Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-04 BAA MINUTES• • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO NOVEMBER 4, 1987 9 B ~ The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appea 1 s was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Hallagin, Seymour, Fish, Lighthall, Doyle and Welker. Members absent: Brown. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 1987 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Fish seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all six members present voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of October 14, 1987 were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE 25-87 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Fish seconded the motion. Upon a vote a 11 six members present voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Case 25-87 were approved as written. CONTINUED CASE. Ralph Schamp Oldsmobile 4732 South Broadway. The Chairman re-opened the public hearing for the continued Case #24-87, and asked that the representative come forward for testimony. Mark Wallace, 427 St. Paul Street, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that they had been unab 1 e to reach an agreement with the 1 andowner, and cannot present any further information. He said that theirs is a short term lease, and they cannot afford to landscape all by themselves, and the setback re- quirement cannot be met. There was no one in the audience who wished to testify either for or against the variance request. The Chairman closed the public hearing, incorporating the Staff report into the record. -1 - BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO RALPH SCHOMP OLDSMOBILE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4732 SOUTH BROADWAY, FROM ALL THE LANDSCAPING REQUIRE-• MENTS AND THE ENTIRE TEN FEET OF SETBACK REQUIRED IN THE B-2 ZONE DISTRICT. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-12 E 2 b (1), DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE B-2, AND SECTION 16-4-18 C 2 e, LAND- SCAPE ORDINANCE. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "no" because there was no justification for suspension of the Ordinance. Mr. Hallagin voted "no" because the Ordinance should be upheld and there was no cooperation from the owners. Mr. Fish voted against the variance because the integrity of the Ordinance would be injured. Ms. Lighthall voted against the application because there was no attempt at meeting the Ordinance, and the Ordinance would be weakened if the variance were granted. Mr. Doyle voted against the variance because there is ample room for some landscaping, and the Ordinance should be obeyed. Mr . Welker said the variance would injure the Code, and time was given for an • alternative solution and none was found. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted "no" and the Chairman stated the variance was denied, and the applicant must comply with the Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #26-87. Sun Tae Kim 2737 South Downing Street The Chairman opened the public hearing, saying there was proof of publication and posting. Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to permit operation of a denta 1 1 aboratory as a home occupation in the R-1-A, Single- Fami ly Residence District. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-1: A, General Restrictions in Zone Districts. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward. Hyang Kim, 2737 South Downing, the wife of the app 1 i cant, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she and her husband have had a dental lab for five years on South Grant Street. The owner of that property has sold the proper- ty, and they will have to move their lab. They own and reside in the house at • 2737 South Downing Street, and they would 1 i ke to do their lab work in the basement. No customers would come to the house, they would not have tq leave -2 - • • • home to go to work, and there would be in their opinion, no impact on the neighborhood . Mrs. Kim said that they pick up and deliver to the dentists' offices. The work in the lab consists of glazing, backing, grinding, casting and polishing to make crowns. There would be a wax-burning furnace and a baking furnace which are electric. Aurora permits this process in residential areas. There would be no employees, no dangerous chemicals, and the process is similar to jewelry making. Ms. Lighthall observed that Utilitie s wo uld require a water meter and backflow protection. Mrs. Kim said they were unaware of that, but would comply. She said there would be no chemicals or flames. She has been a dental technician for ten years and there have been no problems. Mrs. Kim said there is a big yard (1/4 of an acre), and there would be no traffic other than their own car. There would be no noise or fumes. Leon Miller, 2701 South Downing, was sworn in for testimony. He stated he was not actually opposing the request, but listed his concerns as venting, chemi- cals, increase in traffic, noise, hazardous trash, fumes, further employees, and space. He noted there is warehouse space available in the area at rea- sonable cost. He said if those concerns are addressed, he would only oppose the request if there is an impact on his house. Bob Schroeder, 1100 East Yale, was sworn in for testimony. He stated he was concerned that this variance, if granted, would become a permanent variance that would continue even if these owners moved. He a 1 so wanted assurance there would be no outside appearance of a business--parking, sign or alter- ation in the house or other structures. He asked if extraordinary fire or electrical hazards would affect the insurance rates. Mr. Welker said that restrictions could be put on the variance. Mrs. Kim returned to answer some of the questions. She said there would be venting from the basement, but only for the wax. There would be a small fan to direct air to the outside, but no fumes or smoke. There would be little trash, and they recycle the gold. The only supplies to be stored would be go 1 d, wax and a 25 pound bag of stone. They intend to restrict hours, and will not have employees. They have already reduced the volume of their business. Mrs. Kim 5aid that they have a friend in Aurora who has a similar home opera- tion. They would not require special wiring or electrical power, and they would carry insurance for the gold, but no other special insurance is required. Mary Alice Rothweiler presented two letters from neighbors (Marion E. Eisen- berg, 2745 South Downing Street, and Marcia D. Gladstone, 2780 South Downing Street) opposed to granting the variance. She noted that the R-1 -A zone dis- trict does not permit any home occupations. