Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-08 BAA MINUTES• • • BOARD OF ADJ USTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO AP RIL 8, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Ap- peals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Seymour, Hallagin, Fish, Lighthall, Doyle and Welker. Brown. Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Susan Hirsch, Senior Planner Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I Chairman Welker stated that there was a quorum of six members, and five affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of March 11, 1987, were to be considered for approval. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 1987, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Ms Lighthall seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all six members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes were approved as amended. III. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES #6-87 AND #8-87 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Mr. Fish seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all six members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the Findings were approved as written. * * * * * IV. Public Hearings. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #9-87, for prop- erty located at 2767 South Tejon Street. He stated that he had proof of publication and that posting was not necessary for an - 1 - • • • appeal. He asked that the staff identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, Robert Peel, for Peel Beauty Supplies, was appealing the decision of the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed application of a cavity shaft wall to the exterior sides of two walls of · an existing building does not comply with the regulations of the Uniform Building Code. This is an appeal from the Uniform Building Code, Section 504b and Table SA, which regulate the fire-resistance of exterior walls, and the protection of openings within those walls. Section 504b of the Uniform Building Code and Table 5A require that, for the proposed use of the building, the fire resistance of exterior walls must be rated at one hour if the wall is less than 20 feet from the property line. The Chairman asked that Gary Yoder, the Chief Building Inspector, explain the case. Gary Yoder was sworn in for testimony. He said it is the City's position that the existing building's south and west walls are ten feet from the property line. The B-2 re- quires one-hour fire-resistant walls if the walls are less than 20 feet from the property line. The building square footage al- lowable in a 5N Building (which is the least fire-resistive al- lowed in the Building Code) is 8,000 square feet. The building does have a fire sprinkler system which allows for an increase in square footage to approximately 21,000 square feet, considering the two stories. The sprinkler system would allow that increase in square footage over the minimum of the Code. The sprinkler system does not alleviate the one-hour fire resistive construc- tion requirement for the walls which are only 10 feet from the property line, although it would do so if the building were no larger than 8,000 square feet. A permit was issued for this building to be remodeled; one of the stipulations of the permit was that the owner was to install a one-hour fire-resistive wall on the south and west walls prior to the building's being completed. The owner's representative brought in a design to protect those two walls. This design is from the Gypsum Association, and it relates only to shaft walls (an elevator or duct shaft which penetrates floors) . It has never been tested with the intent of protecting exterior walls. The proposed application is also to be applied from the exterior with no consideration of protecting the steel columns on the in- terior walls of the building. There is plenty of room around the building to work on it to ap- ply a complete one-hour fire-resistive system on the walls, in- cluding the structural steel members. Mr. Yoder rejected the proposal, primarily because it was not a protection of the struc- tural members, and because it was using a tested shaft wall as- sembly for an exterior wall protection. Mr. Seymour asked if the windows or overhead door required any special treatment. Mr. Yoder said they did not because they are ten feet from the property line . - 2 - • • • In response to a question from Ms. Lighthall, Mr. Yoder said he did not know how much additional cost would be involved in meet- ing the requirements of the U.B.C. Mr. Yoder said the remodeling was complicated by the fact that some things were done by the previous owners that were not done under permit. There is a two-story office in the front. Part of the second story was to be used as a demonstration room. Based on the use of the two floors, the occupant load was substantial. It required the separation of the off ice area from the warehouse and provision of stairwell protection and new stairways. There was no substantial work done in the warehouse area, most was con- fined to the remodeling and moving of some walls in the office area. There had been some things that did not meet Code, and the more intensive occupant use exacerbated the problem. Mr. Welker asked if a Building Permit was issued. Mr. Yoder said a permit was issued on February 2, 1987. