Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-12 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO NOVEMBER 12, 1986 The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals began at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Fish presiding. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fish, Welker, Lighthall, Gage, Brown, Hallagin, and Seymour. MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: None. Dorothy A. Romans, Staff Advisor Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Mary Al ice Rothweiler, Planner I The Chairman stated that with seven members members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant a variance. He stated the Board is au- thorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1986, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN . Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. Upon a vote, a 11 seven members voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the motion had passed. * * * * * BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES 24-86, 27-86 AND 28-86 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Gage seconded the motion. Upon a vote, a 11 seven members voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the motion had passed. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing on Case #29-86, for property located at 2200 West Evans Avenue. He asked that the staff identify the case. Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I for the City of Englewood was sworn in fortes- timony. She stated that the applicant, David W. Galloway, was requesting an appeal from the interpretation of the Uniform Building Code by the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed convenience food store/gas station would have B-1 and B-2 Occupancy classification under the U. B. C. This is an ap- peal from the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 5, Classification of all build- ings by occupancy and General Requirements for all occupancies. -1 - The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. David W. Ga 11 oway, 12445 East 39th Avenue, Denver, was sworn in for testimony. He stated he is a consulting engineer. He worked on the design for this gas • pump/convenience store development. He noted that Don Galloway and Ralph Rit- ter of his company and Paul SoRelle, the owner of the the Pay N' Take Food Stores, were present. Greg Wakeland, the general manager of Pay N' Take, and Cal Logan, the merchandising foreman of Pay N' Take Food Stores were also present. Mr. Galloway referred to the Staff Report, page 3, pa r agraph 3. He said t hat similar designs submitted by his Company in other jurisdictions have been rat- ed for B-2 Occupancy. Mr. Galloway said that other jurisdictions had handled the question in different ways, but that they all reached the conclusion that there was only one occupancy, and no fire walls were required. He submitted Exhibit I showing how various cities classified the food/gas stores; but noting that all of them found a way to permit the construction by special requirements, variances, or single designations. He said there · are many similar facilities like the proposed store which have canopies going over the gas pumps and the building. His company was surprised at the ruling of the Building Division because there are similar facilities and other Cities have permitted nearly identical designs. He said that the Building Division permitted the project to begin with the understanding that he would apply for a variance on the occupancy question or accept the two designations. He said that they want windows in the walls of the convenience store facing the fuel tanks and that they want the canopies to protect the customers in inclement weather. The Building Division said that, because there are two different occupancies, they must be separated by fire • walls which, in effect, have no openings (doors or windows). He said that the question is what is a B-1 or a B-2 occupancy. He said that there are arguments for this being a B-1 or a B-2, but no real reason for a decision that this is both a B-1 and B-2. He said that he believes that it should be classified as a business, B-2. He said that fuel dispensing is safe and the Fire Code provides clear direction. His father, however, believes the facility to be B-1, a modern gasoline facility, most of which do carry con- venience store items. Mr. Galloway referred to the letter to the Building Division from the ICBO. He said they should have considered 503 2b, exceptions, which does not require separation. He quoted, "When a canopy is constructed over a gasoline pump, such a canopy need not be separated from other group B occupancies. He fur- ther noted requests printed in "Building Standards" magazine of May/June, 1985, Part II, for change in these designations. He said the ICBO is taking a literal hard-line approach which, in his opinion, shouldn't be applied in En- glewood. He noted that they conform to all the requirements of either designation. He said that a single designation is supported regionally and nationally and the public welfare is protected without the fire wall because of the setback and because the canopy is not continuous over the store. He said the Code does not specifically address this matter. He asked the Board to consider alternate means of allowing redevelopment of this site with modern facilities similar to those being built nationwide. - 2 - • • • • Mr. Welker asked what conditions Mr. Galloway agreed to in order to begin construction . Mr. Galloway said he had agreed to no conditions. Permits were issued only for site excavation and for the store. None were issued for the canopy. It is possible to put up canopies with 20 foot separation. Canopies would