Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-08 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO February 8, 1989 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, George, Lighthall, Waldman, Shaffer, Dunn and Welker. Members absent: None. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Daniel Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector Walt Groditski, Code Administrator The Chairman stated that with seven members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. he said the Board is au- thorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1989 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member George seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion and the Chairman ruled the Mi- nutes of January 11, 1989 were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact in Cases #1-89, #3-89 and #20-88 be approved as written. Board Member Dunn seconded the motion. All seven members voted in the affirmative and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact for Cases #1-89, #3-89 and #20-88 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE 4-89. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #4-89, said he had proof of publication, and asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Romans 3400 South Elati Street was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, AMRE Remodel- ing, Inc. was appealing the decision of the Chief Building Inspector not to renew the Class D-2 Contractor License No. 7663, issued to American - 1 - • • • Remodeling, Inc. The renewal of the License was denied because of viola- tions of Section 5-7-7, E of the Englewood Municipal Code, Contractor Responsibilities, and of Section 301 of the 1985 Uniform Building Codes, Permits. The Chairman described the procedure for the appeal, stating the City would state its case first, and the applicant would then have the opportunity to present their case. Gary Yoder Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. He said the denial had been based on the fact that the 1988 license for this contractor had been issued by the Code Administrator on a conditional or probationary basis because of re- peated failure to obtain permits. During 1988 one job was performed without a permit, one job site did not have the permit card, and at least six times the contractor failed to obtain final inspection approval and/ or make required corrections. At about midway through 1988, the contrac- tor was notified that it is necessary for the contractor to call for the required inspections; no improvement was seen. Because the Building Di- vision followed up on the work, most of the final inspections were made; but one, which required corrections, is still outstanding. Mr. Yoder emphasized that it is the responsibility of the contractor to call for inspections before the work is considered finished and before final pay- ment is required. A probationary license is issued with the understand- ing that there will be no further problems with the contractor. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Yoder said that work is sup- posed to be comp 1 eted in 180 days; but when work is finished, a f i na 1 inspection is required immediately. This protects the homeowner from paying for work which has not been correctly completed. It is also for the protection of the contractor because damage can be caused to the job by weather or use after completion but before inspection if the inspec- tion is not made promptly. There were no further questions. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Gary Gunter Product Manager 6709 East Costillo was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he had no quarrel with the facts as presented by the Building Inspector. He said he had been un- aware in 1987 of the work being done without permits. He suggested they had had difficulty in knowing which addresses were in Englewood and which ·in Arapahoe County. After receiving the letter enclosed with the proba- tionary license, they made a great effort to obtain all permits required. He referred to copies of permits which had been taken out in 1988 and admitted that one had been overlooked. He said there is no policy in the company to avoid taking out permitsi and that the one violation had been accidental. Mr. Gunter said that the City of Englewood is the only municipality in the metropolitan area which inspects siding, and that they respect the fact that the City requires the inspection and makes them promptly; -2 - • • • however, the subcontractors forget to call for the inspections. He ad- mitted they were negligent in not instituting new policies when the Building Department notified them in the middle of 1988 that inspections were required. He said he hoped to continue to work in Englewood, and he would try to see there were no further problems. The staff had no further comments to make. The Chairman included the staff report in the record of the public hearing and there were no further speakers for or against the appeal. Discussion followed. Ms. Shaffer suggested that the contractors be given a list of requirements of the City, especially the final inspection require- ments. She said that carpenters may be good at building, but poor at paper work. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE 4-89, THE APPLICANT, BERNARD M. LANE, ON BEHALF OF AMRE REMODELING, INC. , 4650 LEYDEN STREET, UN IT E, DENVER, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR NOT TO RENEW THE CLASS D-2 LICENSE NO. 7663 (WHICH IS ISSUED TO AMERICAN REMODELING, INC., 4949 WEST ROYAL LANE, IRVING TEXAS). Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said that it appears that the contractor "got the message". He sounded sincere in improving compliance with the requirements of the Building Division . Ms. George said she had voted for the appeal in hopes that the contractor is honestly intending to obtain permits and call for inspections. Ms. Lighthall said she had voted for the appeal with reservations. If the contractor does not perform as promised, she said she expected the contractor to reappear before the Board next year. Ms. Dunn said she had voted for the appeal in hopes that future performance would be less disappointing. Ms. Shaffer concurred. Mr. Waldman voted for the appeal ; however he said that he did not feel the City's policy or employees were in error. He hoped there would be no future problems. Mr. Welker said the public welfare would be protected by allowing the appeal because the contractor has promised to improve his performance. The City's position has been correct in this matter. When the votes were displayed, a 11 seven members had voted in favor of the appeal, and the Chairman ruled the contractor could receive his license, but that he must meet the Building Division requirements . -3" - • PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #5-89. • • The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #5-89, stating he had proof of posting and publication. He asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Romans stated that the applicant, Jerry Feather for the Dart Board, was request- .ing a variance to permit signage approximately 19 square feet in excess of the allowable 80 square feet, and to permit the placement of the sign outside the "signage zone". This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-19-10 B, Permitted Maximum Sign Area, and Section 16-4-11 C 2 e (1) A, Signage, Location of Wall Signs. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Jerry Feather 875 West Berry was sworn for testimony. He said he has run the Dart Board since 1977. It is known locally, nationally and internationally. It is difficult for taxicab drivers and people from out of town to find the bar because the sign is hidden from the street by the businesses on both sides of him. Business has not been good lately. He wants to put two signs at the top of the building, one lighted sign advertising Budweiser and the other a painted sign with the words "Dart Board". The two signs will add 19 square feet to the 80 square feet which is allowed for his business. He said that his existing sign does not clearly indicate the nature of his business and, in any case, it is obscured by the neighboring signs . Ms. Lighthall objected to the Budweiser sign and asked why Mr. Feather wanted such a sign. Mr . Feather said it would indicate that he has a bar. Mr. Waldman asked if Mr. Feather would be satisfied if the Board granted a variance to allow a "Dart Board Bar" sign without the Budweiser sign. Mr. Feather said the Budweiser sign is a lit sign which would be provided by the Budweiser company, and that he would prefer to have both signs, although he "could live with" the reduced variance. There were no further questions. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the public record, and asked if the staff had any further comments to make. Dorothy Romans stated that Mr . Feather has improved his building fa~ade and made the building very attractive . The 3200 through 3500 blocks of South Broadway ·are in the Special Broadway Incentive Area. This area was designed to improve the appearance of the central business district, and lighted beverage signs do not fit within this design, in the opinion of the staff . She agreed, however that a painted sign indicating "Dart Board Bar" would be in keeping with the district, and would better identify the applicant's business. The i 11 umi nation proposed for the painted sign would be within the parameters of the Sign Code. After .some discussion and with the permission of the applicant, the following motion was made. - 4 - • • • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE #5-89, THE APPLICANT, JERRY FEATHER, FOR THE DART BOARD BAR, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE THREE SQUARE FEET IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE 80 SQUARE FEET, AND TO PERMIT THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIGN OUTSIDE THE "SIGNAGE ZONE". THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHEN- SIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-19-10 B, PERMITTED MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, ANO SECTION 16-4-11 C 2 e (1) A, SIGNAGE, LOCATION OF WALL SIGNS. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said that he had voted for the variance because the request, as amended, met the four conditions necessary to grant a sign code variance. Ms. George agreed. Ms. Lighthall said that granting the variance, as amended, is the minimum pos- sible to grant relief. Ms. Dunn said the variance, as amended, would not alter the character of the area, and would help the applicant and the City. Ms. Shaffer said she had ~voted for the variance because the applicant needs to better identify his business. Mr. Waldman said he voted for the variance because it would not negatively affect the area and may bring business to the applicant. This is a minimal variance . Mr. We 1 ker said the 1 ocat ion of the sign seems appropriate and seems to be within the intent of the ordinance. When the votes were di sp 1 ayed, a 11 seven members had voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman stated the variance, as amended, had been granted. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. None. BOARD'S CHOICE. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED AND MS. GEORGE SECONDED THAT MR. WELKER AND MS. LIGHTHALL BE RE-ELECTED AS CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN. They were unanimously re-elected. The Board noted that Bob's Grocery has completed its project and looks good. The meeting adjourned at 9:00. ~~ng Secretary -5 -