Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-09 BAA MINUTES•• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS October 9, 1996 CALL TO ORDER; The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:40 p.m., Chairman Smith presiding. Members present: Barber, Clayton, Fowler, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith. Members absent: Kuhlman. Also present: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Harold Stitt, Community Coordinator Chairman Smith announced with a quorum of six members present, five affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. He stated the Board is authorized to grant a variance by Section 16-4-8 of the Englewood Municipal Code. II . REHEARING FOR CASE #6-96; 3201 South Sherman Street The Chairman opened the public hearing. He stated the request was for a rehearing of Case #6-96. He clarified that the consideration before the Board is to grant or deny a rehearing based on whether the new evidence presented by the property owner warrants a hearing. Mr. Jim Visser was sworn in for testimony stating he was present on behalf of his father, Mr. David Visser, owner of the Sherman Apartments. He stated they are requesting a variance for an awning that would provide safety for their tenants. He explained he was not initially aware of the necessity to be present at the original Public Hearing on June 12, 1996, because he was of the understanding that having Four Seasons present the case was sufficient. He added that he was out of town at the time of the June 12, 1996 hearing. The Chairman questioned what new evidence they had to present to the Board. Mr. Visser explained that upon hearing that the initial variance was denied, due to several Board members stating that the proposed width of the awning was insufficient to afford relief to the tenants, they revised the width of the awning from 6 feet to 7 feet. He added that both he and his father, Mr. David Visser, would be present, as well as a Four Season representative for the rehearing. He emphasized the awning was important to provide protection from the winter elements for their tenants . 1 Mr. Fowler made a motion that the rehearing be permitted. He asked if the rehearing could take place at the present meeting but the Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Reid, explained the property would have to be posted 15 days before the hearing. Mr. Fowler added that the issue is that they are trying to provide a benefit to the people that live in the City of Englewood (at Sherman Apartments) and that they should be given the opportunity to provide that safety to those people. The Chairman offered an apology to the applicant(s) for the delay due to the lack of a quorum for the September 11, 1996 meeting. The Chairman asked the question on the motion made by Mr. Fowler for a rehearing for Case #6-96. By a voice vote, the motion carried. The Chairman stated the rehearing would take place on November 13, 1996 at 7:30 p.m., and advised the applicant to re-post the property. III. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #7-96: 15 East Quincy Avenue The Chairman opened the Public Hearing, stating that the case under the consideration is the continuation of Case #7-96 from the August 14, 1996 meeting. He explained the continuation is the request from the Board the applicant provide status, location, and legal description of the property; that information not available at the August meeting. He asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Mr. Jack York was sworn in for testimony . He reviewed for the Board the list of items to be stored within the garage. Mr. Clayton questioned Mr. York if he had seen the Inter-office Memorandum from the Building and Safety Department. When Mr. York responded he had not, Mr. Clayton read into the record "based on the information presented, the proposed structure would be classified as a Group "S", Division "3" Occupancy and Use . The structure would not be viewed as a private garage and would need to comply with the 1994 Uniform Building Code Provision as an S-3 (vehicle storage) use which is more restrictive". Discussion ensued . The Chairman asked staff to interpret the comments from the Building and Safety Department. Mr. Stitt clarified that from conversations with the Building and Safety Department, the classifications are based on the "use" of the garage, and the construction requirements are based on what is being stored in the garage . In Mr. York's case, the proposed garage is for commercial storage ; therefore, that use requires more stringent construction requirements, than a typical residential garage . Mr. York affirmed that the items stored in the garage would be non-flammables such as wiper blades , ice melt, etc ., referencing the list of items he submitted for their packet. The Chairman questioned, then it is not tQe kind of building but what is being stored; in other words, the "use". Mr. Stitt affirmed . The Chairman briefed for the Board, that the variance would have to be granted on the "use" within the building . •• • Mr. York answered questions from the Board members . He responded that he was requesting a • variance to have more room for storage . He stated during the winter months there might be 400 to 500 bags of ice melt, in addition to wiper blades, oil and air filters storage . 