HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-14 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO
JULY 14. 1993
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called
to order by Chair Cohn at 7:35 p.m.
Members present: Seymour, George, Smith, Clayton, Welker, Waldman, and Chair
Cohn.
Members absent: None.
Also present: Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney
Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator
The Chair stated that with seven 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 Welker moved that the minutes of June 9, 1993, be approved as
written.
Board Member Clayton seconded the motion.
Upon the call for a vote on the motion, six members voted in the affirmative,
with Board Member Smith abstaining due to his absence at the previous meeting.
The Chair ruled the Minutes of June 9, 1993, approved as written.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Board Member Waldman moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #5-93, Mr. William
King, for the property at 3301 South Emerson Street, be approved as written.
Board Member George seconded the motion.
Upon the call for a vote on·the motion. six members voted in the affirmative with
Board Member Smith abstaining due to his absence at the previous meeting.
The Chair ruled the Findings of Fact approved as written .
PUBLIC HEARING -REVIEW -CASE #2-92
3211 South Broadway
The Chair opened the Public Hearing stating that the meeting procedure would
begin by reviewing the Findings of Fact for Case #2-92 , and to review the
conditions placed on the variance granted to H & K Automotive, at the March 11,
1992, Public Hearing.
The Chair stated she had proof of publication, and asked the Staff Advisor to
come forward for testimony.
Harold Stitt
Planning Administrator
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt explained the review at hand was
for the use variance granted at the March 11, 1992 Public Hearing, to
allow H & K Auto Body to operate a non -painting auto body shop at the
subject property, that the variance was granted for a period of one year,
and contingent upon an annual compliance review.
Mr. Stitt stated that personnel from the Neighborhood Services Division
documented three separate occasions in 1992 where complaints were received
that fumes were emitting from the subject property, and that painting was
being carried out. Mr. Stitt directed the Board that included in their
packet were copies of the three instances in 1992 when complaints were
••
filed. Mr . Stitt pointed out that in June of 1992, Mr. Dana Glazier,
Neighborhood Services Supervisor . documented that Mr. Karaki had come into •
the Neighborhood Services office and was advised at that time that priming
of cars on the premises must cease or he would be cited into court for
violating the condition of the variance.
Mr. Stitt explained no other instances were documented until July 7, 1993 ,
when he made an inspection of the subject property. At that ti me he
witnessed the dumpster fi 11 ed with paint covered newspapers, masking
material typically used for masking vehicles, and shelving filled with
cans of paint. On both July 8th and July 9th , Joyce Parsons , Code
Enforcement Officer from Neighborhood Services , inspected the subject
property and photographs were taken of masking materials, miscellaneous
cans and containers of paint, and newspapers covered with paint.
Mr. Stitt concluded that based on his observation on July 7, 1993, the
inspections by Neighborhood Services personnel on July .8th and 9th, and
the photographs, that painting has taken place within the premises, which
action was in direct violation of the condition imposed by the Board on
the use variance granted to H & K Automotive: therefore, he was
recommending revoking the variance extension.
The Chair asked that the applicant come forward for testimony.
2 •
•
•
•
Harim Karaki
H & K Auto Body
3211 South Broadway
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Karaki refuted some of the concerns about
painting materials: that the masking material and paint are present for
the preparation of the cars, that cars are painted at various paint
booths, and that upon return of the vehicles the masking and newspaper
materials are removed from the cars.
Mr. Karaki stated that his s hop was not conducive for painting, that the
5500 square foot building was not a large enough area for painting cars,
that he did not have a spray booth or proper ventilation for painting, and
that the dust resulting from sanding and preparing cars would be
detrimental for painting cars.
Mr. Karaki concluded that no painting was being done within the building;
that the smell of paint always permeates the air for a few days when a car
is returned: that his workers were not qualified to paint: and that the
presence of paint on newspapers is from the overspray which occurs during
the process of painting a car in a paint booth.
Harold Stitt
Planning Administrator
was requested by the Board to approach the podium. Mr. Stitt entered into
the record the photographs of the premises taken July 8, 1993 and July 9,
1993, and distributed them to Board members .
Discussion ensued concerning the painting materials and newly painted cars in the
photographs.
Mr. Hakim Karaki
was requested by the Board to approach the podium. Mr. Karaki restated to
the Board that painting of cars was not being done on the premises, that
touch up of cars was not done on the premises, and that the paint was
solely for the purpose of providing it to the various establishments where
the cars are painted.
The Chair incorporated the Staff Report and photographs into the record and
closed the Public Hearing.
BOARD MEMBER SMITH MADE A MOTION FOR CASE #2 · 92, THAT THE APPLICANT, HAKIM
KARAKI, LESSEE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3211 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED AN EXTENSION
FOR THE USE VARIANCE, TO OPERATE A NON-PAINTING, NON-PRIMING AUTO BODY REPAIR
SHOP, FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.
