HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-10 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
JUNE 10, 1992
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and
Appeals was called to order by Chairperson Cohn at 7:15 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Seymour, George, Smith, Cohn, Clayton,
and Waldman.
Welker.
Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney
Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator
The Chairperson stated that with six members present, five
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 Seymour moved that the minutes of May 13, 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 Chairperson ruled the Minutes of May 13, 1992, approved as
written.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #7-
92, Jeffrey Gorman of 4306 South Washington Street, be approved as
written.
Board Member George seconded the motion.
All six members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman
ruled the Findings of Fact approved as written .
1
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #6-92:
1285 West Dartmouth Avenue
The Chairperson explained the procedure for the meeting, stating
for variances at hand, the request would be identified by City
Staff, and the applicant and those that wish to speak would then
have the opportunity to be heard.
The Chairperson opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of
publication and posting.
Harold Stitt
Staff Advisor
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt identified the request
stating that the applicant, Gary Scott for Advantage
Advertising, was representing The Drapery Factory in their
request for a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance, Section 16-4-19:10,E,4. Joint Identification Signs,
in order to erect a free standing joint identification sign on
the same frontage as an existing sign.
Mr. Stitt explained that the issue at hand for the Board's
consideration, was the relocation of a free standing sign on
the South Platte River Drive frontage to the West Dartmouth
Avenue frontage.
Mr. Stitt entered into the record three documents from Import
Car Parts concerning the removal of their existing sign from
West Dartmouth Avenue: a letter from the State Highway
Department stating they had purchased the sign for the purpose
of an easement and road improvements; a "memorandum of
agreement" from the Colorado Department of Highways and their
bill of sale; and a letter from the Colorado Department of
Transportation stating the removal of the sign is scheduled
for the spring of 1993.
The Chairperson asked the applicant to come forward for testimony.
Gary Scott
Advantage Advertising
2001 South Bates Avenue,
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Scott stated he was
representing The Drapery Factory of 1265 West Dartmouth
Avenue, in assisting them with the erection of an
identification sign for their business and their request for
a free standing sign on the West Dartmouth Avenue frontage.
Mr. Scott stated that in his opinion the proposed placement of
the sign would direct attention from west and east drivers on
Dartmouth to the business.
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Scott entered into the record an exhibit of the proposed
sign. Mr. Scott explained that the sign would be a double-
faced, free standing sign, with seventy-two square feet for
signage, and would be fifteen feet in height. Mr. Scott added
that the column structure was designed to accommodate
additional signage for future tenants should they choose to
participate.
The Chairperson asked if there were any persons in the audience who
wished to testify for or against the request.
Barbara Talmadge
1265 West Dartmouth Avenue
was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Talmadge stated she was owner
and manager of The Drapery Factory. Ms. Talmadge stated that
the main reason she moved her business to the subject property
was for more exposure for her business. Ms. Talmadge stated
that they needed the pole sign on the West Dartmouth Avenue
frontage in order to attract attention to the business from
persons going east and west on West Dartmouth Avenue.
There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or
against the variance. The Chairperson incorporated the Staff
Report and exhibits into the record and closed the Public Hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #6-92, THAT MR.
GARY SCOTT, REPRESENTING THE DRAPERY FACTORY LOCATED AT 1265 WEST
DARTMOUTH AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-19:10,E,4, IN ORDER TO ERECT A FREE
STANDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN.
Board Member Clayton seconded the motion.
The Chairperson asked the members to lock in their votes. The
members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows:
Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating that with the memorandums
from state authorities that the Import Car Parts would be removed,
that the proposed sign for The Drapery Factory would be the only
sign on the Dartmouth Avenue frontage.
Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating that the new sign for The
Drapery Factory should not be erected until the sign from Import
Car Parts is vacated.
Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating that with the other sign
from Import Car Parts being eliminated that The Drapery Factory
should have their sign.
Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating that it was evident by the
different state agencies that it would only be until the spring of
1993 that two ground signs would be on the West Dartmouth frontage .
3
Board Member George voted "yes" stating that in her opinion the
conditions for granting a variance were met.
Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating that the short time that
there will be two signs outweighs the benefit it will give The
Drapery Factory.
When the votes were displayed, five members voted in favor of the
motion, with one member, Mr. Seymour, voting in opposition.
The Chairperson announced the decision and directed the applicant
to proceed with applying for the appropriate permits.
