Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-13 BAA MINUTES• ......... ,~ • ,- HINlJTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWCXJD. COLORADO JULY 13. 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: Seymour, Christman , Smith, Clayton. and Waldman. Members absent: Cohn, and Welker. Also present: Harold Stitt. Planning Administrator Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney The Chairman stated that with f i ve members present, four affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal or a variance. APPROVAL OF HINlJTES: Board Member Seymour moved that the minutes for June 8, 1994, be approved as written . Board Member Clayton seconded t he motion . Upon the call for a vote on the motion, four members voted in the affirmative wi th Board Member Smith abstaining due to his absence at the previous meeting. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT: Board Member Seymour moved that the Findings of Fact for Case #11-94, Young Min Kim, 2200 West Evans Avenue, and Case #12-94, Mary and Neil Neumann. 3106 South Vine Street, be approved as written. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Upon the call for a vote on the motion. four members voted in the affirmative with Board Member Smith abstaini·ng due to his absence at the previous meeting . PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #13-94: 4820 South Elati Street The Chairman set forth the procedure for conduct of the Hearing, stating that the variance request would be ident i fied by City staff, and the applicant and those that wi sh to speak would than have the opportunity to be heard. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and proper posting of the property. The Chairman asked the staff to identify the request . Harold Stitt. • Planning Administrator ' --1 was sworn in for testimony. He explained the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 16·4-2:!.l. Minimum Side Yard, to encroach 5 feet into the required 11 foot side yard setback. Discussion ensued concerning the alleyway to the rear of the residences in the 4800 South Elati block. Mr. Stitt explained those properties in the 4800 South Elati block may in fact be using the alleyway as a means of access for their garages, but according to county records and maps, it is not a dedicated public right- of·way. He further responded stating that the long-term use of the alleyway has established it as a public alley and it is being treated as such. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Mr. Robert Mennenga, 4820 South Elati Street was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Mennenga stated his wife has arthritis and that navigating the stairs to the laundry room in the basement is difficult for her. Mr. Mennenga explained that in addition to his wife's condition. they have their mother·in·law living with them. and that having the extra room on the main floor would be beneficial to the entire family. He explained his intent was to expand the living quarters upstairs by • en 1 a rgi ng the kitchen. adding a bathroom. and moving the 1 aundry room . / upstairs. Mr. Mennenga addressed the five conditions for granting a variance stating that the variance will obey the spirit of the Ordinance, will not have any ill effects on the public safety and welfare of their neighborhood. and would afford relief with the least modification possible. When questioned about other options for placement of the addition/garage. Mr. Mennenga explained that construction of the addition to the back of the house would not be structurally sound. He added that placing a garage in the rear of the property was not an option of consideration. There was no further discussion with the applicant but staff had additional comments. Harold Stitt. Planning Administrator . responded to the question as to how the property was exceptional. He explained. typically the houses built in that neighborhood were built in the 1950's when a one·car garage was the norm. but today's trend reflects the need for two-car garages. The Chai~man incorporated the staff report into the record and closed the Public Hearing. 2 • • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT FOR CASE #13·94. THAT THE APPLICANT, ROBERT MENNENGA. 4820 SOUTH ELATI STREET. BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16·4·2:1.l. MINIMUM SIDE YARD. TO ENCROACH 5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 11 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The members 1 ocked in their. votes. and gave their findings of fact and conclusions. Board Member Seymour voted "yes" stating that in his opinion the request meets the conditions for granting a variance and that testimony reflected that the variance would afford relief for the applicant. Board Member Christman voted "no" stating the request does not meet the first condition of being exceptional. Board Member Smith voted "no" stating he concurred that the request does not meet the conditions for granting a variance. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating in his opinion the setbacks should be observed. Chairman Waldman voted "yes" stating in the strictest application the conditions are met. that the request observes the spirit of the ordinance. and that it will afford relief with the least modification. When the votes were displayed. two members voted in the affirmative. with three members against the motion. The Chairman announced the request as denied. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #14-94: 4591 South Huron Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication stating that the property was properly posted but for the record no Certification of Posting was submitted. Harold Stitt Planning Administrator explained the request for consideration was for a variance from Section 16-4·2:M,l,c.2. Minimum Side Yard for garages and accessory structures. to encroach 3 feet into the required 5 foot side yard setback . David Densmore. 4591 South Huron Street was sworn in for testimony . . statements from four neighbors proposed variance request. Mr. Densmore entered into the record stating they have no objection to the 3 Mr. Densmore entered into the record a plot plan to assist in illustrating • the proposed placement of a detached 2-car garage. He pointed one they J have limited areas for p 1 a cement because there is no a 11 ey to a 11 ow entrance for a garage, that the north side yard of the property is too narrow; therefore. the only optic~ is the south side yard of the property. He stated the proposed placement of the garage requires an encroachment into the side yard so their vehicles can enter directly into the garage. Mr. Densmore addressed the conditions for granting a variance. He stated that the variance will observe the spirit of the Ordinance because there similar garages in the neighborhood, that the variance will not adversely affect the adjacent property because of the two foot strip and fence between properties, and that the variance would afford them relief. Mr. Densmore concluded that his request for the two-car detached garage would provide protection for their vehicles. and that the encroachment was necessary for placement of the garage to allow for straight access into the garage. Melinda Densmore. 4591 South Huron Street was sworn in for testimony. Mrs. Densmore discussed their request for the placement of the garage was to allow for cars to enter the garage directly instead of at an angle. There were no further persons present to testify for or against the request. .;i Harold Stitt. Planning Administrator stated he wanted to discuss a couple of unique factors about the subject property. He explained pl a cement on the subject property is impacted because the house is set back forty feet (40') which is atypical because most front yard setbacks are twenty-five feet (25'): therefore there is less rear yard. He stated placing the garage farther back on the property would require more driveway. He stated that moving the garage back seven (7') feet toward the rear of the property would result in twenty feet between the porch and the garage, which is slightly longer than a standard parking space and not leave a significant area for maneuverability. He exemplified that if a standard parking space of nine feet wide by nineteen feet long were placed between the porch and the proposed garage,· the condition would still result in difficult maneuverability, such that the angle would be significant in moving vehicles into the garage. There were no further speakers for or against the variance request. The Chairman incorporated into the record the Staff Report, neighbor's statements and exhibits. and closed the Public Hearing. 4 • • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT FOR CASE #14·94, FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 4591 SOUTH HURON STREET. THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. SECTION 16·4·2:M,l.c,2. MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR GARAGES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. TO ENCROACH 3 FEET INTO REQUIRED 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. Board Member Smith seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating he did not believe the spirit of the Ordinance was met. that there is no apparent hardship, and that it is not the minimum variance requested. Board Member Smith voted "yes" stating that the conditions were met. that the property is exceptional because of the placement of the house on the property. Board Member Christman voted "yes' stating in her opinion the conditions were met. Board Member Seymour voted "no" stating the driveway would be wide enough to maneuver their vehicles into the garage, and that testimony did not reflect adequate reasons for granting the variance. Chairman Waldman voted "yes" stating that the property is exceptional. that statements were submitted revealing there was no opposition from the neighbors, and that it would afford relief to the applicant. When the votes were displayed, three members voted in the affirmative with two members voting against the request. The Chairman announced the variance request denied. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #15·94: 1200 West Dartmouth Avenue The Chairman explained the procedure. stating the appeal would be addressed first by City staff. and then the appellant would present their case, and those wishing to be heard would have an opportunity to speak. Harold Stitt. Planning Administrator stated that the appeal under consideration is from Section 1711 Guardrail. of the 1988 Uni form Building Code which requires that: open guardrai 1 shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere 6 inches in diameter cannot pass through: EXCEPTION: The open space between the intermediate rails or ornamental pattern of guardrail in areas of commercial and industrial-type occupancies which are not accessible to the public may be such that a sphere 12 inches in diameter cannot pass through . 