Board Member Seymour seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued for extending the use variance to one year.
Board Member .Clayton moved that the motion be amended to read one year.
Discussion ensued .
3
Board Member Smith agreed to the amended motion.
Board Member Seymour seconded the amended motion.
All members voiced in favor of the amended motion.
Board Member Smith restated the amended motion to read:
THAT FOR CASE #2-92, THAT THE APPLICANT, HAKIM KARAKI, LESSEE FOR THE PROPERTY
AT 3211 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED AN EXTENSION FOR THE USE VARIANCE AT THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, TO OPERATE A NON-PAINTING, NON-PRIMING AUTO BODY REPAIR SHOP,
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR.
The members 1 ocked . in their votes. and gave their findings of fact and
conclusions:
Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating that in his opinion the applicant has
been in .compliance with the conditions stated in the variance.
Board Member Welker voted "yes" stating he was of the opinion that the applicant
had complied with the conditions placed by the Board.
Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating in his opinion there was no evidence
presented that a violation had occurred and that the applicants testimony showed
he had abided by the conditions of the variance.
•
Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating he concurred with previous statements •
by board members.
Board Member George stated she voted "yes" concurring with previous statements
by board members.
Board Member Smith voted "yes" concurring.
Chair Cohn voted "yes" stating there was no evidence to show that the applicant
had not abided by the conditions imposed by the Board.
When the votes were displayed, all seven members voted in the affirmative.
The Chair announced the motion as granted, and directed to the app 1 i cant that the
review would be scheduled for July of 1994.
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #9-92:
4822 South Broadway
The Chair opened the Public Hearing stating she had proof of publication, stating
a request for an extension of Case #9-92 would be heard.
4 •
•
••
•
Harold Stitt
Planning Administrator .
reviewed for the Board that at the December 9, 1992 meeting, they had
approved an extension, for six months to the variance granted to expand an
existing nonconforming use, which would have expired on June 10, 1993.
Mr. Stitt stated that he received a letter from Mr. Harding dated June 4,
1993, requesting an additional six months extension. Mr. Stitt explained
that negotiations to purchase the adjoining/north property had failed, and
that an additional six months was being requested by Mr. Harding in order
to design plans for the addition to be built to the rear of his property
instead of onto the north of his building. Mr. Stitt concluded that it
was at the Board's request that the applicant appear to show cause for an
additional six months extension.
· Mr. Stitt clarified for the Board that the issue was not "where" the
expansion was taking place, but to decide if there was good cause to grant
Mr. Harding an additional six months extension.
The Chair asked the applicant to come forward for testimony.
Richard Harding
owner of Harding Auto Body
4822 South Broadway
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Harding stated that his initial plan to
purchase the adjoining property north of his present property had failed
to materialize and that plans were underway to construct an addition to
the rear of his existing bu i lding.
Mr. Harding entered into the record a preliminary site plan for the
proposed addition. He explained the addition would be approximately 1800
square feet, would allow for the placement of a state of the art paint
booth, and would include expanding and modernizing the office area.
Mr. Harding concluded that the extension of six months was needed to
finalize the plans, file for the appropriate building permits. and that it
was his aspiration to complete the project by the end of 1993.
There were no further persons present for testimony.
The Chair closed the Public Hearing .
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION FOR CASE #9-92, THAT MR. HARDING, OWNER OF
HIGHWOOD AUTO BODY, 4822 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED AN EXTENSION FOR SIX MONTHS
FOR THE INITIAL VARIANCE GRANTED JUNE 10, 1992, IN ORDER TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING USE.
Board Member George seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued.
The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact as follows:
5
Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating he was not as concerned as to where the
addition being built but that the building codes are observed, and added in his •
opinion the proposal would improve the neighborhood.
Board Member George voted "yes" stating that due to the circumstances as
testified by Mr. Harding, that the extension is necessary for him to continue his
plans to build an addition. ·
Board Member Smith concurred voting "yes".
Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating the applicant showed good cause for the
extension.
Board Member Welker abstained stating he has a personnel and professional
association with the applicant.
Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating the applicant's request seems reasonable
and that the circumstances justify the extension.
Chair Cohn voted "yes" stating in her opinion the extension is appropriate.
When the votes were displayed, six members voted in the affirmative, with one
member, Mr. Welker, abstaining.
The Chair announced that the request for an additional six months extension as
granted and stated that for the record, the variance extension would be effective
until December 10, 1993.
STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE:
Mr. Stitt informed the Board members that the City Picnic was scheduled for
August 6th and that they were invited to attend.
Mr. Stitt announced that no cases had been filed for the August 11, 1993, Public
Hearing .
CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE:
None.
BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE:
None.
6
•
•