Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-13 BAA MINUTES• • • MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO JANUARY 13, 1993 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: Members absent: Also present: Seymour, George, Smith, Cohn, Clayton, Waldman and Welker. None. Dan Brotzman, Assistant city Attorney Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator Becky Baker, Chief Building Inspector Duane Davidson, Plans Examiner The Chairman stated that with seven members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. He stated the Board 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 December 9, 1992, be approved as written. Board Member Smith seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on the motion, all seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes for December 9, 1992, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT: Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #22- 92, John Bagnall of 4625-27 South Lincoln Street; Case #23-92, Norma White of 4900 South Huron Street; Case #24-92, Lester Johnson of 4296 South Washington Street; and Case #25-92, German Sign Company for Burt Chevrolet of 5200 South Broadway, be approved as written. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on 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 11-93: 4357 South Delaware street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #1-93, stating he had proof of publication and posted and asked the staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt stated the applicant, Mr. McQueen, was requesting a variance to remodel, as habitable space, a basement with ceiling heights of less than the minimum requirement of six feet eight inches ( 6' 8") , which would be a variance from the Englewood Municipal Code, Section 9-3A-2: Minimum Ceiling Height. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. David McQueen 4357 South Delaware Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. McQueen stated that when they purchased the house in 1982 the basement was finished with paneling on the walls, carpeting on the floors, divided into several rooms, and to his knowledge the previous owners used the basement as habitable space. Mr. McQueen explained that until they started their family they used the basement for storage and laundry but as their family increased the need for additional rooms became evident. Mr. McQueen stated that he planned to remodel what is currently the rec room into a bedroom and when he reviewed his plans with the contractor, he was advised that the basement ceiling heights did not meet current building codes. Mr. McQueen stated that the ceilings could be structurally changed to meet code by raising the roof or lowering the floor, but the practicality of doing either is questionable because of the age of the house and the expense that would be involved. Mr. McQueen entered into the record a diagram to assist in illustrating the lay-out of the basement and to discuss the varying ceiling heights throughout the basement. Mr. McQueen stated because his was concerned about safety, he would install egress windows, smoke detectors, and relocate the furnace and hot water heater away from the proposed bedroom. Mr. McQueen entered into the record statements from two neighbors stating they did not oppose the basement remodel • • • • • • • Mr. McQueen concluded that an addition to the house was not an option; that he would address all safety issues in order to have the basement habitable; and that raising the roof or lowering the floor was out of the question because of the age of the house. Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Baker stated the Building and Safety Division was concerned about the ceiling heights because of the life loss in residential units, stating that our nation has the worst record for life loss in residential fires. There were no further persons present to testify. The staff report was made part of the record, and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #1-93, THAT THE APPLICANT, DAVID MCQUEEN OF 4357 SOUTH DELAWARE STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 9-3A-2: MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT, IN ORDER TO REMODEL, AS HABITABLE SPACE, A BASEMENT WITH CEILING HEIGHTS OF LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIX FEET EIGHT INCHES. Board Member Smith seconded the motion . Discussion ensued concerning safety issues, criteria for usage in the basement, and whether to amend the motion by limiting areas in the basement that could be used as habitable space. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MADE AN AMENDED MOTION THAT AREAS OF THE BASEMENT WITH CEILING HEIGHTS OF 77 11 (6 1 5 11 ) OR LESS BE PROHIBITED FROM HABITABLE USAGE. Board Member Smith agreed to the amended motion. Discussion ensued. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact: Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating in his opinion the property is exceptional; that granting the variance will afford minimum relief for the applicant; and that .granting the variance will secure the public safety and welfare as evidence by the applicant testimony stating he is willing to install egress windows, move the furnace, and install smoke detectors . Board Member Cohn voted "yes" stating she concurred with previously • stated statements. Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating he was of the opinion that the request does not meet any of the conditions for granting a variance. Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating in his opinion granting the variance will not adversely affect adjacent properties, and that it observes the spirit and purpose of the Ordinance. Board Member George voted "yes" stating she concurred with previously stated statements. Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stating he concurred with reasons stated by other board members. Board Member Welker voted "yes" stating in the spirit of the Ordinance and the conditions presented in the case, that it is the best solution. The Chairman announced the variance as granted and instructed the applicant to apply for the necessary permits from the Buil~ing Safety Department. PUBLIC HEARING CASE 12-93: 4301 South Broadway The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating the procedure for the appeal would be identified 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. Harold Stitt Staff Advisor identified the request stating that the applicant, Ronald Sholar of Sholar Buchanan Associates, was the architect for the installation of a lift for handicapped access at First Federal Savings Bank. Mr. Stitt stated the appeal is based on the Building & Safety Division's denial of a building permit to install a lift for handicapped access in reference to the 1988 UBC Sections 5103(d)6, 5103(d)2 and 3, requiring that elevators have a clear cab space of 54 11 x 68 11 , clear door width of 36", and power-operated horizontal sliding door with opening and closing by automatic means. • • • • • Mr. Stitt explained that the permit applied for with the Building and Safety Department was to permit a limited use/limited access, handicapped keyed access lift with interior clear width of 36" x 52" and a clear door width of 36" less a 4 1/2" obstruction from an interior folding gate. Duane Davidson Plans Examiner for Building & Safety Division was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Davidson described the bank building and the location of the proposed work. He stated all access and egress to and from the building required one to utilize a flight of stairs to the upper or lower floor level. Mr. Davidson submitted for the record two photographs to assist in illustrating the area outside the bank where the construction of the lift has been proposed and to point out the south wall that would be extended five feet in order to enclose the proposed lift. Mr. Davidson stated the City has adopted the 1988 Uniform Building Code and the Di vision of Building and Safety was fortunate that the Interpretation Manual of the UBC and the Handbook to the UBC have addressed the issue of use of a residential or limited use lift/elevator in public buildings. He stated the question and answer section in the City staff report was from the Interpretation Manual which clearly states the proposed lift does not comply with UBC codes . Mr. Davidson also entered into the record a drawing of the proposed lift to assist in illustrating the construction, the two openings into the upper and lower levels of the bank, and to discuss the pivoting of the doors into the upper and lower levels of the bank. Mr. Davidson stated the reviewed plans were rejected because the proposed lift/elevator does not provide the required car size, does not provide the clear door width of 36 inches, and does not provide for an automatic operational door opening and closing. · Mr. Davidson stated he wrote a letter to Mr . Brewer of Access Elevator Company to discuss why the lift did not conform to the Uniform Building Code requirements for elevators. Mr. Davidson discussed Section 5103(g) stating that the building official may waive the requirements of Section 5103 of the UBC if an elevator is used in a nonpublic restricted or limited application such as stockroom elevators in retail sales stores. Mr. Davidson discussed "l imited use" stating that the proposed lift does not qualify as "limited use·" because it would be used by the public including the disabled, the elderly, and parents with children in strollers. · Mr. Davidson concluded, while he understands the bank's concern to provide access to their facility, and to meet the guidelines from the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the handicapped, he could not approve the plans submitted because the lift does not meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 51 of the Uniform Building Code. Dick Younkin Elevator Codes Administrator for DRCOG was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Younkin stated that the proposed lift is for residential use and has many factors dissimilar to a commercial elevator. Mr. Younkin stated the differences are: that the car size is too small for public wheelchair traffic, that residential elevators do not require yearly safety test inspections, that the capacity of the proposed lift is 500 to 750 pound capacity versus 2, 100 pounds for a commercial elevator, and that the opening and closing of the door would be manually operated unlike a commercial elevator that automatically opens and closes. Mr. Younkin concluded his testimony stating the proposed lift/elevator does not meet requirements as outlined by the Uniform Building Code. The Chairman asked the appellant to come forward for testimony . James Rooney Executive Vice-President of First Federal Savings was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Rooney stated that of all First Federal's facilities, 4301 South Broadway is the most peculiar because there is no main lobby on the ground level but is