Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-11 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO JOLY 11, l 990 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, Cohn, Waldman and Welker. Members absent: None. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Walter Groditski, Code Administrator Rebecca Baker, Chief Building Inspector James Morrison, Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Lighthall moved that the minutes of June 13, 1990 be approved as written. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of June 13, 1990, were approved as written . APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact in Cases #5-90 and #6-90 be approved as written. Board Member George seconded the motion . All members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact for Cases #5-90 and #6-90 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #7-90 3200 South Downing Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #7-90, saying that the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance or an appeal by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal code . The Chairman stated the appeal would be addressed first by the City staff and then the appellant would state his side of the case. - 1 - Dorothy Romans • Planning Administrator, Community Development was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the appe .11 ent, Mr. R. J. Pauley, filed an appeal to the order of the Chief Building Inspector that certain required repairs to the house at 3200 South Downing Street must be made by licensed contractors rather than by himself, the non-resident owner of the property. Mrs. Romans asked the Board to refer to the 1 etter in their notebooks addressed to Mr. Pauley, dated April 30, 1990, from the Chief Building Inspector ordering Mr. Pauley to make the repairs as noted. Rebecca Baker Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. She stated the specific items that Mr. Pauley would be permitted to do would be discussed at the end of the presentation. Ms. Baker asked the Plumbing and Mechanical inspector, Mr. James Morrison, to start the presentation by giving a brief history of his contacts with Mr. Pauley, and to review the requirements as specified by the State of Colorado for making housing repairs. She added that Mr. Morrison was a Governor-appointed member of the State Plumbing Board . . James Morrison Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector was sworn in for testimony. He said he received a complaint in March of • 1990 from the tenant, Mr. Patton, who was renting the house at the time at 3200 South Downing Street. Mr. Patton explained he had contacted the owner to fix the furnace because of insufficient heat. He said that Mr.Pauley had done some of the repair work on the furnace, and added that he believed Mr. Pauley had by-passed the safety controls. Mr. Morrison said he telephoned Mr. Pauley advising him to repair the furnace and that under the State Plumbing Code, a licensed contractor was required. Mr. Pauley called later in the day saying he could not locate a licensed contractor to do the work, so Mr. Morrison told him to take care of it. In April, Mr. Patton called Mr. Morrison telling him that he was still getting insufficient heat. Mr. Morrison then arranged for a housing inspection to be scheduled at 3200 South Downing Street. The electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and general structure problems found by the Building and Safety inspectors during from that inspection were listed in the April 30th letter to Mr. Pauley. Mr. Morrison explained to the Board that in 1988, the State Plumbing Board was re-organized, and State regulations and licensing were established. The Plumbing Board re-established the requirement that only licensed plumbers could do work on property that is not owner occupied. He added that the same regulations were applicable for electrical work (that only licensed contractors can perform work in a non-owner occupied • residence). - 2 - • • • Mr. Morrison addressed the plumbing and electrical items that Mr. Pauley would not be allowed to do: I) wiring the fan motor to the blower cabinet of the furnace 2) the hot-water safety relief valve 3) installing a IIOV control switch to the furnace 4) gas pipeing to the furnace, water heater and clothes dryer 5) changing the sink waste and two traps 6) venting the laundry tray and automatic washer drains 7) venting the entire basement bathroom Mr. Morrison concluded that the items discussed must be done by licensed contractors and permits obtained for the work. Rebecca Baker Chief Building Inspector . was sworn in for testimony. She cited the i terns from the April 30th letter that Mr. Pauley would be able to repair: I) re-mount the doorbell 2) correct the switch installed upside down 3) improper hookup on mercury vapor light in back patio can be replaced or removed 4) repair shower leak in basement 5) replace missing handle from the main water line shut off 6) repair torn front and rear storm doors 7) unplug gutters and downspouts 8) fasten kitchen wall soffit over guard rail to basement 9) fix loose paneling in basement 10) add drywall to unsafe basement stairs Questions and comments were exchanged between the Board and Rebecca Baker, the Chief Building Inspector, and James Morrison, the Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector. The Chairman asked the appellant to come forward for testimony. Mr. R.J. Pauley owner of 3200 South Downing