Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-11 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO JANUARY 11, 1989 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, Lighthall, Waldman, Shaffer, Dunn and Welker. Members absent: None. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Daniel Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector Walt Groditski, Code Administrator 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 DECEMBER 14, 1988 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN . Board Member George seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes for December 14, 1988 were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES #25-88 AND #26-88 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Dunn seconded the motion. All seven members voted in the affirmative and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact for Cases #25-88 and #26-88 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #1-89. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #1-89, and said he had proof of publication, but posting was not required. He asked that the staff identi- fy the request. Dorothy Romans Assistant Director of Community Development was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, Michael R . Post, doing business as Caleb's Roofing, was appealing the decision of - 1 - • • • the Chief Building Inspector to deny the renewal of Mr. Post's Class 0-2 Roofing Contractor's License #8191 . The Chairman stated that with an appeal, the staff presents its case first, and then the applicant presents his view. Gary Yoder Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the contractor had two in- stances of working without a permit during the previous year, and the second one occurred after the contractor's license had expired. Because both of the incidents occurred in a year, and because the contractor is experienced, and aware of the requirements, it appeared to the Building Division that this contractor had no intention of following the require- ments of the Englewood Municipal Code. The application for the renewal of the contractor's license was, therefore, denied. Mr. Yoder said that the jobs were for reroofing and repair of a roof. Stop Work Orders were issued in each case, and subsequently building per- mits were issued to permit the work to be finished. He said records do not permit checking to see if there were other permits issued to this contractor, but that the work performed was satisfactory. He said that licenses run for twelve months, and that contractors are notified about 30 days before their licenses expire. The Chairman asked the applicant come forward for testimony. Michael Post 8305 South Brentwood was sworn in for testimony. He said that the building permits were not obtained because of an oversight. The jobs were small, and the people entrusted to obtain the permits apparently overlooked doing so. He said that they do many jobs, and that two mistakes do not, in his opinion, constitute continuous violations. He has had a license in Englewood since 1984. His license had expired about a month before the second Stop Work Order was issued. He said he would change the procedure to ensure that in the future permits were obtained. There were no further speakers for or against the appeal. The Chairman incor- porated the Staff Report into the record of the public hearing and closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE #1-89, THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL R. POST, OBA CALEB'S ROOFING, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO DENY THE RENEWAL OF MR. POST'S CLASS 0-2 ROOFING CON- TRACTOR'S LICENSE #8191. Board Member Shaffer seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour said that he believed that the applicant would be more careful in the future, and that it is not necessary to deny the license if that is true . Ms. George said that she had voted for the motion because there were only two violations in the year. -2 - • • • Ms. Lighthall agreed, saying the violations were unintentional, and that the applicant's promise to institute procedural changes should ensure compliance in the future . Ms. Dunn voted for the motion, saying the violations had been oversights. Ms. Shaffer concurred, saying there was nothing to be gained by denying the license. Mr. Waldman concurred . Mr. Welker expressed concern that the applicant's procedures had not been amended before, but was willing to give the applicant another chance. When the votes were displayed, all seven members had voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled that the license could be renewed. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #3-89. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #3-89, saying he had proof of publication, and that posting was not necessary. He asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Romans Assistant Director of Community Development stated that the applicant, Alan W. McPherson, had filed an appeal of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, Section 1207 (a), Ceiling Height, as it would apply to the repair of the basement of the house at 2996 South Logan Street following a serious fire. Section 1207 (a) requires that habitable space shall have a ceiling height of not less than seven feet, six inches. Gary Yoder Chief Building Inspector stated that the main concern of the Building Division is that there has been a history of the property being used illegally for two families. In 1980 there was a fire almost identical to the recent fire. In 1980 the City told the owner that the basement could not be inhabited . The base- ment was, however, restored