Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-11 BAA MINUTES• • • I. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO MARCH 11, 1987 CALL TO ORDER. 9 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Ap- peals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Seymour, Welker. Brown. Hal lag in, Fish, Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Lighthall and Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I Chairman Welker stated that there was a quorum of five members, and four affirmative votes will be required to grant a variance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of February 11, 1987, were to be considered for approval. BOARD MEMBER HALLAGIN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 1987, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN, WITH A CORRECTION ON PAGE 4, SHOW- ING THAT MR. FISH, RATHER THAN MR. SEYMOUR, STATED THAT MR. BROWN DID NOT WANT TO BE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seymour seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all five members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes were approved as amended. III. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #28- 86 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Mr. Lighthall seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all five members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the Findings were approved as written . -1 - • • • IV. CASE #6-87 • 4301 South Clarkson Street. The Chairman opened the public hearing for property loca t ed at 4301 South Clarkson Street. He stated that the Board i s au- thorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 6 0 of the Englewood Municipal Code. He said he had proof of postin g and publication and asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy A. Romans, Acting Director of Community Development, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, Mr. Her- man Bodwell, was requesting a variance to allow a motor home to be parked at the property line on the north side of his property, rather than set back the required ten feet. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-1 a (2) (b) (ii) a, Storage and Parking Restrictions. Mrs. Romans said that the request was a result of a notice issued by the Zoning En- forcement Officer stating that the parking was not in complianc e with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Herman Bodwell, 4301 South Clarkson, was sworn in for tes- timony. He stated that he has lived at the address for 26 years. He has parked first a trailer, then a motor home, in the same parking space for a number of years, and no one complained, to his knowledge. There is nowhere else on the lot to park the mo- tor home without causing other problems . Other locations on the property where the motor home might be parked were discussed with the Board, but none seemed satisfa c - tory because of the location of the trees, the garage, the utili - ty pole and difficulty of access. Mr. Bodwell said that the mo - tor home is parked right to the property line, but he has removed a ladder that might have been a danger to passers-by. It was noted that the law will not permit the storage of the motor hom e on the street; and that, in any case, such storage would obscure the stop sign on Quincy at Clarkson. Mr. Hallagin asked about storing the motor home in a storage yard. Mr. Bodwell said that they use the motor home about once a month, and it is inconvenient to have to go to a storage yard for loading and unloading. In addition, Mr. Bodwell said things have been stolen from motor homes in storage yards. He said he is on Social Security and needs to be careful economically, and this is the first time there has been a complaint about his park- ing arrangement. He uses the motor home on weekends and he and his wife usually go to Texas every winter. He had a bypass operation in April and his wife broke her ankle, so they did not go to Texas this year. They use the motor home about once a month. Mr. Bodwell said the motor home is 23 feet long and might next to the garage, but it would be very difficult to get motor home in and out. There were no further questions. Chairman asked if there were any other speakers in favor of variance. - 2 - fit the The the • • • Peggy Bodwell, 4301 South Clarkson was sworn in for testimony. She said they have two security lights and the motor home is visibl e at night. The fence, flower bed and ash tree are between the house and the trailer. If a cement slab were put in the yard for the motor home, it would take up 1/4 of the yard. The motor home has been in the same location since 1978. It is not an obstruction, the sidewalk is four feet wide. There is only six feet of space between the neighbor's home to the south and their property so it could not be stored on the south side of their lot. To put it in back would at least require major trimming of a tree, and the motor home would be in the middle of the yard over the sidewalk from the house to the garage. She stressed they have received no objections from the neighbors. One neigh- bor said the trailer gives some security because it shows they are home. John Spahn, 4355 South Clarkson street, was sworn in for testimo- ny. He asked why the setback requirement is ten feet, and said that driveways are closer than the ten-foot setback requirement. Mr. Spahn said it would be difficult to jockey the motor home beside the garage because of an existing utility pole, and a ce- ment slab is expensive. He said he plows the snow from the side- walk beside the motor home, and has no problem doing so. Linda Riedel, 4295 South Clarkson Street, was sworn in for tes- timony. She has lived across Quincy from the subject property since 1979, and has had no problem with the motor home. You can drive easily down the alley, and there is no problem seeing the street from the alley. A slab would, in her opinion, look