HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-10 BAA MINUTES•
•
I.
ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
October 1 O, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to or-
der in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chairperson Carlston presiding.
Members present:
Members absent:
Staff present:
Bode, Carlston, Davidson, O 'Brien, Seymour, Smith
Ras b y
Tric ia Langon , Senior Planner
Bi ll Donnelly, Planner I
Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney
Chairperson Carlston stated there were six members present; therefore, five affirmative
votes would be re quired to grant a variance. Chairperson Carlston stated that the Board of
Adjustments an d Appeals is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part Ill , Section 60,
of the Englewood City Charter.
Chairperson Carlston cited ground rules for conduct of the meeting. All persons in atten-
dance were asked to turn off pagers and cellular phones. All members of the audience and
the Board were advised of the need to speak clearly and to speak into the microphones.
Members of the Board were advised that voting on issues other than granting the variance
would be by "show of hands" rather than voice vote.
Ms. Carlston advised that once a Public Hearing has been closed, there ma y be no further
discussion between Board members and the applicant or members of the audience. Ms.
Carlston set forth parameters for conduct of the Hearings, stating that a Public Hearing will
be declared opened, the applicant will present the request and justification, audience in fa-
vor of or in opposition to the issue will be granted an opportunity to speak, and staff will be
asked for comments. The Public Hearing will then be closed, and Board members will de-
liberate the issue and render a determination .
Chairperson Carlston noted there were no cases continued from the previous meeting.
II. CASE #15-2001
Beth Seuell
2 790 South Grant Street
Ms. Carlston stated that Case #15-2001 is a requested variance to permit encroachment of
2 feet into the required 3-foot rear yard setback. This is a variance to § 16-4-4:M 1 e ( 1)
• Minimum Rear Yard, of the Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Carlston stated that she does have the Certification of Posting of the property.
1
• Ms . Carlston declared the Public Hearing opened. She asked that the applicant present the
case .
Mr. Eric Thompson was sworn in. Mr. Thompson stated that he and Ms. Seuell are request-
ing the variance to construct a carport. Mr. Thompson stated that there is a single-car ga-
rage on the property, and they desire to provide an additional off-street sheltered space for
a second vehicle. Mr. Thompson stated that there are three possible locations for the car-
port; however, one location would be the most visible and intrusive to surrounding
neighbors; another location would block a side door to the existing garage, and cut into an
existing rear patio. The preferred location is on the east side of the garage -this location is
the least visible and intrusive to the neighbors, and preserves the use of the rear patio The
carport would be constructed flush to the east wall of the existing garage. They propose a
12 ft. x 20 ft. carport.
Mr. Thompson further addressed the criterion for gr anting variances, and stated that allow-
ing the location of the carport on the east of the existing garage will provide sheltered park-
ing spaces for two v ehicles ; will not adversely impact adjacent property or the neighbor-
hood, and referenc ed mature landscaping w hich will shield visual impact of the carport
from the neighbors; adjacent properties are developed and the carport will not adversely
impact the continued use of those properties for residential purposes; this variance is the
least modification required to allow the construction of the carport.
• Ms. Carlston asked why the carport cannot be constructed at 10 ft. x 20 ft. rather than 12
•
ft. x 20 ft., thus eliminating the need for the variance . Mr. Thompson stated that the extra
two feet in width is to provide maneuverability in turning average sized vehicles into and
out of the driveway to the carport. He stated that the 10-foot width would be very minimal,
and provide tight maneuvering space.
Ms. Carlston asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of the request. No
one indicated a desire to speak.
Ms. Carlson asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition to the request.
No one spoke in opposition .
Ms. Carlston asked if staff had any comments . Senior Planner Langon stated that staff had
no comments on this case.
Ms. Carlston declared the Public Hearing closed. She asked the pleasure of the Board .
Mr. Smith commented that the proposal to construct a carport is good.
Seymour moved:
Bode seconded : That Case #15-2001 , 2790 South Grant Street, be granted a variance
to encroach 2 feet into the required 3 foot rear yard setback. This is a
variance to §16-4-4:M 1 e (1) Minimum Rear Yard , of the Englewood
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
2
•1 Six members voted in favor of the variance; no one voted in opposition; one member was
absent.
•
•
Ms. Carlston asked that members give their Findings.
Mr. Smith stated that he voted "yes", he finds that the applicant has met all of the criteria
for a variance, and cited the age of structures and the mature landscaping on the site. The
spirit of the ordinance will be observed in that an additional off-street parking space will be
provided b y erection of the c a rport. The carport will not impact adjacent or adjoining
properties; the adjacent and adjoining properties are developed and used as residential
units , a nd the requested variance is the least modification necessary to grant relief to the
applica nt.
Mr. Bode stated he also voted "yes", and concurs with reasons cited by Mr. Smith.
