Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-09 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO DECEMBER 9, 1992 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Pro Tem Chairman Waldman at 7:15 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Members late: Also present: Seymour, George, Smith, Clayton, and Waldman. None. Welker and Cohn. Lee Merkel, Director of Community Development Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator The Chairman stated that with five members present, four 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 Seymour moved that the minutes of November 12, 1992, be approved as written. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on the motion, all five members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes for November 12, 1992, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT: Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #22- 92, Manuel and Emelie Guardado of 2140 South Zuni Street be approved as written. Board Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on the motion all five members voted in the affirmative of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact be approved as written . PUBLIC HEARING CASE 122-92. 4625 South Lincoln Street Pro Tem Waldman opened the Public Hearing for Case #22-92, stating he had proof of publication and posting and stated with the absence of staff to identify the request, the procedure would be reversed with the applicant testifying first followed by the staff identi- fying the request. Chairman Welker assumed the chair. John Bagnall 4625-27 South Lincoln Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Bagnall stated that when he purchased the property in 1987, it was his understanding that he was purchasing two lots with a dwelling on each parcel. Mr. Bagnall explained that he was advised by the City that he must registered as the new property owner because the property had a nonconforming use status due to the house at 4625 South Lincoln Street overlapping onto part of the third lot of the 4627 South Lincoln Street property. Mr. Bagnall stated the frontage for the property at 4625 South Lincoln Street is 70 feet and that 4627 south Lincoln has a 30 foot frontage. Mr. Bagnall stated that the property dates back to 1916 and that seventy-six (76) years ago lots having less than the current required frontage of fifty feet (50 1 ) was not uncommon. Mr. Bagnall added that the property was legal when it was part of Arapahoe County, and that it is listed with the Arapahoe County Tax Assessors office as two parcels with two separate schedule numbers. However, the City has the property listed as a nonconforming use because the property at 4627 South Lincoln Street has less than the required lot frontage and less than the minimum lot area. Mr. Bagnall stated his request was to permit the creation of a lot frontage less than the required fifty (50') for 4627 South Lincoln, so that the properties could be sold as two separate properties. Mr. Bagnall stated he was concerned that should he wish to sell this property it would be difficult to find a buyer for the two houses unless the property was divided as two parcels. Mr. Bagnall concluded that he was of the opinion that the variance should be granted; that it would serve substantial justice because the circumstances have been there for seventy six years; that the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance; and that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood or adjacent properties. Mr. Bagnall entered into the record three neighbors statements stating they had no objection to the variance request • 2 • • • • • • The Chairman asked if there were any persons in the audience that wished to speak. There were no speakers for or against the variance request. The Chairman asked the City Staff to come forward and read the staff report for the record. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor was sworn in for testimony stating the request by the applicant, Mr. John Bagnall, for the subject property at 4625- 4627 South Lincoln Street, was for a variance to permit the creation of a lot having a lot area, lot frontage and a side yard setback less than the minimum requirement. Mr. Stitt stated the variance is from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Section 16-4-5:c.1·, Minimum Lot Area; Section 16-4-5:H.l, Minimum Lot Frontage; and Section 16-4-5:K.l, Minimum Side Yard. Mr. Stitt discussed the possibility of dividing the property with a jogging line between the two dwellings, but added that problems could occur between neighbors with the house at 4625 South Lincoln Street looking into windows at 4627 South Lincoln Street. Mr. Stitt added that in the event the house on the 4625 South Lincoln Street property was demolished and rebuilt, then the properties could be adjusted to conform with current City regulations. Discussion ensued. The City Staff entered into the record photographs of the subject properties to assist in illustrating the frontages and area between the two dwellings on the subject properties. There were no speakers for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report and photographs into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE THE MOTION THAT FOR CASE #22-92, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4625-27 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 16-4-5: C, 1. MINIMUM LOT AREA; SECTION 16-4-5:H,l. MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE; AND SECTION 16-4- 5;K,l. MINIMUM SIDE YARD, TO PERMIT THE CREATION OF A LOT HAVING A LOT FRONTAGE, LOT AREA AND SIDE YARD SETBACK LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerning the division of the property and the placement of properties lines . 