Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-08 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO MAY 8, 1991 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. The Chairman stated the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance or appeal by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Members present: Seymour, George, Lighthall, Shaffer, Cohn, Waldman, and Welker. Members absent : None. Also present: Harold Stitt, Staff Advisor Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney Becky Baker, Chief Building Inspector Duane Davidson, Building Inspector Walt Groditski, Fire Marshal The Chairman stated that with seven members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Board Member Lighthall moved that the minutes of February 13, 1991 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 of February 13, 1991, approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #2-91, Clifford Sampier of 4601 South Clarkson Street; Case #5-91, Ors. Mulvany and Novelen of 3627 South Pennsylvania Street; Michael Cooper of AMCO Construction for Case #6-91, 2830 South Bannock Street; and Case #7-91, 3270 South Pearl Street, be approved as written . Board Member Shaffer seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact be approved as written . - 1 - PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #10-91: 4001 South Elati Street The Chairman opened the public hearing stating he had proof of publication and that in an appeal, the staff presents its case first and then the applicant is called upon to testify. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the applicant was requesting an appeal from the Building Inspector's correction notice as it pertains to roofing: Table 32-B-2 and Table 32-C; and earth wood separation: Sections 2516(c) and 2502(a) of the 1988 Uniform Building Code. Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Baker stated that Mr. Hendricks received his first permit on August 9, 1987 for a carport; that another permit was issued on December 1, 1987 when he decided to change the plans from a carport to a garage; and that on February 8, 1991, Mr. Hendricks informed the Building Division he was changing back to the carport. Ms. Baker testified that on January 7, 1991, (while the permit was still listed as a garage) a letter was written to Mr. Hendricks advising him of three code violations: the base plate bearing directly on the soil; weather protection issues of the roof; and occupancy separation between • the existing house and new garage. Ms. Baker stated the letter concluded • advising Mr. Hendricks that the Building Division would agree to accept a letter of inspection and approval from a Colorado State Licensed Engineer verifying that the garage was structurally adequate; and to date had not received such a letter. Ms. Baker explained that the three posts were satisfactorily secure to the foundation but that the wood used for the base plate was in direct contact with the soil and was of undetermined wood. Ms. Baker cited that the code specifically states "that wood used in construction of permanent structures ... " must be "treated" wood so as to provide protection against termites, wood rot, and freeze dry damage. Duane Davidson Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Davidson explained the five items listed on his Correction Notice from March 29, 1991, being appealed by Mr. Hendricks, and had accompanying photographs to illustrate the existing violations: 1) Shake spacing placement too close to meet required codes. 2) Method of interlacing not adequate for weather exposure. 3) 30# underlayment inadequate. 4) Base plate of undetermined wood bears directly on the soil. 5) Tin covering bridging from existing roof and new roof is too short to provide weather protection. -2 - • • • • Mr. Davidson answered questions from the Board about the roofing violations noted on the Correction Notice stating that some of the shakes were not properly nailed; that the distance between the shakes exceeds the minimum standard; that the installation of the shakes was not done according to the manufacturers instructions; and therefore, weather protection was doubtful. Paul Hendricks owner of the house at 4001 South Elati Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Hendricks stated he disagreed with the items listed on the Correction Notice stating, that in his opinion, the shakes were satisfactorily applied to the roof alleging that the new roof had not leaked at any time since beginning the building project four years ago. Mr. Hendricks entered into the record a letter from The Engineering Group, Inc. which stated that a visual observation of the carport had been conducted on April 5, 1991; that the purpose of the inspection was to recommend modifications for the carport in order to meet building codes; and that they were of the opinion that if their recommendations were complied with, the carport would meet the necessary building codes stated in the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Hendricks concluded he would consider modifying the carport as recommended in the Engineer's letter to bring the carport into compliance but would not adhere to the Building Division's directive that the roof should be removed and re-roofed. There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or against the appeal. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report and exhibits into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #10-91 FOR THE REQUEST FILED BY MR. PAUL HENDRICKS OF 4001 SOUTH ELATI STREET BE GRANTED FOR AN APPEAL FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S CORRECTION NOTICE AS IT PERTAINS TO ROOFING: TABLE 32-B-2 AND TABLE 32-C; AND EARTH WOOD SEPARATION: SECTIONS 2516(c) AND 2502(a) OF THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. Board member Seymour seconded the motion . Discussion ensued. Board Member Waldman amended the motion to exclude item #2 from the appeal since Mr. Hendricks had stated he could feasibly bring the base plate into compliance. Board Member Seymour seconded the amended motion. All seven members voted in favor of the amended motion, and the Chairman ruled the motion was amended to read: - 3 - BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #10-91 FOR THE REQUEST FILED BY MR. • PAUL HENDRICKS OF 4001 SOUTH ELATI STREET BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S CORRECTION NOTICE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM #2, AS IT PERTAINS TO ROOFING: TABLE 32-B-2 AND TABLE 32-C. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "no" stating the violations were so numerous that there seemed to be more things wrong than right. Ms. Shaffer voted "no" for basically the same reasons as stated by Mr. Seymour. Ms. Lighthall concurred voting "no". Ms. George voted "yes" stating that she felt the shakes were properly applied and sealed. Ms. Cohn voted "no" stating she felt the applicant must comply with the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Waldman voted "no" stating he felt the applicant must meet the Building Code requirements. Chairman Welker voted "no" stating that from the evidence presented that it was obvious the application of the roof was subject to numerous problems. When the votes were displayed one member voted for the appeal, with six • members voting in opposition to the appeal. The Chairman announced the appeal was denied, stating the applicant must comply with the Building Code requirements. The Chairman called for a short recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with the same persons present. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #11-91: 3424 South Broadway The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #11-91, saying the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance or appeal by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code, adding that he had proof of publication of the notice of the hearing. The Chairman reiterated that with an appeal the staff presents their testimonyfirst and the applicant second. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated that Samuel Wetherill was the applicant for the subject property at 3424 South Broadway requesting an appeal from the 1988 Uniform Building Code Section 104(b) and Section 3802(b) as it relates to fire sprinklering requirements. -4 - • • • • Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector testified that the applicant had applied for a demolition permit to remove some partitions in the basement of the subject property. Ms. Baker referred to Section 104(b) of the Uniform Building Code stating that the section states remodels, repairs or alterations of buildings must meet current standards outlined by the Uniform Building Code; therefore the basement remodel would be required to comply with the current Building Codes. Ms. Baker added that the requirement of a fire sprinkler system would be necessary since the code specifies the necessity for such a system with any area measuring 1500 square feet or greater; and that the subject basement measures three times the requirement at 5,000 square feet. Ms. Baker emphasized that the issue for the requirement was one of life safety. Walt Groditski Fire Marshal was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Groditski explained that he was involved with the subject property when he was with the Building Division but was currently assigned to the Fire Department. Mr. Groditski stated that he conducted a file search of the property and found that the building had been remodeled in 1949, but found no evidence that the basement had been brought up to the Fire Code at that time. Mr. Groditski verified that Section 101 was in effect in 1949 and would have required that the entire building conform to the provisions of the code which would have required installation of a fire sprinkler system . Mr. Groditski stated that on March 25, 1991, he wrote a letter to the agent for the building, Mr. Panian, explaining that as a result of his findings there existed several code-related safety issues, particularly the necessity of an approved fire sprinkler system in the basement. Mr. Groditski added that his concern was because, historically, basements have been the worst areas for fires and life-loss. Mr. Groditski concluded that he felt the code was explicit about requiring a fire sprinkler system in the basement. Mr. Groditski added that he did not believe the proposed fire detection-alarm system would provide the same level of protection as a fire sprinklering system. Mr. Groditski explained the detection system will alert occupants of a fire but will do nothing to extinguish or cool down a fire. Mr. Groditski commented on the exiting condition of the building stating that the first floor has sufficient openings to the outside to allow for rescue and fire fighting, but the basement does not. Mr. Ralph Panian agent for the property owner, Mr. Sam Wetherill at 3424 South Broadway was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Panian stated the remodeling plan for the basement was to remove partitions, and to continue usage of the basement for retail and/or storage. Mr. Panian stated that he found the provision for a sprinklering system, as detailed in Mr. Groditski's letter, unacceptable because he is of the opinion that an automatic fire detection-alarm system is sufficient to insure the occupants' safety. -5 - Mr. Panian used several drawings to illustrate the remodeling of the building on both the first floor and basement pointing out that the • combustible celotex ceiling tiles would be removed; that 5/8's Firerock would be installed underneath the floor joists in the basement to insure separation between the floors; and that an eight foot door would be installed for exit from the basement. Mr. Panian continued with the safety issue stating that in his opinion the neighbors would be protected because the walls on each side are thick masonry, and that both neighbors and occupants would be protected by the proposed monitored fire alarm and smoke detection system. Mr. Panian submitted for the record a 5-page survey citing that he