then be only over the pumps. The owner prefers the original design. The founda- tion has been poured so it will accept the poles as originally designed. This wi 11 be wasted if the variance is not granted. They have been de 1 ayed in waiting for the canopies until the Board met. Mr. Fish asked about the exits of the building. Mr. Gallowa y said there are public exits from the east and west sides of the building, and another on the west side for employees only. They are all under canopies. Ms. Lighthall noted that the Board cannot base its decision on rulings from other cities. Mr. Galloway said that all but Denver operate under the same Building Code. Ms. Lighthall said that Mr. Galloway only cited interpreta- tion. Mr. Galloway said that the citations were to show there are other interpretations. Mr. Welker asked about the clearance required between the canopy and the roof or the other building. Mr. Galloway said that Colorado Springs required ver- tical separation when the canopy is continuous over the store part. The pro- posed facility would provide a minimum of 10 inches in the small area where there is encroachment . Mr. Seymour asked if the vertical separation could be increased. Mr. Galloway said it could be increased. There were no further questions. The Chairman asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the appeal. Paul SoRelle, 7110 West 80th Place, Arvada, was sworn in for testimony. He said there similar facilities all over the metropolitan area. The canopies protect the customers in bad weather. If customers have to walk through rain or snow to pay for their gas, they will go instead to a nearby station which does have covering. The modern facility combines gasoline and convenience store, and there should be no separation of occupancies, in Mr. SoRelle's opinion. There were no questions from the Board. The Chairman asked if there were any other speakers in favor of granting the request. Mr. Don Galloway, principal of a consulting firm, with offices at 12445 East 39th, was sworn in for testimony. He said that B-1 classification seems ap- propriate for this facility. It is primarily a gasoline station which carries some other goods. This classification would still meet the Fire Code require- ments. He said that one structure should be classified as one structure. There were no further quest i ons or fu rt her speakers in favor of granting the request. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the appeal . Walter J. Groditski, Code Administrator, was sworn in for testimony. He stated the City is against the position taken by the applicant. He said the -3 - matter is cut and dried. The City rendered a classification which was upheld by the ICBO. The building officials recently attended a training session • which indicated an awareness of the evolution of gas/convenience stations, and the session indicated they should be considered separately. The canopies are separate structures. ICBO indicated there should be a minimum of 13 feet of horizontal separation between the edge of the canopy and the edge of the roof of the convenience store. Mr. Seymour asked if the separation could be vertical. Mr. Groditski said that would not be within the code; canopies make it all one structure, and they must be moved back because with two occupancies which have less than 20 feet of separation must have one-hour fire-resistive walls. The issue is classification of occupancies. He said that his department could not be guided by the interpretations of other jurisdictions. ICBO has made its deci- sion. A variance would weaken the code. They want to apply the code as it is written. A similar facility was recently built two blocks from the subject site according to code. · Mr. Welker asked if there is a difference between the Code requirements for B- l and 8-2. Mr. Groditski said there are no substantial differences. The is- sue is , the classification of occupancies. The city maintains there are two occupancies. There is an area where people can come in and actually shop for grocery products or retail merchandise without buying gasoline, and a service station facility which is another facility provided on the site, and as such is classified differently and other structures must be protected from the gasoline facility. Mr. Seymour asked about the problem of being able to see the pumps if there are solid brick wall. Mr. Groditski said the canopies can be moved back and windows would be permitted. Mr. Seymour said that Don Galloway suggested it all be 8-1. Mr. Groditski said it could not be classified as 8-1 because of the sale of groceries which are not similar to gasoline products. Mr. Seymour asked if the situation would be different if the store were selling auto-related products. Mr. Groditski declined to speculate. Mr. Fish asked if this is a new issue and are changes expected in the Code. Mr. Groditski said that he is not aware of any proposed change. This decision is for the protection of people using the facility as a retail store only. He said that based on a recent fire, the canopy would extend the fire to the building. There is substantial danger in case of fire. Mr. Welker asked if vertical clearance couldn't protect such customers. Mr. Groditski said he could not answer that. The Chairman asked if there were any other speakers in opposition. Dorothy Andrews Romans, Acting Director of Community Development, was sworn in for testimony. She said that if the building is classified as a gasoline facility only, the applicant would be required to go to the Planning Commis- sion for a Conditional Use because such a facility is not a use-by-right in the 8-2 zoned di strict. {This 8-2 di strict is not the same as the 8-2 oc- cupancy.) She submitted pictures of similar