comprised of upper and lower floors with the main bank lobby on the upper level and commercial off ices on the lower level. Mr. Rooney stated his concern was to comply with ADA' s directive for providing handicapped accessibility but that a full size elevator was economically out of the question. Mr. Rooney stated that the proposed lift is intended for handicap use only, that they have surveyed their clientele of 8,000 customers finding they have between 6 to 10 customers that would use the lift/elevator. When questioned on assistance for using the elevator, Mr. Rooney explained that there would be a buzzer on the outside of the building to alert bank personnel, who would assist handicapped customers with the opening and closing of the gate, and that the elevator would be locked except when needed. Mr. Rooney concluded that his concern was to comply with ADA's directive for accessibility to the bank for the handicapped but a full size elevator would be economically prohibitive • • • • • • • Ron Sholar Sholar Buchanan Associates Lakewood, Colorado was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Sholar stated that he has been retained by the bank as the architect for the project. Mr. Sholar stated that the decision to erect the lift by moving an outside wall of the building was due to the configuration of the building, and the lack of a core area within the building for the installation of a lift. Ron Brewer, Sales and Service, Access Elevator Denver, Colorado was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Brewer stated that in his opinion the elevator would be a "limited use" by virtue of the key restriction and the useability of the elevator by handicapped customers only. Mr. Brewer further stated that he disagreed with the Building Department's interpretation that the proposed lift must meet the requirements from Chapter 51 of the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Brewer stated that in his opinion the proposed lift is "limited use, limited accessibility" stating that if the size of the lift/elevator is reduced then the use is reduced, and that if the capacity is reduced then the use is "restricted" . Mr. Brewer addressed several other issues that he wanted to clarify: that there would be no problem providing inspections of the lift; that the key used to open the elevator gate is with a "universal handicapped key" available to handicapped persons; and that the cri teria for "restricted" or "limited use" as defined in Section 5103(g) should not in his opinion be applied to the proposed lift. Mr. Brewer concluded that the proposed lift of 36" x 52" was a "reasonable alternative" versus two to three times the expense for a full size capacity elevator, and that the proposed lift would be a safe and efficient unit for his client. Bruce Gillette, Equal Access Incorporated was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Gillette stated that he was retained as the accessibility consultant to make recommenda- tions for the proposed lift to meet ADA compliance. Mr. Gillette stated that in his opinion the proposed lift would provide the best product for meeting ADA' s guidelines and would be the best use for "limited use" for th~ bank . Duane Davidson, • Plans Examiner · approached the podium to respond to the previous testimony by the appellants. Mr. Davidson stated that he had checked with ADA and that the discussion on the key to open the elevator was not a universal key, and that the Building & Safety Department was not concerned with finances for projects but rather building and safety issues. Dick Younkin DRCOG Administrator approached the podium. Mr. Younkin responded to testimony by the appellants. He said there were two issues: that the UBC code requires the elevator be automatic, and that the lift proposed is one-third the size the ADA requirement of 2100 pounds. Mr. Younkin responded to questions from the Board on limited use stating that a situation for limited use would be similar to one used by a church-ie: use is restricted to Sundays. Becky Baker Chief Building Inspector approached the podium. Ms. Baker stated that she had personally contacted ADA representatives in Washington, D.C. and Colorado Springs and that their response was that they do not specifically address whether a ramp, elevator or some alternate manner or means is installed, but that access- ibility to public buildings be available for the handicapped. Ms. Baker stated that she was of the opinion traditional elevator, fully automatic, with safety that the Uniform Building Code requires, would be an the public not just for handicapped customers. that a features asset to Ms. Baker concluded that the Building & Safe~y Division is concerned with compliance to the Uniform Building Code in addition to the safety issues involved with the installation of the proposed lift. The Chairman called for a recess at 10:10 p ~m. The meeting reconvened at 10: 2 O p. m. with the same persons present. The Chairman stated that the applicant and representatives could come forward to either refute any previous statements or enter new evidence. • • • • • Ron Brewer Access Elevator approached the podium. Mr. Brewer began by stating that he wanted to clarify that the key used for elevator access was in fact a universal key, adopted two years ago by the AEMA (Accessibility Equipment Manufacturing Association), Chicago Lock No. 2522. The other point Mr. Brewer wanted to dispute was that the proposed lift does meet ADA's requirements, stating that in fact ADA states if another