Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-14 BAA MINUTES) . • • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO DECEMBER 14, 1988 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, George, Lighthall, Waldman, Shaffer, Dunn and Welker. Members absent: None. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor. Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector. The Chairman stated that with seven members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. He said the Board is au- thorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN . Board Member Dunn seconded the motion. A 11 seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes for November 9, 1988, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #24-88 BE AP- PROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member George seconded the motion. A 11 seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact for Case #24-88 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #25-88. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #25-88, an appeal by Burt Chevrolet. The Chairman stated he had proof of publishing and posting and asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Romans Assistant Director of Community Development was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to add one sign in addition to the five permitted, and to in- crease the permitted sign area from 750 square feet to 855 square feet . This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4- - 1 - • • 19-10 A, Permitted Maximum Number (of signs) and 16-4-19-10 B, Permitted Maximum Sign Area . The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. A. J. Guane 11 a 6100 South Rosewood was sworn in for testimony. He said that Burt Chevrolet had been chosen for a GEO franchise, and that in order to secure the franchise, GEO would require a sign. Burt Chevrolet had tried to arrange to replace an exist- ing Chevrolet sign with the required GEO sign, and was told by Craig S. Osell of Chevrolet that the dealership rules would not permit such re- placement, and that no combination of signs was possible. Burt Chevrolet was further told that if they could not provide the required signage, they would not be eligible to order GEO cars. A separate sign is re- quired for each make of car sold by an automobile dealer. Mr. Guanella said that Burt Chevrolet had recently entered into an agree - ment with the City to bring their signs into compliance in 1991; however, that was before they had been offered the GEO franchise. He said that, in his opinion, an additional franchise would be good for both the City and Burt Chevrolet. Discussion followed . Lloyd G. Chavez 3906 South Pinehurst Court was sworn in for testimony. He agreed with the Board that the require- ment for separate signage is very dictatorial, and said it is also very expensive. He noted the phrase in the letter from Mr. Osell stating "if you do not comply with these operating standards, you will not be eligible to order GEO vehicles." Mr. Chavez said they could lose the franchise for the GEO cars if they do not meet GEO' s signage require- ments. He said that if the various franchises held by Burt Chevrolet were divided, they would be permitted a much larger number of signs; Burt Chevrolet is penalized by being under one ownership. He said they would meet the sign code of Englewood if General Motors would permit them to do so. He said the requested sign has been sealed down from the ori gi na l request of GEO. They are going to be allowed to combine showrooms. He emphasized it would not be in the City's interest or Burt's to lose the franchise for the GEO cars. There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record and closed the public hearing. Discussion followed as to the special circumstanc- es of a new line of automobiles being added. Modifications of the request were discussed. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO PERMIT ONE SIGN IN ADDITION TO THE FIVE PERMITTED, AND TO INCREASE THE PERMITTED SIGN AREA FROM 750 SQUARE FEET TO 855 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-19-10 A, PERMITTED MAXIMUM NUMBER (OF SIGNS) AND 16 -4-19-10 B, PERMITTED MAXIMUM SIGN AREA. • Ms . Dunn seconded the motion. - 2 - • • • BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITION: IN 1991 THE TOTAL SIGN AREA OF THE BURT DEALERSHIP SHALL CON- FORM TO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD SIGN CODE. Ms. Dunn seconded the amendment. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the motion was amended to read: THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO PERMIT ONE SIGN IN ADDITION TO THE FIVE PERMIT- TED, AND TO INCREASE THE PERMITTED SIGN AREA FROM 750 SQUARE FEET TO 855 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SEC- TION 16-4-19-10 A, PERMITTED MAXIMUM NUMBER (OF SIGNS) AND 16-4-19-10 B, PER- MITTED MAXIMUM SIGN AREA. IN 1991 THE TOTAL SIGN AREA OF THE BURT DEALERSHIP SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD SIGN CODE. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said he would like to see the GEO franchise come to Englewood, and that with the amendment, he voted "yes". Ms. George voted for the amended motion because no problems will be created by the additional sign area in view of the amount of frontage Burt has on both Centennial and Broadway. Ms. Lighthall voted against the motion because there did not seem to be any special circumstances to justify the variance and, in her opinion, the variance would weaken the ordinance. She said she is unwilling to allow the Englewood Sign Code to be dictated by General Motors . Ms. Dunn said that she voted for the motion because the sign area will be in compliance in 1991, and granting the variance would be best for Burt Chevrolet and Englewood. Ms. Shaffer said she voted for the motion because there seem to be special circumstances and the variance will not injure other properties. Mr. Waldman said he voted for the variance because there are special circum- stances peculiar to this business and, in his opinion, the regulations will not be weakened, nor the character of the area altered. Mr. Welker concurred. When the votes were displayed, six members had voted for the amended motion, and one member, Ms. Lighthall, had voted against it . The Chairman stated the motion, as amended, was approved, and the variance was granted. A recess was declared at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with the same persons present . The Chairman again noted that with seven members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant a variance or appeal . He stated that in an appeal the staff presents its case first and then the appellant is allowed to present his case . The Chairman asked that the staff identify the request . - 3 - • • • Dorothy Romans Assistant Director of Community Development stated that the applicant, Thomas Dittemore, was requesting an appeal from the decision of the Chief Building Inspector that facilities for the physically handicapped must be provided to Space #3 at 2875 South Santa Fe, which is currently being remodeled for Rocky Mountain Sales. This is an appeal from the following sections of the Uniform Building Code. 1. Section 3301 (e), Building Accessibility. 2. Table 33-A, Minimum Egress and Access Requirements. 3. Section 3307, Ramps. Gary Yoder Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the contention of the appli- cant is that the building at 2875 South Santa Fe is a warehouse, and he agreed that some of it is; however, when plans were submitted for this project, they were submitted for office space and two areas described as showrooms. Offices and showrooms require handicap ramps and restrooms. Prior to issuance of the Plan Review summary, Mr. Yoder called ICBO, ex- plained the use and size and ICBO agreed that the handicap access is re- quired. There are no distinctions made between wholesale and retail uses; handicap access, in his opinion and that of the ICBO, is required for both. The contractor was notified of the requirement for handicap access, he opted to continue with the project knowing that if the appeal were denied he would have to install the ramp. Mr. Yoder noted that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy has been gran- ted. The restrooms do meet the handicap requirements . Susan Borgos 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1000 was sworn in for testimony. She said she is an attorney representing Gart Brothers. She said that meeting the access requirements would cost $7500, and this is a great deal of money to spend for a very low paying lease . The building is being leased by Gart and Hagen and is used mostly for storage. Gart intends to break up the building for various lessees. The Rocky Mountain Sales is primarily a one-man operation with a floater secretary. Most business is done away from the building or on the road. Once in a while a dealer will come over to see some merchandise, but the exhibit area is not for the public. In three weeks, two buyers went into the office. The shoes are on racks so the tenant can see the stock. Ms. Borgos said that, 98% of the time if a client wants to see merchandise, the sales person loads the car and takes the merchandise to the buyer. Ms. Borgos said that there is no public use, and the handicap require- ments should not be demanded. She referred to the Uniform Building Code and stated that her interpretation was that an area that is primarily warehousing with some wholesale sales does not require handicap access. She said that new tenants are being recruited, and a handicap ramp could be negotiated if it becomes necessary. She said the current tenant's rent is so low there will be no profit on it for a year, and a handicap ramp would make that situation worse . -4 - • • • Ms. Lighthall said it would be difficult to assure that with a new tenant the handicap access requirement would be met unless further building per- mits were taken. Ms. Borgos said that in a 11 1ike1 i hood the next use would be for warehousing, which would not require the ramp. Thomas L. Dittemore 6424 South Everett Way was sworn in for testimony. He said that when the drawings were submit- ted for a building permit, the rooms labeled as showrooms were probably misnamed. He said he had met the restroom requirements