Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO FEBRUARY 13, 1991 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, Shaffer, Cohn, Waldman, and Welker. Members absent: None. Also present: Harold Stitt, Staff Advisor Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney The Chairman stated that with seven members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. SWEARING IN OF NEW APPOINTEES. Pat Crow, the City Clerk, administered the oath of office to Ms. Cohn, Mr . Seymour, and Mr. Welker. The three appointees will serve 4-year terms (February 1991 thru February 1995). APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Board Member Lighthall moved that the minutes of January 9, 1991 be approved as written. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. A 11 seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes for January 9, 1991, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #1-91, St. Louis Church of 3300 South Sherman Street; Case #3-91, Mr. G i 11 i am of 3100 South Humboldt Street; and Case #4-91, James Murphy of 2997 South Delaware Street, be approved as written. Board Member George seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact approved as written . - 1 - ELECTION OF OFFICERS. . Board Member Lighthall nominated Mr. Waldman for Chairman, and Ms. Shaffer as • Vice-Chairperson. Board Member Waldman moved to re-elect Mr. Welker as Chairman. After the Board voted, the Secretary counted the votes and reported that Mr. Welker would retain his Chairmanship, and Ms. Shaffer would become Vice Chairperson. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #2-91: 4601 South Clarkson Street The Chairman opened the pub 1 i c hearing for Case #2-91, stating the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance or appeal by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. He said he had proof of publication and posting, and asked the staff to identify the request. Mr. Welker announced he resides and owns the property adjoining 4601 South Cl arks on Street and would, therefore, step down from the dais during the consideration of this case. He asked Ms. Lighthall to chair this portion of the meeting and left the dais. Harold Stitt, Staff Advisor for Community Development, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to construct a single, three-unit residential structure to replace the existing three dwelling units contained in two separate structures on the property at 4601 South Clarkson Street. The property is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence and the three existing dwelling • units are registered as a Nonconforming Use. This is a variance from Sections 16-6-l:E,F,and G and Sections 16-6-2:B,and C of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Nonconforming Uses. Clifford Sampier residence at 5629 South Greenwood, Littleton was sworn in for testimony. He entered into the record a two-page statement which included the following points: -that he had purchased the property at 4601 South Clarkson street with the intention of eliminating the existing structures and replacing them with three modern, up-to-date units under one roof; that he was proposing to construct an identical situation as exists on the property: a one-bedroom unit and two 2-bedroom units; -that he felt the request would not adversely affect the neighborhood or result in a change in the character of the neighborhood; -that he would limit the number of children as specified by HUD guidelines; allowing for a total of five children or less in the unit s ; -that he had initially obtained approval from four neighbors with • Mr. Welker retracting his approval at a later date; -2 - • • • -that he felt the proposal met all the parking, setback, structural requirements, and building-to-land ratio; -that the rent would range from $385 to $395 for the one-bedroom, and between $425 and $450 for the two-bedroom units; -that he felt his management of the property would benefit both the tenants and the neighborhood. Mr. Sampier explained to the Board that he is pastor of the Church at 4860 South Clarkson Street and has managed that facility as well as owning and managing other properties. Mr. Sampier also addressed some of the questions about the blueprints for the new construction included in the Board's packet. Mr. Sampier concluded his testimony stating that access to the units would be from East Tufts Avenue and not South Clarkson Street; but that the original address of 4601 South Clarkson Street would be retained. Becky Baker, Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. on several issues pertaining Harold Stitt Staff Advisor was sworn in for testimony. requirements for the R-1-C the proposed construction. fencing for corner lots. Ms. Baker answered questions from the Board to the proposed structure. Mr. Stitt reviewed the side yard and setback zone district stating they were observed in Mr. Stitt also answered questions relative to The Chairperson asked if there were any speakers in the audience for or against the proposal. Ralph Gies 4725 South Clarkson Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Gies stated that he resides one block from the subject property. Mr. Gies stated his primary concern was that the property had been vacant for the specified time as stated under the nonconforming use regulations, and maintained that the property should be reverted to a single-family use. Mr. Gies stated he opposed the variance because he fe 1t the proposed multi-unit rental would affect present and future property values. Carl Jobski 4617 South Clarkson Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Jobski stated he has resided in the neighborhood since 1950. Mr. Jobski stated that historically renters were destructive to the property, and created general disorder within the neighborhood. Mr. Jobski stated that his concern was that the proposal would downgrade his property and that the multi-family situation would create parking problems . - 3 - Carl Welker 4611 