3 The Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member George voted "no" stating the request clearly does not meet the 5 requirements for granting a variance. Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating in his opinion the property is exceptional; that granting the variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance, and that it would not adversely affect adjacent properties. Board Member Seymour voted "non stating that if the variance were granted it would allow for the creation of a substandard lot, and would prevent the property at 4625 South Lincoln Street to come into conformance at some future time. Board Member Waldman voted "non stating that in his opinion granting the variance would not be the minimum variance if granted, and that it would adversely affect the adjacent property at 4627 South Lincoln Street by creating a substandard lot. Board Member Smith voted nyes" stating he concurred with previous reasons stated by the other board members. Chairman Welker voted nnon stating in his opinion there were other alternatives for the property and that granting the variance would not be observing the spirit of the Ordinance. Board Member Cohn abstained from voting due to her arriving late for the meeting. When the votes were displayed, four members voted against the motion, two members in the affirmative, with Ms. Cohn abstaining from the vote. The Chairman called for a recess at 8:05 p.m. to discuss with City Staff alternatives for the property. The meeting recpnvened at 8:12 p.m. with all seven Board Members present. The Chairman asked the Board if there was a motion for reconsideration of Case #22-92. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CASE #22-92 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4625-27 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. 4 • • • • • • A voice vote was called and all members voiced in favor of the motion. Discussion ensued. The Chairman asked the members to vote on the original motion by Board Member Waldman: THAT FOR CASE #22-92, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4625-27 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 16-4-S:C,l. MINIMUM LOT AREA: SECTION 16-4-S:H,l. MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE; AND SECTION 16-4-S:K,l. MINIMUM SIDE YARD, TO PERMIT THE CREATION OF A LOT HAVING A LOT FRONTAGE, LOT AREA, AND SIDE YARD SETBACK LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. Board Member Seymour voted "no". Board Member George voted "no". Board Member Smith voted "yes". Board Member Cohn abstained. Board Member Clayton voted "yes". Board Member Waldman voted "no". Chairman Welker voted "yes". The Chairman announced that the motion was denied with 3 members voting in the affirmative, 3 members in opposition, and one member abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE 123-92 4900 South Huron Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting and asked the staff to identify the request. Mr. Smith excused himself from the public hearing due to a conflict of interest. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor introduced the request stating that Norma White was requesting a use variance from Section 16-4-2:B. Permitted Principal Uses in the R-1-A Zone District, in order to permit the operation of a day care facility for six full time children and two part time children. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony . 5 Norma White 4900 South Huron Street was sworn in for testimony. Ms. White stated she was applying for a use variance in order to be allowed to operate a day care facility from 4900 South Huron Street. Ms. White stated she signed a year lease with the property owner and that the property owner was supportive of the proposed day care facility. Ms. White submitted statements from four neighbors stating they have no objection to the request. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to testify. Vic Pankowski 4896 South Huron Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Pankowski stated he resides across from the subject property, that he has resided in the neighborhood for over forty years, and was in opposition to the proposed day care facility. Mr. Pankowski stated he did not consider the proposed day care facility appropriate for the neighborhood, and that six blocks away from the subject property was a day care facility at the Baptist Church with adequate parking. Mr. Pankowski entered into the record statements from eight residents in the neighborhood stating they object to the proposed day care facility. Lewis Funk 4895 South Huron street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Funk stated he was concerned about allowing home occupations in a single-family neighborhood. Mr. Funk stated he was concerned that there would be an increase in traffic resulting from the business and that in his opinion allowing the day care facility would be a nuisance. Mr. Funk concluded that in his opinion it would decrease the property value of their homes in the neighborhood and that he does not want the R-1-A area to turn into a