Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-11 BAA MINUTES•• • HINlfTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO MAY 11. 1994 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Waldman at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Seymour. Christman. Smith, Clayton, Cohn, and Waldman. We l ker. Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator The Chairman stated that with six members. five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appea 1 or a variance. He stated that the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. APPROVAL OF HINlfTES: Board Member Seymour moved that the minutes of March 9, 1994 be approved as written . Board Member Clayton seconded the motion . Upon the call for a vote on the motion, all members voted in the affirmative. The Chairman ruled the Minutes of March 9, 1994 approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT: Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #5-94, James Younce, 2860 South Ogden Street, be approved as written. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. All six members voiced approval in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #6-94: 4947 South Grant Street The Chairman set forth the procedure for conduct of the Hearing, stating that the variance request would be identified by City staff, and the applicant and those that wish to speak would then have the opportunity to be heard. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and due to the absence of proper paperwork for posting asked that the applicant sign the appropriate form to verify that the property wa -s posted for the required fifteen (15) days . 1 The Chairman asked the staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt. Planning Administrator was sworn in for testimony. He stated the applicant is requesting a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-3:M. Accessory Structures. He explained the variance is a request to construct a detached 400 square foot workshop/storage structure in the rear yard. adding that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address workshops as an accessory structure. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward to testify. Mr. Franklin Janssen, 4947 South Grant Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Janssen stated that due to the location of the house and attached garage on the property, that his options for placement of the proposed workshop were limited. He explained that his wife has MS and has difficulty managing the stairs to and from the basement, and that the proposed twenty by twenty workshop/storage structure would enable easy accessibility for her to work on her hobbies. and to have space for storage. He stated converting the garage into a workshop was not an option because he wanted his vehicles to have protection from the weather. Mr. Janssen explained that adding onto the back of the house was not an •• option because of the existing patio. that they were also limited due to • a five foot (5') rear yard easement, and that adding onto either side of the house was not feasible due to one side being seven feet to property line and the other side yard being five and a half feet. Mr. Janssen entered into the record statements from two neighbors stating they have no objection to the proposed variance request. Mr. Janssen addressed the points necessary to grant a variance: that the property is unusual because of the five foot (5') easement. limited side yards. and the absence of an alley; that the variance request would not adversely affect the adjacent neighbors as evidenced by their statements in favor of the request: that granting the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance, secure public safety and welfare: and that it would afford relief for his family. Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator clarified for the Board some points in question. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance does not recognize accessory structures other than carports, sheds, and garages; therefore, because workshops are not mentioned in the Ordinance, they are not permitted. He explained that the request could not be classified as a shed because the requested workshop exceeds the one hundred square feet maximum for sheds. 2 • •• • There were no further speakers present for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #6 -94, · THAT MR. FRANKLIN JANSSEN. PROPERTY OWNER OF 4947 SOUTH GRANT STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-3:M., ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A WORKSHOP/STORAGE STRUCTURE. Board Member Smith seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. With no further discussion. the members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact as follows: Ms. Christman voted "yes" stating in her opinion the factors for granting a variance were evident. Ms. Cohn voted "yes" stating the neighbors had signed statements in favor of the request. and that the workshop will afford relief for the applicants wife, and provide storage for the family. Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating he concurred with previously stated reasons. Mr. Clayton voted "yes" stating that in his opinion the Ordinance should address accessory structures like workshop and that granting the workshop was appropriate. Chairman Waldman voted "yes" stating he concurred with statements made by Board members and that granting the variance will afford relief for the applicant . When the votes were displayed, all six members present voted in the affirmative. The Chairman announced the variance granted, 6-0, and instructed the applicant to apply for the necessary permits. CASE #7-94: 3106 South Vine Street The Chairman declared the Public Hearing open stating he had proof of publication and posting, and asked the staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt Planning Administrator stated the request was for a variance from Section 16-4-2:I Minimum Side Yard. to encroach four feet into the required seven foot side yard setback, for the purpose of constructing an addition. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. 3 Frederick Law, 3106 South Vine Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Law explained that their lot was substandard because most R·l·A single family lots were 50 by 125 feet, tot a 1 i ng 9. ODO square feet. that their 1 ot was 75 feet by 100 feet. totaling 7500 square feet. He further explained that because of the configuration of the house on the property, and the factor that they did not want to reduce any of the back yard where the children play, that the only option was to build outward from the house into the side yard. Mr. Law entered into the record statements from three neighbors stating they did not oppose the proposed addition. Mr. Law entered into the record a sketch of the existing property, and explained the area of consideration for the addition . Also entered into the record were exhibits of photographs to assist in illustrating the frontage of their property, the proposed side yard for the addition. and to indicate how the existing landscaping would act as a buffer between their house and the neighbors house. Mr. Law discussed the five conditions necessary for granting a variance. He read points of justification for his request: that their property was exceptional due to the configuration of the lot; that the spirit of the Ordinance would be observed as there would be over sixteen feet (16') between structures; that the variance would not adversely affect the neighbors or adjacent property; that the proposed addition would not •• impair the development of adjacent property; and that the four foot (4') • encroachment would afford relief for them. Discussion ensued with questions from the Board members concerning other alternatives for the placement of the addition. Mr. Law replied that construction of the addition onto the rear of the house was not an option because it would reduce the play yard for their children. and secondly, because of the ten foot utility easement in the rear of the property. With no further speakers present wishing to testify in favor or against the variance request. the Chairman closed the Public Hearing incorporating the staff report. photographs. and exhibits into the record. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MADE A MOTION THAT FOR CASE #7-94, THAT MR. FREDERICK LAW OF 3106 SOUTH VINE STREET BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16·4·2:I, 1. MINIMUM SIDE YARD. IN ORDER TO ENCROACH FOUR FEET INTO THE REQUIRED SEVEN FOOT SIDE YARD, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ADDITION. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact as follows : 4 •• • Mr. Smith voted "yes" stating that the property is substandard and the proposal allows for sixteen feet between structures. Mr. Clayton voted "yes" stating the conditions were met and the placement of the addition is the best location. Ms. Christman voted "yes" stating that the request meets the criteria for granting a variance. Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating the placement for the addition appears to be the logical and best solution. Ms. Cohn voted "yes" because the variance will afford relief for the applicants family. Chairman Waldman voted "yes" concurring with previously stated reasons by board members. Chairman Waldman announced the variance as granted 6 · 0. and advised the app 1 i cant to apply for the proper permits with the Building Division. The Chairman called for a short recess at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. PUBLIC HE.ARING CASE #9-94: Highwood Auto Body · 4822 South Broadway The Chairman explained that the appeal under consideration resulted from the Building Division's order that a second restroom for the facility at 4822 South Broadway, Highwood Auto Body, be installed. The Chairman explained the procedure, stating the appeal would be addressed first by the City staff, and then the appellant would present their case. Becky Baker. Chief Building Official was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Baker stated that Highwood Auto Body currently has four employees. all male. Ms. Baker stated that they intend to add employees once the addition is completed. Ms. Baker explained when that occurs, the requirement for a second restroom would be required. She read into the record Section 705, Paragraph 5, of the 1988 Uniform Building Code: "Every building or portion thereof where persons are employed shall be provided with at least one water closet. Separate facilities shall be provided for each sex when the number of employees exceeds four and both sexes are employed. n Ms. Baker explained that the City has building codes which provide minimum standards for health. safety, and welfare, and that these standards are impartially applied to Englewood's structures~ 5 Ms. Baker stated that the plans for the addition at Highwood Auto Body were approved with two restrooms, one complying ·with accessibility requirements, and the other twenty-five square feet. Ms. Baker explained that the current restroom was being remodeled to conform with current accessi bi 1 ity requirements and could be a uni sex restroom. Ms. Baker stated that in her opinion, the second restroom could be scaled down and redesigned at a lesser square footage in order to conform with the required second restroom. Ms. Baker fielded questions from the Board members. She stated that although Highwood Auto Body currently employs only male employees, that that norm of male employees only could change. Ms. Baker explained when the number of employees exceeds the current four and/or when a female is employed, a second restroom would be required. Ms. Baker conceded that Highwood Auto Body currently meets the codes by not exceeding four emp 1 oyees. but should the owner and occupants change to a business emp 1 oyi ng more than four, and both female and ma 1 e, that the second restroom facility would be required as stated