Ms. O 'Brien stated she voted "yes", and concurs with reasons cited by Mr. Smith.
Ms. Davidson stated she voted "yes", and concurs with reasons cited by Mr . Smith.
Mr . Seymour stated he voted "yes", and concurs with reasons cited by Mr. Smith .
Ms . Carlston stated she voted "yes", and concurs with reasons cited by Mr. Smith .
The Chair stated that the variance is granted by a vote of 6 to 0 , one Board member absent.
Ill. CASE #16-2001
Ronald and Mary E. Motto
3 588 South Emerson Street
Ms . Ca rlston stated that she will recuse herself from this Hearing, inasmuch as she is ac-
quainted w ith the applicant. Vice-Chair O'Brien will conduct this portion of the meeting.
Ms . Carlson stepped down, and left the room during the Hearing.
Vice-Chair O 'Brien stated that there are now five members of the Board present; four af-
firmative votes will be required to grant a variance.
Vice-Chair O 'Brien stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit two (2) stor-
age sheds on the premises, and to locate one of the storage sheds on the front of the lot.
This is a variance to §16-4-S :N 2 and §16-4-S :N 2(a ) of the Englewood Municipal Code.
Vice-Chair O'Brien declared the Public Hearing opened. She asked that the applicants pre-
sent their case .
Mary Motto was sworn in , and stated that she lives on South Emerson Street; U .S. 285 is
directl y to the south of their property. The City required removal of trees along the south
3
• boundary of their property, leaving a bare front yard. The house is located on the rear of
the lot, and the property does not have a garage. She is asking that two sheds be permit-
ted, and that one be located in the front of the property to help alleviate the noise impact
from traffic on U.S. 285. She stated that she is asking for this second shed in the front yard
on a "temporary" basis until they can get a fence constructed -hopefully within this next
year.
•
•
Vice-Chair O'Brien asked Ms. Motto to address the five criteria for variance approval.
Ms . Motto stated that the house was constructed in 1915 prior to development of U.S. 285
and the heavy traffic usage of that street. The trees that had to be removed provided a vis-
ual and noise barrier to the U.S . 285 traffic. The placement of the second shed in the front
yard will provide screening from U.S. 285 and assist in noise reduction. Ms. Motto stated
that she is of the opinion that the placement of the proposed shed will not affect other
properties in the neighborhood; there is no development across the street -it is an empty
lot. Other properties to the rear and to the north of them are developed, and will not be
impacted by the shed. The floor area of each shed will be less than the maximum allowed.
Vice-Chair O'Brien noted that the Certification of Posting was not filled out, nor was it
signed or notarized. She asked if the property was properly posted, and for how long. Ms .
Motto stated that it was posted the required 15 days; the sign was moved once while she
made a video of the view of the front yard now that the trees have been removed. The
sign was then replaced and is still in place.
Mr. Smith asked if he understood that the property is developed with a house and two
sheds, one of which was relocated to the front yard. Ms. Motto stated that this is correct.
Mr. Seymour asked if there is any place to construct a garage. Ms. Motto stated that the
house is situated to the rear of the lot, so there is no back yard and no place for a garage,
even though there is a driveway. She stated that they want to construct a fence along their
south property line to provide a visual and noise buffer to U.S. 285.
Mr. Seymour asked if Ms . Motto would agree to a time limitation of one year for the sec-
ond shed in the front yard. Ms. Motto stated that this would be acceptable to her.
Vice-Chair O'Brien asked if anyone else wished to speak in support of the request.
Ronald Motto was sworn in, and stated that their request is to allow the second shed in the
front yard on a temporary basis.
Vice-Chair O'Brien asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition.
Paula Palmer, 3580 South Emerson Street, was sworn in. Ms. Palmer stated that her home
is directly north of the Motto home, and she does understand the noise issue. However,
the subject property is an "eyesore" and people have asked her if the property was pur-
chased for "storage". Ms. Palmer noted that Englewood is doing a great job of improving -
4
•
•
•
not only the downtown area, but the residential neighborhoods as well , and she would hate
to see something like this approved that could decrease property values. Ms. Palmer stated
that the property is not attractive or appealing, and she is opposed to the variance.
Vice-Chai r O'Brien asked if staff had any comments. Planner Donnelly stated that he had
no comments regarding the case.
Mr. Smith asked if the proposal was for something other than a shed -an "accessory struc-
ture" -would it be before the Board for a variance. Mr . Donnelly stated that it is possible
the second shed could be called an "accessory structure"; but accessory structures are re-
quired to be located in the side or rear yards -not in the front yard, so the applicant would
still have to get approval to locate the structure in the front yard . Mr . Smith commented
that requiring location of such structures "in the rear or side of the lot" is unclear.