business zone. Eva Eisenberg 4955 South Galapago Street was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Eisenberg submitted for the record a petition with twenty-nine signatures from residents in the area, stating they objected to the proposed day care facility. Ms. Eisenberg stated that the neighbors she spoke with stated they like living in the R-1-A zone district because businesses are not allowed and that they want it to remain that way. 6 • • • • • • Mrs. Eisenberg concluded that in her opinion if the variance was allowed it would devalue their properties and there would be an increase in traffic and noise. Kathryn Simonson 4899 South Huron Street was sworn in for testimony. Mrs. Simonson stated she agreed with statements previously stated by neighbors. Peter Simonson 4899 South Huron Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Simonson stated he was also concerned about the increase in traffic and added that there is already heavy traffic flow at the intersection of Huron Street and Chenango. Mr. Simonson stated his concern was the current condition of the property for bringing it into compliance with building codes for the day care, and questioned what would happen to the property if the lease was not renewed after the first year. Clyde Wiggins 4975 South Inca Drive was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Wiggins stated in his opinion the proposed day was not compatible to the neighborhood; that he was concerned about the increase in traffic; and that allowing the day care facility would be detrimental to the standards of the neighborhood . Harold Stitt Staff Advisor read into the record letters from two residents in opposition to the variance request: Donalyn Duston, 4905 South Galapago Street, and Gene and Denise McDaniel of 795 West Chenango. The Chairman requested the applicant to approach the podium. Ms. White approached the podium. Ms. White stated that she would be the only person to supervise the children; that she was qualified as evidence by her state child care license; that she intended to upgrade the property by structure and property improve- ments; and that in her opinion the proposed day care facility would not degrade the neighborhood. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor approached the podium to answer some of the Board's concerns. Mr. Stitt reviewed the conditions necessary to approve the use variance request; discussed the differences between the city and the state requirements for day care; and stated that all the zone districts in the City allow day care for up to four children except the R-1-A zone district • 7 There were no further speakers for or against the variance request • The Chairman incorporated the staff report, miscellaneous letters, and statements and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #23-92 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 4900 SOUTH HURON STREET, THAT A USE VARIANCE BE GRANTED FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-2:B. PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A DAY CARE FACILITY FOR SIX FULL TIME CHILDREN AND TWO PART TIME CHILDREN. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. Discussed ensued. Board Member Clayton made a motion that the case be dismissed, stating that in his opinion Ms. White should be refunded her money; that the Board lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case; and that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be considering the case. The motion failed for lack of a second. The Chairman requested that the Assistant City Attorney, Dan Brotzman clarify the conditions necessary to grant a use variance. The Chairman read into the record the five uses necessary to grant a use variance ·. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings of fact as follows: Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating in her opinion the use proposed is incongruent with the uses applicable for the R-1-A neighborhoods. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating that in his opinion the proposed use was not conducive to the R-1-A neighborhood. Board Member George voted "no" stating in her opinion the day care facility should not be allowed to operate in the neighborhood, and that it was clear from the neighbors testimony that they were opposed to the proposed use at the subject property. Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating in his opinion the request does not meet any of the conditions for granting a use variance and that it was clear the residents were opposed to the proposed business. Board Member Waldman voted "no" stating the proposed use of a day care in the R-1-A zone district did not meet the conditions for approving a use variance at the subject property. 8 • • • • • • Chairman Welker voted "no" stating that the proposed use would be detrimental to the neighborhood as evidenced by the testimony from neighbors. When the votes were displayed, all six members voted in opposition to the request. The Chairman ruled the variance as denied. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE 124-92 4296 South Washington Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting and asked the staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated that the request was filed by Mr. Lester Johnson,for the property at 4296 South Washington Street, for a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-4 :M-2 ,b. Maximum Total Floor Area, Storage Shed, in order to erect a 260 square foot storage shed. Lester Johnson 4296 South Washington Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Johnson stated that he was requesting a variance in order to allow for an oversized storage shed. Mr. Johnson explained that he wanted to combine two sheds 10' x 13' for a total of 260 square feet, and that he would place the shed in the rear of his property. Mr. Johnson stated that he is currently renting a storage unit but would like to discontinue renting and move the equipment from the storage unit into the proposed shed. Mr. Johnson stated that undue practical difficulties would occur if he had to continue renting the storage unit; and that in his opinion the oversized shed would not adversely affect the adjacent property or the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson submitted for the record statements from three neighbors stating they had no objection to the proposed shed, and submitted for the record two photographs to assist in illustrating the placement of the shed on his property. Mr. Johnson concluded that he was requesting the oversize shed because he did not have an attic or basement for storage. There were no speakers for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated neighbors statements into Hearing • the Staff Report, photographs and the record, and closed the Public 9 BOARD MEMBER COHN MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #24-92, THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-4 :M-2 ,b. MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOOR AREA, TO PERMIT AN OVERSIZED STORAGE SHED. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Board Member Waldman voted "no" stating that in his opinion the request does not meet the conditions for granting a variance, and that the property is not exceptional. Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating that he thought the storage shed would be beneficial for the applicant. Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating that in her opinion the variance would afford relief for the applicant. Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating he concurred with statements by other board members. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating that in his opinion the property is not exceptional or unique; therefore, the request does not meet the conditions for granting a variance. Board Member George voted "yes" stating she was of the opinion that the request meets the necessary conditions for granting the variance. Chairman Welker voted "yes" stating in his opinion the request meets all the conditions for granting the variance. When the votes were displayed 5 members had voted in favor of the motion, with two members voting in opposition. The Chairman announced the variance as granted and instructed the applicant to apply for the necessary permit from the Building and Safety Department. The Chairman declared a short recess at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9: 50 p.m. with the following members present: Cohn, Seymour, Smith, Clayton, Waldman and Chairman Welker; and one-member, Ms. George, absent. PUBLIC HEARING -124-92 5200 South Broadway The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting. 10 • • • • • • The Chairman stated that with six members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant a variance, and asked the staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated that the applicant, German Sign Company, for the subject property located at 5200 South Broadway, Burt Chevrolet, was requesting a variance from the sign code of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-19-lO:A. Permitted Maximum Number, and Section 16-4-19-lO:B. Permitted Maximum Sign Area. Mr. Stitt explained the request involves replacing a portion of Burt's existing signage which would result in total sign area and total sign number exceeding the permitted maximum. Mr. Stitt submitted for the record three exhibits of the proposed facade to assist in illustrating the elevations and placement of the new facade to the main building. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward to testify. Diane German German Sign Company 1390 East 64th Avenue Denver, co 80229 was sworn in for testimony. Ms. German explained that their company has been contracted by Burt Chevrolet to assist them with the new General Motors National Image Program which requires General Motors franchises to installation new fascia .and signage. Ms. German stated that there is currently an estimated 1,181 square feet of signage and that their proposal was to reduce the signage to a total of 750 square feet. Ms. German described the proposal stating that the sign package includes a reduction of two existing signs, removing the Geo sign, and all window signage. Ms. German stated that in her opinion the variance would provide adequate signage for Burt Chevrolet; that the variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance; that granting the variance would not adversely affect the adjacent properties; and that it would afford minimum relief for Burt Chevrolet. Ms. German concluded that in her opinion the variance was necessary in order to provide good visibility for Burt Chevrolet and was essential in order for Burt Chevrolet to continue their dealership with General Motors • 11 The Chairman asked if there were any speakers for or against the