Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-10 BAA MINUTES• • • . . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO FEBRUARY 10, 1988 ce The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appea 1 s was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, George, Doyle, Lighthall, Waldman, Shaffer and Welker. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 1988, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. A 11 seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of January 9, 1988, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES #27-87, 1-88 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Doyle seconded the motion. A 11 seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Fi ndings were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE #2-88, 4601 South Clarkson Street. Mr. Welker said he resides and owns the property adjoining 4601 South Clarkson Street and would, therefore, step down from the dais during the consideration of this case. He asked Ms. Lighthall to chair this portion of the meeting and left the dais. Ms. Lighthall opened the public hearing for Case #2-88, for applicant John J. Mulcahy . She said she had proof of publication, and that the Board is em- powered to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. The staff was asked to present the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler Planner for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She stated the applicant was requesting an appeal to give relief from the order of Code Enforcement Officer Rusk to remedy code violations as follows: UPC, Section 907E , Installation of plumbing fixtures; UMC, Section 7066, Prohibited sources of circulating - 1 - ' . • • • air; UPC, Section 1309, Prohibited locations of water heaters; EHC, Sec- tion 9-3F-4B, Location for gas-fired water heaters; EHC, Section 9-3A-2, Minimum Ceiling Height. Ms. Rothweiler called the Board's attention to an error in the staff re- port on page 2, where, rather than the basement unit, it should be refer- ring to the rear unit. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. John Mulcahy, 6800 East Tennessee Avenue, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he did not object to the re- quirements for repair which involved health and safety, but there were a great many violations cited which required repairs in a short time. Dif- ficult financial problems were presented, but he said he would try to meet the requirements if he was given a reasonable amount of time. He said he had already begun some of the work, but there were four areas-- the ones addressed in the application--which would be difficult or impos- sible to meet. The most difficult requirement was the seven foot required ceiling height. The houses had been built early in the century, and to comply with this requirement was just not feasible, in the applicant's opinion. The water heater which is installed in the bathroom could be moved out of the bathroom, but there is no where for it to be put. It has been there for over 20 years. Mr. Mulcahy said there might have been a misunderstanding about some of the requirements, and he could meet even some of the four requirements which he is appealing; but he would have to have a variance for the seven foot ceilings. Ms. Lighthall went through the following list of requirements which the Build- ing Inspectors had sent to the applicant, and asked Mr. Mulcahy to state what, if anything, had been done to meet the Inspectors' request. Main Building -First Floor 1. Electrical Service . Mr. Mulcahy said nothing had been done. 2. Fixtures. Mr. Mulcahy said they had been repaired . 3. Inadequate room between the water closet and the bath tub. Mr. Mulcahy said nothing had been done about this. 4. Drains from sink and washer too small. Nothing had been done. 5. Gas range with a copper gas line on the supply side has been repaired. ----. 6. The tile has been repaired. Main Building -Basement 1. Romex wiring has been partially protected. - 2 - • • • 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Splices in the wiring have not been contained in an approved junction box . Fixture at rear door has not been replaced with an approved weather proof fixture. The broken fixture has not been replaced. Fixture in shower has been replaced with an approved fixture for damp locations. The branch circuit fuses had been replaced with proper sized fixtures. Copper gas supply connector has been replaced. The gas line to the kitchen range has been fixed. The gas shutoffs have not been moved. The kitchen sink has not been replaced. The single wa 11 vent from the water heater and furnace have not been moved. 12. The basin drain on wash sink has been connected. 13. The air circulation for the furnace has not been changed . 14. The bathroom floor and wall have been covered with non-absorbent material. 15. The ceiling in the furnace room has been partially completed. 16. The holes in the walls have been repaired. 17. The railings have not been installed. 18. The water leaks have been repaired. 19. Some of the excess storage has been cleared aw~y. 20. The animal excrement has been removed. Rear Unit . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 . 