South Clarkson Street • was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Welker stated he resides at the property abutting the subject property on the south and would be most affected by the proposal. Mr. Welker stated that during the ten years of residing next to the property he has witnessed good and bad conditions; but that in recent years the property deteriorated due to tenant destruction and lack of maintenance. Mr. Welker stated that basically he was of the opinion that the property could not sustain the amount of traffic, cars, and pets that would result from the number of occupants that would reside in the proposed three-unit structure. Mr. Welker added another concern was that the entrance to the units would face his family room resulting in pedestrian traffic and noise. Mr. Welker concluded that the three-unit structure as proposed for the property, would increase the density more than the property could accommodate and more than should be allowed in a single-family area. Mr. Welker added that the consideration of a two-unit dwelling which apparently could be constructed under the Nonconforming Use section seemed to be the maximum density that could be accommodated on the property and in the neighborhood. There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or against the case. The Chairperson incorporated the Staff Report into the record and closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION FOR CASE #2-91, THAT CLIFFORD SAMPIER, FOR • THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4601 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING THREE DWELLING UNITS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY IN TWO (2) SEPARATE BUILDINGS. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1-C, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THE THREE EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ARE REGISTERED AS A NONCONFORMING USE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTIONS 16-6-l:E,F,G AND SECTIONS 16-6-2:B,C, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, NONCONFORMING USES. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. Discussion ensued with the Board questioning the legality of allowing a Nonconforming Use on the subject property. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor approached the podium . Mr. Stitt clarified the staff's position on the property, stating that renovating the buildings to bring them up to code would be structurally and financially impossible; and that the staff took the position that a new building would be more attractive than the present structures . Mr. Stitt explained that under the current Nonconforming Use Ordinance, Section 16-6-l:G, the construction of a new two-family structure to replace the existing three dwelling units in two structures would be allowed . The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: -4 - • • • • Ms. George voted no, stating the proposal does not meet any of the 5 conditions for granting the variance . Mr. Seymour voted against the motion stating the variance did not meet the requirements of the City ordinance. Ms. Shaffer concurred stating the variance does not meet any of the required conditions to grant a variance. Mr. Waldman voted no stating the appropriate use of the property did not apply for granting the variance. Ms. Cohn concurred. Chairperson Lighthall agreed with the other members and the reasons given. When the votes were displayed, all 6 members had voted against the variance. The Chairperson announced the variance was denied. A recess was declared at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with the same Board members present. Public Hearing Case #5-91. 3627 South Pennsylvania Street Mr. Welker resumed the Chair and opened the Public Hearing for Case #5-91, stating he had proof of publication and posting . Harold Stitt Staff Advisor i dent i fi ed the request stating the applicants, Dami en Mul vany and Mark Novelen, were requesting a variance from Section 16-4-8:C 3 Minimum Lot Area for Permitted Principal Uses, in order to construct a Dental Office on a lot having an area of 11,812.5 square feet instead of the required 24,000 square feet. Dr. Mark Novelen 3601 South Pearl Street was sworn in for testimony. Dr. Novelen stated he and his partner, Damien Mulvany, were currently conducting their dental practice at 3601 South Clarkson Street, but that they were interested in owning their own building for their practice. Dr. Novelen stated that there were two dental office buildings in the area, and that he felt the request to build a new dental office would be in keeping with the developmental pattern in the area. Dr. Novelen stated that he felt the neighborhood would be upgraded by removing the existing single-family dwelling and replacing it with a new single-story, ranch-style professional building. Dr. Novelen submitted 3 statements from three (3) residents in the area supporting the variance. Dr. Novelen circulated a preliminary plan for the Board to review. He explained that the proposed building would be between 3,000 and 3,500 square feet on the 11,800 square foot lot; that the requirements for landscaping would be met; and that 20 to 25 parking places would be available to provide adequate parking for both patients and employees. - 5 - The Chairman asked if there were any speakers for or against the request. Dr. Allen Wanderer practice at • 3601 South Pennsylvania Street was sworn in for testimony. Dr. Wanderer stated that his practice has been at 3601 South Pennsylvania Street for thirteen (13} years during which time a number of traffic problems have occurred. Dr. Wanderer explained that the parking lot for his facility has experienced an on-going traffic problem by drivers using it in an attempt to avoid the light at Logan for accessing onto U.S.285; and conversely, traffic entering from the opposite direction to access Logan. He stated after damage to his building occurred last year resulting from someone trying to