stated that on the south side of the property it is between 13 and 15 feet. Mr. Seymour asked if there will be a drainage problem caused by concreting the back yard area west of the ditch. Mr. Dick reiterated that he has met with representatives of the Utilities Department, and had discussed the plans with them. Mr. Seymour asked how much encroachment into the ditch right-of-way was proposed. Mr. Dick estimated a possible two foot encroachment. Mr. Dick dis- cussed the plans for a concrete wall, which will be water proofed, and back- filled to prevent water leakage into the garage. Mr. Hallagin discussed the access into the garage from the alley. Mr. Dick indicated that he will be accessing from the alley through his property into the garage; it will not require a sharp turn to get into the garage. Ms. Lighthall asked if she understood there would be no window s on the sides of the garage which will be on the property lines . Mr . Dick stated that there would be a solid wall on the north and west s ides of the structure . -2 - • • • Mr. Seymour asked Mr. Dick if he planned to live in the residence. Mr. Dick stated that he did plan to reside there . Mr. Fish asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of the requested variance. No one else addressed the Board in favor of the request. Mr. Fish asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the requested variance. No one addressed the Board in opposition. Chairman Fish declared the Public Hearing on Case #30 -86 closed, and asked the Staff Report be made a part of the record. Mr. Fish asked the pleasure of the Board. Seymour moved: Gage seconded: In Case #30 -86, 3135 South Sherman Street, that applicant Wendell Dick be granted a variance to construct a garage on the alley with no setback in the rear or on the north side. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-5 n {l) {c) (i), which requires the minimum side yard setback to be 3 feet; and Section 16.4-5 n {l) {d) {i), which requires the minimum rear yard setback to be 3 feet. Members of the Board locked in their votes, and gave the following findings: Mr. Seymour stated that there is a hardship on this property created by the topography and the City Ditch. The neighbors have voiced no objection to the proposed construction of the garage; therefore, he voted "yes" . Mr. Hallagin stated that he voted "yes". He stated that in his opinion every- one needs a garage to get their vehicles off the street and out of the weather; other residents in the immediate area have no objection to the pro- posal, and there is a hardship created by the Ditch crossing the property. Mr. Brown stated that he voted "yes". He stated that in his opinion, the size of the property and the bisection of the lot by the Ditch creates a hardship. The neighbors have approved the proposed construction of a garage. Mr. Gage stated that he voted "yes"; there is a hardship on the property due to the bisection of the lot by the Ditch. Ms. Lighthall stated that she voted "yes", and concurs with the findings of the other Board members. Mr. Welker stated that he voted "yes" and concurs with the findings of the other Board members. Mr. Fish stated that he did not find that the variance would damage the Or- dinance, and will not injure the adjoining properties; therefore, he voted "yes". The votes were displayed; there were seven affirmative votes and Chairman Fish ruled that the variance was granted . v. CASE #31-86 3240 West Chenango Avenue -3 - • • • Chairman Fish declared the Public Hearing on Case #31-86 opened. Certifica- tion of Posting and proof of publication have been submitted on this case. Mr. Fish asked that the staff identify the case . Mary Alice Rothweiler stated that the request is for a variance to permit widening an existing attached garage, the wall of which would be 5 feet from the west property line. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance, Section 16.4-2 m (1) (c) (i), Minimum side yard for an attached garage in the R-1-A, Single-family Residence District. The applicant is a Mr. Eugene R. McGonagle. Chairman Fish asked that the applicant present his testimony. Mr. Eugene McGonagle 3240 West Chenango Ave.-was sworn in and testified that he has lived at this location for 25 years. For the last 15 years, he has wanted a double garage to get his vehicles off the street, and to have a small work area. Mr. McGonagle stated that he has obtained signatures from his neigh- bors on the east, west and north, and they have ap- proved the proposed expansion of the existing attached garage. Mr. McGonagle stated that the addition to the garage will be bricked in with brick matching the ex- isting garage and house; they will go down 36" for the foundation for the garage, and the existing west wall of the garage will be removed. There will be a 16 foot steel garage door installed. The west side of the garage will be five feet from the property line . Mr. McGonagle discussed the shape of the subject prop- erty, which is rather "pie-shaped". Mr. Seymour