Street was sworn in for testimony. He gave a brief history of the house at 3200 South Downing Street. He lived in the house for 25 years, and has rented it the last 5 years. His last tenant, Mr. Patton, rented with the agreement of "rent with option to buy." The understanding between . the two parties, Mr. Patton and Mr . Pauley, was that if any repairs were necessary, the responsibility of the ·problem(s) would be Mr. Patton's, the tenant. Mr. Pauley explained that difficulties began when Mr. Patton failed to pay the rent after residing there for only 3 months. After Mr. Patton put a stop payment on one of the checks, Mr. Pauley said his only recourse was to evict the Patton's . - 3 - Mr. Pauley stated he felt qualified to do a lot of the repair work as a • result of his 25 year tenure with Public Service. He appealed to the Board in order that he could do the work with compliance to Building Codes, and do whatever the Building and Safety Department advised him to do. He stated he was concerned with the financial burden if licensed contractors were to be secured to do the repairs. He told the Board he would like to do ninety percent {90%} of the repair work. Mr. Pauley informed the Board that the house was presently for sale, that the mortgage was 3 months in arrears, and concluded that he would cooporate with the Building and Safety Department in order to resolve the problems. He explained that if the house were sold, the buyer would be informed of the items requiring repairs. 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 #7-90, THE APPELLANT, MR. R. J. PAULEY, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT CERTAIN REPAIRS TO THE STRUCTURE AT 3200 SOUTH DOWNING STREET, BE PERFORMED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER RATHER THAN BY LICENSED CONTRACTORS. Board Member George seconded the motion. Discussion ensued as to whether or not the specific items that Mr. Pa~ley can do should be added to the motion. Board Member Cohn suggested an amendment to the motion, that the motion be amended to specify the items that Mr. Pauley would be allowed to do as indicated by the Chief Building Inspector, and that all other work be done by licensed contractors. Board Member Waldman agreed to amend the motion for Case #7-90 to read: BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #7-90, THE APPELLANT, MR. R. J. PAULEY, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR, THAT MR. PAULEY BE ALLOWED TO DO THE REPAIR ITEMS AS LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND THE REMAINDER OF THE WORK MUST BE DONE BY LICENSED CONTRACTORS, AND FURTHER, THE WORK MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE STRUCTURE AT 3200 SOUTH DOWNING STREET IS OCCUPIED. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion as amended. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "no" supporting the Building Department's order. Ms. George voted "no" because she was of the opinion that the order of the Building Department should be upheld. - 4 - • • • • • Ms. Lighthall voted "yes" stating that with the restrictions and cooperation of the Building Department, Mr. Pauley should be a 11 owed to do some of the repair work. Ms. Shaffer voted "yes" stating that the motion would afford some relief to Mr. Pauley with the least amount of circumvention of the codes. Ms. Cohn voted "yes" citing that the reason for the State Statues is to protect the tenants of the property, and the items Mr. Pauley is allowed to do will be basically cosmetic and therefore not a safety hazard. Mr. Waldman voted "yes" stating that the hearing actually resulted in less than Mr. Pauley had requested, but that the result is that the simple repairs can be completed within Mr. Pauley's capacity. Chairman Welker voted "no" stating he did not want to violate the requirement of the State Statute that licensed contractors must be obtained to do repair work. The votes were displayed, showing 4 affirmative, and 3 negative. Chairman Welker stated that 5 affirmative votes were required to grant an appeal and therefore, the appeal was denied. After talking briefly about some confusion from hearing the findings of fact, Chairman Welker addressed the Board about a motion to recast his vote . Chairman Welker made a motion to reconsider, with the Motion remaining as stated. The motion to reconsider was approved. Mr. Welker advised the Board that they would be voting to grant or deny "modification of the appeal", and that their vote would be to either grant or deny the Motion including whether or not Mr. Pauley would be able to do the specified items as stated. There was no discussion. The Board Members locked in their votes, and the findings were stated as follows. Board Member Seymour remained with his "no" vote. Board Member George changed her vote from "no" to "yes", stating she misunderstood the motion as it was, and added she felt that the Board should uphold the requirements of the State Statutes, with the exception of the items identified by the Building Department that Mr. Pauley can do. Board Member Lighthall voted "yes". Board Member Shaffer voted "yes". Board Member Cohn voted "yes". Board Member Waldman voted "yes" . Chairman Welker voted "yes". - 5 - When the votes were displayed, the decision was 6 members for the appeal as modified, and Mr. Seymour voting against the motion. The Chairman announced to • Mr. Pauley that he would be allowed to repair the specified items as cited in the hearing, and restated the necessity of having licensed contractors perform the remainder of the items; further, all work be completed before a tenant can occupy 3200 South Downing Street or before it is sold. The Chairman called for a short recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with the same persons present. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #8-90 3265 West Bellewood Drive The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #8-90, saying that the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. He said he had proof of publication, and posting; and asked the staff to identify the request. Dorothy Romans Planning Administrator of Community Development explained that the applicant, Sandra Church, is requesting a variance from Section 16-4-2,1(1) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which Section requires that a minimum sideyard setback be 7 feet. The applicant requests a variance to construct an addition to the existing, attached garage which would have a setback of 2 feet, 3 inches. Section 16-4-2,1(1) also requires a total sideyard setback of 18 feet between principal buildings; the addition would result in a total sideyard • setback of approximately 7 1/2 feet. Allen Battaglia representative for Sandra Church of 3265 West Belleview Drive was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Battaglia explained that their intention was to add on to the existing garage and build an over-sized, two car garage to keep all their vehicles off the street and out from the bad weather including hail or snow. He added that they would have the garage done professionally and by licensed contractors. Mr. Battaglia said they had spoken to the neighbors. He submitted three statements from the neighbors with all three having no objection to the proposal. The three statements were entered into the record. Mr. Battaglia explained that the two options considered, were to enlarge the existing attached garage by adding on to the east, or to run a driveway around to the back of the house and add a detached garage in the rear yard. He concluded that financially they preferred adding to the attached garage because of the expense of the concrete running to the back for the detached garage. Mr. Battaglia asked the Board to look at the two drawings for the two options. He explained that the drawing with the addition to the existing garage would require cutting the existing patio in half. By doing that, • part of the patio would be eliminated and become garage. With this plan they could park two cars side by side using the front to park a recreational vehicle and/or for workshop space. - 6 - • • • There were no further speakers for or against the variance . The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report and neighbors statements into the record, and closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, SANDRA CHURCH, AT 3265 WEST BELLEWOOD DRIVE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2,I(l) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH STATES THE TOTAL SIDEYARD SETBACK BE 7 FEET, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, WHICH WOULD HAVE A SETBACK OF 2 FEET, 3 INCHES; AND ALSO TO SECTION 16-4-2,I(l) WHICH REQUIRES A TOTAL SIDEYARD SETBACK OF 18 FEET WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION REDUCING THE TOTAL SIDEYARD SETBACK TO 7 FEET AND 3 INCHES. The motion was seconded by Ms. Shaffer. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating the proposed garage was too close and too crowded to the adjoining property. Board Member George voted "yes. Board Member Lighthall voted "no" stating the distances between principal buildings, as proposed, was too close to the neighbors. Board Member Shaffer voted "yes" stating the variance for the addition to the garage would improve the applicants property . Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating that since the neighbors did not object to the minimum variance that the variance should be granted. Board Member Waldman voted for the variance stating the addition would be in keeping with the architectural style of the neighborhood. Chairman Welker voted "yes" stating the proposal of widening the garage to 18 feet was not excessive, and that the conditions set for granting a variance have been met. When the votes were displayed, 5 members had voted for the variance and 2, Ms. Lighthall and Mr. Seymour, voting against. The Chairman announced the variance had been granted. The applicant was advised that a Building Permit should be obtained within 6 months or the variance would be voided. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #9-90 1301-51 West Stanford Avenue The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #9-90 and asked the Staff to identify the request. Dorothy Romans Planning Administrator stated that the appellant, Windsor Industries, 1351 West Stanford Avenue, was requesting an appeal from the decision of the Code Administrator that a fire-rated door be installed at both ends of a Pedestrian Walkway or structure which connects two existing buildings, this is an appeal of Section 509(c) of .the 1985 Uniform Building Code. - 7 - Rebecca Baker • Chief Building Inspector stated that the Building Department had advised the applicant during the Plan Review process that the requirement from Section 509(c) is that fire-rated openings must be provided between the existing buildings and to both ends of the Pedestrian Walkway. Ms. Baker further explained that the code is a minimum standard, and