2 •• • • Mr. Stitt clarified for the Board that the Applicant is simply requesting to be permitted to enlarge an existing garage like any other property in the R-2 Zone District would be allowed . The unique circumstances pertaining to this property are : it is a registered Nonconforming Use because of its size and the location of the property. The lot area is 3,000 square feet, and located in the R-2 Medium Density Residential Zone Distrust. The issue under consideration before the Board is whether or not to allow the expansion of an existing nonconforming use. He concluded it is the position of staff to grant the variance. Mr. Fowler made a motion : Mr. Clayton seconded the motion : FOR CASE #7-96, 15 EAST QUINCY AVENUE, THAT THE APPLICANT, MR. YORK, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-6-1 :E . NONCONFORMING USE OF A STRUCTURE. THE REQUEST IS TO EXP AND THE REGISTERED NONCONFORMING USE BY ENLARGING THE EXISTING 240 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE BY 680 SQUARE FEET. Discussion ensued. Mr. Clayton discussed restricting the items stored to those listed and submitted by Mr. York. Mr. Barber questioned who would monitor what was being stored, and agreed with Mr. Clayton that there should be restrictions . Mr. Clayton made a motion to amend the motion to add : ... AND THAT THE VARIANCE BE RESTRICTED TO STORAGE OF SMALL AUTO PARTS , THOSE LISTED AND SUBMITTED BY MR. YORK, THAT ARE NON-HAZARDOUS AND NON-FLAMMABLE AND SPECIFICALLY TO EXCLUDE NON-FLAMMABLE MATERIALS . Mr. Fowler agreed to the amended motion . The Chairman asked the Board members to lock in their votes and give their findings of fact. All six members voted in the affirmative . They all . agreed that the conditions were met for granting the variance . The Chairman announced to the applicant that his request was granted with a 6-0 vote, that the variance was active for 180 days, and to apply for the appropriate building permits . PUBLIC HEARING -CASE # 8-96 5095 South Broadway The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication . He asked staff to present the case . 3 Mr. Stitt was sworn in for testimony. He explained that the applicant, World Savings & Loan, represented by Mr. Abelman of Berryhill, Cage and North, for the property located at 5095 South Broadway, is requesting a variance to encroach into the required side yard setback. This is a variance from Section 16-4-12 :G.2-b, Setbacks, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward to present their case. Mr. Steven Abelman, attorney for World Savings & Loan, was sworn in for testimony . He submitted certificates of posting and statements from adjacent property owners : Grease Monkey, Emich Auto Sales, U. S. Pawn, State of Colorado Department of Transportation, and the subject property owner, Mr. William Crouch, stating they support the variance request. Mr. Abelman testified that this case differs from those coming before the Board seeking a physical change to their property. World Savings did not choose their current status quo, but is nonconforming as a result of the condemnation by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The taking resulted in 6,300 square feet of the subject's property at the comer of South Broadway and Belleview Avenue . The Broadway/Belleview intersection improvement project was necessary to relieve the increased traffic and congestion . As a result of CDOT' s taking the Applicant's building encroaches into the setback because the area between the building and property line was reduced from the required five foot setback. •• Mr. Abelman addressed the criteria beginning with the unique circumstances that exist affirming • the Applicant did nothing to create the nonconforming status; the encroachment was a result CDOT' s taking. He stated that there is a risk that if the building is destroyed more than 60%, they would be unable to rebuild on the same present premises . The requested variance will observe the spirit of the Ordinance because the use will continue to be consistent with the B-2 Business District, substantial justice will be served if the variance is granted; that World should not be burdened for the traffic improvements that have benefited the community. The variance will not adversely affect adjacent property or the neighborhood because all the property at the Broadway/Belleview intersection is fully developed . The requested variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief to the applicant, and allow the property to return to a legal status; the Applicant is merely seeking to return to the status quo which existed prior to the CDOT taking . Mr. Abelman continued his testimony stating although the CDOT project was an improvement, the taking of the World Savings property on Broadway resulted in their current nonconforming status. He discussed the comer lot regulations which require a five foot setback for the first 100 feet from the comer, and more than 100 feet from the comer, a ten foot setback. To illustrate the taking of World Savings property, he used the easel to display an enlarged photograph of the property, placement of the World Savings· building, and to demonstrate the area along Broadway where the five foot setback was reduced . He pointed out the area of the property taken that narrowed to one foot 6 inches from the building to the four foot sidewalk along Broadway. He concluded his presentation stating that the requested variance is to have the subject's property • return to its previous status quo of being a legal conforming property . 