HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-22 BAA MINUTESMINUTE
BOARD OFF ADJUSTMENT AND APP
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
JUNE 22, 1988
The special meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was
called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Seymour, George, Doyle, Waldman, Shaffer and Welker.
Members absent: Lighthall.
Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor.
Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney.
The Chairman stated the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by
Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. He said that with six
members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal.
Chairman Welker opened the Public Hearing for Case #18-88, saying he had proof
of publication and asking that the staff identify the request.
Dorothy Romans
Assistant Director of Community Development
was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant and owner of
the property at 3300 South Broadway, JWM Properties, Inc., were appealing
Sections 504, 3306 (n) and Table 5-A of the 1985 Uniform Building Code,
which sections prohibit projections into areas where protection of open-
ings is required and require usable space under decks and stairs to be of
one-hour fire resistive construction.
The Chairman said that with an appeal, the staff would present the background
of the case and the staff's interpretations, and then the applicant could give
rebuttal.
Walter Groditski
Code Administrator
was sworn in for testimony. He showed overhead projections of the site
plan showing the two structures on the subject property, a parking struc-
ture and a building of two levels, a garden level and one floor above it.
He explained that an ''assumed property line" was required between the two
structures, and he indicated that the Building Division had assumed the -
line 20 feet east of the parking structure in order to permit the open-
ings necessary for that structure. That left 14 feet between the two-
level retail building and the assumed property line. A space that is
less than 20 feet requires one-hour fire resistive construction of any-
thing within that space and all openings must be protected. The proposed
wood deck and stairs should not project further into the separation which
is al ready more narrow than should have been permitted for the type of
building that was constructed.
Mr . Groditski indicated that the former Plans Examiner had indicated to
the applicants that the wood deck and stairs would be permitted because
- 1 -
9 8
•• < , .... ,,. ..• ,•
{" '1.
;
~.
} .'
.~,.. ,7·,. ..
... , .... ; , '/i1.iJ \!i; .... : .. +
: :h·e c1as .s )f 1ed the 'J:iui"lding as a 5 N, which would not require fire resis-
'.·/:~\ve c <i,ft:~·rr ~~tion /. ML Grod~t~ki said that ~n accordance ~ith the U.B.C,
tne bui J:drng _.:•shou.ld be classified as 2 N, which would require the noncom-
b t.ts .tib~f'· construction . He indicated the standards of the classifica-
tions , and said that ordinarily a building with this square footage would
be permitted if fire sprinklers are installed. He said that, in this
case, however, the sprinklers were required by the Fire Chief because of
the difficulty of access to the lower level, so credit would not be given
fo r t he s prinkler system, which would move the classification into 2 N.
Mr. Groditski said he had denied the permit for the wood deck and wood
stairs because they would be of combustible material and projections into
this area with exterior stairs are not allowed. He noted that only 1/2
of the building is involved, because the parking structure adjoins only
1/2 of the length of the reta i l building. He stated that an exterior
exit balcony must be 50% open if the exit is a required exit. The balco-
ny now is being used only as a loading area, but the new store front on
the west side of the retail building would make the balcony a common
exit, and would therefore be prohibited.
The Chairman asked the applicants ' representative to come forward for
testimony.
Craig Romary
Romary Architects
was sworn in for testimony. He stated that Mr. Groditski and Mr. Yoder
had been very helpful and many of the problems had been worked out;
however, the issue of the deck and stairway could not be resolved. Mr.
Romary stated that the former Pl ans Examiner had discussed the building
classification with them , and t hey had proceeded with their plans based
on the opinion of th e Plans Examiner. After the Plans Examiner left the
City, Mr. Groditski reviewed the Plans and came up with a different
interpretation.
Mr. Romary said there is currently encroachment by the existing stairway.
The proposed deck would extend only an additional three feet . The fire
lane would be preserved, and there would be separation of the buildings
except for the walkway, seven s t airs and a handicap ramp. The walkway
will be only 5 .5 feet from the gr ound, making it easy to escape by jump-
ing, even if the stairway were blocked.
