Loading...
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 -