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #8-92:
3177 South Vine Court
The Chairperson opened the Public Hearing stating _she had proof of
posting and publication and asked the staff to identify the
request.
Harold Stitt
Staff Advisor
stated that the applicant, Edgar R. Berg, for the property at
3177 South Vine Court, was requesting a variance to construct
a detached garage two feet into the required five foot side
yard setback, Section 16-4-2:M,l,c. Side Yard Setback, of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairperson asked the applicant to come forward to testify.
Edgar Berg
3177 South Vine Court
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Berg entered into the record
an exhibit to assist with illustrating his property. Mr. Berg
pointed out that the north side of the property was the only
location possible for the garage due to the five foot easement
in the rear of the property, and the limited 6.5' area on the
south side.
Mr. Berg explained that when they purchased the house they
were assured by the realtor that a variance could be obtained
to construct a garage, adding that his property was the only
one in the neighborhood having no garage. Mr. Berg stated he
presented the proposal to his neighbor to the north, Lucy Orr,
and that she originally agreed with the proposed garage.
Mr. Berg entered into the record photographs to assist with
illustrating the location of the proposed garage. Mr. Berg
directed the Board 1 s attention · to the photographs of the
dilapidated fence and retaining wall between his property and
the property at _3167 South Vine Court, stating that he has
offered to repair the retaining wall and fence between the two
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
properties, at an estimated cost of $2,000 .
Also entered into the record were statements from three of Mr.
Berg's neighbors stating they have no objection to the
proposed garage.
Mr. Berg stated that the proposed two car garage would
replicate the existing style and lines of the house.
Mr. Berg submitted for the record copies obtained from City
files, variances requested from his immediate neighborhood of
3100 block of Vine Court, and the approval of those variances
for the properties at 3127, 3155, 3167, and 3199 South Vine
Court.
The Chairperson asked if there were any speakers who wished to
testify in favor of the variance request.
Charlotte Bevier
3176 South Vine Court
was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Bevier stated that she was
one of the three neighbors who had signed a statement in favor
of the variance request. Ms. Bevier stated that she had no
objection to the request, adding that the Berg's were the only
property owners in the neighborhood without a garage.
The Chairperson asked if there were any speakers who wished to
testify in opposition to the variance request.
William Orr
3167 South Vine Court
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Orr stated that his wife,
Lucy Orr, owns the house and that he resides at the subject
house on a part-time basis, having an apartment during the
interim of his separation from Lucy Orr.
Mr. Orr entered into the record two letters. Mr. Orr
discussed contents from the first letter, Synergy Mortgage
Inc. , explaining that the letter discusses the distance
between the two properties; that they were of the opinion that
the proximity between Mr. Orr's kitchen and the living room
area would be subject to a high level of noise and emission
pollution; and that the proposed garage will depreciate the
value of Mrs. Orr's property.·
Mr. Orr discussed the contents of the second letter from A &
A Environmental Engineering, explaining that the company had
performed a radon mitigation test and devised a program
requiring that the southwest window remain open, in order for
the exhaust fan to draw air in from the outside·. Mr. Orr
stated he is extremely sensitive to radon and that he is in
agreeance with A & A Environmental Engineering, that having
5
the garage built so close to the house, particularly the
living room window, would affect the air drawn in from the •
living window, and agreed with their conclusion that the
proposed garage would impose an extreme hardship upon his
health.
The applicant was asked to approach the podium.
Edgar Berg
3177 South Vine Court
responded to the Board's inquiry about alternatives if the
garage did not encroach into the side yard, explaining that
there was not enough area to place it on the south side of the
property, reiterating that the five foot easement in the rear
easement of the property was a limitation; and that if they
moved the garage any farther towards the house, they would
have to remove a section of the crawl space. Mr. Berg
concluded that their proposal was drawn up with minimum
footage in order to situate the garage in the proposed
location.
Mr. Berg entered into the record a photograph of the carport
at 3167 South Vine Court to assist in illustrating that there
was more than the nine feet as stated by Mr. Orr. Mr. Berg
added that he refuted that number stating that the living
center of the Orr's to the middle of the garage would be more
accurate at twenty feet.
Mr. Berg concluded by stating his prime concern was to remove
his two vehicles off the street, adding that he does not use
his car daily because he bicycles or takes the bus to work.
There were no further speakers for or against the variance.
The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report, photographs,
miscellaneous exhibits, and neighbor's statements into the public
record.
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #8-92, THAT MR.