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued dependent on the Board's decision. After a decision is rendered by the Board, a time schedule should be arranged to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant stipulates that the work will be done by August 30. This seems a reasonable time, especially if inside work must be completed. After some discussion of the time period to be allowed, there were no more questions of Mr. Yoder. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony . Patrick Cashen, 4155 East Jewell, Denver, was sworn in for tes- timony. He said he is the architect employed by Mr. Peel. The owner of the building does not have a problem with meeting the one-hour fire-resistive requirement for the two exterior walls. They have filed an appeal to find a reasonable solution to an existing problem in an existing building. He said he and Mr. Peel see this application as conforming to the spirit of the Code, if not the letter. It does try to provide a one-hour fire- resistive exterior wall, even though the process has not really been tested for the proposed use. There does not exist a tested, satisfactory method to deal with this type of pre-engineered building. This hampers their efforts to work on older buildings. Other jurisdictions in the metropolitan area have approved this technique for retrofitted installations and new installations. The problem is fire-proofing the interior steel columns. This is a fully-sprinkled building. If the fire were on the outside of the building; the installation they proposed would, in his opinion, protect the building from the exterior. If the fire were on the inside of the building, the sprinklers would protect the building. Mr. Cashen continued, saying that construction of the building includes steel columns and steel roof beams which are bolted or welded together. If there were a fire in the building, protec- tion of the columns would probably not make a great deal of dif- ference in whether the building would remain standing or not. The roof str ucture is not rated. If there were a fire in the - 3 - • • • building, the roof would probably collapse, making the columns unimportant. It is hoped that the sprinkler system would be able to contain any minor fire . Mr. Cashen said that one of the reasons for applying the fire- protection from the outside only is that it would be difficult _to work from inside the building. There are conduits, pipes, and building equipment located on the inside of the existing walls. It would be difficult to work around these obstructions. A prac- tical and reasonable approach would, in his opinion, be something that could be done totally from the outside. The shaft wall being proposed can be applied from the outside, but qualifies for a fire rating from the outside and the inside. Mr. Cashen said the use of the building has not changed substan- tially. The current owner is using the building in much the same way the building was originally approved. There is no occupancy listing on the original building permit or subsequent remodels or repairs, but it was used as an office/warehouse, which is how the present owner is using the building. Mr. Cashen said that the date for completion of the building was made August 30 because it takes four to six weeks to order materials. He said that the proposal would provide a higher de- gree of safety than has previously existed in the building; and, in his opinion, the use has not changed substantially from the use of the building for the last 25 years • Mr. Seymour asked if it is possible to make both the outside and inside walls one-hour fire-resistive. Mr. Cashen said it is pos- sible, but expensive. It would be possible to put a concrete block wall 6 to 8 inches thick, which would involve a new founda- tion system. The interior steel columns would probably require gypsum board to be attached to the steel columns, and this would not protect the horizontal beams which the columns are support- ing, and this seems unnecessary. Mr. Fish asked for an explanation of a cavity shaft wall. Mr. Cashen said that it is designed for use in high rise buildings for elevators. Steel studs are placed on the floor at the edge of the openings and run from the floor to the ceiling above. Gypsum panels are placed on these steel studs and all of the work can be done from the floor itself. It's a simple method to pro- vide a one-hour wall when you only have easy access to one side of a wall. Mr. Fish asked about the use of the building. Mr. Cashen said there is no processing. This is a warehouse for beauty supplies, with a wholesale sales area. There is a two story part in the middle of the building which is freestanding from the exterior walls. This has gypsum wall covering, and is carpeted, and ful- ly-sprinkled. The warehouse part is metal with exposed steel framing, with some exterior panels. The steel framing is visible, but there are pipes, shelving, and conduit along the outside walls. The shelving was not there when the present owner bought the property. - 4 - • • • Mr. Cashen said the owner is willing to provide the one-hour fire-resistive wall, the difficulty is how this is to be accom- plished. Mr. Cashen described the construction of the building as a series of u-shaped frames supporting the building. There are horizontal