Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-08 BAA MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES JULY 8, 2009 [tlJ 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Smith presiding. 2. Roll Call Present: John Smith 111 , Marcia O 'Brien (e ntered at 7:10), Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, David Sprecace, Miodrag Budisa, Staff-Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid (Not voting), Staff-CD Planner Brook Bell (Not voting), Jordan May, alternate (Not voting). Absent/Excused: Sue Purdy . 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 111 , Section 60 of the Englewood City Charter. Variances granted 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 appea l 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 be given an opportunity to speak; opponents will address the Board ; and then staff will address the Board. Staff w ill give a preliminary overview of the variance before testimony is taken. [tlJ 3. Public Hearing: Case #VAR2009-003 Stacy Fuchs, Bristol Group 139 West Hampden Avenue • • • Chair Smith stated he had proof of posting and publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to erect banners on 17 light poles within a parking lot. This is a variance to Section 16-6-13 :G.1.b of the Englewood Municipal Code. Brook Bell, Planner was sworn in. Mr. Bell presented a brief overview of the request and the property. The property is zoned MU-B-1 ; approximately 8 ac res ; contains 98,000 square feet of retail space; and has approximately 2,000 lineal feet of street frontage. The proposed banners will be located within the interior parking field of the shopping center. Chair Smith stated for the record that Ms. O'Brien was present; therefore, five affirmative votes are needed to grant a variance. Joe Wicks, 2121 Newton Street was sworn in. Mr. Wicks stated he works for DPC, which manages Englewood Market Place, and is filling in for Stacy Fuchs who is un ab le to atte nd due to living out of state. They have met with the City over the past few years in an attempt to develop a plan to entice new tenants. Mr. Wicks testified that banners will create better visibility, add color, new life, and energize the Center. A San Fran cisco designer created the banner designs presented to the Board . Mr. Wicks addressed the four variance criteria. Visibility of the property is restricted by the trees and City-owned park site. The buildings are set back from the street creating further visibility problems in addition to two standalone buildings surrounding the property. The banner designs are very professional and will enhance the property in a ne at, professional, tasteful manner. The banners will be constructed of top quality materials. Th e banners are contained within the property and are specific to En g lewood Marketplace. The banners will be mounted on the Center's parking lot poles within the perimeter and will not be a visual problem to adjacent properties. Mr. Wicks testified that the banners will be a great asset to the property and will entice new tenants. [/lJ Mr. Sprecace asked how often the banners would be replaced . Mr. Wicks acknowledged; the area is vulnerable to weather; however, there is a budget for maintenance and replacement. The banners will be replaced on an "as needed" basis. Mr. Cohn stated the Broadway banners have a life expectancy of approximately two years. Mr. Wicks stated he anticipates the owner will replace the banners a minimum of once a year, depending on fading and wear. Chair Smith asked the applicant about the proposed 6-month time limitation and the suggested time frame. Mr. Wicks responded; the project has been in process for over a year, and the owner would like to put the banners up as soon as possible if the variance is approved. They are, however, open to different time frames. The submitted banner design is suitable for any season . • • • Mr. Bell stated the variance request was forwarded to seven departments. A typographical error is located on page 3 of the staff report. Under criterion one, the first sentence of the con should read : "The Englewood Market Place property has two joint identification signs that identify the commercial development as a whole, while identifying each individual tenant." Chair Smith pointed out the citation on page 2 should be "16-6-13.G.1" fl] Mr. Green asked about the effect on other properties . If the Board grants the variance, will other businesses be coming forward requesting variances to mount banners on light poles. Mr. Bell responded; the City has not received a lot of requests for pole banners; enforcement is an issue, however. Many of the banners currently in place are without a permit. There are banners that are permitted, such as short-term advertising banners, as outlined in the staff report. The banners within the Business Improvement District and across Broadway are permitted by Code. With regards to banners, Mr. Bell stated the