HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-14 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
ENGLEWOOD.COLORADO
June 14, 1995
The meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Clayton
at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Seymour , Christman , Smith , Barber, and Clayton.
Members absent: O'Brien and Welker.
Also present: Dan Brotzman, City Attorney
Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator
The Chairman called the meeting to order , stating that with five members present, four
affirmative votes would be required to grant a variance. He stated the Board is authorized to
grant variances by Section 16-2-8 of the Englewood Municipal Code.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Board Member Seymour moved that the minutes of April 19, 1995, April 26, 1995, and May
10, 1995, be approved as written . Board Member Smith seconded the motion.
Upon a voice vote, all five members present approved the motion.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Board Member Smith moved to approve the F indings of Fact for: Case #3-95, Thomas Plating
of 4695 South Windermere, Case #4-95, M & R Roofing at 2700 West Union Avenue, Case #5-
95 , Jacalyn Neuhaus of 431 East Girard Avenue , Case #6-95, Mr. Stookesbury at 3988 South
Grant Street and Case #7-95, Jeff Moening at 3066 South Clarkson Street.
Board Members Seymour seconded the motion.
Upon a voice vote, all five members present approved the motion .
1
PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #8-95:
5460 South Broadway
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting. The
Chairman stated the procedure for the meeting would be that the variance request would be
identified by City Staff, and the applicant and those that wish to speak would then have the
opportunity to be heard. ·
Harold Stitt,
Planning Administrator,
was sworn in for testimony. He identified the request stating that the request is for a
variance from Section 16-4-19-lO:A, Permitted Maximum Number of Signs, to exceed
the maximum permitted number of signs by two additional signs.
The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony.
Mr. Welker,
representative for Burt Toyota,
was sworn in for testimony. He explained that Burt Toyota was notified by Toyota
Motors Sales, U.S.A., that all their dealerships were to conform to the national "Toyota
Dealer Identification Program" requirements as part of their corporate marketing strategy
to standardize and update Toyota's image. The program, "Image USA", states all
Toyota dealerships must have identical signage.
Mr. Welker discussed signage factors on the property. The Sign Code provides total
sign area and total sign number based on the amount of street frontage a business has.
In this case, Burt Toyota has 362.60 feet of frontage on South Broadway. With that
street frontage, they are entitled to five signs, and a sign area of 345 square feet. He
explained currently there are three signs totaling 191 square feet; therefore leaving a
balance of 153 square feet, and two signs.
He related that Burt submitted to Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., a proposal combining the
Toyota logo and their name to be centered on the north-facing and the south-facing
facades, each facade counted as one sign with an area of 76 square feet. He concluded
with the three existing street signs, plus the two new signs, they would be in compliance.
Mr. Welker discussed the variance request. The problem arose when Toyota Motor
Sales, U.S.A. rejected Burt's proposal. Their letter stated that the Toyota logo must be
of a specific size, and have a minimum of 4 '3" of white area must be between the Toyota
logo and the dealership naine. Because Toyota requires that the logo and the dealership
name are placed at opposite ends of the facade, each facade is treated as having two
separate signs, totaling four signs. He concluded those four signs added to the three
existing signs would total seven signs, thus the request for a variance for two additional
signs.
2
•
•
•
••
•
•
Mr. Welker submitted for the record a drawing of proposed signage layout for each of
the facades. He also submitted three photographs of Burt Toyota to assist in illustrating
the configuration of their building, placement of the building off Broadway, and the ·
north-facing and south-facing facades. He stated because of the building's configuration
both signs were necessary for identification of Burt from the Broadway corridor. He
explained the first sign would be located on the southwestern face of the building for
traffic moving north on Broadway, and the second sign would be located on the north
side of the building for traffic moving south .
Mr. Welker concluded his testimony stating that the variance request meets the conditions
for granting a Sign Variance: there are special circumstances such as building
configuration making identifying Burt Toyota difficult from Broadway; that the variance
will not weaken the purpose of the Ordinance; that it will not alter the essential character
of the business district; and that it will not injure the appropriate use of adjacent
properties because there are businesses on both side of the subject property.
There were questions from the Board regarding the applicant considering removing some of the
existing signage.
Mr. Welker responded that the request would not be exceeding signage area, but the total
number of signs. He reiterated that the request is for permissions to have the existing
signs, and to allow conformance with the directive from Toyota Motors by granting a
variance for the new signs .
Mr. Pat Corbitt,
General Manager of Burt Toyota,
5460 South Broadway,
was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Corbitt conveyed all four of their dealerships: Nissan,
Subaru , Chevrolet, and Toyota, were required to have signage conform to the corporate
office directives. He discussed the letter from Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., quoting
from the letter: "authorized dealers are governed by United States Trade Mark Laws",
that the Toyota logo must conform to their specifications, that "any deviation from these
requirements would constitute trade mark infringement and could constitute legal action".
Additionally they listed spacing requirements between the logo and the dealership name.
Mr. Corbitt submitted for the record three documents issued by Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A. He discussed the manuals : the dealer identification program, Image U.S.A. and
directed the Board to signage placements examples of other dealership facilities. Also
entered into the record were statements from three businesses located on Broadway
stating they were in favor of the proposal.
3
Mr. Corbitt concluded that the proposed signs were necessary in order for Burt Toyota
to adhere to the signage requirements outlined in the directives from the corporate office;
that Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. was mandating all their dealerships conform to the
Dealer Identification Program; and that the proposed signage is important for customers
driving into Englewood to locate Burt Toyota.
Discussion ensued concerning conformance to the Sign Code such as elimination of existing
signs, and modification of the proposal. Further discussion ensued with staff on the method of
calculating sign area.
There were no further speakers present for or against the variance request. The Chairman
incorporated the Staff Report and miscellaneous exhibits into the record and closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Seymour moved:
Ms . Christman seconded:
THAT FOR CASE #8-95, BURT TOYOTA LOCATED AT 5460 SOUTH
BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIAN CE . FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-19-lO:A, PERMITTED MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF SIGNS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED NUMBER OF
SIGNS BY TWO ADDITIONAL SIGNS.
Board members discussed the variance request. Mr. Stitt was asked to explain "irregular
outline" for calculating sign area. Mr. Clayton illustrated what he consider an applicable eight
line enclosure for area of a sign.
With no further discussion, the Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes.
Members polled:
Mr. Seymour voted "no" stating the request does not meet the conditions for granting a Sign
Code variance, allowing additional signage would weaken the intent of the Ordinance, and would
alter the character of the zone district because other businesses along Broadway would not be
permitted additional signage.
Ms. Christman stated there are no special circumstances or conditions, therefore she voted no.
Mr. Smith voted "no" for reasons previously stated.
Mr. Barber voted "no" agreeing with previous statements.
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chairman voted "yes" stating he was of the opinion that the request does meet the conditions;
that the request has special circumstances; that the square footage amount for the additional signs
will not weaken the intent of the Ordinance; and that it would not alter the character of the zone
district.
The votes were displayed. One member voted in the affirmative, with four votes in opposition.
Chairman Clayton ruled the variance denied.
STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE:
None.
CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE:
Mr. Brotzman related to the Board several items that will be presented at the next City Council
· meeting: first reading for Home Occupations, and Case #5-95, the request for manicuring as
a home occupation.
BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE:
None .
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~!l!iJ?k-
Cathie M. Mahon
Recording Secretary
5