Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-11 BAA MINUTES• • • 1. Call to Order CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 11, 2008 The regu lar meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Smith presiding. 2 . Roll Call Present: John Smith 111, Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Sue Purdy, Miodrag Budisa, Staff- Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid, Staff-CD Planner Brook Bell. Absent/Excused: Marcia O'Brien, David Sprecace . Chair Smith stated there were five members present; therefore, four affirmative votes are required to grant a variance or appeal. Chair Smith stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part Ill, Section 60 of the Englewood City Chart e r. Variances grant ed by the Board are subject to a 30-day appeal period. Variances are effective at the end of the appeal period. Building permits for construction associated with an approved variance will not be issued until the appeal period is ended. Building permits must be obtained and construction begun within 180 days of the variance's effective date. Chair Smith set forth parameters for the hearing : The case will be introduced; applicants will present their request and reasons the variance should be granted; proponents will b e given an opportunity to speak; opponents will address the Board; and then staff will address the Board. Staff will give a preliminary overview of the variance before testimony is taken. 3 . Public Hearing Chair Smith stated that prior to opening the public hearing, he observed Mr. Cohn talking with the applicants. He has a question on appearances of impropriety; he asked Mr. Cohn to expound. Board members should not consider matters ex parte . • • • Mr. Cohn responded that he and the applicants were discussing the odd nature of Lehow Street down by K-Mart, its history and the electric streetcar that ran from the surplus store to downtown Littleton. That was the extent of the discussion . Chair Smith asked if Mr. Cohn was satisfied that anyone watching a public member holding a private discussion with an applicant prior to a public hearing would be comfortable that he can render a fair decision and will not favor the applicant because of any prior relationship. Mr. Cohn stated he does not feel he has compromised his position; they were not discussing the subject case. He has no prior relationship with the applicants. Mr. Smith reiterated his concern was appearances. Mr. Cohn 's assurances that h e was not discussing the case and not having a prior relationship with the applicants is sufficient. ~ Case #VAR2008-0003 LGC Management, Inc. 5460 South Broadway Chair Smith stated he had proof of publication and posting. He introduced the case by stating the applicant is requesting variances to exceed the permitted maximum number of five signs by two additional signs, with the two additional signs being ground signs . These are variances to Table 16-6-13.3 and Section 16-6-13:J.3.a(1) of the Englewood Municipal Code. Brook Bell, Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Bell presented a brief PowerPoint presentation showing photos of the signs on the subject property and maps of the surrounding properties. Mr. Bell stated the site is zoned MU-B-2, which is a mixed-use business district. In 2006, the property was resubdivided into three lots . The surrounding zoning is commercial, high-density residential, and professional offices. Gary Harrison, Colorado Springs, architect for Burt dealerships, was sworn in. Toyota National is requiring all dealers to update or rebrand their signage. They wish to develop a sign package that is acceptable to the City and which reduces the amount of signage, in both quantity and area, while still allowing Burt Toyota good visibility and identification from Broadway. The second reason for going through this process is they are looking at master plans to redevelop the site in the future with a new building. Mr. Held came forward and showed the members a large board with the master plan. Mr. Harrison stated that the patterns in yellow represent the present buildings. In the future these three buildings will be torn down and a new 75,000 square foot building would be constructed. A conceptual drawing • • • was included in the Board's packet. The drawing also shows the three proposed monument signs. The variance is for three ground signs. One will be a reader sign which will be smaller than the present sign. The second ground sign will be "Toyota Scion"; and third sign will be "Toyota Certified Used ." Presently, there are seven ground signs along Broadway. They would be removing four signs . A lot of the existing signs exceed the 20 foot height; all the proposed signs would be below the 20 foot height. In the Board's packet, there is a matri x of existing, allowable, and proposed signage. In all cases, other than the quantities, Burt will be less than what the Code allows. The maximum of all the proposed signage will be 441 square feet, which is 7 4% below the 600 allowable square feet. Currently, Burt has over 600 square feet of