worse. The yard is beautifully landscaped and meeting the ten-foot set- back requirement would ruin the yard. Lester R. Johnson, 4296 South Washington Street, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the Bodwells have a wide driveway, and it is the best facility for parking the mobile home. The location of the utility pole, the termination of cable, the trees and the landscaping make any other parking place on the property impractical. The present location is much easier, and the ladder has been removed. There is no problem with exiting from the al- ley; and, he said, the variance should be granted. There were no further questions, and no further speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman asked if there was anything further the applicant wished to say. Mr. Bodwell said he was 70 years old, had had bypass surgery, and the motor home wouldn't be there when he was gone. The staff report was incorporated into the record, and there were no further staff comments. Ms. Lighthall asked Mrs. Romans what the setback would be on a lot that was not a corner lot. Mrs. Romans said that it would have to be ten feet back of the front property line. In this case the motor home is adjacent to the side street. She agreed - 3 - • • • with Ms. Lighthall that owners of corner lots may be penalized. She said the property line is normally several feet behind the sidewalk, and the motor home actually encroaches into the City right-of-way. Mr. Fish asked Ms. Reid if the variance could be restricted to the owner only. She said it could. Mr. Seymour asked if the Board had the power to grant an encroachment on City property. Ms. Reid said that since this is not a permanent encroachment, that action would not be necessary. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Discussion followed. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT, HERMAN BODWELL, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4301 SOUTH CLARKSON STREET, TO PERMIT A MOTOR HOME TO BE PARKED ZERO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON THE NORTH, RATHER THAN AT THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT SETBACK LINE. THIS VARIANCE WOULD RUN ONLY WITH THE PRESENT OWNER, MR. BODWELL. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHEN SIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.4-1 a (2) (b) (ii) a, STORAGE AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. Discussion followed. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said there is a hardship; and because the variance was limited to the owner, and there were no objections from the neighbors, he voted for the variance. Mr. Hallagin voted "yes" because there is a hardship and the variance would be for Mr. Bodwell's use only. Mr. Fish said there is a hardship in the width of the property, this is a minimum variance, and the spirit of the Ordinance would not be violated. He voted for the variance. Ms. Lighthall said she voted for the variance because a trailer home or the motor home has been parked in this location since 1978, and there had been no complaints until recently. This is a corner lot, and the neighbors supported granting the variance. Mr. Welker voted "yes" because there is a hardship and there are special conditions on the lot. Limiting the variance to only the owner will protect the City. When the votes were displayed, all five members had voted for the variance. The Chairman stated the variance, as amended, had been granted . * * * * * - 4 - • • • v. CASE #7-87. 2860 South Elati Street • The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #7-87. He noted he had proof of publication, and asked that the staff identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She stated the applicants, Bill Anderson and Duke Knott, were appealing the decision of the Chief Building Inspector and requesting that the applicants be permitted to spray on fire-proofing as in U. L. Design #U804 on the north and east building walls rather than meeting the specific requirements of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, Section 504b and Table SA, which sections specify the required fire resistance of the ex- terior walls, and the protection of openings within those walls. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Bill Anderson, 8400 East Prentice Avenue, #1500, Englewood, 80111, was sworn in for testimony. He stated they had bought the property four months before. It had previously been a steam fit- ting business. They moved into the building. When they tried to obtain building permits to remodel the building they learned that the north wall did not have a one-hour fire-rated wall. The building next door is built on the property line, only 1.8 feet away from their building. It is not possible to do any work from the outside on the north side of the building, and they believe that the only way to come close to meeting the code is to use a spray fire-proofing on the wall. This is permissible for non- bearing walls, but not for bearing walls, as there are parts of bearing walls which cannot be protected by the spray. Other methods had been considered, but were impractical. Mr. Anderson said that the north wall has 6" x 2" steel studs with siding on the outside. It is the same structure as the east wall, which will be one-hour fire resist ant, but the north wall carries the studs, which will be one-hour fire resistant. This fire-proofing is permissible for the east wall because it is not a bearing wall. Anything done to the inside of the north wall would leave some areas of the load-beari ng wall unprotected. It is unknown what the footings are like under this wall. Duncan Knott, 8400 East Prentice Avenue, was sworn in for tes- timony. He said they had worked with Mr. Yoder of the Building and Safety Division for three months. They had been unable to find a way to completely meet the codes. Mr. Knott had contacted a fire rating company which said spray on the north wall should be safe . . There were no further speakers for the variance. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the variance. Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Yoder said they had investigated several designs for protection of the exterior wall and supports. There is not room to do the work between the north wall and the - 5 - • • • building to the north. The proposed process has never been test- ed and approved on bearing walls. He explained that the wall should be protected from fire both from within and without to ensure one hour's time for escape in case of fire. He explained that, because the building next door had a complying wall, it had been permitted to be built to property line. In response to a question, he said it is not possible for the Building Inspector to require that an existing building next door to a building which is to be constructed at property line be brought up to the current codes because of the new construction. The Board asked if Mr. Yoder felt the variance should be granted. Mr. Yoder said the proposal is probably as close to compliance as could be obtained. The owners are only required to bring the existing building up to code because they wanted to remodel un- less a fire inspection showed a life-threatening situation existed. Mrs. Romans noted that there will probably be similar variances requested as the older buildings throughout the city remodeled. There were no other persons in the audience who wished to address the Board in this matter. The Chairman incorporated the staff report in the record, and there were no further comments from staff. BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED THAT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2860 SOUTH ELATI STREET, THE BOARD GRANT AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR, PERMITTING THE APPLICANTS TO SPRAY ON FIRE-PROOFING AS IN U. L. DESIGN #U804 ON THE NORTH AND EAST BUILDING WALLS RATHER THAN MEETING THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, SECTION 504b AND TABLE SA, WHICH SECTIONS SPECIFY THE REQUIRED FIRE RESISTANCE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS, AND THE PROTECTION OF OPENINGS WITHIN THOSE WALLS. Board Member Hallagin seconded the motion. Discussion followed. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said this seemed a reasonable solution to an existing problem. Mr. Hallagin agreed that this seemed a good solution. Mr. Fish said there is a hardship in the closeness of the north structure which makes it difficult to bring the building into compliance. This is a minimum variance which will not weaken the Ordinance, and the fire-rated wall minimizes the hazard. Ms. Lighthall concurred . - 6 - • • • Mr. Welker voted in favor of the variance because this seemed a reasonable attempt to meet the code. There is a hardship and the applicants are conforming as closely as possible. When the votes were displayed, there were five affirmative votes, and the Chairman stated the appeal was granted. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Ms. Reid called the Board's attention to the proposed change in the Handbook concerning reconsiderations and rehearings. BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD OF AD- JUSTMENT HANDBOOK BE ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN. Board Members Seymour seconded the motion. All members present voted in favor of the motion, and the Chair- man ruled the amendments were approved. Ms. Reid continued that in regard to public records, there should be a "presumption of procedure", or a realization that the burden of proof is on the applicant in a case where City records show no record of a building permit, for example. Unless there is in- dication that the City records are frequently incomplete, it can be reasonably assumed that a lack of record in the Building file indicates a lack of permit. This is open to rebuttal by the ap- plicant. It is necessary at times to be aware that applicants do not always have all of the facts and may misrepresent something. It is up to the Board to decide whether the applicant or the staff is telling the truth. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans said there has been no appointment to fill the vacan- cy on the Board, although there have been several applicants. Mrs. Romans invited the Board to a study session of the Planning Commission where Susan Powers, the Executive Director of the Ur- ban Renewal Authority, will give a slide presentation on the Downtown Development. This meeting will be held at 8:00 on Tues- day, March 17. Several members expressed interest in attending the meeting. VIII. BOARD'S CHOICE. Mr. Seymour asked that anything in the flyleaf of the notebooks be left in the notebook. Mr. Welker thanked Mr. Hallagin for attending the meeting in order that there would be a quorum, in spite of having just received news of his brother's death . - 7 - . ~ • • • The meeting adjourned at 9:00 . S~rding secretary -8 - C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N /rJ~)o'i1 . DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT INITIATED BY ~~~C1w·t~y--"'-'Co~u~n~c~il_.__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ACTION PROPOSED~~~_._._Ap~p~o~i~n~tm~e~n~t~s~t~o.__._v~ar~i~o~u~s~b~o~a~rd~s..__..a~n~d~c~o~m=m~is~s~i~o~n~s~~~~ BACKGROUND The following vacancies on Boards and Commissions currently ~xist: Board of Adjustment and Appeals -One vacancy which expired 02/01/87; Firemen's Pension Board -One vacancy which expired 02/01/87. RECOMMENDATION The individuals listed below are appointed to fill the following vacancies: Mel J. Doyle -4-year term on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, effective immediately and expiring 02/01/91 (replacing Roger Gage); Philip G. Lucero -3-year term on the Firemen's Pension Board, effective immedi- ately and expiring 02/01/90 (replacing Timothy O'Brien).