despite the fact that both buildings were sprinklered and smoke detected, the fire-rated openings were still required. Ms. Baker explained that the letter dated March 30, 1990 from Calcon Constructors was forwarded to the International Conference of Building Officials in Whittier, California for an official, third-party, interpretation of the Code. The 1 etter addressed the issue for the requirement of the opening protection between the existing buildings, and the interpretation backed the Bu i1 ding Department's stance that indeed they were to be part of the construction necessary for the pedestrian walkway. Ms. Baker concluded that the factors involved with requiring the two fire-rated doors, is to isolate the two buildings from each other and to prevent the spread of smoke. Walter Groditski Code Administrator was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Groditski addressed the issue of whether • the walkway could be considered a "corridor", by stating that during the Plan Review, the area connecting the two buildings was not referred to by the architect or the owner as a corridor but a "pedestrian walkway". He explained that other walkways have been constructed in Englewood, such as Swedish Medi ca 1 Center, and the same issues have been dealt with, and resolved by following the Code. Mr. Groditski said that initially the designer wanted to put overhead doors in the pedestrian walkway and use it as a "loading dock" which would have been in violation of the intent of a walkway. He further explained that the size of the openings were decided upon by the architect so that the area would be large enough for material movement from one building to another with forklifts. Mr. Groditski answered some of the Board's questions concerning the two buildings at Windsor Industries and construction of the pedestrian walkway. He explained that the two buildings were constructed of pre-stressed concrete, and that both were sprinklered. He added that although the pedestrian walkway had three exits, the exitways were not a requirement and that the openings of each building still required fire-rated doors to contain smoke within the pedestrian area should a fire occur. He stated the intent of the ICBO letter was to verify the necessity for the fire-rated doors to prevent smoke and fire passage thorough the pedestrian walkway. He said if the walkway were not enclosed, it would not be necessary to provide the opening protection. He said by enclosing the area, a tunnel develops between the two • buildings, and regardless of the buildings being sprinklered, there still would be smoke propagation. -8 - • • • In conclusion, Mr. Groditski stated that sprinklers control fire but do not control smoke, and that the two fire-rated doors were necessary for escape, should a fire occur. He said that the officials at ICBO involved with the codes, realized that to provide a minimum level of safety to the occupants in the buildings and in the walkway, some requirement for fire-rated access from the buildings was necessary. Mark Betker, Vice President of Windsor Industries was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Betker explained the company had doubled their facilities by purchasing the building at 1351 West Stanford Avenue. He stated he enjoyed working with the Building Department and had done everything possible to cooperate to meet the codes. He expressed his concern to make Windsor Industries a successful business within the City of Englewood. He added they had spared no expense toward their goal of doing everything right and consistent. The second issue Mr. Betker discussed was that spending the money for fire-rated doors was well-spent if it concerned the safety of his employees. But he opted to disagree with the Building Department, stating that he thought one door was adequate, especially considering that there were three exit doors in the wa 1 kway which is approximate 1 y 1800 square feet in area. He concluded that the appeal was two-fold: one to appeal the decision of the Building Department requiring two fire-rated doors, and the other to complete the project so the company can be fully operational . Roger Tinney Architect for Windsor Industries was sworn in for testimony. He began by describing the construction of the pedestrian walkway. He explained the structure is of concrete blocks, the clearing or door openings to the buildings are 12 feet high, the width 30 feet, and the roof is a metal structure with a metal roof deck. Mr. Tinney used two blueprints to explain to the Board the placement of the pedestrian walkway and the two buildings. He circulated the drawings, but they were not entered as exhibits due to their large size. He pointed out the distance between the two buildings was 57 feet, the buildings wer.e pre-cast concrete, and both were fully-sprinklered. Mr. Tinney testified the Pl an Review was with Ms. Baker and when the pedestrian walkway was chosen to connect ·the buildings, his thinking was that one door with a one-hour rating would suffice for fire protection. He debated the ICBO interpretation, claiming he felt one door would be enough protection against the spread of fire from one building to another. He questioned why one door versus two wou1 d keep fire from spreading. He discussed his intention of using the manufacturing side versus the distribution side for mounting the door because of the type of products and equipment used in the manufacturing building . - 9 - Mark Betker spoke again to