avoid traffic, that he contacted the City about the problem and was advised to post signage warning drivers about trespassing through the private parking lot. Dr. Wanderer demonstrated to the Board, using a sketch of the area to illustrate traffic flow, that he perceived the impact of the proposed office building would increase the traffic and parking problems. Dr. Wanderer illustrated how the parking areas of the medical facilities at 3601 South Pennsylvania and 3600 South Logan have resulted in ingress and egress traffic problems for accessing to U.S.285. Dr. Wanderer concluded by submitting for the record, a traffic accident report verifying that the third highest incidents of traffic accidents in Englewood occurred at the intersection of Logan and Highway 285. He stated that his main objection to the new facility at 3627 South Pennsylvania Street stemmed from the past traffic problems, and that the • variance should not be approved until an overall traffic plan was developed to resolve the traffic issues identified in his presentation. Robert Preeo Attorney and Counselor of Law 1120 Lincoln Street, Denver was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Preeo stated he was representing Mrs. Patricia Wanderer, the owner of the building at 3601 South Pennsylvania Street. He stated some of the concerns about the impact of the new medical building in the area were: that there would be an increase in traffic flow, congestion and accidents; and that there would be safety and hazard issues for pedestrians and patients. Mr. Preeo cited Section 16-2-8 stating he felt granting the variance would be questionable in reference to observing the spirit of the neighborhood; securing the public safety; and adversely affecting the adjacent property. Mr. Preeo questioned the accepted use of the property, stating he did not feel the proposal met the requirements of an R-3 Zone District with regard to square footage of tre property. Mr. Preeo continued with his objections concerning the use qf the property, stating he was of the opinion that the proposal did not meet the permitted use requirements within the zone district applicable to the property, and that the proposed use is not the least traffic-intensive use permitted, suggesting that single-family use would have less impact upon the traffic congestion. - 6 - • • • • Mr. Preeo concluded that he was of the op1n1on that if the variance is granted, that a st i pul at ion should be pl aced on the variance that the City will take the burden of correcting the South Logan Street and U.S.Hwy.285 intersection with an in depth study involving the City, the State and the medical facilities in the area. Dr. Riley, D.D.S. practice at 3600 South Logan Street was sworn in for testimony. Dr. Riley stated that he opposed the variance because he felt the additional traffic generating from the facility would add to the existing traffic problems. Dr. Riley cited drivers from the Englewood High School, two blocks away, as another factor involved with the high level of traffic on Logan and Highway 285. Dr. Riley summed up his opposition, concluding that in his opinion the new facility would increase the present parking and traffic problems. Dr. Paul Hayes 3600 South Logan Street was sworn in for testimony. Dr. Hayes stated he was opposed to the new medical facility because he felt it would add to an already dangerous traffic situation, and that he felt the present amount of traffic exiting and accessing from Logan Street, tremendously impairs vision for safe driving. Dr. Novelen approached the podium again. Dr. Novelen responded to the safety issues as expressed by the doctors in the area, stating he was al so concerned about the safety issues. Dr. Novel en entered into the record twenty pictures of the side streets showing the current parking to illustrate what he felt was adequate parking to support his request for the new facility. Dr. Novelen stated that he did not agree that the new facility would create additional traffic because their practice was already established a block away from the proposed site. Dr. Novelen concluded that both he and his partner, Dr. Mulvany, would be open to work with the doctors and the issues relevant to traffic. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor approached the podium to clarify a few issues. Mr. Stitt stated that the variance was not for the permitted use of the property; but for the size of the property involved. Mr. Stitt stated that although single-family, two-family, and three-family dwellings are permitted uses in the R-3 Zone District, that based on the type of existing land use pattern: eleven apartment buildings, four office buildings, and five single family homes within the four block area, the office building will be in character. Mr. Stitt stated that the staff did not think one, two or three-family dwellings were appropriate at this location; therefore, it was supportive of the request. Mr . Stitt concluded that he had met with the Traffic Engineer and City Attorney's office concerning the traffic problems, and added since U.S.Highway 285 is a state highway, they would have to be contacted; and that all agencies need to consider some long range plans. - 7 - There were no other speakers for or against the request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record, various exhibits, and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION FOR CASE #5-91 AT 3627 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, THAT THE APPLICANTS, DR.DAMIEN MULVANY AND DR.MARK NOVELEN, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DENTAL OFFICE ON A LOT HAVING LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA OF 24,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WOULD BE A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-S:C 3, MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Ms. Lighthall voted "no" stating she felt the tentative site plan and the need to resolve the existing traffic problems prohibited her from approving the variance. Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating he was in favor of eliminating the existing house and erecting the new facility. Ms. Shaffer voted "no" stating she felt the variance did not meet the conditions necessary to grant it. Mr. Waldman voted "yes" stating the proposed structure seemed to meet the conditions necessary to grant the variance. Ms. Cohn voted "yes" stating the only objections she heard concerned traffic, and she felt the City would handle the problem; therefore, she was of the opinion that all of the necessary conditions for granting a variance were met. Ms. George stated she voted "yes" and felt the new facility would be compatible with the other development in the area. Mr. Welker voted "yes" stating the requirements for granting a variance applied. When the votes were displayed, 5 members voted for the variance, and 2 members; Ms. Lighthall and Ms. Shaffer voted against the motion. The Chairman stated the variance was granted. A recess was declared at 10:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #6-91. AMCO Construction -2830 South Bannock Street The Chairman opened the Public Hea-ring stating that in an appeal, the staff presents its case first and then the appellant is allowed to present his case . -8 - • • • • • • Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated the applicant has requested an appeal from Section 3209 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code which states roofing materials and methods of application shall comply with the U.B.C. Standards or shall follow manufacturer, s i nsta 11 at ion requirements when approved by the Building Official. Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector approached the podium. Ms. Baker entered into the record a copy of the manufacturer,s instructions to indicate that the instructions state that rolled roofing must not be applied on a roof with less than 2/12 slope (2 inches drop, 12 inches run), and that in the case at hand, the garage roof measured one and one-quarter, making it flatter than the allowable margin of two inches or less. Ms. Baker reported that Code requires that application of the roofing material be in accordance with manufacturer,s specifications. Ms. Baker further explained that manufacturer,s know what is best for application of their product and when the products are applied incorrectly such as to a lesser slope than specified, weather-protection problems can occur with the roof. Ms. Baker answered some of the Board,s questions stating: that the entire garage roof would need to be re-roofed; that the flatter the roof the bigger the problems with respect to water standing or "ponding"; and that the responsibility of the Building Department was to make sure the roofing material was properly applied to meet the minimum standard; and that even if the property owner says they approve of the job, the responsibility of the City is with the property, not with the owner. Ms. Baker concluded stating that the Department needs to have a pre-roof inspection of the garage to ascertain the extent of water damage from "ponding"; ascertain the number of layers of roofing; and check to see if the decking is solid. Ms. Baker stated that it was the Department,s opinion that the rolled roofing would have to be removed and acceptable roofing material applied. Mike Cooper AMCO Construction 2115 West Chenango, Littleton was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Cooper stated he was unaware that the ro 11 ed roofing app 1 i ed on the garage was unacceptab 1 e s i nee it was not documented during the pre -roof inspection. He added that the homeowner, Mrs. Townsend, had written a letter stating she found the work satisfactory. Mr. Cooper answered the Boards questions on deta i 1 s concerning application, materials and existing layers on the garage. Mr. Cooper stated that there were two layers of roofing, making the rolled roofing they applied, as the third layer. He added that to have applied a roofing materi a 1 other than the ro 11 ed roofing with a modified roofing application, would have cost three to four times more, and added the insurance would not have reimbursed the difference . Mr. Cooper discussed the guarantees involved with the different roofing products and stated -9 - Mr. Robert Cooper AMCO Construction was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Cooper, Sr. stated that he had been in • the roofing business all his life. He stated that he estimated the job at 2830 South Bannock Street, and that he applied for the permit. He added that he felt the roofing material used for the garage was applied according to the manufacturer's specifications. Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector approached the podium. Ms. Baker entered into the record photographs of the garage roof illustrating: 1) the areas of trapped water; 2) that the slope was less than 2 inches; 3) the irregular nailing pattern; and 4) the blistering of the roof. There were no other persons who wished to testify relative to this matter. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report, various exhibits and photographs, into the record and closed the Pubic Hearing. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT IN CASE #6-91, THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL COOPER OF AMCO ROOFING, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE CODE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER AS IT PERTAINS TO SECTION 3209 OF THE 1988 U. B. C. WHICH STATES THAT ROOFING MATERIALS AND METHODS OF APPLICATION SHALL COMPLY WITH U. B. C. STANDARDS OR SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS . Discussion ensued . Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating he felt the contractor met the standards for applying the roofing material. Board Member Shaffer concurred. Board Member Waldman stated he voted "yes" because he felt the contractor took the necessary measures for making the roofing water-tight. Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating the homeowner found the job acceptable as stated in her letter . Board Member voted "yes" stating she felt the safety measures were taken by the contractor to ensure the roof is water-tight. Board Member Lighthall concurred with the other Board members and added that she felt that AMCO made a sincere effort to do a competent job. Chairman Welker voted "no" stating he was not reasonably assured that the installation of the roofing system met the standards, or that it is water-tight. • When the votes were displayed, six members had voted for the appeal, and one • member, Mr. Welker, voted against it. The Chairman stated the appeal was granted. -10 - • • • PUBLIC HEARING CASE #7-91. AMCO Construction -3270 South Pearl Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked the Staff to present its case first. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated the app 1 i cant has requested an appea 1 from Section 3209 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code which states roofing materials and methods of application shall comply with the U.B.C. Standards or shall follow manufacturer's insta 11 at ion requirements when approved by the Bui 1 ding Official. Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector approached the podium. Ms. Baker stated that the Building Department found the application of Tamko for the roof at 3270 South Pearl Street unacceptable because of the irregular nailing pattern. Ms. Baker said she had included in the Board 's packet a copy of a photo taken of the roof to illustrate that the nailing pattern was not in conformance with manufacturer's instructions. Duane Davidson Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Davidson read the application instructions from a Tamko roofing package, stating that the nails must be p 1 aced under the s 1 it port ion of the tab to make it water-tight. Mr . Davidson stated that a cautionary note specifically states that if the roofing is not applied according to the instructions, the manufacturer will not be responsible for problems that may result from any deviation; thus the warranty would be void. Mr. Davidson entered into the record a diagram to illustrate that application of the nails was critical to prevent wind uplifting of the T-lock shingles, and to prevent water collecting at the interlocking of the tabs. Mr. Davidson commented on letters from roofing manufacturers . He stated that the companies are interested in promoting their product and that many of the letters a r e not always from technical personnel but rather sales people interested only in promoting their product. Mr. Davidson stated that the Building Division's position is that they prefer that specifics are addressed rather than a gloss-over in generalities. Mr. Davidson concluded that it was the Building Department's position that the contractor should remove the third layer they applied, and re-roof according to the manufacturer's instructions . -11 - Mike Cooper AMCO Construction • approached the podium. Mr. Cooper stated he disagreed with the Building Department's analysis that the nailing pattern was incorrect. Mr. Cooper entered into the record a letter from the manufacturer. stating he felt that with their approval, the application of roofing should be acceptable. Robert Cooper, Sr. AMCO Construction approached the podium and briefly commented that he felt they had correctly applied the roofing material and disputed the nailing pattern. There was no further testimony. The Chairman incorporated the staff report, photographs, and exhibits into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #7-91, THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL COOPER OF AMCO ROOFING, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE CODE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER AS IT PERTAINS TO SECTION 3209 OF THE 1988 U.B.C. WHICH STATES THAT ROOFING MATERIALS AND METHODS OF APPLICATION SHALL COMPLY WITH U.B.C. STANDARDS OR SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Shaffer voted "yes" for the appeal to be granted. Board Member Waldman voted "yes'' stating he did not think the nailing pattern was that critical. Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating that the manufacturer's specifications are set forth for a reason and that the contractor should have followed them. Board Member George concurred that the manufacturer's instructions should be followed and therefore voted "no". Board Member Lighthall voted ''no" stating that the contractor was given plenty of notice from the Building Department to make the necessary corrections and should have done so. Board Member Seymour voted "no'' stating that evidence showed the contractor to be neg 1 i gent. Board Member Welker concurred voting "no". When the votes were displayed, five members had voted against the appeal, with Board Member Shaffer and Board Member Waldman voting for the appeal. The Chairman announced the appeal was denied and instructed the appe 11 ant, AMCO Construction, to contact the Building Department for direction on making the necessary corrections. -12 - • • • • • CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE . Mr. Brotzman informed the Board that City personnel from the Building and Safety Division, Fire Division, and Code Enforcement Division met with Omni Bank representatives at 2280 West Evans Street. At that meeting, the City issued a list of Zoning, Building, and Fire Code violations that need to be brought into compliance. The Bank issued to Kurtz an eviction notice, giving him until March 1, 1991 to evacuate the property. Mr. Brotzman said since that time period was unrealistic, the Bank would be monitoring the progress of the eviction. STAFF ADVISOR. Mr. Stitt informed the Board that the meeting with Council originally scheduled for March 4th, has been postponed until March 18th at 6:00 p.m. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, C1e Mahon, Recording Secretary -13 -