Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-10 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO July 10, 1991 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:35 p.m. 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 Robert Sorensen, Roofing Inspector and Consultant for the Building and Safety Division The Chairman stated that with seven members present, fiv~.affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. The Chairman stated the Boa r d is authorized 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 June 12, 1991 be approved as written. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of June 12, 1991, approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #13-91, James Brown of 1053 West Stanford Place be approved as written. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact be approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #14-91: 3401 and 3403 South Race Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he · had proof of publication and explained that in an appeal, the staff identifies the request, and the applicant and those that wish to speak, are called upon to testify. -1 - Harold Stitt Staff Advisor was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt identified the case for the subject property at 3401 and 3403 South Race Street (Kent Village), with the pr operty owners being Ronald E. and Lucy H. McAdams, and Richard P. and Ann W. Brown. The applicant, Alpen Construction, filed for an appeal from Section 3208(b)l0 and Section 3209 of the 1988 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code for the work performed at the subject properties. Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Baker stated the appeal was filed in reference to the Correction Notice written on May 22, 1991 by Building and Safety Division personnel and issued to the contractor. Ms. Baker stated the roof covering was not installed to meet the minimum requirement(s) of the Uniform Building Code or the manufacturer's installation instructions. Ms. Baker explained the applicant alleged on the appeal application, that the items listed on the Correction Notice were "unreasonable and unduly strict interpretation of the U.B.C. and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship". Ms. Baker emphasized that the Uniform Building Code is very specific in its requirements regarding the proper installation of roof covering. · Ms . Baker summarized stating the property owners are . opposed to the appeal and were represented by their Home Owners Association representatives; Ms. Judy Travis, and Mr. Charles Pratt, attorney . Robert Sorensen Roofing Inspector and Consultant for the City of Englewood was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Sorensen stated he was hired by the City of Englewood to perform roofing inspections. Mr. Sorensen explained he performed the roofing inspection at the subject properties and issued the Correction Notice. He stated he was of the opinion that to file for an appeal for something that is wrong is incorrect because he felt the Correction Notice clearly defined the deficiencies .found throughout the roofing application . He further explained that some of the items were minor while others were major deficiencies; and added that the deficiencies would lead to pre-mature deterioration and leakage of the roof. Mr. Sorensen entered into the record photographs to assist with the explanation of the deficiencies found on the roof. Mr. Sorensen explained the deficiencies photographed were those items that did not meet Code, nor meet the minimum standard of the Code for a properly app 1 i ed roof. Mr. Sorensen was requested by the Chairman to address each item on the Correction Notice~ and to refer to the numbered photographs for visual means of identifying those items found that were incorrect. In addition, three technical illustrations from the National Roofing Contractors Association, and manufacturer's manual were distributed to each Board member. - 2 - • • • • • • Mr. Sorensen testified to the following: 1) Hip & Ridge Caps-Fasteners too short: 1) According to Code, fasteners must penetrate into sheathing 3/4" or through the sheathing. Photograph #1 showed the fasteners on the hip and ridge cap as too short and not penetrating through the shakes. 2) Improper application makes the roof susceptible to wind damage and could be a constant maintenance problem with the roof. 2) Shake pieces used for top course lack sufficient butt thickness: 1) The code states medium shakes must be 1/2" in thickness: the photographs illustrated shakes that were cut off, pieces of shakes that were not full shakes, and some that were approximately 1/4" thick. 2) Deficiency being the early degradation of product. 3) Shakes split over keyways and those lacking 1 1/2" vertical sidelap: 1) Photographs illustrated that some shakes applied were cracked over keyway exposing felt and that the 1 1/2" minimum vertical sidelap was not maintained. 2) Shake applied without proper keyway could expose the felt to ultraviolet light which would breakdown the felt . 3) Considered a serious infraction and found throughout the roof, with some having been repaired while others still exist. 4) Replace shakes with visual defects (rot knots, etc.): 1) Photographs showed shakes with material grade defects such as rot, bark or knots in the shakes. 