Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO AUGUST 13, 1986 /Jo The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals began at 7:35 p.m. with Chairman Fish presiding. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Seymour, Hallagin, Lighthall, Gage, Welker and Fish. Brown. Dorothy A. Romans, Staff Advisor. Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney. The Chairman stated that with six members present, five affirma- tive votes would be required to grant a variance. BOARD MEMBER GAGE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1986, BE AP- PROVED AS WRITTEN . Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. All six members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chair- man ruled that the motion had passed. * * * * * BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES 12- 86, 13-86, 14-86, 15-86, 16-86 AND 17-86 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Gage seconded the motion. All six members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chair- man ruled that the motion had passed. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #17-86, for prop- erty located at 3151 South Elati Street. He said that the Board has the authority to grant or deny a variance based on Part 3, Section 60, of the Englewood Municipal Code. He said he had proof of posting and publication, and asked that the staff iden- tify the request. Dorothy A. Romans, Acting Director of Community Development, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicants, Chester B. and Karen s. Mason, were requesting an appeal from a notice of violations of the Housing Regulations of the Englewood Municipal - 1 - • • • Code, which notice was issued by Englewood Chief Building Inspec- tor Gary Yoder. The violations cited by Mr. Yoder are: Section 9-3A-2: Section 9-3A4: Section 9-3B-3, Section 9-3C-2, Section 9-3C-3: Section 9-3E-l: Section 9-3E-2: Section 9-3E-6: Section 9-3F-2: Section 9-3F-4, Section 9-3F-5: Section 9-3F-8, Section 9-3G-2, section 9-3G-7: Minimum Ceiling Height. Basements or cellars as habitable areas. B, E, and D: Ventilation Requirements. A and B: Electric Lights and outlets. Installation Requirements. General Requirements. Heating equipment and facilities. Installation and Clearance. Cooking and Refrigeration Equipment. A and B: Water Heating Facilities. Supplied facilities, equipment and utilities. A and B: General Sanitary Conditions. B and C: Exterior Protection. Imperviousness of floors and walls. The Chairman asked Ms. Reid what is meant by an appeal. Ms. Reid said that the appeal from the notice is basically a request for a variance from the regulations of the Housing Code. Chester Mason, 2026 South Xenia Way, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the violations listed evolved from a complaint by a tenant about seepage of water into the basement. While the inspectors were looking for the seepage, they listed other hous- ing violations . Mr. Mason said that they have owned the house for three years, and no one ever reported water in the basement until last March. He sent a plumber to look at the basement two or three days after the complaint and there was no water or sign of water. Mr. Mason installed splash plates for the downspouts around the house. There were no further reports until Mr. Yoder notified him of the complaint. Mr. Mason did not refuse to fix the water seepage, but said that he could not fix it until he saw where the seepage is occurring. Mr. Mason said that the most serious violation cited by the Chief Building Inspector is the minimum ceiling height. It would be prohibitively expensive to lower the floor of the basement. He said this is the most important part of the variance request. He noted that the codes have changed over the years, and this base- ment must have been considered habitable when it was built. It is his understanding that it has been inhabited for 40 years, he said, and he should not have a later code applied to this house. Mr. Mason asked that at least the one regulation--that of ceiling height--not be enforced. Mr. Mason said that he was not clear as to what was expected of him on the other regulations, especially the electrical outlets, the furnace, range and water heater. He asked if he needed two furnaces or only two controls. He asked for guidance on each regulation. He said this is an old structure built under earlier codes. - 2 - • • • Ms. Lighthall asked if the applicants could be granted variances for some of the regulations, and not others. It was decided that the Board could do that if evidence were presented to justify that action. Mr. Hallagin said the Chief Building Inspector could be asked to explain the regulations cited in the request. Mr. Fish said that the ceiling height is obviously 5 inches short. Mr. Mason said that he would have to tear out the floor or raise the height of the ceiling. Regarding the habitable areas and imperviousness of floors and walls Mr. Welker asked if there were any evidence of water in the basement. Mr. Mason said that there was little such evidence. He thought that some seepage might be caused by the water pipes. He said that there are spots around the walls where repairs may have been done to hide cracks. He emphasized that the property was purchased as an existing duplex. Ms. Lighthall asked if Mr. Mason had gone to look when the tenant complained of water in the basement. Mr. Mason said he sent the plumber, and