Mr. Romary noted that the building could be classified as a one story
building with a basement or as a two story building. Mr. Williams clas-
sified it as one story with a basement, and the current Building Division
staff and Fire Department decided it was a two story building, which
classification is more restrictive. The building, in his opinion, needs
rear exits, however, there are numerous exits from this building. Mr.
Williams believed the deck would be permissible, but the stairs were
questionable. He was , however, going to permit them . Types of materials
were discussed with Mr. Williams . The building was classified as Type 2
N initially, and then later revised by Mr. Williams to 5 N because of the
sprinkle r system . Type 5 would permit wood construction. Mr. Williams
had indicated that both the cons t ruction and projection would be permit-
ted, and the design work has been done, relying on Mr. William's
interpretation.
-2 -
Mr. Romary said their major concerns were life/safety and whether the
plan would endanger public welfare. He said that the parking structure
is constructed of cement and would not catch fire, although a car could
burn under or on it. The building with two levels is sprinkled through-
out and, therefore should not create much of a fire hazard. This leaves
only the walkway and stairs, which are easily exited because there are
exits back into the building, down the stairs or, since the structure
would be only 5'10" high, there would be ready access to the ground
1eve1 .
Mr. Romary submitted Exhibit 1, a brochure showing an artist's rendering
of the project, and Exhibit 2, a copy of a letter from Al Williams, Plans
Examiner for the City of Englewood, in which he stated that the proposal
would meet the Building Codes.
In response to a question from Mr. Welker, Mr. Romary said that the deck
will screen the gas and electrical meters outside the second level.
Security gates will be provided to allow access to the meters.
The Chairman asked if there were other speakers in favor of the appeal.
Charles Ames
2928 Rosedale, Dallas.
was sworn in for testimony. He submitted a letter of support from Fred
Kaufman, the owner of the property to the south of Trolley Square. Mr.
Kaufman was unable to attend the meeting, but wanted to register his sup-
port. Mr. Ames said that when he first saw this property he thought it
would take a miracle to make the building on the west side of South
Broadway usable. He said the building is backwards, and needs to draw on
the business generated by King Soopers. Various engineers and architects
worked to redesign the building to reverse its orientation from South
Broadway to the west. In November of 1987, Englewood City Council was
approached and the concept was explained to the Council . The pl an was
discussed with Al Williams, who was the Plan Examiner in the Building and
Safety Division, and they continued designing in conformance to the let-
ter given them by Mr. Williams (Exhibit 2). They wanted to continue to
use the theme of Trolley Station, and wood decking was in keeping with
that theme. They are changing the 1 ighting to accommodate the theme,
also. When the plans were completed, they were submitted to Building and
Safety. Mr. Williams made comments, and asked for only minor changes.
Mr. Welker asked what material they would be willing to use if the build-
ing could not be reclassified. Mr. Ames said concrete or steel is out of
the question economically. The project will not generate enough money to
make that feasible. Additionally, steel and concrete would not be in
keeping with the theme and are unattractive. Mr. Seymour said concrete
and steel can be made to look like wood. Mr. Ames said they would con-
sider installing fire retardant wood.
Michael Price
3900 East Mexico
was sworn in for testimony. He stated that he works for Silverado Bank
which made the original loan on this property. $12,000,000 has been
spent, but the building is empty after three years because the design was
irregular. He said approving the request would improve the financial
condition of the City, improve the tax base, and save money.
-3 -
·.1
!
Richard Hinson
Director of Englewood Urban Renewal Authority
was sworn in for testimony. He said they were requesting favorable con-
sideration in this case because opening Trolley Square is necessary for
the economic vi abi 1 i ty of downtown Englewood, and the construction as
proposed would not be a threat to citizens.
Richard Remund
5671 South Lansing Court
Real Estate Broker
was sworn in for testimony. He said he is experienced in corporate real
estate. It is his opinion that Trolley Square is an "eyesore and a joke"
as originally designed. It would be difficult to do anything with the
building without access towards King Soopers and the deck or walkway
across the west side of the building is needed, in his opinion. He said
the Board should not lose sight of the long-term needs of the City.
