HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-12 BAA MINUTES•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
JANUARY 12. 1994
The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order
by Chair Cohn at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall .
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Seymour, George, Welker, Waldman, Cohn.
Clayton.
Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator
Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney
The Chair stated that with five members of the Board present, four affirmative
votes would be required to grant an appeal or variance.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
•
Board Member Seymour moved that the minutes of December 8, 1993 be approved as
written.
Board Member Waldman seconded the motion.
Upon a voice vote, all members voted in the affirmative and the Chair ruled the
Minutes of December 8, 1993 approved as written.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #12-93, Mr. and Mrs
Keefover for the property at 2249 West Warren Avenue be approved as written.
Board Member George seconded the motion.
Upon a voice vote, all members voted affirmatively; the Findings of Fact were
ruled approved as written .
PUBLIC HEARING #1-94
4606 South Delaware Street
Chair Cohn set forth the parameters for conduct of the Hearing, stating that
staff will present the case, the Building and Safety Division would be heard, and
the applicant, proponents and opponents will then be heard.
Chair Cohn declared the Public Hearing open.
Harold Stitt,
Planning Administrator,
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicants, Linda
and Larry Lutz, property owners of 4606 South De 1 aware Street, are
appealing certain violations of the Correction Notice issued on October
19, 1993 by the Building and Safety Division. The violations appealed:
#6-electrical, #8-plumbing and mechanical, and #1 and #2-general.
Mr. Smith entered the meeting at 7:50 p.m. and took his place with the Board.
Becky Baker,
Chief Building Official,
was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Baker announced to the Board that all but
one of the eighteen violations listed on the Correction Notice had been
brought into compliance. Ms. Baker stated that the applicants had not
complied with Item #1 under General Violations, minimum ceiling height .
Ms. Baker concluded that the Building and Safety Division was pleased with
the negotiations that occurred with the applicants, and that the subject
property was maintained free of trash and weeds.
Chair Cohn asked the applicants in the audience if they wished to be sworn in for
testimony. The applicants declined.
The Chair closed the public hearing stating she had proof of publication, and
incorporated the staff report into the public record.
BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT FOR CASE #1-94, THAT MR. AND MRS. LUTZ BE GRANTED
AN APPEAL FROM THE CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION,
GENERAL VIOLATIONS-ITEM 1, SECTION 9-3a-2, MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHTS, OF THE 1985
ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4606 SOUTH DELAWARE STREET.
Board Member Welker seconded the motion.
Chair Cohn stated that with six members present, five affirmative votes would be
required to grant or deny the appeal request and asked the members to lock in the
votes.
Mr. Welker voted in favor of the motion, stating the safety issues such as the
egress windows have been addressed.
2
'
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Waldman voted in favor of the motion, stating the applicant's efforts to work
with the Building and Safety Division to bring the rental property up to code was
commendable.
Mr. Seymour voted in favor of the motion.
Ms. George voted "yes" stating she concurred.
Mr. Smith voted in favor of the motion.
Chair Cohn voted "yes" stating the applicants are to be commended for working
with the Building and Safety staff to bringing the rental property up to code and
keeping the property maintained.
When the votes were displayed, all six members voted in the affirmative.
The Chair announced the decision as granted.
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #2-94:
3566-80 South Pennsylvania Street
The Chair opened the public hearing stating she had proof of publication and
posting and asked the staff to identify the request.
Harold Stitt,
Planning Administrator
stated the applicant, Dr. Paul Zwiebel, is requesting a variance for a
reduction of the rear yard setback from 25 feet to fifteen feet in order
to construct a medical office facility at the subject property. This is
a variance from Section 16-4-8:L. Rear yard setback.
Chair asked the applicant to approach the podium.
Dr. Paul Zwiebel,
8381 Southpark Lane, Littleton,
was sworn in for testimony. Dr. Zwiebel approached the Board with a model
of the proposed development of the subject property to assist in
illustrating the proposal of an "L" shaped medical doctor's building,
future development of the property to the north with an associate/recovery
building, and the placement of landscaping and parking. . .
Dr. Zwiebel discussed his request for the rear yard reduction. He
explained that the property is rectangular in shape, 125 feet east-to-west
by 200 feet north-to-south and parallel to Jefferson Avenue (Highway 285).