z-shaped angles applied outside the column at the base, mid-height and top of the column where the roof is. To those horizontal pieces the exterior panels are attached. They propose to remove the metal panels, provide some support for the steel studs which form the shaft wall assembly, put the gypsum panels in the shaft wall assembly, and then put the original steel exterior skin back on the building. Mr. Welker asked if a concrete block wall could be inserted in that space. Mr. Cashen said this would be difficult and would entail moving or working around a great deal of piping and con- duit. You would also have to work around the z-shaped angles. He did not know if they could be removed and replaced by the con- crete wall. In the application they are not proposing to do any- thing to protect the columns which, in their opinion, is not necessary since the roof would collapse in the case of a major fire, and the sprinkler system should contain small ones. It would be difficult to install drywall on the inside. Solutions other than the one proposed are very expensive. There were no further questions. Tom Groves, 790 Heavywood Court, Highlands Ranch, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Groves said that they purchased the building for $325,000 and have spent $55,000 in remodeling, which was un- expected. The $55,000 was in direct relationship to the inter- pretation of the Uniform Building Code. While Mr. Groves sup- ports the U. B. c., he feels that there is room for interpreta- tions other than the one supported by Mr. Yoder. The previous use of the building was manufacturing, with paint booths and toxic materials, welding materials, cranes and heavy equipment. Their business is wholesale beauty supply; they store, warehouse and ship shampoo and conditioner. There is no heavy equipment. There is a two-story office complex in the building. They use the lower part for a showroom. They have 30-35 customers come into the showroom about once a week. They are strictly wholesalers. The entire second floor is a furniture showroom and an area used for sales meetings once a month for a half day. Mr. Graves said that due to the fact that they had an interpretation of the U. B. C. that the building had changed uses, they were thrown into another category of fire protection requirements--- extra exits and extra lights. Extensive expenses have been in- curred unexpectedly. While the applicants wish to meet the re- quirements, it is their opinion that the building can be pro- tected as proposed, and the cost incurred by meeting the require- ments as interpreted by Mr. Yoder would be double and would not be of any use in adding protection to the building. Mr. Graves said he has been told that meeting the requirements as inter- preted by Mr. Yoder would cost about $40,000 . - 5 - • • • Ms. Lighthall asked when the building was used for manufacturing. Mr. Groves thought it was used that way until 1986. Ms. Ligh- thall asked how long the present Code had been in effect. Mr. Groves did not know. There were no further questions. There were no further speakers who wished to speak for or against the appeal. Mr. Fish asked that Mr. Yoder return for some questions . Mr. Fish asked whether Mr. Yoder agrees that the protection of the columns is irrelevant since the ceiling beams would not be protected. Mr. Yoder says that the U. B. c. addresses the re- quirements for fire-resistance on exterior walls in several places. The u. B. c. is very explicit about uses and distances and what the requirements are. The sprinkler system is in the building only to allow the additional square footage over the Code. The Code in Section 508 specifically states the sprinkler system shall not be used to alleviate exterior fire wall protec- tion when it is required for the allowance of the square footage. Fire protection for exterior walls is two-fold, inside and out- side. A fire could occur on either side; protection must be on both sides. Before deadline on this case Mr. Yoder called the architects and said that if they were willing to wrap the columns, protect them in one hour fire-resistive wrapping, he would accept this. From a building point of view, the columns must be addressed because they are the structural members of the walls. He has not heard from the architect as to whether this would be acceptable to the applicant • Ms. Lighthall asked why the roof was not addressed. Mr. Yoder said that the walls will be damaged first, and roofs are not ad- dressed by the code. Ms. Lighthall asked why the previous owners had been able to function. Mr. Yoder said there had been no Cer- tificate of Occupancy for the property. It had not been inspec- ted, apparently, during the building process or since. Now that the City is aware of a problem, the Codes must be enforced. Mr. Doyle asked what the Fire Department said. Mr. Yoder said the Fire Department is training inspectors, and they are checking all buildings. They are not always aware of Building Codes. He said the Fire Department would not have permitted a spray booth at this location if it had been known that one existed. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record, and asked if the staff had any further comments. There were none. Mr. Groves asked to make a final comment. He said that his prod- ucts are not dangerous, and that his building is only two blocks from the Fire Department. He said the bottom line is the dif- ference between $20,000 and $40,000. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT THE PROPOSED APPLICATION OF A CAVITY SHAFT WALL TO THE EXTERIOR SIDES OF TWO -6 - • •• • WALLS OF AN EXISTING BUILDING DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULA- TIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, SECTION 504B AND TABLE 5A, WHICH REGULATE THE FIRE-RESISTANCE OF EXTERIOR WALLS, AND THE PROTECTION OF OPENINGS WITHIN THOSE WALLS. SECTION 504B OF THE UNIFORM BUILD- ING CODE AND TABLE 5A REQUIRE THAT, FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE BUILDING, THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF EXTERIOR WALLS MUST BE RATED AT ONE HOUR IF THE WALL IS LESS THAN 20 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. Discussion followed. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour said he voted "no" as there seems to be a solution to this problem and they can work it out. Mr. Hallagin said the safety requirements must be considered, and it appears that something can be worked out with Mr. Yoder, so he voted against the appeal. Mr. Fish said the applicant did not adequately support a hardship in wrapping the internal columns. Ms. Lighthall voted "no", believing a solution can be reached between the owner .and Mr. Yoder . Mr. Doyle said the Building Code must be substantially met, and Mr. Peel and Mr. Yoder can come to a solution. Mr. Welker voted "no" because the Board cannot grant an appeal solely because of financial hardship. The Building Code would be damaged if not upheld, and alternatives can be worked out. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted in op- position to the appeal, and the Chairman ruled the appeal was denied. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #10-87. He said he had proof of posting and publication, and asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Andrews Romans, Staff Advisor, was sworn in for testimo- ny. She stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of six-foot high solid wood fences along the front and side property lines on South Lincoln Street and on East Bates Avenue. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-17 c (1), which states that fences erec- ted in front of the building line in residential districts shall not exceed a height of three feet, six inches; and Section 16.4- 17 c (4), which states that in the yard abutting a public right- - 7 - • • • of-way on corner lots, side yard fences shall not exceed a height of three feet, six inches and cannot be of solid construction • The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Judith A. Leach, 3643 East Lake Drive, Littleton, was sworn in for testimony. She stated she wants fences around the duplex she owns to create privacy for her tenants. She submitted Exhibits I and II, showing the placement of the fences. The west side of the property has a chain link fence, but the east side of the property has no fence on the south side. She planned to install a fence from the garage along the driveway, along the sidewalk and back to the building along the front porch. This would pro- vide privacy and security. Ms. Leach submitted Exhibit III showing a similar fence on Sher- man and Bates. Mr. Hal lag in expressed concern about the vision triangle for traffic approaching the intersection. Ms. Leach said the side- walk is not a curb sidewalk and the fence would be 7 feet from the curb on one side and 5 feet on the other side. Mr. Hallagin said, in his opinion, the view of traffic would be obscured. Ms. Lighthall said that the house on Sherman and Bates meets the code because it is in back of the front building line. The pro- posed fence would not meet the code. Mr. Welker asked if Ms. Leach had considered other options. Ms. Leach said she had con- sidered a triangle, or placing the fence further back. This would, however, waste a large portion of the lawn. There were no further questions, and no one else asked to speak for or against the variance. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record and asked if the staff had anything further to add. Mrs. Romans said that Section 16.5-14 requires 300 feet of clearance on a corner lot. The staff is opposed to the six foot wooden fence, as pro- posed, because it would have at least three locations where some- one could stand behind the solid wooden fence and approach pedestrians. In the staff's opinion, this variance would obstruct motorists' views and would present a hazard to pedestrians. A 42-inch, conforming fence would contain children, and most yards do not have absolute privacy. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111-121 EAST BATES AVENUE, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF SIX-FOOT HIGH SOLID WOOD FENCES ALONG THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES ON SOUTH LINCOLN STREET AND ON EAST BATES AVENUE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.4-17 c (1), WHICH STATES THAT FENCES EREC- TED IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LINE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF THREE FEET, SIX INCHES; AND SECTION 16.4- 17 c (4), WHICH STATES THAT IN THE YARD ABUTTING A PUBLIC RIGHT- - 8 - • • • OF-WAY ON CORNER LOTS, SIDE YARD FENCES SHALL NOT EXCEED A HE IGHT OF THREE FEET, SIX INCHES AND CANNOT BE OF SOLID CONSTRUCTI ON • Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour voted against the variance because of the safety concerns. Mr. Hallagin voted against the variance because of the traffic hazard. Mr. Fish said the fence would adversely affect the neighborhood. Ms. Lighthall said the fence would adversely affect the neighbor- hood and would be a traffic hazard. Mr. Doyle voted against the variance for the security of pedestrians and motorists. Mr. Welker voted against the variance because it would be a hazard and the request does not meet any of the five conditions necessary to grant a variance. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted against the variance, and the Chairman ruled the request was denied . The Chairman declared a recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting recon- vened at 9:05 with the same persons present. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #12-87, for prop- erty located at 5460 South Broadway. He said he had proof of publication, and asked that the staff identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler said that the applicant, Burt Toyota, was asking for an appeal to allow installation of 45-minute fire-rated glass in an occupancy separation wall instead of one-hour rated glass as required under the provisions of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, which code is enforced by the Division of Building and Safety. This is an appeal from the application of the 1985 Uni- form Building Code, Section 503 (c) 4, protection of openings in a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation. Walter Groditski, Code Administrator, was sworn in for testimony. He submitted Exhibit I, material from the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Groditski said the applicant wishes to install 45-minute rat- ed glass in a one-hour occupancy separation. The Building De- partment opposes the request because the Code is very specific in requiring one-hour occupancy separation. This deals with Group B occupancy, which in this case, is a retail sales; this occupancy must be separated from the storage area, which is in excess of 1,000 square feet, by a one-hour fire-rated wall, and all open- ings shall be protected by fire assembly which has a one-hour - 9 - • • • fire rating. 45-minute rated glass assembly does not meet the requirement of the Code . Mr. Welker asked if the plans had been discussed with the appli- cant. Mr. Groditski said the applicants would like the storage area to be visible from the sales area. Their contention is the cost of compliance is excessive. The original plans showed no openings in the wall. Mr. Doyle asked if this was a new building. Mr. Groditski said the second floor was at one time simply storage, with no access by the public. The remodel involves separating a section of that for the sales of parts to the public. The Building Code requires the separation of the sales and storage by a one hour fire resis- tive wall. The Chairman asked if the applicant would come forward for tes- timony. Charles Kramer, 2903 East Peakview Circle, Littleton, was sworn in. He stated that the store is one of the best in the nation, currently the largest Toyota parts stocking dealer in the United States. They feel that the warehouse, because of its size and cleanliness and automation would be of great appeal to their customers. A 45-minute rating on the glass assembly would be sufficient for people to exit in case of fire. All the other Codes are being met, and it did not seem to him that 15 minutes were of much importance. The building is not sprinkled. In response to a question from Mr. Welker, Mr. Kramer said the window would be four feet off the floor and 16 feet by 4 feet. This would allow the customers to view the automated carousels. On the east wall they want three 4 by 4 glass sections so the customers can see the large warehouse to the east. The cost for the glass, which is difficult to obtain, is approximately $125 per square foot plus installation. 45-minute glass would be $50 a square foot plus installation. One-hour glass is not really glass, but is a lexan with a clear liquid between two layers. When there is a fire, the liquid turns to something like con- crete, preventing the fire from going through. The 45-minute glass is a wire mesh glass. There were no further questions, and no other persons asked to speak for or against the appeal. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record, and there were no further comments from the staff. The Chairman closed the public hearing for Case #12-87. BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED THAT IN CASE #12-87, BURT TOYOTA, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5460 SOUTH BROADWAY, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF 45-MINUTE FIRE-RATED GLASS IN AN OCCUPANCY SEPARATION WALL INSTEAD OF ONE-HOUR RATED GLASS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, WHICH CODE IS ENFORCED BY THE DIVISION OF BUILDING AND SAFETY. THIS IS AN AP- PEAL FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, SEC- TION 503 ( c) , 4, PROTECTION OF OPENINGS IN A ONE-HOUR FIRE- RESISTIVE OCCUPANCY SEPARATION. -10 - • • • Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion • The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour said this is a matter of safety vs. economics, and he voted against the appeal. Mr. Hallagin voted "no" because conforming glass is available. Mr. Fish said that there is no hardship except for financial. Ms. Lighthall said she would support the integrity of the Build- ing Code. Mr. Doyle the Building Code should be supported, and the appli- cant was aware of the requirements when the building was planned. Mr. Welker said the hardship is purely financial. None of the conditions were met, and the safety of customers could be a problem. When the votes were displayed, all six members voted against the appeal, and the Chairman ruled the appeal denied. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing on Case #13-87. He said he had proof of publication and posting and asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Romans stated that the applicant, David Hartman, was requesting a variance to permit a sign on the wall of the adjoining building at 3986 South Broadway, which sign would be considered to be a third party sign. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16. 4-19-8 k, which lists third-party signs among those prohibited in all zone districts. Mrs. Romans noted that Dr. Bruce Elsey owns the building on the corner and the one to the north. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward. David Hart- man, 2439 Ogden Street, affirmed. He stated that he is the oc- cupant of 3996 South Broadway and was reestablishing an auto re- pair business. To provide information about the new location and services, he has a small sign with the Cat Clinic which is visible for only about a half block. Only his name is on the sign, not the address, the services or the phone number. While there is nothing he can do for traffic approaching from the north, allowing this variance would give him visibility from traffic coming from the south. He has only fifteen feet of frontage. A front sign would destroy the improved atmosphere of the building, and would not be visible, anyway. He asked for 24 square feet of sign area, saying it would be a professionally made sign with his name, address and description of his services . It would be a wall sign extending not more than one foot from the side of the building. -11 - • • • His business is auto repair; he does not do body work and over- hauling of engines. He works mostly on foreign cars. There is plenty of parking. There were no further speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record, and asked if the staff had anything further to add. Mrs. Romans said the staff had no objection to a 24 square foot sign in this instance, but asked that the conditions stated in the staff report be at- tached to any motion. The Chairman closed the public hearing for Case #13-87. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FOR PROP- ERTY LOCATED AT 3996 SOUTH BROADWAY, PERMITTING A SIGN TO BE AT- TACHED TO THE WALL OF THE ADJOINING BUILDING AT 3986 SOUTH BROAD- WAY, WHICH SIGN WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A THIRD PARTY SIGN. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SEC- TION 16.4-19-8 k, WHICH LISTS THIRD-PARTY SIGNS AMONG THOSE PRO- HIBITED IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE IM- POSED: (1) THE SIGN ON THE SOUTH WALL OF THE BUILDING AT 3986 SOUTH BROADWAY SHALL BE NO LARGER THAN 24 SQUARE FEET. (2) THE VARIANCE SHALL BE IN EFFECT ONLY WHILE BOTH BUILDINGS ARE UNDER A SINGLE OWNERSHIP. Board Member Fish seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour said that there is a hardship, and the applicant met all the conditions. Mr. Hallagin voted for the variance because of the hardship. Mr. Fish said granting the variance won't weaken the purpose of the ordinance, impair the district or alter its character, and there is a hardship. Ms. Lighthall voted for the variance, noting the building has been improved, and the Ordinance wouldn't be weakened. Mr. Doyle said there is a hardship and the existing sign is inadequate. Mr. Welker concurred with the rest of the Board. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the variance, with the stated conditions, was granted. * * * * * -12 - • • • v . DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans said that it has been suggested that the Staff Re- ports should explain appeals to the Uniform Fire and Building Codes in lay terms. This has been discussed with the Division of Building and Safety. It is also being suggested that the Divi- sion of Building and Safety give an explanation of the Code be- fore the consideration of each appeal. The Board agreed, except for Mr. Seymour, who did agree that this form of presentation is clearer. Mrs. Romans said that there will be amendments to the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance which will be presented to the Planning Commission on April 21 at 7:00, and she suggested that the Board Members might wish to attend this meeting. VI. BOARD'S CHOICE. Mr. Welker welcomed Mr. Doyle to the Board. Ms. Lighthall said that she is concerned that people come for a variance or an appeal when there is no special reason for grant- ing a variance or appeal. The rest of the Board disagreed, saying it is the applicant's right to have a hearing. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 . Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary -13 -