6. The open splices in the service conductor have not been repaired. Branch circuits have been brought up to standard. Extension cords are still being used. The gas piping has not been repaired. The water heater has not been moved. The flue was repaired. - 3 - • • • 7. Same as above . 8. The sagging floor has been repaired partially. 9. Walls have not been made watertight. General 1. The general ceiling height has not been raised. 2. The windows have been made openable. 3. The windows have not been screened. 4. Rainwater has not been redirected. 5. Most of the trash and debris has been removed from the property. 6. Weeds were controlled by the winter. Mr. Mulcahy said that the requirements which he is appealing concern: 1) The distance between facilities in the bathroom, which is a very small bathroom and can only be enlarged by making a bedroom smaller; 2) The furnace intake, which he had not understood; 3) The moving of the water heater; 4) The ceil- ing height. He said that the rear unit does have some portion of the ceiling over seven feet, but to correct this would be major construction, and in the basement, nearly impossible . Mr. Waldman asked about the repairs which had been made. Mr. Mulcahy said he had done some himself, and he had hired licensed people to do others. Some electrical work was done by him, but a licensed electrician would be needed for the rest of the electrical work. There were no other speakers for the request. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers against the request. Carl 4611 Welker South Clarkson Street, was sworn in for testimony. He said that he has lived to the south of the subject property for seven years. Up to 1 1/2 years ago there was only one unit in the main structure, and what is now the kitchen in the lower unit was a back porch. He suggested that the nonconforming use may have lapsed since all three units have not been in use continuously. Mr. Welker described problems with the unit and the recent tenants. He said the trash has not been removed; there are still piles of lumber, ducts, plastic wrapping, carpet, chairs, and garbage, all of which has been there since Fall. Mr. Welker said that the property has deteriorated greatly due to some of the tenants who wrecked the lower unit and the yard. He has called the Community Development Department, the Police, and Animal Control about the situation. The owner had discussed putting up a privacy fence, but that would not end the concern about fire hazards and sanitary cond i - tions. This is, in his opinion, a poorly kept property, and the owner is not controlling the activities of his tenants or screening them. He - 4 - • • • asked that for the safety of the neighborhood, the units be brought into compliance with the Housing Code. He also questioned whether the repairs have been made since the outside things had not been removed. Mr. Doyle said the rear unit did not look habitable. Mr. Welker said it had always been occupied. There is now a single woman living in it. There were no further questions or speakers in opposition. The Chairman asked if Staff had any further comments. Walt Groditski Code Administrator for the City of Englewood was sworn in for testimony. He emphasized that the appeal concerned only four items. The others on the list could be addressed by the Building Division and the owner. He asked Jim Morrison to address the plumbing and mechanical concerns. Jim Morrison Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector for the City of Englewood was sworn in for testimony . He submitted Exhibit I, excerpts from the plumbing and mechanical codes. He said he was concerned about the very crowded conditions in one of the bathrooms, where there is only 1 1/2 inches between each side of the toilet. The tank is not centered and it overhangs the tub. It is difficult to clean around and underneath, and the tank is dangerous if someone should slip in the tub. There is only 29" from the front of the toilet to the end of the tub to enter and exit the tub. Mr. Morrison's next concern was the gas-fired water heaters in the bath- room which is next to a bedroom. If the heaters malfunction, the water heaters use up oxygen from the bedroom. Peop 1 e often hang c 1 othes in bathrooms, increasing the danger. If Public Service Company had seen the existing situation, they would have shut off the gas. Mr. Mulcahy could rectify by installing an electric water heater or a "direct vent" water heater. Mr. Morrison's third concern was the 1 ack of proper air intake in the furnace room. Under the present circumstances a malfunction would spread carbon monoxide through the whole house. This furnace takes air from 103 of the building, which is inefficient and dangerous. In addition, double units are not permitted to exchange air, although this is not necessarily dangerous. Again, Public Service would shut the gas service down for the 103 a i r intake. He said that taking air in from outside would be permissible . Tom Rusk Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. He said he had measured the ceiling height in the two units in the main building. The upper unit ranges from 6'5" to 6'7", and the lower unit ranges between 6 '4" to 6'7". He was unable to enter the rear unit, but estimated that