HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-11 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
September 11, 1991
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was
called to order by Vice-Chairperson Shaffer at 7:35 p.m.
Members present: Seymour, George, Shaffer, Cohn, and Waldman.
Members absent: Welker.
Also present: Harold Stitt, Staff Advisor
Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney
The Vice-Chairperson stated that with five members present, four affirmative
votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. She stated the
Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the
Englewood Municipal Code.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Board Member George moved that the minutes of August 14, 1991 be approved as
written.
Board Member Waldman seconded the motion.
All six members voted in favor of the motion, and the Vice-Chairperson ruled
the Minutes of August 14, 1991, approved as written.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT.
Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #17-91, Mr.
Michael Wolf of 1312 East Bates Street; and Case #18-91, Mr. John Gerlick of
1166 West Princeton Street be approved as written.
Board Member Cohn seconded the motion.
All five members voted in favor of the motion, and the Vice-Chairperson ruled
the Findings of Fact be approved as written.
The Vice-Chairperson opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of
publication and explained that in a variance the staff identifies the request,
and the applicant and those that wish to speak, are called upon to testify .
- 1 -
PUBLIC HEARING CASE #19-91:
955 West Oxford Avenue
Harold Stitt
Staff Advisor
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt stated the applicant, John Tate of
the subject property at 955 West Oxford Avenue, was requesting a variance
to construct an eight foot gate and fence in the side yard. Mr. Stitt
explained that the variance request is from Section 16-4-l?:C,2 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which section states side yard fences
shall not exceed six feet.
John Tate
955 West Oxford Avenue
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Tate explained he wanted to enclose the
area between the garage and lilac bushes with a sliding gate and fence of
approximately 8 feet in height. Mr. Tate stated his purpose was
two-fold: to retain his dogs and to secure his property.
Mr. Tate further explained he has two large dogs, one of which can jump a
seven foot fence, and added that his existing fence is inadequate to
contain both of his dogs. Mr. Tate added that he also has several
business vehicles that often contain tools, and that the proposed solid
fence would provide security for his property.
Mr. Tate entered into the record the statements of two (2) neighbors
stating they have no opposition to the proposed fence and gate with
•
addendums at the end of each statement requesting that the design be •
aesthetically appealing.
Mr. Tate concluded that in his opinion the fence and gate would not
adversely affect the neighborhood and that the proposed design would be
visually attractive.
There were no further speakers for or against the variance.
The Vice-Chairperson incorporated the Staff Rep.art and neighbor's statements
into the record, and closed the Public Hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #19-91, THAT MR. JOHN TATE,
PROPERTY OWNER OF 955 WEST OXFORD AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION
16-4-l?:C,2. OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT FOOT
FENCE.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Seymour.
Discussion ensued.
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows:
Board Member Seymour voted "no'' stating he felt there were other ways to
contain Mr. Tate's dogs and that the request does not meet the conditions for
granting the variance.
-2 -
•
••
•
•
Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating he felt the extra footage for the
fence would provide minimal relief to the applicant .
Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating she felt although it would not interfere
with the spirit of the ordinance or affect the adjacent property or
neighborhood, there did not seem to be any exceptional circumstances
applicable for granting the variance.
Board Member George voted "yes" stating she felt the request met the
conditions, specifically the public safety issue for insuring the public from
the dogs.
Vice-Chairperson Shaffer voted "yes' stating she felt it met the minimum
relief allowed for granting the variance.
When the votes were displayed, three members voted in the affirmative, with
two voting in opposition to the variance. The Vice-Chairperson announced the
variance as denied.
CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE:
None.
STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE:
Mr. Stitt directed the Boards attention to the letter included in their packet
from Becky Baker, Chief Building Inspector, concerning their recommendation
regarding Case #14-91, stating that since Ms. Baker could not be at the
meeting she wanted to update them on the contact between the Building Division
and Alpen Construction.
BOARD'S CHOICE:
None.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
8:10 p.m.
Respectfully yours,
Cathie Mahon,
Recording Secretary
- 3 -