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed the issue at the time amendments were made to the Com- prehensive Zoning ordinance, and they are opposed to home occupations in R-1-A areas. It would not be necessary to obtain a variance for this dental lab in the home in any other zone district in Englewood . Mrs. Rothweiler stated that a home occupation is any use within a dwelling, secondary to the principal use as a residence. The normal procedure is for -3 - the applicant to fill out a form identifying the home occupation and indicat- ing that all conditions will be met. The Zoning Inspector would inspect the • premises to determine compliance. She listed some permitted occupations as making silk flowers, crafts, bookkeeping, the sale of Avon products, and inte- rior design. Steve Mulhern, 2715 South Downing Street, was sworn in for testimony. He stated he was concerned about precedent and value. If improvements are made to the property, it may always be used for business; and it is possible that the Building Division would require substantial changes to the structure. He said the impacts on the neighborhood and the R-1-A zoni ng are unclear. Leon Miller returned to ask if the applicant is currently operating on the Downing property. Mrs. Kim said they are still at 3490 South Grant, but should move as soon as possible. She said they would either have to find another lab space or move into their basement. She said their process is similar to cooking and would have no more effect on the neighborhood. She said they had tried to find other quarters, but they are expensive. She has started another business and now only her husband will work in the dental lab. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED THAT IN CASE #26-87, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2737 SOUTH DOWNING STREET, THE APPLICANT, SUN TAE KIM, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A DENTAL LABORATORY AS A HOME OCCUPATION IN THE R-1-A, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE • ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.4-1: A, GENERAL RESTRICTIONS IN ZONE DISTRICTS. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted "yes" because there was no hazard. Mr. Hallagin voted "no" because the request wouldn't meet the code, traffic might be increased, and there should be no business in the R-1-A. Mr. Fish said the R-1-A zone district is the most protected zone district; there might be a hazard from the dental lab; there might be injury to the neighborhood; and there seemed to be no hardship. Ms. Lighthall voted "no" because the Board should not, in her opinion, make inroads into the R-1-A. There is vacant space available in the area, and economics are not to be considered in granting a variance. Mr. Doyle voted against the request because home occupations are not appropri- ate in the R-1-A. He was concerned that a precedent would be set if the variance were granted. Mr. Welker said that he could sympathize with the desire to have the lab at home, but this desire is primarily financial, which the Board is not to con- sider. The integrity of the R-1-A zone district might also be damaged . -4 - • • • • When the votes were displayed five members had voted against the motion, and one, Mr. Seymour, had voted for it . The Chairman ruled the variance was denied, and the basement at 2737 South Downing was not to be used for a home occupation. * * * * * PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 28-87. Frank and Maxine Hartle 4673 South Pennsylvania Street The Chairman opened the public hea ring, saying there was proof of publication and posting. Dorothy A. Romans, Acting Director of Conununity Development for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She stated the applicant was request- ing a variance to permit the detached structure on the rear of the property to be used for sleeping facilities . This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-4 0 1, General Provisions in the R-1-C, Single Family Residence District, which provision states "no structure or vehicle on the same lot with the dwelling shall be used for residential purposes." Frank Hartle, 6990 South Depew, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that his daughter had purchased the home which was listed by HUD as a three bedroom house, with two bedrooms in the main house and one in the structure at the rear. His daughter moved to Hawaii after living in the home. She wishes to rent the property until she dee ides if she wants to 1 i ve permanent 1 y in Hawaii . They spent two or three thousand do 11 ars remade 1 i ng the property, replacing the bath and fixing the structure in the back. They had no knowledge of the preceding problems. The property is now leased to Mr. Pat Williams and Ms.Jo Powers. Mr. Williams committed to helping someone full time who is a single parent with two boys. He will take care of the woman, who has brain cancer; but he does want a sepa- rate room, and took the outside bedroom. They eat all their meals together. The ceiling in the detached unit is 7.5 to eight feet high. The building is L-shaped and was once used as a who 1 e 1 i vi ng area. The kitchen has been removed and there is a new shower and bath. The structure has gas heat and is carpeted. It is leased for one year until the 11th of May, 1988, and