5 Beck Baker. Chief Building Official was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Baker entered into the record photographs to assist in illustrating the area of concern on the second floor mezzanine. Ms. Baker directed attention to the area of the platform where tires are stored and the 9'2" drop should someone fall through an opening from the platform. Ms. Baker pointed out that the tire racks are being used in place of guardrails around the mezzanine. Ms. Baker submitted for the record a "citation and notification of penalty" report from OSSA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). She explained that this report listed violations found during an inspection of a different Englewood facility with regard to guardrail violations. and the subsequent thousands of dollars in fines resulting from those violations. Ms. Baker stated that the Building Division's concern was the question of employee safety. She posed the question of consideration was do the tire racks function as adequate protection in place of guardrails? She stated that the Uniform Building Code requires that guardrails be installed to pro vi de protection from someone falling through an opening from the mezzanine. Ms. Baker answered a concern from the Board as to what was indicated on the blueprints. She stated initially a fire-rated wall was to be placed • around the mezzanine. but the plans were changed to guardrails. The / building permit was released with the understanding that the paperwork for the guardrail would follow. They repeatedly asked the contractor to submit the paperwork. and when final inspections were called in, they still did not have the paperwork, and the guardrail had not been i nsta 11 ed. At that point the inspector advised the contractor that no final would be signed off until the guardrail was installed. The Chairman asked the appellant to come forward for testimony. Ron Hanstrom. owner of Ron's Tire Service. 1200 West Dartmouth Avenue was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Hanstrom submitted for the record photographs of Sam's Warehouse Club to assist in pointing out the tire racks at Sam's automotive department. He pointed out that Sam's stored their tires without benefit of guardrail. He stated that he has been in business ·far twenty-eight years and never had an accident. He expressed that in his opinion the requirement for the guardrail was ridiculous and does not pose a threat to his employees. He stated that he would like to leave the platform open and use a rolling set of stairs to pull the tires from the racks to the outside of the platform . 6 • •• • Board Member Clayton commented that he recently visited Sam's and observed that when they extracted tires, a man lifted tires out with a forklift that had guardrail around it. He added that at the same time a man stood guard on the ground floor around the forklift to assure that someone did not pass under the forklift. Dwight Boyles, Boyles Construction Company was sworn in for testimony, stating he was the general contractor for the building project. Mr. Boyles stated that he wanted to clarify that when someone removes tires they go up the stairs, and are in an enclosure with a wall on two sides. the tire racks on the other side, and the stairs. He stated that the only way a person could fall is down the stairs. He stated the racks are designed and placed in such a manner as to create a solid barrier that deters from anyone slipping through an opening. There were no persons present wishing to testify for or against the appeal. The Chairman incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the Public Hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT FOR CASE #15-94, THAT THE APP LI CANT, RON HAN STROM FOR RON 'S TIRE SERVICE AT 1200 WEST DARTMOUTH AVENUE, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM SECTION 1711 GUARDRAIL . OF THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE WHICH REQUIRES THAT: OPEN GUARDRAILS SHALL HAVE INTERMEDIATE RAILS OR AN ORNAMENTAL PATTERN SUCH THAT A SPHERE 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER CANNOT PASS THROUGH: EXCEPTION: THE OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE INTERMEDIATE RAILS OR ORNAMENTAL PATTERN OF GUARDRAILS IN AREAS OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL-TYPE OCCUPANCIES WHICH ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC MAY BE SUCH THAT A SPHERE 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER CANNOT PASS THROUGH. Board Member Clayton seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings of fact. Board Member Smith voted "no" stating that in his opinion the guardrail requirement should be adhered to and that the Building Division was correct in requiring that guardrails be installed . Board Member Christman voted "no" agreeing with previously stated reasons. Board Member Seymour voted "no" ·stating that the mezzanine is clearly a balcony and that to prevent any potential accident. the guardrail should be installed. Board Member Clayton voted "no" stating the guardrail should be installed to ensure employee safety. Chairman Waldman voted "no" stating his concern was the safety question of extracted tires by pushing them over the edge of the mezzanine . 7 When the votes were displayed. all five members voted against the appeal request . The Chairman announced the decision as denied. advising the appellant that any person(s) aggrieved by the Board 's decision has the right to have the decision reviewed by the District Court of Arapahoe County and must file within thirty days (30) from the date of their decision. The Chairman directed to the Chief Building Official to convey to the owner that his appea 1 was denied. and to proceed with the necessary steps to assure compliance. STAFF ADVISORS CHOICE: None . CITY ATTORNEYS CHOICE: None. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE: None . With no further business to discuss. the meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m . Respectfu l ly yours. '. /" t ttl-/4/t~ Cathie Mahon. Record i ng Secretary 8 • ••