Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-09 BAA MINUTES• • • . MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO JANUARY 9, 1991 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:40 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 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 Seymour moved that the minutes of December 12, 1990 be approved as written. Board Member George seconded the motion . All members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of December 12, 1990 approved as written. The Chairman recognized Board Member Cohn. Ms. Cohn stated that in regard to the minutes reflecting her attendance at the DRCOG seminar, that she would like to add, that in her opinion, the Englewood Board seemed to be doing a lot of things right. Ms. Cohn further added that if the Board is in session with the City Attorney before the public meeting, that the Board needs to remember a decision cannot be made before the meeting and/or before hearing all the evidence. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #1-91 : 3300 South Sherman Street The Chairman explained the procedure stating the appeal would be addressed first by City Staff, and then the appellant would present their side of the case. The Chairman asked the staff to come forward and present their case . -1 - Harold Stitt • Staff Advisor for Community Development, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the applicant, Mr. Blayne Van Dyke, Maintenance Supervisor; representing St. Louis Church at 3300 South Sherman, filed the request for an appea 1 from the Code Administrator's order as it pertains to the remode 1 i ng of an existing church basement room for the care of children during church services. The sections of the 1988 Building Code which are being appealed are: Section 330l(E) and Table No. 33-A, which sections state that handicapped accessibility shall be provided by means of a ramp or elevator at one primary entrance. Walter Groditski Code Administrator, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Groditski stated that St. Louis Church submitted plans for remodeling an existing room in the basement for short term child care during church services. Mr.Groditski explained while doing the plan review he noticed that provisions for handicapped accessibility had not been provided on the plans. Mr. Groditski stated that the Uniform Building Code is very specific on the handicapped access requirement. Mr. Groditski stated that when the applicant was notified that the plans were disapproved, he also advised Mr. VanDyke that he could apply for an appeal on the handicapped accessibility issue. Mr. Groditski concluded by stating that the Building Department took a neutral stand in this case because the handicapped accessibility requirement had to be recognized; but considering that the room is • directly under the chapel, it would be impractical to meet the provision for a ramp or an elevator. The Chairman asked the appellant to come forward for testimony. Blayne VanDyke, Maintenance Supervisor for St. Louis Catholic Church 3300 South Sherman Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. VanDyke explained that the care center would provide a place for parents to leave their children so that there would not be distraction while attending church services. Mr. VanDyke said the time -frame that the children would spend at the care center would range from 30 minutes to two hours depending on the service. Mr. VanDyke indicated that the church presently has a "crying room" for the babies, but the room downstairs would provide a place for parents of 3 to 5 years old to leave them. Mr. VanDyke said the care center would be attended by church volunteers, and that it could accommodate between ten (10) and twelve (12) children. Mr. VanDyke concluded by stating that having the center in the same building as the services, would be a convenience for the parents to immediately get their children following the service. - 2 - • • • • Dan Muldoon Architect for the St. Louis Church, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Muldoon addressed the issue of the square footage of the room stating it is 369 square feet, with the occupancy load factor as 11 persons. Mr. Muldoon also verified that if a handicapped child were present, that the toddler could be carried downstairs to the care center by an adult. A blueprint of the care center room was circulated for the Board's review. Mr. Muldoon briefed the Board that there were two exitways; that "exit" signs and smoke detectors would be provided; and that all storage would be removed from the room. Mr. Muldoon addressed the issue of an elevator by stating the cost would be prohibitive, stating the elevator would be $30,000, and that the remodel was only $4,000. Mr. Muldoon also added that the structure, size, and design of the church room would not permit the installation of an elevator. 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 SEYMOUR MOVED THAT AN APPEAL BE GRANTED FROM THE CODE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER AS IT PERTAINS TO THE REMODELING OF AN EXISTING ROOM IN THE ST.LOUIS CHURCH BASEMENT FOR THE CARE OF CHILDREN DURING CHURCH SERVICES . THE SECTIONS APPEALED: SECTION 330l(E) AND TABLE NO. 33-A OF THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, WHICH STATE THAT HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MEANS OF A RAMP OR ELEVATOR AT ONE PRIMARY ENTRANCE. Ms. Shaffer seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Ms. Cohn voted "yes" stating the applicant presented valid proof that the request of modification from the Uniform Building Code would not permanently affect the appropriate use of the property involved. Ms. George concurred and voted "yes". Ms. Lighthall voted "yes" stating they have met the burden of proof. Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating that the applicant illustrated that it was not feasible to install an elevator, and that with the center being "short term" and not operated as a permanent day care center, there was justification for permitting the appeal. Ms. Shaffer voted "yes" stating it would afford the most relief for the use of the property. Mr. Waldman voted "yes" stating that health or safety issues were not at risk . Mr. Welker voted "yes" stating the concerns of safety for exiting and the use of the basement were addressed. - 3 - When the votes were displayed all seven members had voted for the appeal, and the Chairman ruled the appeal as granted. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2-91: 4601 South Clarkson Street Chairman Welker said he resides and owns the property adjoining 4601 South Cl arks on Street and would, therefore, step down from the dais during the consideration of this case. He asked Ms. Lighthall to chair this portion of the meeting and left the dais. Ms. Li ghtha 11 made a motion to move that Case #2-91, 4601 South Cl arks on Street be placed in the hands of the Planning and Zoning Commission for two reasons: 1) That according to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, City of Englewood, all R-1-A, R-1-B and R-1-C zoned lots may contain only a single-family dwelling. 2) That the BOA Handbook, page 7, under " Zoning Variances and Appeals", No.I, states: "Only in a specific case will the Board hear an application for a variance from the course prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance or an appeal from a determination made by the Department of Community Development on the ground that the proposed pl an or use is contrary to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance." Ms. Cohn seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. When the Chairperson called for a vote on the motion, the Board defeated the motion. Ms. Cohn suggested that a new motion be made stating the case will be heard after advisement from the Assistant City Attorney. Board Member Waldman stated this new motion to read: THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL STUDY THE RAMIFICATIONS OF CASE #2-91 FOR 4601 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. The motion was moved, seconded, and carried. A recess was declared at 8:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. with the same persons present. Chairman Welker resumed the chair. • • The Chairman declared the previous motion in error since it did not specify a • Public Hearing date. The Chairman asked the secretary to read the motion. -4 - • Board Member Lighthall moved that the motion be amended to including February 13, 1991 as the date for the case to be heard. Ms. Cohn seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the amended motion, and the Chairman ruled the motion was amended to read: THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY STUDY THE RAMIFICATIONS OF CASE #2-91 FOR 4601 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, AND THAT THE CASE BE HEARD ON FEBRUARY 13, 1991. PUBLIC HEARING CASE 3-91 3100 South Humboldt Street . The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication and stated that the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to construct a detached garage that would encroach four feet into the required side yard and rear yard setback, locating the garage one foot from the rear lot line and the south lot line, which would be a variance from Section 16-4-2:Mlc.(2) Minimum side yard and Section 16-4-2:Mld.(l) Minimum rear yard. • The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward to present testimony. • Phil Gilliam 3100 South Humboldt Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Gilliam stated that the request was filed for a variance to construct a garage because they would like to be able to park their vehicles off .the street and out of the weather. Mr. Gilliam described the proposed garage as 24 feet by 24 feet, and that a large cement driveway would be poured between the existing shed and the proposed garage so that the children could use it as a basketball court. He added that the site was chosen so the garage would line up with the existing storage shed in back of the property. Five statements were entered into the record from neighbors . All five neighbors had no objection to the proposed garage . There were no further speakers for or against the variance. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #3-91 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3100 SOUTH HUMBOLDT STREET, A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-2:Mlc.(2) TO ENCROACH 4 FEET INTO THE 5 FOOT SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT, AND SECTION 16-4-2:Mld(l): TO ENCROACH 4 FEET INTO THE 5 FOOT MINIMUM REAR YARD REQUIREMENT, IN ORDER TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE . -5 - Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Ms. Lighthall voted "no" stating the request did not meet the 5 conditions for granting a variance. Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating the proposed garage would not adversely affect the adjacent neighbors, and that five neighbors signed statements agreeing with the proposal. Ms. Shaffer concurred. Mr. Waldman voted "no" stating he did not consider the lot as exceptional or different. Ms. Cohn voted "yes" stating that by allowing th~ garage to be placed into the side and rear lot setbacks, it would afford relief with the least amount of modification. Ms. George voted "yes" stating the proposed garage meets all the conditions for granting the variance and would not adversely affect the adjacent properties. Mr. Welker vote "no" stating he felt the applicant should comply with the setback requirements of the zoning codes as determined by the City Ordinance . When the votes were displayed 4 members voted for the variance and 3 opposed it. The Chairman stated five affirmative votes were necessary; therefore, announcing the ' variance was denied. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #4-91: 2997 South Delaware Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating that in an appeal, the staff presents its case first and then the appellant is allowed to present his case. The Chairman asked that the staff identify the request. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor, stated the applicant has requested an appeal from the Code Administrator's order to comply with the City of Englewood's Housing Regulations, Title 9 of the E.M.C., including but not limited to: Sections 9-3C-4(A&B), 9-3D-4(C) .