EDGAR BERG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3177 SOUTH VINE COURT, BE
GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:M,1,c. OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH STATES THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SHALL BE FIVE
FEET, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE WHICH WOULD ENCROACH
TWO FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.
Board Member Waldman seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued.
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as
follows:
6
•
•
•
•
•
Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating he was in favor of garages
in order to get cars off the street .
Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating the property is a unique
lot, shallow and narrow in back, creating undue practical
difficulties for the owner of the property.
Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating that granting the variance
observes the spirit of the ordinance.
Board Member George voted "yes" stating that in her opinion having
two cars is not unusual and that she did not think they would
generate excessive amounts of noise.
Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating the record shows that four
neighbors have been granted variances for the same or similar
requests within the block.
Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating in her opinion two· feet would
not have a great impact with the presence of the retaining wall and
the fence between the two properties.
When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted in favor
of the variance.
The Chairperson announced the decision and told the applicant that
the variance is in effect for six months, and to proceed with
applying for the appropriate permits from the Building and Safety
Division.
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #9-92:
4822 South Broadway
The Chairperson opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of
publication and had the applicant state under oath that he had
posted the property for fifteen days.
Harold Stitt
Staff Advisor
stated that the applicant was Richard Harding, owner of
Highwood Auto Body, and that the request was for a variance
from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-6-l:E.
Nonconforming Uses, to enlarge the existing nonconforming use.
Richard Harding
owner of Highwood Auto Body
4822 South Broadway
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Harding stated that his
present building was too small to install a new spray booth,
and entered into the record an exhibit of the proposed booth.
Mr. Harding explained that it was his intention to install the
new upgrade spray booth, purchased from California where these
7
particular booths are mandatory because of their environmental •
safety features, and to install it before the environmental
equipment becomes law in · Colorado. In addition to the
installation of the booth, Mr. Harding explained he would
like to upgrade the office area for his employees.
Mr. Harding discussed the adjacent lot north of his property,
explaining that the lot is currently being used for a used
cars sales business, but that he is negotiating the purchase
of that lot for the expansion of his business.
Mr. Harding stated he has been at the subject property and
owner of the business for fifteen years, during which time,
approximately ten years later, rezoning occurred and his
property become a nonconforming use. ·
Mr. Harding entered into the record statements from four
owners of businesses in the area stating they have no
opposition the request.
The Chairperson asked if there were any persons who wished to
testify.
Tom Gerlick
1155 West Princeton Place
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Gerlick testified that his
place of business was at 4808 South Broadway. Mr. Gerlick •
stated that he was present to testify in favor of the variance
request, stating that he has personally known Mr. Harding for
twelve years. Mr. Gerlick stated there has not been any noise
or parking problems and that Mr. Harding has always kept his
place of business clean.
Mr. Gerlick stated that he owns the business north of Highwood
Auto Body, and that currently he leases the lot between his
business and Highwood Auto Body, and is currently trying to
buy the property with Mr. Harding.
Mr. Gerlick concluded that in his opinion the variance should
be approved because that particular side of Broadway is all
auto related, and that remodeling the facility would be a
positive factor for the area, and not be detrimental to the
businesses in the neighborhood.
The Board asked the City Staff to answer questions concerning
nonconforming issues.
8 •
•
•
•
Harold Stitt
Staff Advisor
approached the podium. Mr. Stitt stated the intention of the
nonconforming uses is to provide protect for the community so
that the use could not expand, with the theory that in time
the nonconforming use would gradually revert to the conforming
use. Mr. Stitt explained some of the instances that result in
a nonconforming use occurs with rezoning, changes made in the
ordinance, annexation, etc.
In conclusion, Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Harding's
nonconforming status resulted with a change in the ordinance.
Mr. Clayton requested when that change occurred at which time a
recess was called so that Mr. Stitt could research for the answer.
The Chairperson called for a short recess at 8:45 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with same persons present.
Mr. Stitt
Staff Advisor
approached the podium. Mr. Stitt stated that in 1982 an
amendment was made that changed the conditional use provisions
for auto repair to exclude · body repair in the B-2 Zone
District; therefore, in 1982 Mr. Harding's auto body operation
became nonconforming. Mr. sti tt stated that the zoning
records show that Mr. Harding registered as a nonconforming
use in 1986 and that he has kept current with the
registration.
The Board asked the applicant to approach the podium.