asked about the roof line. Mr. McGonagle stated that the roof line will be carried on with the new addition. Mr. McGonagle stated that the work area would be a six foot extension of the new addition on the south. Mr. Seymour noted that Mr. McGonagle had obtained signatures from the adjoin- ing property owners on the east, west and north; he asked about the neighbors adjoining this property on the south. Mr. McGonagle stated that there is a six foot wooden fence on the south side of the property, and he did not con- tact these neighbors. Mr. Fish asked the address of the closest house. Mr. McGonagle stated that this would be the residence to the west, at 3260 West Chenango Avenue. Mr. Fish asked what the hardship is in this case. Mr. McGonagle stated that he would like to get his vehicles off the street and out of the weather. Mr. Fish asked why Mr. McGonagle felt the garage expansion had to be con- structed as an extension of the existing structure; could a second single-car garage not be constructed further to the rear of the lot and not require a variance. Mr. McGonagle stated that there are some garages in the neighbor- hood which have been constructed in that manner, and it is very unattractive. He feels that the expansion of the existing structure will be attractive, and improve his property . -4 - • • • Mr. McGonagle stated that there will be a sidewalk on the west side of the garage expansion which will lead to the back yard; there will be a steel gate installed to provide access . Ms. Lighthall stated that as she understood the request, he is asking for a two foot variance in side yard. Mr. McGonagle stated that this is correct. Upon a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. McGonagle reiterated that he had resided at this address for 25 years. Mr. Fish asked if anyone wished to address the Board in favor of the variance. No one else addressed the Board. Mr. Fish asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the variance. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Fish asked if the staff had anything further to add. Ms. Romans stated that all staff comments are contained in the Staff Report, which is made a part of the record of the public hearing. Chairman Fish ruled the public hearing on Case #31-86 closed, and asked the pleasure of the Board. Brown moved: Lighthall seconded: In Case #31-86, 3240 West Chenango Avenue, applicant Eugene McGonagle be granted a variance to permit widening the existing attached garage, the wall of which would be 5 feet from the west property line . This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance, Section 16.4-2 m (1) (c) (i), Minimum side yard for an attached garage in the R-1-A, Single- family Residence District. Board members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour stated that he voted "yes"; there was no opposition to the request, and he found that a hardship exists in that the applicant cannot get all his vehicles off the streets and out of the weather with the existing garage facilities. Mr. Hallagin stated that he voted "yes"; the variance will not adversely af- fect the adjoining properties; he also feels a hardship exists in that there is insufficient garage area to get the vehicles off the street and out of the weather, and that the request meets the reasons the Board has to follow in granting a variance. Mr. Brown stated that he voted "yes"; this garage expansion is well planned; the neighbors are in agreement with the proposal; it will be an addition to and up-grading of the property; he also finds a hardship in not being able to get the vehicles off the street and out of the weather; the request meets the conditions set forth for granting a variance. Mr. Gage stated that he voted "yes"; the request meets the conditions the Board must follow in granting a variance, and there is a hardship in not being able to get the vehicles off the street and out of the weather. - 5 - • • • Ms. Lighthall stated that she voted "yes"; she concurs with the findings cited by other members of the Board . Mr. Welker stated that he voted "yes"; this is a minimum variance that can be granted to give relief to a hardship, and will provide additional security to Mr. McGonagle's vehicles; the variance will not negatively affect the adjoin- ing properties. Mr. Fish stated that he finds the peculiar shape of the property does place a hardship on the owner, and concurs with reasons cited by other Board members; he voted "yes". The votes were displayed; there were seven affirmative votes, and the variance is granted to Mr. McGonagle. VI. CASE #32-86 131 East Belleview Avenue Chairman Fish declared the Public Hearing on Case #32-86 opened. Mr. Fish stated that he does have a copy of the publication of the notice of Hearing; he inquired about the Certification of Posting. Ms. Rothweiler stated that the property was posted, but she had not been given a copy of the Posting Certification. Mrs. Romans submitted the Certification of Posting to Chairman Fish. Mr. Fish asked that the staff identify the case . Dorothy Romans was sworn, and testified that she is the Acting Director of Community Development. The request is for a variance to permit a separate ground sign for a business located on a lot containing more than one business. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-19-10 c (1), Ground Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones, which says that no ground signs are permitted except Joint Identification Signs, if two or more businesses occupy the same building, or if a group of buildings is associated by ownership. Mr. Frank Bulkley 1100 East Radcliff was sworn in and testified that he is asking for a variance to the provisions of the Sign Code which would prohibit a separate ground sign for the Eskimo Ski Shop. Mr. Bulkley stated that the Eskimo Ski Shop has been in business at this location for approximate - ly 25 years; they are a small business, and are not reaching as much of the general public as they should to stay economically sound. The building sits back off Belleview Avenue, and is not readily visible by westbound traffic . Mr . Bulkley stated that they need a ground sign immediately in front of their store, and feel that they are entitled to such a sign. He is of the opinion that this sign will make a big difference in the volume of their business. Mr. Fish pointed out to Mr. Bulkley that the Board cannot consider economics in reaching a determination on the request . He asked Mr . Bulkley if he was familiar with the four reasons the Board must consider in determining whether -6 - • • • not individual ground signs. Mr. Brown asked if the business owners of the spa and the laundry had refused to go in with Mr. Bulkley in purchasing and installing one joint identification sign which would conform to the Sign Code . Mr. Bulkley stated that he has not discussed this with those business owners from that particular point of view . Mr. Bulkley reiterated his opinion that a joint identification sign is not satisfactory and that he wants permission to erect an individual ground sign for his business. Mr. Welker asked Mr. Bulkley if he is the owner of all of the buildings and the property at the subject site. Mr. Bulkley stated that he and his wife are the property owners. Mr. Fish asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the variance . Mr. James Higday 4970 South Washington -was sworn in, and stated that he was appearing as a Councilman and resident/customer of the Eskimo Ski Shop. He stated that he feels this business is a valuable asset to the community, and that when one considers the traffic conditions on Belleview Avenue and the economic conditions throughout the area, he is of the opinion that the business needs a "boost". Mr. Higday stated that due to the uniqueness of this situation, he feels a variance is in order, and described the visual problems experienced by motorists driving west on East Belleview Avenue, notably a wall with a fence atop along a good portion of the highway. A motorist does not see the Eskimo Ski Shop until it is too late to make the turn into the property. Mr. Higday suggested that perhaps a compromise might be reached in this instance, and suggested that if a sign that would conform to the regulations in 1989 were to be installed, perhaps the Board could see fit to allow the third sign. If the Board did not feel they could approve such a compromise, perhaps a new sign could be installed, and the existing signs removed. Mr. Higday emphasized that he is of the opinion the Eskimo Ski Shop does need a sign advertising their business that is visible on East Belleview Avenue. Mr. Higday stated that he does feel the request is fair and that the situations existing on the property are unique, citing the fact that (1) the adjacent right-of-way does restrict the business; (2) the variance will not weaken the general purpose of the ordinance; (3) the variance will not alter the character of the district; and (4) the variance will not injure the appropriate use of the adjacent property. Mr. Brown requested clarification on Mr. Higday's reference to the year 1989. Mr. Fish pointed out that there are two nonconforming signs on the property at the present time, which will have to be removed and/or brought into confor- mance in 1989. Mr. Fish pointed out to Mr. Higday that if this variance as requested is granted, then in 1989, the two businesses (laundry and spa) will be requesting that they be allowed individual ground signs because the Eskimo Ski Shop was granted such a variance. -8 - • • • Mr. Higday stated that he does feel the Ski Shop has unique problems, which are addressed in the criteria cited for consideration in granting a variance to the Sign Code . Ms. Lighthall reiterated that the Board cannot consider the matter of economics in making a determination on a variance. Mr. Higday stated that there is the matter of physical barriers which prevent visibility of the busi- ness by motorists driving west on Belleview. Mr. Hallagin stated that it is a traffic hazard