Mr. Seymour noted that the front of the home faces to the west; is this correct? Mr. Don-
nelly stated that the shed is now located on the southwest corner of the lot; the shed was
relocated from a previous placement on the rear of the lot. Mr. Seymour noted that inas-
much as both sheds were on the property, and apparently have been for some time, can
they be considered "grandfathered-in "? Or did the relocation of the shed from the rear of
the lot to the front of the lot "cross the line ". Mr . Donnelly stated that the relocation of the
shed brought it to the attention o f Code Enforcement, and triggered the ultimate applica-
tion for a varianc e .
Vice-Chair O 'Brien asked that the staff report be made part of the record of the Hearing.
She asked if there were further questions or comments regarding the request.
Vice-Chair O 'Brien declared the Public Hearing closed. She asked for discussion on the is-
sue prior to a motion.
Mr . Smith stated that he isn 't thrilled about the appearance, but was of the opinion that
one-year approval of a second shed in the front yard would be acceptable.
Mr. Seymour agreed that the property is an eyesore.
Ms. O 'Brien stated that she questioned that placement of a second shed in the front yard
would be of help in sound reduction . She also has to take into consideration the com-
ments from the neighbor. Mr. Seymour agreed that the shed won't do much to reduce
sound from U.S. 285.
Seymour moved :
Smith seconded: That Case #16-2001 , 3588 South Emerson Street, be granted a vari-
ance to permit two storage sheds, and to locate one of the storage
sheds on the front of the lot. This is a variance to § 16-4-5:N2 and § 16-
4-5:N2 (a) of the Englewood Municipal Code .
5
•
•
•
The Board members voted; three members voted in fa vor, two voted in opposition, one
member was absent, and Chairperson Carlston recused herself from participation in the
Hearing.
Vice-Chair O'Brien asked that members give their Findings .
Mr . Smith stated he voted "yes"; the property is adjacent to U.S. 285 and subjected to the
noise from the traffic on the highway; an "accessory structure" is allowed in addition to one
shed according to the zoning regulations; the second shed will not be that visible to the
neighborhood inasmuch as the property abuts U .S. 285 on the south; the remainder of the
neighborhood is already developed.
Mr. Bode stated that he voted "no".
Mr . Seymour stated that he voted "yes "; he acknowledged that a coat of paint would help
the appearance of the property; he noted that the applicant has expressed the intent to
build a fence along the south property line at which time the second shed would be re-
moved, and he was of the opinion that the second shed in the front yard could be ap-
proved for one year.
Ms . Davidson stated that she voted "yes "; she stated that the applicant meets the first crite-
ria because of the age of the house and the development of U.S. 285 since the date the
house was constructed. She stated that the applica nt is attempting to observ e the spirit of
the ordinance because the shed does provide temporary screening. While the variance, if
granted, would adversely affect adjacent property, it will be on a temporary basis, and the
adjacent property is developed. The applicant has stated that the second storage shed will
be a temporary use until the fence is constructed .
Ms. O 'Brien stated that she voted "no"; the applicant did not, in her opinion, meet Criteria
#3 or Criteria #5.
Vice-Chair O 'Brien announced that the variance request has failed by a vote of 3 to 2 .
Chairperson Carlston re-entered the Council Chambers, and assumed her chair with the
Board.
IV. CASE #17-2001
Martha Brandt
2 780 South Emerson Street
Chairperson Carlston stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach six (6 )
feet into the required 25-foot front yard setback. This is a variance to §16-4-2:H , Minimum
Front Yard, of the Englewood Municipal Code .
Chairperson Carlston stated that she does have the Certification of Posting.
6
•
•
•
Chairperson Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, and asked the applicant to present
the case.
Martha Brandt, 2780 South Emerson Street, was sworn in. Ms. Brandt stated that she is re-
questing the variance to permit the construction of a roofed front porch and deck; the
depth of the porch and deck will encroach into the required 25 front setback by six feet.
Ms. Brandt stated that construction of the roofed porch and deck will provide safer access
to the front door of her home. Ms. Brandt stated that her neighbors have signed state-
ments approving the requested variance. Ms. Brandt stated that South Emerson dead-ends
at the south end of the block; there is no residential use directly across the street. Her
house faces the City Ditch that runs between homes on the west side of the block. The
variance will not impair development or use of the adjacent properties. Most of the homes
in this immediate neighborhood were constructed in the 1930's and 1940's, and this is the
minimum variance needed to facilitate construction of the covered porch .
Chairperson Carlston asked if there were any questions of Ms. Brandt. Board members had
no questions.
Chairperson Carlston asked if any member of the audience wished to speak in support of
the request. No one was present who wished to speak in support.
Chairperson Carlston asked if any member of the audience wished to speak in opposition
to the request. No one spoke in opposition.
Chairperson Carlston asked if staff had any comments to add.
Planner I Donnelly stated that, while it does not show on the map included in the staff re-
port, South Emerson Street does dead-end at Ms. Brandt's property.