& -7(A&B), 9-3E-2(A&B), 9-3E-6 & -7, 9-3F-l & -3(C) & -8(8), 9-3G-2(A) & -3 & -9(8). Walter Groditski, Code Administrator began with a brief summary that on October 25, 1990 the Building Department received a call from one of the tenants requesting a Housing • • Code insp 'ection of the premises. Numerous violations of the Housing • Regulations were found, and subsequently a letter was sent on November 5, 1990 to the owner informing him of the corrections that would be necessary . - 6 - •• • • Mr. Groditski explained that the electrical problems of open and improper wiring present safety hazards. He stated that some of the items dealing more with the aesthetics of the exterior of the property were basic repairs that Mr. Murphy could do such as gutters, loose soffit boards, etc. Jim Morrison, Plumbing & Mechanical Inspector was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Morrison introduced Exhibit I, explaining to the Board that his drawing showed the existing problems and hazards found with the sink and dish washer in the kitchen; and discussed the repairs and corrections necessary for compliance. Mr. Morrison summarized the five (5) Plumbing and Mechanical violations requiring compliance : I. Kitchen: a) the sink presents illegal and hazardous issues and must be replaced. b) the dish washer is illegally vented and must be corrected c) the drain pipe and trap must be corrected by replacement. 2. Bathtub: presents a health hazard and must be corrected. 3. Basin: must be repaired according to code . 4. Gas Line: is a hazard and in violation of the Plumbing Code and must be corrected. 5) Water Heater: enclose and relocate flue. Mr. Morrison concluded that the items discussed must be done by licensed contractors, and permits obtained for the work. Mr. Morrison added that according to State Plumbing and State Electrical regulations, only licensed contractors can perform in a non-owner occupied residence. Mr. Morrison did indicate that Mr. Murphy would not have to obtain permits for minor repairs such as: replacing the receptacle cover plate, mounting the fan properly, and properly mounting the basement romex. Mr. Morrison explained the problems with the basement stairs stating the rise and run of the stairs did not conform to the Building Code, and that the missing handrail needed to be installed for safety purposes. The Chairman asked the appellant to come forward for testimony. Mr. Murphy 1028 Iola Street, Denver, Trustee for 2997 South Delaware Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Murphy stated his relationship to the property was as President of Tri M Services; the corporation that owns and manages the rentals at 2997 South Delaware Street . -7 - Mr. Murphy stated a former tenant of one of the units, was responsible • for some of the damage to the downstairs unit. Mr. Murphy further stated that the house has been in the family for over thirty years, with no problems occurring during that time, so he did not see any reason to make all the repairs listed on the Order from the Building Inspector. Mr. Murphy stated his main objections were: rebuilding the stairway, relocating or enclosing the hot water heater, and correcting the gas line. Mr. Murphy stated that one of his present tenants was a licensed plumber and that they had an arrangement that any work done on the premises would reduce the tenant's rent. After further discussion and answering some of the Board's questions, Mr. Murphy acknowledged that there were Safety and Heal th hazards that put his tenants at risk of injury and harm. Mr. Murphy estimated that the repairs and corrections could probably be completed in 60 days. Walter Groditski Code Administrator approached the podium. Mr. Groditski suggested to the Board that arrangements be made between the Building Department and Mr. Murphy, for the Building Officials to define and explain the violations, and assist Mr. Murphy with the steps necessary to comply with the codes. All parties agreed with the proposal. There were no other speakers present for or against the request for the apppeal. The Chairman made the Staff Report part of the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION FOR CASE #4-91, AT 2997 SOUTH DELAWARE STREET, THAT THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE CODE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD'D HOUSING REGULATIONS, TITLE 9 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: 9-3C-4(A&B), 9-3D-4(C) &-7(A&B}, 9-3E -2(A&B), 9-3E-6, & -7, 9-3F-l & -3(C) & -8(B), 9-3G-2(A) & -3 & -9(8). Board Member Seymour seconded. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "no " stating that the health and safety hazards identified by the Building Department deem it necessary for Mr. Murphy to make the repairs and corrections. Ms. Shaffer voted ''no " stat i ng the issues presented by the Building Department must be worked out with the owner. • Mr. Waldman voted "no" stating there was no basis for granting the appeal • since the dialogue between the City and the applicant had indicated a willingness to work the problems out. - 8 - •• • • Ms. Cohn voted "no " stating there were some serious safety issues to be dealt with, and that the Ci t y to indicated they would work with the applicant. Ms. George voted "no " stating there was apparently a lack of communication on the applicant's pa rt in dealing wit h the City and that the unsafe issues must be addressed. Ms. Lighthall voted "n o" to the appeal stating that the dwelling must be safe and liveable for the tenants. Mr. Welker voted "no " stating that the Codes need to be upheld and that the applicant displayed a willingness t o work with the Building Department. When the votes wer e displayed, all 7 members had voted in opposition to granting the appea l. The Chairman announced the appeal was denied, and directed the applica nt to work wit h t he Building Department on obtaining the necessary permits . STAFF ADVISOR: Mr. Stitt told the Board that he had rece i ved a request from City Council for a joint study mee ting at 6:00 p.m. on one of three dates : March 4th, 11th, or the 18th; March 4 wa s selected. Mr . Stitt also stated that on January 28th the City Council woul d be interviewing the applicants for the three positions expiring in February . CITY ATTORNEYS CHOICE : Mr. Brotzman assured the Board t hat they would receive a memorandem setting forth his decision aft er evalu ati ng the issues involved for Case #2-91 at 4601 South Clarkson Stree t. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE : Discussion ensued on various proced ur es . With no further business to come be fore the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m . Respectfully submit ted, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary -9 -