Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-08 BAA MINUTES. . •• • • MINUTES ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD.COLORADO NOVEMBER 8. 1995 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Clayton at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, Christman, O'Brien, Barber, and Clayton. Members absent: Smith. Also present: Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Harold Stitt, Community Coordinator Becky Baker, Chief Building Official The Chairman stated that with five members present, four 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: Seymour moved: Chrisman seconded: That the minutes of October 11, 1995, be approved as written. Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: Seymour, Chrisman, O'Brien, Barber, and Clayton. None. Smith. None. The Chairman ruled the Minutes of October 11, 1995, approved as written. FINDINGS OF FACT: Seymour moved: Christman seconded: That the Findings of Fact for Case #11-95, Michael Ashton for 1035 East Dartmouth Avenue; Case #13-95, Hyman Clar for 3529 South Elati Street; and Case #15-95, Beth Mccorkle and Barb Closser, for 193 East Cornell Avenue, be approved as written. Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: Seymour, Chrisman, O'Brien, Barber, and Clayton. None. Smith. None . 1 The Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #14-95: 3103 South Platte River Drive The Chairman set forth the parameters for conduct of the Hearing. He stated anyone aggrieved by the Board's decision may appeal that decision to a court of record; however, such appeal must be made within 30 days of the Board's decision. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication. He explained that the procedure for the meeting would be that the appeal would be presented by city staff, and that the appellant and those that wish to speak would follow with testimony. Ms. Becky Baker, Chief Building Official, was sworn in for testimony. Ms. Baker stated that the appeal before the Board is a result of a tenant finish approximately 10,000 square feet of space. She explained that when new construction occurs, the current building codes apply. In this case, the issue under consideration before the Board, is building accessibility for physically challenged people. She explained that the building permit was approved and issued, construction has been started, with the agreement of the one item appealed. She stated that the item under appeal is from Section 1103.1.1. Building Accessibility, Exception 2, of the 1994 Uniform Building Code. She read into the record: Exceptions: 2. Subject to the approval of the Building Official , areas where work cannot reasonably be performed by persons having a severe impairment (mobility, sight or hearing) need not have specific features which provide accessibility to such persons. Ms. Baker stated the appellant is requesting relief of the requirements to provide building accessibility for persons with disabilities. The Building & Safety Division maintains that warehouse work can reasonably be performed by physically challenged persons; therefore, that is why the division requested that the tenant finish work be performed according to current building codes for building accessibility for physically challenged persons. Mr. Barber asked what the difference is between the grade elevation and the sill height of the new door. Ms. O'Brien asked if the new door met ADA requirements. At this time Ms. Baker yielded to the design architect. 2 •• • • •• • • Tim Morgan, Architects Unlimited, 15615 Elk Circle, Brighton, Colorado , was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Morgan answered that the elevation from grade to sill is four feet. He discussed an existing truck ramp, stating they maintain that it provides access to the space. He conceding that it is steeper than ADA requires which is a 1: 12 ratio: the ramp is 1: 10 . He added that the restrooms and stairways were constructed according to the building codes. He reiterated that if a physically challenged person wanted access to the building , the ramp would render that accessibility factor. Mr. Morgan stated the disagreement with the Building Department requiring them to provide building accessibility for wheelchair bound persons does not coincide with the use of the unit. Given the use of the unit; high warehousing, currently high stacking of bike racks, the likelihood of having more than one employee working at that particular space was unlikeiy, that it is basically a dead space storage area . The loading and unloading of the product: bike racks , would not be the type of work for physically challenged persons; therefore , they appealed the exception. Becky Baker, Chief Building Official , approached the podium and continued her testimony. She answered questions concerning the tenant finish . A 19,000 square foot space was divided into two units: one 9 ,000 square feet , and the other 10,000 square feet. When that division occurred occupancy issues changed, and accessibility requirements became building code requirement issues. The new space had no main door and an overhead door was installed. The new door had to meet accessibility standards as provided by the current building code. There was no further testimony from city staff. The Chairman asked the appellant to come forward for testimony. Martin Stites , Adams/ Arapahoe Investment Company , 3151 South Platte River Drive , was sworn in for testimony . Mr. Stites stated he is one of the owners of the complex. He briefed the Board that the tenant space employees two people , one for the office , and one for warehousing. The type of warehousing is storage and stacking bike racks . 