He stated that he did not want his patients or employees to enter the
facility from Highway 285, because he considered it impractical and
unsafe. He explained that in order to place the "L" shaped medical
complex on the property, and have patient and employee parking, that the
proposed placement resulted in the reduction of the rear yard setback of
the property. After discussion with his architect and City Staff, it was
decided that the medical facility could best be developed using South
Pennsylvania Street as the entrance and address .
3
Dr. Zwiebel stated the proposed placement of the building would result in •
a reduction of the rear yard setback but would allow for the required
parking along the alleyway. Dr. Zwiebel discussed phase two of the
development of the property stating that a twenty-five foot buffer would
separate the apartment complex and the associate/recovery building.
Dr. Zwiebel entered into the record two neighbor's statements in favor of
the proposed medical facility.
Dr. Zwiebel stated that in his opinion the request meets all five of the
requirements for granting a variance:
1. that the property is exceptional because of its rectangular shape;
2. that undue practical difficulties are a result of the shape of the
property;
3. that granting the variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance:
4. that the proposed facility will not adversely affect the adjacent
property or the neighborhood:
5. that creating the twenty-five foot buffer between the north property
line and the apartment complex affords relief for the adjacent
property;
6. that granting the variance would afford relief with the least •
modification possible of the Ordinance.
Dr. Zwiebel concluded that it is his opinion that the proposed medical
faci l i ty is the best usage for the property and conducive to the
neighborhood with Swedish Medical Center nearby.
There were no persons present who wished to testify for or against the variance
request.
The Chair closed the public hearing stating she had proof of posting and
publication. and incorporated the staff report and neighbor's statements into the
public record.
BOARD MEMBER SMITH MOVED THAT FOR CASE #2-94, THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FROM
SECTION 16-4-S:L, REAR YARD SETBACK, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR
THE REDUCTION OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO FIFTEEN FEET IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT A MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. THAT THE APPLICANT MAINTAIN A 25 FOOT SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE PROPERTY.
Board Member George seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued.
4 •
•
•
•
The members locked in their votes and gave their Findings as follows:
Board Member Welker voted in favor of the motion stating the condition placed on
the variance for a twenty-five foot setback will provide a reasonable buffer
between the apartment complex and the medical facility.
Board Member Waldman voted in favor of the motion stating that the property is
exceptional and that granting the variance meets all the conditions required.
Board Member Seymour voted in favor of the motion stating the solutions presented
by the applicant in developing the property are good ones.
Board Member George voted in the affirmative concurring with previous statements
by Board members.
Board Member Smith voted yes concurring with the other board members .
Chair Cohn voted in the affirmative .
When the votes were displayed, the Chair announced the variance as granted, 6-0.
The Chair directed to the applicant to file for the appropriate permits with the
Building and Safety Department .
PUBLIC HE.ARING -CASE #3-94:
4747 South Santa Fe Drive
The Chair opened the Public Hearing stating she had verification of posting and
publication.
Harold Stitt,
Planning Administrator,
stated the app 1 i cant, Mr. Tom King, owner of A 11 American RV, is
requesting a variance from Section 16-5-4, Ingress and Egress of
Nonresidential Driveways, to increase the maximum width of a curb cut from
30 feet to 258 feet.
Mr. Stitt added that the application cites the address of the subdivision
as South Santa Fe Drive, but will be South Santa Fe Circle when individual
addresses are assigned.
The Chair asked the applicant to come forward for testimony.
Tom King, All American RV,
4747 South Santa Fe Drive,
was sworn in for testimony . Mr. King stated that he would like to develop
part of his property for storage of recreational vehicles. He explained
their intent was to erect a wrought iron style fence the full length of
lots 3 and 4, with the frontage divided into approximately twenty-five
parking spaces .
5
Mr. King explained that because of the size of recreational vehicles, a •
large area was required for maneuverability and the proposal would allow
for the customer's vehicles to turning around to park in the individual
parking space or for easy exiting. Mr. King stated there would be minimal
traffic flow because the recreational vehicles are parked for months at a
time; therefore, the accessing onto Santa Fe Circle would be infrequent.