signage. The site has unusual challenges. It has 700 feet of frontage along Broadway, which is over two blocks. The sign code appears to have been written for the typical business, which is usually 100 feet wide. They are challenged because they have such a large amount of frontage. The property is 11 acres; it is very large. There will be over 1,000 cars parked on the property. In the second phase when the new building is built, the existing Toyota dealership will be torn down. The new dealership will be on the south of the property. Th ere will be a large parking field on the north. Their concern is having signage for the parking lot. The proposed signs will be placed 200-250 feet apart. Mr. Harrison reiterated they are reducing the number of signs on the property, but they believe the ground signs are important for the identity of the dealership. Mr. Harrison reviewed the variance criteria. The special circumstances are that the site is very large and with the redevelopment signage is needed on the frontage. The additional signage will not weaken the general purpose of the Code. The overall quantity and area of signs will be reduced. The character of the area will not be altered; South Broadway is a high density commercial district. Additionally, adjacent properties will not be impair ed; the number of ground signs will be reduced from seven to three . . fill John H . Held, unincorporated Littleton, was sworn in. Mr. Held reiterated there are unusual circumstances. Each of the properties that face Broadway has the right to a sign , which is why Burt had seven signs . When the properties were replatted, they merged the property lines into once large parcel so the new Toyota dealership could be built. In so doing, the property became subject to the Englewood zoning which states only one sign for Broadway. That is the unusual situation which requires the variance . • • • Chair Smith clarified that the proposed ground signs are applicant exhibits numbered 6, 7, and 8. Mr. Harrison stated that was correct. Chair Smith stated if the Board denies the variance, Burt could do one of the signs but not all three. Mr. Harrison responded that was correct. Mr. Harrison discussed the location of the proposed new signage. Mr. Bell stated the variance request was forwarded to seven City departments and there were no objections to the request. The Traffic Division will review the permit plans when submitted for site distance. The subject property does not currently comply with the Unified Development Code (UDC) in terms of sign quantity, area, sign type, and height. The 2006 subdivision did clean up a number of things on the site; however, it also increased the level of nonconforming signage. Burt could resubdivide the property but it would be a short-lived subdivision and create building code issues with respect to distances from property lines. It would be obsolete when the property is redeveloped. 0 Chair Smith asked if the Burt property is within the special Broadway Sign Code. Mr. Bell responded that signs within the Broadway corridor are permitted additional sign area and height; however, the signs need to go through a special review committee and need to meet additional criteria. Typically, those signs have been more specialty signs rather than corporate. The applicants could pursue that for size, but it would not allow them the additional ground signs they are seeking. Mr. Bell stated the total allowed signs for the entire site is five, which includes building signs , ground signs, etc. The applicant is requesting seven signs, with two of them being ground signs. Chair Smith asked for clarification on how the number of signs was being counted. Mr. Bell responded that service signs do not count against the allowable number of signs. Chair Smith stated that in a 1995 variance case it was determined that if signage could be enclosed in one rectangle it was one sign. He also wanted to point out that the "glitch" in the Ordinance still remains. Mr. Bell stated he would make a note since the Sign Code is going to be revised in the future. There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Smith incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing . Motion: THAT CASE VAR2008-003, 5460 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE PERMITIED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FIVE SIGNS BY TWO ADDITIONAL SIGNS, WITH THE TWO ADDITIONAL SIGNS BEING GROUND SIGNS. THE VARIANCE IS CONDITIONED UPON THE REMOVAL OF SEVEN EXISTING GROUND SIGNS PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THREE NEW GROUND SIGNS. ADDITIONALLY, THE VARIANCE IS CONDITIONED UPON THE REMOVAL OF ALL OTHER BUILDING SIGNAGE PRIOR TO THE • • • INSTALLATION OF THE FOUR NEW BUILDING SIGNS., Action: Approve, Moved by Douglas Cohn, Seconded by Carson Green. Chair Smith stated the conceptual is good. He approves of the reduction in signage. Mr. Cohn stated the City argued a good case . There are unique situations with the property. Mr. Green stated they are reducing the amount of overall signage on the property and lowering the heights. It