there is no renewable clause. Mr. Hartle said that his daughter did not know of previous problems with the rear structure. She bought the property in July of 1986, and painted and refurbished the property . HUD had 1 i sted the property as a three bedroom unit; there are only two bedrooms in the front unit. They discovered the rear unit was not to be used when there were complaints about noise associated with the de 1 i very of the Denver Post, and the City notified the owners that the structure could not be used for residence purposes. There were no further speakers in favor of the request. The Chairman asked if there were speakers wishing to speak in opposition to the variance . -5 - Laura Ramer, 4650 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in for testimony. She said that this is a proud, friendly block. This particular property has al-• ways been a problem. The current occupants have four or five cars, and a truck for the Denver Post. She submitted 18 statements of opposition from the neighbors, including ones who mistakenly signed Mr. Hartle's letters. She said there is a pickup in the driveway which is never used, there are two adults and two children, but many cars. She did not understand the three- bedroom listing because the previous owners lost the house because they couldn't rent the rear unit. Donald Bert, 4670 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in for testimony. He said that many years ago the garage was converted for a mother -in-law apart- ment. Traffic is now a problem. There are sometimes as many as six cars and trucks which are a hazard. He said he dislikes the unattached rental in the rear, and the Realtor was told the rear unit could not be rented. He is mys- tified how the present situation came about. Mr. Bert said that at 3:00 a.m. the occupants of the subject property begin work for delivery of the Post, and there is screaming, yelling, filthy language, doors slamming and two-way ra- dios blasting. The Chairman declared a ten-minute recess, and the meeting reconvened with the same persons present . Joseph Garrett, 4630 South Pennsylvania Street, was sworn in for testimony. He said he is opposed to renters. The Police records show problems with this property. Since he has been gone for the last several months, he was unaware of the noises. Mr. Hartle returned for testimony. He stated that they are not renting the • property at the back separately. The entire property is being rented to the occupants who operate as a single family. Regarding the noise, he said the occupants deliver for the Denver Post, so there is a truck there for that pur- pose. The woman has her own car. There is an older car used for delivery and a truck, for a total of four vehicles, all belonging to the occupants. There is a large carport, and two cars are parked under that. Two vehicles are parked on the street. Mr. Welker noted that renting is not an issue, it is whether the rear unit can be used as sleeping quarters. The Chairman incorporated the staff report into the record and asked if the staff had any further comments. There were none. Ms. Lighthall said this had been a long-running problem, and the rear unit should be required to be converted to a garage. Mr. Fish observed that a kitchen had been legal at one time, and the owners were ordered to remove it, and then permitted to retain a canning kitchen. There is also a bathroom in the unit. The Board decided it could not require the structure to be gutted. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE APPLICANTS, FRANK AND MAXINE HARTLE, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4673 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET, PERMITTING THE DETACHED STRUCTURE ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR • SLEEPING FACILITIES. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING OR- DINANCE, SECTION 16-4-4:0 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS IN THE R-1-C, SINGLE-FAMILY -6 - • • • RESIDENCE DISTRICT, WHICH PROVISION STATES "NO STRUCTURE OR VEHICLE ON THE SAME LOT WITH THE DWELLING SHALL BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES." Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted against the motion because the neighbors are opposing what seems to be a nuisance. Mr. Hallagin voted against the motion because there should be only one struc- ture occupied on a site. Mr. Fish said granting the variance would weaken the Code regarding single- family dwellings, and there does not seem to be a ha rd ship other than financial. Ms. Lighthall concurred with the other members. Mr. Doyle said there should be no variance granted because the current use is not appropriate for a single-family residence. Mr. Welker voted against the variance because there are recurring problems with this property, and the City recorded a statement in the office of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder saying the rear unit could not be used for residential purposes before the current owner bought the property. When the votes were displayed, all six members present had voted against the variance, and the Chairman ruled it was denied. He stated the tenant may not sleep in the rear structure. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #29-87. R.A.S Builders, Inc. Appeal * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #29-87. Dorothy Romans, Acting Director of Community Development, stated the applicant was appealing a double permit fee assessed by the Englewood Building and Safe- ty Division for work performed at 701 West Hampden Avenue. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Bob Shupe, 180 East Hampden Avenue, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the violation notice was for starting construction without a permit in hand. He said he did have a demolition permit, and verbal permission to do some of the work, and a permit had been applied for for the entire project. He said he was doing work for Montgomery Wards, and they were on a tight schedule . It was to the City's advantage that Wards be completed and opened so that revenue would be generated. He had permission from the Chief Building Inspector to do some installation of studs on the project prior to the is- suance of the building permit, and he exceeded the amount of work which the Chief Building Inspector authorized. He admitted that he had done so, but was -7 - of the op1n1on that very little further work was done, and a charge of $900 was excessive for the additional work done. He had made no attempt to hide • the work, in fact had asked the Inspector to come by, when the Stop Work notice was issued. Mr. Shupe was of the opinion that Mr. Yoder was in a "bad mood" and had "ex- aggerated" the seriousness of the situation at the time he issued the Stop Work Order. Mr. Shupe added that metal studs are not like putting up a wall. These studs were put in according to the plans which were in the hands of the Division of Building and Safety. He wa s aware that the Division states ten days are required for review of a Bui ldi ng Per mit, and the ten days had not expired. There were no other speakers in favor of granting the appeal. The Chairman made the staff report part of the record, and asked if there were any staff comments. Walter Groditski, Code Administrator, was sworn in for testimony. He said the central issue is not revenue from a store, but public safety and the Building Code. It is required that plans be submitted and reviewed and approved before work begins to insure that the public safety is protected and the Codes met. The complete plans had not been submitted when the Stop Work Order was issued, and the Building Permit had not been issued. The parties involved in the ap- plication for the Permit were the City and the Designer. Mr. Shupe was not i nvo 1 ved. The City tried to he 1 p with the tight schedu 1 e and permitted a limited amount of work to begin, and Mr. Shupe exceeded the limit stated. A double fee is standard when a Stop Work Order is issued, and Mr. Shupe is • aware of the standard penalty. Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that when ~llowing work to be done without a permit with verbal approval the Contractor is on a very "short limb". The studs were installed contrary to the plans which were in the office (although the designer subsequently changed the plans) and the exiting was unclear. He noted that he had stretched a point to allow any work to be done, as he is not required to do so. He said that the extra work was not confined to studs, doorways had been framed and some drywall had been installed. Even studding can sometimes be a safety problem. Only a few days passed between the Stop Work Order and the issuance of the permit, but further plans were submitted. Mr. Groditski noted that Gary Yoder is the field inspector and approved plans should be on the site when he makes an inspection. It is not possible for him to know if p 1 ans are being foll owed if he cannot see the approved p 1 ans. If Mr. Yoder had not gone to the site that day, more work might have been done. Al Williams, Plans Examiner, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Williams said that new information was obtained from the architect between the issuance of the Stop Work Order and the issuance of the permit . He received a telex and talked to the architect on the phone, and was then able to issue a permit con - ditionally. One of the questions concerned modular walls. Without the plans, the work done by Mr. Shupe could have affected exit and aisle widths. Mr. Shupe returned for testimony. He said that both parties were in the • right, but the matter was only a misunderstanding which should not cost him $900. -8 - • • • The public hearing was closed . BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED THAT R.A.S. BUILDERS, INC. BE GRANTED AN APPEAL OF A DOUBLE PERMIT FEE ASSESSED BY THE ENGLEWOOD BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Mr. Seymour said there was only a commu nication pr oblem, and t he i nte nt of the Code is to punish those who avoid obt ain ing a permi t. Mr. Hallagi n sa id con- tractors are required to have permits. Mr. Fis h said the limi t s were exce eded after the Chief Inspector had already bent over backwards to accommodate the applicant. Mr. Welker said the contractor could not know when the permit would be issued. A Stop Work Order always brings a fine. He suggested that the $900 could be reduced. Mr. Hallagin said double fees are standard. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted for the appeal. He said the intent of the code is not to assess double fees for a communication problem. Mr. Hallagin voted against the appeal, saying if the contractor works without permit, a double fee is standard. Mr. Fish said Mr. Yoder should have stopped the extra work, but the Stop Work Order was in excess for a violation which was not willful . Ms. Lighthall voted against the appeal, saying the Building Divis i on did what they are expected to do. If more 1 at itude is needed, the Code should be changed. Mr. Doyle voted against the appeal, saying the fine is the normal penalty for a violation, and a violation did occur. Mr. Welker said the letter of the law was violated, although the fine is ex- cessive; he voted against the appeal. When the votes were displayed, two members, Mr. Seymour and Mr. Fish, had vot- ed for the appeal, and the other four members, Mr. Hallagin, Ms. Lighthall, Mr. Doyle and Mr. We 1 ker, had voted against the appea 1 . The Chairman ruled the appeal was denied. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans said she would check with the legal department to see if the unit at the rear of the Pennsylvania property could be required to be gutted. Mr. Welker suggested that the use was an abuse of the previous variance, and even that could be rescinded. Mrs. Romans said the Board's action would be recorded . - 9 - BOARD'S CHOICE. There was none. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Sheryl Rousses, Recording Secretary -10 - • • •