Dorothy Romans returned to submit a letter (Exhibit 3) from Penny Dietrich,
Executive Di rector of Englewood Downtown Deve 1 opment Authority, asking that
the request be granted.
There were no further speakers in favor of the appeal.
The Board asked that Mr. Groditski return for further testimony.
Mr. Groditski listed standards of construction for Types 2 and 5 build-
ings, and agreed that there is a gray area in applying either classifica-
tion to this building. He stated that Al Williams' letter was sent with-
out his (Mr. Groditski's) knowledge or approval. It was Mr. Groditski's
opinion that Mr. Williams had done insufficient research on the history
of this building and had made his decision without taking into consider-
ation the Fire Chief's requirement of sprinkler systems in the lower
level, and the Chief's opinion that the access to the lower level was
difficult. The Code would not permit the spi nkl er system on the upper
1eve1 to be taken into consideration for increased floor area when the
sprinkler system in the lower level was required. If the entire
sprinkler system had been voluntarily installed, the building would be
Type 5 N, and there would be no restriction as to material in the balco -
ny, although it would still be encroaching into what should be a 20' open
area.
Mr. Groditski said that Mr. Williams did not correctly review the file,
and did not discuss the matter with Mr. Groditski or Mr. Yoder, and,
therefore incorrectly considered the building to be Type 5 N. Generally,
the Plans Examiner has the authority to approve or disapprove plans. The
UBC does state however, when an error has been made, it must be
corrected.
Mr. Groditski said that a 20 foot fire lane would be required, and that
sprinkling wouldn't help the walkway. If the building is classed as Type
2, no wood would be allowed; if it is typed as Type 5, fire resistive
material would not be necessary.
There were no further speakers for or against the appeal.
- 4 -
The Chairman closed the public hearing in Case #18-88 and made the Staff Re-
port part of the record. The Board discussed the matter, considering the en-
croachment issue and the type of building. It discussed dangers of fire and
the merits of requiring fire resistive or retardant materials. They noted
that safety must be considered before economics.
BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE 18-88, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS TROLLEY
SQUARE LOCATED AT 3300 SOUTH BROADWAY, JWM PROPERTIES, INC. BE GRANTED AN AP-
PEAL FROM SECTIONS 504, 3306 (n) AND TABLE 5-A OF THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE, WHICH SECTIONS PROHIBIT PROJECTIONS INTO AREAS WHERE PROTECTION OF OPEN-
INGS IS REQUIRED AND REQUIRES USABLE SPACE UNDER DECKS AND STAIRS TO BE OF
ONE-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION.
Board Member Waldman seconded the motion .
The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows:
Mr. Seymour said he voted against the request because there was not clear and
convincing proof that the changes would result in the same degree of safety as
would be attained by meeting the requirements.
Ms. George said she voted for the request because the changes would not hurt
other properties, and the danger seemed minimal .
Mr. Doyle said that in his opinion there did not seem to be a hazard created
by the proposed construction. Further, the existing vacant building is
detrimental to the City.
Ms. Shaffer said she voted for the appeal because other properties would not
be adversely affected.
Mr. Wa 1 dman said he voted for the appea 1 because the spirit of the Code wi 11
be observed, and said he was unsure of the valid Code interpretation.
Mr. Welker said there were two different issues.
1. There is too much building, but the sprinkler system is the key
which makes the conditions safer.
2. The encroachment issue is more difficult. Technicalities are in-
volved, but the proposal would not limit fire access, and doesn't
seem to increase danger.
When the votes were displayed, five members had voted for the request, and
one, Mr. Seymour, had voted against it. The Chairman stated that the appea 1
was granted.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20.
,/• ~~~,(~~-·a-t:-~· _./. Sh~ryl "ouSses, Recordhig Secretary
- 5 -