2) Explained that there is a 7% defect factor per packing bundle of shakes and that it is the applicator's responsibility to cull the defective shakes, and to apply shakes with proper fiber. 5) Top course at ridge not secured and loose in various areas: 1) Photographs showed shakes sticking up in the air and loose resulting from improper fastening or nailed too high. 6) Step flashing installed wrong: 1) Step flashing should be installed flush or near the butt of the shake. 2) This deficiency of the roofing system could result in possible leakage. 7) Soil stack flashing installed incorrectly: 1) Flashing not covered properly with sha~es which would allow snow, wind or rain penetration and result in leakage . - 3 - 8) Staples should not penetrate surface of shake: replace those where extreme penetration exists: · 1) Photographs showed staple went completely through shakes which could be caused by too high a pressure of the gun or maintenance of the equipment. 2) Manufacturers state not to penetrate surface of the shake. 3) The U.B.C. states staples should be long enough to penetrate the sheathing at least 3/4 of an inch or through the sheathing; with the manufacturer requiring 1/2 of an inch. 9) Total hip and ridge installation does not meet criteria regarding alternate overlap. (This item provided as advisory for future ref.) 1) Although the item was for future reference, a photograph {llustrated that shakes were not installed using an alternate overlap, and that the Code requires overlapping. Mr. Sorensen summarized his presentation stating that the remainder of the photographs illustrate that some shakes were accepted having less than the required 4 inches and that they were accepted to maintain the 1 1/2 inch required sidelap; and stated he felt the photograph illustrating the loose hip caps was a major deficiency. • Mr. Sorensen answered questions from the Board stating that although the items found during his inspection were not major, they were important because they did not meet the minimum standard of the Code; that the items were • correctable; and that they needed to be corrected in order to maintain the integrity of the system. Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector approached the podium to address questions from the Board on communication between the Building & Safety Division and Alpen Construction. Ms. Baker explained that a letter dated May 15, 1991, was sent by the applicants attorney, Mr. Brian Lewis, to the City Manager, who subsequently contacted Rich Wanush, Director of Community Development . In response to the letter, Mr~ Wanush offered to meet with all parties involved . With no further evidence from the Building and Safety Division, the applicant was asked to come forward for testimony. Brian Lewis Attorney for the applicant, Tony Brake of Alpen Construction approached the Chairman requesting permission to present testimony by posing questions to his representatives, Tony Brake and two consultants. A recess was declared at 8:25 p.m. while the Board conferred with the City's Assistant Attorney to discuss procedure. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all members present. - 4 - • • • • Chairman Welker announced that the procedure of Mr. Lewis examining his witnesses would be allowed, and that questions to the City Staff would follow after testimony from the applicant was completed. (The questions of Mr. Lewis have been omitted). Anthony Brake President of Alpen Construction was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Brake stated he contacted the Building Department to request a meeting with Duane Davidson for a pre-job conference to review the Code requirements for the roofing contract he had at Kent Village. Mr. Brake stated Mr. Davidson and two of his employees: James Smith, and Matt Lopez, were present at the meeting. Mr. Brake stated the items discussed were: side and vertical spacing between the shakes, minimum width of the shakes to be used, application of the fasteners 1 the lacing of the felt, lacing of the flashing, and drip edge of the bottom (not in the contract but they were willing to do it). Mr. Brake stated they went over the work step by step with Mr. Davidson. Mr. Brake stated that Mr. Davidson insisted on being on the job site every day while the work was being done, and had instructed them not to begin the work without him being present. Mr. Brake stated that Mr. Davidson also required that he inspect the labels (for the shakes) and ·that those labels be posted on every permit. Mr. Brake testified that Mr. Davidson inspected the material and work . Mr. Brake described an instance where Mr. Davidson inspected the Club House and told the roofers that the shakes were placed too close. Mr. Brake said his men had to take out slivers between every shake, on approximately a quarter of the roof. Mr. Brake stated that Mr. Davidson told him he did not have much experience in inspecting shake roofs because there were not that many shake roofs in the City of Englewood; that he was in the process of learning to inspect shake roofs; and that he would value Alpen's judgement and input into the situation. Mr. Brake stated the Mr. Davdison took the lead, made instructions and made them abide by them. Mr. Brake stated that Mr. Davidson instructed and allowed the roofing installed to face