Mr. King asked the Board members to refer to the maps included in the
packet. He explained that Lot 2 could not be completely developed because
of the 100-year flood plain, Big Dry Creek, and the utility easement in
the rear of the property. Mr. He added the total use over the entire
frontage would be less than a residential single driveway because of the
limited and seasonal use of the rv's.
Mr. King answered some of the Board members concerns. Mr. King stated
that it was their intent to have single individually locked storage
spaces. He explained the process for parking or accessing of the
vehicles would require two people. He said the RV owner would get the key
from the office. office personnel would unlock the gate, there would be a
five foot gate which would swing out towards the street and the vehicle
would either park or be accessing Santa Fe Circle. He explained that the
five-foot gates would swing toward the street and abut the pan edge of the
curb.
Mr. King cone 1 uded that in his opinion the proposed business use for
storage of recreational vehicles meets the five conditions required to •
grant a variance; that it observes the spirit of the Ordinance; would not
affect adjacent property because the subject property is in an industrial
area; that the proposed wrought iron fencing would improve the appearance
of the property; and that the planned use is limited.
Harold Stitt.
Planning Administrator,
entered into the record a site plan from the engineering department to
assist in illustrating where the flood plain is located on the back of the
three 1 ots, and referenced the utility easement. He discussed the
development of the area, stating that the subdivision was approved in
1990, and discussed the development of the Santa Fe Drive corridor by the
Department of Transportation.
Mr. Stitt stated that the issue for consideration is not the "use" of the
property but rather the ingress and egress issue of direct access from the
subject property to the public right-of-way. He explained that Section
16·5·4:A, states "that the width of any entrance driveway shall not exceed
thirty (30')," and that the applicant is contending that if the 258 feet
curb cut is divided into individual spaces, that each space should be
treated separately.
6 •
•
•
•
Mr. Stitt stated that the applicant is attempting to divide the 258 foot
curb cut into individual driveways, but the interpretation of the
Ordinance does not warrant approval of the proposal. He added that public
safety is a concern, that the applicant's testimony that there would be
limited traffic flow is not applicable.
Board members questioned the applicant if he had considered an alternative or
a different configuration to avoid blocking traffic on the street when the
recreational vehicles are exiting or parking. The members expressed their
concern for public safety and questioned the applicant if a frontage road might
be considered as an alternative.
The Chair asked if there were any persons present wishing to speak for or
against the variance request.
Neil King,
All American RV,
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Neil King stated he was Tom King's son
and manager for the business. Mr. King stated -that the business currently
provides storage for recreational vehicles but would like to expand the
business to include the three lots. Mr. King asked the members to review
a copy of the site. and explained that topographically it was impossible
to develop the south area of each lot because of the easements and
referenced by pointing out that there is three feet grade change on Lot 2 .
Mr. Neil King concluded that the five foot gate would not be swinging five
feet into the street, but would swing from the property to the curb, and
that the posts for the gate would be set back from the curb and gutter.
Discussion continued on the issue of public safety, concern with the vehicles
accessing onto Santa Fe Circle, backing the vehicles into the spaces, and the
swinging out of gates towards the street.
The Chair closed the Public Hearing.
Discussion ensued and the Board members expressed their concern for more
information on the configuration of the gates and that the applicant should
consider an alternative to the proposed multitude of driveways.
BOARD MEMBER SMITH MADE A MOTION TO TABLE CASE #3-94 UNTIL THE NEXT PUBLIC
HEARING ON FEBRUARY 9, 1994.
Board Member Seymour seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the applicant if they would be available to appear at the
February 9, 1994 meeting and when they agreed, she asked them to provide the
Board with more information and drawings .
7
STAFF ADVISOR CHOICE:
Mr. Stitt reminded Ms. George that her term on the Board was exp1 ring in
February and gave her an application should she want to continue serving as a
board member.
The Board was advised that City Council would like to have a joint meeting,
Monday, March 21, 1994 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY ATTORNEY CHOICE:
None.
BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE:
Concern from various Board members as to if funds were available to attend ICBO
seminars. Mr. Stitt stated that educational funds for BOA were not budgeted.
Respectfully submitted,
CatleMahon,
Recording Secretary
8
•
•
•