discuss their intention of using the manufacturing side versus the distribution side for mounting the door. He explained that there were some plastics, pumps, electric motors, and welding in the manufacturing building. Mr. Betker verified that the pedestrian walkway would not have any storage of materials, that it was strictly a passageway for pedestrians, and for material movement. He said the company had a 30,000 square foot warehouse for storage. He concluded by briefing the Board that Windsor Industries was the world's largest manufacturer of floor care equipment such as carpet extractors, carpet washer, and vacuums to institutions, hospitals, and hotels. Walter ·Groditski approached the podium again to reiterate the stance of the Building Department in abiding by the ICBO decision that it does make sense to have two doors, one at each end of the . pedestrian walkway. He stated that the traffic of both forklifts and pedestrians made the doors imperative for fire safety. • From a fire department viewpoint, Mr. Groditski stated the pedestrian walkway was a fairly new issue with little or no history. For this reason, he deferred to the ICBO interpretation of the two door requirement and the construction of one-hour fire-resistive material. He • said regardless of the verification from Windsor Industries that no storage would occur in the walkway, in his opinion, there would be forklifts and pallets present. He concluded that the intent of the doors was to prevent smoke and heat transmission between the buildings through the pedestrian walkway. 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 LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT IN CASE #9-90, THE APPELLANT, WINDSOR INDUSTRIES, OF 1301 AND 1351 WEST STANFORD AVENUE, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM SECTION 509(c) OF THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE WHICH STATES OPENINGS BETWEEN PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS AND BUILDINGS SHALL BE EITHER PROVIDED WITH OPENING PROTECTION AT CONNECTIONS TO BUILDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3305(h) OR CONSTRUCTED WITH BOTH SIDES OF THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AT 50 PER CENT OPEN WITH THE OPEN AREA DISTRIBUTED SO AS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF SMOKE AND TOXIC GASES. Board Member Shaffer seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Seymour said he voted 11 no 11 because of his concern with fire safety. -10 - • • • • Board Member George voted " yes", stating she felt the one door, three exits, and the type construction of the sprinklered buildings sufficient for fire safety. Board Member Lighthall voted "yes", agreeing with the architect that one fire-rated door would be enough protection. Board Member Shaffer voted "yes", agreeing with the architect's reasoning that one fire-rated door would give enough protection to the employees. Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating that there is a fire safety question and therefore important to have the two doors to protect the people in the Walkway. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" claiming the fire detectors and smoke alarms would provide protection and safety for the pedestrians. Chairman Welker voted "no" stating he felt the smoke could penetrate the walkway and without the two fire-rated doors it would become an issue of safety. When the votes were displayed, the decision was 4 members voting for the appeal, and 3 against the appeal; therefore, the Chairman announced the appeal was denied. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE 10-90 3028 South Pennsylvania Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #10-90 stating the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance or appeal by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. The Chairman asked the Staff to identify the appeal, with the appellants following. Dorothy Romans Planning Administrator for Community Development identified the request from Roxanne Schulze and Larry Seep, the property owners at 3028 South Pennsylvania Street, appealing the Code Administrator's letter dated May 24, 1990, in which letter Housing Code violations were identified and the owners were directed to comply with the City of Englewood's Housing Regulations and Title 9 of the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code . The property owners are appealing specifically, items 1, 4, 11, 12, 13, and 14 as setforth in that letter, as well as questioning items 8, 9, 10, 17, and 18. These items are referenced to Sections 9-3A-2, 9-3H-1A, 9-3E-l, and 9-3E-7 of the Englewood Housing Code as well as Sections 9-3C-2B, 9-3C-4A, and 9-3D-7A. Rebecca Baker Chief Building Inspector stated the Building and Safety Department received a phone call from one of the tenants at 3028 South Pennsylvania Street complaining about inadequate heat. Ms. Baker stated a Housing Inspection was arranged and the results of that inspection could be explained by the the Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector. -11 - James Morrison Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector stated that he received a phone call from one of the tenants at 3028 South Pennsylvania, complaining they could not keep the house warm. The call er had made a request to the landlord that something be done about it, but nothing had been done. Mr. Morrison explained that when he arrived it was 15 degrees outside, and upon entrance to the house