with the sloping ceilings, it might be close to 50% of the area having seven feet of ceiling height . Mr. Doyle observed that this is an old building, and people have been living there for years, and it may be a newer ordinance requiring 7 foot ceilings. -5 - • • • Mr. Rusk said his job is to report. Ceilings less than seven feet high can be dangerous, especially in the basement with duct works hanging below the ceil- ing height. Mr. Groditski returned for testimony. He stated that the Minimum Housing Code is intended to apply to existing structures. The seven foot ceiling require- ment is pretty standard in residences. The intent is to provide habitable space; minimum headroom on stairways and door sizes can be affected by lower ceilings. There is danger that smoke and fire will spread faster and there is some hazard to firemen with lower ceilings. Mr. Waldman asked why only the four issues were addressed in the appeal, rather than the entire list submitted by the Enforcement Officer. Mr. Grodit- ski said he addressed the safety issues first, and those four issues were the only ones which Mr. Mulcahy did not wish to meet. There were no further staff comments. The Chairman made the staff report part of the record, and asked if the applicant had any further comments. Mr. Mulcahy said the remaining "trash" belongs to the tenants, and he cannot just take their lumber and equipment. He has mentioned it to the tenants, and has been increasing pressure on them to move. If necessary, he will evict. The cars have become a problem only recently. Mr. Mulcahy said when he bought the property it was designated for three units, and seems to have been three units always . He said he was unaware of many of the Housing Code requirements when he bought the property, but many problems were caused by the tenants. He said he has made many improvements. He also noted it takes three months to evict bad tenants, and the people who caused so much electrical damage were destroying the property during the three months it took to evict them. Mr. Mulcahy estimated it would take six months and between four and five thou- sand dollars to bring the units up to code. He said that now that he better understood the four requirements which he was appealing, he believed he could meet all but the seven foot ceiling height. The Chairman asked if staff had any further comments. Dorothy A. Romans Acting Director of Community Development for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She said that when the property was regis- tered as a nonconforming use, three dwelling units were registered. Each year the City sends out a card asking if the use continues to exist. It is assumed that the card is accurate, and no investigation is made. If the owner combines two units into one intending to abandon the two unit use, they lose the right to have the second unit. Staff will look at this situation. The public hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED AND BOARD MEMBER GEORGE SECONDED THAT IN CASE 2-88, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4601 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, AN APPEAL BE GRANTED TO GIVE RELIEF FROM THE ORDER OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RUSK TO REMEDY CODE VIOLATIONS AS FOLLOWS: UPC, SECTION 907E, INSTALLATION OF PLUMBING FIXTURES; UMC, SECTION 706G, PROHIBITED SOURCES OF CIRCULATING AIR; UPC, SECTION 1309, PROHIBITED LOCATIONS OF WATER HEATERS; EMC, SECTION 9-3F-4B, LOCATION FOR GAS- FIRED WATER HEATERS; EHC , SECTION 9-3A-2, MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT. - 6 - • The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said the requirements being appealed are serious violations, and the ceiling heights are much too low. Mr. Doyle said the many code violations are inexcusable. Ms. Lighthall said the violations are serious and granting the appeal would weaken the codes. Ms. George the violations are ones of safety, and are not good for the resi- dents or the neighborhood. Mr. Waldman said the 1 andl ord should protect the tenants, and the housing codes should be enforced. Ms. Shaffer said there are direct violations which create serious hazards to the tenants. When the votes were displayed, all six members present had voted against the appeal, and the Chairman ruled the motion was denied. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED, AND BOARD MEMBER SHAFFER SECONDED, THAT FOR PROP- ERTY LOCATED AT 4601 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, AN APPEAL BE GRANTED FROM THE OR- DER OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RUSK TO REMEDY THE FOLLOWING VIOLATION: EN- GLEWOOD HOUSING CODE, SECTION 9-3A-2, MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT. • The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: • Mr. Seymour said he might consider granting the appea 1 if the ceiling height in the upstairs unit were seven feet high, but since both that and the base- ment are lower he voted against the appeal. Ms. George voted for the appeal because the lower ceilings are already in ex- istence, and there is no immediate need for compliance in this requirement . Mr. Waldman voted for the appeal, saying he can't see that there would be any danger for a tenant; the