variance request. A.J. Guanella, Vice-President and General Manager, for Burt Chevrolet 5200 South Broadway was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Guanella stated that General Motors has instituted a national program to upgrade and make consistent the image of all dealerships. Mr. Guanella explained that the directive from General Motors states that to remain a GM dealership the new signage must be installed by the year 2000 and that Burt Chevrolet has been selected to be one of the first dealerships for the new building facade. Mr. Guanella explained that negotiations with the City Staff resulted in a compromise by reducing some of the existing signage in order to accommodate for the new facade. Mr. Guanella stated that as a result of that meeting a sign package proposal was agreed upon: 1. To remove all window signage in both the main building and the used car building; 2. 3. To remove and reduce the Geo sign; To reduce both the Used cars ground sign and the Truck ground sign to 92 square feet; 4. To retain the Chevrolet Ground sign at its current size of 245 square feet and height of thirty two feet; 5. And to install two new facade signs of 160 square feet each on the west and south walls of the main building. Mr. Guanella concluded that Burt Chevrolet has been an integral part of the community for 53 years and that they were looking forward to continuing to be a viable business in Englewood. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor approached the podium to review the staff report with the Board, and to discuss the negotiations that took place between A.J. Guanella of Burt Chevrolet, Diane German of German Sign company and City staff. Mr. Stitt stated that the Sign Code specifies that the allowable total sign area and total sign number is based on the street frontage of a business. Mr. Stitt stated that with 960 feet of frontage Burt Chevrolet is 12 • • • • • • allowed a maximum total sign area of 584 square feet and a maximum of five signs. Mr. Stitt stated that the Sign Code provides for a twenty-five percent bonus in signage if a complete sign package is proposed; therefore 146 square feet of sign area could be added to the 584 square feet for a total of 730 square feet. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed sign package is 750 square feet; therefore, the variance is to permit an additional twenty square feet of signage. There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report and exhibits into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #25-92, 5200 SOUTH BROADWAY, THAT THE APPLICANT, GERMAN SIGN COMPANY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-19- lO:A. PERMITTED MAXIMUM NUMBER, AND SECTION 16-4-19-lO:B. PERMITTED MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, IN ORDER TO REPLACE A PORTION OF THEIR EXISTING SIGNAGE WHICH WOULD RESULT IN TOTAL SIGN AREA AND TOTAL SIGN NUMBER EXCEEDING THE PERMITTED MAXIMUM. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating in her opinion the variance request meets the requirements for approving a variance~ Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating he was also of the opinion that the request meets the requirements for approving a variance. Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating he thought the sign proposal would be a complimentary upgrade for the dealership. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating he concurred, the new signage would provide adequate visibility for traffic, and that the additional twenty feet substantially weaken the spirit of the ordinance. adding that south bound would not Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating he concurred with reasons previously stated by board members. Chairman Welker voted "yes" stating he was of the opinion that the request meets the requirements for granting a variance. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted in favor of the variance request • 13 STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt read a letter from Mr. Richard Harding, owner of Highwood Auto Body, explaining that Mr. Harding was requesting an extension of six (6) months for his variance, Case #9-92, approved at the June 10, 1992 Public Hearing. Mr. Stitt read from Section 16-2-S:f. of the BOA Handbook, "expiration of variance", and summarized by stating that the Board has the authority to allow " ••• extensions of time may be granted for good cause shown, but only if an application for the extension is made prior to the expiration of the variance .•• ". BOARD MEMBER CLAYTON MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #9-93, A SIX MONTH EXTENSION BE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT, MR. RICHARD HARDING, FOR A THE BUSINESS LOCATED AT 4822 SOUTH BROADWAY. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. A voice vote was called and all members voted in favor of the motion. (Secretary's note: the variance would have expired December 10, 1992, but with the Board's approval of an extension, the variance stands extended until June 10, 1993.) Mr. Stitt announced that Mr. Clayton's term on the Board expires in February of 1993 and advised him that if he was interested in remaining on the Board, to make application to City Council. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. None. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE. None. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary 14 • • •