Chairperson Carlston declared the Public Hearing closed. She asked the pleasure of the
Board.
Seymour moved :
Bode seconded: That Case #17-2001, 2780 South Emerson Street, be granted a vari-
ance to encroach six {6) feet into the required 25 foot front yard set-
back. This is a variance to §16-4-2:H, Minimum Front Yard, of the
Englewood Municipal Code.
Mr. Seymour stated that he thinks the addition of the porch to the home will be very attrac-
tive. Ms. O'Brien agreed.
The Board voted: Six members of the Board voted in favor of the variance; one member
absent.
Ms. Carlston asked that Board members give their Findings.
7
•
•
•
Mr . Smith stated he voted "yes"; the street deadends at Ms. Brandt's property, the lot is
smaller than adjoining lots. The spirit of the ordinance is being met by constructing an
amenity for this property that most people have - a front porch; the variance will not ad-
versely affect adjoining properties or the neighborhood in general; the variance will not im-
pact or impair use or development of adjacent properties, and this request is the least
modification necessary to grant the relief sought by the applicant.
Mr. Bode stated he voted "yes", and concurs with reasons cited by Mr. Smith.
Ms . O 'Brien stated she voted "yes", and concurs with Mr . Smith .
Ms . Davidson stated she voted "yes "; she also concurs with Mr. Smith.
Mr . Seymour stated he voted "y es"; he concurs with Mr . Smith.
Ms . Carlston sta ted she voted "y es "; she concurs with Mr . Smith.
Chairperson Ca rlston announced that the variance has been granted with six affirmative
votes .
v. CASE #13-2001
Robert L. Pitier/Mark Lee Levine
2303 East Dartmouth Avenue
Chairperson Carlston stated that the applicants are seeking an amendment to Case No. 23-
84, Case No . 3 2-84 and Case No. 22-86, to expand permitted uses from Attorneys, Archi-
tects, Real Estate Brokers and Engineers to add Public and/or Certified Public Accountants,
Developers, Doctors, Medical Practitioners, and other professional office uses. This is an
expansion of a variance to §16-4-2:B, Permitted Principal Uses, of the Englewood Municipal
Code.
Chairperson Carlston stated that she does have the Certification of Posting for this case.
Chairperson Carlston declared the Public Hearing open, and asked the applicant to present
the case.
Robert Pitier was administered the oath, and stated that he and his partner, Mr. Levine,
have owned the property for 1 7 years, and have used the building for office purposes.
There are several offices in the building used b y attorneys, architects, engineers, and real
estate brokers. Mr . Pitier stated that Mr . Levine is a professor at the University of Denver,
which is taking more and more of his time, and they have decided to sell the property.
They want to market the property for office space, and not have the property revert to resi-
dential use. They find , however, that there is interest from a wide range of professional
people interested in moving their office to this site, but cannot do so because of the restric-
tive nature of the previous variances granted on the property. Mr. Pitier stated that their
"neighbors really appreciate the use of the building for professional office space". Mr. Pitier
8
•
•
•
stated that the neighbors will not readily perceive the requested expansion of the profes-
sional uses permitted in the building. The property is located near the intersection of East
Dartmouth Avenue and South University Boulevard, and he suggested that the majority of
any traffic increase because of expanded professional office usage would feed in from
South University Boulevard . He suggested there would be limited impact on East Dart-
mouth Avenue west of their property. Mr. Pitier acknowledged that were medical and den-
tal offices to be allowed, it could result in increased traffic to the site. He testified that the
property, while initially constructed as a residential "mansion ", does not lend itself to resi-
dential use. The structure is on the National Register of Historic Places .
Mr. Pitier asked that the Board consider the request for expanded professional uses as a
"definitional" change. Mr. Pitier stated that the Board has previously found that an excep-
tional situation existed when the previous variances were granted in 1984 and 1986. There
have been no physical changes to the property since that time. He pointed out that even
with granting of previous variances, the City still maintained jurisdiction and control of the
use of the property by restricting the type of professional use allowed. Mr. Pitier stated that
the expansion of permitted professional uses, or "definitional" change, will not impact adja-
cent properties; no modifications to the building or premises are proposed. Mr. Pitier
stated that he has contacted a great number of area neighbors, and has received only one
negative response. All of the neighbors appreciate the fact that the property is well main-
tained. He reiterated the impracticality of using the property for residential purposes, and
that the sole purpose of the requested variance is to expand the list of allowable profes-
sional uses.
Mr. Pitier introduced his wife and his business partner, Mr. Levine.
Mr. Se y mour inquired about the maximum number of offices to be allowed in the structure.
Mr. Pitier reiterated that they do not plan any ph y sical changes to the property. He stated
there are two main offices and a large reception area and a conference room, with support
facilities, on the main floor; on the second floor there are seven offices; the third floor has
two offices and a conference room .