in the Uni form Building Code. Ms. Baker explained that she researched gender employment for auto mechanics and found that auto mechanics is a profession where both sexes •• are employed, and that auto work is not a profession where women may be • discriminated against or excluded. Ms. Baker concluded that the Uniform Building Code is nationally recognized and that in her opinion the code requirement for a second restroom should be abided to by the current building owner. Jim Morrison. Training Coordinator, for the Denver Plumbers Union #3 was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Morrison stated that the issue was not what gender the current occupants are, but what may occur when the building changes ownership. Mr. Morrison reiterated his point. adding that in his opinion, it would behoove the owner to include the second bathroom in the addition . The Chairman asked the appellant to come forward for testimony. Carl Welker representative for Highwood Auto Body 4822 South Broadway, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Welker stated that his interpretation of the Code differs from that of the Building Division , specifically that there are currently four employees, and therefore a second restroom should not be required. 6 •• • Mr. Welker discussed the restroom facilities are for employees only, that they are not for public use, and that access to the shop is limited by both Mr. Harding's insurer , and OSHA's regulations. Mr. Welker stated he conducted his own research by contacting twenty-five auto body repair/auto mechanic shops in the Denver area. Of those contacts, there was a total of 146 employee, of which there were fifteen women, and of the fifteen, ten were employed at the same shop. Mr. Welker stated that based on those findings, the point is not whether Mr. Harding would or would not employ women, but that the profession reflects a high proportion of males. Mr. Welker discussed the expense of installing the second restroom. He stated it wou 1 d range between $4, 000 to $5, 000 and that for a sma 11 business such as Highwood Auto Body, to incur that type of expense would seem unreasonable and unjustified . He stated that the request based on the strictest interpretation of the code which would indicate only one restroom be required. There were no further persons present wishing to testify for or against the appeal. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing . BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED FOR CASE #9·94, THAT AN APPEAL BE GRANTED FOR HIGHWOOD AUTO BODY AT 4822 SOUTH BROADWAY, FROM SECTION 705, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE WHICH REQUIRES THAT: "Every building or portion thereof where persons are employed shall have at least one water closet. Separate facilities shall be provided for each sex when the number of employees exceeds four and both sexes are employed." Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The Chairman informed the Board members that a vote in the affirmative would grant the appeal. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact as follows: Mr . Clayton voted "yes" in favor of the appeal, stating that it would be prudent of the owner to forego i nstal 1 i ng a second restroom, but when the code is interpreted in the strictest sense then we cannot require the second restroom be installed. Ms. Christman voted "yes" stating although she also interprets the code in the strict est sense, she would encourage the building owner to have the two restrooms . 7 Ms. Cohn voted "yes" stating that she echoes the i dent i cal thinking as previously discussed, adding that it is short-sighted on the owner not to include the second restroom while the building is being remodeled. She concluded that if a female never applies for a position at the subject building then no discrimination could occur, but it is impossible to predict what will take place. Mr . Smith voted "no" stating that the building owner has clearly stated he will be employing more employees , and that once that occurs the requirement for the second restroom becomes necessary . He added that if the consideration is i n dealing with the facility, and not the specific business, we are allowing him to discriminate on the basis of sex. Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating that in looking at the code in the strictest interpretation would not require the second restroom. Chairman Waldman voted "yes" stating that in his opinion, the interpretation of the code it clearly states that a second restroom is required only when the number of employees exceeds four, and that currently Highwood Auto Body has four employees. When the votes were displayed: five members voted in favor of the appeal; one member voted against the appeal. PUBLIC HEARING #10-94: 1236 East Hampden Avenue The Chairman opened the Pub l ic Hearing stating that the appeal under consideration is Section 705 and Section 905 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code as they pertain to requirements for mechanical ventilation . Mr . Smith stated he would have to abstain from hearing the case as he has had on a number of occasions contact with the appellant. Mr . Clayton advised the Chairman that he also had done business with B's Automotive and that he would have to step down from hearing the appeal. Discussion ensued that if the two members stepped down, only four members would be present, and would result in not having a quorum. Mr . Smith made a motion to continue the case until the next public hearing, June 8, 1994. Ms. Cohn seconded the motion. STAFF ADVIsm·s CHOICE: Mr. Stitt informed the Board that City Council would like board members to think about hosting meetings at their homes for ESTTA (Englewood Something To Talk About) gatherings. 8 •• • • • CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: None. BOARD MEMBERS CHOICE: None. There being no further business, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r:n}d/~~ Catie Mahon . Recording Secretary 9