4 •• • • Mr. Abelman answered questions from the Board . He explained that World Savings has not been compensated thus far , but has an agreement pending contingent to the variance being granted. He further explained that as a result of arduous negotiations, an agreement between the landowner, and CDOT, is in place . He stated initially it was a condemnation agreement which evolved into a negotiation agreement. He was asked to explain what will occur if the variance is not granted . He responded that a process transpired whereby CDOT had their people calculate compensation, and the property owner had their own compensation evaluation. He opined that the people who do the evaluations are limited due to the methodology they employ, that the World Savings situation of becoming nonconforming was not quantified into CDOT's evaluation. What has transpired is an agreement based on the impending variance. Mr. Barber asked why they took so long, months since the taking, to come before the Board to ask for the variance . He answered that the way the compensation was set-up is skewed in favor of CDOT. He discussed the process. First CDOT asked for a temporary taking, then a permanent taking. They put forth money so that when and if the parties want to dispute the amount, the money is in deposit. CDOT proceeded with the taking, and they (the Applicant) began working on a negotiation agreement. Mr. Barber questioned "what if' the variance is not granted, and is the State (CDOT) libel for buying the property. Mr. Abelman responded the way CDOT took the property avoided taking all of the building . He added they also caused World to lose their overhang eaves along Broadway . He explained the taking was done in such a way that the State was not forced to condemn the entire property; they were trying to save the taxpayer's money, and allow World to continue their use . The original agreement provided that the State was going to take the lead , along the way they felt uncomfortable with that, which resulted in World Saving requesting the variance . Mr. Abelman answered the second question concerning what will happen if the variance is not granted . He responded he did not know. World would needed to look at all its options, that under the terms of the agreement, if the variance is not granted , then the agreement is not enforceable . Mr. Abelman was asked to clarify CDOT' s process. He explained the State files the motion to condemn; at the same time they use internal appraisers to evaluate the property. The condemnation goes forth before the issue of worth is decided . He further explained that the road enhancement affected all the properties at the Broadway intersection : Grease Monkey, Emich, U.S . Pawn, Vectra Bank. What occurs is the State has one amount of money to compensate all the businesses affected by the entire project, resulting in the onus of the property owner to figure out how the sum is going to be divided . If that amount is found to be insufficient, then they (the property owners/businesses) go forth to get their own appraisals . The State will review those figures and if they (CDOT) do not agree, then negotiations proceed . Mr. Abelman concluded that the current agreement status is contingent on the variance being granted . The Board asked staff to explained the comer lot setbacks . Mr. Stitt used the easel to illustrate the commercial setbacks as applicable to the subject property . He explained that the Zoning Ordinance states that for the first one hundred feet on the comer the setback is five feet, beyond one hundred feet the setback is ten feet. He explained that as a result of the CDOT taking, the World Savings building resulted in having a setback less than five feet , and narrowing in one area to a one foot six inches distance to the property line. Discussion ensued on nonconforming situations. Mr. Stitt responded to questions on the nonconforming use stating that if the subject building were destroyed more than 60% of its value, than the reconstruction would have to be 5 built to comply with the five foot setback ; therefore affecting the entire structure . He explained that nonconforming uses are those uses that do not comply with the current zoning regulations, that are not appropriate for a specific zone district, uses that are not permitted in that zone district. Mr. Stitt continued his testimony discussing the case under consideration. He explained that the World Savings use is not nonconforming but the structure is nonconforming . With the CDOT taking, the property line on Broadway shifted ; therefore resulting in a nonconforming situation . He