Mr. Seymour asked about the total number of people presently coming to the site. Mr. Pit-
ier suggested perhaps 50 to 60 people -he noted that the number of parking spaces (15 in
front; a total of 42 ) could be increased. The adjoining Church uses some of the parking
spaces on Sunday.
Ms. O 'Brien stated Mr. Pitier was aware of the variance granted on the property when he
purchased the property; is this a correct statement. Mr. Pitier stated that he was aware that
a variance had been granted, and reiterated that he is only asking for modification and ex-
pansion of the permitted professional offices allowed in the structure.
Ms. O'Brien questioned whether neighbor's statements presented with the application in-
cluded properties directly to the south of the subject site. Mr. Pitier described the general
area canvassed to get the statements : this encompassed Dartmouth Circle, Dartmouth
9
•
•
•
Avenue, South Vine Street, and South York Street. He stated that he did not recall that
anyone he contacted opposed the request.
Chairperson Carlston asked why the applicants are asking for the expanded professional
use in the structure. Mr. Pitier stated the expanded listing of professional use will be of as-
sistance in marketing the property. He stated that this is a "marquee property for Engle-
wood", and this request will not change the appearance of the property, but will address a
broader marketing interest.
Mr. Smith asked if the applicants would object if medical and dental offices were not al-
lowed. Mr. Pitier stated that he understood the concern regarding increased traffic that
could be generated by medical and dental offices.
Mark Levine was administered the oath; he stated that he is a professor at the University of
Denver, and a law partner of Mr. Pitier's. He emphasized that their main focus is to sell the
property and maintain the professional office status of the structure . Mr. Levine stated that
many interested people contact them regarding moving their offices to the site, and the
specific use may be very compatible with the primary attorney and architect restrictions,
but the use does not fit within the restrictive confines of the existing variance. He and Mr.
Pitier are only asking for a broader scope of office use.
Chairperson Carlston asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor? No one addressed the
Board in favor of the request.
Chairperson Carlston asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition.
George Bodley, 2300 East Columbia Place, was sworn in. Mr. Bodley stated that he is very
opposed to the requested variance, and stated that the property is presently zoned R-1-A,
Single-family, and should stay that way. The existing variance violates the spirit of the R-1-A
Zone designation, and the parking lot use of the site has adversely affected the neighbor-
hood. The rear of the property is unsightly, and the property owners never provided proper
sight barriers pertaining to his property, or vegetation that was required in 1984. The prop-
erty owners did not provide proper drainage for the site, and "dumped a pile of dirt on my
fence". There is a "garbage dump" by his fence on the Englewood side, which may be
generated by the office building. Mr. Bodley noted that the initial 1984 variance limited
professional use of the building to attorneys and architects; this was later expanded to allow
engineers and real estate brokers. He is opposed to the present request to open the "pro-
fessional use" of the building to any type of "alleged professional" use. Opening the build-
ing up to a variety of professional uses will result in increased traffic on-street and parking
demands for the site. He asked if any change is considered, to please cause the property to
revert to residential use in keeping with the R-1-A restrictions, to remove the large parking
lot, and to cause a general cleaning and landscaping of the property. Mr. Bodley stated
that the area residents didn't want office usage approved for the building in 1984; they still
don't want an office building on the site. He stated that residents were presented an
agreement in 1984 that the building would have very limited office usage. Mr. and Mrs.
Chesler moved the house from the corner of Dartmouth and University, and converted it to
10
•
•
•
office usage . There have been several proposals for the vacant property back of the
Church property on the Dartmouth/University corner. To date, these proposals have not
been acceptable to the adjoining neighborhood. Mr . Bodley likened approval of the vari-
ance to the "camel's nose in the tent". He asked that the Board deny the requested vari-
ance. Mr. Bodley commented that the appearance of the site from East Dartmouth isn 't too
bad, but viewing the site from the rear -from his property -it is "butt-ugly." Mr. Bodley
reiterated that the structure was relocated by Mr. and Mrs. Chesler; he asked whether a
"drag-on-building" can receive historical designation. He noted that the building was set for
demolition 18 years ago until purchased and relocated by the Cheslers. Mr. Bodley stated
that he resides in Denver, readdressed his contention that the applicants "dumped a pile of
dirt on his fence", and admitted that he is "bitter" about the entire project.
Ms. Jane Bremers and her son were sworn in. Ms. Bremers testified that she lives directly
across the street from the site, at 2292 East Dartmouth Avenue, and has resided there the
entire time that the structure has been used for office purposes. She recalled that Mr. and
Mrs . Chesler purchased the structure with the idea of living there; however, they divorced
and the variance was requested and granted, on the basis of financial hardship, to allow
professional office usage of the structure. The property was sold as an office usage site .
Ms . Bremers stated that the property has been kept up, and the small number of people
who office on the premises have not been a problem, but the sign posted on the premises
for this request indica tes they are seeking a wider range of professional clients, and she re-
sents this expansion of the va riance .