read the inside temperature was at 62 degrees .. He explained that according to the Housing Regulations every dwelling is to have adequate heating. While he was at the residence, he noticed other possible Housing Code violations in the upstairs unit, but at that time did not have access to the basement apartment. A letter was sent to the property owner, Roxanne Schulze of Security West Investment and Management, dated January 24, 1990 with the results from the Housing Inspection. The items that needed to be addressed and repaired were listed, with a February 26, 1990 date of compliance for taking action to correct the inadequate heat. That letter stated that if the inadequate heating problem was taken care of within 30 days, the other plumbing, mechanical, electrical and structural repair items could be done at a later date. The following items were listed on the January 24, 1990 letter addressed to Roxanne Schulze, Security West Investment and Management: } 1) The baseboard not installed high enough above carpet to permit heat and air flow. 2) Lack of fin tubing in registers responsible for heat loss. 3) Every dwelling shall have heating facilities which can maintain a temperature of at least 70 degrees when the outside temperature is -5 degrees. 4) The wall around the bath/ shower have holes in it and was not impervious to water. 5) Spout on tub faucet lacking adequate air gap. 6) Minimum ceiling height: the kitchen ceiling starts at approximately 6 foot, 5 inches, and tapers to 6. 7) Window must be openable and have screens. 8) Some of the electric outlets were not working. Inspector Morrison explained the compliance date to correct the inadequate heat (February 26, 1990) was not met, and on April 25, 1990 another letter was sent to the property owner. In that letter the issue for correcting the heat problem and to complete the necessary repairs was again stressed and a request for access to the basement apartment was made. The compliance date from the April letter was for May 14, 1990. -12 - • • • • • • Mr. Morrison reported that when none of the repairs had been accomplished, another Housing Inspection was performed on May 22, 1990 at which time both rental units were inspected. An official " Notice and Order" l~tter from the Building and Safety Department was sent certified mail to the property owners: Roxanne Schulze and Larry Seep. That letter notified the owners of 19 Housing Code violations that the inspectors found during their Housing Inspection. The letter put the owners on "notice" of a 11 repairs, or demo l it ion of the dwelling, and issued an "order" to do so, on or before July 15, 1990. Mr. Morrison concluded by explaining that contact with the property owner(s) resulted only in their statements that they could not get the repairs done right away. He stated that when numerous contacts and letters to the property owners did not result in any repair or correction from the initial inspection of December 29, 1989 to the May 14,1990 inspection, the only recourse left for the Building and Safety Department was to take legal action. Larry Seep and Roxanne Schul z·e Property owners of 3028 South Pennsylvania Street were sworn in for testimony. Mr. Seep began by stating that they were on the verge of bankruptcy and therefore lacked the money to do any of the repairs to the property. He disclosed that they owned other properties and had owned and rented the house at 3028 South Pennsylvania for 6 years. Ms. Schulze stated that she had called the Building and Safety office after receiving the letter(s). She said that she had spoken with Mr . Morrison and that he had agreed to give them an extension on doing the repairs. She stated the difference between what Mr. Morrison said and the letters was ambiguous because when she talked with Mr. Morrison, he sounded very casua 1 about the ti me involved to do . the repairs. Ms. Schulze said that they had always considered the property to be very nice and if they had had the money they would have taken care of the repairs immediately. Ms. Schulze alleged that the tenant complained about the heat during severely cold days, and claimed the tenant continued to live in the house instead of moving out. She explained that if the choice was between doing the repairs and paying the mortgage, that paying the mortgage took precedence. Mr. Seep stated that tenants have been responsible for some of the damage to the property, claiming the broken window listed in the letter, has been replaced several times. When questioned how often they inspect their properties, he answered on an average of once a month. When the Chairman asked if there were any speakers in the audience who wished to speak for or against the appeal, the following people spoke: -13 - Carol Boyce • former tenant of 3028 South Pennsylvania Street was sworn in for testimony. She explained when she did a brief walk thru of the the apartment at 3028 South Pennsylvania, that the former tenants had not totally moved all their possessions out of the space. Ms. Boyce made arrangements with Ms. Schulze to take possession of the upstairs apartment on August 27, 1989 . At that time the apartment was empty and when she was moving into the space, she began to notice the condition of the apartment. Ms. Boyce disclosed that there were rags wrapped around the tub faucet, and the shower was torn up. Ms. Boyce submitted photographs of the disrepair of the upstairs apartment. She described the pictures to the Board beginning with the wall