Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO DECEMBER 13, 1989 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, Shaffer, Waldman and Welker. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES Walt Groditski, Code Administrator Rebecca Baker, Chief Building Inspector BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 1989, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member George seconded the motion. All members present voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of November 8, 1989, were approved as written . APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING ON DECEMBER 6, 1989, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Shaffer seconded the motion. All members present voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of December 6, 1989, were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING, CASE #21-89. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #21-89, saying that the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code . Dorothy Romans Planning Administrator, of Community Development was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant was requesting an appeal from Section 2516(c) Paragraph 11, of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, which section requires that wood members forming the structural supports of buildings, balconies, porches, or similar appurtenances exposed to weather without adequate protection, are to be constructed of treated wood or of wood naturally resistant to decay . -1 - The reason for the request was to appeal the decision of the Chief • Building Inspector that Section 2516(c) Paragraph 11 applies to the balconies of the units in the Silver Cliff Development, maintaining that the 2 X 8 trim cap which is in question is not a "structural member" and therefore should not be required to be of treated wood or wood naturally resistant to decay. Walter Groditski, Code Administrator for the Building and Safety Division was sworn in for testimony. He explained that Gary Yoder, the Plans Examiner at the time the plans were submitted, is no longer with the City, but that he did the initial plan review. Mr. Groditski directed the Board to look at Exhibit A-12 and the highlighted note: "all wood exposed to weather shall be pressure treated wood or wood of natural resistance to decay." The note was placed on the approved set of plans. When final inspections were done for a TCO, the inspector noted that the top cap of the guardrails on the balconies was not "treated wood", and was therefore not following construction according to the approved set of plans. Mr. Groditski decided to call ICBO for an interpretation of the Section in question. ICBO stated that the interpretation was basically left to the local building department. Mr. Groditski said he would not make an administrative override of the Plans Examiner's note. He further stated that the current use of "non-treated" wood, was in direct disregard to the original set of • approved plans. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Doug Wagner Wagner Johnston Associates,Inc. was sworn in for testimony. He stated that his firm was responsible for the design of the project, and the preparation of the plans. A set of on-site plans were displayed to the Board. Mr. Wagner stated that based on the drawings, notes, and other discussions with the Building Department, that there was never any indication that the cap should be treated or of wood of natural resistance to decay. He alleged the cap was designed for decorative purposes only, was intended to be painted, and did not effect any Life Safety issues. In conclusion, Mr. Wagner added that the type of cap they designed had met with approval from other jurisdictions, and that climactic conditions in this area did not require trim such as the cap discussed, to be treated wood or wood of natural resistance to decay. -2 - • • Ed Perlmutter, representative for Amy Loper of Berenbaum & Weinshienk, Attorneys at Law, was sworn in for testimony. He addressed the Board and asked the members to focus on the areas that were subject to evidence of the appeal. He said the cap was never considered a structural component, that it was fo r decorative purposes only. That the builder, architect, and engineer were not overlooking the fact that posts, columns, and girders were structural members requiring treated wood. Mr. Perlmutter cited that in a report prepared by Tyree Associates, which as been submitted to the City, the interpretation from the Uniform Building Code was that decay resistant wood would be necessary where moisture was a factor such as on an ocean front. With Colorado being an arid state, this interpretation did not apply. Mr. Perlmutter mentioned that structural inspections had been ongoing for a period of 2 years, and said if the Building Department required the caps to be of treated wood, it would create a hardship for the contractor to replace 312 to 350 units at the Silver Cliff Project. He summarized by stating that the appeal is appropriate because 1) Colorado climate is not conducive to decay, 2) that the caps are not a Life Safety factor, and 3) that the top caps are not considered structural components. • Further discussion ensued . • There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or against the appeal. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record and closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #21-89, THE APPLICANT, SANFORD METZEL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, dba SILVER CLIFF, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM SECTION 2516(C) PARAGRAPH 11, OF THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES THAT WOOD MEMBERS FORMING THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS OF BUILDING, BALCONIES, PORCHES, OR SIMILAR APPURTENANCES EXPOSED TO WEATHER WITHOUT ADEQUATE PROTECTION, ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF TREATED WOOD OR OF WOOD NATURALLY RESISTANT TO DECAY. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion . The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said that he did not foresee a problem if the cap/trim was not of treated wood and voted "yes". Ms. George voted "yes" expressing that if the caps had to be replaced other components on the project might also be in question. Ms. Lighthall commented that there was a gray area, and room for inter- pretation, but wanted to uphold the Building Department's decision, and therefore voted "no" . Ms. Shaffer voted "yes" stating that she agreed the interpretation was vague. - 3 - Mr. Waldman voted for the appeal because he felt the applicant(s) appeared to upholding the Uniform Building Code and showed good faith in providing a safe structure. Chairman Welker stated he voted for the appeal on the basis that this component did not seem to be a safety hazard, and that according to the code, it was fair to say the cap was not a structural and supporting member. When the votes were displayed, the decision was S members for the appeal, and 1 against the appeal; the Chairman announced the request was granted. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE # 22-89 44SS South Elati Street The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #22-89, explaining the request is in two parts: a variance from Section 16-S-9F, and an appeal from Table SA of the Uniform Building Code; stating the Board is authorized to grant or deny by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. The Chairman stated the appeal would be addressed first. Dorothy Romans Planning Administrator was sworn in for testimony. She explained the request was made by Bobby D. Smith on behalf of the property owner, Mrs. M. Rehor. Mrs. Rehor • would like to have a carport cover constructed on the south half of her • property which would be one foot-two inches (l'-2") from the property line. The Uniform Building Code, for M-1 Carports, requires that the exterior wall of a carport which is less than three (3) feet from the property line, be of 1-hour fire-resistive construction. The request is an appeal from Table SA of the 198S Uniform Building Code. The second part of the request was a variance from Section 16-S-9F of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Sideyard for Narrow Lots, which section requires minimum sideyard of three (3) feet. Walter Groditski Code Administrator stated that a strict application for M-1 Carports requires the one-hour fire-resistive wall. He said that regardless of Zoning approval, the Building Department would require the necessary wall as protection from adjoining properties, should a fire occur. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Ed Sulett Pacesetter Corporation was sworn in for testimony. He addressed the Board by explaining that he was the contractor secured by Mrs. Rehor to construct the cover for the carport. Several points were made such as the design, placement, and materials to be used. For the design, Mr. Sulett admitted for the Board's review, a brochure. Discussion on the placement evolved around • the columns to be used for the cover. He also mentioned that the carport cover would be placed over an existing concrete pad. -4 - • • • Mr. Sulett realized after exchanges with the Board that the appeal could be rectified by making the cover narrow to stay within the three (3} feet from property requirement. He also said he would be willing to move the the supporting columns one-foot rwo inches (l'-2 11 } to meet the three (3} feet requirement for sideyard. The Chairman pointed out to Mr. Sulett that if these conditions were met, the variance and appeal would not be necessary The Chairman declared a five-minute recess so that Mr. Sulett could converse with Walt Groditski of the Building Division. The meeting was reconvened with the same persons present. Mr. Sulett stated that he would have to discuss with Mrs. Rehor the construction changes necessary to meet the building and zoning requirements, and chose at this time to withdraw the request(s}. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MADE A MOTION TO TABLE CASE #22-89 UNTIL JANUARY, 1990. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR SECONDED THE MOTION DIRECTORS CHOICE Mrs. Romans introduced Becky Baker, the new Chief Building Inspector to the Board. Since no cases had been received for the January meeting, the Board was informed that a January meeting would probably not be necessary. BOARDS CHOICE The Board briefly discussed policies and procedures. They touched upon the necessity of applicants being advised that when an appeal is valid, they have six (6) months in which to take action. The second item pertained to the necessity of informing applicants of the appeal process, and the time frame of thirty (30) days in which a rehearing can be requested, providing there is new evidence. Mr. Seymour motioned to adjourn the meeting, and wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! Chairman Welker seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary - 5 -