Ms. Davidson asked if Ms. Bremers would object to the request if use of the premises by
dental and medical offices was eliminated . She noted that there is "collateral" office use
allowed there now, by virtue of the engineers and real estate brokers being allowed several
years ago. If the request did not include allowance of medical and dental offices, would
this change Ms. Bremers' objections.
Ms . Bremers stated that she did not want to see an increase in the number of people using
the site for office purposes; she does not want to see a lot of people coming and going
from the site .
Mr. Bremers stated that the entire area was, at one time, a farm. The original variance
granted in 1984 was granted on the basis of "financial hardship". He stated that he does
not think "financial hardship " is the basis for the current request. He stated that the appli-
cants purchased the property, knowing it is zoned R-1-A , Single-family Residence, with a
financial hardship variance granted for the site . He stated that the driveway to his mother's
property is directly across Dartmouth from the site . He addressed the pedestrian traffic in
the area, noting that Slavens Elementary School is just across South University Boulevard in
Denver, and there are a number of children walking in the area. There are mature trees in
the area, which obscures vision at times . Mr . Bremers discussed the traffic using East Dart-
mouth Avenue, and the stacking of vehicles to get through the Dartmouth/University inter-
section on the light. Additional traffic created by expanded office use on the site will com-
pound the traffic problems currently existing in this immediate neighborhood. Mr. Bremers
stated that the additional traffic and expanded office use of the subject site could devalue
11
• property directly to the south along East Dartmouth Avenue. Mr. Bremers stated that his
mother's neighbor, Ms. Pauline Sanders , had hoped to attend the meeting also; she is in
opposition to the request, but she is ill this evening and unable to attend.
In response to an inquiry from the Board, Mr. Bremers stated that he presently lives in Lou-
isville, Colorado.
Chairperson Carlston asked Mr. Pitier if he would care to rebut statements from opponents.
Mr. Pitier cited the definition of Professional Offices, as contained in the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that interpretation of whether a use complies with this
definition is under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Mr. Pitier stated that he
would like this definition, as written, to be applicable to the property. He noted that there
may be a secretarial service located in the building -this is a professional office in which
only word processing or other computer work is done. There would be very limited traffic
from clientele to such an office. He acknowledged that there could be increased traffic if
medical and dental offices were allowed.
Mr. Smith stated that he is concerned with allowance of medical and dental offices . He
asked if the definition could be reworked to allow some expansion of the professional of-
fice use, but restrict use by the medical and dental professions.
• Ms. Carlston asked if staff had comments.
•
Ms. Langon was sworn in, and stated that in reviewing neighbor's statements presented by
Mr. Pitier, there were several that were eliminated because of improper signage; some of
these were of property owners directly across East Dartmouth Avenue. Ms. Langon stated
that earlier on this date, she did receive two letters in opposition . [These letters were dis-
tributed by the Recording Secretary to members of the Board.] These letters are from resi-
dents in the City of Denver.
Secretary 's Note: The two letters referenced by Ms. Langon are appended to these Min-
utes.
Ms. Langon discussed the definition for "Professional Office", and commented that in her
opinion something can be worked out that will be equitable for Mr. Pitier, and protect the
neighborhood. Ms. Langon discussed the history of previous variance requests on the
property, and referenced a synopsis of this history contained in the staff report. She sug-
gested that the Board might consider vacating all previous variance actions, and combining
all the restrictions in those variance actions into one, current, decision. Ms. Langon stated
that the Board may continue the case to the next meeting to allow the staff and applicant
an opportunity to see if an equitable resolution can be reached, or the Board can address
the issue this evening .
12
•
•
•
Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Pitier would support the vacation of all previous variances, and
combining all the restrictions into one, current, Board decision. Mr. Pitier stated that this
procedure could be beneficial and clarifying for everyone concerned.
Chairperson Carlston asked if there were further questions. No further questions were
asked of the applicant, or of the staff.
Chairperson Carlston declared the Public Hearing closed .
Mr. Smith discussed his concerns with the request; he stated he would have to oppose in-
clusion of medical and dental offices at this location -the traffic generated would be un -
bearable in the neighborhood. On the other hand, he can understand the desire of the
property owners to expand the office usage to increase marketability of the site . Mr. Smith
also stated he felt there is need to combine all actions of the Board in previous variance
cases pertaining to this site into one, current, determination .
Smith moved: The Board of Adjustments and Appeals continue Case #13-2001 to
the meeting of November 14, 2001. Staff and applicant Pitier are to
work on an acceptable definition of "Professional Office".
Ms. O'Brien stated that she will not vote in favor of this case. Allowing expanded profes-
sional office use of the structure will impact the neighborhood. Ms. O'Brien pointed out
that the Board has considered several previous variances on this property, and they now
want an additional variance to enable them to market the property to a wider range of pro-
spective buyers . Ms. O 'Brien questioned that there is any reason to consider continuance
of the case and revision of the definition.