requirements is only a suggestion, and the spirit of the code will not be violated. Mr. Doyle voted for the appeal because there are many homes with similar ceil- ing heights in the area . Ms. Shaffer concurred with the other members. Ms. Lighthall said that if only the basement were involved, she would vote for the appeal, but since the main floor is also less than seven feet, she voted against the motion . When the votes were displayed four members had voted for the motion and two, Mr. Seymour and Ms. Lighthall had voted against it. The Chairman ruled that since five votes are required to grant an appeal, the appeal was denied . * * * * * -7 - • • • Mr. Welker returned to the Chair and declared a recess. The meeting resumed at 9:20 with the same persons present . The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #3-88, saying he had proof of posting and publication. Ms. Shaffer said she would be abstaining from the discussion and vote on this matter. The Chairman asked the staff to identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler Planner for the City of Englewood, stated that the applicant, Englewood Urban Renewal Authority, was requesting a variance to permit off-site Joint Identification signs at the termini of Englewood Parkway. This is a variance from the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-19-8: K, Third Party Signs. The Chairman asked that the applicant's representative come forward for testimony. Harold J. Stitt 7000 West 24th Avenue,. was sworn in for testimony. He submitted Exhibit I, a resolution passed by EURA requesting favorable consideration of the request, and Exhibit II, a resolution of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority support- ing the request. Mr . Stitt presented a brief history of redevelopment in downtown Engle- wood, stating that the primary reason for undertaking the redevelopment of the downtown areas was to provide a financing mechanism for a major flood control project on Little Dry Creek. This was necessary because the City was financially incapable of undertaking such a large scale project at one time . The flood hazard was, in part, responsible for the lack of redevelopment activity in the downtown area, and further study showed that widespread redevelopment would most likely not occur until the constraints imposed by the flood plain were removed. After examining the alternatives for funding such a flood control proj- ect, City Council elected to utilize the already existing Urban Renewal Authority. In addition to the redevelopment district, City Council also created a tax increment district so that the additional sales and use tax generated by the redevelopment could be pledged to pay off the bonds. In addition , a Triparty Agreement was entered into by the City, the EURA and the EDDA to establish the responsibilities and working relationships of the three bodies in the redevelopment process as specified by the adopted Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This is a unique partnership, and a special, unusual situation has been created. As original l y envisioned, the downtown would have been redeveloped by one entity and have a single identity -Trolley Square. The redevelopment did not occur in just that manner. When the redevelopment could not be carried out by one developer, the plan was revised, resulting in a re- deve 1 opment composed of three small er projects. The unifying factor still is that all exist within the framework of the Downtown Redevelop- ment Pl an. But because one single identity wil 1 no 1 onger serve all - 8 - • • • three developments, the URA is requesting a variance to place Joint Iden- tification Signs on Englewood Parkway that will serve to carry out the goal of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Ms. Lighthall asked what would be on the signs. Mr. Stitt said the names of the deve 1 opments and the names of the anchor stores. Mr. We 1 ker suggested this was a tool to obtain anchors. Mr. Stitt said the issue was brought up by both tenants and developers. The area would be treated as one area with two joint identification signs. The anchor stores will require such a sign before they will commit to moving into the area. Mr. Doyle said that other large stores do not require such signs. Mr. Seymour stated that the City staff has opposed the signs. Mr. Stitt deferred to Mr. Hinson regarding staff recommendations. Ms. Lighthall questioned whether these signs should have been discussed with tenants before an appeal to the Board. Mr. Stitt noted that the development as originally planned would not have required the signs, and the need arose from Brady's withdrawal from the redevelopment of the area. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Stitt said there would be the names of the three developments on the signs (Trolley Square, Englewood Marketplace and Lincor), and three anchor stores' names on the signs. No smaller businesses would be identified. These will be the minimal signs necessary to direct the public to a destination in the Redevelopment Area. There would be two signs 16' x 6' with an overall height of 20 feet; and the bottom of the sign will be six feet above grade . Rick Boselli 2534 West 99th Place, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he is a member of Englewood Downtown Development Author i ty, which promotes and attracts businesses to the Downtown area , and is also the General Manager of Cinderella City Shopping Center. Mr. Boselli submitted a Resolution passed by the EDDA in support of the Urban Renewal Authority application. He said that the old King Soopers site is a difficult place to lease; and, because of its location off of U.S. 285, Lincor is of the opinion the proposed signs would aid in the development of the property. Especially along U.S. 285, traffic moves too quickly for the developments to be seen by the motorist if they are not clearly identified . He said he would not move into such a site without the s i gnage s i nee it is not vi s i b 1 e from Broadway or Hampden. He said smaller businesses would not expect to be on the sign as they receive their business, usually, from people attracted to the anchor s tore . Richard Hinson 1809 South Kearney, was sworn in for testimony. He stated he is the Executive Di rector of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority. He said there are special circum- stances in this case because the partnership and the Downtown Redevelop- ment Area are unique. Three developments require special treatment that would not be necessary for a single, unified development. The site in the northwest corner wi 11 not be deve 1 oped without the i dent if i cation signs. It is essential to let people know there are three developments within the Downtown Redeve 1 opment area if the deve 1 opments are to sur- vive . Mr . Hinson repeated that the developers will not move into the -9 - • • • .. northwest corner of the area without assurance of a joint identification sign at the entrances to the Redevelopment area, as proposed . Ms. Lighthall said these signs violate the City Ordinance. The URA is subject to the Ordinance. Mr. Hinson agreed, saying that this is the reason the Urban Renewal Authority has requested the variance. The Li near contract requires the signs, and Lincor will not sign the contract and develop the area without the signs. The Urban Renewal Authority has considered the alternatives, but the sign cannot be located anywhere else because all the other land belongs to the other developers, who will not permit signs advertising other stores on their property. Mr. Seymour said that the Directors of Public Works, Engineering, Traffic, Parks and Recreation all opposed the signs. Mr. Hinson said those were only comments, not forms for advocacy. Mr. Seymour disagreed. Mrs. Romans re- ferred to the forms included in the staff report and said that Mr. Waggoner did not mark the response "disapprove", neither did Engineering. Utilities questioned whether or not there were utility lines under the sign locations, and when it was determined there were no problems with lines, they withdrew their disapproval. Traffic did disapprove the request. Mr. Hinson said that the State Highway Department is reviewing the case and may agree to the signs. Any liability can be addressed by extending coverage by the anchors and the developers. Mr. Hinson said he realizes this situation is not ideal, and it is a violation of the Sign Code. However, the Board con- siders special circumstances, and this is a special circumstance. The purpose for the request is not self interest, but in the interest of the City . There were no speakers in opposition to the variance. The Chairman incorpo- rated the staff report into the record, and asked if the staff had any further statements. Mrs. Romans said that typical businesses have frontage on a major street. The Lincor development will not. They are one of three cluster developments in the Downtown Redevelopment Area, and such development is not addressed in the Sign Code. This is an unusual situat i on. Ms. Lighthall said there are other businesses in Englewood which do not have exposure to major streets. Inca and Jason businesses have no such s i gnage. If the Board approves this request, in her opinion, other businesses will wish similar variances. She suggested that the Sign Code be changed. Mrs. Romans said she feels this deve l opment is unique and no precedent would be set. The Board's purpose is to consider special circumstances and weigh them. No ordinance can adequately address every situation. Mr. Seymour sa i d Lincor would face on Englewood Parkway. Mrs. Romans said she believes a cluster development is planned, and the stores would face away from the street. Even Trolley Square does not front on Broadway. While some of the Department comments were negative, none actually disapproved the request except Traffic. Mr. Doyle asked if the City could change the Sign Code. changes could be proposed for these special situations. -10 - Mrs. Romans said • • • Ms. Lighthall said the matter could be resolved if the request were changed to ask only for directional signs. She said that what bothered her was the ad- vertisement of individual businesses on the signs. Mrs. Romans said the applicant feels the anchors should be identified. She reminded the Board that the old King Soopers had a 35-foot high sign which was visible from the Highway. The maximum height of signs under the present Or- dinance is 20 feet. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED, AND BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL SECONDED THE MOTION, THAT IN CASE #3-88, THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO PERMIT OFF-SITE JOINT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AT THE TERMINI OF EN- GLEWOOD PARKWAY. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16 -4-19 -8: K, THIRD PARTY SIGNS. Discussion followed. Mr. Seymour said the signs would be too large and should only be identification signs. Mr. Waldman said small stores should have the same opportunities as anchors. Mr. Welker disagreed, saying small stores receive customers from the anchor stores, so all will benefit. Ms. George and Mr. Welker agreed that the Lincor site would have visibility problems; and Ms. Lighthall questioned whether or not more stores are needed in the area. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted against the motion because "it's excessive signage, and it's too big, and not a safe situation." Ms. George stated that she voted for the motion because of a 11 the empty store fronts facing Broadway, and because she would like to see the area built up . If the Highway Department will permit the signs, they must be safe. Ms. Lighthall stated she had three objections: "l. The four conditions necessary to grant a variance to the Sign Code were not met. Just as we cannot consider financial hardship, I do not think that building a building a block or two off Broadway is a special cir- cumstance. I think they knew they were a block off Broadway when they submitted the Plan. "2. Regardless of your re solution of February 3, URA is a department of the City of Englewood and, as such, must abide by the same ordinances as the citizens of this community and not be negotiating items not available to all citizens, i .e . sign packages for developers such as the one at Inca and Hampden for the Buyers Club/Home Club, which is a third party sign and is on State Highway right-of-way. In other words, the City has vio- lated its own ordinance, and is asking to do the same thing in the case now before the Board. "3. This request for a third party sign is a clear violation of the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance , Section 16.4 -19 -8 K, and it is my feeling that this Board must uphold the ordinances as they are written unless the variance request meets the four published conditions. I would respect- fully suggest that in this case, that inasmuch as the present situation did not exist when the Sign Code was written, it would seem reasonable to -11 - • me for the Planning Commission and the Council to amend the third party section to permit directional signs only, while also specifying their space, size and wording; that is, arrow shape, mounted low and carrying only general information, but not advertising specific businesses. I feel this would be a better and more permanent solution than hearing a plethora of individual requests." Mr. Waldman concurred with Mr. Seymour and Ms. Lighthall, saying the access may not be safe, and it does not inform the public as to services available. Mr. Doyle voted against the request because the URA purposely violated the code to gain contracts. These signs might create a traffic hazard inasmuch as they would distract drivers. Mr. Welker said in this case there are special circumstances warranting variances to the Code. This special development is supporting the City. The character of the district would not be injured. It would not harm adjacent properties. Weighing all this, although he thought there were alternatives, he voted "yes". When the votes were displayed, two members (Ms. George and Mr . Welker) voted for the motion, and four (Mr. Seymour, Ms. Li ghtha 11, Mr. Wa 1 dman and Mr. Doyle) voted against it. Ms. Shaffer abstained. The Chairman ruled the variance was denied. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT MR. WELKER BE ELECTED CHAIRMAN FOR 1988. • Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, a vote was called, and all voted in favor of Mr. Welker. Mr. Welker will con- tinue to serve as Chairman for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals until the February, 1989 meeting. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT MS. LIGHTHALL BE NOMINATED FOR VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 1988. Board Member Welker seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, a vote was ca 11 ed, and a 11 voted in favor of Ms. Li ghtha 11 . The Chairman ruled Ms. Lighthall would serve as Vice Chairman of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the coming year. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. None. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Ms. Reid said that the Board should keep in min d that they mu s t keep within the guidelines for granting or denying variances . Cherry Hills Village's Board of Adjustment and Appeals was recently successfully sued. BOARD'S CHOICE. Ms. Lighthall reviewed an art i cle that had appeared i n the Rocky Mountain News the previous day about the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. -12 - The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m . • Secretary • • -13 -