makes sense that they are spacing out the signage in a way that would be compliant if the site were still separate properties. With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes. l?l1 Mr. Green voted yes. The site has special circumstances; it is the larg est facing Broadway property on South Broadway. The property was replatted to combine individual properties into one parcel. The one large parcel has improved the neighborhood; the applicant should be able to use their entire frontage for reasonably placed signs. Th e re are no other properties in the area that are as large, and it is effectively in the same conformity as if the site were still separate properties. The proposed signage will lessen the bulk of the signage, the height of the signs, and bring the signage into closer conformity. There is effectively no change to adjacent conforming properties . There will be fewer signs on the subject property. Visibility will be improved for neighboring businesses. Ms. Purdy, Mr. Cohn, Mr. Budisa, and Chair Smith voted yes, concurring with Mr. Green. If] Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 5). Yes: John Smith 111, Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, Sue Purdy, Miodrag Budisa Absent: Marcia O'Brien, David Sprecace. Case #VAR2008-0004 Michael Helmut, Ultimate Motion, Inc. 2866 South Broadway Chair Smith opened the public hearing for Case #VAR2008-004 stating he had proof of publication. The property, however, was not properly posted so the public hearing will be continued to the July 9 meeting . • • • 4. Public Forum William Curnow, 4500 Lambert Ranch Trail, Sedalia, was sworn in. Mr. Curnow stated he was before the Board in May regarding 2919 and 2921 South Ogden Street. The Board and Community Development have been given a letter from his attorney asking for additional considerations. His attorney is not present; however, he asked that the Board take into consideration the letter which th ey were provided. In June, he was told there would be the opportunity to address the Board based upon cons iderations that the Community Development Department used in making the subdivision of the property. During the last meeting, the question of the legality of the subdivision arose . They did not have legal representation at that time and that issue was not taken into account by Community Development. The companies who own the property, of which he is a managing member, have done everything, the City has asked regarding the subdivision, even to extent of tearing down a fully functioning house as a requirement of the subdivision. He asked the Board not to take final action on the case, but to again review the information provided at the May hearing and if there is additional inform ation, an opportunity for their attorney to discuss the subdivision and hardship it has caused upon their company. Chair Smith stated in view of the letter received by the Board, he will request a short Executive Session during Attorney's Choice to discuss the letter and its ramifications . ~ 5. Approval of Minutes Chair Smith stated he had a couple of amendments. On Page 7, last paragraph, change "a rgued" to "asked whether." The Motion on Page 19 should read: "That the Board convene into Executive Session for legal advice pursuant to Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R .S." Motion: APPROVE THE MAY 14, 2008 MINUTES AS AMENDED, Action: Approve, Moved by Carson Green, Seconded by Douglas Cohn. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes= 4, No= 0, Abstain= 1 ). Yes: Carson Green, Douglas Cohn, John Smith 111, Sue Purdy. Absent: David Sprecace, Marcia O'Brien. Abstain: Miodrag Budisa • • • ~ 5. Staff's Choice Mr. Bell stated the continued case will be heard at the July 9 meeting. The sign was on th e wrong property and was posted at the incorrect height. 6 . Board Member's Choice Mr. Cohn stated that Mr. Curnow asked for a rehearing; he asked how the Board would proceed. Chair Smith stated that would be part of the Executive Session discussion sin ce it concerns potential litigation. 7. Attorney's Choice Motion: That the Board convene into Executive Session for legal advice pursuant to Section 24-6-402(4)(b ), C.R.S., Action: Adjourn, Moved by Carson Green, Seconded by Douglas Cohn. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 5 ). Yes: Carson Green, Douglas Cohn, John Smith 111, Miodrag Budisa, Sue Purdy . Absent: David Sprecace, Marcia O'Brien. The Board convened into Executive Session at 7:45 p.m . The Chair reconvened the re gular session at 8:00 p.m. Chair Smith stated all members present before the Executive Session were still in attendance. As a result of the discussions, the City Attorney will provide th e Board with a memorandum on Motions to Reconsider. Ms. Reid reminded Board members that ex parte communications ar e not p e rmitted . An y evidence and/or testimony is to be received at a public hearing. All conversations n ee d to be on the record. ~ 8 . Adjourn There was no further business brought before the Board. The regular m eeting was declared adjourned at 8:15 p.m .