without permits; although the work was even- tually inspected by a City building inspector . During the recent fire which occurred around the furnace, the people living in the basement were lucky to escape. The basement doesn't meet building or housing codes . Mr. Yoder said that the history of the house, the ceiling height, and the poor exiting conditions all combine to make ·the basement uninhabitable, and that, in his opinion, it should not be inhabited. He said the inhabitants have been lucky twice, future inhab- itants might not escape . Mr. Yoder said that the owner is requesting a permit for repair in order to put the basement back to its original condition as a finished base- ment, although not necessarily for a sleeping area. Mr. Yoder expressed concern that sooner or later the basement would be used for an apartment if it is allowed to be finished. This would be against the zoning reg- ulations, the building code and the housing code . -3 - • • • In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Yoder said that the fire originated close to the furnace. He said that the furnace had been in- sta 11 ed according to code, and had been inspected; but there may have been combustibles too close to the furnace or further wiring may have been done near the furnace. He emphasized that the low ceiling height and inadequate egress make the basement dangerous. He asked for denial of the appeal, and that the Board require that the basement not be used for sleeping quarters without proper egress and smoke alarms. Mr. Yoder said that at the time of the fire, the sleeping rooms were on the opposite side of the house from the one exi t from the basement, and the furnace {where the fire began) was between t hose rooms and the exit. Dorothy Romans returned for testimony. She said that the Zone District is R-1-C, Single-Family Residence, which does not permit two-family use. After both fires, the owners were given notice that the basement apartment was illegal. This is the Planning Division's greatest concern, that there was a deliberate violation. It is difficult for the City to inspect a house under the Housing Code without a complaint, and an apartment may be installed in the future if the basement is refinished. Alan W. McPherson 4001 South Fox Street was sworn in for testimony. He said he was unaware that the basement apartment was not legal, and did not know that the ceiling height was not in compliance with the code. The appraisal of the house was based on a finished lower level, and the insurance company expects the house to be restored to its former condition. He said the basement must be finished to be usable. He said he would not ask to restore the kitchen, but would like to use the basement as a family room and for storage . There is no access to the basement from the upstairs. He agreed to put in egress windows if he were allowed to refinish the basement, and said he may move into the house himself. There were no further speakers for or against the appeal. The staff report was made part of the public record, and the staff had nothing further to add. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #3-89, ALAN W. MCPHERSON, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2996 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL TO THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, SECTION 1207 (a), CEILING HEIGHT, AS IT WOULD APPLY TO THE RE- PAIR OF THE BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE AT 2996 SOUTH LOGAN STREET FOLLOWING A SERIOUS FIRE. SECTION 1207 (a) REQUIRES THAT HABITABLE SPACE SHALL HAVE A CEILING HEIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN SEVEN FEET , SIX INCHES. Ms. Lighthall seconded the motion. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE AN APPROVED EGRESS WINDOW IN THE BASEMENT . Board Member George seconded the motion. All seven members approved the amendment . -4 - • • • Discussion fo 11 owed. The members were concerned that a future owner might again install an illegal apartment in the basement because of the lack of ac- cess between the basement and the upstairs, and agreed that an egress window would at least make the basement safer. The members locked in their votes on the amended motion, and gave their find- ings as follows. Mr. Seymour said that with the addition of an egress window and new plumbing, electricity and heating, the basement would be safer, and he voted for the motion as amended. Ms. George agreed that the egress window would make the basement safer, and she also voted for the motion. Ms. Lighthall said she had voted for the appeal because requiring the egress window would improve safety. Ms. Dunn said there were special circumstances, and granting the appeal would ensure the safety of future residents. Ms. Shaffer said she voted for the appeal so that it would be possible to re- quire the egress window. Mr. Waldman said that granting the appeal was consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Welker said the ceiling height is not too limiting, and that he would take in good faith the owner's statement that he would not use the lower level as an apartment. He agreed that more safety would be provided by adding an es- cape window. When the votes were displayed all seven members had voted to grant the appeal. The Chairman ruled the appeal, as amended, was granted, and instructed the applicant to contact the Building Division for permits. The Chairman declared a recess at 9:00. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. with the same persons present. The Chairman stated that there had been a request for a rehearing of Case No. 20-88, which concerned a handicap ramp for a day care center at 2315 South Tejon Street. BOARD MEMBER WELKER MOVED, AND BOARD MEMBER SHAFFER SECONDED A MOTION TO HAVE A REHEARING OF CASE #20-88. Upon a vote, five members voted to rehear the matter, and two members (Mr. Seymour and Ms. Lighthall) voted not to rehear it. The Chairman declared that since all interested parties were present, the matter could be heard immediately. Mrs . Romans stated that Ms. Chavez and Ms. Lucero wished to submit a letter and timony from a representative of the State Division of Child Welfare vices concerning State requirements for their child care center. tes- Ser- Mrs. • • • Romans said that all of the interested parties who appeared at the pre- vious hearing were present, except Mr. Yoder and Mr. Groditski who had to leave, but who had expressed no opposition to the request for a rehearing. Mrs. Romans said she had received a letter from Carol Jones, Licensing Specialist for the Division of Child Welfare Services, which stated that the "We Are The Children" child care center would not be licensed to care for handicapped children. If they will not be able to care for handi- capped children, the ramp would appear to be unnecessary, Mrs. Romans said. Carol Jones, 5525 East Bails Drive, Denver was sworn in for testimony. She stated the "We Are the Children" Center had been inspected by her predecessor, and that all requests for changes in the facility had been met. She said that she has worked for many years with child care centers similar to this, and none of them have been required to meet the requirements for commercial buildings. She empha- sized that their mandate is the safety of the children, and in her opinion, that mandate has been met at this facility. Ms. Jones said that there is a great need for this center in the area; she repeated that severely handicapped children could not be accepted in the center, and asked that the handicap ramp not be required. She said that because the need is so great for child care, there would not be any reason for more difficult children to be accepted. The only place she has seen a ramp installed was in facilities which specialize in handi- capped children. In response to questions, Ms. Jones admitted that the center would not be prohibited from having handicapped children, but said there would be no reason for accepting such children. Rita Hathaway 3143 South Cherokee Street was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she had been requested to inspect the facility. She said the center is well run, with two teachers and an aide. There is a desperate need for child care in the area, and the center doesn't qualify for food care without a license, which they can't get without the variance. Denying the license would not serve any useful purpose. Eleanor Lucero 1593 South King was sworn in for testimony. She said that a great deal of time and money had been spent in meeting the requirements for the day care center. After they had done this work, they were told about the handicap require- ment, and they could not afford to withdraw what had already been done or to continue with the new requirement. Caring for 15 or fewer children does not pay for an "improvement" which would be of no benefit and would cost $11,000. There were no further speakers . BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN THE REHEARING OF CASE #20-88, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2315 SOUTH TEJON, THE APPLICANTS BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SECTIONS WHICH REGULATE THE - 6 - • • • CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE REQUIRED WHEN THE USE CHANGES FROM A RESIDENCE TO A DAY CARE FACILITY. THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE; SECTION 502, CHANGE IN USE; SECTION 3301 (e) AND TABLE 33-A ITEM 18, BUILDING ACCES- SIBILITY FOR THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED; AND SECTION Sll, HANDICAPPED REST ROOM FACILITIES. Board Member Dunn seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour said that he had seen no new evidence, the Code requires the ramp and there is nothing wrong with the Code. Cost is not a factor to be con- sidered in granting variances and appeals. Ms. George said that she had voted for the motion because the safety of the children had been provided for. Ms. Lighthall said she had voted for the motion because it had been demon- strated that the need is great, and the care at the center is excellent. She said Mr. Groditski had been following the rules for commercial uses, and he had told her during the recess that this variance is not necessarily a problem for him. Ms. Dunn said that there is need for good child care, and the teachers seem able. Ms. Shaffer voted for the motion because the explanation by Ms. Jones provided new evidence and eliminated any safety concerns . Mr. Wa 1 dman concurred with the other a ffi rmat i ve votes and said there is a special need for the services of the center. Mr. Welker said that his concern had been for safety and he did not believe that there would be any risk to granting the variance. When the votes were displayed, six members had voted for the appeal, and one member, Mr. Seymour, had voted against it . The Chairman stated the appeal was granted. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Romans said the new City Manager, Roger Fraser, would be arriving on January 16, and arrangements have been tentatively made for an open house to be held on January 26 between 4 and 6 p.m. to give Board and Commission mem- bers an opportunity to meet Mr. Fraser. BOARD'S CHOICE. Mr. Welker said new officers should be elected at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m . Sh~ousses, Recording Secretary - 7 -