staple the top course; to place one staple in the butt end of the top of the shake in order to keep the shake from flapping in the breeze. Mr. Brake explained that they were written up for that particular installation, referring to Item #8 on the Correction Notice. Mr. Brake testified that in his opinion, the application for the roofs at the subject properties were done according to Mr. Davidson's instructions. Mr. Brake said that he received a letter from the Building & Safety Division written September 17, 1990 that the job was unacceptable. Mr. Brake explained that his roofing crew had to tear up an entire ridge cap to cover the ridge and that he was told to cover it that way by Mr. Davidson . - 5 - Mr. Brake stated that he thought the roof was in conformance and when he was informed it was not, that he made numerous calls to the Building Department in an effort to discuss the problems. Mr. Brake stated that upon his suggestion, the owners of the subject properties agreed to retain an engineer to inspect the roof. Mr. Brake explained that in mid-April, a meeting took place between the management company for Kent Village and Alpen, for the purpose of getting their opinion on the acceptance of the roof. Mr. Brake stated that both representatives inspected the roof and submitted to him a report stating it was their consensus that certain issues needed to be corrected. Mr. Brake stated his roofing crew corrected the problems outlined by the consultants. Mr. Brake stated that after the repairs were done, he called for a re-inspection, during which time he learned the City had retained Mr. Sorensen to inspect the roof. Mr. Brake stated that he tried twelve to fifteen times to reach Mr. Sorensen, but claimed Mr. Sorensen would not return his calls. · Mr. Brake concluded that after he received the Correction Notice issued May 22, 1991, by Mr. Sorensen, he retained two roofing consultants and that their findings were that the roof was in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Richard Walker Consultant retained by Alpen Construction • was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he was a registered architect, a Colorado licensed engineer, has been in construction for the • past forty years, and been practicing as a forensic engineer for the past eight years. Mr. Walker stated he was contacted by Mr. Wayne Crawford, consultant for Alpen Construction, and retained to inspect the roof at Kent Village. Mr. Walker stated he met with Mr. Crawford on May 4, 1991, at the job site with the purpose of determining if the roof could be brought into compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Walker stated he made a list of the grey areas of concern, and areas not in compliance. On May 11, 1991, Mr. Walker stated he made a second inspection with Mr. Crawford, with the purpose of being present during the repair work and to inspect the roof upon completion of the repairs. Mr. Walker stated that he was of the opinion that the repair work was done to a reasonable degree of compliance to the Uniform Building Code. · Mr. Walke r stated he was called on a third occassion, and informed that the City of Englewood had issued a Correction Notice. Mr. Walker stated he was asked to review the Correction Notice to determine if the items existed, how bad they were, and what it would take to bring the items into compl i ance. Mr. Walker stated on May 29, 1991, he made a third list of repairs he thought needed to be made and gave it to Mr. Brake. Mr. Walker stated he was of the opinion that the Correction Notice had little merit with the exception of Item #3, ag-reeing that the shakes were too close to the side laps and that there were some cracks in some of the shakes. Mr. Walker stated he felt that the other items were not part of • the Uniform Building Code; that they were outside standards; or that they w~re personal or personal preference standards. - 6 - • • • Mr. Walker stated that he took issue with item #7 stating that the soil flashings were installed when the building was constructed and would be applicable for a new roof but that the Kent Village job was a re-roof; therefore, he was of the opinion that Chapter 32, Section 3209 would not apply. Mr. Walker took issue with some of the items on the Correction Notice stating he could not find any justification within the Uniform Building Code that fasteners be 1/2 inch; or that the item pertains to the job; or that it justifies rejecting the job. Mr. Walker challenged Item #4 from the Correction Notice stating the rot and knots found on some of the shakes should not constitute failing the roof. Mr. Walker took issue with Item #9, the installation of hip and ridge, and stated it was a preferred method, not one that must comply with the Uniform Building Code. In summary, Mr. Walker stated it was his professional opinion that the roof was installed with a reasonable degree of workmanship and according to Code, and that the issues stated on the Correction Notice did not warrant a hearing. Wayne Crawford Consultant for Alpen Construction was sworn in for testimony . Mr. Crawford synopsized his credentials and ·stated that he has been in the industry for over 41 years and was currently employed as a consultant with Alpen Construction . Mr. Crawford discussed his second inspection on April 18th and 19th when he met with Mr . John Hatfield, the engineer hired by the Kent Village Home Owners Association. Mr. Crawford stated that they inspected the roofs during those two days to try and determine what was needed to bring the roof up to the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Crawford explained that they marked the shingles that they felt needed to be replaced and that they submitted to Alpen their findings. Mr. Crawford stated that in May both he and Mr. Walker conducted a second inspection, finding a few additional deficient shakes, and re-checked the areas from his first inspection. Mr. Crawford commented that on May 11th while Alpen was doing the corrective work, he was present and found the work conclusively in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Crawford reported that he returned to the job site after Alpen received the Correction Notice of May 22, 1991. Mr. Crawford stated that Mr. Walker joined him in the inspection and at that time they conclusively expressed that the Correction Notice had little merit. In summary, Mr. Crawford testified that the items in the Correction Notice were so few that in his opinion, there possibly is lOOth of 1% to be corrected with the majority of the roof properly applied . - 7 - John Schuringa Supervisor for Alpen Construction was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Schuringa stated he was the supervisor for all of Alpen's roofing jobs. Mr. Schuringa contended that they install all of the step flashing the same way for all their roofing jobs and have never been failed for the method of installation. When Mr. Schuringa was questioned if he was the foreman for the Kent Village roofing job, he replied he was not on the job site as supervisor but that he was involved with the job during the repairs. Mr. Sorensen Roofing Inspector and Consultant for the City approached the podium to address some of the issues raised during the applicants testimony. Mr. Sorenson stated that it was the opinion of the City Staff that the items on the Correction Notice do pertain to the Uniform Building Code. In response to the job being a roof or re-roof, Mr. Sorensen responded stating there are three terminologies for a roof: recover, reroofing or new construction; and conclusively stated the Kent Village was a re-roof; therefore, Section 3209 did apply. Mr. Sorensen continued addressing the items in rebuttal stating that the photographs speak for themselves such as in the case of the stack flashings; that they were not correctly installed; and that leakage of ·the roof could occur with the way it was installed. • Mr. Sorensen stated that in his opinion testimony from the applicant's consultants conclusively reflected that there are still problems existing • on the 1 roof an~1 t1 hat .somde ohf theh s~akes tthdattwhere mafrkedMby t 2 h 2 e 1991 . consu tants st1 ex1ste w en e lnspec e e roo on ay , . Mr . Sorensen stated his concern was that the roof could possibly leak. Mr. Sorensen referred to the question of not returning phone calls, stating that all the calls are recorded by Building & Safety Personnel and that he immediately returns calls upon receiving messages; therefore, questioning Mr. Brake's testimony of numerous calls made without having them returned. Mr. Sorensen clarified the "7% factor" reiterating that the 7% is in reference to culling any defective shakes from the bundle of shakes, and · emphasized 7% does not apply to the roof in its entirety. Duane Davidson Building Inspector . was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Davidson stated that the Building & Safety Division requires a pre-roof inspection prior to or the beginning of a roofing job to determine if there's any rotted roof sheathing or any problems germane to the work. Mr. Davidson explained the first pre-roof inspection at Kent Village was conducted on April 20, 1991, at which time he pointed out to an Alpen employee named Matt, that the pre-roof problems were~ keyway between the shakes, and maximum exposure exceeded 10 inches. Mr. Davidson stated that the Alpen employee stated to him that he was not going to make the corrections, and left the job site. Mr. Davidson stated that the permit card was not posted on the site, so • he posted the Correction Notice on the ladder. - 8 - • • • Mr. Davidson testified that Mr. Brake came into the office that afternoon and the two of them went out to the job site. Mr. Davidson addressed Mr. Brake's testimony that there were other Alpen representatives at that meeting, when in fact it was just the two of them. Mr. Davidson stated that Mr. Brake agreed to make the corrections on exposure and spacing, but that he never discussed fasteners with him. Mr. Davidson testified that after the meeting with Mr. Brake, he made contact with Judy Travis, the Home Owner's Association Manager, to inform her about some of the problems existing with the installation of the roofing system. Mr. Davidson explained that when the permit was issued, ice dam protection was required per the 1988 Uniform Building Code. Mr. Davidson stated that Mr. Brake used "selective use" of the manufacturer's requirements; that Mr. Brake contacted the Red Cedar Shake Bureau; and that their findings on ice darning was that it was not required per manufacturer. Mr. Davidson stated that the Division accepted the letter from Mr. Westfall, President