he (Mr. Mason) worked on the drainage by putting splash plates at the downspouts, but he did not inspect the apartment. He did, however, instruct the tenants to call again if there were any further problems. Mr. Gage asked if there had been any further complaints. Mr. Mason said the lady who complained moved, and he cannot rent the apartment because of the letter from the City . Mr. Mason noted that there is a washer hookup in the utility storage room, but there is no drier location. He said the City code does not require outlets in a storage/utility area. He said he could provide such hookup, and there is an outlet and one plug in a light socket already. Mr. Fish asked about the service entrance capacity, noting the furnace is downstairs, the controls are upstairs, and there is a similar problem with access to the breaker box. Mr. Mason said this has worked out well, the basement is warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and there has never been a problem. There have been no complaints about the heating. Mr. Welker asked what would have to be done to remove the furnace or replace it. Mr. Mason said it is enclosed by a sliding kitchen cabinet, and there is not much space around the furnace, although there is access to all the operating parts. Mr. Seymour asked how the furnace and hot water heater are venti- lated. Mr. Mason said there are louvered doors around the fur- nace, the furnace is vented to the outside. There is space around the hot water heater, which is in a u-shaped room shut off from the hallway by a curtain. Regarding the tiles, Mr. Mason said there are some broken tiles in the bathroom, and the masonite-type panels may need to be re- paired or replaced. The floor is ceramic and there are some ceramic tiles on the walls. - 3 - • • • There were no further questions or speakers in favor of the variance. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers in op- position to the variance . Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector for the City of Englewood, 3400 South Elati Street, was sworn in for testimony. He said that the Housing Codes are minimum requirements which were adop- ted to raise the standards of dwellings in the City of Englewood. They are not equivalent to the Building Codes. Mr. Yoder said that the Building files for this property indicate a Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 1948 for one dwelling unit. There is no indication of a Certificate of Occupancy for two dwelling units. He said the house was built as a single fam- ily house. There is only one water line, furnace and breaker box. The controls are upstairs. The layout does not allow ac- cess to the furnace, which, if repaired or replaced, would re- quire removal of walls. Ms. Lighthall asked if the Building Inspector would approve of a variance for ceiling height if the rest of the violations were corrected. Mr. Yoder said that he would not. The six-foot, seven-inch height doesn't include light fixtures which further reduce the head room in the unit. He said that seven feet is the minimum ceiling height that should be permitted. Mr. Hallagin asked what would be required as to the furnace if the variance were not granted. Mr. Yoder said that there should be separate furnaces, or at least separate controls. He said he had not seen proof of water problems in the basement, which was dry when he inspected it. He said there was no intent to require an outlet in the utility room. This is not a habitable room, but it could be made habitable. Mr. Yoder noted that the bedroom is not up to Code as far as out- lets are concerned. Mr. Welker asked what the owner can do to meet the standards. Mr. Yoder said he can enlist an electrician for a survey of what is necessary or the decisions could be left to the electrical inspector of the City of Englewood. Mr. Yoder said that the normal small dwelling unit requires 100 amps for normal usage. With very small units without major elec- trical appliances, 60 amps may be sufficient . In this case there are only 6 0 amps for both units. Mr. Yoder said that the intent of the section dealing with the cooking range is intended for very small stoves which could be bumped and accidentally disconnected from the gas outlet. The range in this case is not that small. He said he was concerned about the hot water heater because the drain is quite a distance from the unit, and if hot water were dispersed it would endanger inhabitants, especially children. He said that both the furnace and water heater are walled off, and he is not sure there is ade- quate ventilation . - 4 - • • • There were no further questions, and no other speakers in opposi- tion to the variance . The applicant noted that the house was a basement house prior to November of 1948, so it must have been considered a habitable area at one time. He asked that the Board grant a variance at least for the minimum ceiling height. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record and asked if the staff had any further comments. Mrs. Romans empha- sized there was no indication that the second unit was legally converted. In 1948 the house was a one-family dwelling. The second unit should meet the Minimum Housing Code which provides for safe and sanitary housing. Mr. Gage asked Mr. Yoder if he had inspected the upstairs. Mr. Yoder said that he had not. Mr. Welker said that a great deal of work would be necessary to bring things up to code, and asked if that would not require bringing things up to the Building Codes. Mr. Yoder said permits would be required and that work done would have to be up to the current Building Codes except for anything which is granted a variance. There was no one else present who wished to address the Board in this matter. The Chairman closed the public hearing. It was decided to consider the variance application as a whole, and not break it into smaller parts . BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE #18-86, CHESTER B. AND KAREN S. MASON BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM A NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE HOUSING REGULATIONS OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY ENGLEWOOD CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR GARY YODER. THE VIOLATIONS CITED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR ARE: SECTION 9-3A-2: SECTION 9-3A4: SECTION 9-3B-3, SECTION 9-3C-2, SECTION 9-3C-3: SECTION 9-3E-l: SECTION 9-3E-2: SECTION 9-3E-6: SECTION 9-3F-2: SECTION 9-3F-4, SECTION 9-3F-5: SECTION 9-3F-8, SECTION 9-3G-2, SECTION 9-3G-7: MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT. BASEMENTS OR CELLARS AS HABITABLE AREAS. B, E, AND D: VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS. A AND B: ELECTRIC LIGHTS AND OUTLETS. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. HEATING EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES. INSTALLATION AND CLEARANCE. COOKING AND REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT. A AND B: WATER HEATING FACILITIES. SUPPLIED FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND UTILITIES. A AND B: GENERAL SANITARY CONDITIONS. B AND C: EXTERIOR PROTECTION. IMPERVIOUSNESS OF FLOORS AND WALLS. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "no", saying the request did not meet the re- quirements for a variance from the Minimum Housing Codes. - 5 - • • • Mr. Hallagin voted "no" because the City records show that the house was built for a single dwelling unit and nine violations of the code are excessive . Mr. Gage voted "no" because the applicant did not meet the variance requirements. Ms. Lighthall concurred with the other members. Mr. Welker voted "no" because heal th and safety issues are of primary concern. Mr. Fish said that granting such a variance would weaken the Code, and health and safety must be protected. He read the re- quirements for granting a variance from the Minimum Housing Code: 11 9-1-9-3: VARIANCES: The Board may authorize, upon appeal in specific cases and subject to terms and conditions fixed by the Board, such variance will not adversely affect the public health when, owing to exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, literal enforcement of applicable provisions will result in un- necessary hardship to the appellant. The burden of proof shall be upon the appellant to show by clear and convincing evidence that: "A. The variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of the other portions of the dwelling involved, or other property; and "B. The variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of this Title; and "C. The variance will protect, preserve and promote the physical and mental health of the people of the City in the same man- ner and to the same extent as would literal enforcement of the provisions applicable to each particular case." When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted against the motion, and the Chairman ruled the motion was denied. * * * * * The meeting was recessed at 9:00 p .m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #20-86 for prop- erty located at 1445 West Quincy Avenue, requested by Joanne Eve. The Chairman stated the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance or an appeals based on Part 3, Section 60, of the Engle- wood Municipal Code. He said that he had proof of posting and publication of this matter, and asked that the staff identify the request. Mrs. Romans stated that Mrs. Eve is requesting a variance from the landscaping requirements for the subject property, which is in the I-1, Light Industrial District. This is a variance from - 6 - • • • the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Sections 16. 4-18 b ( 1) and 16.4-18 c (2) (e) . The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Joanne Eve, 3881 South Fox Street, was sworn in for testimony. She said the subject property is two acres of industrial property which has been used for storage for many years. She owns the property with a partner, but she has the responsibility for car- ing for it. She said the City is requiring her to landscape the property because she has new tenants who will be storing auto- mobiles for transport. The former tenants stored and manuf ac- tured fencing materials. She said she recently spent $15,000 for gravel and grading to improve the drainage on the property, and the dirt is so firmly packed that it would be hard to grow anything. Mrs. Eve said that the existing landscaping meets 80% of the re- quired landscaping, and about 1800 square feet of additional landscaping would be required. There were no other speakers for or against the variance and the applicant had nothing further to add. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record and asked if the staff had anything further to add. Mrs. Romans said she had nothing further. Mr. Fish asked why this was deemed a change of use. Mrs. Romans said that an auto transport company is not the same use as a fence company, and in the opinion of the staff, this was a change in use, and the owner would have to meet the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. Ms. Lighthall and Mr. Seymour stated that storage of fencing and storage of automobiles were the same use. Mrs. Romans suggested that the present use is closely re l ated to car sales, and that in the staff's experience cars could will be sold from the lot. Mrs. Eve said the T and T Auto Transport have no connection to the auto auction next door. They have been in business on South Santa Fe as transporters for many years. There were no further questions. Ms. Lighthall noted there were four letters supporting the variance. Discussion ensued, during which Mr. Seymour stated that his "mind is like concrete, all mixed up and firmly set." Mr. Gage asked that this statement be recorded in the Minutes. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FROM THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1445 WEST QUINCY AVENUE, WHICH IS IN THE I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 16 . 4 -18 b ( 1) AND 16 . 4 -18 c ( 2 ) ( e) . - 7 - • • • Board Gage seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said this did not seem to be a change in use, and 80% of the requirements had been met, so he voted "yes". Mr. Hallagin voted "yes", saying this is not a change in use and there is a hardship, and the five conditions necessary for a variance were met. Mr. Gage voted "yes" because it was not a change in use and 80% of the requirements were met. Ms. Lighthall voted "yes", saying storage is storage is storage. Mr. Welker concurred with the other members. Mr. Fish said it did not seem to be a change in use and the variance is not really necessary. All six members voted in favor of the variance, and the Chairman ruled the variance was granted. * * * * * Mrs. Romans called the Board's attention to the letter concerning the review of Mr. Hunter's sharpening business from case #16-85. The Board accepted the recommendation to permit the business to continue. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Ms. Reid noted that, because there had been two opinions from the Division of Building and safety as to the necessity of one-hour fire resistive walls within three feet of a property line, the matter had been referred to the ICBO for an interpretation. The ICBO said that any structure within the three feet setback must be fully enclosed and of one-hour fire resistive material. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans said the Engineering Department will submit a land- scaping plan for the property near the Post Off ice at the Septem- ber meeting. Mrs. Romans submitted a letter from Mr. Harry Arkin dated August 11, 1986, concerning the property at 73 and 75 East Floyd Avenue. Mr. Arkin noted that the Board had granted nonconforming use sta- tus to the premises provided that when any business moved from the premises, it would be replaced only with a conforming busi- ness. Mr. Arkin stated that Capital Auto Leasing had moved, and the owner of Covert Auto body, one of the present tenants, wants to move into that section of the building. The area Covert is -8 - • • • leasing and the ramp to that space are not safe for heavy vehi- cles. This will give Covert more room, and Covert will be able to store damaged cars inside and will screen the equipment stored across the street. Mr. Arkin also stated in the letter of August 11th as follows: "While Burt Properties, Inc. has taken the position that it is not subject to present zoning restrictions, under a theory that its uses of the subject building "grandfathered" the present zoning ordinance limiting the current use of the building, Burt Properties, Inc. wishes to cooperate with the City, wherever pos- sible. Therefore, Burt Properties, Inc. agrees that if the aforedescribed proposed move of Covert, is agreed to by the Board, and Burt Properties, Inc. reaches agreement with Covert as to such move, that: "(a) Covert will be required to screen that portion of the vacant lots on the northeast corner of South Lincoln and East Floyd, which continue to be utilized by Covert "(b) Burt Properties, Inc. will have any tenant, who replaces Covert at their present location, conform to the zoning limitation of the present law for the building. 11 (c) Burt Properties, Inc. will also, as a precondition to Co- vert's occupying the space, formerly occupied by Capital Auto Leasing, make such repairs necessary to have the space comply with the January 29, 1986 letter to Burt Properties from the City of Englewood, regarding correction of code violations." Ms. Lighthall stated that, in her opinion, the entire building is unattractive, and should be beautified to be in keeping with the Downtown Development. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE REQUEST FROM MR. ARKIN AS STATED IN HIS LETTER OF AUGUST 11, 1986, BE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD. Board Member Fish seconded the motion. Five members voted in favor of the motion, and Ms. Lighthall vot- ed against the motion. The Chairman ruled that covert could move their operation into the old Capital Leasing section of the building. BOARD'S CHOICE. Mr. Seymour noted that the Englewood Parks and Recreation play CAMELOT will be playing on August 16 and 17. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ~rding Secretary - 9 -