because it was easy to do so, but the ramp would have to be 45 feet with three loops and would extend into the parking lot. Richard Sapkin 1900 East Girard He said that the lease for Space #3 lists warehouse use. The plan is that the two buildings will be retail on the corners and will be leased for ten years, and this space has been planned just as a warehouse. The building is not suitable for retail or public access . The tenants are likely to be vendors who will sell to retailers. In his opinion there is a monumental difference between wholesale and retail use. He said that if the variance were granted for this lessee , when new leases are ar- ranged, the ramp could be negotiated, and the ramp installed, if neces- sary. He emphasized that there is little traffic in the building. The representatives seldom come in as they use their homes as office and spend 90% of their time on the road. Mr. Sapkin also noted that the Englewood/Littleton Sanitation facility which is in the neighborhood pre- cludes retail sales . Gary Yoder returned for testimony. He said that he had discussed the use with the ICBO. There is no difference in the Code between wholesale or retail. This is new space, and every future space created in the building is going to have to meet the same standards. It is true, he said that ware- houses may have a small office, but the present case has two showrooms as well, as described on the plans submitted, and as constructed. Mr. Sapkin said that this space is the lessee's warehouse for shipping and receiving for several states. Ms. Borgos referred to the chart in the UBC, noting warehousing and retailing as different classes, and the warehouse not required to provide handicap access. Mr . Yoder said it is his duty to classify the project as to occupancy. In his op1n1on, based on years of experience, and in the opinion of the ICBO, this facility requires handicap access. Mr. Sapkin said that the showrooms appear to be nicer than they need to be, but Avia dictates that all warehouse facilities must have an area in which to dis- play their shoes. -5 - • • • There was no further testimony. The Staff Report was made part of the record, and the Chairman closed the public hearing . BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #26-88, THE APPLICANT, THOMAS DITTE- MORE, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT FACILITIES FOR THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED MUST BE PROVIDED TO SPACE #3 AT 2875 SOUTH SANTA FE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING REMODELED FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN SALES. THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. 1. SECTION 3301 (e), BUILDING ACCESSIBILITY. 2. TABLE 33-A, MINIMUM EGRESS AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. 3. SECTION 3307, RAMPS. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO PERMIT THE APPEAL TO APPLY ONLY TO THIS USE. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on the amendment, all members voted in favor. BOARD MEMBER WELKER MOVED TO NAME ROCKY MOUNTAIN SALES AS THE ONLY TENANT TO WHOM THIS APPEAL WOULD APPLY. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion . Upon the call for a vote on the motion, all members voted in favor. Discussion followed as to whether the classification was correct, and the power of the Board, which is no greater than that of the Building Official, and whose decision must be based on the same restrictions that the Building Official must meet. The members locked in their votes on the motion as twice amended, and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour stated there is danger that the use will expand as a display area, and he voted against granting the appeal. Ms. George said that she had voted against the appeal, noting that financial considerations are not part of justification for granting an appeal. Ms. Lighthall voted for the motion, saying that in her opinion there is a mis- classification of the space. Ms. Dunn voted for the motion, saying she saw no harm in granting the appeal because there is no over-the-counter selling. Ms. Shaffer said she voted against the motion because the use is not clearly defined and the decision of the Chief Building Inspector should, therefore, be upheld . Mr. Waldman stated that he had voted for the motion because the facility will be, by function, a warehouse, and is not accessible to the public. - 6 - • • • Mr. Welker said that the intent of the code is not to preclude use of the handicapped of space used for sales. He said the code would be weakened if the applicant were not required to provide such access. He said he had voted against the motion. When the votes were displayed, three members, Lighthall, Dunn, and Waldman, had voted for the motion; and four, Seymour, George, Shaffer and Welker had voted against it. The Chairman ruled the appeal was denied, and handicap ac- cess would have to be provided. When Ms. Borgos asked for a time period to comply, Mr. Welker referred her to the Chief Building Inspector. There were no comments from the Director or the Board and the meeting adjour- ned at 10:00 p.m. S~ding Secretary I - 7 -