uses in the City which she en- tered as Exhibits IV, V, VI, and VII. It is the staff's position that the - 4 - • • • • • City is denying the use of the property because it is possible for them to have both uses if they modify the design of the canopy . There was no further opposition to the request. The Chairman asked if there was any rebuttal. David Galloway asked to reply. He said that, while other facilities do comply with the regulations, they are a different style from the current proposal. He said they are required to have an attendant who can see the gas pumps at all times, as are the other facilities mentioned. No gas facility or B-1 stands alone, they all have some kind of shelter for the attendant. He said that the magazine which he quoted as questioning these designations is published by ICBO and was the June, 1985 issue, which is less than the two years ago that Mr. Groditski attended the training seminar. The proposed plan has merit and needs study. The only problems are sides and exits. He said, in his opinion, that because there was an existing gas station on the site, it is doubtful that they would have trouble obtaining the approval of the Co'ndi- tional Use. Mr. Hallagin asked why the canopy is involved with the attendant's seeing the pumps. Mr. Ga 11 away said that if the canopy is over the store roof, Mr. Groditski will not permit windows in the sides of the store; therefore, the attendant would not be able to see the pumps. The attendant must have a building to sit in. One-hour fire-resistive will permit no openings in the wall. Some one in the audience asked to speak, but the Chairman said that only the applicant could speak dur i ng rebuttal. The Chairman closed the public hearing, incorporating the Staff Report, and asking if the staff had any further comments. There were none. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE NUMBER 29-86, 2200 WEST EVANS AVENUE, THE APPLICANT, DAVID GALLOWAY, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT THE PROPOSED CONVENIENCE FOOD STORE/GAS STATION WOULD HAVE B-1 AND B-2 OCCUPANCY CLAS- SIFICATION UNDER THE U. B. C. THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 5, CLASSIFICATION OF ALL BUILDINGS BY OCCUPANCY AND GENERAL RE- QUIREMENTS FOR ALL OCCUPANCIES. Mr. Hallagin seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said that the primary use of the convenience store is B-2; the gas pump would seem to cl early a B-1. There is al so the added factor that the possibility of fire danger is real. It is possible to construct canopies so that fire resistive wa 11 s would not be needed, so the owner is not denied economic return from the property. Therefore, he voted "no". Mr. Hallagin said the request did not meet the Building Code of Englewood; therefore, he voted "no" . Mr. Brown voted "no" because there was no hardship and the separation is needed. -5 - Mr. Gage voted "no" because the proposal did not meet the U. B. C. Ms. Lighthall voted "no" because the Code is not met, and it is possible to • build within the requirements of the Code with little modification. She said that most of the material submitted by Mr. Galloway was irrelevant because the Board cannot base its decisions on rulings from other municipal entities. Mr. Welker voted "yes" because the concern is for public safety . The plans could be modified to protect the public safety so the r e wou l d be no hazard. The proposed plan provides a convenient situation. There is a difference between this type of facility which primarily distributes gasoline and the old, traditional services provided at gasoline stations. Mr. Fish said that the City may be behind the codes for this kind of facility, but the city has taken a stance in classifying these stores and the separation must, therefore, exist. When the votes were displayed, Mr. Welker had voted in favor of the motion; and six members, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Hallagin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Fish, Mr. Gage, and Ms. Lighthall voted against the motion. * * * * * In response to a letter submitted by Mr. John Pietrus, 900 West Tufts Avenue: BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT MR. PIETRUS BE GRANTED A RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD CASE #28-86 HEARD AT THE OCTOBER MEETING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 WEST TUFTS AVENUE. Board Member Brown seconded the motion. * * * * * ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Ms. Reid discussed the difference between a rehearing and a reconsideration and how the handbook of the Board might be changed. She noted that the person moving for a rehearing or reconsideration must have voted against the request. A rehearing begins as if no previous hearing had taken place----the property must be posted, publication must be made and a case presented. At a recon- sideration no new evidence is permitted. Because Mr~ Pietrus does wish to present new information the Board changed the previous motion as follows: BOARD MEMBER GAGE MOVED, AND MR. SEYMOUR MOVED THAT MR. PIETRUS BE GRANTED A REHEARING OF CASE 28-86. * * * * * DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. • Mrs . Romans showed the Board the completed land scape pl an submitted by the Engineering Department for the Floyd Avenue/Post Of f ice area. She noted the • Holi day Stroll through Englewood Downtown would be on November 24, at 5:00. -6 - • • • * * * * * BOARD'S CHOICE. Ms. Lighthall commended Mrs. Romans for her superb work on the Parade. Mr. Seymour said that on Sunday, November 16, a tour is available of the new Samaritan House at 23rd and Lawrence. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m . Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary -7 -