Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-08 BAA MINUTES•• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO APRIL 8. 1992 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: Members absent: Also present: Seymour, George, Smith, Cohn, Clayton, Waldman, and Welker. None. 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. He 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 Cohn moved that the minutes of March 11, 1992, be approved as written. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on the motion, all members voted in the affirmative. The Chairman ruled the Minutes of. March 11, 1992, approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT: Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #1- 92, Mr. Kermmoade of 1045 West Stanford Drive, Case #2-92, Mr. Karaki, dba as H. & J. Enterprises, for 3211 South Broadway, and Case #3-92, Ms. Kohler for 3167 South Pennsylvania Street be approved as written. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. Board Member Smith moved that the Findings of Fact be considered separately. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. For case #1-92, six members voted in favor of the motion, with Mr. Smith opposing the approving of the Findings of Fact. For case #2-92, all seven members voted in favor of the motion. For case #3-92, six members voted in favor of the motion with Ms. Cohn abstaining because she was not seated on the Board during the hearing of the case. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE 14-92 3400 South Downing Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and explained the procedure of the meeting, stating for variances at hand, the request would be identified, and the applicant and those that wish to speak would then have the opportunity to be heard. Due to the absence of the Staff Advisor, Chairman Welker identified the request stating that Ms. Renaee Sealy of 3400 South Downing Street was requesting a variance from Section 16-4-8:0,6,k. of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Home Occupations, in order to operate a hair salon as a Home Occupation. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward. Renaee Sealy 3400 South Downing Street was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Sealy testified that her request was to operate a hair salon business out of her residence. Ms. Sealy explained that she is the single parent of a five year old son and that by having her business in the home, she can spend more time with him until he starts Charles Hay Elementary School. Ms. Sealy entered into the record a sketch to assist in explaining the lay-out of the house, illustrating that originally the house was rented as two separate apartments and that the proposed salon would be operated out of the basement, and have a separate entrance. Ms. Sealy stated there is ample parking with the two parking places in the rear of the property. Ms. Sealy explained that she and her son would occupy the upstairs as their main residence and use part of the basement except the area where the proposed salon would operate. 2 • • • • Ms. Sealy explained that she can provide numerous services from perms to styling, adding that one of the features she provides is privacy which many of her patrons appreciate since several of them have had chemotherapy treatment and pref er the privacy she can offer versus the chaos and exposure of the large salon. Ms. Sealy added that she will carry a line of hair products that her clients can purchase. Ms. Sealy stated she can extend her services from doing hair at local homes for the elderly and at hospitals, to those clients who are confined to their homes. In addition to her regular cosmetologist license, Ms. Sealy stated that she has a free lance license, which allows her to do hair at clients' homes. Ms. Sealy submitted for the record eight ( 8) statements from neighbors stating they have no opposition to the variance. Ms. Sealy stated she would observe the sanitation and safety practices, building and equipment requirements, and comply with state and local codes. Ms. Sealy stated there would not be any employees or assistants. Ms. Sealy concluded that she was of the opinion that she would be an asset to the community . The Chairman asked if there were further speakers for or against the variance. Jim Schneider 6005 South Layden, Englewood, Colorado was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Schneider stated that he was present on behalf of Ms. Sealy. Mr. Schneider stated he was of the opinion that Ms. Sealy would be an asset to the community. There were no further speakers for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report, neighbor's statements and the exhibit into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE #4-92 FOR THE REQUEST FILED BY RENAEE SEALY, 3400 SOUTH DOWNING STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-8:0,6,k. OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A HAIR SALON AS A HOME OCCUPATION. Board Member George seconded the motion. Discussion ensued as to whether or not a review of the Home Occupation at the subject property should be placed on the motion . 3 Board Member Seymour moved that the motion be amended to included a two (2) year review of the subject property. Board Member Cohn seconded the amended motion. Six members voted in favor of the motion with Board Member Smith opposing the amendment to the motion. Discussion ensued on the proposed amendment to the motion. Board Member Smith moved that the motion be amended to required an annual review of the operation of the hair salon. The motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion ensued on the motion as amended. The Chairmen announced the motion will remain as amended with be a two year review of the operation. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings of fact: Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating that he did so reluctantly because the ordinance prohibits the use of hair salons in residential areas, but that in his opinion, granting the variance would not adversely affect the adjoining properties. •• Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating she was of the opinion that • in the strictest application, granting the variance observes the spirit of the ordinance. Board Member George voted "yes", concurring with the previous statements. Board Member Smith voted "no" stating he was of the opinion that there was nothing peculiar with the property, and that he was of the opinion the ordinance should be observed. Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating that he was of the opinion the salon would be an asset to the neighborhood, and the fact there was no opposition by neighbors to the requested variance. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating he felt granting the variance observes the spirit of the ordinance. Chairman Welker voted "yes" stating that in his opinion granting the variance would not adversely affect the neighbors or the neighborhood. When the votes were displayed, six members voted in favor of the variance with one member, Mr. Smith, opposing the motion. 4 • • The Chairman announced the variance was granted, and reminded the applicant that the variance will be active for two years, and that there will be an inspection of the premises to check for compliance as required in Section 16-4-8:0,6,k. of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Home Occupations. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney, discussed with the Board that a recommendation be sent to City Council to review the hair salon section of Home Occupations of the Ordinance. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE. Board Member Clayton made a motion that a letter be sent by Community Development suggesting that since the current Ordinance differs from State Law, that perhaps City Council should consider a review of the matter. Board Member Smith seconded the motion. All members vote4d in favor of the motion. Board Member Clayton offered to compose the letter to Community Development. No further discussion followed. • The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary • 5