3 He expressed concern that the expense to conform to the current building codes for accessibility would not be cost effective for the type of use in the unit, that he was of the opinion that to meet the accessibility requirement stated by the building code was above and beyond logic. He asserted that the permit for the tenant finish was submitted to the building department in August of 1995. At that time he was not aware that the 1994 Uniform Building Code had been adopted until notified by the Plan Reviewer. At time they were informed that the proposed work must conform to the provisions of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, specifically "accessibility" as defined in Chapter 11. Mr. Stites answered questions posed by board members. He stated the lease is for three years, that the use of the space will remain the same, and that to provide building accessibility would cost approximately the same as his other units: $20,000. He submitted for the record a picture of the new door and existing ramp. Mr. Stites concluded that he questioned the practicality of spending the money to provide the required accessibility to the building and the probability of the use changing in the unit. Tim Morgan, Architects Unlimited, approached the podium to continue his testimony. He submitted for the record a photograph to assist in illustrating the current use of the space, pointing out the high •• ceiling and shelving for stacking the bike racks. Mr. Morgan concluded that he took • exception to the provision of the U.B.C. requirement to provide building accessibility for persons having disabilities because warehousing will most likely remain the type of occupancy in the unit. With no further persons present to speak for or against the request, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Seymour moved: Christman seconded: THAT FOR CASE #14-95, MARTIN STITES OF ADAMS/ARAPAHOE INVESTMENT COMPANY, 3103 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER DRIVE, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM SECTION 1103 .1.1 BUILDING ACCESSIBILITY. EXCEPTION 2: WHICH STATES: "SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, AREAS WHERE WORK CANNOT REASONABLY BE PERFORMED BY PERSONS HAVING A SEVERE IMPAIRMENT ... NEED NOT HAVE SPECIFIC FEATURES WHICH PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY TO SUCH PERSONS. Discussion ensued. 4 • • • • Mr. Barber contended that the unit could have a use change in the future, the City would unlikely know about it, and there would not be assessibility to the building for persons with disabilities. Mr. Clayton countered that he considered it unlikely that a physically challenged person would work in the subject unit because of the nature of warehousing, and the use of a forklift for stacking of the product. Ms. Chrisman stated that the unit is 10,000 square feet and the current use of warehousing could change to another type of industrial use. Mr. Barber explained that the building code addresses the "S" occupancy as 200 square feet per person; therefore, the unit could have a maximum occupancy of 45 people. The Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes and give their findings of fact. Mr. Barber voted "no" stating that the conditions were not met. Ms. O'Brien voted "no" stating that the existing ramp does not meet the accessibility requirements as required by the building code. Mr. Seymour voted "no" stating that the three year lease is a short time, the use could change, and economic hardship can not be justification for meeting the required building codes. Ms. Christman voted "no" concurring with previous statements . Mr. Clayton stated he voted "yes" because he was of the opinion that the unit will continue to be used for warehousing, the requirement for the ramp is unnecessary because physically challenged persons would not be expected to operate a forklift, and it is unlikely 45 people will occupy the space at some future time. When the votes were displayed, four members voted in the affirmative, with one members voting in opposition. The Chairman announced that the appeal was denied, and that the accessibility requirement must be met as directed by the Building & Safety Division. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #16-95 Republic Garages for William Belt 4871 South Lipan Street The Chairman opened the public hearing stating he had proof of publication, posting was verified by Chairman. The applicant had certification of posting without the picture which will be forwarded to the secretary for the case file . 5 The Chairman asked staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt, Community Coordinator, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Stitt stated the applicant, Residential Garages, is requesting a variance from Section 16-4-2:M, 1,c(2), to encroach 2 feet into the required five foot side yard setback, for the purpose of constructing a detached garage. The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Jerry Krizek, Residential Garages was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Krizek stated that he has contracted to build a two-car detached garage at the subject property. He referenced the drawing submitted in the packet pointing out that the side door accessing the house has stairs which must remain as required by building code. He discussed the proposal for placement of the garage and the encroachment into the side yard. He stated the placement as proposed would benefit the property owner otherwise the resident would have to angle his vehicles into the garage instead of a straight line entrance. He addressed the criterion for granting a variance: the property is exceptional because • there is no alley, there is a lake and parking lot in the rear of the property. He stated • the area between the house and the side yard is too narrow for an attached garage. The variance will enable the property owner to remove his vehicles off the street, and house them from the weather. It will not affect the neighbors because the neighbor to the south built his garage into the side yard after being granted a variance. He concluded it is the minimum variance and will provide relief for his customer. Mr. Krizek entered statements from two neighbors in favor of the variance. He concluded stating the placement is the most logical, the garage will benefit the resident, and the construction will architecturally correspond to the house. William Belt, 4871 South Lipan Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Belt stated that none of his neighbors have contested his request. He stated the property is exceptional because there is no alley and the only place for the garage is as proposed by Residential Garage . There were no further persons present wishing to testify for or against the request. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report, miscellaneous exhibits, and closed the public hearing. 6 • Mr. Seymour moved: Ms. Christman seconded: THAT FOR CASE #16-95, THAT RESIDENTIAL GARAGES FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4871 SOUTH LIPAN STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-2:M, 1,c,(2) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ENCROACH 2 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, FOR THE PURPOSE OF A DETACHED GARAGE. The Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes and give their findings of fact. Ms. O'Brien voted "yes" stating the request meets the conditions: the property is exceptional because the property has no alley; it will observe the spirit of the Ordinance because similar variances in the neighborhood have been granted; the variance will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood because the garage will allow for less congestion of cars parked on the street; the variance will not impair the adjacent property since they received a variance for their garage; and that the request is the least modification. Mr. Seymour voted "yes" concurring with Ms. O'Brien , adding that the garage will help elevate congestion of parked cars on the · street. Mr. Barber voted "yes" concurring with previous statements. • Ms. Christman voted "yes" concurring. • Mr. Clayton votes "yes" concurring. When the votes were displayed, all five members present voted in the affirmative. The Chairman announced the variance as granted and directed the applicant to apply for the appropriate permits with the Building Department. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #17-95: 4701 South Jason Street The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of posting and publication. He asked the staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt, Community Coordinator, identified the request as a variance to divide a oversized lot measuring 122 feet by 135 feet and create two building sites that would have less than the required 9,000 square feet of lot area and less than the required 75 foot frontage. The variance is from Section 16- 4-2:C, 1. Minimum Lot Area, and Section 16-4-2:f,1. Minimum Lot Frontage, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . 7 The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward for testimony. Robb Short, representative for Philip Danser, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Short stated the existing house is small having only one bedroom and was built in 1929. He stated due to the age of the house, and its size, Mr. Danser did not want to enlarge the existing house. He explained the variance request is to allow the creation of two building sites by dividing the oversize lot. He explained if the variance is granted, Project Build would construct two houses with three bedroom, and an attached garage. He further explained that Mr. Danser's intention was to occupy the first house, and then sell the second home. Entered into the record were three statements from neighbors in favor of the request. Mr. Short did convey that the neighbor from the south had some concerns placing two houses on the property, but that the individual did not wish to attend the meeting. Questions were answered from the Board. Mr. Short concurred that Mr. Danser was aware when he purchased the property, that it was an oversized lot. He amplified on Project Build, that the houses would be 40 deep and 30 wide. He concluded his testimony admitting that the request was based on financial gain for Mr. Danser. There were no further persons wishing to testify. The Chairman incorporated the staff report and neighbors statements into the record and closed • the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved: Ms. Christman seconded: THAT FOR CASE #17-95, THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO MR. PHILIP DANSER, PROPERTY OWNER OF 4701 SOUTH JASON STREET, TO CREATE TWO BUILDING SITES THAT WOULD HA VE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FEET OF LOT FRONT AGE AND WOULD HA VE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FEET OF LOT FRONT AGE. THIS IS AV ARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-2:C,1. MINIMUM LOT AREA, AND SECTION 16-4-2:f,1. MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE. Discussion ensued. Ms. Christman stated driving through the neighborhood she observed that most properties conformed with 75 foot frontages. She questioned dividing the subject property, resulting in less than residents in that area had . She added that the subject property is a nice lot and that a large house could be built on it, meeting the R-1-A reguirements . She concluded that the intent of the Ordinance and the R-1-A regulations is to have 75 foot frontages and the neighbors should expect the regulations to remain the same. 8 • • • Mr. Seymour expounded that the 75 foot lot frontage should be the minimum, that to create two sites resulting in less than the minimum would result in substandard lots in that neighborhood. He added that to grant the variance would result in two sites with 61 foot frontages, which would be almost a 20% reduction from the R-1-A frontage minimum. Mr. Clayton stated when he visited the neighborhood he observed most of the lots had 75 foot frontages. He addressed the conditions for granting the variance stating that he can not identify what the hardship is, and that economics is not a hardship according to the five key conditions for granting a variance. With no further discussion, the Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes and give their findings of fact. Ms. Christman voted "no" stating that the request does not meet the criterion, no exceptional hardship has been proven, and that creating two substandard lots would be a disservice to those residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Barber voted "no" concurring with Ms. Chrisman's statements . Ms. O'Brien concurred . Mr. Seymour voted "no" stating that the creation of the two sites would be almost a twenty per- cent reduction . Mr. Clayton voted "no" for the same reasons as stated by the members. When the votes were displayed, all five members present had voted in opposition to the request. The Chairman announced the decision 0-5. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #18-95: 3201 South Santa Fe Drive The Chairman opened the Public Hearing stating he had proof of publication and posting. He asked staff to identify the request. Harold Stitt, Community Coordinator, stated the applicant, Mark Machosky is the owner of Budget Transmission Center located at 3201 South Santa Fe Drive. He explained the request is a variance from Section 16- 4-17:e(l) which states fences erected in front of the building line shall not exceed six feet. The request is to construct an eight foot fence at the front yard building line . He added that the request is due to a continuation of vandalism of customers vehicles and personal property . 9 Mark Machosky, owner of Budget Transmission, 3201 South Santa Fe Drive, was sworn in for testimony. He discussed his attempts at stopping the constant and continuing vandalism at his property. He stated the guard dog was poisoned, and the spot lights have not deterred the vandalism. He added the lights seems to make the property brighter for the trespassers. Mr. Machosky discussed in detail the numerous incidents of vandalizing his customers vehicles. He stated because many customers are from the State of Colorado, like the Division of Wildlife, the vehicles have state of the art communication systems. Those cars have been broken into, items have been removed, and he has to pay for the damage. He explained that at the end of the business day a complete check of vehicles is make to ensure that they are locked. He stated the vandals will break windows and shimmy the doors to steal contents in the cars. In addition to breaking and entering, the cars have had mirrors removed, had the have had the paint key-scratched, and gas tanks have been emptied. •• Mr. Machosky addressed the criterion for granting a variance. He stated the unusual circumstance is his property is in an industrial use zone sandwiched in the middle with a mobile home park on each side of his business. He stated the variance request will • observe the spirit of the Ordinance because it will secure public safety of his customers vehicles and his personal property. He stated the impact of the fence will not adversely affect the adjacent properties, and will not impact or impair the use or development of adjacent property because the mobile home parks have been in existence since the 1940's. He concluded the variance request is the least modification and will grant relief because it should solve his problem of security the entire property. Mr. Machosky answered questions from the Board. He explained that on the side and rear of the property will probably be twelve feet. The overall height of the fencing in front will be eight feet: it will be a six foot fence with three to four strands of barbed wire. The Chairman incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing. Mr. Seymour moved: Ms. Christman seconded: 10 • ' - •• • • THAT FOR CASE #18-95, MARK MACHOSKY FOR BUDGET TRANSMISSION LOCATED AT 3201 SOUTH SANTA FE DRIVE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-17:e(l), WHICH STATES FENCES ERECTED IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX FEET. THE VARIANCE IS TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD BUILDING LINE. Discussion ensued . The Chairman asked the members to lock in their votes and give their findings of fact. Mr. Barber voted "yes" stating that the request meets the criterion because the property is unusual being an industrial center located in the middle of two mobile home parks. He added that the increase of the height of the fence in front should provide security to customers vehicles and personal property . Mr. Seymour voted "yes" stating that the type of business is an "attractive nuisance" and the fencing with barbed wire should reduce the vandalism occurring at the applicant 's business. Ms. O'Brien voted "yes" concurring for the same reasons stated. Ms . Christman stated she concurred . Mr. Clayton voted "yes" stating the variance request for an increase in the height of the fence should be a major solution to reducing crime at the property . When the votes were displayed, all five members present had voted in the affirmative. The Chairman announced the decision, 5-0, and directed the applicant to apply for the appropriate building permit. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE: Mr. Stitt informed the board members of the Holiday Potluck on December 14, 1995 at 6:00 a.m . at the Malley Center. He directed the members to the schedule of the ICBO Conference to be held in March of 1996. He requested that members review the schedule and submit to the recording secretary by December 1, 1995, the seminars they would like to attend . 11 CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE: Mr. Brotzman announced that City Council will be conducting interviews on November 27, 1995, to fill the vacancy on the Board. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE: Mr. Seymour asked the recording secretary if spouses were included for the December 14th potluck. All members expressed enthusiasm to attend the ICBO Conference. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p .m. Respectfully submitted , Cathie Mahon , Recording Secretary 12 . ' •• • ••