City does not typically see such a coordinated effort as the current proposal. Mr. Cohn stated that from Cherokee Street the shopping center is not visible. There are five trees along US 285 by Denny's that screen out Millennium Bank and Beirut Grill. Mr. Green asked if staff foresaw any potential disputes if the banners are not replaced as they become worn. Mr. Bell responded that in this particular case, he believes tattered banners would not constitute good business. If it became a problem, there are provisions in the Code which address maintenance. Chair Smith asked if the banners could be considered under a different portion of the Sign Code if they were made of wood or metal. Mr. Brook stated the banners would still not be permitted due to number of signs, square footage, location of signs, etc. Mr. Cohn asked if the banners could be considered suspended signs rather than banners. Mr. Bell stated the definition for a suspended sign is a sign suspended from the ceiling of an arcade or marquee, which is typically an architectural feature on a building. Mr. Cohn stated the Urban Land Institute noted in their presentation last Fall that the area between CityCenter and Broadway is a parking lot wasteland and it needs to be "spiffed up." The variance request is a step in that direction. Mr. Green asked if the City would prefer to have a condition placed on the variance for upkeep and maintenance. Mr. Bell stated a maintenance condition could provide some value. Chair Smith stated placing a condition on the variance, such as "maintain good condition" provides a lot of discretion to the City to decide whether or not the banners are • • • in "good condition ." That can lead to a lot of discrimination since there are no absolute standards to measure the condition. Mr. Cohn asked for clarification on signs that are set back from the public right-of-way. Mr. Bell stated the intent is to provide larger signage for a building that is set back from the right-of-way. That provision is for signs on the building, not ground signs. The Code recognizes that buildings set back farther are at a disadvantage. ltll 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. Ms. O'Brien sta ted the banners are a visual enhancement, and there are economic incentives for the property owner to keep the banners well maintained. She does not believe a time limitation is necessary. Mr. Green agreed; he drove through the property and it is bare and open. The banners would be more attractive for tenants and pedestrians . There are other similar properties with light poles in the immediate vicinity, and his concern is whether or not those businesses will want banners. Ms. O'Brien stated it would be great if other businesses wanted to follow suit. It is the le ast expensive method for the City to break up the dull, barren parking lots. Mr. Cohn agreed. Motion: THAT VARIANCE 2009-003 , 139 WEST HAMPDEN AVENUE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ERECT TWO BANNERS MEASURING 2 FEET BY 8 FEET ON SEVENTEEN LIGHT POLES WITHIN THE ON-SITE PARKING LOT. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-6-13 :G.1.b. Moved by Marcie O'Brien, Seconded by Carson Green. Mr. Green voted yes. There are special circumstances for the property. Visibility from both primary streets is obstructed by trees and the park. Because the banners will be located within the property boundaries, they will not weaken the Ordinance. The specific business signage will still be permitted. The banners will not alter the character of the district; they will enhance the parking lot and improve the draw for future businesses and the retainability of current tenants. The variance will not adverse ly affect surrounding properties; the banners will enhance visibility of the properties. Mr. Sprecace voted yes; the trees restrict visibility and the buildings are set back from the primary streets surrounding it. The banners are permanent not temporary . • Mr. Cohn voted yes, and noted that banners are permitted by Code in the South Broadway Business Improvement District. Now there will be two locations. Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Budisa, and Chair Smith voted yes, concurring with Messrs. Green, Sprecace, and Cohn. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 6). Yes: John Smith 111, Marcia O'Brien, Douglas Cohn, Carson Green, David Sprecace, Miodrag Budisa. The Chair instructed the applicant to contact staff for any additional or necessary information. [(] 4. Staff's Choice Mr. Bell stated there is one case scheduled for August 12. 5. Attorney's Choice • Ms. Reid had nothing further. • 6. Board Member's Choice Mr. Sprecace stated he would not be in attendance at the August meeting. Mr. Cohn informed the Board of a new business and invited the Board to Englewood Days on August 29. [(] 7. Adjourn There was no further business brought before the Board. The regular meetin g was declared adjourned at 7:55 p .m . .._ . ' I