Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-13 BAA MINUTES•• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO MAY 13, 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 April 8, 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 April 8, 1992, approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT: Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #4- 92, Renaee Sealy of 3400 South Downing Street, be approved as written. Board Member George seconded the motion. Six members voted in favor of the motion to approved the Findings of Fact. Mr. Smith voted in opposition of the motion . PUBLIC HEARING -CASE f6-92: 1285 West Dartmouth Avenue The Chairman 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. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting. Due to the absence of the Staff Advisor, Chairman Welker identified the request stating that Gary Scott of Advantage Advertising was representing the Drapery Factory in their request for a variance from Section 16-4-19: 10, E, 4. of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Joint Identification Signs, in order to install a free standing joint identification sign on the same frontage as an existing free standing sign. Gary Scott, Advantage Advertising 2001 South Bates Avenue was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Scott testified he was representing The Drapery Factory of 1265 West Dartmouth Avenue, in assisting them with the erection of an identification sign for their business. Mr. Scott stated that the request was to have a pole sign placed on the frontage on West Dartmouth Avenue in order to direct attention from west and east drivers on Dartmouth, to the business. Mr. Scott entered into the record a site of the property to assist with the proposed placement of the sign. Mr. Scott stated that in his opinion the proposed placement of the sign would insure good visibility for his client. Mr. Scott explained when he contacted the City about erecting the sign he was advised by Neighborhood Services staff that because there was currently one free-standing sign (owned by Import Car Parts), on the Dartmouth Avenue frontage for the building, that a second, and separate pole sign for The Drapery Factory would not be permitted. Mr. Scott stated the City Staff did advise him that it would be permissible to erect a sign on the Platte River side of the building; but he stated they were not interested in that option because of the minimal traffic on Platte River Drive. Mr. Scott was questioned by the Board as to whether or not he or his client had contacted the auto parts business to share their sign. Mr. Scott stated he was not interested in adding to the existing sign because of the uncertain integrity of the sign structure including the undefined size of the foundation, and the capacity of wind load. 2 •• • • •• • • Mr. Scott concluded that in his opinion that the 2' X 2' temporary sign on the face of the entrance to the building did not provide enough visibility for his client; that the existing Import car Parts pole sign was too far away from the business; and that he was of the opinion that the proposed sign would insure The Drapery Factory better visibility. Barbara Talmadge, General Manager for The Drapery Factory, 1265 West Dartmouth Avenue was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Talmadge explained that the main reason she moved her business to the subject property was for more exposure for the business. Ms. Talmadge stated that in her opinion the proposed sign was essential if they were to increase retail sales. Ms. Talmadge stated she was not interested in sharing the Import Car Parts sign because of the distance from their entrance to the sign. Ms. Talmadge explained that they needed the pole sign in front of their section of the building in order to attract attention to their business from drivers going east and west on Dartmouth Avenue. Ms. Talmadge concluded that sharing the sign with Import Auto Parts business lacked logic. Discussion ensued as to whether the applicant and/or business manager had considered alternatives for signage such as different placement, and other types of signs such as an awning or marquee . The Board requested that the applicant approach the podium. Gary Scott Advantage Advertising approached the podium. Mr. Scott explained that the sign would be a double-faced, free-standing, illuminated cabinet measuring 6'xl2', and standing twenty feet (20') in height. Mr. Scott entered into the record photographs to assist with illustrating the location of the Import Auto Parts sign in reference to the distance between it and the entrance of The Drapery Factory. Mr. Scott was asked by the Board if he had discussed alternatives for signage with his client such as an awning or marquee, the dimensions of the alcove/entrance to the building, and the distance from the entrance to Dartmouth Avenue. Mr. Scott admitted he lacked such information . 3 After considerable discussion, the Board made a decision the case until the applicant could provide more information, and in order that a City Advisor could be present. to table specific BOARD MEMBER SMITH MADE A MOTION THAT CASE #6-92 BE TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion. The Board directed the applicant to provide in writing alternatives for signage, and asked that the applicant investigate adding to the existing pole sign, and that the applicant provide various measurements such as the distance from the entrance to West Dartmouth Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING -#7-92: 4306 South Washington Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication. The Chairman identified the request stating that the applicant is requesting a Section 16-4-4:M,l. Garages and Carports. construct a second garage. variance from in order to The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Jeffrey Gorman 4306 South Washington street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Gorman stated that he was requesting a variance in order to construct a second garage on his property, stating that the existing garage can house only two of his three vehicles, and that he could use more room for the storage of his garden tools. Mr. Gorman answered the Board on their concern as to why he did not add to the existing garage, stating that the structure would have to be certified by an engineer and brought up to code. Mr. Gorman stated his intent was to have a walkway between the existing garage and the proposed new garage. Mr.Gorman stated that his property consists of four lots, and that the existing structures cqmprise approximately twenty percent coverage and that the proposed garage would keep the lot coverage well below the maximum forty percent lot coverage. 4 •• • • • • • Mr. Gorman submitted into the record two (2) statements from neighbors stating they have no opposition to the request. The Chairman asked if there were further speakers for or against the variance. John Spahn 4355 South Clarkson Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Spahn explained his relationship with the applicant, stating he was Mr. German's father-in-law and was present to state he was in favor of the request. Mr. Spahn added that Mr. Gorman would inherit his two lots which are adj a cent to Mr. Gorman' s existing four lots. There were no further speakers for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report, neighbor's statements into the record and closed the Public Hearing. Discussion ensued as to whether or not the variance was necessary if the ordinance was to be interpreted as allowing a thousand (1000) square foot garage per lot that perhaps the variance would be unnecessary since Mr. German's property consisted of four lots. BOARD MEMBER SMITH MADE A MOTION TO TABLE CASE #7-92 • The motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion ensued. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT JEFFREY GORMAN, CASE #7- 92, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4306 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-4:M,1. OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND GARAGE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not a variance was necessary. A motion was made to amend the original motion to delete the citation "Section 16-4-4:M,l." Discussion ensued. All members voted in favor of the motion to amend • 5 The amended motion read: BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT JEFFREY GORMAN IN CASE #7- 92 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4306 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND GARAGE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings of fact: Board Member George voted "yes" stating her interpretation was that the applicant should be allowed to construct a second garage because of the lot size. Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating that in his opinion the applicant had more land and therefore should be able to have an additional garage, and that there was no opposition from the neighbors. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating the property is unique and exceptional and that allowing the second garage would not adversely affect the public safety, the neighborhood, and affords minimum relief for the applicant. •• Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating the particular shape and • size of the property is adequate for allowing the second garage. Board Member Cohn voted "yes" agreeing with the previous stated reasons by members. Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating in his opinion the variance should not be necessary, adding that his interpretation of the ordinance is that you should be able to building garages until forty percent of the property is covered. Chairman Welker voted "yes" stating that he concurred with previous stated reasons as stated by board members and that granting the variance meets all the conditions for granting a variance. When the votes were displayed, all seven (7) members had voted in favor of the variance. The Chairman ruled the variance as granted and directed the applicant to comply with the necessary building permits and regulations. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None. 6 • • • SECRETARY'S CHOICE: The secretary informed the Board that they were invited to participate in the Ice Cream Social, June 26,1992, at 4:00 p.m. The secretary suggested that the Board consider starting the meeting at 7:00 p.m. informing them that there were six (6) cases scheduled to be heard at the June 10, 1992, meeting. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE: Discussion ensued as to changing the meeting time and it was decided that the June 10, 1992 meeting would start at 7:00 p.m. with Vice-Chairperson Cohn chairing the meeting in Chairman Welker's absence. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary 7