Mr. Smith stated that even if the Board ultimately determines not to grant the variance re-
quest, the previous actions could be combined into one .
Mr. Seymour seconded Mr. Smith 's motion to continue the case.
Mr. Bode discussed his concerns with the word "professional", and uses that could be al-
lowed were the expanded p ro fessional office use to be permitted. Mr. Smith suggested
that the objectionable uses are those that would generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Seymour
agreed that traffic is a problem, particularly for medical and dental offices; they schedule six
to eight patients at one time. Ms. Davidson asked if the medical and dental uses were
eliminated, would the objections be the same. She stated that she is in favor of trying to
come up with a new definition of "professional office", and to combine the variances. She
stated that she doesn't see any difference in the use of an office by an accountant or by an
attorney.
Ms. Carlston stated that the property will remain as office use, it is not going to revert to
residential use. There should be some mid-point to provide the property owner a little re-
lief, but not adversely impact the neighborhood. She noted that the request is to include
accountants and other professions in addition to those currently permitted. Mr. Smith
13
•
•
•
stated that he isn't sure he would want to define the types of professional occupations al-
lowed, and he would like to see if there can be some way to control the amount of traffic
generated.
Ms. Davidson asked if Chairperson Carlston was indicating that she would not be amenable
to redefining and limiting us es in the new definition. Ms. Carlson stated that she is not
against the motion to continue, but emphasized the need to carefully consider the wording
of a definition .
Mr. Bode pointed out that a "talent scout" is a "professional" use, in that they are photo-
graphing and interviewing potential models, etc.; this use will generate a lot of traffic. Mr.
Bode also emphasized the need for careful consideration in defining "profession"; he noted
that no one wants to see medical and dental offices allowed at this location .
The vote was taken . Five members voted in favor, one member voted in opposition, and
one member was absent.
Chairperson Carlston stated that the motion to continue Case #13-2001 to November 141h
has been approved by a vote of five to one. Staff is asked to work with applicant Pitier to
resolve the issue of "professional" office definition.
v . FINDINGS OF FACT
Case #12-2001
Mr. Smith moved:
Bode seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #12-2001, 4728 South Lincoln Street, be
approved as written.
The motion carried; six voted in favor, no one voted in opposition; one member absent.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 12 , 2001
Smith moved :
Bode seconded : The Minutes of September 12, 2001 be approved as written.
Chairperson Carlston asked that the Minutes be amended to reflect Assistant City Attorney
Reid in attendance, and that page 8 be amended in the last line to read " ... to protect the
public safety."
The vote on the minutes, as amended : six voted in favor, none voted in opposition; one
member was absent.
The motion carried .
14
• VII. STAFF CHOICE
•
•
Senior Planner Langon stated that the annual Holiday Dinner has been scheduled for De-
cember 13 1h; this is a Thursday evening, and the dinner will be held at the Englewood Golf
Course. Formal invitations will be sent in November.
Ms. Langon stated there are four public hearings scheduled for November, as well as the
continuance of Case #13-2001; the cases are for a sign at 3001 South Acoma Street; a
home addition at 2130 East Eastman Avenue necessitating variances for side and front set-
backs, as well as separation between structures; a roof over an existing front porch at 4868
South Sherman Street requiring a front yard setback variance; and an enclosure of an exist-
ing porch at 3159 South University Boulevard necessitating a side yard variance .
VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Assistant City Attorney Reid distributed copies to Board members of BOA decisions from
other jurisdictions, and court determinations on those decisions.
IX. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE
Ms. O'Brien stated that the staff report on the Pitier case was most helpful with the histori-
cal data, and thanked Ms. Langon for her time and effort on this case .
Chairperson Carlston stated she appreciated everyone being on time to the meeting.
Ms. O 'Brien asked about Mr. Rasby's attendance. Ms. Langon stated that the Board can
submit a letter to City Council requesting Mr . Rasby's removal from the Board for lack of
attendance, and requesting the appointment of the alternate member. Brief discussion en-
sued. Staff was directed to prepare the necessary document to request that a vacancy be
declared, and that the alternate member be appointed as a voting member.
The meeting was declared adjourned .
15
•
•
•
Southern Hills Community Association COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
P .O. Box 101085 , Denver, CO 80250-1085
October 10, 2001
Tricia Langon, Senior Planner
City of Englewood
Department of Community Development
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80111
Re: Board of Adjustment & Appeals October 10, 2001 , Public Hearing to
Amend Case No . 23-84 & Subsequent Cases No. 32-84 & 22-86
Dear Ms. Langon:
OCT 1 0 2001
ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO
This letter is submitted to the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals for consideration
during its public hearing on the above subject case amendments.