Mr. Harding
Highwood Auto Body
approached the podium. In response to a question concerning
if the new paint booth could be installed in his existing
building, Mr. Harding stated it would not be feasible in his
existing building. In response to the difference between his
present booth and his new booth, Mr. Harding stated the
difference is between 1980 technology versus 1990 technology;
and that the new booth was technically more advanced with
environmental control features.
The Chairperson incorporated the staff Report, neighbor's
statements, and exhibits into the record and closed the Public
Hearing .
9
BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION FOR CASE #9-92, THAT MR. •
HARDING, OWNER OF HIGHWOOD AUTO ·BODY, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
4822 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-6-l:E, NONCONFORMING USES, IN ORDER TO
ENLARGE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE.
Board Member Clayton seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued.
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as
follows:
Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating that primarily it is an
extraordinary circumstance because Mr. Harding needs to install an
environmentally safe booth, and that he had testified that the new
unit would not fit in his existing building.
Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating that in his opinion Mr.
Harding is making the effort to have a viable business, and
exceeding the current regulations by installing a state of the art
spray booth before our state requires him to do so by law.
Board Member George voted "yes" stating that in her opinion it was
better to have a viable business operating at the subject site,
than to have the business possibly move out of the city, leaving •
the building vacant.
Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating that in his opinion he does
not consider anything unique about the property and that the City
Council has specifically targeted this type of business to be fazed
out of the zone area.
Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating that in his opinion he
does consider the business exceptional because Highwood Auto Body
was operating legally before the ordinance changed the provisions
that resulted in the business becoming nonconforming.
Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating that in her .opinion an
exceptional circumstance exists with the business.
When the votes were displayed, five members had voted in favor of
the variance, with one member, Mr. Clayton, voting in opposition.
The Chairman announced the variance had been approved.
10 •
•
•
•
PUBLIC HEARING CASE #10-92:
3054 West Tufts Avenue
The Chairperson opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of
publication and posting and asked the staff to identify the
request.
Harold Stitt
Staff Advisor
stated that the applicant, Herman Moser, the owner of the
subject property at 3054 West Tufts Avenue, is requesting a
variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-
4-2 :M, l, c. Minimum Side Yard, in order to construct a garage
which would encroach two feet into the required five foot side
yard setback.
The Chairperson asked the applicant to come forward for testimony.
Herman Moser
3054 West Tufts Avenue
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Moser stated he was proposing
to construct a 24 by 26 foot garage to house his truck and to
store his tools. Mr. Moser explained the request for
encroaching into the side yard, stating that a large oak tree
was centered in the rear of the yard and in order to avoid
disturbing the root system, he proposes to locate the garage
to the side of the house and six feet from the house in the
rear yard.
Mr. Moser explained the existing attached, ten by thirteen
foot, garage would be converted into living space after the
new proposed detached garage is constructed.
Mr. Moser entered into the record the statements of two
neighbors stating they have no opposition to the proposed
garage.
There were no further speakers for or against the variance.
The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report, and neighbor's
statements into the record, and closed the Public Hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #10-92, THAT MR.
HERMAN MOSER, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3054 WEST TUFTS AVENUE,
BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION l6-4-2:M,l,C. OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ENCROACH TWO FEET INTO
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A GARAGE.
Board Member George seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued .
11
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact:
Board Member Waldman voted "no"· st;:ating the request did not meet
any of the conditions for granting the variance; that the property
was not exceptional or unique; and that there were other options
for the placement of the garage.
Board Member George voted "no" stating she agreed with the previous
stated reasons.
Board Member Clayton voted "no"
exceptionally large lot, and stated
plenty of room to place the garage
setbacks.
stating Mr. Moser has an
that in his opinion there is
without encroaching into the
Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating the neighbor's did not
object to the proposed garage.
Board Member Smith voted "no" stating that being a large lot, in
his opinion there are other locations to place the garage.
Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating she was not convinced that the
proposed garage needed to be placed into the side yard setback.
When the votes were displayed, five members voted in opposition to
the motion, with one member, Mr. Seymour, voting in favor of the
variance.
PUBLIC HEARING CASE #11-92:
4675 South Inca Street
The Chairperson opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of
publication and a picture of the posted property but no signed
affidavit from the applicant that the property was posted for
fifteen days.
Robert Johnson, property owner of 4675 South Inca Street, was sworn
in by the recording secretary. Mr. Johnson stated that the
property was posted for fifteen days and signed the affidavit
before the Chairperson.
The Chairperson asked the staff to identify the request.