contacted all the businesses in the 3400 block of South Broadway, to gather data on fire protection systems in the basements for the block. Mr. Panian stated that of the retail basements, three had local smoke detection-alarm systems; and of the 13 basements used for storage, only one (Robohm Appliances) had any kind of fire detection, and their system was a monitored detection system. Mr. Panian alleged that if they were required to sprinkle the basement they would be the only business in the 3400 block of South Broadway with a sprinkler system. Mr. Panian added that they had an $8,000 bid for a monitored smoke alarm system which he felt would provide at least a minimum level to customers and surrounding businesses; and that if they were to sprinkler the building the business cost would be roughly $22,000. The Chairman asked if there were any other speakers for or against the appeal. • The Chairman entered into the record the Staff Report, and exhibits as part of the Public Hearing, and announced the Public Hearing was closed . BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #11-91 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3424 SOUTH BROADWAY, THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SECTION 104(b) AND SECTION 3802(b) AS IT RELATES TO FIRE SPRINKLERING REQUIREMENTS. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Ms . Shaffer voted "no" stating she felt the sprinklering of the basement should be required for public safety. Ms. Lighthall voted "yes" stating that the applicant has shown that they are taking reasonable measures for providing public safety. Ms. George voted "yes" stating they appeared to be taking precautions for fire safety. Ms. Cohn voted " yes" stating she felt the owners were taking reasonable action for fire prevention by removing the combustile celotex tile ceiling; - 6 - • • • • adding the 1-hour barrier between the basement and upper floor; and that the monitoring fire alarm system seemed appropriate for the basement. Mr. Waldman voted "yes" stating he agreed with the reasons stated by Ms. Cohn. Mr. Seymour voted "no" claiming he favored the sprinkler system as providing maximum safety and that the system should be required. Chairman Welker voted "yes" stating that the applicant was making the effort to provide the basement with adequate protection and safety by the removal of the hazardous materials and by the installation of the fire-alarm system. When the votes were displayed 5 members voted in the affirmative, and 2 opposing; the Chairman announced that the appeal had been granted. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #12-91 3627 South Pennsylvania Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #12-91, stating he had proof of posting and publication and asked the Staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor identified the request stating the applicants, Ors. Mulvany and Novelen, were currently conducting their practice at 3601 South Pearl Street, but planned to construct a Dental Office at the subject property. The request is to encroach 10 feet into the side yard setback which is a variance from Section 16-4-S:k,3. which states that there be no less than 15 feet for each side and no less than 15 feet between principal buildings on the same or adjoining lots. Dr. Mark Novelen 3601 South Pearl Street was sworn in for testimony. Dr. Novelen stated he and his partner, Dr. Damien Mulvany, were asking for a variance for the construction of a Dental Office, to encroach 10 feet into the north and south setbacks adding that the two properties affected abut the parking lot. Dr. Novelen submitted two statements from the property owners adjacent and adjoining the lot, stating they had no opposition to the proposal. Dr. Novelen stated the reason for the request was because the proposed building would maximize the utilization of the lot to the fullest capacity and still provide ample parking in the rear lot for the doctors and parking in front of the building for the patients. Dr . Novelen pointed out that the concern of people using the alleyway and the issue of people driving through other doctor's property would be alleviated by the proposed building plan. Dr. Novelen concluded that the building proposal addressed all the necessary requirements for landscaping and parking. There were no other speakers for or against the request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record, and closed the Public Hearing. - 7 - .... BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION FOR CASE #12-91 AT 3627 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, THAT THE APPLICANTS, DR. MULVANY AND DR. NOVELEN, BE GRANTED A • VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DENTAL OFFICE, WHICH WOULD ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-S:k,3. WHICH STATES THAT THERE SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 15 FEET FOR EACH SIDE AND NO LESS THAN 15 FEET BETWEEN PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS ON THE SAME OR ADJOINING LOTS. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating the variance will afford relief to the applicant with the least modification. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating the variance would not adversely affect the adjoining properties. Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating her concerns were identical. Board Member George voted "yes" stating she concurred with granting the variance. Board Member Lighthall voted "no" stating she was against the entire project. Board Member Shaffer voted "yes". Board Member Welker voted "yes" concurring with the reasons stated by Mr . Waldman . When the votes were displayed, 6 members voted in the affirmative, with one member, Ms. Lighthall, opposing the appeal. The Chairman announced the appeal was granted. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE None. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE None. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE None. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon Recording Secretary - 8 - • •