of the Bureau, verifying that ice dam protection was not required by the manufacturer. Mr. Davidson stated a letter was written by the Chief Building Inspector to Mr. Brake on September 17, 1990, outlining corrections that were necessary. Mr. Davidson stated the Mr. Brake was informed by phone of the draft of that letter, and that the three of them; Becky Backer, Mr. Brake and himself met to discuss the corrections, but due to Mr. Brake's resistance to that Notice, the Building Department contacted personnel from the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau, who did confirm the items listed in the Notice were necessary for the integrity of the roofing application. Mr. Davidson stated that when the ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) held a conference in Denver on September 7, 1990, Mr. Westfall, and representatives from wood product associations, accompanied both Becky Baker and him out to the job site; and agreed with the Building Department that the factors outlined in the September letter needed to be addressed. Mr. Davidson added that a Master Roofer and the Regional Director of the shake bureau, Mr. Garman, also visited the job site, and he personally instructed Mr. Brake on methods to make the repairs. Additional personnel contacted by the Building and Safety Division were Mr. Mike Jones, ICBO Evaluation Services, and Barbara Wallace, an inspector from Greenwood Village, who visited the site and conclusively confirmed that the items outlined were necessary to be corrected to meet Code compliance. Mr. Davidson testified that when Mr. Brake was contacted, instructed, and advised on what needed to be done he was often resistive to the items of correction, or argumentative to the persons that were on site confirming the Division's requirements. Mr. Davidson summarized the advisory pre-roof Correction Notices: minimum width of shakes 4" wide, side lap shall not be less than 1 1/2" between shakes in adjacent courses, spacing between shakes 3/8ths to 5/8ths inches, maximum exposure of shake 10", valley ·width, new felt to be applied [damaged by the hail]. Mr. Davidson stated items required for final inspection were listed in writing during the pre-inspections due to Mr. Brake's resistance to these requirements. - 9 - Mr. Davidson stated that a Mr. James Smith originally identified himself as a leasi~g agent, but he learned that in fact he was the site foreman when Mr. Smith signed for a letter of receipt from the Chief Building Inspector's letter containing required corrections dated September 17, 1990. Mr. Davidson addressed Mr. Brake's testimony that work could not be started without Mr. Davidson being present. Mr. Davidson stated that he did perform the pre-roofing inspections, and then did not return until the work was completed for a final inspection; and expressed doubt as to whether any contractor would daily delay work until the inspector arrives on the site. The Chairman asked the representatives for Kent Village to come forward for testimony. Charles M. Pratt Attorney for the Homeowners Association approached the podium. Mr. Pratt stated that the purpose of his presence and the presence of Ms. Judy Travis, was to inform the Board on the views of the owners of the subject properties. Mr. Pratt stated that it was their responsibility for the maintenance of the exterior of the buildings at Kent Village. Mr. Pratt testified that he was contacted by Mr. Brown, ·one of the owners at the subject properties, specifically to look out for his interest in the roofing of his building; and that their interest was to make sure a quality roofing job was done. Mr. Pratt clarified that two consultants were retained: Mr. Crawford for Alpen Construction, and Mr . Hatfield, of Building Code Consultants, Inc., retained by the Homeowners Association. The two consultants investigated the roof to determine if problems existed that would involve any contract dispute problems existing between the two parties with regard to the roofing contract. Mr. Pratt added that, in fact there is currently an ongoing dispute between the two parties: Alpen Construction and the Homeowners Association. Mr. Pratt stated he realized the present hearing was to determine whether or not the roof has met the UBC requirements. Mr. Pratt stated he had reports of their findings from both consultants; that they each addressed different problems of the roof; and that many of those items from the reports were identical to the items on the Correction Notice. Mr. Pratt stated it was their opinion, as representatives for the Homeowners Association, and after hearing the testimony presented, that additional work needed to be done to meet Code; and that he was hoping the City would take the necessary measures to require that the repairs be done to meet Code. Mr. Pratt explained that Alpen was under contract for re-roofing the 17 buildings at the Kent Village complex; approximately 9 or 10 of the buildings were done before the hail storm (July. 11, 1990); and that Alpen is not involved with those but involved with the balance of the buildings from the original contract. -10 - • • • • • • Mr. Pratt finalized his testimony by stating that some of the items might possibly be marginal, with others that definitely need to be addressed; therefore he stated that in his opinion, the appeal needed to