At the October 9 , 2001 , Annual Meeting of membership , the Southern Hills Community
Association (SHCA) passed the followin g motion:
"The Southern Hills Community Association, which represents approximately 550 homes
in Denver's residential neighborhood immediately east ofS. University Blvd. from E . Yale
Ave. to E . Flora Pl., is strongly opposed to a requested Englewood use variance for the
building called the Dartmouth Professional Center at 2303 E. Dartmouth Ave.,
Englewood."
The SHCA is very concerned over the traffic patterns and increased traffic volume which patients,
clients and other visitors would cause under any expanded uses such as " ... Developers, Doctors,
Medical Practitioners, and other professional office uses." The SHCA also is very concerned
over the proposed increased commercial nature of permitted uses in the midst of the residential
neighborhood spanning both Englewood and Denver.
The increased traffic eventually must use Dartmouth Ave. to access the building , and much of this
traffic can be anticipated to use Dartmouth from Colorado Blvd. on the East and from Downing
and Broadway on the West . Dartmouth bisects both the Southern Hills residential neighborhood
east of University Blvd. and the Englewood-Denver residential neighborhood west of University.
SHCA residents feel that such traffic changes and increased commercialization will have negative
impacts on the residential nature and integrity of the entire area.
The SHCA thanks the City of Englewood for considering the Association's concerns .
Amanda Gurr, President
Southern Hills Community Association
•
•
•
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
October 10, 2001
Tricia Langon, Senior Planner
City of Englewood
Department of Community Development
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80111
Re: Board of Adjustment & Appeals October 10, 2001, Public Hearing to
Amend Case No. 23-84 & Subsequent Cases No. 32-84 & 22-86
Dear Ms. Langon:
OCT 1 0 2001
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
We, the undersigned residents and home owners living on the 3100 block ofS. Josephine St.,
submit this letter to the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals for consideration during its
public hearing on an amended use variance for the Dartmouth Professional Center, 2303 E.
Dartmouth Ave., Englewood. We are unable to attend the meeting personally and thank the City
of Englewood for considering our concerns .
We very strongly oppose the granting of any expanded variance in uses for this property. Each
of us has lived in our homes for a minimum of25 years and recognizes that changes are inevitable.
However, the proposed expanded uses are changes which we feel will have highly negative
impacts on the combined Englewood-Denver residential neighborhood spanning both sides of
University Blvd. between Hampden and Yale.
By the very nature of the services they offer, " ... Doctors, Medical Practitioners, and other
professional office uses" will result in many additional daily visits to the building. This means
increased traffic on both University and Dartmouth, the only access to the building. Much of this
traffic will use Colorado Blvd., Downing or other north-south thruway streets and then travel
east-west on Dartmouth. Dartmouth bisects our residential area, includes a designated bike path,
and has heavy "child traffic" due to Slavens Elementary School at Clayton and Dartmouth. Also,
building visitors using northbound University may well use Josephine St., our residential side
street, to quickly access Dartmouth to avoid waiting in line to turn left off University onto
Dartmouth. We already are experiencing some such practices under current traffic conditions
and do not want them to worsen.
We feel that granting an expanded variance will mean increased commercialization, more traffic
volume and more undesirable traffic patterns which will be highly detrimental to the quality of our
lives and the enjoyment and use of our residential properties .
We also believe that other neighborhood residents in both Englewood and Denver would express
similar perspectives if they were more aware of the requested changes. The posted public
•
•
•
Tricia Langon, Senior Planner
October 10 , 2001
Re : Board of Adjustment & Appeals October 10, 2001, Public Hearing to
Amend Case No. 23-84 & Subsequent Cases No. 32-84 & 22-86
Page 2
hearing sign, while apparently meeting Englewood requirements for minimum size and length of
posting, was not readily noticeable or easy to read in our opinion. Its overall physical appearance
was different from the public notification signs most of us are used to seeing in this area Its
placement just off the sidewalk rather than a bit further back made it difficult for people to see
unless they were on foot. Also , the "tight" nature of the lettering also required one to be
physically immediately in front of the sign to be able to read it and fully understand its content. A
copy of a photo of the sign is attached to help convey our concerns about the nature of the sign.
We appreciate the opportunity to present our perspectives to the Board.
Very truly yours ,
Linda Siener
3181 S. Josephine St., Denver, CO 80210
~~9-$~
/7 / I
Ann & Bill Hall ~.,_,___,_~ .;(/ .X/~tf
3101 S. Josephine St., Denver, CO 80210
// / /r--/-/---?-·-·
/.i/Z//t A-ur { ~~
/Gretche~ Evans
· 3151 S. Josephine St., Denver, CO 80210
;/.~~·~~ ~' ~
Loretta & Richar ogdanovich
3161 S. Josephine St., Denver, CO 80210
Attachment (Photo Copy)
•
•
•