for anyone trying to enter or exit the ski shop. Mr. Seymour stated that he does not see any change in the situation from when the case was heard initially one year ago. He does not feel there needs to be another sign in this location, and that he could see the business when he was traveling west on East Belleview Avenue. He stated that the Sign Code is to regulate and reduce the proliferation of signs, not add to this proliferation. Mr. Seymour stated that each of the Board members have to be of the opinion that "all" of the conditions cited have been met to grant a variance. Mr. Fish asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. J. Grimm 4677 South Clarkson -was sworn in and testified that he also feels the con- ditions on the site are unique, and that a variance to the sign code is warranted. He noted that the visibility of the business is poor even for traffic traveling north on South Broadway. He stated that he is of the opinion that one sign for the businesses on the site would only add to the confusion. Mr. Grimm noted that there are two separate buildings, and he feels there is a need for three separate signs iden- tifying each of the businesses. Mr. Grimm stated that he did not know of any other use which would be harmed by the granting of this variance. Mr. Welker asked Mr. Grimm's relation to the Ski Shop. Mr. Grimm stated that he is with the sign company that has been working with Mr. Bulkley on the sign he wants to erect. He stated that the sign company has been working with the applicant for quite some time in an effort to get the issue resolved. Mr. Fish asked if there was any one else who wished to speak in favor. No one else addressed the Board. Mr. Fish then asked if any one wished to speak in opposition. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Mr. Fish asked if the staff had additional comments to make. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had no additional comments. Mr. Welker stated that he would like the record to reflect what is allowed as far as size of sign, elevation, square footage, etc. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that a joint identification sign has a height maximum of 20 feet. The square footage of the sign is dependent on the street frontage, and estimated a total - 9 - • • • square footage of 150 sq. ft. for the joint identification sign. Each busi- ness would then be allowed one wall sign on their individual section of the building . Mr. Bulkley stated that if vehicles are parked in front of the spa, other motorists cannot drive from the Ski Shop to the laundry, but must exit onto the street, and re-enter at another curb cut. He stated that he feels this is another unique situation which makes this shopping area different from a nor- mal shopping center. Mr. Brown asked if it would be possible to pass the variance with the restric- tion that the sign shall be brought into conformance with the Sign Code in 1989. Ms. Lighthall stated that she had also thought of this proposal as a compromise solution. Mr. Fish asked that the Staff Report be made a part of the record of the hear- ing and declared the public hearing on Case #32-86 closed. Mr. Fish asked the pleasure of the Board. Lighthall moved: Brown seconded: In Case #32-86, 131 East Belleview Avenue, the Board shall approve the request for a variance to permit a separate ground sign for a business located on a lot containing more than one business. This is a variance from the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-19-10 c (1), Ground Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones, which says that no ground signs are permitted except Joint Identification Signs, if two or more businesses occupy the same building, or if a group of buildings is associated by ownership. The Board further adds the proviso that on December 1, 1989, when the other two ground signs on this property have to come down in compliance with the Sign Code, that the sign for the Eskimo Ski Shop will have to come down also, and any new signage will have to comply with the Sign Code of the City of Englewood. Votes on the motion were locked in. Members of the Board presented their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour stated that he voted "no"; he does not see that there is a hard- ship on the site, and feels that the property/business owner can conduct busi- ness there; he is of the opinion that this request does not meet Condition #2, as previously cited for consideration. Mr. Hallagin stated that he voted "no"; he does not feel the request for a variance meets the conditions the Board must consider in granting a variance. He stated that he feels the property owner and businessmen could get together and come up with a sign to comply with the Sign Code. Mr. Brown stated that he voted "yes". He does feel there is a hardship on the site, and he stated that the Board isn't certain that Mr. Bulkley can nego- tiate with the other businessmen to get a unified sign until 1989. The motion as worded will only grant the