concluded that the setback along Broadway was narrowed/decreased to less than the required five foot setback for the World Savings building. The Chairman directed to the applicant the question why do they need this variance. At this time the second representative for World Savings came forth for testimony . Mr. Jeff Sealy, was sworn in for testimony stating he was an officer of World Savings in Oakland, California. Mr. Sealy stated that this meeting represents a culmination of a 2-year process. He conveyed that CDOT contacted World Savings with a notification of the road enhancement project and that they would be affected by it . Approximately three months later they were provided with an appraisal from CDOT, that essentially outlined the proposal of how much of the property was being taken, and the impact that would occur to their business and the building . He referred to the site photograph to direct attention to the property taken by CDOT for the widening of Broadway. He conveyed for that taking, World would receive no compensation •• other than $7 , 000 determined by CDOT to wash our siding more often because of snow spray • from the cars . Mr. Sealy stated that they were distressed by CDOT ' s offer. ·He reiterated that World will not receive any compensation for the land taken on Broadway. Mr. Sealy continued. He stated that essentially what they (the State) has done is taken a de facto condemnation of our building . The problem is the State is asking us to take on all the risk; they do not want to pay us to make our building conform with the setback requirement. We are saying pay us for taking the building down, or adjust the building so it will comply with the setback requirement. When we got the bid it was $125,000 and the state did not want to pay that. The reason they did not want to pay is because they are taking the stance that an accident may not occur there ; that part of the building may never be destroyed . World Savings rebutted that CDOT put money in escrow in the event that an accident occurs, then CDOT will pay for it should the structure be condemned . He concluded that World Savings wants to continue their operation, but would like for the ability to rebuild in the event that the building is destroyed . The Chairman directed to Mr. Sealy the question, why do they need a variance . Mr. Sealy responded . He explained they requested the variance as a contingent liabil ity because if the building is destroyed, the burden should not be entirely be World Savings responsibility; that CDOT pay for that liability . Board members challenged that an accident may never happen at the comer. Mr. Sealy responded that if someone misses the curb and hits the build ing , they basically want to hedge their bet that will occur, and World Savings should not have the onus for the entire cost. 6 • •• • • The Chairman stated his concern from looking at the site photo was one of safety because of the narrow area left for pedestrians to walk . Mr. Sealy concurred it is also a concern with them, affirming that it is exactly one of their concerns, and that CDOT was not willing to address it. Mr. Sealy clarified that they do not want the City in the middle of this, that the State was not willing to come before the Board to represent World Savings, that they had to take on this responsibility Mr. Fowler asked if the variance is contingent on the agreement with CDOT, what does the agreement cover for reimbursement. Mr. Sealy stated they have agreed to reimburse them for the improvements for the landscaping, sprinkler system, lighting; all the costs they have incurred to bring the property back into the shape it was before construction. The Chairman asked Mr. Sealy, if the variance is not granted, what is their next step. Mr. Sealy stated that more than likely they would take it to court for an assessment of damage because without the variance, the State is asking us to incur the risk that at some point in the future the building is demolished beyond 60%, we would have to incur the cost associated with rebuilding in conformance with the setback requirement. Mr. Abelman made a concluding statement. World Savings is being asked to bear the risk, that World has done nothing to cause their predicament, it has taken no affirmative action to cause this nonconf ormance status. Mr. Sealy made a concluding statement. CDOT needs to recognize their obligation, and World Savings is a risk-adverse company . He exemplified that when the Department of Transportation had completed their project and were ready to open the right hand lane, they realized they could not open it because of the eaves on the World Savings building that hung over the street. He explained the eaves were not discussed in the engineer's report from CDOT, that World Savings was again affected, and again not offered compensation . Eight months has passed since the project has been completed, and we would like to be assured that : one, we can continue to operate; and two; in the event that the building has to be tom down, we have like to be compensated .. CDOT has chosen not to be pro-active in this process. We offered to tear down the building, rebuild after the