Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-12 BAA MINUTES• • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD.COLORADO July 12, 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, Smith, Welker, Barber and Clayton. Members absent: Christman and O'Brien. 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 a variance by Section 16-2-8 of the Englewood Municipal Code. APPROVAL OF MINUTE: Seymour moved: Barber seconded: That the Minutes of June 14, 1995 , be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Seymour, Smith, Barber, and Clayton. None. Christman and O'Brien. Welker. Chairman Clayton ruled the Minutes approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT: Mr. Seymour moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Case #8-95, Burt Toyota, 5460 South Broadway. Discussion ensued regarding amending the Findings of Fact. Mr. Smith offered two specific amendments. The Chairman called for a motion to amend the Findings of Fact. Seymour moved: Smith seconded: That the Findings of Fact be approved as amended . 1 AYES: NAYES: Seymour, Smith, Barber and Clayton. None. ABSENT: ABSTAIN:. Christman and O'Brien. Welker. Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact approved as amended. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #9-95: 3201 South Santa Fe Drive Chairman Clayton set forth the parameters for conduct of the Hearing. He stated that anyone · aggrieved by a decision rendered by the Board may appeal that decision to a court of record; however, such appeal must be made within 30 days of the Board's decision. Chairman Clayton opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting. He asked staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the applicant, Mr. Mark Machosky, for Budget Transmission Center, is requesting a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-19-lO:C,l. Permitted Sign Types, to increase the height of his sign by six feet. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Mark Machosky, Budget Transmission, 3201 South Santa Fe Drive, was sworn in for testimony. He stated he purchased the business and property over a year ago when it was Liberty Transmission and at that time changed the name to Budget Transmission. He explained his request was not for additional sign area or number, but to increase the height of an existing ground sign to twenty-six feet. ' Mr. Machosky briefed the Board on the reasons for the requested height of his sign. He explained twelve foot sound barrier walls have been constructed by the Colorado Department of Transportation as a result of the South Santa Fe Drive highway improvement project. The barriers are located in areas where residential uses are adjacent to the roadway. He explained in his case on the north side of his property is a mobile home park and that a barrier wall has been constructed along the front of the mobile home park. Mr. Machosky stated his sign is eight feet above ground and twenty feet in height. The barrier walls are twelve feet high and block a portion of the bottom of his sign. 2 • • • .. • •• • Mr. Machosky explained the other obstacle is a strip of tall mature trees that parallel his property and the mobile home park to the north. He explained that the barrier wall plus the strip of trees limits visibility to his business for customers traveling southbound on South Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Machosky discussed the Sign Code Variance requirements with reference to his request. He cited the "special circumstance" is that the barrier wall obstructs the lower part of the existing sign. Additionally, visibility of the business is impaired by both the barrier wall and the strip of trees. Mr. Machosky addressed the second and third criteria stating that in his opinion the increase in height of the sign will not weaken the intent of the Ordinance and will not alter the "essential character of the district" because the zone district is for industrial use. There were questions from the Board regarding proposed placement of the sign in relative to the Santa Fe corridor. Mr. Machosky entered into the record Exhibit #1 , a site plan of his property. He illustrated the location of the mobile home park, and the strip of trees along the north side of the property. He sketched his property relative to the Santa Fe corridor, pointed out how the barrier wall is adjacent to his property, and where he proposed to place the ground sign. He illustrated how visibi lity is limited pointing out how the south bound traffic cannot clearly see the business from Santa Fe due to the twelve foot barrier wall and the strip of trees . Mr. Machesky concluded citing that the fourth requ i rement is met because the increase of height for the sign will ne ither affect adjacent property nor any injury result in granting the variance request. He stated the height of the sign is necessary in order to have clearance above the barrier wall and be visible for potential customers driving on Santa Fe Drive. There were no further speakers present wishing to testify for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report , and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Seymour moved: Welker seconded: Discussion ensued . THAT FOR CASE #9 -95 , MR. MACHOSKY FOR BUDGET TRANSMISSION , BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-19- IO:C, 1. PERMITTED SIGN TYPES, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT OF TWENTY FEET BY SIX FEET. 3 Mr. Clayton commented that it is understandable with all the construction by the State of Colorado that circumstances such as the barrier wall are through no fault of the applicant. Mr. Barber expressed the necessity of identification for businesses should the Fire Department need to locate them. The votes were locked in. Members were polled: Mr. Smith stated he voted yes, citing the request meets the criteria for granting a sign variance: the circumstances are special and unique, the variance will weaken neither the Zoning Ordinance nor the Sign Code, the variance will not alter the character of the area, and the variance will not injure the use of adjacent property. Mr. Barber voted yes, stating he concurred with Mr. Smith's statements. Mr. Seymour concurred. Mr. Welker voted yes, stating the variance request meets the four conditions for granting a sign variance. Mr. Clayton voted yes, stating he agreed the request meets the conditions for granting the vanance. .. -· When the votes were displayed all five members present voted in the affirmative. The Chairman • announced the decision 5-0 and directed the applicant to apply for the necessary permit. STAFF ADVISOR CHOICE: Mr. Stitt informed the Board that there were no cases to be heard for the August 9, 1995 meeting. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: Discussion ensued and all members present stated they would like to meet on August 9, 1995 for a study session. The Chairman stated if all members can be present the study session will take place in one of the conference rooms. With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 4 • •• • • Respectfully yours, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary 5