board around the bathtub that had separated from the wall due to water damage from leaking faucets. She reported the next set of photos as water damage around the bathtub fixtures that were initially covered with rags, but when the rags were removed, the pipes were corroded and rusted. The next set of pictures reflected the disrepair around some of the doors, and wall plaster damage. The last set of pictures showed the threadbare carpeting. Ms. Boyce elaborated on the inadequate heat stating her concern for her two children living with that condition. She stated she contacted the landlords who came over to house and tried some adjustments. She al so contacted Public Service. On December 23, 1989, she called the Renters Association; they recommended calling the City of Englewood. She elaborated that it was so cold over the Christmas Holidays, that the • family did not stay in the apartment. She explained that on December 29, 1989, Mr. Morrison made a housing inspection of the upstairs. Ms. Boyce stated the heating problem was still not resolved in January, so she continued to communicate with the landlords about the problems. She stated that they loaned her a space heater . Ms. Boyce said she would have stayed in the apartment if the heating had been corrected, but moved out in the Spring. Albin Erickson 3028 South Pennsylvania was sworn in for testimony. He explained that he had rented the basement apartment for the last two and a half years. He stated he enjoyed living there because of the loc ation of facilities like the medical center being nearby, and the park , where he walked his dog. He stated he did not give second thoughts to the safety of the house until he received a copy of the Housing Inspection from the Building and Safety Department. He alleged he did not have any real complaints, but that one of the rooms in his downstairs apartment was totally unheated due to the lack of fins on the copper tubing in the register. -14 - • ' ' • Ms. Mr. Erickson stated that he had contacted the landlords on several occasions concerning broken windows and painting. He pointed out that there was a problem with getting enough hot water with one 30 gallon hot water heater, which he stated is not sufficient for serving two apartments . He said he had discussed the need for more hot water with Mr. Seep the last time the water heat was replaced by the same 30 gallon capacity, re-stating they needed more hot water for two apartments. Boyce asked to speak again quoting the summarization that the Code Administrator had issued which was: "the issues involved are health-related items dealing with inadequate heat, possible incomplete combustion of gas-fired applicances, pollution of water system and electrical hazards." There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or against the appeal. The Chairman entered the Staff Report and exhibits into the record, and closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE THE MOTION THAT IN CASE #10-90, FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, ROXANNE SCHULZE AND LARRY SEEP, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE CODE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER OF MAY 24, 1990 SPECIFICALLY ITEMS #1,#4, #11, #12, #13, AND #14 AND ALSO ITEMS #8, #9, #10, #17, AND #18 WITH THESE ITEMS REFERENCED TO 9-3A-2, 9-3H-1A, 9-3E-l, AND 9-3E-7 AS WELL AS SECTIONS 9-3C-2B, 9-3C-4A, 9-3D-7A AND 9-3F-3 OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD'S HOUSING REGULATIONS, TITLE 9 OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. • Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. • The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact: Board Member Seymour voted "no" commenting that the property owners need to correct the items listed in the various correspondence from the Building and Safety Department. Board Member George voted "no" explaining that the Board cannot consider a financial hardship in any case and that the repairs should be corrected to make the rental property safe for occupancy. Board Member Lighthall voted "no" stating the property is in a total state of disrepair and that the property owners need to correct the housing violations. Board Member Shaffer voted "no" stating that the City's determination to have the property a safe place to live was imperative for safe occupancy. Board Member Cohn voted "no" agreeing with the other members that the property owners need to address the violations found at the property and correct them. Board Member Waldman voted "no" commenting that the property owners had not taken action to fix the items at the beginning of the year and that he heard nothing that they said verifying that they would do the repairs in the future . Chairman Welker voted "no" stating there were health, sanitation and safety issues involved, and that perhaps foreclosure would be best so a future owner could make the repairs, and make the property a safer place to reside. -15 - . ' When the votes were displayed, all 7 members voted to deny the appeal; the Chairman announced the appeal was denied. He added all of the Housing Code • violations must be made in the interest of the tenant's safety. CITY ATTORNEYS CHOICE Mr. Brotzman informed the Board that the Federal Court had heard the appeal of Case #24-88 for William Haiden, and handed down a decision denying the appeal. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans had nothing to present. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary -16 - • •