road project was completed, and the State did not want to do it (compensate). They did not want to be pro-active and address the safety issues associated with where World Savings is now. Discussion ensued . Members continued to question the necessity of the variance. Mr. Sealy answered that the alternative if the variance is not granted, is either go to court or spend $125,000 pro-actively to make the building comply with the required setback. He added $125,000 will go a long way in court . He conveyed when they first went to court for a first possession hearing on it, the judge agreed (with World), and made the State put $120,000 in deposit to cover any incurring expenses . We have tried to negotiate money out of it, and part of the agreement is that we get this variance . Mr. Clayton wanted clarification on if the variance is not granted, then is he (Mr. Sealy) going to recommend to the owner that the wall be tom down (on Broadway) and move it to comply with the required setback. Mr. Sealy affinned . He explained that part of the commendation issue is that if we cannot get the variance then the uncertainty remains that eventually at some time in the future we will have to make the building comply if damage occurs . He alleged that part of the settlement should be to make the building conform, to have the State 7 recognize its obligation and take responsibility of World's circumstances as a result of the • • intersection widening project. :Mr. Seymour made a motion: Mr. Clayton seconded the motion : THAT FOR CASE #8-96, THE APPLICANT, WORLD SAVINGS AND LOAN AT 5095 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-12 :G,2-b . SETBACKS, FOR THE BUILDING TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK. Discussion ensued . Mr. Smith stated if the building is destroyed then they can put up a new building, one that conforms to the current regulations, replace it with one that is a conforming structure. Mr. Clayton stated he did not believe the request serves the general purpose of the Ordinance . He added that if the eastern part of the building was destroyed they could always come before the Board with a request to rebuild it. Mr. Fowler contended that a third party caused the situation, that we (the Board) should not penalize the property owners for something they did not cause, adding it was not a City law that resulted in the nonconforming status. He concluded that Englewood has a reputable business that has been serving the citizens, the State came in and put them into a difficult situation; it is a good business and we should grant the variance . Mr. Barber injected that the Board's decision will not affect the business, that the Board is being asked to make a decision in case of a future catastrophe. World Savings will be compensated should an accident occur, and they have the ability to request a variance if necessary • at that time . He added that we are not saying they have to go to court, that is their choice . Mr. Smith clarified that the State does have to compensate for the taking, that anytime the State or any government condemns property it has to pay for the value of what is taken, and the damage done . He added that he agreed with the applicants that it is tough to get appraisers to give opinions on contingent liabilities . Ms . O'Brien stated what we are being asked to look at is what do we do when a third party, in this case the State, takes action that affects a property owner, and we are charged to apply the ordinances of the City, not to take care of what is viewed as actions by a third party. She also questioned how this case is unique from any other condemnation with a property owner. With no further discussion, the Chairman asked members to lock in their votes and give their Findings of Fact : Mr. Barber voted no stating that he did not believe the applicant presented evidence of how the business will be affected, that the business can continue to operate under the existing condition, and if an unfortunate accident happens and the structures needs rebuilding, then they can always return to request a variance . Ms. O'Brien voted no stating that while the applicant did not create the encroachment, unique circumstances do not exist; that the variance request does not observe the spirit of the Ordinance; that if it were a matter of tearing down -the building it would be viewed differently, but that is not • the case; and agrees that it would not adversely impair the adjacent property because they are already developed . 8 • • Mr. Seymour voted no concurring with Ms. O'Brien's statements. Mr. Fowler voted yes, stating the applicant was substantially affected by a third party, that the variance would not affect the neighborhood . Mr. Clayton voted no because it would not be the minimum variance, that it is not necessary at this time, if the building is damaged on the east side the owner can always come before the Board and request a variance at that time. Chairman Smith voted no agreeing with previous statements. When the votes were displayed , the variance request was denied with one affirmative vote and five in opposition. At 9 :05 p .m . the Chairman called a recess . The meeting reconvened at 9 : 18 p .m . with all six members . PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #9-96: 5095 South Broadway The Chairman opened the Public Hearing (proof of publication was established). He asked the City to come forth and present the case . Mr. Stitt stated the case under consideration was a variance request from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-19-lO:C .1. Ground Signs . The applicant, World Savings & Loan, is requesting to increase by 15 feet the maximum sign height of 20 feet. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony and be sworn in . Mr. Abelman approached the podium for testimony. He offered into evidence proof of posting and letters of support from business owners in the area, stating they had no objection to the r equest. He stated that the background is identical as previously discussed (Case #8-96). The Chairman noted for the record that in the prior hearing regarding the subject property, World Savings & Loan, t hat as a result of the Broadway/Belleview intersection widening, a substantial portion of their property was taken by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Mr. Abelman continued his testimony stating that included in that taking was an area where a monument sign, approximately 8 feet tall and 5 feet wide, was taken . He stated the variance request is to replace that sign for one that is visible for both north and southbound traffic on Broadway . He espoused that the requested 35 feet in height for the sign would give World Savings visibility to their business. He referred to the site photograph to discuss how there is no visible signage facing south; that the proposed 3 5 foot sign would be placed on the southeast side of the building along Broadway; and that the height was necessary to be seen over the building height of twenty-four feet. He explained that the reason for the requested height was particularly necessary for northbound traffic to have visibility over vehicles and above surrounding buildings, to identify World . 9 Mr. Abelman addressed the criteria. He stated spedal circumstances do exist as a result of the taking by COOT, that the taking deprived World Savings of replacing previous signage so north and south bound traffic would have visibility of thef!l. We believe the proposed variance will not weaken the general purpose of the sign ordinance or the regulations prescribed because unique circumstances resulted in the loss of their sign . He stated the proposed increase in height for a sign would not alter the character of the district because they would be providing visibility for their customers, and would have an aesthetically, well-designed sign . The proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the district as noted, adding that there are signs in the area that exceed the twenty foot height, conceding the understanding that they are there as a result of previous sign regulations . He concluded his testimony stating the variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent property because the adjacent property is commercially developed. At this time, Mr. Jeff Sealy, came forth for testimony and was sworn in . Mr. Sealy stated when they began to look at the loss of signage incurred as a result of the COOT project, we looked at a number of alternatives . One was to replace the sign conforming to the twenty foot height regulations . That sign would take care of southbound traffic , but the problem would remain because northbound traffic would not have any of the visible identity of the bank until right at the intersection . He added taking into consideration the speed factor along Broadway, it is critical to them that their customers have identifying visibility of the bank before the intersection. Mr. Sealy explained that eighty percent (80%) of their clientele is 65 years and over; we cater to that customer. Consequently, we want those customers to have plenty of time to identify the bank, realize they need to get into the right hand tum lane, and be able to have convenient access to the branch . In order to accomplish those things, we want our customers to be able to see a branch sign if they are traveling northbound on Broadway . Mr. Sealy continued his testimony . He explained they reviewed another alternative, that being to put a free-standing , conforming sign on the south side of the building . The problem is currently a signal post, and directional signage has been placed on the comer; which has created a clutter effect.. Another alternative was to rely on our tower sign, and put a conforming twenty (20') foot sign on the north side of the building. Mr. Sealy entered into the record a photograph to illustrate the bank tower, and the Broadway-Belleview intersection . He emphasized that the tower is an architectural element integrated into the structure . He reiterated that they cannot not rely on the tower for identification because you have to be right at the intersection to see it. He concluded that our concern is to restore the same type of visibility and identity World Savings had before the CDOT taking . He added , we are not trying to improve our situation; we are