means other than a public elevator is used it falls under the category of "platform lifts" or "limited use/limited access". James Rooney Vice President of First Federal savings approached the podium. Mr. Rooney stated that he was the ADA coordinator for the fac i lity, that he was required to make reasonable accommodations to satisfy ADA guidelines, and that the work must be economically feasible; therefore, the economical reality was that he could not justify the cost of a full size, public elevator . Dan Brotzman Assistant city Attorney was requested by the Board to approach the podium to clarify the Board's function and jurisdiction in the consideration of the appeal. Mr. Brotzman read into the record, Section 16.2-8 from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals Handbook: "To reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or to modify any order, requirement, decision or determination of an employee of the Department of Community Development and to make such order, requirement, decision or determination as in its opinion ought to be made and, to that end, shall have all the powers of the enforcing agent." Mr. Brotzman summarized for the Board that they were acting as the "enforcing agent" in reference to Section 5301(g) as to whether or not the lift meets the ·criteria of being a "restricted or limited-use elevator". Mr. Brotzman concluded that if any conditions are used that they must be based on the criteria or the intent and purpose of the codes as interpreted in the staff report . Chairman Welker read into the record Section 102 of the Uniform Building Code: "The purpose of this code is to provide minimum standard to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures within this jurisdiction and certain equipment specifically regulated herein." Chairman Welker directed to the Board that their responsibility was to interpret the code and what is in the best interest to protect the health and safety of the public. The Chairman incorporated the staff report, exhibits, and photographs into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SMITH MADE A MOTION THAT AN APPEAL BE GRANTED FROM THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION'S DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING SIX CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THERE BE POSTED SIGNAGE AS A LIMITED ACCESS ELEVATOR FOR THE DISABLED; 2) THAT THERE BE AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENERS; 3) THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS BE FIRE-RESISTANT; 4) THAT THERE BE A SEMI-ANNUAL INSPECTION OF THE ELEVATOR; 5) THAT THE LOAD CAPACITY BE NO LESS THAN 750 POUNDS; 6) THAT THE CLEAR DOOR WIDTH BE AT LEAST 34 11 • Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerning interpretation of the codes, requirements of ADA, and safety issues. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings of fact: Board Member Cohn voted "no" stating in her opinion the proposed lift was not in the best interest of the public safety. Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating in his opinion the six conditions as stated in the motion addresses the safety issues • • • • . ' • • • Board Member Waldman voted "yes" stated the six conditions included in the motion address safety issues for the special use and function for handicapped access to the building. Board Member George voted "yes" stating in her opinion the proposed lift qualifies as meeting the strict application of the code and that the safety issue were met by the six conditions. Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating that he was of the opinion that the conditions allow for strict application of Section 5103(g) as referenced in the UBC. Board Member Clayton voted "yes" stating that the proposed lift/elevator assists the bank with ADA compliance, but that in his opinion the building codes have not been changed to be responsive to meet ADA's guidelines. Chairman Welker voted "no" stating in his opinion the proposed lift is not the safest, possible solution. When the votes were displayed five members had voted in the affirmative, with two members in opposition. The Chairman announced the appeal as granted, adding that the conditions setforth by the Board must be adhered to by the appellant. STAFF ADVISORS CHOICE: Mr. Stitt advised the Board that City Council has requested a meeting with them March 1st or March 15th. After discussion it was decided that the Board would meet with City Council, Monday, March 1, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Stitt discussed Case #23-91, for the Public Hearing held on November 13, 1991, Home Lumber Inc., 180 West Lehow Avenue, stating that one of the conditions was "the operation of the subject property shall be reviewed annually by the Department of Community Development ••. ". Mr. Stitt stated that there have been no complaints. Mr. Stitt read into the record a letter from Eva Eisenberg, 4955 South Galapago Street, concerning her appreciation for the Board's denial of Case #23-92. Mr. Stitt advised Mr. Clayton that his term expires February, 1003, and if interested in continuing on the Board, to apply with City Council . \ , .... " BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: Chairman Welker stated that nominations for chair positions will be made at the next meeting, February 10, 1993. Chairman Welker requested that staff put a copy of Title 9 in their notebooks. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathie Mahon, Recording Secretary • • •