variance until 1989, and there was testimony in support of the variance . -10 - • • • Mr. Gage stated he voted "yes"; he feels there is a hardship, and concurs with Mr. Brown's sentiments on the matter . Ms. Lighthall stated that she voted "yes"; she feels that the Ski Shop should have equitable treatment, and the Board has no way of knowing whether the other businessmen will be cooperative with Mr. Bulkley and install a joint sign. Mr. Welker stated that there are conditions affecting the site that would war- rant looking at another sign; he does not consider economics as a hardship, however. Mr. Welker stated that he feels there is a solution to the matter that is not being addressed; Mr. Bulkley is the property owner, and he would like to see him take the leadership and discuss the situation with the businessmen for the cleaners and the spa to get a conforming sign on the site prior to the 1989 deadline. Mr. Welker stated that felt a dangerous precedent would be set and would harm the intent of the Sign Code if the variance were to be granted; therefore, he voted "no". Mr. Fish stated that he feels there is ra hardship because of the location of the building and the two signs for the other businesses. Because of the time limit set in the motion, he did not feel the general provisions of the or- dinance would be weakened, and voted "yes". The votes were displayed: Messrs. Brown, Fish, Gage and Ms. Lighthall voted in favor of the motion; Messrs. Seymour, Hallagin and Welker voted in opposi- tion to the motion. Mr. Fish declared the variance denied because there were not five affirmative votes as required to pass the motion . VII. CASE #28-86 900 West Tufts Avenue Mr. Fish stated that he has been informed that Mr. and Mrs. Pietrus have re- quested a continuance until January on their request for a rehearing. The continuance was approved by the Board, and the case is continued until January 14, 1987. VIII. CASE #25-85 4720-22 South Bannock Street Mr. Fish stated that this is a request for an extension on a variance granted by the Board previously. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that Mr. Kath is going to try to get his building per- mit on December 11, but asked that the Board consider his request for an ex- tension of time at this meeting. Mr .. Kath has owned the property for only a short time, and while several previous extensions have been granted on the site, only one extension has been granted to Mr. Kath. He is still trying to get the financing for the project, and hopes to proceed very shortly. Discussion ensued. Ms . Lighthall asked about l etting this variance lapse, and then requiring the applicant to come back to the Board for a variance when he has his financing straightened out. Mr. Brown spoke against this proposal, and noted that the variance has been approved, and that by granting one more extension to the applicant, the Board will not have t o rehear the case. Mr. Welker stated that he did not feel the Board wou l d gain anything by denying -11 - • • • the request for a time extension. Mr. Hallagin also spoke in favor of grant- ing a six month extension . Fish moved: Gage seconded: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals grant a six month time extension to Rare Custom Builders, Case #25-83, 4720-22 South Bannock Street. There were seven affirmative votes; the six month extension is granted. IX. STAFF ADVISER'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that a copy of the rev1s1ons to the appeal procedure had been included in the packet. Assistant City Attorney Reid was unable to be present at this meeting, and Mrs. Romans asked if the members wanted to review the proposed amendments, or to delay this until Ms. Reid is in attendance. It was the consensus of the Board that this matter should be delayed until Ms. Reid is in attendance. Mrs. Romans stated that Mrs. Rousses, Recording Secretary to the Board, is ill and was advised to remain at home. Mrs. Romans stated that Mrs. Rousses is preparing the calendar for the 1987 Board meetings; the meeting in November 1987 will fall on November 11, which is an official City holiday. She asked whether the Board would want to meet on the Tuesday of that week, or on the Thursday of that week. Discussion en- sued. It was the consensus of the Board that they would meet on the first Wednesday in November, 1987 rather than the second Wednesday . X. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE. Members of the Board expressed regret at Mr. Gage's resignation from the Board and expressed good wishes for him in his relocation to Seattle, Washington. Mr. Gage stated that he has resided in Englewood for 19 years, and it will be difficult to leave. He asked if there was anything he should do to make his resignation official. Mrs. Romans suggested that he write a letter to Mayor Otis explaining his resignation. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was de- clared adjourned at 9:15 P. M. L~L~ 'Gert rude G. We 1 ty ' Recording Secretary Pro Tern -12 -