be denied. Mr. Pratt suggested that Alpen attempt to fix the problems, have their consultant (Mr. Hatfield) return to inspect the roof, then get the Building Department involved; and hopefully resolve the entire issue. Judy Travis, Property Manager for the Kent Village Home Owners Association was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Travis stated that she had little to add to the testimony given, but wanted to state for the record, that today she was informed that some shingles came off of Building 17. Mr. Crawford Consultant for Alpen Construction approached the podium. Mr. Crawford testified in rebuttal that the application method for the roof at the Club House was the same used as for the subject properties, and was approved. The Public Hearing was delayed for a couple minutes due to technical difficulties. Mr. Lewis Attorney for the applicant stated that he realized the Board did not wish to have testimony regarding the Clubhouse Building, but stated that the point was to show the roof applied to the Clubhouse Building was done in accordance with instructions from the City officials; that the application and method on the subject building was the same; and that one building passed and therefore, the subject building should pass. Mr. Lewis testified that equal protection was involved and that there cannot be a different standard for each building. The Chairman interjected that the Clubhouse was not a factor involved with the case at hand, and that the Board's responsibility was to hear testimony only for the specifics involved with the property at 3401 and 3403 South Race. Mr. Brake President of Alpen Construction approached the podium. Mr. Brake stated that he has been involved in the roofing business since 1961, and that they have been applying the step flashings the same way for over twenty years; that other municipalities have approved their application; that Kent Village has not had one leak on the flat work they have done; and that they do not wish to do it as suggested in the manuals. Mr. Brake added he felt the flashing around the pipe was a discretionary situation and that none of their work has leaked at Kent Village . -11 - Mr. Lewis • Attorney for Alpen Construction summarized for his client. Mr. Lewis stated that they believe the · Correction Notice at hand relies upon unreasonable and unduly strict interpretation of the Code; that their experts testified that in their opinion, the roof complies with the Code to a reasonable degree of application. Mr. Lewis stated that if the City continues finding countless flaws that they will return every time, and stressed that it should end with saying the appeal should be granted. There were no further speakers for or against the appeal. The Chairman announced that the Staff Report, photographs, and exhibits would be made part of the record. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT IN CASE #14-91, FOR 3401 AND 3403 SOUTH RACE, THE APPLICANT, TONY BRAKE OF ALPEN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM SECTION 3208tb)l0 AND SECTION 3209 OF THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO ROOFING MATERIALS AND METHODS OF APPLICATION. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The Board Members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Waldman voted "no i' stating that it was apparent the applicant has • not made a reasonable effort to meet the Code and that the issue of the public safety must be considered. Board Member Cohn voted 11 no 11 stating that the problems outlined by the Building Department were too numerous to overlook, and added that she was concerned that the roof may not be weather-tight since there was testimony of loose shingles from the subject roof. Board Member Shaffer voted "no" stating that she felt there was no choice, that the contractor must follow the Codes. Board Member Lighthall voted 11 no 11 stating that it was the obligation of the contractor to assure ·the property owners a safe and secure roof. Board Member George voted "no" stating she felt it was the obligation of the contractor to abide by the Code, that even though testimony showed the items on the Correction Notice were minimal, the corrections must be done. Board Member Seymour voted 11 no 11 stating he felt the photographs were clear in illustrating the existing problems with the roof application. Chairman Welker voted 11 no 11 stating that there were obvious problems that did not meet Code; therefore, the applicant must be required to make the corrections. -12 - • • • • When the votes were displayed, all seven (7) members had voted in opposition to the appeal. The Chairman announced the appeal was denied and directed to the applicant that they were therefore required to meet the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Discussion ensued concerning the time frame for making the necessary corrections. Mr. Lewis approached the podium and requested that the Board define the task for correcting the areas on the roof and also requested that the Building Department mark the shingles that need to be replaced in a distinguishing color. Becky Baker · approached the podium and stated if the Building Department was required to mark every shingle, they would 'in effect be acting as job supervisor and that that was not their function; that the Correction Notice is clear and concise; that samples had already been marked; and that they had a thorough and detailed Public Hearing. Chairman Welker raised the issue of requiring the Building Department to meet with the contractor again so the issue at hand could be resolved in order for the permit to be finalized. Mr. Pratt volunteered that the Homeowner's Association roofing consultant would meet on site with Alpen. After considerable discussion, Chairman Welker made the motion: THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MEET WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM THE PROBLEM AREAS TO BE CORRECTED. On the call for the vote on the motion, there were five ayes and two nays. The Chairman announced the motion was carried. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #15-91: 3229 1/2 South Lincoln Street Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated Mr. Michael Cullifer, of 3229 1/2 South Lincoln Street, had a variance hearing in July of 1984 which pertained to his being able to operate an automobile repair business in the B-1 Zone District at the subject property. Mr. Stitt stated six (6) conditions were placed on the approval of that variance which were as follows: 1) That the variance be granted only to Mr. Cullifer. 2) That the operation be reviewed annually by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals . 3) That no more than four cars be waiting for service and none being serviced parked outside of the structure. -13 - 4) That no cars waiting for service be parked off the property on the street. 5) That no equipment or materials shall be stored outside of the enclosed structure. 6) That all work be performed within the enclosed structure. Mr. Michael Cullifer 3229 1/2 South Lincoln Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Cullifer stated he was aware that he was in violation of the conditions of the variance with the current number of cars on his premises. Mr. Cullifer explained that since the variance was granted in 1984, his business has outgrown the premises; therefore he has more cars outside on the premises than allowed by the condition of the variance. During his testimony, Mr. Cullifer agreed with the Board Members that he has violated the terms of the variance by having in excess of four (4) cars on the property. Mr. Cullifer explained that due to the slow delivery and availability of parts, that the turn around for servicing the cars was slow. Board members questioned Mr . Cullifer's willingness to abide by the conditions of the variance. Mr. Cullifer informed the Board that he is anxious to get out of the auto repair business completely and that he has two prospective buyers; one in Colorado Springs, and one in Connecticut. There were no further questions, and no other speakers for or against the case. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the public record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION THAT IN CASE #15-91, MR. MICHAEL CULLIFER, OF 3229 1/2 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF AN AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS IN THE B-1, BUSINESS DISTRICT, WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED BY THE BOARD FROM THE JULY 11, 1984 DECISION. Board Member Cohn seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating that Mr. Cullifer has not shown any reason for the variance to be continued. Board Member Shaffer voted "yes" stating she felt Mr. Cullifer would work on keeping within the number of cars allowed on the premises. Board Member Lighthall voted "no" stating it was time to abandon the variance. Board Member George voted "no" stating she has a real problem with numerous cars on the lots an·d that it was evident that Mr. Cullifer has not abided by the number of cars allowed on the premises. • • Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating he felt Mr. Cullifer would take steps • to meet the conditions of the variance. -14 - • • • Board Member Waldman stated he voted "no" because Mr. Cullifer could not answer why he should have the variance continued. Board Member Welker voted "no" stating he felt the lack of willingness on Mr. Cullifer's part to abide by the conditions of the variance were not evident. When the votes were displayed, there were 2 affirmative votes, and 5 in opposition to the motion. The Chairman announced the decision and added that the variance was revoked. STAFF ADVISORS CHOICE: Mr. Stitt reviewed for the Board that Title 15 allows only one hobby or derelict vehicle to be stored on a property and that the code does not allow an individual to paying $100 for each additional hobby or derelict vehicle. Mr. Stitt amplified on the definition in Title 15, stating that storing a vehicle in a garage was permitted; but'if the hobby or derelict vehicle is stored in a carport or outside, the $100 storage fee was applicable. He reiterated that only one hobby or derelict vehicle was allowed under Title 15. Mr. Stitt advised the Board that there was $500 in the budget for training for 1992; and suggested that the members consider an ICBO class. cnv · ATTORNEY CHOICE: None . BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE: Board Member Lighthall announced to the Board that this was her last meeting and that she would be moving out of the City. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary -15 -