Harold Stitt
Staff Advisor
stated the request was filed by Mr. Robert Johnson, the owner
of the property at 4675 South Inca Street, requesting a
variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-
4-2:M,2, b. Storage Sheds, to permit an oversized shed.
The Chairperson asked the applicant to come forward for testimony .
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
Robert Johnson
4675 South Inca Street
submitted for the record photographs to assist in illustrating
the 10 foot by 12 foot metal shed that was present when he
purchased the house, that later collapsed under the weight of
snow; a photograph illustrating the replacement of the metal
shed with a wood shed of the identical size (10 1 X 12') and
the addition of a new 12' X 12' shed.
Mr. Johnson stated he contracted out to Armstrong Construction
to construct the 12' X 12 1 addition to the shed, and stated
the combined footage of the new and existing shed is 264 feet.
Mr. Johnson said the electrical power to the shed existed when
he purchased the house.
Mr. Johnson concluded that he has had no complaints about the
structure and added that he needs the room for storing yard
equipment and his power tools because he does not have a
garage. Mr. Johnson entered into the record statements from
two (2) of his neighbors stating they have no opposition to
the oversize structure.
The Chairperson asked if there were speakers in the audience for or
against the request .
Tim Armstrong
Armstrong Construction
180 East Hampden Avenue
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Armstrong stated that when he
was roofing the house he also constructed the 144 .additional
feet to the existing shed. Mr. Armstrong stated that in the
city of Denver you can build a shed under 150 feet without a
permit and was under the impression that the city of Englewood
would be the same. Mr. Armstrong explained that when an
inspector from the Building Department was at the subject
property the Building Inspector noticed the oversize shed and
issued a stop work order.
Mr. Armstrong stated that in his opinion the shed is not an
eyesore; that it has been solidly constructed, roofed, and
siding applied; and that with the absence of alleys, the lots
have additional footage in the back property.
There were no further speakers for or against the variance.
The Chairperson incorporated the Staff Report, photographs, and
neighbors statements into the record, and closed the Public
Hearing .
13
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT IN CASE #11-92, MR. ROBERT
JOHNSON, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4675 SOUTH INCA STREET, BE GRANTED A
VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-
2:M,2 ,b. WHICH SECTION STATES THAT A STORAGE SHED SHALL NOT EXCEED
100 SQUARE FEET, IN ORDER TO PERMIT A 244 SQUARE FOOT OVERSIZE
SHED.
Board Member George seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued.
The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as
follows:
Board Member George voted "yes" stating that what was replaced is
attractive and the fact that there were no complaints from
neighbors about the structure.
Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating that the ordinance
specifically states the maximum square footage for a shed cannot
exceed 100 square feet; and that testimony reflects that it is a
temporary structure so it should be changed to conform to the
zoning regulations.
Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating that in his opinion the
shed is attractive; serves the purpose for the applicants storage;
and is placed behind a fence within the property.
Board Member Smith voted "no" stating that the shed is two and half
times the acceptable square footage as defined by the ordinance.
Board Member Waldman voted "no" ·stating that the construction
occurred with out getting approval beforehand and checking with
zoning regulations, and that there are alternatives.
Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating if the applicant had come
before the Board for an oversize shed of 264 square feet, that most
likely it would have been denied.
When the votes were displayed, four (4) members voted in opposition
to the motion, with two members, Ms. George and Mr. Seymour, in
favor of the motion.
The Chairperson announced the variance request had been denied, and
instructed the applicant to comply with bringing the shed into
compliance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
14
•
•
•
•
•
•
STAFF CHOICE:
Mr. Stitt informed the Board that the Planning Commission will be
6onsidering a rezoning of the area located between the 1800 and
2300 blocks of West Evans Avenue, formerly Kurtz's business. Mr.
Stitt stated that two (2) issues to be discussed were the creation
of a new zone district to be called B-3, and to rezone the area
where Mr. Kurtz operated his business.
Mr. Stitt explained the auto repair which is in the B-2 Zone
District as a Conditional Use would now be a Permitted Use in the
B-3 Zone District, permitting auto body and painting as a Permitted
Use instead of a Conditional Use. Mr. Stitt concluded the reason
for the rezoning was to reflect the businesses located east and
west of the subject property in Denver, eliminating the problem
with the Kurtz property and to hopefully spur the development on
the property.
CITY ATTORNEYS CHOICE:
None.
BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE:
None.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary
15