not trying to gain a competitive advantage; we just want to restore status quo for our signage before the COOT taking . · Discussion ensued from the Board members . Mr. Seymour stated he drove northbound on Broadway toward the bank, could see the sign identifying their building perfectly clear from a block away, and had plenty of time to get into the left hand tum lane . Mr. Barber questioned why World Savings does not follow the advice mentioned in the staff report; that they erect two •• • grounds signs : one on the north side of the building , and one on the south side of the building for • northbound traffic . He questioned why two conforming signs are better than one nonconforming sign . Mr. Sealy answered that having a sign on the north was a problem because of the clutter effect. Mr. Barber asked if they considered redesigning the sign on the south side to reduce the 10 ,. • • clutter. Mr. Sealy responded that their sign contractor did not believe there was adequate space on the south side comer to accomplish that without adding to the clutter currently present. Mr. Barber opined that they should look at redesigning the signage to make it work without having to increase the height. Mr. Stitt answered some of the Board's concerns. He responded the maximum allowable height under the current sign regulations is twenty feet. He discussed the sign code, explaining there have been two changes in regulations; one in 1972 permitting the maximum height of 32 feet; and 1983 the maximum height was reduced to 20 feet. He explained that most likely the World Savings building was constructed prior to 1972, when there were no regulations in terms of maximum height, type or number of signs. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Seymour made a motion, Mr. Clayton seconded the motion . THAT FOR CASE #9-96, WORLD SAVINGS AND LOAN AT 5095 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-19-lO:C-1., TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A GROUND SIGN BY 15 FEET. Discussion ensued. Mr. Clayton stated he was not persuaded that the first condition for unique circumstances has been met ; that a 35 foot sign is necessary to restore World Savings status before the CDOT taking ; and that a new sign for the southbound customers located on the building structure with the appropriate height will work for them . Mr. Fowler stated that with regard to criteria #3, that a 35 foot sign would alter the character of that area. Mr. Barber opined that the owners need to look at all options available to them before requesting a variance; that the owners need to look at the total signage permitted; and that they should explore having a legal sign placed . The Chairman called for the vote and Findings of Fact: Mr. Clayton voted no because special circumstances do not exist, that the spirit of the Ordinance has not been met, that it would alter the essential character of the district, and that it is not necessary . Mr. Fowler voted no stating the variance would weaken the general purpose of the Ordinance and would alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Mr. Seymour voted no stating that there are other options they need to look at. Ms. O'Brien concurred with previous statements . Mr. Barber concurred that the variance does not meet the criteria . Chairman Smith concurred . 11 When the votes were displayed, all six members voted in opposition . The Chairman announced • • the variance request as denied. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Chairman asked for consideration of the Minutes from August 14, 1996. Clayton moved : Seymour seconded : AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: That the Minutes of August 14, 1996 be approved as written . Barber, Clayton, Fowler, O'Brien, Seymour, Smith. None. None. Kuhlman. The motion carried . VI. STAFF ADVISORS CHOICE: Mr. Stitt discussed the annual Holiday Party for the Board members, scheduled for December 19, 1996, at the Englewood Golf Course. Invitations will be mailed out with more information . VII. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None. VIII. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: Discussion ensued on the policy concerning attendance. Referenced was the BOA Handbook on attendance . Mr. Stitt read into the record: Members are expected to attend all meetings of the Board The Board may recommend that City Council remove any member who is absent for more than twenty-jive (25%) percent of the regularly scheduled meetings during a one (1) year period. Clayton made a motion : Seymour seconded the motion: That the Chairman contact Mr. Kuhlman regarding his absenteeism, and communicate to him that he has exceeded the twenty-five percent (25%) of attendance at BOA Public Hearing; thereby giving him the opportunity to resign in lieu of a request for removal . Five members voiced in the affirmative with Mr. Fowler abstaining because his term started mid- year. 12 • • ~. IX. ADJOURN: With no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned at 10 :08 p .m .. Respectfully submitted, &lfu_~ Cathie Mahon • \\SNDS \.ENG _CH_ SYS .CITYHALL.ENGLEWOOD\DEPTINBD\GROUP\BOARDS\BOA\BOA OCT MINS .DOC • 13